" Taking any one notion, the serial sequence is testable." The description that follows was ' fruitful,' Indeed, as I experienced the words !
The expression " ... beyond words," often projects something obscure, especially since we are so deeply schooled in pragmatic beliefs ... such as, if you can't express it , you do not know enough ...or ... if you can't measure it, you can't improve it ... . When, in fact, it is the only thing that is clear, is ours, that we are, untouched by fear and violence ... never ever, except as unavoidable. Attaining this, we can only act in love, in freedom, except as unavoidable. It is unavoidable, while the world ( - body - mind ) entity claims us and we must amble on with its game, howsoever. There is never any need to be harsh with anyone, least of all on oneself, except as unavoidable. On Dec 1, 12:05 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > Observations on archy’s rant: > > “…I fear that the subjective model of truth (of the virtuous person) > leaves us with cretins like Bush and Blair telling us they are > virtuous and can make their peace with god…” – archy > > I have heard that we can only lie to ourselves. I continue to work in > the lab on this tenet. Also, actual virtue is known, not declared. > > “…Imagining half a book of argument, I end up believing our > professional classes let us all down…” – archy > > I have learned more in one ‘class’ in the Academy than in all 12 > universities attended. > > “…In short, the hard work is not done and we don't really try to find > out the extent to which ideology (such as Orn refers to) and fictions > form the protocols of belief. We live in an ideological mess and need > to recognise both this and the dangers of a thrusting desire for a > simpler situation (whatever tends us towards listening to the current > Nazis). We have made truth too hard to establish, but have to avoid > living under a new regime of truth…” – archy > > Maintaining and expanding on the theme of introspection, different > states are noticed therein. This is directly applicable in the search > for truth that often is found to be ‘too hard to establish’. Merely > parroting memes is seen for what it is. This is observable in the lab > of the interior when all apprehended is known to be in fact one…not > just one of 3 views…interior, external and that of the transcendental. > > Taking any one notion, the serial sequence is testable. Case in point, > the memes mentioned above. These can be blindly accepted as ‘truth’ > and never examined. At the same time, they can be seen as part of how > ‘we’ (society) are/is kept together with an apparent need to maintain > and support contracts. Concurrently, one can blithely reject such > social dogma as not ‘true’ and deify one’s own positions instead. Next > the academician’s ‘truth’ by imposition of philosophies from > charlatanism as archy often points to can be found within such > utterances. When this level is known, the only way apparently left to > know is through the distrust and eventual rejection and dismantlement > of all such positions of belief. This resultant disillusionment and > death of feigned knowing is only part of the story even though we all > can recognize these states. At this point of equipoise, one recognizes > how each stage of the series apparently arose and manifested and > wishes for better and then accepts the current level of apprehension > followed by a full recognition of having been and being totally > asleep. What follows is beyond words, literally. And, although this > schema in and of itself can appear to be found in any of the forgoing > viewpoints, one’s own lab can ascertain the timeless scientific truth > found herein ... or not. > > On Nov 30, 8:03 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Lying is treated to a great deal of academic complexity. It would be > > good if we had ways to know people are lying in Aristotle's classic > > sense. In the end, I don't think we are much good at knowing when we > > do it ourselves. I have tried, over a long period, to 'lack > > credibility' to see if I could find out more about how people are > > 'conned' by this and also to see if there is a way to teach that isn't > > about persuading people to your own view but to create enquiring > > minds. As this latter is one of the aims of education I accept, I am, > > of course, breaching my own principle to some degree, but I do bring > > this to the table for examination. > > I agree with pretty much everything in this thread so far. I had a > > morning like Lee's - the sacked dinner lady being almost a classic > > example of how we are going wrong. Of course, we have a 'whistle- > > blowers Act' which has turned out to be so much toilet paper. We have > > a human rights Act and this is so perversely vague we only know what > > it means after a bunch of dud lawyers and judges have had their fill > > from the pork barrel. Now we have another toothless enquiry into the > > Iraq invasion which is essentially telling us the previous, costly > > ones were duds. Orn's long lists could be applied to almost any > > politician. Chomsky indeed lights a few beacons. Relying on > > subjective notions of truth is circular and bound to be because > > individuals can lie and wider, collective issues are not addressed. > > We know, like Rigsby, there is much wrong and worry about tinkering. > > We know something of Alan's ontological liar, but also of Slip's > > demagogue