Trying your larding method On Mon, Mar 9, 2020, at 6:36 PM, [email protected] wrote: > Dave,
> > Oh, Damn. I thought I had pretty much sorted this disagreement out, and now I > am all confused again. I am in doubt, and doubt is painful. He that falls > hardest, falls from his highest horse. Where do I stand (as a purported > experience monist) EVER to deny your experience? OK. Calm down, Nick. Let’s > see where this comes out. > > First, let’s go back to unicorns. You say (let’s say) that during one of your > sessions you have encountered a unicorn. You describe that unicorn in great > detail, including the golden horn, the flowing white mane and tail, the > restless silver-shod hooves, and (if you like) the golden haired damsel on > his back. (Frank Wimberly is gearing up his Freudian interpretation of my > fantasy here as you read.) And you say that this apparition is accompanied in > you with a feeling of great joy and peace. Where could I possibly stand to > deny you any of this? > > Now, feeling my way here, let’s divide what I propose to deny you into two > parts. Was the Unicorn real and was your feeling of well-being real? As a > dualist, I can deny you one without denying you the other. The test of > whether you really saw a UNICORN is in the world outside of experience > (w.e.t.f. that is) whereas the test of whether YOU SAW a unicorn is a matter > entirely between you and your mind, a matter about which I could not possibly > have any direct information. Since dualists claim to have two sources of > information about the world (their experience and ….God’s?) it’s possible for > there to be a unicorn experience (I saw it, God, I saw it!) when in fact God > knows there is no unicorn. So a dualist can grant you your unicorn > experience, with all its emotional glory, while not granting you the unicorn. > Not sure I have that out. > > Now, mind you, as an experience-monist, I am not tied to the notion that > there can be no varieties of experience. I am only tied to the notion that > there is only one kind of stuff in the world, experience, and relations > between experiences. Glen, (I think) once pointed out to me that this is > already TWO kinds of stuff, experiences and relations, and that I have > already forsaken my monism. > > ***DW—This need not be true: you experience a relation between/among > experiences. A "relationship-experience" is just another experience, > different in variety, not essence.—DW*** > > Pressed on that point I would take the position that there are only relations > among experiences, at which point perhaps Glen will ask me about the FIRST > experience, and I will trot out my usual contempt for twisting our knickers > about “first cases”. I really REALLY don’t give a damn about when the first > object was conscious of another object. I won’t worry about that first case > until we have worked out all the subsequent cases. After all, given that > there was, *ex hypothesi*, only one first case, why should I give a damn? Why > are extreme cases *iconic.* > > ***DW—Ultimate first case: the Singularity when the Universe was contained > within a point; a point is dimensionless; so Everything was contained within > Nothing, and located Nowhere. Impossibly — in every possible sense of that > word — a differentiation (a single string vibrating in the OM frequency > perhaps). That which could hold everything cannot hold Two and Bang!, the One > becomes Two, becomes Many. Been There, Saw That. —DW*** > > > One of the dimensions along which experiences differ is in the degree to > which they prove out in future experience. If what you saw really as a > unicorn, then it should be possible to go to the equine biology section of > your local library and read up on them. > > ***DW—Not necessarily True. You have granted varieties of experience and > perhaps the *_*class*_* of experience that contains Unicorns is a different > *_*class*_* than Library-Experiences. Just how strongly typed are your > varieties of experience?—DW*** > > They might, perhaps, be very rare, like Nessie or the Ivory Billed > Woodpecker, but there are ways of working these disagreements out, and we > monists assert only that what we MEAN by saying that unicorns, Loch Ness > Monsters, and Ivory Billed Woodpeckers are real, is that, in the fullness of > time, the community of inquiry, those who care about the matter, will agree > that they exist. And if the bulk of contemporaneous evidence suggests that > they DON’T exist, then I will cheerfully deny you your experience of a > unicorn *in the limited sense that I confidently deny that what you saw > actually was a unicorn. * > * * > ***DW—My but we are being elitist and exclusive, are we not? Just who decides > the constituents of the "community of inquiry?" I see a great big bouncer > with a clipboard allowing only the "beautiful people" entry to the club. And, > of course, the bouncer is checking purses and briefcases to make sure that no > traitorous beautiful person is attempting to smuggle in contraband > "evidence."