Re: [FRIAM] So disjointed

[Frank Wimberly]

You solved a problem for me, Roger.  I haven't gotten any mail from Nick
for several weeks.  I could only see his messages when they were quoted in
other emails.  I looked in my spam folder and there they were.  My Android
mail client kindly asked me if I wanted to unblock the sender.

Among other things I see that Nick gave a brief description of Hywel
(pronounced Howell) as I did.

Thanks!

---
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

On Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 9:43 PM Roger Critchlow  wrote:

> I wondered why the discussions on friam had been so incomplete lately.
> Gmail was storing most of them in my spam folder, 32 threads spam canned in
> 30 days.
>
> -- rec --
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[FRIAM] So disjointed

[Roger Critchlow]

I wondered why the discussions on friam had been so incomplete lately.
Gmail was storing most of them in my spam folder, 32 threads spam canned in
30 days.

-- rec --

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] flattening -isms

[Nick Thompson]

Sorry, Steve, to have taken you name in vain.  

 

I thought the views expressed were a bit more Steve-ish than Dave-ish … (};-)]  
So, what is the difference between Steve-ish and Dave-ish on this topic?  

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

  
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2019 10:55 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] flattening -isms

 

 

Nick -

No, Steve.  Absolutely not.  No Way.  

Whether FriAM's server or my mailer's mode of larding vs your mode of reading 
it, you misattribute these words to me when they were in fact Dave's...  what 
follows *after* that, namely the Lakoff/Nunez reference and discussion of that 
perspective is mine.

Carry on!

 - Steve

 

How about an assertion that there is A Reality beyond "ordinary" experience; 
with "ordinary experience" being the half-dozen or so overt sensory inputs 
(sight, sound, balance, touch, taste, smell)  we typically associate with 
experience

 

No.  There lies spiritualist blather.  Having pried me away from my monism, you 
are driving me back toward it.  Ex hypothesi, what ever your R. B. O. E. might 
be asserted to be, it is, in fact, a construction of experience.  Because, we 
agreed, there is no other source, right?  Now, if you want to introduce God’s 
Love or Extra Sensory Intuition, or the Wisdom of the Spheres, we can talk.  
But e   ven if you stipulate additonal senses, beyond the six, they are still 
contributing to experience.  Unless you are willing to stipulate some other 
source of knowledge beyond experience, we have to admit that while some 
experiences, because of their capacity to integrate others, get the label 
“extra ordinary” they must be, after all, just experiences and experiences of 
other experiences, ad infinitum.  To assert more is to engage in 
epistemological smugness.  

 

By the way, the FRIAM server continues to mix things up, putting little 
obstacles to our communication.  So, for instance, I don’t have Dave’s original 
response to what Steve responded to. 

 

Nick 

 

  Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

  
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2019 9:28 AM
To: friam@redfish.com  
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] flattening -isms

 

 

On 11/18/19 5:13 AM, Prof David West wrote:

Nick said:

 

"What struck me about them was how many of them held the view that reality was 
beyond experience: i.e., that our experience provided clues to reality, but the 
thing itself was beyond experience.  I never could convince them that that 
their belief in a reality beyond experience had to be based on … experience.  
So, why not be monists, and talk about organizations of experience.  
Ultimately, it was their dualism that confirmed me in my monism."

 

How about an assertion that there is A Reality beyond "ordinary" experience; 
with "ordinary experience" being the half-dozen or so overt sensory inputs 
(sight, sound, balance, touch, taste, smell)  we typically associate with 
experience.

I generally accept Nunez/Lakoff's position/arguement in Where Mathematics Comes 
From:

from the Wikipedia article on this book:

Lakoff and Núñez hold that mathematics results from the human cognitive 
apparatus and must therefore be understood in cognitive terms. WMCF advocates 
(and includes some examples of) a cognitive idea analysis of mathematics 
  which analyzes mathematical ideas 
in terms of the human experiences, metaphors, generalizations, and other 
cognitive mechanisms giving rise to them. A standard mathematical education 
does not develop such idea analysis techniques because it does not pursue 
considerations of A) what structures of the mind allow it to do mathematics or 
B) the philosophy of mathematics 
 . 

This point may well support Dave's hermeneutical position, though Lakoff/Nunez 
do assume that there is such a thing as a human body and that all humans 
roughly share the same physical/sensory/cognitive apparatus.
...

