{{{Molly}}} - the struggle is indeed tough and some kind of 'simple' peace
is required. In philosophy one finds that any state supposedly free of
pre-supposition has - er - pre-suppositions. The line from Frege, Husserl,
Russell and to Heidegger is a classic. One learns more in some ways by
hugging a tree or you in my heart.
The problem with a correct standard from the inner turn is delusion
(connected with self deception) and the obvious fascism of much
'leadership'. This isn't a case of delusion interpretation against poetic
harmony - neither of us is deluded enough to go skinny dipping in volcano
lava or be harvested by Quatermas' aliens.
The struggle is such that many are turning to another inner route -
cyberspace. This strikes me as connected with just how horrible standard
relations are perceived by many.
My own interest is in another form of reasoning - I think this may overlap
with Molly's, though my 'pre-base' is the machine and spreadsheet-database
thinking. It is difficult to express this in language. Most people
associate terms like 'spreadsheet-thinking' with heartless accounting
decisions and so on. It is common in German work to contrast some kind of
'system-science-technology' with a much more 'human' life-world (Heidegger,
Adrono, Habermas). I tend more towards Veblen and that the problem is
business control, not technology and what we can do with it. Of course, I
chose "statistics" over poetics long ago - but here is another term one can
hardly use without guileless interpretation based in political misuse. For
me, actual statistical thinking has a certain poetics, though mobile phones
will be left behind on this afternoon's walk.
The machines (don't confuse this with your PC) think across a much broader
spectrum than we can at the moment. They can cope with more history, run
more simulations to find what is a dead end and what is not. They are much
less interested in the words in a politician's promises than the historic
incidence of politicians making false promises. In principle they can
juxtapose huge amounts of material that changes "meaning".
Of course, I can see how such "meaning" needs to fit into some kind of
Molygon (think geometry) and the reasons it might be worth being here at
all.
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 11:54:29 AM UTC, Molly wrote:
>
> recognizing and examining our self delusions requires that we look within
> us for answers, something most of us are not hardwired for as most are
> extroverts. Most cultures do not support introspection and offer mandates
> for action and group acceptance. Understanding our own delusions means
> understanding our inner workings and we seem trained from the beginning to
> turn away from such shenanigans. Understanding how our communication
> patterns are used to force our will or view on others, how our agendas are
> more important than relationships, how trust in the world, ourselves, life
> (or lack of) effects us can all clear up delusion but I rarely see anyone
> having a breakthrough like this. Instead, I see everyone grinding away on
> the same old tracks.
>
> For me, chaos and struggle around me sometimes builds to such a head that
> I find myself needing to let go of any expectation or even vision of what
> is to come next, take a deep breath, and continue. It has been a long time
> since I entered the dark night of the soul, but find it eventually comes if
> I don't do this as needed. In my life there is a harmony that I feel more
> or less strongly depending on the day or sometimes the moment. If I can
> find my way back to this simple harmony, my experience in the world is
> peaceful. I get weary of struggle, angst, anger, opposition although have
> learned not to avoid any of it either. Delusion can come from a lack of
> information or understanding, or incorrect info and understanding. So what
> is the "correct" standard? The best answer for me has always come
> internally. I've stopped expecting order in experience, but have notice a
> coherence in its elements that mean more than cultural or group or historic
> norms or patterns. I define it in poetic terms and describe it as simple
> harmony. You may call it delusion. For me it is quite clear.
>
> On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 7:35:54 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote:
>>
>> Francis Bacon classified the intellectual fallacies of his time under
>> four headings which he called idols. He distinguished them as idols of the
>> Tribe, idols of the e, idols of the Marketplace and idols of the Theatre.
>> An idol is an image, in this case held in the mind, which receives
>> veneration but is without substance in itself. Bacon did not regard idols
>> as symbols, but rather as fixations. They expand a bit like this:
>>
>> 1. Tribe
>>
>> The example of desiring to see more order in the universe than is
>> actually there is one of his examples of an idol of the tribe. He thinks
>> that we all suffer from that one.
>>
>> 2. Cave
>>
>> An example of an idol of the cave (one of Bacon's examples) is that some
>> minds are more drawn to new things and new ideas than they are to what has
>> been around for a long time, while other minds are more drawn to
>> "tradition" and "old school" ideas and ways than they are to newness. Bacon
>> thinks we should become aware what our own tendency is so that we can make
>> corrections for it. He hopes that by becoming aware of our own mind's
>> tendencies toward loving novelty or tradition that we might be able to
>> "correct" for them and then hopefully see things more clearly and truly.
