https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0jWfoRWWJo&feature=iv&src_vid=LKrKJ1kC5Gk&annotation_id=annotation_493167
Just a spoiler in case Hope decides to dish Wason tests out. Only 10% of people get logic. I'm very slow. On Monday, March 16, 2015 at 2:24:30 PM UTC, archytas wrote: > > The presence of ignorance and uncertainty gives some hope for the > reconciliation and tolerance in knowing. There is nearly always a flood of > literature not known in specific dialogues. We often re-invent square > wheels when the round ones are in mass production (though other geometric > shapes roll as well as round). The unwanted is framed out by most framing > - this is Quine's statement on three problems with empiricism. > Transparency as something we don't do much of is well-exampled in Hope's > prose, much as I pine for Gabby as a now deferred origin in bundes Hope. > > Ignorance appeals to other ignorance in various instances of 'let them eat > cake'. Manners are central to such ignorance. Hope's rhetorical tricks > look like a spur to grip false political claims (and other promises) to me, > though may insult some who have become ignorant by forgetting Gabby has > learned there are times just to listen to her son (how soppy I might say > and not think). The role of ignorance in fascism is something we should > not be ignorant of, though seem to be on a daily basis. Is ignorance > willful Hope? Will you consider that in your synthesis to full machine > linguistics of dynamic context and reception? I like machines, I say, > knowing this would spur Gabby to make the task human lest she do something > I might approve and give another fleeting pleasure - a reception thingy, > you know. > > And what of the ignorant savant? Is clever people's ability for credulous > stupidity under your synthetic consideration? Will you Wason Test the > group to expose this ignorance and risk being unpopular as a flooder from > the world of learning, in that non-ignorance that revenge will be > ignorantly inflicted on someone exposing it in others? I look forward to > the truth in ignorance your researches must lead to. I hope Hope will not > find me patronising when I step in and prevent the lynch mob? I have > borrowed Allan's pellet gun just in case. He may not approve my intent, > but as Gabby used to say, there are some things to say no to. > > On Monday, March 16, 2015 at 10:25:14 AM UTC, Hope Sunshine wrote: >> >> Flooding the system with the kind of input that probably generates the >> the most desirable output and attracts the most worthy recipients is >> another strategy when looking at a power circuit. This is what I see >> demonstrated here. >> >> With respect to ignorance and ignoring the unwanted, Neil's input is much >> better received than Andrew's offered material. I suspect this is so >> because Andrew's material in all its "wild" constructedness far to often >> violates the "natural" law of personal eco-nomical value that the not to be >> ignored material has to have for the receiver. >> >> Very well, people. Is there anything else you feel we need to bring up >> here to get a clearer picture of how ignorance functions and for what >> purpose? >> >> >> 2015-03-16 5:27 GMT+01:00 archytas <[email protected]>: >> >>> I suppose a philosophy that includes ignorance is not known here either. >>> >>> Science and religion are very different types of human practices. >>> Science is about understanding human and nonhuman nature without invoking >>> God, and religion is about relating to God. One can explore what scientific >>> and religious practices can have in common, when viewed from the >>> perspective of the American philosopher William James (1842–1910). I am >>> specifically interested here in the roles of emotion and the metaphysics of >>> experience in characterizing both types of practices. How do emotion and >>> the metaphysics of experience—and corresponding intimations of the >>> sacred—relate to the irreducible uncertainty and *ignorance* that >>> characterize both science and religion? And what does this imply for the >>> relationship between uncertainty and God? >>> >>> >>> One cannot do this alone: On William James's view truth and the process >>> of establishing it is social, . . . most basically because reality >>> itself—including the knowers and the known, concepts and objects, and the >>> true and the real—is social in the most fundamental and human senses. The >>> sociality of pragmatism's understanding of truth takes a central position >>> in James's radical empiricism. >>> >>> Yet this social world is largely one of ignorance so severe few read or >>> can stand breach of their parochial mentality, even give time for others. >>> What would ignorance be if you read this - >>> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1111/zygo.12138/ - ? >>> >>> What ignorance is involved in not reading? Or considering those who >>> don't ignorant? Or only being able to read into others' exchanges what one >>> might mean oneself in terms of one's own parochial, possibly >>> patriarchal