On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 9:59 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 8/8/2012 10:05 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 4:31 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 8/6/2012 1:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> I agree. In fact denying God is a way to impose some other God. I don't >>> think we can live more than one second without some belief in some God. >>> >> >> I disagree. We live very well just assuming 3-space and time and >> material bodies and people (including ourselves). That is what we all bet >> on and evolution has built into us. We may hypothesize different >> fundamental ontologies, but it's not necessary and it's certainly not >> necessary to *believe in* them. >> >> Brent >> >> > Here, a more aesthetic perspective as I can't really take sides here: > > Perhaps belief/disbelief is like color spectrum? > > For instance, regarding the facism example: I might not believe in it at > all in the sense of "standing behind it". > > > But there's an enormous difference between believing there is such a form > of government as fascism and believing IN fascism. > > Hence spectrum. The latter is a stronger form of belief than the former. But I don't believe such a form of government exists in sense of approximating a consistent set of positions (social, political etc.): that is mush to me and believing IN it is, and here I'm with you, worse. > > > But every time I use the term, I substantiate it consciously, > > > No you don't. You refer to it or imagine it - but you don't make it a > substance. > > Platonist Guitar Cowboy: primary substance is imaginative for me. Whether "physical" or not; similar to the PDF you recently posted about physicists not being materialist; asking how Bruno would react. So if that's mush, than implications of that PDF is the same. > > even though I know that it does not even approximate standing for a > cohesive or consistent social or political concept. The more I study it and > make differentiations, the more I substantiate it. > > The idea is sort of like "don't think pink elephant". It's not that we > believe in them in the sense that we'd vote accordingly. Yet, somebody > could spend their whole lives investigating "pink elephants" in literature, > and even though they would never admit to believing in them, I would still > maintain that they do, as they substantiate it more or less consciously. > > > But now you've changed the meaning of "substantiate"; thus continuing to > fuzz up the meaning of words. > Not my intention, Brent. Just thought this could be picked up by the avatar name but can see perhaps reason for misunderstanding. By "substantiate" I am referring to the process wherein concept or its negation is reified. > > > By concretizing a thought, like a carpenter or sculptor in physical terms, > it transforms us. > > > But saying you don't believe in something is NOT making it concrete. > Making and instance out of concrete is concretizing it. You're taking > metaphors and turning them into ontologies by redefining words. This way > is madness...or mysticism. > > I beg to differ. If I say or act in accordance with, for instance "I don't believe in the war on drugs/terror/immigrants etc.", I am contributing to reification of all the frameworks, systems, ontologies on which the loaded issues stand: that drug prohibition has valid moral roots, that drug users are degenerate, that terror is a threat more serious than crime and thus requires more resources and production of weapons, justification of wars to fight it etc... Even when agents state "I don't believe in war of..." this reification takes place, naturalizing a form of discourse that is more ideological than sincere. Instead, the naturalization of this kind of BS posing as valid political discourse is a more appropriate position to take, as I don't want to take position in absurd discussions. And yet, I still do it much to often :) > Even if we don't in the least bit "like, stand behind, or believe to be > true", we make it truer and will increasingly believe it, albeit > unconsciously if we want to stay in denial about doing something we don't > like. > > > So, according to you, we're always wrong to deny the existence of anything > because to do so brings it into existence. We can't even have a clear > conception of it without affirming its existence. I suppose that will find > adherents on something called the "Everything" list, but think it's just > intellectual mush. > No, on your first statement. I clearly stated in the last post, that it's tricky navigating between tendencies to believe/entrance/enthrall ourselves and denial/amnesia. Because of this, a clear conception that you rightfully demand, cannot be sacrificed: what happened in so called "fascist" governments? What is happening "war on drugs, prohibition etc."? I consider these to be highly fruitful questions in the sense of studying a paradox, but I refuse to position myself relative to their obvious absurdity in a "are you for or against" sense. Sure, they exist and of course we should study them. But in so doing we invariably have to navigate tricky terrain between our capacity to entrance ourselves/reification and denial, because we will believe or disbelieve to some degree in order for a clearer conception to emerge. For any observer after observation nothing's void of belief to some degree. People tend to call them, using evasive maneuver, "working hypothesis" in their papers, dissertations etc. but this denial of belief implies the same spectrum. Otherwise belief has to be subject to time constraints, which is of course nonsense. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