The one cultural universal: every culture (obviously not every individual in 
every culture) incorporates a belief in the "supernatural." In all but, maybe, 
2-3, cultures the "supernatural" includes an alternative realm of existence 
(pre- and/or after-life or "other planes."  The, interpretations of this 
universal are multiple - pretty much one per culture/subculture.

And where does Joseph Campbell's notion of the Monomyth come in?   Is it merely 

Re: [FRIAM] flattening -isms

[Russell Standish]

On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 12:27:39PM -0700, Nick Thompson wrote:
> 
> By the way, speaking of etymology, to be hoist by one’s own petard is to be
> ejected from one’s own saddle by the force of one’s own fart.  Look it up.

Thanks for this. I always knew that petard meant fart, since schoolboy
French anyway, but did ocasionally wonder how you get hoisted by a
fart.



-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] flattening -isms

[Steven A Smith]

Nick -
>
> No, Steve.  Absolutely not.  No Way. 
>
Whether FriAM's server or my mailer's mode of larding vs your mode of
reading it, you misattribute these words to me when they were in fact
Dave's...  what follows *after* that, namely the Lakoff/Nunez reference
and discussion of that perspective is mine.

Carry on!

 - Steve

>  
>
> How about an assertion that there is *_A_* Reality beyond
> *_"ordinary"_* experience; with "ordinary experience" being the
> half-dozen or so overt sensory inputs (sight, sound, balance, touch,
> taste, smell)  we typically associate with experience
>
>  
>
> No.  There lies spiritualist blather.  Having pried me away from my
> monism, you are driving me back toward it.  */Ex hypothesi/*, what
> ever your R. B. O. E. might be asserted to be, it is, in fact, a
> construction of experience.  Because, we agreed, there is no other
> source, right?  Now, if you want to introduce God’s Love or Extra
> Sensory Intuition, or the Wisdom of the Spheres, we can talk.  But e  
> ven if you stipulate additonal senses, beyond the six, they are still
> contributing to experience.  Unless you are willing to stipulate some
> other source of knowledge beyond experience, we have to admit that
> while some experiences, because of their capacity to integrate others,
> get the label “extra ordinary” they must be, after all, just
> experiences and experiences of other experiences, ad infinitum.  To
> assert more is to engage in epistemological smugness. 
>
>  
>
> By the way, the FRIAM server continues to mix things up, putting
> little obstacles to our communication.  So, for instance, I don’t have
> Dave’s original response to what Steve responded to.
>
>  
>
> Nick
>
>  
>
>   Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>  
>
> *From:*Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Steven
> A Smith
> *Sent:* Monday, November 18, 2019 9:28 AM
> *To:* friam@redfish.com
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] flattening -isms
>
>  
>
>  
>
> On 11/18/19 5:13 AM, Prof David West wrote:
>
> Nick said:
>
>  
>
> /"What struck me about them was how many of them held the view
> that reality was beyond experience: i.e., that our experience
> provided clues to reality, but the thing itself was beyond
> experience.  I never could convince them that that their belief in
> a reality beyond experience had to be based on … experience.  So,
> why not be monists, and talk about organizations of experience. 
> Ultimately, it was their dualism that confirmed me in my monism."/
>
>  
>
> How about an assertion that there is *_A_* Reality beyond
> *_"ordinary"_* experience; with "ordinary experience" being the
> half-dozen or so overt sensory inputs (sight, sound, balance,
> touch, taste, smell)  we typically associate with experience.
>
> I generally accept Nunez/Lakoff's position/arguement in Where
> Mathematics Comes From:
>
> from the Wikipedia article on this book:
>
> /Lakoff and Núñez hold that mathematics results from the human
> cognitive apparatus and must therefore be understood in cognitive
> terms. WMCF advocates (and includes some examples of) a cognitive
> idea analysis of mathematics
>  which analyzes
> mathematical ideas in terms of the human experiences, metaphors,
> generalizations, and other cognitive mechanisms giving rise to
> them. A standard mathematical education does not develop such idea
> analysis techniques because it does not pursue considerations of
> A) what structures of the mind allow it to do mathematics or B)
> the philosophy of mathematics
> . /
>
> This point may well support Dave's hermeneutical position, though
> Lakoff/Nunez do assume that there is such a thing as a human body and
> that all humans roughly share the same physical/sensory/cognitive
> apparatus.
> ...
>
> The one cultural universal: every culture (obviously not every
> individual in every culture) incorporates a belief in the
> "supernatural." In all but, maybe, 2-3, cultures the
> "supernatural" includes an alternative realm of existence (pre-
> and/or after-life or "other planes."  The, interpretations of this
> universal are multiple - pretty much one per culture/subculture.
>
> And where does Joseph Campbell's notion of the Monomyth come in?   Is
> it merely "widely found", or perhaps just "cherry picked" by Western
> Anthropology?
>
> I am reminded of the Rick Strassman's research into entheogens, with
> DMT/Ayhuasca in particular.   He seems to suggest/report that it is
> universal that people tripping on DMT will experience culturally
> specific interpretations (in the sense of your use of the term I
> think) of "another plane" and "alien beings"  which could range from
> 

