Or overstanding, perhaps.
On Nov 12, 12:06 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > Truth is a viscous word, Vam. Especially in the context with mirror and > self. > > There is this tendency to polish my receptors for the others to see my > truthfulness, that's right, Vam. That's why Francis narrates his truth, and > why not? Compared to Neil's lies that's what I find naive though. > > You see, in German we have solved the Führer/leader misery by not > understanding or comprehending but by fourstanding. You should try one day. > ;) > > > > On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > > " At bottom is the question of how we > > can rely on anything anyone says, writes etc" > > > F*** ! U R the biggest naive I've ever encountered in my life. > > And that's a short compliment. > > > The complete compliment would be when you actually come forward and > > suggest the only way, the only means we have in knowing the truth in > > what anyone says, writes, etc. Our own self ! > > > When I read the essays of Francis... I may find things factually > > debatable, may disagree with positions he takes on specific issues... > > but I have no reason, no cause whatsoever to deem the content as lies, > > untrue ! My self appreciates the self in Francis, labouring to state > > the truth, his truth albeit. And then it doesn't matter. > > > " the greatest truth about our life is not in how we may change the > > world about us... but about how we may change ourselves." ~ Gandhi > > > The truth can only mirror in us, in our self ! And, it is true, all of > > our ancestry come rushing in... Know thyself, Plato, Aristotle, > > Shankara, Aquinas, Bacon, Descartes, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Sartre... and, > > above all, the full-bloodedness of Camus ! > > > But we do need to work upon our self to an all-encompassing extent... > > to deserve it... the ability to know the truth when we see it, read > > it, hear it, think it... > > > On Nov 12, 9:14 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I read some social epistemology over the last few days - in between > > > not finishing painting the house and being dragged on long walks by > > > the pup. The sad tale of non-scientific academe continues, mostly > > > gleaning that ideas that just inevitably arise in reflection get > > > cornered and mystified by an elite needing to claim expertise. There > > > an SEP entry on the subject if anyone is interested (I only mention > > > this because it's free and one could burn several hundred quid on > > > books for the same information). At bottom is the question of how we > > > can rely on anything anyone says, writes etc. On would think this > > > might lead to some ideas on our lying politicians, but whatever there > > > is is tangential. Once one applies the critical criteria it is sadly > > > obvious most we report is not about truth and mutual understanding. > > > Last time I looked, social research was into the quadri-hermeneutic on > > > understanding or the verstehen problematic - what one hears from a > > > social informant is already her interpretation and elaborations of > > > that in terms of your own interpretation and theoretical > > > perspectives. I've played these games to earn a crust, but always > > > been disappointed My feeling is we live in a mad scheme of things > > > and that theory is largely therapy for those of us bright enough to > > > get it. One of the most laughable statements one gets to hear in > > > academe is that common sense is the ability to see the world as flat. > > > 'Flat Earth' was very much an academic theory - one can actually see > > > the curvature. And if one deigns to really academic thinking, the > > > universe may be 'flat' and distance an illusion. > > > > Most academics do little more than what a car mechanic does in > > > exploiting her skill. The area of operation is just a bit different. > > > We all have our ways of making sense of what goes on. I'm not > > > convinced I have heard-read-experienced much that addresses this > > > across academic disciplines - the problem, as Vam often comments - is > > > to box off the argument to paper. The system of 'discussion' is now > > > corrupt beyond measure - conferences are advertised more like holidays > > > and most journals are unreadable dross. > > > > I believe the real reason for much of this is that the easiest way to > > > rank a human population is through quasi-abilities in maths and > > > language and that this is the reason for the failure of universal > > > education where it has been practiced over the last 80 years. > > > Whatever our education systems have done, they have not produced > > > reasonable equality or democracies at peace with themselves. I walk > > > my dog on a lead not because I want to deprive him of the joy of > > > pounding off, but because of traffic and consideration of those who do > > > not appreciate enthusiastic, slobbering Labradors. I fear this is the > > > guiding metaphor behind education, though less enlightened. The free > > > space where my dog runs seems unavailable for human practice other > > > than thought. > > > > We seem to think we can "train" human beings in "essential" skills. > > > The reason given in answer to the question as to why the kids had to > > > wear uniform at my grandson's school the other night was it was to > > > teach for to 'obey rules without question'. O my Lord! Some social > > > epistemology in that! The teachers struggle to maintain discipline > > > and out of school many of these kids are little better than louts > > > (though by no means all of them) who litter our streets and start > > > 'careers with the law'. > > > > I despair at our taken for granted in all this. We need a new > > > society. I see no answers in academe and believe the issues we need > > > to confront are practical and to do with "meritocracy" and people who > > > believe they have worked hard for what they've got feeling > > > "superior". Those of us given the right 'card' through money and/or > > > education have a lot to answer for and most of it can be described in > > > simple terms. We evade this at every turn by boxing off argument into > > > rationalisation that suits us and 'backfiring' when evidence is put in > > > contradiction. The religion of this is neo-classical economics, the > > > uniform of the World Bank and IMF, though we don't even know any of > > > this, needing only 'look after number one'. This basic issue spawns > > > all the rest of social thinking. I want to reject it. Simple answers > > > follow.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