manners? >>> >>> .On Monday, March 16, 2015 at 2:54:28 AM UTC, archytas wrote: >>>> >>>> *Biocultural evolution* refers to (1) the emergence, within the >>>> physical realm, of biological processes of evolution that themselves >>>> generate the phenomenon of culture; and (2) to the distinctive, >>>> non-Darwinian, dynamic processes by which culture proceeds, while at the >>>> same time existing in a relationship of symbiosis with the >>>> physical-biological processes in which it emerged and in which it >>>> continues >>>> to operate. >>>> >>>> If bearing the image of God means exercising creativity in ways that >>>> share power and produce good, the development and use of technologies that >>>> systematically exclude individuals or groups from access to them and their >>>> benefits will surely entail the added cost of further marginalizing and >>>> oppressing those unable to embody (or flourish alongside) novel versions >>>> of >>>> humanity that become *de facto*normative. Additionally, the collateral >>>> damage of “progress” in the forms of environmental degradation, the >>>> negative ecological and socioeconomic effects of anthropogenic climate >>>> change, and the irreversible loss of biodiversity are incompatible with >>>> the >>>> conceptions of creator and created co-creation constructed above. These >>>> affronts to human dignity and ecological integrity are creation through >>>> violence. Therefore, these antitheses to wholesomeness cannot reside >>>> within >>>> the semantic range or hermeneutical trajectory of the command to “be >>>> fruitful and multiply; fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over” its >>>> creatures. >>>> >>>> As created co-creators with an eye to the future, *Homo sapiens* have >>>> come to realize that in part, the human condition means not having to >>>> settle for its givenness. Theologian and biochemist Arthur Peacocke >>>> observes that “we are capable of forms of happiness and misery quite >>>> unknown to other creatures, thereby evidencing a ‘dis-ease’ with our >>>> evolved state, a lack of fit which calls for explanation and, if possible, >>>> cure” As products of *Homo sapiens’* ethically ambivalent biocultural >>>> nature, whatever “cures” we create are true *pharmakoi*—potentially >>>> both poison and remedy. We could direct our human future toward the latter. >>>> >>>> So what is ignorance when one can put up questions on deep green and no >>>> Christians know their own analysis? Is ignorance something essential to >>>> faith? What is it we do when we squabble rather than read, think and >>>> share? Is it worth knowing anything in order to be received as a >>>> smart-arse or holy? What causes human silencing? Once one knows how can >>>> one speak without revealing others' ignorance and various reactions to >>>> keep >>>> their own ignorance intact, silenced and politely, manneredly, violently >>>> quieted? Speak up Gabby - you know, in that way you say as little as >>>> possible, requiring others to define terms and do the work for you. How >>>> about a theatre of the oppressed? You have enough actors to put one a >>>> one-girl Gemini show. I like the honesty in your deceit. >>>> >>>> On Monday, March 16, 2015 at 1:53:06 AM UTC, archytas wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps the most spectacular development in recent history has been >>>>> the truly amazing rise of the importance of science, and the effect it is >>>>> having on every facet of human life. No less amazing, particularly to the >>>>> scientist, is the equally spectacular lack of understanding of the >>>>> scientific endeavor which the non-scientist not only exhibits but seems >>>>> to >>>>> revel in. >>>>> >>>>> A present-day educated man would be disdainfully scornful of anyone >>>>> who knew nothing of the writings of Dante or Homer, the paintings of EI >>>>> Greco or Renoir, or the music of Telemann or Verdi. Yet, this same man is >>>>> heard to brag that he never could pass elementary physics and that >>>>> high-school biology made him sick at his stomach. >>>>> >>>>> The intellectual of the future not only will know something of science >>>>> but will be so attuned to its intellectual discipline that he can use its >>>>> relevant teachings to make progress in his own field of learning. We are >>>>> gathered together here not to look backward or even at the present but >>>>> forward to the future to try to plot a course for theology in the modern >>>>> idiom—to search for the relevancy of all aspects of the modern world to >>>>> the >>>>> highest aspirations and goals toward which men strive. >>>>> >>>>> Specifically what I want to address my remarks to is the thesis that >>>>> theologians have much to learn from the methodology and intellectual >>>>> discipline of the scientist. In my opinion a knowledge of the >>>>> intellectual >>>>> procedures in common use by a research physicist in his search for the >>>>> organization of the universe is far from irrelevant in developing a >>>>> modern >>>>> epistemology for theology. … >>>>> >>>>> *Of