Re: [FRIAM] flattening -isms

[Nick Thompson]

No, Steve.  Absolutely not.  No Way.  

 

How about an assertion that there is A Reality beyond "ordinary" experience; 
with "ordinary experience" being the half-dozen or so overt sensory inputs 
(sight, sound, balance, touch, taste, smell)  we typically associate with 
experience

 

No.  There lies spiritualist blather.  Having pried me away from my monism, you 
are driving me back toward it.  Ex hypothesi, what ever your R. B. O. E. might 
be asserted to be, it is, in fact, a construction of experience.  Because, we 
agreed, there is no other source, right?  Now, if you want to introduce God’s 
Love or Extra Sensory Intuition, or the Wisdom of the Spheres, we can talk.  
But e   ven if you stipulate additonal senses, beyond the six, they are still 
contributing to experience.  Unless you are willing to stipulate some other 
source of knowledge beyond experience, we have to admit that while some 
experiences, because of their capacity to integrate others, get the label 
“extra ordinary” they must be, after all, just experiences and experiences of 
other experiences, ad infinitum.  To assert more is to engage in 
epistemological smugness.  

 

By the way, the FRIAM server continues to mix things up, putting little 
obstacles to our communication.  So, for instance, I don’t have Dave’s original 
response to what Steve responded to. 

 

Nick 

 

  Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

  
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2019 9:28 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] flattening -isms

 

 

On 11/18/19 5:13 AM, Prof David West wrote:

Nick said:

 

"What struck me about them was how many of them held the view that reality was 
beyond experience: i.e., that our experience provided clues to reality, but the 
thing itself was beyond experience.  I never could convince them that that 
their belief in a reality beyond experience had to be based on … experience.  
So, why not be monists, and talk about organizations of experience.  
Ultimately, it was their dualism that confirmed me in my monism."

 

How about an assertion that there is A Reality beyond "ordinary" experience; 
with "ordinary experience" being the half-dozen or so overt sensory inputs 
(sight, sound, balance, touch, taste, smell)  we typically associate with 
experience.

I generally accept Nunez/Lakoff's position/arguement in Where Mathematics Comes 
From:

from the Wikipedia article on this book:

Lakoff and Núñez hold that mathematics results from the human cognitive 
apparatus and must therefore be understood in cognitive terms. WMCF advocates 
(and includes some examples of) a cognitive idea analysis of mathematics 
  which analyzes mathematical ideas 
in terms of the human experiences, metaphors, generalizations, and other 
cognitive mechanisms giving rise to them. A standard mathematical education 
does not develop such idea analysis techniques because it does not pursue 
considerations of A) what structures of the mind allow it to do mathematics or 
B) the philosophy of mathematics 
 . 

This point may well support Dave's hermeneutical position, though Lakoff/Nunez 
do assume that there is such a thing as a human body and that all humans 
roughly share the same physical/sensory/cognitive apparatus.
...

The one cultural universal: every culture (obviously not every individual in 
every culture) incorporates a belief in the "supernatural." In all but, maybe, 
2-3, cultures the "supernatural" includes an alternative realm of existence 
(pre- and/or after-life or "other planes."  The, interpretations of this 
universal are multiple - pretty much one per culture/subculture.

And where does Joseph Campbell's notion of the Monomyth come in?   Is it merely 
"widely found", or perhaps just "cherry picked" by Western Anthropology?

I am reminded of the Rick Strassman's research into entheogens, with 
DMT/Ayhuasca in particular.   He seems to suggest/report that it is universal 
that people tripping on DMT will experience culturally specific interpretations 
(in the sense of your use of the term I think) of "another plane" and "alien 
beings"  which could range from angels/demons harkening from heaven/hell to 
multidimensional alien beings and parallel existences.

