I think there is a warning that's worthwhile in what Mat said. Whenever anyone lays claim to truth (including oneself)there is a danger that he or she is just starting off on another regime of truth or bidding for power. I have often alluded to Hitler,Stalin and Mao - and all the 'cry freedoms' in Africa. These dreadful precedents have alarming similarities with bureaucratic behaviour generally and even the snide parts of the day-to-day. Some of the most dangerously irrational people I have known played an apparently very rational game. Some people beleive they are engaged with rationality when they are actually being swayed by crude emotional tricks - such as those Blair played. Too many people give up on a more genuine form of rationality because it is hard work, painful (one has to admit many inadequacies)and actually does not communicate well because of inertial violence towards truth and who is allowed to say what. I think we may have to accept that most people go along with what is clearly immoral too easily - that there is a banality of evil. I would guess Molly and I have seen all kinds of stuff in groups over the years that may have helped atune us to just how daft and irrational we can all be. I wonder who and what helped us at least to feel we are not quite so daft and know we are not so rational, but can still probe direction?
On 31 Jan, 16:46, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree with Neil, Matt, that your interpretation was > confrontational. Rationality has everything to do with the future of > humanity, unless you see humanity as pre-rational. There is much more > to rationality than science as indeed, we as individuals need to > mature into rationality before we can transcend that and begin to know > what is considered transrational, or, as you say, "what is good." At > some level, what is good is fundamental judgmental, and therefore part > of the rationalizing that you refer to above. There is a distinct > difference between what is rational, and rationalizing, which is what > we do to convince ourselves that someone else is to blame for the > horrible parts of ourselves. Do you think that Hitler was convinced > that his efforts were for the good - the master race and all? > Psychotics, sociopaths and schizophrenics are often convinced that > their behaviors are good - does that make it so? No and neither does > it make their behavior rational, just rationalized - forced into a > rational framework that doesn't fit, and because your thinking is > skewed by mental illness, you can't see it. Why do masses of people > follow psychopaths and sociopaths like Hitler, Edie Amine, Mao or > Stalin even though their suppression and mass murder tactics are not > good? Not because they rationalize, but because they feel helpless in > the face of aggression. > > I suspect that Neil's accepting some stuff as intolerable is simply > his way of saying compromise. Using argument as a weapon, well you > illustrated that nicely. Understanding when we do that is a very > rational process. Self correcting and finding a more compassionate > form of communication is the road to the transrational. > > On Jan 30, 8:51 am, MaTheW <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Ok, what does rationality have to do with decisions about the future > > of humanity? When has it ever? At the very best rationality has been > > used as an excuse for the worst atrocities in history--hitler was very > > rational. Rationality is good for science--without a doubt. It can > > tell you wether something can or cannot be done, but it can't tell you > > whether it is good or not. Arguments about social choices are biased? > > Wow! No kidding! Of course, they are biased. Otherwise they wouldn't > > be saying anything. And Neil, when you say "This involves not using > > argument as a weapon and accepting some stuff is intolerable" what you > > actually mean is that we all should follow your value system because > > anything else is intolerable. > > > On Jan 30, 11:53 am, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > For those not prepared to do the work (:-)) , here's the link to the > > > blog Neil referred to: > > > >http://www.overcomingbias.com/ > > > > Francis > > > > On 30 Jan., 03:49, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > You would be accused by academics of very naive relativism here chaps. > > > > These Oxford boys are very elitist, though I have to admit it is a bit > > > > of a holiday to be amongst people who have read widely sometimes > > > > (though I go to Cambridge for this). I haven't come across anyone in > > > > here (not a regular anyway) who really believes in relativism. Lee > > > > (thank goodness!) certainly doesn't. Holding to our own views and > > > > respecting others is something there is plenty of - but what happens > > > > at that point where we can't just ignore or laugh with others over > > > > differences? The Oxford people tend to compress lots of learning and > > > > science into a few words (as in the opener to this thread) - then the > > > > debate spews open into all kinds of difficult to access material - and > > > > dialogues like ours would get scant attention other than to be graded > > > > as undergraduate fumbling. We might feel rather naked amongst this, > > > > left only with our two archery fingers! I can give a very direct > > > > example of the kind of truth the Oxford lot take for granted. This > > > > would be about giving people the choice of sitting in the spaceship > > > > designed at NASA or the one made in my shed that appeared to be a load > > > > of wood with a bit of blue touch-paper sticking out of it. A no- > > > > brainer I would think. Most of the Oxfordists would want to show us > > > > that our own arguments (including Lee on the brilliant contrast > > > > between groupthink and belonging needs) can usually be reduced to no- > > > > brainers once our own incompetence