hi Bruno - perhaps ignore this line in my second response. "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." It's referring to the first response. I don't know how it ended up where it is.
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 1:32:51 PM UTC, [email protected] wrote: > > On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 9:43:39 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 03 Feb 2014, at 22:40, [email protected] 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.