- Steve

 

 


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] flattening -isms

[Nick Thompson]

 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

  
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2019 9:28 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] flattening -isms

 

 

On 11/18/19 5:13 AM, Prof David West wrote:

Nick said:

 

"What struck me about them was how many of them held the view that reality was 
beyond experience: i.e., that our experience provided clues to reality, but the 
thing itself was beyond experience.  I never could convince them that that 
their belief in a reality beyond experience had to be based on … experience.  
So, why not be monists, and talk about organizations of experience.  
Ultimately, it was their dualism that confirmed me in my monism."

 

How about an assertion that there is A Reality beyond "ordinary" experience; 
with "ordinary experience" being the half-dozen or so overt sensory inputs 
(sight, sound, balance, touch, taste, smell)  we typically associate with 
experience.

I generally accept Nunez/Lakoff's position/arguement in Where Mathematics Comes 
From:

from the Wikipedia article on this book:

Lakoff and Núñez hold that mathematics results from the human cognitive 
apparatus and must therefore be understood in cognitive terms. WMCF advocates 
(and includes some examples of) a cognitive idea analysis of mathematics 
  which analyzes mathematical ideas 
in terms of the human experiences, metaphors, generalizations, and other 
cognitive mechanisms giving rise to them. A standard mathematical education 
does not develop such idea analysis techniques because it does not pursue 
considerations of A) what structures of the mind allow it to do mathematics or 
B) the philosophy of mathematics 
 . 

This point may well support Dave's hermeneutical position, though Lakoff/Nunez 
do assume that there is such a thing as a human body and that all humans 
roughly share the same physical/sensory/cognitive apparatus.
...

The one cultural universal: every culture (obviously not every individual in 
every culture) incorporates a belief in the "supernatural." In all but, maybe, 
2-3, cultures the "supernatural" includes an alternative realm of existence 
(pre- and/or after-life or "other planes."  The, interpretations of this 
universal are multiple - pretty much one per culture/subculture.

And where does Joseph Campbell's notion of the Monomyth come in?   Is it merely 
"widely found", or perhaps just "cherry picked" by Western Anthropology?

I am reminded of the Rick Strassman's research into entheogens, with 
DMT/Ayhuasca in particular.   He seems to suggest/report that it is universal 
that people tripping on DMT will experience culturally specific interpretations 
(in the sense of your use of the term I think) of "another plane" and "alien 
beings"  which could range from angels/demons harkening from heaven/hell to 
multidimensional alien beings and parallel existences.

- Steve

 

 


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] flattening -isms

[Steven A Smith]

On 11/18/19 5:13 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> Nick said:
>
> /"What struck me about them was how many of them held the view that
> reality was beyond experience: i.e., that our experience provided
> clues to reality, but the thing itself was beyond experience.  I never
> could convince them that that their belief in a reality beyond
> experience had to be based on … experience.  So, why not be monists,
> and talk about organizations of experience.  Ultimately, it was their
> dualism that confirmed me in my monism."/
>
> How about an assertion that there is *_A_* Reality beyond
> *_"ordinary"_* experience; with "ordinary experience" being the
> half-dozen or so overt sensory inputs (sight, sound, balance, touch,
> taste, smell)  we typically associate with experience.

I generally accept Nunez/Lakoff's position/arguement in Where
Mathematics Comes From:

from the Wikipedia article on this book:

/Lakoff and Núñez hold that mathematics results from the human
cognitive apparatus and must therefore be understood in cognitive
terms. //WMCF//advocates (and includes some examples of) a
//cognitive idea analysis//of //mathematics
//which analyzes
mathematical ideas in terms of the human experiences, metaphors,
generalizations, and other cognitive mechanisms giving rise to them.
A standard mathematical education does not develop such idea
analysis techniques because it does not pursue considerations of A)
what structures of the mind allow it to do mathematics or B) the
//philosophy of mathematics
//.
/

This point may well support Dave's hermeneutical position, though
Lakoff/Nunez do assume that there is such a thing as a human body and
that all humans roughly share the same physical/sensory/cognitive apparatus.
...

> The one cultural universal: every culture (obviously not every
> individual in every culture) incorporates a belief in the
> "supernatural." In all but, maybe, 2-3, cultures the "supernatural"
> includes an alternative realm of existence (pre- and/or after-life or
> "other planes."  The, interpretations of this universal are multiple -
> pretty much one per culture/subculture.

And where does Joseph Campbell's notion of the Monomyth come in?   Is it
merely "widely found", or perhaps just "cherry picked" by Western
Anthropology?

