Langan was right!

#11
(Nov 10, 2017 05:20 PM)Yazata Wrote:
(Nov 9, 2017 10:27 PM)stryder Wrote: Metaphysics to me is an autists adaptation of how they consider the world works.

One could say the same thing about all of science. I mean, just look at theoretical physics. These people think that the squiggles that they write on chalkboards give them some deep and special insight into how reality functions. From the perspective of somebody untrained in it, it's just strange, involuted, socially isolating and bizarre.


And their communication tokens are similar esoteric obscurity to outsiders. It's such a blatant "duh" that it becomes hilarious when some scientists and their groupies complain about philosophy's in-house technical jargon in double-standard fashion (a segment of SciForum membership can't help but come to mind).

Many a trade or discipline even outside of those two broad areas is laden with terms and symbols that could provoke a mild to severe legalese reaction in bystanders. The very nature of having to invent guiding principles and convert skills and what they manipulate to description entails a nomenclature arising which is specific to the needs of that expertise or enterprise. The more novel or radical a diverging _X_ and its interests are from the usual affairs or orientation of its own general field -- and especially those external to slash not affiliated with the latter at all -- the more potentially unique and unfamiliar the terminology becomes to others.

Merely complaining about the complexity of a nomenclature is not a legit objection in itself. Words and symbols have to be demonstrated to truly lack meaning or serve no function or not be consistent with the framework or correspond to anything in the system (thereby arguably no system to begin with, just a lot of inutile gears thrown randomly into a watch that doesn't work). But that said, freelancers (operating on their own) would still often turn out to be cranks after a thorough investigation. Gut instinct is all the time and resources the casual observer has -- and frequently a voluntary overloaded skeptic or non-hired consultant as well.

- - -
Reply
#12
The dividing line between a disordered brain and creative genius may be more blurry than we think. There are cases of autistic savants in mathematics and music. John Nash had schizophrenia AND was a math genious. Jack Kerouac had a free-associative style of writing seen as both hypergraphic and poetic. It's entirely plausible to me that some of our most culturally revered geniuses, from James Joyce to Proust to Faulkner to Woolf to Mozart to Einstein to Basquiat, may have had autistic or schizoid propensities that allowed them the intense focus and mental isolation that resulted in their greatest works. I believe there is a little autism and schizophrenia and mania in all of us that manifests at different times. It's a human thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergraphia
Reply
#13
(Nov 10, 2017 04:19 PM)Yazata Wrote: The thing with Langan is that he's hard. He's almost impossible to follow. And that appears to be entirely intentional on his part, given his use of idiosyncratic vocabulary of his own invention and the most abstruse technical terms lifted from multiple fields. If he was half as smart as he claims to be, he should be able to explain himself better.

Yep. No one can be expected to put any more effort into understanding you than you put into being understood. Langan fails miserably. And I agree that it can only be intentional. Use enough science-babble jargon and ignorant people will feel smart for agreeing with you.
Reply
#14
Langan seems understandable but he overlooks Occam's razor. I doubt he can be simplified to a greater extent. Regarding complexity, I don't think the obscurity is intentional. And I am not purposely vouching in favor of his jargon. But he achieves his goal. The lack of efficiency in communication does not indicate a proclivity for mindlessness.
Reply
#15
Then why can't you, if you claim to understand it, manage to communicate it any better? You just keep parroting his meaningless jargon.
Reply
#16
(Nov 10, 2017 10:33 PM)Syne Wrote: Then why can't you, if you claim to understand it, manage to communicate it any better? You just keep parroting his meaningless jargon.

You try to reduce the technical terms to simpler phrases. It isn't possible.
Reply
#17
(Nov 11, 2017 01:11 AM)Ostronomos Wrote:
(Nov 10, 2017 10:33 PM)Syne Wrote: Then why can't you, if you claim to understand it, manage to communicate it any better? You just keep parroting his meaningless jargon.

You try to reduce the technical terms to simpler phrases. It isn't possible.

I would, but every term I look up is defined by some other idiosyncratic nomenclature in a seemingly infinite regress that offers no clear point of entry or gradient to the obsequious jargon.

I can simplify physics, computer technology/programming, philosophy, etc.. So if Langan can't be simplified, it's completely useless because it cannot be taught or even related.
Reply
#18
Quote:I would, but every term I look up is defined by some other idiosyncratic nomenclature in a seemingly infinite regress that offers no clear point of entry or gradient to the obsequious jargon. 

I can simplify physics, computer technology/programming, philosophy, etc.. So if Langan can't be simplified, it's completely useless because it cannot be taught or even relat
ed.

Like it 

My skepticism tells me that Langan's words are no more than sophisticated condescension. I think he takes some sort of malignant pleasure  in being so smug about his own intelligence that for all intents, he rubs in our faces. I don't think he cares if some people take his words as gospel as he tests the limits of human understanding, interpretation and gullibility. Either that or he is showing us just how easy it is to design a religion.
Reply
#19
(Nov 11, 2017 03:24 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote:
Quote:I would, but every term I look up is defined by some other idiosyncratic nomenclature in a seemingly infinite regress that offers no clear point of entry or gradient to the obsequious jargon. 

I can simplify physics, computer technology/programming, philosophy, etc.. So if Langan can't be simplified, it's completely useless because it cannot be taught or even relat
ed.

Like it 

My skepticism tells me that Langan's words are no more than sophisticated condescension. I think he takes some sort of malignant pleasure  in being so smug about his own intelligence that for all intents, he rubs in our faces. I don't think he cares if some people take his words as gospel as he tests the limits of human understanding, interpretation and gullibility. Either that or he is showing us just how easy it is to design a religion.

It isn't an infinite regress, it can be reduced to a definite meaning, and "seemingly" shows you to care in noticing this. And Langan is not taking pains at wasting time to act in a sophisticating and condescending manner. It would be gullible not to attempt comprehension.

The CTMU is a philosophical work on par with such works as Gray's Anatomy and should be regarded as such. It has been well received by those who could enter the game of reason. The wording aims at extreme precision and this is why you encounter these obstacles. Not because of obscurity and over-complication in some mysterious jargon that is subjective.
Reply
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)