critical insights, your arguments are resonant and very persuasive :)
Nice pirouette with "optimism" :)
You think Einstein's work was "bull"? Steady archytas, we have the one
"heretic" here already...alan? :)
Thanks for the insights.
On Jul 24, 6:12 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's more or less what I mean Para - I certainly no rationalist per
> se. The free rider problem is very complicated though, especially
> since accumulated wealth is now the major 'player'. I suspect
> neurocracy and collective stupidity as points for optimism - if we're
> all planning this mess we're in deep trouble! What may be depressing
> is that most people wouldn't want better times - we're so used to
> false promises there are no stories about what we'd be doing in better
> times. I doubt anything rational is other than what emerges as
> explanations that have been in dialogue, but you quickly learn, doing
> science, that most people can't hack doing the observations and
> measurements, let alone internal scrutiny. Some seem to have developed
> ways with words (sometime figures) almost at a kind of disjuncture
> with reality there to witness. I tend to prefer notions like
> hospitality anbd obligation to ones like charity (Davidson and others
> in 'radical translation') and stronger notions like communicative
> action 'extirpating ideology'. We do seem to get left with choice at
> some point, but these are often overdone as in 'mechanistic Newton
> versus new physics Einstein' (bull) - people just don't work hard
> enough. Like Orn I've long been fascinated with 'there must be more
> than this' - but for me the point is there always is more, along with
> a lot of disappointment that I'm rarely interested in what others are.
>
> On Jul 24, 9:56 am, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > You're nothing if not passionate, archytas :)
>
> > You cry when Warrington lose? Archytas my friend, you really ought to
> > get out more :)
>
> > Much of what you say here is good social democratic stuff, though i
> > suspect that a concept of "rational optimism" is something of a
> > misnomer. I admire your optimism, not so sure about the rationality;
> > in Nature, there is no such thing as equality, as you know; and
> > "manufactured" equality only works in rational choice if you fix the
> > "free rider" problem; dont know that we have? In any event, quite
> > asides from the intuitive appeal, how do we know that equality in not
> > one of these "states" that "are inexplicable or cannot be
> > demonstrated", that you refer to? To be fair, your argument drifts
> > closer to equality in obligation than to equality in right; which
> > certainly is less problemmatic, certainly laudable.
>
> > You think we're all "collectively stupid"? That doesn't sound very
> > optimistic, archytas :)
>
> > On Jul 23, 7:56 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Equality is difficult if all we do is play with definition. I see it
> > > fairly subjectively as a kind of promise from me to do my best by
> > > others when the opportunity presents - but it's also connected with
> > > more social rules in place to keep us straight. Equality didn't make
> > > me a better half-back than Alex Murphy, but I got in a few sides as
> > > hooker. We all took the same match-fees back then. My sister was as
> > > good an athlete, but there was no professional sport for women. Of
> > > course, it's not in these trivial areas that equality needs to work.
> > > I'm afraid I've met too many 'jerkoffs of inner glow' to spend to much
> > > time looking at bandages. We have a bad record on 'inner reliance' in
> > > any simple form - and for that matter I'm currently watching my old
> > > team being slaughtered in the open! I might wonder what Wigan have
> > > been fed on - but we have drug testing. Some form of equality makes
> > > it possible for games like this to take place, even if one side
> > > appears so much better than the other. We are not all born with equal
> > > abilities to play rugby league, and its not that kind of equality that
> > > interests me (uniformity). There is a manufactured equality involved
> > > that does.
> > > That there are ways to experience and more than the 5 senses we
> > > generally acknowledge seems clear enough, but much of the stuff we
> > > come out with trying to explain this is dire. In epistemology
> > > (broadly defined) it regularly becomes clear that you can't achieve
> > > some clear and grounded system and that assumptions you didn't know
> > > you were making come out. This more or less leaves me with structured
> > > realism, but this leaves plenty of scope. Most of the time I can tell
> > > whether evidence claims are not phony in such a system - this sadly is
> > > not true of introspectively divined light and glow. The long history
> > > of this, taken externally, is not good. I can find light and glow, but
> > > I still find it hard not to cry watching Warrington lose. Neither
> > > matter in a larger sense of things. Equality doesn't collapse on the
> > > obvious issue that we are not all equal if that equality is built-into
> > > the public domain (it is increasingly obvious this isn't the case
> > > because of the operation of wealth in law and education). I'm a
> > > rational optimist in that this is not the best of all possible worlds
> > > and we can do better. I suspect the fix for modern narcissism is not
> > > under the bandages of the Old One and that doing our best for each
> > > other is a matter even more 'blindingly obvious'.
