> On 13 May 2019, at 20:48, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 1:23:22 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 11 May 2019, at 08:13, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> https://aeon.co/ideas/how-the-dualism-of-descartes-ruined-our-mental-health >> <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Faeon.co%2Fideas%2Fhow-the-dualism-of-descartes-ruined-our-mental-health&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHE2JiWV3LHmz8TKy5ZflJKDY5x1Q> >> ... >> Nature was thereby drained of her inner life, rendered a deaf and blind >> apparatus of indifferent and value-free law, and humankind was faced with a >> world of inanimate, meaningless matter, upon which it projected its psyche – >> its aliveness, meaning and purpose – only in fantasy. >> ... >> The bifurcation of mind and nature was at the root of immeasurable secular >> progress – medical and technological advance, the rise of individual rights >> and social justice, to name just a few. It also protected us all from being >> bound up in the inherent uncertainty and flux of nature. It gave us a >> certain omnipotence – just as it gave science empirical control over nature >> – and most of us readily accept, and willingly spend, the inheritance >> bequeathed by it, and rightly so. >> >> In the face of an indifferent and unresponsive world that neglects to render >> our experience meaningful outside of our own minds – for >> nature-as-mechanism is powerless to do this – > > > Yes, nature does not even exist as mechanism, so the notion of > “nature-as-mechanism” is globally non sensical, yet locally, it works for > person supported by highly probable computations, but nature becomes a > projection, like in a dream. > > > > >> our minds have been left fixated on empty representations of a world that >> was once its source and being. > > That is due to the reductionist conception of machine and number. Today, we > can defeat it, mathematically. > > > > >> All we have, if we are lucky to have them, are therapists and parents who >> try to take on what is, in reality, and given the magnitude of the loss, an >> impossible task. > > The loss is due to the separation of theology from science, and the > impeaching of the fundamental questioning for a long period. > That has led to the separation of human sciences and exact science, making > them both into pseudo-metaphysics and pseudo-religion. Then we see only the > “superficial” technologies, without understanding of what they implies. To > separate science and theologies is a con artist trick to steal your money, > and in passing, your soul. > > When “equated” with the machine, the negative pessimist will say, “oh damned > I am only a machine”, but the positive optimistic will say, “nice, so machine > can be as nice as I am”. > > The interesting thing is only that this can be tested. Mechanism has > observable consequences. > > Bruno > > > > > >> ... >> >> "How did we ever get the notion of the mind as something distinct from the >> body? Why did this bad idea enter our culture?” >> -- Richard Rorty >> https://news.stanford.edu/news/2005/april13/rorty-041305.html >> <https://news.stanford.edu/news/2005/april13/rorty-041305.html> >> >> >> >> >> > > > The problem (aligning with the above article by psychotherapist James Barnes > [ https://www.linkedin.com/in/james-barnes-msc-ma-90766b159/ > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/james-barnes-msc-ma-90766b159/> ]) is that there > is no (A) mind and the body (or matter), there are (B) experiences of the > body (matter).
But that is still a local description. In the “big picture”, the notion of “matter” (primitive matter, ontological matter, needed-to-be-assumed matter) makes no sense (assuming mechanism). Yes, we can criticise the terming “mind & body”, which is dualistic. But to say that there are experience of the body, is as much criticisable. How could a body have experience? Only a mind, a person, can have experiences. And matter is one of those experience. > > Speaking in the terminology of (A) has harmed mental health. Any inadequate belief is the source of some suffering, soon or late. > > (Now one can be an experience-monist psychotherapist - everything is > experience - but then the therapist has to explain to the patient why they > need a particular drug prescription.) Yes, but the patient does not need the detailed explanation. A medication and a brain does not need to have a material ontology for the medication doing its work. Like a chef does not need to know the biology and fundamental physics to prepare a Pizza. Bruno > > @philipthrift > > > -- > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a5995d0a-e1f2-4e6f-9af6-20865333abee%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a5995d0a-e1f2-4e6f-9af6-20865333abee%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/DA678E58-80E7-46A2-9801-177BB19179CA%40ulb.ac.be.
