This here is my real lesson. You have been bringing up and pushing this idol model so many times that I have forgotten what the one was that I found better. All that I remember is that it was either located in the alchemy or in the metaphysical poetry context. It was a perfect four is all that is left. It has been overwritten by your four idols.
2015-02-11 1:35 GMT+01:00 archytas <[email protected]>: > 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 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.