>
> > > Direct apprehension? Hmm... wobbly jelly, experienced through
> > > asbestos gloves. Local? We don't even know what end of the
> > > holographic projection we may be at. A very small number of
> > > "financial geniuses" have convinced people of magic in much the same
> > > way as any of this, Argument hardly settled anything as it quickly
> > > becomes obvious you can make argument do almost anything. There are
> > > thus hundreds of states postulated one must achieve to be superior to
> > > argument that fails. Such states are inexplicable or can't be
> > > demonstrated. It might be enlightened to work out how these tricks
> > > work on people. Given the massive levels of illiteracy and innumeracy
> > > there's an obvious start. These are not enlightened practices but
> > > rather dark arts. This said, the story of Relativity takes us from
> > > pollen seeds in water, weird fascination with magnets and maths that
> > > doesn't assume 3 dimensions in space, but does give light a constant
> > > speed in vacuum. \this is a much magic to most people as the entirely
> > > stupid application of clever maths to Ponzi schemes that allow
> > > governments and bankers to steal our wages. Enlightenment may just
> > > come as people find what's on offer too boring and work out we could
> > > put work in towards something else. We may not see it coming at all.
> > > For we are collectively stupid enough to believe the next guy who
> > > reports the 'secrets' under the bandages.
>
> > > On Jul 23, 12:13 pm, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Bear with me while i dig deeper into this one, OM.
>
> > > > By direct apprehension, or deep introspection, i can come to that
> > > > "pure" consciousness; no thoughts, no relational maps in space and
> > > > time, just presence of "being"; now, that organic sense is self, not
> > > > autobiographical self. It "emerges" from, the full integration of our
> > > > neural circuitry minus sensory input/feedback (and thats the
> > > > contentious point, because one could argue that this quality of being
> > > > isnt accessible from birth to early adulthood, which would suggest
> > > > some cultural substructure to the sense; but lets go with the organic
> > > > view for now); now, if the organic self is not reducible to a global
> > > > "beta map" (because if we re-created the latter we would not derive
> > > > the former), what is the source of the "spark", or is it a spark? You
> > > > see, if we cannot get to this question, we would have to concede to
> > > > the anthropocentric view of consciousness; which doesn't quite sit
> > > > comfortably with me, for now at least. What do you think?
>
> > > > On Jul 22, 8:20 pm, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > How?...if so, by direct apprehension.
> > > > > Where?...if so, I don't assign any one locality
>
> > > > > On Jul 22, 11:31 am, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > That would be a breakthrough for me OM; how do we know where the
> > > > > > "more" comes from?
>
> > > > > > On Jul 21, 7:44 pm, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > paradox, thanks again for your attempt at clarification.
>
> > > > > > > Assuming I grok your restated question, I will respond that the 'more'
> > > > > > > can be known equally as well. One caveat: I don't embrace (yet do
> > > > > > > recognize them as existent) Faith nor Revelation as methodology… so
> > > > > > > this may not fit within your personal context as an answer.
>
> > > > > > > On Jul 21, 10:26 am, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > The question was more mine, OM. Here's what i'm thinking; we can
> > > > > > > > "know" and "feel" mind in the nude, without the accoutrements of the
> > > > > > > > autobiographical self (this is contentious though, i admit, but i'm on
> > > > > > > > the same page as Molly and yourself on this); the quality of that
> > > > > > > > conception is not the "sum" of neurobiological processes, it's more
> > > > > > > > (hence non-reductive); question (for me) is where the "more" comes
> > > > > > > > from (you can infer by this that i'm still on my journey of Faith).
> > > > > > > > It's the concept that science terms "Emergence".
>
> > > > > > > > On Jul 16, 7:06 pm, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Thanks for the response paradox.
>
> > > > > > > > > I'm not sure that we raised nor intended to raise a question.
> > > > > > > > > Apparently you see one though. With this assumption along with your
> > > > > > > > > opinion about an *unresolved* question about 'quality of mind', what,
> > > > > > > > > for you, could/would resolve said question?
>
> > > > > > > > > On
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
0 comments:
Post a Comment