Thanks to you both gentlemen. This deserves more than the blurt of phenomenological flow (not to discredit that). I am struck that too many have forgotten unity does not imply unity of agreement.
On the impossibility of agreement (perhaps the incommensurable), one can try knowledge justification. My own trip involved questioning many knowledge foundations and discovering they all ended-up with a foundational problem - the foundation was an infinite regress. The one that didn't had a foundation in sense-quali, themselves doubtful and now generally dismissed. The words in my argument became inhospitable in-themselves (so much so even I have forgotten them) - stuff like 'a non-truth bearing truth condition'. I pondered on the nature of infinite regresses and wondered if they had a modal structure, perhaps even some kind of harmonic with some certainty about it. I applied sets in the analysis and in the end could only conclude philosophy was not for me if it was about this kind of logic, leading one to certainty that the moon was green cheese on the basis of a dog with a driving licence not being found. Later I discovered some Germans far more cunning than me (Snell, Ludwig) had shown that paradigms were not incommensurable and even their quantitative methods had bases in approximations. The language was beyond my limited brain and the retention of sanity. I woke like Rip Van Wynkle, wondering where 20 years of effort had gone (though not quite as there were two sports medals and a failed marriage) and realised evidence often came long before theory. A large cod, fresh from the North Sea also slapped me in the face and I realised one cannot talk of the incommensurable without it becoming merely incompatible. Methods can be and are applied to the incompatible (as in Fermat's last theorem's modern solution). This rather disposes of strong relativism (anything goes). In short, we have agreed on much before any disagreement. On 20 Oct, 20:43, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > “…What I find is that all truths are obvious. If that is the aim, then > there is nothing to be done, except to ' see.' …” – Vam > > Exactly so Vam! I think it was my retelling of the Sufi story of 3 men > all being ‘right’ that first struck a chord in Neil. In fact, there is > nothing to be done in one sense. In another, I do not cease eating, > sleeping nor even thinking. Also, while we may have known “all truths” > when a child, I was happy to have met and read remarkable wo/men along > the path who shared more clarified and purified apprehensions than I > had at the time. So, it is in a way incumbent upon those who can to > do. > > “…01 Unity is one thing, unity through agreement is quite another… > Unity through agreement is impossible, except on a limited scale. > There will always be disagreement, expressed or not…” – Vam > > I almost left your very eloquent words now replaced by the ellipsis so > they could be read again! However, what you suggest here, a sort of > criticism and argument, is true too. However, to be clear, I do not > propose a tyrannical agreement nor a 1984 type either. Unity of > subjective words can only manifest in what you have clearly said, > words are subjective! We agree. And, in this process, (using words > online) specific recognitions can and have been addressed in a fully > functional way. I expect no more nor no less here. More importantly, > both a fact and a direction for ‘work’ is presented. This, even though > we know that in any ultimate sense, nothing can be done, AND knowing > that what we ARE ‘doing’ may be part of this so called non-doing too. > > “…02 Unity in effort, interest, programme or association is possible, > more completely at reduced scales. Unity through affinity, need, > characterisation or empathy too is possible ... more readily around > carnal and commonplace basics like birth, food, sex, security, power, > death and their auxilliaries such as money, money, money, money, money > and money ... and less and less readily around the exalted and the > intangibles such as feeling, emotion, thought, idea, knowledge ... “ - > Vam > > Yes Vam, I fully empathize. And, as humans we all have feelings, > emotions, thoughts, ideas and knowledge. This is an aspect of how we > are one. We are of the same pattern. Most of us have had quite similar > if not equal feelings, emotions, thoughts and ideas albeit at > different points in time. Yes, our specific associations with words > may differ, yet the same seed is found within. So, in this pure sense, > our knowledge is one too. How do we know this? One way is to share as > we do here at Mind’s Eye! > > More to your real point about agreement being apparently impossible - > I’m not so sure this is in fact the case. IF one uses the more common > paradigms, ones that we know have not been successful, of course this > is the case. There is something about those who keep trying the same > thing expecting a different result, no? > > So, while accepting the apparent contradiction of agreement and unity > being mutually exclusive, I suggest we continue using the axiom that > they are not (exclusive) and see how that goes. What do you think? > Again, a possibly poor analogy would be the different types of non- > Euclidean geometries that arise when one of Euclid’s axioms is assumed > to not be true. To explore in these realms, memes must be severed. > > On Oct 20, 9:42 am, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > You strike the chords in my core ... indeed ! > > > What I find is that all truths are obvious. If that is the aim, then > > there is nothing to be done, except to ' see.' > > > 01 Unity is one thing, unity through agreement is quite another. > > > Differences and diversity abounds. Every part of speech - nouns, > > adjectives, adverbs ... brings in view an endless range of > > differentiation. Conditioned to these differences ( and inequities ), > > unity to us is a mere term of abstraction. > > > To a de - conditioned mind however, when