and demislave in politics (another thread). It may be that > > art is the lie that tells us the truth, but 'art' is also a form of > > commerce. The Great Masters, on taking an apprentice, would assure > > the parents they could turn a camel into an artist. Much teaching, > > even in universities is child minding. > > I almost flip into the belief a bunch of alien lizards is running the > > show. The metaphor isn't bad, but disappointingly ripping their faces > > off does not provide empirical proof - though One can ponder the > > 'satisfaction'! > > I would guess the real truth in global warming lies somewhere in the > > metaphor of Nero fiddling as Rome burns. The truth in history seems > > to be that we cling more precariously to this rock than we will admit > > and don't do as much as we could about the self-destruction built into > > evolution. We could have knowledge built on an understanding of big > > facts, yet we easily follow big myths to disgusting conclusion. Over > > 20 years, my research methods classes have always reached a point > > where they have to tell me that the truth is little other than a > > suicide note at work (not in a manner too distant from Lee's dinner > > lady). I have to agree. Away from class I may well have been at > > academic-practitioner conferences, demonstrating with others just how > > bent statistics are and how this is nothing new (a classic paper is > > dated 1910). Statistics is a very old world meaning 'facts about the > > State' and not related other than by 'magic' to the scientific, > > arithmetic and mechanical stuff that tells us about atoms. We teach > > about frequency distribution, ogives, means and so on, but really > > teach the construction of spreadsheets and presentations - and > > hopefully about accessing information and demonstrating that you can > > find much said on almost any topic. Orn would be a great asset - pity > > I diced his brain in an experiment in another thread! Chris would be > > great on global warming, as would the putting forward of almost any of > > our views to the scrutiny of how we hold them. > > This latter point of putting forward views to scrutiny is where my > > interests lie. The magic wand of statistical enquiry can help here, > > but usually doesn't because it remains magic without proper > > explanation and scrutiny itself. A classic dodge is repeated over and > > over. This is about polling people who wouldn't really know what is > > going on, in order to evade the real sample. We ask, for instance, a > > representative sample of the country's population for their views on > > police and police complaints. We ignore the real sample - here those > > who actually have dealings with police and police complaints - and > > don't ask people how they have come to their views. In the sample of > > the whole population, people may have formed their views by watching > > television police shows, both fictional and on the street. In short, > > the hard work is not done and we don't really try to find out the > > extent to which ideology (such as Orn refers to) and fictions form the > > protocols of belief. > > I tend to think there is 'truth in the mess' and that if we could get > > to it we could change for the better. This simple statement evades > > politics and this is why I think we need something that includes a > > better politics. At this point, we stray a long way from the > > pressures I know former students now working in ONS, businesses and > > the public sector are under to produce convenient truth. They know > > they are lying, but generally justify this in an acceptance of a dirty > > world and the need to keep the wolf from the door. > > > Imagining half a book of argument, I end up believing our professional > > classes let us all down. We live in an ideological mess and need to > > recognise both this and the dangers of a thrusting desire for a > > simpler situation (whatever tends us towards listening to the current > > Nazis). We have made truth too hard to establish, but have to avoid > > living under a new regime of truth. We want (as an example) our cops > > to be able to come down hard on scum and not get buried under red tape > > and fear of complaints. Yet we also believe actions by officials and > > businesses should be open to public scrutiny by anyone they let down. > > But we don't want this scrutiny to drive our systems to inertia. I > > believe we could use a technology of fair scrutiny to produce a > > working simplexity. I hear no real public talk about this. I fear > > that the subjective model of truth (of the virtuous person) leaves us > > with cretins like Bush and Blair telling us they are virtuous and can > > make their peace with god. > > > On 30 Nov, 23:28, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I don't see how this is relevant to the topic. Bush made many > > > rhetorical errors and is well know for it. I suppose someone less > > > inclined to understanding what he meant by using context could claim > > > he was lying. Almost all the quotes here I am unfamiliar with so I > > > have no defense for them and wouldn't bother if I did. It's > > > pointless. Regardless, Clinton has publicly admitted now that he was > > > lying about the affair. I'll stretch the limits of his credibility > > > and take him at his word on this one thing. 'Cause that's just the > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- 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.