course, most people are happy to learn as little as possible to >>>>> get by (ignorance)*. The above is from a 1966 issue of Zygon, a >>>>> journal on science and religion - http://www.zygonjournal.org/ >>>>> index.htm - you can look at the odd article and abstracts there, >>>>> though sadly the journal itself is very expensive. >>>>> >>>>> Today's ecological, technological, and social world presents a very >>>>> different context than that of the original audience of Genesis. To “fill >>>>> the earth and subdue it” were not the immanent possibilities and problems >>>>> they are today. On the other hand, the creaturely environment in and >>>>> through which humanity has emerged to bear the image of God continues to >>>>> present limits and challenges to promoting wholesomeness. Bearing the >>>>> image >>>>> and likeness of the creator depicted in Genesis means striving to meet >>>>> each >>>>> new challenge with creativity and compassion. In Ancient Near Eastern >>>>> contexts these challenges arose in part from a frustrating inability for >>>>> humankind to influence and control its natural and social environments. >>>>> In >>>>> contemporary contexts, especially in developed nations, these challenges >>>>> arise from an apparent inability for humanity to curb its detrimental >>>>> influence and control over its natural and social environments. >>>>> >>>>> 1. >>>>> The cosmology of Genesis 1, along with its mention of the image of >>>>> God, is very likely a polemical ideological critique of the Babylonian >>>>> cosmology depicted in EE, in which the god Marduk ascends to power >>>>> through >>>>> military and political conquest >>>>> After becoming chief among the gods, Marduk creates the heavens and >>>>> earth by killing and mutilating the body of Tiamat, the goddess >>>>> representing the chaos of the deep salt seas. He and his ally Ea create >>>>> human beings from the blood of Tiamat's consort, Qingu, as a means of >>>>> punishing this rival and for the purpose of conscripting creatures who >>>>> toil >>>>> in order to provide the gods with sustenance and occasion to rest. >>>>> 2. >>>>> The order and means of creation and the purposes of created entities >>>>> are similar in Genesis and EE. Both Marduk and Elohim create through fiat >>>>> and separating—light from dark, waters from waters, heavens from the >>>>> Earth, >>>>> and water from land. Heavenly luminaries also bear similar functions in >>>>> each account. Both cosmologies define the role of the sun, moon, and >>>>> stars >>>>> in marking the passage of days and seasons. However, since the ancient >>>>> Israelites do not involve heavenly bodies in worship, the luminaries are >>>>> given a lower status—they “serve” not as divine sources of light but as >>>>> carriers of light to govern the day and night.. Further, Elohim does not >>>>> create by separating the body parts of dead deities. The forces of chaos, >>>>> Marduk must overcome in order to create, are utterly depersonified in the >>>>> Genesis cosmology. The goddess Tiamat is almost unrecognizable as the >>>>> tehom—the deep sea—over which the breath (ruach) of God so effortlessly >>>>> hovers. By contrast, Marduk must breathe or otherwise conjure a great >>>>> wind >>>>> to disturb the insides of Tiamat, affording him the opportunity to kill >>>>> her, and only then to create. Yahweh Elohim is not a mere replacement of >>>>> Marduk. The Israelites’ God has no personal rivals, and whatever >>>>> semblance >>>>> of primordial chaos can be found in Genesis 1, it is brushed aside by the >>>>> constitutive utterance, “Let there be…” In Genesis created reality and >>>>> its >>>>> purposes come about through acts of divine freedom and generosity, rather >>>>> than retribution and necessity. Yahweh Elohim empowers the creation to >>>>> “bring forth” what it will and sees “that it was good.” Creation in the >>>>> Hebrew Bible is an act of liberation rather than subjugation. >>>>> 3. >>>>> Finally, both cosmologies call for political and ethical mimesis . >>>>> With EE the move from myth to ritual and politics is more straightforward >>>>> than with the Genesis cosmology. Imperial conquest, such as that of the >>>>> Southern Kingdom of Judah ca. 587–538 BCE, is a reenactment Marduk's rise >>>>> to power over the forces of chaos. Captive peoples then provide the labor >>>>> force on which Babylonian society and its elite depended. In the drama >>>>> surrounding the annual New Year's festival (Akitu), the Babylonian king >>>>> stood in as Marduk, a representation or “image” of this god on earth, set >>>>> there to implement divine purposes. I really hate the rationalisation of >>>>> slavery. >>>>> Against this conceptual backdrop, it would appear that in the Genesis >>>>> cosmology the royal image concept is democratized. It still bears a >>>>> functional purpose, but in very different ways. In the midst of being >>>>> “subdued” and “ruled over” in captivity, the Israelites are called in >>>>> hope >>>>> against hope to bear the image and likeness of God, as they “fill the >>>>> earth, and subdue it; and rule over” its creatures, while deriving >>>>> sustenance from its plant life . Yahweh Elohim is able to rest after >>>>> creating humankind, but not due to the fruits of human labor (Genesis >>>>> 2:3). >>>>> Rather, this creator calls humankind to take part in this Sabbath rest, >>>>> as >>>>> Exodus 20:8–11 records. More than a despotic ruler, royal statue, or a >>>>> mute >>>>> idol, all humankind bears an “image” of God that is a “likeness” unto >>>>> divine agency. >>>>> >>>>> What is ignorance when one can leave the average Christian in the dust >>>>> on their own? Francis will know loads more than me on this kind of >>>>> stuff. >>>>> I was distracted learning biochemistry. What is ignorance? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Monday, March 16, 2015 at 1:19:51 AM UTC, archytas wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Good thinking in there Andrew. The eventual morality is not good for >>>>>> free speech. It is possible to put aside manners and question what role >>>>>> they play in ignorance and bullying. I assume this is part of Gabby's >>>>>> frame of underlying violence. Trust is involved in this, assuming >>>>>> others >>>>>> aren't the sort to really lurk in shadows with an ice pick of revenge. >>>>>> There have been many polite societies living in the comfort of manners, >>>>>> etiquette and politesse on the backs of slaves - all really full of >>>>>> arrogance, disrespect and hypocrisy concealed in "learning". The >>>>>> violence >>>>>> of society civilised by manners has been explored (Norbert Elias). >>>>>> There's >>>>>> a rather wonderful film - 'Burke and Hare' - that links the >>>>>> body-snatchers >>>>>> to Darwin and stresses hypocrisy. There's a brilliantly funny sex scene >>>>>> in >>>>>> it, lamentably unusual. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't really know what Gabby's frame is, though she has been >>>>>> courteous to say I still come out to play..As a kid I was dragged along >>>>>> to >>>>>> play with various cousins I had nothing in common with and some poor sod >>>>>> who was locked in his room to learn piano two hours a day - and would >>>>>> have >>>>>> been his punching bag if not too quick on my feet. It's hard to know >>>>>> where >>>>>> the therapy line is drawn. >>>>>> >>>>>> There are many frames of interpretation. Gabby may even have been >>>>>> instructing us on various roles and our lack of imagination, perhaps >>>>>> even >>>>>> of the stubbornness of people who will speak in front of others. Most >>>>>> people are chronically petty and insular to their own world view - at >>>>>> least >>>>>> as evidenced in our literature and whatever the internet is. The tree >>>>>> falls silently in a beige universe, whose signals we turn into a virtual >>>>>> cognition (though there is one-way creation in this interpretation). >>>>>> Such >>>>>> pennies rarely drop in our education system. >>>>>> >>>>>> We talk framed by context - even the idea of 'staying on thread' is a >>>>>> frame of violence, given we often solve difficult problems from left >>>>>> field >>>>>> and new frames. In academic staff meetings, one frame is making sure >>>>>> you >>>>>> leave the room with nothing to do, and put students into groups and you >>>>>> 'find' (already know) they will just discover how pointless other people >>>>>> are other than to their own idle yet libidinous plan. The phrase 'work >>>>>> out >>>>>> what you want to do' instigates panic they run away from. The better >>>>>> kids >>>>>> soon desert the others. >>>>>> >>>>>> One can guess the frame of another and play its games in an attempt >>>>>> to understand them. What do you do with someone who doesn't know of the >>>>>> beige universe, its silent falling trees and on to quasars spinning at a >>>>>> quarter of the speed of light? And those kids who can't or won't listen >>>>>> to >>>>>> this other, turning everything to the soggy mediocrity of their own >>>>>> comfort? Including the teacher who tells the kids all sorts of >>>>>> 'comforting' (to her) stuff about the education they can't do in later >>>>>> life? Gabby hits some nails, though I think some of them get bent and >>>>>> need >>>>>> to be taken out and straightened to better explanation. >>>>>> >>>>>> Feedback that Bitcoin is boring, old hat and so on, is rather like >>>>>> the falling tree - the argument should lead to recognition of how >>>>>> conventional money is and how we might change it. This is a tough ask >>>>>> here, when less than 10% of our MPs know nearly all money is created by >>>>>> private banks - though one suspects the real problem is not just >>>>>> ignorance >>>>>> but an unwillingness to give to the argument of another. Gabby's Hope >>>>>> Sunshine was at least a very clever attempt at non-verbal conversation >>>>>> in >>>>>> text production. I rather admire the woman - but don't tell her ... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sunday, March 15, 2015 at 5:54:52 PM UTC, andrew vecsey wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I was just responding to your question. I will try to explain. Let`s >>>>>>> say that you are "bullied" by me and ignore me for it. As I understood >>>>>>> your >>>>>>> question, you were pondering what happens next. How do I respond to >>>>>>> that. >>>>>>> One way or ways I might respond is to change your ignoring me to trying >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> make you look or feel ignorant. How can I do that? I give 4 possible >>>>>>> scenarios. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. I could continue to bully you anonymously or to make you >>>>>>> think that I am not the only one who is bullying you by bullying you >>>>>>> in the >>>>>>> name of another name. >>>>>>> 2. I could try to derail you or your line of thought hoping you >>>>>>> will feel confused and frustrated and weakened. >>>>>>> 3. I could make it all into a joke belittling you and making fun >>>>>>> of you >>>>>>> 4. I could combine the 3 ways above by using something that >>>>>>> people consider very "deep with meaning" but is actually >>>>>>> meaningless. For >>>>>>> example I could refer your reaction to a well known work of art by >>>>>>> Picasso >>>>>>> that many claim has deep underlying genius, or say something like >>>>>>> "Does a >>>>>>> falling tree make a sound when there is no one to hear it?" leaving >>>>>>> you >>>>>>> hopefully a bit confused. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As far as hearing in my reply "blind allegations", your hearing is >>>>>>> right on. That is the reply to your other question pondering how we the >>>>>>> members identify ourselves with in such a situation. My allegation is >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> we all use these ways to turn being ignored into ignorance. And that >>>>>>> sometimes we are blind and do not see that when we try to make someone >>>>>>> else >>>>>>> look or feel ignorant, we are also showing our own ignorance. I claim >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> disrespect, arrogance, and hypocrisy are all faces of ignorance. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sunday, March 15, 2015 at 3:17:56 PM UTC+1, Hope Sunshine wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hello and thank you for entering this multilogue here Andrew! >>>>>>>> Unfortunately I cannot make any real connections to what you are >>>>>>>> saying >>>>>>>> here, all I see is blind allegations. But maybe the others will be >>>>>>>> able to >>>>>>>> make their rhyme on it. Cheers anyways. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Am Sonntag, 15. März 2015 09:24:56 UTC+1 schrieb andrew vecsey: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Your very interesting question has been ignored by all "thinkers" >>>>>>>>> in this group of thinkers, except for facilitator who points out the >>>>>>>>> difference between "ignoring" and "ignorance". >>>>>>>>> As to your question of where the "unwanted that is ignored" go? >>>>>>>>> For those who successfully ignore it, it shouldn`t matter. It seeks >>>>>>>>> attention elsewhere by changing its form. This can be done by various >>>>>>>>> ways >>>>>>>>> or combinations of ways such as: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1. Changing its name to a new name, AKA "hiding behind a new >>>>>>>>> ID", or "showing weakness", >>>>>>>>> 2. Derailing the topic AKA "going off topic" or "showing >>>>>>>>> ignorance". >>>>>>>>> 3. Making fun of it,AKA "showing arrogance". >>>>>>>>> 4. Using shallow and meaningless words that can not be >>>>>>>>> understood and normally assumed to be "deep", AKA "being a >>>>>>>>> hypocrite". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 12:01:33 PM UTC+1, Hope Sunshine >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hello my fellow sunshiners, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> how is everyone doing today? Giving the best you can? Great! :-) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Let's if we can push it a little further and take a closer look >>>>>>>>>> at the argument that ignoring the unwanted is a viable strategy in >>>>>>>>>> surviving in systems that depend on the existence of bullies. >>>>>>>>>> How much con you identify with seeing yourself placed in such a >>>>>>>>>> system? Which role would you like to take there? Where to can the >>>>>>>>>> ignored >>>>>>>>>> "stuff" escape? >>>>>>>>>> Any suggestions? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Speak up as not to be spoken for, my fellow sunshiners. :-) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-eD7JydMkCX8/VQFx6FKiG5I/AAAAAAAAABY/F00luPRrYkg/s1600/Speak%2BUp.jpg> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>> >>> --- >>> 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/ZaPdJloGGKg/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. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> *"as well as" = "equals"* >> Take a stand against sexism, racism and other forms of structural >> violence! >> > -- --- 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.