in argument is revealed. We might > > > > yawn and begin to exercise the archery fingers in our pockets as we > > > > are all-too versed in histories of elite groups coming up with "truth" > > > > - but I have to say, in the end, I think most argument is pre- > > > > practised and about world-views rather than amenable to truth-seeking > > > > (Quine's ideas). If Craig finds me hard he should go to the Oxford > > > > blog. What would be important to me would be another form of "talking" > > > > that is smarter than we manage in our down time in here, hopefully as > > > > friendly (without being smarmy) and which could avoid both chronic > > > > elitism and a chronic lack of failures to recognise our own > > > > incompetences. We manage something like this from time to time, but I > > > > can't get a grip on its structure. I'm not sure what I'm on about is > > > > understood here - this isn't that important to me. The aim is to move > > > > beyond simple statements of relativism that start off sounding > > > > tolerant and yet lead eventually to the impasse, "I think this and you > > > > think that - I'm bigger than you" - American dogma if we want to tease > > > > Craig - from everyone to their own to might is right. I'm just > > > > finishing an academic paper on this (first started 1999). I can't > > > > explain quickly, but some of the better scientific material (Darwin in > > > > particular) is really good at making the genuine reader feel that the > > > > truth is not about beating other people with certain claims, not about > > > > regimes of truth but admissions of uncertainty, speculation and so on. > > > > Maybe I should send Craig a signed copy for all his straining to (mis) > > > > understand me already! I'm not on about totalising truth - this is the > > > > kind of truth under critique in postmodernism, but I do now think I am > > > > on about a madness that denies truth at the very moment it puts > > > > emphasis upon it. People's thinking, after all, is very different > > > > under different concentrations of blood testosterone and cortisol. I > > > > shall no doubt be round, resplendent in my white lab coat, German > > > > scientific accent and with two jackbooted rottweilers, to take samples > > > > soon! > > > > On 29 Jan, 12:18, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Exactly Craig. > > > > > > In my youth I quickly worked out that the maxim 'well it my not be > > > > > right for you but it is right for me' has more thruth in it than many > > > > > others. > > > > > > Indeed, I still live by it, as is evidenced by my lack of > > > > > prophlatising and conversion attempts. > > > > > > Another such truth I wholehartedly belive in, and one that gets me > > > > > into all sorts of arguments is that patriotism harms more than it > > > > > helps. > > > > > > Yet I can quite understand the need to belong, this is my opinion and > > > > > whilst it may differ from others I would be hard pressed to say which > > > > > one is correct. > > > > > > On 29 Jan, 01:14, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Neil, > > > > > > I have to confess that I have to read your posts more than once to > > > > > > get > > > > > > your drift. It appears that you are espousing a certain type of > > > > > > pragmatism. You are accepting the fact that truth is elusive, and > > > > > > yet > > > > > > hoping that we can believe in something that works. But before we > > > > > > can > > > > > > start talking about what is practical we have to decide what our aim > > > > > > is. What is it that we are hoping works? What are we trying to > > > > > > obtain? Can we all agree on what we are trying to obtain? Is > > > > > > consensus necessary? > > > > > > > On Jan 28, 4:04 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > This is quite subtle Oxford shit Lee - we are mere oiks - yet I > > > > > > > like > > > > > > > the notion that we could better believe in what is true. > > > > > > > > On 28 Jan, 17:20, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hey Neil, > > > > > > > > > Perhaps until we can answer the question, what is true? We are > > > > > > > > all > > > > > > > > quite doomed! > > > > > > > > > On 28 Jan, 00:04, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > How can we better believe what is true? While it is of > > > > > > > > > course useful > > > > > > > > > to seek and study relevant information, our minds are full of > > > > > > > > > natural > > > > > > > > > tendencies to bias our beliefs via overconfidence, wishful > > > > > > > > > thinking, > > > > > > > > > and so on. Worse, our minds seem to have a natural tendency > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > convince us that we are aware of and have adequately > > > > > > > > > corrected for > > > > > > > > > such biases, when we have done no such thing. > > > > > > > > > > There's a blog on this at Oxford University's Future of > > > > > > > > > Humanity > > > > > > > > > Institute (easy to google). Sad stuff on my brief scan, > > > > > > > > > though I will > > > > > > > > > return. The question seems key and I wondered whether we > > > > > > > > > could do > > > > > > > > > better with it. My own views include a notion of relativism > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > recognises realism is implied and non-philosophic tropical > > > > > > > > > fish > > > > > > > > > realism. I won't bore on this in here - at a somewhat more > > > > > > > > > practical > > > > > > > > > level I think we are in a plight that involves trauma and a > > > > > > > > > need to > > > > > > > > > believe we can live more rationally and justly in public > > > > > > > > > affairs. > > > > > > > > > This involves not using argument as a weapon and accepting > > > > > > > > > some stuff > > > > > > > > > is intolerable. I would see this as key to a future for > > > > > > > > > humanity.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