—DW*** > > But can I also deny you your report that you SAW a unicorn. Well, perhaps. > This is trickier. What are the practicial consequences of saying that you > have seen a unicorn? Setting aside the non existence of unicorns, how could > the community of inquiry come to a conclusion about whether you had, in fact, > hallucinated one. Is that solely between you and your “mind”? Or do we have > standing to deny even that you hallucinated one? I think the answer is > absolutely “Yes”. Imagine that you’re the jury in a traffic accident case in > which the accused driver claims to have swerved to avoid a unicorn. Now, > everybody in the courtroom has stipulated (ex hypothesi) that unicorns do not > exist, so the only question before the court is whether I genuinely > hallucinated one, or if I am claiming the hallucination in order to get a > light sentence. You can imagine the list of questions that the district > attorney might ask me. Am I in the habit of seeing mythical animals. > Interviewed at the scene, did I describe in detail (and with amazement) the > animal? Did it run away, or did I try to approach it? In short, did I do any > or all of the things that an ordinary person might do if he encountered a > large white horse, with silver hooves, and a golden horn, ridden by a > fair-haired damsel on a dark road in the middle of the night – other than > swerve into my neighbors orchid conservatory? If not, the community of > inquiry would conclude that not only was a unicorn not what I say, but I was > lying when I said I saw a unicorn. > > ***DW—The jury was fixed!! A kangaroo court!! See previous elitism argument. > Add to the mix a predetermination of what constitutes a "practical > consequence." I was so affected by being in the presence of the unicorn that > I immediately, and forever after, stopped harming small animals, gave up my > hunting license and quit the NRA. Are those not practical consequences? And, > I so eloquently communicated my experience to others that NRA membership > actually dropped by 50%. Still not practical consequences?—DW*** > > Can I also deny your feeling of joy and peace at the sight of your unicorn? > Well, maybe. What are the practicial consequence of being in a state of joy > and peace? Etc. > > ***DW—Have you read Huxley's ***Doors of Perception***? In addition to > describing the experience of a mescaline trip, he waxes eloquent about > potential ethical, social, inter-personal, and psychological differences if > our society had socialized something like mescaline instead of alcohol. > Nothing but what I would call "practical consequences" as far as I can > tell.—DW*** > > All the best, > > NIck And, if you have the time and inclination, could you reply directly to the questions I posed in the previous posting? Best to you davew > > > > > > > > > Nicholas Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology > Clark University > [email protected] > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Prof David West > *Sent:* Monday, March 9, 2020 8:17 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Acid epistemology - restarting a previous conversation > > But Nick, > > I don't understand your unwillingness to acknowledge my experience(s). > > When I return from Amsterdam and provide you with a detailed trip report > detailing all things bicycle (rules of the road, rider attitudes, bicycle > culture, multi-level bicycle garages, exotic bikes, electro-bikes, utility > bikes, bikes with bins on the front for small children and groceries, "deep > inner peace" from riding many kilometers, feelings of being one with Nature > in a way impossible inside a car, enhanced perception of body language > nuances [essential for safety reasons] ... ) will you discount those stories > the same way you discount a "Trip" report? > > Or, suppose I attend my next FriAM while under the influence; do you believe > I will be less cogent and more stupid than I normally appear? > > How about an experiment where I play a poker tournament while under the > influence of mescaline and another "sober." Want to bet in which one I will > do better? If mescaline increases sensitivity and reduces the 'importance" of > time, then its influence would increase my ability to detect "tells" and > eliminate the, sometimes, crushing boredom I normally experience. > > When I post all kinds of notes (glen asked for some) and reports of findings > from the ICPR conference showing both "no harm" and "measurable benefits" > from hallucinogen use — will that be "evidence" or still, in some fashion, > "faith?" > > Two caveats: > > 1) individual experience may vary. My brother, for instance, cannot stand, > cannot deal with, any sense of lacking "control" whether that is induced by > alcohol, or the one time he tried drugs; > > and, 2) it is quite possible that some drugs, like large doses of DMT, are > pretty much sledgehammers. The experience is so pronounced — very much like > being in a different Reality andnot just an altered state of consciousness — > that it may very well be a case of scrambled circuits. I am certain that > "glue sniffing," for example, and similar means of "getting high" are exactly > what you fear — John Henry size sledgehammers. There is all kinds of > physiological evidence of the harm. > > Time is something we all experience. Mescaline-Time-Experience is very > different than Straight-Time-Experience. Is there value in > comparing/contrasting/discussing those differences in order to enhance our > common understanding of Time? I don't think it possible to truly understand > Time if the only experience we allow into the discussion is either > Straight-Time-Experience or Mescaline-Time-Experience. > > Mayhap your fear is "irrational" and my "faith" is rational? > > davew > > > On Sun, Mar 8, 2020, at 5:41 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> But Dave, I don’t understand your **faith** that drugs are a Tao-ist >> butcher, rather than a sledgehammer. Do you stipulate that feelings of >> well-being, wisdom, insight, etc. can be neurologically divorced from the >> facts thereof? So, the presence of such feelings does not constitute >> sufficient evidence of the facts, right? Now remember, I have stipulated to >> the value of the sledgehammer, and admitted that the position I am taking in >> this argument arises from in part an from a fear of having my brain sledged. >> So “potential benefits of sledgehammering” are irrelevant to our PRESENT >> argument, unless, of course we want this whole vast, tortured, philosophical >> argument to boil down to the fact that you like being sledge-hammered and I >> don’t. Apart from the fact that you LIKE taking drugs, what is the EVIDENCE >> that it constitutes a **method** of gathering knowledge less chaotic than >> electro-shock therapy. How does sledging your clock with drugs >> **systematically** reveal something about **time? ** Or are you ready to try >> ECT? >> ** ** >> I apologize for all the typos in my previous messages. My macular pucker >> makes it hard sometimes to see the words as they are, but Bill Gates does >> not have macular pucker, so there is really no excuse. >> >> Nick >> >> Nicholas Thompson >> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology >> Clark University >> [email protected] >> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >> >> >> >> *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Prof David West >> *Sent:* Sunday, March 8, 2020 3:10 AM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Acid epistemology - restarting a previous conversation >> >> Ignore the software thing — an example of cross-talk between two unrelated >> conversations that happens because so much of my neural network is still >> twisted-pair copper instead of LSD-Fiber. >> >> I clearly missed your sledgehammer metaphor. I think, however, it might >> reveal a fundamental difference in perspective. You seem to see the taking >> of a drug (and drugs are not the only or even the most important means >> available) as destructive of an orderly experience processor (an >> experience-randomizer); and I see such taking as "oiling the machinery to >> make it run more efficiently." >> >> But the key metaphor — one you admit is different in kind — from the others, >> is the Taoist butcher and you are correct that I am suggesting drugs (other >> means available) augment perception/awareness in very roughly a manner akin >> to the way that telescopes and microscopes augment our perception/awareness >> capabilities. >> >> The self-referential feedback loop you allude to is very real. But it takes >> us, not to Castenada-land, but to Buddha-land or to Wheeler(et.al. combining >> information and quantum theories)-land where the Universe is Experiencing >> Itself as experiencing itself (faith); or the Universe Computing Itself >> computing (supposedly, science). >> >> What you see as paradox, I see as confirmation. A metaphor that provides a >> perspective that facilitates bringing together fibers from multiple sources >> and finding the consistencies