I am reminded of the Rick Strassman's research into entheogens, with
DMT/Ayhuasca in particular.   He seems to suggest/report that it is
universal that people tripping on DMT will experience culturally
specific interpretations (in the sense of your use of the term I think)
of "another plane" and "alien beings"  which could range from
angels/demons harkening from heaven/hell to multidimensional alien
beings and parallel existences.

- Steve




FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] capitalism vs. individualism

[Steven A Smith]

Dave -

> Previously, I noted: "Asserting that all is interpretation is an
> invitation to engage in a conversation about "meaning" or "reality"
> from a level playing field — i.e. absent any grant of privilege to one
> interpretation over another; and, any expectation that somewhere,
> somehow, even the most consensual and widely shared interpretation
> can, or will, morph into some kind of "fact" or "truth."
It sounds like you think there is such a thing as "a level playing
field"?  Or perhaps you just want us to grant that as either axiomatic
or self-evident?
> Both axiomatic statements and "self-evident truths" (Declaration of
> Independence) are consensual assumptions about an interpretation; an
> agreement that said statements are reasonably "correct" and
> sufficiently shared among ourselves, that we can use them as starting
> points for conversations about "reality" (e.g. constants like e, c,
> and i, or relationships like E= M times Csquared) or the "meaning" of
> something (e.g what it is to be self governing).
I agree that axioms and self-evident truths are consensual
assumptions.   The distinction for me is that while both are
fundamentally utlititarian or pragmatic, the latter carry an emotional
weight.   "self-evident truths" represent a starting point which somehow
reflects something more deeply shared among those who hold them.   I'm
sure that there were British Loyalists (including or acutely so, wealthy
property owners who benefited significantly under British rule) who did
NOT "hold these truths" and either fled the revolution or adopted the
pretense of sharing and remained in place trying to "game" the new
system forming around them.    The most fundamental example of this
would be the majority of the "founding fathers" who could out of one
side of their mouths (or inkwells) utter "all men are created equal"
whilst presuming to *own* men (and women and children) as chattel
property.  Similarly the question of women's property rights, voting
rights, coverture, etc.  this issue dovetails with the incomplete thread
with Glen on the topic of "what means ownership".  
> Conversations, so begun, can weave a tapestry of interpretation that
> can be wonderfully useful, deeply enriching, psychologically
> comforting, socially beneficial, technologically advancing, etc.
>
> Problems, inevitable it seems, arise when it is forgotten that both
> the axioms and the tapestry remain interpretations — interpretations
> shared only by some, not all; interpretations, not fact, not truth.

I'm not sure how you mean that axioms are interpretations.   I agree
that they are consensual assumptions (has this discussion just become
circular?), though the former (axioms) might seem to be more arbitrary
than the latter.  On the other hand, common examples of axiomatic
systems such as planar (aka Euclidean) geometry also carry a strong
overtone of being "self-evident".

Perhaps it is my formal training in mathematics coming before extensive
exposure to philosophy and metaphysics, but I'm not sure what it means
to have a discussion of interpretations which are not somehow grounded
in assumptions (such as axioms).   I don't disagree that making those
assumptions *explicit* is critical to any such conversation being
interesting much less productive.

In the domain of our current polarized political scene, much is taken
for granted but not made explicit.   Characteristic disagreements
between left and right include issues as fundamental as "right to life"
(e.g. abortion v. death penalty) and "personal rights" (e.g. abortion v
gun ownership).   It is *very* rare in my experience to be able to have
reasoned discussions about either issue with *either side*.   In these
examples, I am sympathetic with the idea that what is at issue is
"interpretation" of "what is life?", "wherefrom derives a right?"


- Steve

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] flattening -isms

[Marcus Daniels]

Dave writes:

< Geertz merely points out a fact — there are no cross cultural universals 
(except one, that I will get to in just a moment), nor are there any 
"objective" criteria for asserting primacy or privilege of one culture over 
another. From this comes an indictment of ethnocentrism as one culture stating 
that "obviously" our values, our ways of doing things, our worldview, our 
customs ... are superior to yours, correct while yours are erroneous, etc. >

It is not an indictment of ethnocentrism.   If one culture displaces another, 
that is just what happens; it is the law of the jungle.  There are consequences 
to the actions that come from cultural norms.  Those cultures that encourage, 
say, above replacement rate fertility will likely contribute to global warming. 
   That's a measurable thing that impacts all cultures on Earth.