differences and diversity > > remains superceded, unity is obvious and immediate in our view. Cows > > are different ; each cow is innately aware of such differentiation. > > But all differences disappear in ' cowhood.' All cows are > > characterised by this cowhood, that makes each a cow. > > > Men are different. Humanity is one. Living beings are different. The > > Earth is one. ... Planets are different. The Galaxy is one. ... > > Galaxies are different. The universe is one. > > > Differences are natural, in this manifest state of minimum potential. > > To be able to see the unity takes effort, like taking water up the > > slope. > > > Unity through agreement is impossible, except on a limited scale. > > There will always be disagreement, expressed or not. > > > 02 Unity in effort, interest, programme or association is possible, > > more completely at reduced scales. Unity through affinity, need, > > characterisation or empathy too is possible ... > > > more readily around carnal and commonplace basics like birth, food, > > sex, security, power, death and their auxilliaries such as money, > > money, money, money, money and money ... > > > and less and less readily around the exalted and the intangibles such > > as feeling, emotion, thought, idea, knowledge ... > > > ( more was to follow ... but I'd rather have some feedback to the > > above.) > > > On Oct 20, 7:43 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 'We want' personal commitment in all kinds of areas - one might > > > include here 'honour amongst thieves'. Some of our prison governors > > > are in trouble at the moment for moving prisoners just before > > > inspections (this is actually a common incident in quality schemes > > > where managers shift inventory to show efficiency in their areas, > > > resulting in great charts until the overall is seen). There are many > > > old schemes of virtue and whilst one wants this to be internalised > > > (preferably a world of virtuous individuals), it seems we need > > > external checks. Capitalism claimed to do this through the > > > disciplines of markets and the bottom-line. Blair is very happy to > > > make his peace with god on the basis of his integrity. > > > > In Hobbes, one can see a claim to accept regal authority as a least > > > worst evil. We need something else, something in which virtue is its > > > own reward, yet not the Blair-like excuse for not demonstrating what > > > is right whilst posturing 'virtue'. I would not see this as a block > > > to progress. Currently little taught (though one can do a whole > > > undergrad course in the US on same) are the ideas of 'public choice > > > theory' which aim to cope with the selfish individual decision-maker > > > by encouraging a match between the individual and public interest. > > > The theories or many and I'm sure I could establish some as mutually > > > incompatible. > > > > You have said a great deal that is interesting Orn - one sure sign of > > > unity may well be that we share a 'lust' for it that goes beyond any > > > personal disagreements (themselves a plus I would say, rather than > > > squalid jockeying). Let me put up a quick thought experiment we won't > > > do. > > > > Imagine we meet and 'brainstorm' our ideas out. A day would produce > > > reams. Francis could then use his brilliant skills to reduce this > > > output to a couple of A4s (we Brits always put the hard work out to > > > the Irish!). This would probably constitute the first meeting of the > > > Manifesto Group! At least two things might happen from there. We > > > might plan action on the basis of an accepted draft, or we might spend > > > the next year writing all Francis' edits back in! The latter has been > > > typical of much I've seen. Wittering forever on what Witters meant by > > > 'a place of safety' in his ethics lecture. > > > > My point here is that I think there is much to be drawn up, yet this > > > is not the process we are ultimately interested in. Given my > > > background, I'm inclined towards the notion of a research programme - > > > establishing a core that accepts evidence and can change on the > > > evidence. Science has pretty good ways of doing this, but I think > > > you know I'm not advocating science. It is a failure beyond those > > > with its skills and most scientists are not much more than of the > > > 'tropical fish' variety (there is no deep metaphysics we follow as > > > scientists we pay much attention to - though plenty of commentary on > > > such). Most people seem ineducable in science - the OECD-PISA studies > > > have found most 15 year-olds struggle to use it in regarding life- > > > problems - only 1.3% manage 'difficult' problems (if you look at this > > > study and what it considers 'difficult' it's scary - we are not > > > talking rocket science, but what should be simple common sense > > > problems). > > > I assume we don't want to create a 'new manifesto in Latin' for a few > > > priests to go missionary with? I don't mean to be dispiriting here > > > Orn - I'm just returning to the beginning in questioning what it is > > > sensible to be up to. I sense a key problem in asking rationality to > > > do something it can't - something I have long suspected you understand > > > and which is difficult to articulate. I think the problem is this - > > > we are looking to people to make their own decisions fairly and on an > > > informed basis. This seems fine, yet is riddled with the real problem > > > that most people just don't do this. Rationality would have us be > > > rational in constructing the core, yet this is the problem - perhaps > > > one of pearls before swine? How do we find a 'theosophy' that does > > > not simply usurp this rationality as another not-internalised > > > authority? My sense of this argument is that 'perfection' won't do. > > > At the same time, we need a 'new utopia' as a frame for action with a > > > purpose. > > > > Corporal punishment is now > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
