I still feel gratitude to a few people who gave me some chances to think, and who helped with trauma.
On 1 Feb, 01:41, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > I think we ourselves did that. But unfortunately, not everyone is > attuned to their inner guidance systems. > > On Jan 31, 5:38 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