Marcus

From: Friam  on behalf of Prof David West 

Sent: Monday, November 18, 2019 5:13 AM
To: friam@redfish.com 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] flattening -isms

Nick said:

"What struck me about them was how many of them held the view that reality was 
beyond experience: i.e., that our experience provided clues to reality, but the 
thing itself was beyond experience.  I never could convince them that that 
their belief in a reality beyond experience had to be based on … experience.  
So, why not be monists, and talk about organizations of experience.  
Ultimately, it was their dualism that confirmed me in my monism."

How about an assertion that there is A Reality beyond "ordinary" experience; 
with "ordinary experience" being the half-dozen or so overt sensory inputs 
(sight, sound, balance, touch, taste, smell)  we typically associate with 
experience.

Given a different set of inputs — e.g. emotions, hallucinations, visions, 
dreams — must we assume that we are still experiencing the same Reality as that 
experienced with overt sensory inputs; or, is the door open to an alternative 
Reality even if Reality-A and Reality-B have significant but not total 
congruence? We are still experiencing, so your experiential monism is intact, 
but Reality is dualist/pluralist.

Or, suppose there are a set of inputs, of the same Reality, that are not 
included in the overt set (sight, taste, et. al.). Previously it was noted that 
the eye can detect a single photon (and we can "sense" other quantum level 
phenomena). You asserted that such sensory inputs would be "lost in the noise" 
of the functioning organism and hence are not "experienced." Is this not a case 
of a detectable/sensible Reality beyond experience?

A corollary: can there be "experiences" — a set of stimulus-response pairs — 
not included in the overt senses, and not describable in ordinary language? 
Obviously, I am talking about "mystical" experiences such as "being in the 
zone" or lower-case s, satori, or even upper-case s, Satori (aka 
enlightenment). It is important to note that these are stimulus-response 
events, not necessarily "experiences;" as experience, in ordinary language, 
necessarily implies an experience-r, and in the examples I am thinking about, 
there is no "I" and hence no experience-r.

AND,

"By the way, Geertz is probably the locus classicus of the relativism I 
deplore."

Sir! Them's fightin words!!!

But I forgive you, as you clearly misunderstand Geertz (one of my personal 
heroes). Nothing he says is "relativist." His observations and conclusions are, 
however, hermeneutic. Geertz merely points out a fact — there are no cross 
cultural universals (except one, that I will get to in just a moment), nor are 
there any "objective" criteria for asserting primacy or privilege of one 
culture over another. From this comes an indictment of ethnocentrism as one 
culture stating that "obviously" our values, our ways of doing things, our 
worldview, our customs ... are superior to yours, correct while yours are 
erroneous, etc.

Hermeneuticism is NOT relativism.

The one cultural universal: every culture (obviously not every individual in 
every culture) incorporates a belief in the "supernatural." In all but, maybe, 
2-3, cultures the "supernatural" includes an alternative realm of existence 
(pre- and/or after-life or "other planes."  The, interpretations of this 
universal are multiple - pretty much one per culture/subculture.

davew

On Sun, Nov 17, 2019, at 8:27 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

Thanks, Glen, and Dave,



Well, I should have conceded this point long ago:  of course I am a 
==>methodological <== pluralist.  There are many ways to skin a cat.



Years ago I participated in a longrunning forum on Research Gate on Philosophy 
of Science run by an Iranian intellectual who was putting some of the great 
texts of western science into Persian so they would be more widely read in 
Iran.  My colleagues in this forum were mostly an odd lot of physicists.  What 
struck me about them was how many of them held the view that reality was beyond 
experience: i.e., that 

Re: [FRIAM] Friam Digest, Vol 197, Issue 22 flattening isms

[HighlandWindsLLC Miller]

To all and Nickolas:
Thus we must save the turtle. And where there is “of” there was also and always 
“of not”.
Peggy M Miller

Sent from my iPad

> On Nov 18, 2019, at 5:14 AM, friam-requ...@redfish.com wrote:
> 
> Send Friam mailing list submissions to
>friam@redfish.com
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>friam-requ...@redfish.com
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>friam-ow...@redfish.com
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..."
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. Re: flattening -isms (Nick Thompson)
>   2. Re: flattening -isms (glen??)
>   3. Re: flattening -isms (Nick Thompson)
>   4. Re: flattening -isms (Steven A Smith)
>   5. Re: flattening -isms (Steven A Smith)
>   6. Re: flattening -isms (Steven A Smith)
>   7. Re: capitalism vs. individualism (Prof David West)
>   8. Re: flattening -isms (Prof David West)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Friam mailing list
> Friam@redfish.com
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] flattening -isms

[Prof David West]

Nick said:

*"What struck me about them was how many of them held the view that reality was 
beyond experience: i.e., that our experience provided clues to reality, but the 
thing itself was beyond experience. I never could convince them that that their 
belief in a reality beyond experience had to be based on … experience. So, why 
not be monists, and talk about organizations of experience. Ultimately, it was 
their dualism that confirmed me in my monism."*

How about an assertion that there is *_A_* Reality beyond *_"ordinary"_* 
experience; with "ordinary experience" being the half-dozen or so overt sensory 
inputs (sight, sound, balance, touch, taste, smell) we typically associate with 
experience.