among them, so as to create threads, from >> which my tapestry. >> >> davew >> >> >> On Sat, Mar 7, 2020, at 6:35 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>> Ok, so we need to get our metaphor’s straight, here. >>> >>> The sledge hammer is meant to be an experience-randomizer. To the extent >>> that sledge hammers do predictable things to clocks, it fails for me as a >>> metaphor. Once my Sledge Hammer has struck my clock, there should be no >>> relation between the positions of the pieces of the clock before the blow >>> and after. But even granting its limitations, I don’t think my Sledge >>> Hammer is an appropriate metaphor for your complaint about ordinary >>> software. I think you are talking about a bull-dozer. Like a Sledge Hammer, >>> a Bulldozer does not care for the structure of whatever it encounters; but >>> unlike my Sledge Hammer, it imposes a highly predictable order of its own. >>> Neither the Sledge Hammer nor the Bulldozer are like the Taoist Butcher, >>> who clearly cares for .the structure of what he cuts. >>> >>> So, what we are arguing about can be construed as an argument about which >>> metaphor is most aptly applied to taking drugs. I am arguing for the Sledge >>> Hammer. Sledge Hammers have their uses. I have always imagined that >>> electroshock therapy is a kind of sledge hammer, although perhaps it is >>> more like a bulldozer, returning the brain to factory settings. Bulldozers >>> are very useful in that they create a structure on which other things can >>> easily be built. You might be arguing that drug-taking is a bull dozer. Or >>> you might be arguing that drug-taking is more like the Taoist butcher, in >>> that it reveals the structure of what is already there. It is like a >>> microscopist’s stain. But to make that metaphor work, you have to grant to >>> the drug, or to the person who administers it, the wisdom and experience of >>> the butcher who has become so familiar with meat that he can, without >>> thinking about it, see where the meat isn’t. Now you are in Castenada >>> territory, the territory of *faith*. >>> >>> Thanks, as always, Dave, for your generosity of spirit. By the way, some >>> keen-eyed observer may detect something seriously awry in my metaphorical >>> proceeding above. Presumably we both agree that the brain is a device that >>> tells us something about something else, not about itself. Dubious as I am >>> that a sledge hammer can tell us anything about the structure of clocks, I >>> am even MORE dubious that it can tell us anything about the structure of >>> *time. *The Taoist Butcher metaphor seems to work in a different way. To >>> make it consistent, we would have to have the Taoist Butcher dissect >>> HIMSELF in order to discover the structure of meat. >>> >>> Nick >>> >>> Nicholas Thompson >>> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology >>> Clark University >>> [email protected] >>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Prof David West >>> *Sent:* Saturday, March 7, 2020 3:37 AM >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Acid epistemology - restarting a previous >>> conversation >>> >>> Oooh fun ... >>> >>> **I also stipulate that hitting an alarm clock with a sledge hammer MIGHT >>> reveal robust and enduring information about alarm clocks.** >>> >>> Let me twist this example a bit to make what I think might be a valid way >>> to assert a "benefit" of drug-epistemology over sledge-hammer. >>> >>> I must start a bit afield with a quote from Plato and a Taoist koan: >>> >>> [First,] perceiving and bringing together under one Idea the scattered >>> particulars, so that one makes clear the thing which he wishes to do... >>> [Second,] the separation of the Idea into classes, by dividing it where the >>> natural joints are, and not trying to break any part, after the manner of >>> as a bad carver... I love these processes of division and bringing >>> together, and if I think any other man is able to see things that can >>> naturally be collected into one and divided into many, him I will follow as >>> if he were as a god. >>> - Plato >>> >>> "A Taoist butcher used but one knife his entire career without the need to >>> sharpen it. At his retirement party the Emperor asked him about this >>> extraordinary feat, The butcher stated, "Oh, I simply cut where the meat >>> wasn't." >>> >>> Now this leads to a problem of decomposition - breaking up a large and >>> complex problem into tractable sub-problems. Software engineering uses a >>> sledgehammer epistemology of data structures and algorithms to accomplish >>> this decomposition with results that are horrific. In contrast, a "vision" >>> induced, daydreaming about biological