Eric, Nick, et.al., "Well, [Dave] here's another nice mess you've gotten me into."
My issue/problem/quest — I have a body of "stuff" and I want to determine if there are ways to think about it in a "useful" manner. The "stuff" appears pretty mundane: assertions, observations, conjectures, metaphors and models, even theory. The problem is provenance: directly or indirectly from, loosely defined, altered states of consciousness. Examples of indirect would be reports from enlightened mystics or dream experiences (ala Kekule or Jung). Direct would be psychedelics. Nick might have me dismiss the entire corpus; stating it has the same value as the latest Marvel universe movie. I disagree. But, by what means, what method, can "fact" even "truth" be discovered and shared. Peirce offers no real assistance. Nor does any other school of epistemology I have encountered. Is there an approach to thinking about my "stuff" that would, at minimum, enable more consistent discovery of examples like Eric cites in #8 of his list. Would it not be useful to be able to quickly identify and focus on insights with the potential to "hold up pretty well." Eric states there are reasons to believe (in #7) that altered states are less reliable, but I would argue, in some cases, the exact opposite. Especially with regard the ability to perceive stimuli of which perceive but never consciously "register" because our brain has filtered them out as being irrelevant. Mescaline can be an instrument as revealing as a microscope or a telescope and it would be worthwhile, I think, to learn how to make effective use of it. The crux of my dilemma remains, I think there is gold in them thar hills, but don't have a means of mining and refining. davew On Sat, Feb 22, 2020, at 10:41 PM, Eric Charles wrote: > If we are willing to go back and forth a bit between being philosophers and > psychologists for a moment, there are far more interesting things to talk > about regarding "altered states".... here are the some of the issues: > > 1. When someone claims to be responding to something, we should believe they > are responding to *something*. > 2. People generally suck at stating what they are responding to, even in > highly mundane situations. > 3. It is worth studying any types of experiences that lead fairly reliably > to other certain future experiences, because in such situations one has a > chance discover what it is people are *actually *responding to. > 4. As we are complex dynamic systems, human development is affected by all > sorts of things in non-obvious ways. > 5. There is no *a priori *reason to discount the insights one experiences > under "altered states of consciousness", but also no *a priori* reason to > give them special credence. > 6. The degree to which a someone has a sense of certainty about something is > not generally a reliable measure of how likely that thing is to hold up in > the long run, unless many, many, many other assumptions are met. > 7. There is likely good reason to think that altered states of consciousness > are less reliable in general than "regular" states. > 8. There are many examples that suggest certain > insights-that-turn-out-to-hold-up-pretty-well, which were first experienced > when under an altered state, were unlikely to have been experienced without > that altered state. > Is that the type of stuff we were are poking at? > > > ----------- > Eric P. Charles, Ph.D. > Department of Justice - Personnel Psychologist > American University - Adjunct Instructor > <mailto:[email protected]> > > > On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 2:30 PM Frank Wimberly <[email protected]> wrote: >> Agreed >> >> --- >> Frank C. Wimberly, PhD >> 505 670-9918 >> Santa Fe, NM >> >> On Sat, Feb 22, 2020, 12:25 PM Marcus Daniels <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Frank writes:____ >>> __ __ >>> <It would constitute proof that Marcus exists if he were to admit that I >>> was correct in our years-ago argument when I said that gender defines an >>> equivalence relation on the set of people.> >>> ____ >>> Definitions. Notation. Argh, who cares. Where’s that neuralyzer, let me get >>> rid of them.____ >>> (That should at least be evidence of continuity!)____ >>> __ __ >>> Marcus____ >>> ============================================================ >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