Given a different set of inputs — e.g. emotions, hallucinations, visions, 
dreams — must we assume that we are still experiencing the same Reality as that 
experienced with overt sensory inputs; or, is the door open to an alternative 
Reality even if Reality-A and Reality-B have significant but not total 
congruence? We are still experiencing, so your experiential monism is intact, 
but Reality is dualist/pluralist.

Or, suppose there are a set of inputs, of the same Reality, that are not 
included in the overt set (sight, taste, et. al.). Previously it was noted that 
the eye can detect a single photon (and we can "sense" other quantum level 
phenomena). You asserted that such sensory inputs would be "lost in the noise" 
of the functioning organism and hence are *not* "experienced." Is this not a 
case of a detectable/sensible Reality beyond experience?

A corollary: can there be "experiences" — a set of stimulus-response pairs — 
not included in the overt senses, and not describable in ordinary language? 
Obviously, I am talking about "mystical" experiences such as "being in the 
zone" or lower-case s, satori, or even upper-case s, Satori (aka 
enlightenment). It is important to note that these are stimulus-response 
events, not necessarily "experiences;" as experience, in ordinary language, 
necessarily implies an experience-r, and in the examples I am thinking about, 
there is no "I" and hence no experience-r.

AND,

*"By the way, Geertz is probably the locus classicus of the relativism I 
deplore."*

Sir! Them's fightin words!!! 

But I forgive you, as you clearly misunderstand Geertz (one of my personal 
heroes). Nothing he says is "relativist." His observations and conclusions are, 
however, hermeneutic. Geertz merely points out a fact — there are no cross 
cultural universals (except one, that I will get to in just a moment), nor are 
there any "objective" criteria for asserting primacy or privilege of one 
culture over another. From this comes an indictment of ethnocentrism as one 
culture stating that "obviously" our values, our ways of doing things, our 
worldview, our customs ... are superior to yours, correct while yours are 
erroneous, etc.

Hermeneuticism is NOT relativism.

The one cultural universal: every culture (obviously not every individual in 
every culture) incorporates a belief in the "supernatural." In all but, maybe, 
2-3, cultures the "supernatural" includes an alternative realm of existence 
(pre- and/or after-life or "other planes." The, interpretations of this 
universal are multiple - pretty much one per culture/subculture.

davew

On Sun, Nov 17, 2019, at 8:27 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Thanks, Glen, and Dave,

> 

> Well, I should have conceded this point long ago: of course I am a 
> è*methodological **ç *pluralist. There are many ways to skin a cat. 

> 

> Years ago I participated in a longrunning forum on Research Gate on 
> Philosophy of Science run by an Iranian intellectual who was putting some of 
> the great texts of western science into Persian so they would be more widely 
> read in Iran. My colleagues in this forum were mostly an odd lot of 
> physicists. What struck me about them was how many of them held the view that 
> reality was beyond experience: i.e., that our experience provided clues to 
> reality, but the thing itself was beyond experience. I never could convince 
> them that that their belief in a reality beyond experience had to be based on 
> … experience. So, why not be monists, and talk about organizations of 
> experience. Ultimately, it was their dualism that confirmed me in my monism.

> 

> I am serious about your forcing me to become an “of” monist. Everything is 
> relations; it’s relations all the way down. So the turtles are themselves 
> relations.  
> To the inevitable “what about the first relation: what was that a relation 
> of?” I will only say, “The limiting case is never a particularly interesting 
> one; I will worry about it when I have explained all the others.” (I do not 
> understand the complexity theorists’ passion for explaining “first life”, for 
> instance, or psychologists who tie themselves in knots over the “dawn” of 
> consciousness.” To worry so 

Re: [FRIAM] capitalism vs. individualism

[Prof David West]

Steve,

Previously, I noted: "Asserting that all is interpretation is an invitation to 
engage in a conversation about "meaning" or "reality" from a level playing 
field — i.e. absent any grant of privilege to one interpretation over another; 
and, any expectation that somewhere, somehow, even the most consensual and 
widely shared interpretation can, or will, morph into some kind of "fact" or 
"truth."