cells and cellular organisms led to >>> the insight that cells are differentiated from each other by what they do, >>> not what they are. So software modularity might be based on behavior. Far >>> superior results in myriad ways. >>> >>> If we take C.D.Broad and Huxley seriously, mescaline reveals "more of >>> reality" than typically available to our conscious minds. I would assert >>> and be willing to defend that at least that sort of drug-epistemology could >>> enhance our ability to actually see "where the meat wasn't" and therefore >>> enhance our ability to decompose large complicated systems (maybe even >>> complex systems) in tractable sub-problems. >>> >>> * * * * * * * >>> >>> My vision was not based on a stain, nor was it of cells dividing - it was >>> an inter-cellular dissolving and recombining of inter-cellular elements, >>> proteins etc., into other inter-cellular elements such that when the cell >>> did eventually divide its internals were radically different. What I "saw" >>> would more likely inform a genetic engineer than someone investigating cell >>> division stuff. >>> >>> * * * * * * >>> >>> Sorry for making you ill, but it is your interpretation that is at fault. >>> >>> You might remember the early days of Cinerama movies. They would start the >>> movie showing a scene, like flying through the Grand canyon, then suddenly >>> expand the displayed rectangle, the size of a traditional movie screen, >>> into the full height and width of the Cinerama screen. >>> >>> It was still just a movie, but the experience of the movie was enhanced? >>> with sensations of vertigo, movement, detail, etc. >>> >>> What Broad and Huxley suggest is that experience is "filtered" by the >>> organism and that filtering reduces experience to the dimensions of a >>> pre-Cinerama movie. Huxley then asserts that mescaline turns experience >>> into Experience. >>> >>> We are all experience monists here, but some of us are making the claim >>> that there can be, at minimum, quantitative differences among experiences >>> (something akin to the increase in pixel density and 8 versus 64 bit >>> representation of the color of each pixel) and, at least the possibility of >>> qualitative differences, e.g. the vertigo of Cinerama. >>> >>> And, those differences are attainable via various means. Not just drugs. >>> >>> So my assertion of "Apollonian-er than thou" is a claim that I experience >>> "life" in "Cinerama" and you in "cinema multiplex standard screen." >>> >>> davew >>> >>> On Sat, Mar 7, 2020, at 5:53 AM, [email protected] wrote: >>>> See Larding below. >>>> >>>> By the way: my mail interface is taken to tucking some of my mail into a >>>> folder called "important" where, of course, I cannot see it. So, if I >>>> appear to go missing, don't hesitate to write me an unimportant message >>>> telling me that there are important ones awaiting me. >>>> >>>> Of course I have n o I d e a what distinguishes an important message from >>>> an unimportant one. >>>> >>>> As I said, see below: Oh, and dave, what I wrote below is TESTY. I don’t >>>> realty feel testy, I don’t really feel qualified to be testy. I think the >>>> rhetoric just got away with me. It has happened before and you have >>>> promised it doesn’t’ bother you, so I am counting on your grace-under-fire >>>> again. >>>> >>>> Your friend , >>>> Nick >>>> >>>> Nicholas Thompson >>>> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology >>>> Clark University >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Prof David West >>>> Sent: Friday, March 6, 2020 2:00 AM >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Acid epistemology - restarting a previous conversation >>>> >>>> thanks Glen, >>>> >>>> I totally agree with you about dead white guys. [Except I have had >>>> face-to-face conversations with a couple of them :) ] I reference them not >>>> as a source of answers but in an attempt to find some kind of conceptual >>>> bridge for a conversation. But that might be totally counterproductive as >>>> it tends to introduce a propensity for forking the conversation. >>>> >>>> Engaging with contemporary scientists is hard when it comes to >>>> drug-induced data sets / experiences. I hope to make some connections with >>>> contemporary researchers at the ICPR conference I mentioned but the focus >>>> there seems to be psycho-medical and related to the oxytocin article you >>>> posted, and my direct interests tend to diverge from that. >>>> >>>> Perhaps something more direct might be useful. Two things, the second is >>>> mostly to tease Nick. >>>> >>>> >>>> 1) I am fascinated by the field of scientific visualization, using imagery >>>> to present complex data sets. Recently