On Thursday, June 20, 2019 at 2:35:27 PM UTC+2, Pierz wrote: > > > > On Thursday, June 20, 2019 at 9:44:57 PM UTC+10, PGC wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, June 20, 2019 at 12:13:34 AM UTC+2, Pierz wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Howdy cowboy. I know what you're saying. Everyone here has their drum to >>> bang - and bang it they will! I once described the fight between John Clark >>> and Bruno over the third person indeterminacy (step 3 or whatever it is) as >>> being like one of those Siberian coal fires that has been burning since the >>> start of the 20th century. I think for now it is dormant - but I'm >>> hesitant even to mention it, since that may be all it needs to burst into >>> flame again... It all becomes rather sterile and exhausting even to watch. >>> Hence why I'm not here so much any more. On the other hand, we're all >>> people who are in love with trying to understand the deep nature of things, >>> and whatever human foibles get in the way, surely it's not the worst >>> possible way to go to through the world. Anyway, to your main point, there >>> is, I think, a point, beyond the intellectual game. I have no interest in >>> defending any fortress. I believe that the western bias towards thinking in >>> terms of things with intrinsic properties has had many unfortunate >>> consequences. It means we tend to see people as individuals with intrinsic >>> characters rather than parts of a system, which causes us to blame them, >>> often enough, for their suffering. It has blinded us to critical >>> environmental interdependencies. >>> >> >> There is no requirement for a discursive vehicle that explains >> everything. Conspiracy discourses accomplish that all the time but lead >> nowhere. On this list the burden of proof should always lay on those that >> propose to explain everything. >> > > I would never claim that the proposal I have put forward here "explains > everything". It's not meant as a candidate for a theory of everything. It's > meant as an antidote to reifications and reductions of all kinds. > >> >> But a discourse that specifies a pluralism that ditches the usual one vs >> many issues, idealism, belief, religions etc. is a candidate for breaking >> the gridlock of always framing what's going on politically at the level of >> nation states, with all the potential for ugly nativist/purist nonsense. >> Instead I see sexier discourses run more along the lines of specifying that >> pluralism, say in cultural, scientific, and biodiversity senses, is an >> international security and survival matter with the potential to override >> the traditional war zones of philosophy of science, aesthetics, even belief. >> >> Bruno can defend his 30 year old thesis here forever but its defense >> costs diversity, like the guy at the party who must always tear the >> conversation to his pet topic and cannot relate to folks on their own terms >> without dominating their discourse á la behold the supreme unified truth of >> the G*/G split and your deviation from the truth that there is no truth, >> over which I, the only last remaining sincere scientist preside. He could >> tattoo his diamonds on his face, take a photo, and just post the photo when >> he looses his cool with Brent, Russell, Telmo, Bruce, Phil etc. when their >> posts waver from the divine truth of the mechanical übersoul and save >> everybody time. >> >> Explanations, reality, truth etc. can be overrated because you don't need >> to believe in a certain ontology, truth, personal religions, views etc. >> > Yes of course. Ontologies are less important than saving the world's fish, > educating our children well, getting rid of nuclear weapons etc etc, and > those goals do not depend much on whether anyone believes in intrinsic > properties or not. But we all gravitate to our particular fascinations, > intellectual bones we just can't help gnawing at. I teach classes about how > to have better relationships. I write fiction. I write code. And I ponder > the deep questions of the relationship between mind, matter and mathematics > - without, I think, becoming that guy at the party. In fact I almost never > even mention these ideas because most people consider it weird. > > >> if we can agree on some higher level e.g. that things are sexy regardless >> of discursive origins and games: like aiming for biodiversity in oceans at >> a global level, with global budgets and research. More protection, >> efficient management, increasing biodiversity means more fish in the sea, >> more fish on peoples' plates, money in fishermen pockets, resilience of >> these resources to changing climates: >> https://www.pnas.org/content/113/22/6230, more potential for cleaner >> tourism, better dives for Russell, all of which should charge more >> research. The notion that we somehow have to align on what the physical or >> real world is to be able to proceed is innocent but devoid of pragmatic >> ability. Yawn on the sophomoric innocent debates running for thousands of >> years: the time is now. >> >> More relations, more food, better survival, sustainability, more access >> to more resources, more sophisticated approaches to ethics and problems of >> evil and law seem sexier than betting everything on a single ontological >> horse and policing its dance moves. >> > > Sure - except we *have, *as a society, bet everything on a single > ontological horse, and we *do* police its dance moves. There's one giant > ontological horse in town, in case you haven't noticed, and its name is > Materialism. And so I say, yes, let a thousand flowers bloom! But in order > to do that, we need to kill that damn horse. >
Lol, that's another "Just say No" thing though. If stuff/materialism is what people want, then that's a commitment worth nailing: You want to keep having stuff? How about better stuff? More sustainable stuff that is more fun, produced in work environments that are more ethical? More brains optimizing our relationship to stuff, make it less damaging so you can have more good stuff? With regards to materialism and dependencies of many kinds: I have little faith in ascetic and modesty based "just say no to xyz" approaches because they're not fun enough to sustain. Kinda like diets: if it's a deprivation trip you're running then people are correct in refuting that. It's patronizing to be told one should regret existing because one worships certain things and not others. Regardless of backgrounds. It's up educators indeed to show "you can enjoy your poison/materialism in a healthier way with a few tweaks" and bank on the fact that people get bored. Even junkies get bored of "that life" after fifteen years. What solidifies dependencies is the rest of the world patronizing them going "you greedy materialist junkies shouldn't have your stuff while we have ours!". That's a fuel for our addiction to materialism: people's frustrations. So a multiplicity discourse worth its salt has to wage war on poverty/frustration/suffering/hate and convince industry that profit maximization includes new measures that pursue these ends in the long run because failure to do so has and will continue to have negative national security/political stability implications that will hurt their bottom line. A pluralism of this kind would frame people as wealth generator-ends in themselves, instead of wasteful consumers in service of the traditional corporate profit maximization. I'm tired of the victimization trappings and the holier than thou bullshit in discourses. PGC -- 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/e556cf48-dd4c-42dc-8e3f-c0b49111f10b%40googlegroups.com.
