On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 9:43:39 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 03 Feb 2014, at 22:40, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: > > > On Friday, January 17, 2014 9:59:36 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> On 1/17/2014 2:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 16 Jan 2014, at 19:04, meekerdb wrote: >> >> On 1/16/2014 12:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> The body does not produces consciousness, it only make it possible for >> consciousness to forget the "higher self", and deludes us (in some sense) >> in having a "little ego" embedded in some history. >> >> >> Sounds like wishful thinking. >> >> >> That is very subjective. It sounds to me, and to some other people, >> (apparently many), that it looks more like some terrifying thinking. >> >> >> I agree. But your choice of words gives the opposite impression. >> >> >> >> >> >> Why "higher"? Why not "lower". >> >> >> Yes, why not. The standard term is "higher". >> >> >> Exactly - it is very subjective. >> >> >> >> >> Why not diffused into the infinite threads of the UD? >> >> >> Why not indeed? Is that a problem? Not sure to see your point. >> >> >> My point is that you imply we should be happy with the implications of >> comp because it implies we really have a "higher self" that we've merely >> forgotten and that we are deluded in having a "little ego". Just consider >> how different it sounds to say we have forgotten our real "lower self" and >> we deluded in thinking our ego is significant. >> >> Brent >> > > This is very true. I find it strange how much bias of various kinds gets > built into this comp business. It surely can't be possible that a learned > scholar like Bruno doesn't stop to consider whether he's loading terms in > distortive ways. There's no way this is a language issue, the issue is far > too basic. > > > I hope Bruno takes your advice and tests his choice next time, by > considering its negative. > > > Can you be more specific, and may be quote my answer to Brent. I don't > want the comp implications to make me happy. On the contrary I make the > hypotheses precise, and then I derive everything by logic and arithmetic. > If I distorted anything, I would be please you could make a specific > remark. > I don't even see what negative position you are mentioning. > Hi Bruno - I don't think I was being negative in the negative sense. If that's the impression perhaps I should keep an eye on my style and see if I can avoid such impressions. Bruno I'm commenting directly on what Brent just said in the line above. You used the term "higher" self. So, the suggestion is that you're building in a bias that your theory doesn't reach to. Brent was illustrating this by suggesting that if you didn't agree, you should try inserting the opposite of 'higher'.
> > > > > > Another bias is the way comp is presented as a hierarchy of acceptance of > comp with words like 'courage' associated toward the higher end of > acceptance, and very much the opposite associations going down the > stack. We could talk forever about how individualistic people are, but the > fact is there's a lot of evidence people can be very vulnerable to this > sort of social/reputation type pressure. That said there's no sign it's > purposeful or devious or anything like that, but even so. > > > I have no problem with critics, except when they are so fuzzy it is not > even clear they are related to anything I could have said. > Comp needs courage, but then getting an heart operation too. I don't see > what is the problem for you. > Well look, all you had to do to see the point above was the usual read, read what I was replying to, and figure. There is only one reference to you in Brent's comment. What I'm referring to here, is that part of your theory, or your reading of comp, appears to grade people by the extent they accept your theory. That's alright. But as I was saying, there's a risk that arguments like that in an environment where other people are making up their mind about your theory, can bias the process due to them experiencing a kind of social/peer pressure to accept the theory. After all, who wants to be at the bottom rung of the hierarchy. This is pretty well understood stuff. I meancults, and pressure-scams, use the same kind of thing - obviously in their case malign and purposeful - to induce a pressured environment to push people through to whatever they have in store. I think I'm making really vanilla observations here. I'm not suggesting there's anything deliberate. I might not be right. Maybe you don't want to talk about it. Maybe you don't think it matters. I don't mind. I wasn't planning to launch a campaign. It was just something I'd been thinking about and I saw Brent's comment and decided to pass comment. > > I have manage all points in a deduction, so do you understand the > definition of comp, and at which step do you have any problem? > This is really nothing to do with the definition of comp. I'm not suggesting you are using an illegitimate argument in terms of comp. I'm just pointing to the structure and mentioning that because there seems to be value attaching up a hierarchy in terms of how much someone accepts comp, it might not be appropriate in an environment where people are deciding whether they accept comp. Or if it's unavoidable, an appreciation of the risk of bias is worth having on board because you might be able to minimize that. > > > > > > Something else is that some people don't appear to stick to published work > and consequences when someone less experienced is undecided. The issue > there is that there's a good chance that less experienced person may not be > able to distinguish this for himself, and may be assuming published work is > being stuck to - a reasonable assumption in my view. > > A simple remedy would be to label non published...stuff that are still at > insight stage or whatever, as personal opinion. > > > ? > > I explain on this list only published and peer reviewed materials, or I > say explicitly when that is not the case, with all the warnings (but that > is rare). > If I got that wrong, unreserved apology. The reason I thought not was because....I mean, just that statement Brent was talking about where you argue consciousness for a higher self, an spirit or soul. I thought it was established by you and Brent your theory doesn't establish that this self is 'higher'. But, to be honest, I didn't think the claim about our consciousness being facilitated by the body, but that it pre-exists and continues to exist after death. I dridn't think you say something like that in a peer journal without extraordinary proof. But if I got that wrong, I'm sorry. That said, the point still stands about using loaded words like 'higher'. As Brent said, these words have dramatic impacts on meaning. > Let us focus on what you seem to not understand. What is it? > Bruno, there's nothing wrong with my understanding. I haven't suggested anything you've said is wrong by comp. I'm not talking about that at all. I hope that's more clear now. > I have really no clue, but you do seem a bit negative, without making any > explicit points. > All I can say about the negative charge, is that I wasn't but clearly that was the impression for you, which doesn't help me either if I want you to talk to me, so I will definitely try to keep an eye on how I'm presenting. However I think my points were explicit enough. I hope the clarification was useful. Let me know if you want more information. I can't promise, but I should think I could probably find you some information about psychological devices involving building value judgements about individuals based on their acceptance of something, into a process where people are deciding whether they want to accept it. Or you could....there's a strong cult link I think. > That's a recurent problem that I have with some type of philosophers. > Well now you're being negative. I'm not a philosopher. I wasn't mentioning philosophical concerns. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