I "observed" the precise moment of >>>> sperm-egg fertilization. A whole lot was going on inside the egg cell >>>> boundary immediately upon contact (not penetration) with the sperm. The >>>> visualization was of thousands (millions?) of discrete inter-cellular >>>> elements breaking free from existing structures, like DNA strands, >>>> proteins, molecules and moving about independently. I could see several >>>> "fields" that were a kind of "probability field." These fields constrained >>>> both the movement of the various elements and, most importantly, what >>>> structures would emerge from their recombination. "Watching" the DNA >>>> strand 'dissolve" and "reform" was particularly interesting because it was >>>> totally unlike the "unzip into two strands, the zip-up a strand-half from >>>> each donor" visualization I have seen presented in animations explaining >>>> the process. Instead I saw all kinds of "clumps" form and merge into >>>> larger/longer "clumps" then engage in an interesting hula/belly/undulation >>>> dance to rearrange the structure into a final form. All of this "guided" >>>> by the very visible "probability fields;" more than one and color coded. >>>> >>>> Now, if I were a cellular biologist could I make use of this vision? >>>> **[NST===>] I love this example. Every stain produces a new image and some >>>> stains are more revealing than others, in that the models they facilitate >>>> are more robust and enduring in their predictions. I stipulate that. I >>>> also stipulate that hitting an alarm clock with a sledge hammer MIGHT >>>> reveal robust and enduring information about alarm clocks. I just don’t >>>> think it’s likely. And there is the possibility that the clock wont be >>>> very accurate thereafter. That is the whole of my argument against drug >>>> -epistemology. So if you are NOT arguing that drug-epistemology is somehow >>>> superior to sledge-hammer epistemology, then we agree and we don’t have to >>>> argue any more. ** >>>> >>>> Since I am not a cellular biologist and have no understanding of >>>> inter-cellular structures/dynamics/chemistry, nor any DNA knowledge, where >>>> did the imagery come from and why did it hang together so well? >>>> >>>> Was this experience just an amusing bit of entertainment" Or, is there an >>>> insight of some sort lurking there? >>>> **[NST===>] I like the metaphor with stains. But just remember, if my >>>> memory serves me correctly, you don’t see jack shit when cells divide >>>> without the right stain. All such observations are of the Peircean type/; >>>> “If I do this, then I will get that.” ** >>>> >>>> 2) En garde Nick. >>>> **[NST===>] je me garde** >>>> >>>> Quoting Huxley, paraphrasing C.D. Broad — "The function of the brain, >>>> nervous system, and sense organs is, in the main, eliminative and not >>>> productive. Each person is at each moment capable of remembering all that >>>> has ever happened to him and of perceiving everything that is happening >>>> everywhere in the universe. This is Mind-At-Large. >>>> **[NST===>] Dave, even without my characteristic ill ease with >>>> dispositions (like gravity, for instance), this last sentence gives me the >>>> heebs. And the Heaves. It is either a definition of memory (=all that I >>>> experience as past at a moment) or it is non-sense. Or some kind of balmy >>>> article of faith. ** >>>> >>>> But in so far as we are animals, our business is at all costs to survive. >>>> **[NST===>] No. No animal has ever survived. No animal has ever tried to >>>> survive. No species has ever tried to survive. This is all foolishness >>>> pressed on us by Spencer. Even Darwin was leery of it. (and no I cannot >>>> cite text)** >>>> To make biological survival possible, Mind-At-Large, has to be funneled >>>> through the reducing valve of the brain and nervous system. What comes out >>>> at the other end is a measly trickle of the kind of consciousness which >>>> will help us to stay alive on the surface of this particular planet." >>>> **[NST===>] I suppose one can make sense of this sort of talk by >>>> postulating a world outside of experience, but unless you postulate that >>>> this world beyond experience can in principle never affect experience, you >>>> end up with a contradiction because anything that effects experience in >>>> any way, however indirect, is, by definition, experienced. ** >>>> >>>> Two personal experiences: 1) I tend to not notice when my glasses get >>>> cloudy from accumulation of dust and moisture until it is quite bad. I >>>> clean my glasses, put them on, and am amazed at how clear and detailed my >>>> perceptions are post-cleaning. A very dramatic difference. >>>> **[NST===>] Well of course. Cleaning glasses is a method that increases >>>> the predictive potential of your current visual experiences. If your >>>> argument is only that there are experiences I have not had which will >>>> surprise me if I have them, I agree, so we don’t have to argue about that >>>> any more, right?