>>
>> 3. Marketplace
>>
>> We often use words very loosely in common discourse. Bacon sees nothing
>> wrong with that when we are just speaking ordinary language with friends
>> and family. But, when it comes to trying to describe the world accurately
>> and precisely, we should be aware of our tendency to use words loosely and
>> should try to correct for it. When we are trying to speak precisely we
>> should probably not say things like "The mountain is out today" (anyone
>> outside of the Puget Sound area wouldn't have a clue what this means); or
>> "The sun went under a cloud" (the sun did not go anywhere, let along
>> underneath something); or "The sun came up this morning" (the earth
>> actually just rotated). None of those sentences is precisely true, and if
>> we use language imprecisely like this it can sometimes accidentally lead to
>> huge misapprehensions about the world. Bacon thinks this misuse of words
>> and language causes far more problems than we realize.
>>
>> 4. Theatre
>>
>> If you can think of someone you know who has recently bought into a whole
>> new religion or philosophy or psychology, you can probably see how they
>> have suddenly come to interpret everything in the universe according to
>> their new world view. That world view has become the new lens through which
>> they perceive and interpret everything in their world. What Bacon says,
>> though, is that we all do this. We all interpret the world through the lens
>> of our own little world view. It's just easier to see other people doing it
>> than it is to see ourselves doing it. Bacon thinks we should become aware
>> of how these world views shape and distort our own perceptions of the world
>> so that we might be able to correct for it a bit.
>>
>> This is old work. My questions are about how we recognise the 'second
>> head' as a delusion yet move hardly at all on obvious political delusions
>> like economics, votes counting, social care, public ignorance and the
>> making invisible of many social issues. For me, deep questions on self are
>> involved. The internet self is unlikely to be, as Tony says, the same as
>> the 'real'one - but then we have know for much longer than the internet
>> people don't say the same things in different contexts. In fact the man or
>> woman in the bar often looks totally different the morning after, let alone
>> what the politician says in a speech compared with when she is with her
>> backroom boys in the spin room.
>>
>> .
>>
>> On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 10:17:04 PM UTC, archytas wrote:
>>>
>>> At least with my knowledge of delusions I can imagine certain people
>>> growing a second head overnight and shooting the wrong spare.
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 10:11:09 PM UTC, archytas wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That seems to run to form Gabby.
>>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 10:06:43 PM UTC, Gabby wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Facil picked up your question and gave his answer, I agreed and then
>>>>> came Allan barking at Facil and I told Allan to watch his tongue or leave
>>>>> to his own thread. Only then did you enter the group timeline to start
>>>>> your
>>>>> big daddy has come home show. Now tell me what my deceitful intent was
>>>>> ...
>>>>> Or better, tell me tomorrow, I'm off for today.
>>>>>
>>>>> Am Dienstag, 10. Februar 2015 schrieb archytas :
>>>>>
>>>>>> The only people I meet like that tend to be online students Tony. We
>>>>>> use Skype video conferencing for a few sessions, so have actually seen
>>>>>> each
>>>>>> other. I'm quieter than people imagine, though none have yet said
>>>>>> 'uglier'. I'm very prone to catch whatever bugs go around university
>>>>>> environments too, so rather like electronic distance. With colleagues,
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> situation is we know a lot more about each other than most in online
>>>>>> encounters.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My version has 'confusion' written through it. I say something,
>>>>>> Gabby takes it another way, or knows what I intended and chooses another
>>>>>> slant for whatever reason. Online, I assume she has a sense of humour
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> a good turn with words. Deception is not part of this in the first
>>>>>> place.
>>>>>> Just guesses with less risk than so called reality. I suppose the
>>>>>> classic
>>>>>> online deceiver is the groomer - where the intent is to set up and image
>>>>>> and then meet the victim.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 7:54:18 PM UTC, facilitator wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 2:11:33 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The delusion that we are what we project is interesting Tony.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "We claim to be what we project". Your version allows for reality
>>>>>>> mine allows for dishonesty. I think most people want to project a
>>>>>>> filtered
>>>>>>> image of themselves enough so that if we ever meet people who we've
>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>> conversed with online we become slightly astonished how different they
>>>>>>> appear and act in "real life".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in
>>>>>> the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/minds-eye/2_ICOWzarWY/unsubscribe.
>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
>>>>>> [email protected].
>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