Both axiomatic statements and "self-evident truths" (Declaration of 
Independence) are consensual assumptions about an interpretation; an agreement 
that said statements are reasonably "correct" and sufficiently shared among 
ourselves, that we can use them as starting points for conversations about 
"reality" (e.g. constants like e, c, and i, or relationships like E= M times 
Csquared) or the "meaning" of something (e.g what it is to be self governing).

Conversations, so begun, can weave a tapestry of interpretation that can be 
wonderfully useful, deeply enriching, psychologically comforting, socially 
beneficial, technologically advancing, etc. 

Problems, inevitable it seems, arise when it is forgotten that both the axioms 
and the tapestry remain interpretations — interpretations shared only by some, 
not all; interpretations, not fact, not truth.

davew

On Fri, Nov 15, 2019, at 4:13 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> Where does our resident hermeneuticist fit in the two following ideas?

>  1. Axiomatic Statements
>  2. The preamble of the US Constitution ("we hold these truths to be 
> self-evident")
> 

> 

> On 11/15/19 6:53 AM, Prof David West wrote:
>> Nick mentioned earlier a concern about relativist talk in this thread. and 
>> Eric is using the term in his post. Lest hermeneuticism — a position I have 
>> been advocating — be confused/conflated with relativism (perhaps an 
>> unfounded fear), I wish to note the following:
>> 
>> Hermeneutics (intellectual genealogy in previous post) asserts that all is 
>> interpretation. A corollary of that assertion is there are no "facts," no 
>> objective truths. A second corollary: there are no grounds to "privilege" 
>> one interpretation over another. (The point of deconstruction is, simply, 
>> exposure of the chain of interpretations and the reasons that they were 
>> adopted over alternatives.)
>> 
>> A hermeneuticist would _not_ assert that "competence-incompetence, 
>> stupid-smart" lack tangible meaning. Nor would they say that "no point of 
>> view (interpretation) is better than another. Of course, "better" is a 
>> matter of interpretation.
>> 
>> Asserting that all is interpretation is an invitation to engage in a 
>> conversation about "meaning" or "reality" from a level playing field — i.e. 
>> absent any grant of privilege to one interpretation over another; and, any 
>> expectation that somewhere, somehow, even the most consensual and widely 
>> shared interpretation can, or will, morph into some kind of "fact" or 
>> "truth."
>> 
>> davew
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Nov 15, 2019, at 12:47 PM, Eric Charles wrote:
 " A nihilist might adopt a campaign slogan like Any Functioning Adult 
 2020, because the truly objectionable things are incompetence and 
 stupidity. "
>>> 
>>> But there's the rub in this conversation. "Any Functioning Adult 2020" 
>>> could be intended as a joke, pointing out that the current president is so 
>>> incompetent that literally any functional adult would be better. OR, it 
>>> could be a low-level nihilistic joke, made by someone who knows full well 
>>> there are no functional adults in the race, and even if there were that 
>>> person wouldn't be elected, and we are all going to die meaningless deaths 
>>> no matter who wins. (I imagine that is what it sounds like translated into 
>>> Russian, based on my deep love of Dostoevsky). BUT, neither of those 
>>> positions is a relativist. 
>>> 
>>> The relativist asserts that competence-incompetence and stupid-smart have 
>>> no tangible meaning. 
>>> 
>>> Who is competent and who isn't? Eh, it depends on your point of view, and 
>>> no point of view is better than another. The designation of "competence" is 
>>> a colonialist activity providing illusory justification for the 
>>> marginalization already oppressed groups, and while it has a valence, it 
>>> has no basis in "reality" (i.e., it is bad, you should stop doing it, and 
>>> you should deeply hate yourself for ever having had done it). To label the 
>>> president as incompetent is to inappropriately invalidate his way of being 
>>> in the world; ways of being are all equally valid. 
>>> 
>>> Who is stupid and who isn't? Eh, it depends on your point of view, and no 
>>> point of view is better than another.
>>> 
>>> If you believe that SOME people ARE competent and/or smart, then you can't 
>>> be a relativist. If you believe there is still some chance that competent 
>>> and smart people can make a difference, you are not a nihilist. 
>>> 
>>> Old Soviet Joke: A man walks into a shop and asks, "You