** >>>> And, 2) the proper dose of a hallucinogen (and/or the right kind of >>>> meditation) and my perceptions of the world around me, using all my >>>> senses, are amazingly clear and detailed in the same way as my visual >>>> perception was changed by cleaning grime from my glasses. >>>> **[NST===>] The innate school marm gives us little jolts of pleasure from >>>> time to time, usually in response to activities that please her. One of >>>> those jolts is a “sense of clarity.” If you break into her storeroom and >>>> steal her clarity candies, you will get the clarity-pleasure even while >>>> seeing muddily. ** >>>> ** ** >>>> **Now I grant you it’s possible you will see something more clearly. See >>>> above the sledgehammered clock argument.** >>>> >>>> I would contend that the drug (meditation) removed the muddying filter of >>>> my brain/nervous system/ sense organs just as the isopropyl alcohol >>>> removed the muddying filter of moisture-dust on my glasses. >>>> >>>> I see the world as it "really" is.**[NST===>]Well, that remains to be >>>> seen, right. It might be that the dust filters the light in such a way as >>>> to reveal structures that you cannot see through the cleaned glass. The >>>> proof is in the pudding … i.e., the proving out. ** >>>> >>>> Now the tease: I would contend that I am more Apollonian than thou because >>>> I value Life, and more of Life, more directly, than you do. It is not >>>> varied experience I seek, but a direct, clear, complete, apprehension and >>>> appreciation of Life Itself. >>>> **[NST===>] Similarly, let it be the case that I had a dozen clocks and >>>> you told me you had hit them all with a sledge hammer; now, if you told me >>>> you had lied, and gave me back the 12th clock in perfect working order, I >>>> would value it a lot more for having thought I had lost it. ** >>>> >>>> davew >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020, at 4:58 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote: >>>> > It's not pesky for me in the slightest. I'm *very* interested. I >>>> > haven't contributed because it's not clear I have anything to >>>> > contribute. >>>> > >>>> > Maybe I can start with a criticism, though. It's unclear to me why you >>>> > (or anyone) would delicately flip through crumbling pages of >>>> > philosophy when there are fresh and juicy results from >>>> > (interventionist) methods right in front of us? The oxytocin post >>>> > really *was* inspired by this thread. But because you guys are talking >>>> > about dead white men like Peirce and James, it's unclear how the science >>>> > relates. >>>> > >>>> > My skepticism goes even deeper (beyond dead white men) to why one >>>> > would think *anyone* (alive, dead, white or brown) might be able to >>>> > *think* up an explanation for how knowledge grows. I would like to, >>>> > but cannot, avoid the inference that this belief anyone (or any >>>> > "school" of people) can think up explanations stems from a bias toward >>>> > *individualism*. My snarky poke at "super intelligent god-people" in a >>>> > post awhile back was >>>> > (misguidedly) intended to express this same skepticism. I worry that >>>> > poking around in old philosophy is simply an artifact of the mythology >>>> > surrounding the "mind" and Great Men >>>> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_man_theory>. >>>> > >>>> > It seems to me like science works in *spite* of our biases to >>>> > individualism. So, if I want to understand knowledge, I have to stop >>>> > identifying ways of knowing through dead individuals and focus on the >>>> > flowing *field* of the collective scientists. >>>> > >>>> > Of course, that doesn't mean we ignore the writings of the dead people. >>>> > But it means liberally slashing away anything that even smells obsolete. >>>> > >>>> > Regardless of what you do post, don't interpret *my* lack of response >>>> > as disinterest or irritation, because it's not. >>>> > >>>> > On 3/5/20 6:14 AM, Prof David West wrote: >>>> > > And the key to my being a pest — is anyone else curious about these >>>> > > things? >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > ☣ uǝlƃ >>>> > >>>> > ============================================================ >>>> > 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 >>> >> >> ============================================================ >> 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
