(Nov 18, 2017 08:40 AM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: so he stole the books from an estate sale ?
and he is doing it for business profit... ?
i hope someone re-posesses them from his shop.
It was out of the area, but I do travel their a lot, and I've thought about searching in a few used books stores. You know how unreliable eyewitnesses are, though. I don't think I'd be able to recognize him.
RainbowUnicorn Wrote:it occured to me that anyone who might see me, might think i was stoned or drunk or having some type of siezure. lol.
usually i never do it anywhere people may see (on the off chance)as extrovertive vouyers(aka ... gossipy types) tend to be mostly negative people.
(Nov 18, 2017 08:40 AM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: so he stole the books from an estate sale ?
and he is doing it for business profit... ?
i hope someone re-posesses them from his shop.
It was out of the area, but I do travel their a lot, and I've thought about searching in a few used books stores. You know how unreliable eyewitnesses are, though. I don't think I'd be able to recognize him.
RainbowUnicorn Wrote:it occured to me that anyone who might see me, might think i was stoned or drunk or having some type of siezure. lol.
usually i never do it anywhere people may see (on the off chance)as extrovertive vouyers(aka ... gossipy types) tend to be mostly negative people.
Ain't that the truth.
suffice to know the driving force that might push for such an act tendered upon common days might well eat the soul from the inside out.
i dare say you wish not envy his disposition.
(Nov 18, 2017 02:16 AM)confused2 Wrote: Narrative? - Do you mean continuity?
Perhaps, but more in line with your reference to the I Ching in the way that we cultivate reality through our observations of patterns.
confused2 Wrote:Do you have a copy of the I Ching? Like so many of my books mine is lost, stolen or stayed. The only point is that my version (King Wen?) spoke of the superior person. Locally the acts of the superior person have been a sort of standing joke for the last 30 years or more. Argh! So many times, if only I'd taken a moment or two to consider what the superior person would have done before of doing what I actually did. Written 3,000 years ago.
No, I’ve never read it, but I understand your point, and I agree.
Can I tell you another story, C2?
I’ve always hated Jung’s work. I actually cringe when I read it. Oh sure, people can easily ridicule superstitious ideas, but most of the world is still interrupted through supernatural believes, and the universal human tendency to seek patterns in random information has always creeped me out. If I reflect on my own curiosity, though, I can see that I do the same thing, but just in a different way. I only seek information to curb my fear of random events—to understand my limits of control, and to develop a level of tolerance to uncertainty.
When I was searching for your reference to the superior man, I stumbled onto this site.
While those of a scientific bent may say that the I Ching is so vague as to lend itself to any situation, the fact is that most people who actually make use of it find that it's advice is remarkably reliable and precise. How do we account for this fact?
The great psychologist Jung, a disciple of Freud, believed that the random fall of the coins or the random shuffling of the yarrow (two methods for acquiring a reading), as random acts of a particular time and place, actually partook of some part of the nature of that situation. He described this as part of his general ideas on synchronicity: that all the seemingly random goings on of a particular place and time are connected.
While Jung's theory has tended to capture the popular imagination, it is not the only or possibly even the best explanation for the amazing relevance of the I Ching's councils. In recent years, a controversial scientist has come up with a general theory that explains not only this, but many other paranormal phenomena. Here briefly, we will explore the possible connections between the phenomena of the I Ching and the morphic fields of Rupert Sheldrake. http://members.tripod.com/~the_hermitage/iching.htm
I thought, wow, that name really sounds familiar, and wondered if it had been previously discussed on a science forum or something. I googled his name and then realized that his face looked familiar, as well. He lives in the UK, though. For a brief moment, I thought about a couple from England that I recently encountered while hiking. Now that would have been a huge coincidence. I didn’t pay much attention to the man, though. His wife caught my attention because she was so inquisitive. She had what I’d call unbridled curiosity with unpresumptuous questions.
I decided to see if Rupert Sheldrake had any videos and a ted talk video popped up. I immediately realized that it was one that had been sitting in my 'to watch' list. Weird, huh?
Not that I agree with him, but in a roundabout way, your reference may have given me a little more insight on how to develop more tolerance towards the mystical and the pious.
C CNov 18, 2017 08:42 PM (This post was last modified: Nov 18, 2017 08:42 PM by C C.)
(Nov 18, 2017 05:27 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: I decided to see if Rupert Sheldrake had any videos and a ted talk video popped up. I immediately realized that it was one that had been sitting in my 'to watch' list. Weird, huh? [video] Not that I agree with him, but in a roundabout way, your [i.e., C2] reference may have given me a little more insight on how to develop more tolerance towards the mystical and the pious.
As a biologist, I guess Sheldrake has done research in the past that was praised / confirmed. But when his eastern spiritual(?) inclinations cross paths with his day-job, those trespasses of course garner a skeptic's knee-jerk disdain as crankhood.
Setting aside this supposed metaphysical preoccupation among the educated community in general (Alfred Whitehead also called it "scientific materialism"), I expect science will go through a renascence in the future, alright. But in a rewind sense of returning to the days when formal peer review[1] wasn't viewed as a universal, standard feature of publishing.[2][3]
The 19th-century and early 20th-century was a "wild west" era for science from the standpoint of evaluation often being late at the gates in terms of what was released and more dependent upon informal peer review to regulate things and dispense any shaming rituals. The informal label also includes what takes place outside of and before the description / literature aspect, where peers meet in real-time and co-workers look over each other's shoulders.[4] Diverse conceptions of what falls under "peer review" are especially mentionable in computer fields.[5]
The philosophical pre-conceptions or constraints were more relaxed in the 19th-century. There was more recognition of science's methodological approach being "as-if" rather than it bent into a supposed personal or group ontological gospel.[6]
footnotes
[1] Timothy Gowers: So to avoid any confusion, let me use the phrase “formal peer review” for the kind that is organized by a journal and “informal peer review” for the less official scrutiny that is carried out whenever an academic reads an article and comes to some sort of judgement on it. (The end of an error?)
- - -
[2] Michael Nielsen: The myth that scientists adopted peer review broadly and early in the history of science is surprisingly widely believed, despite being false. It’s true that peer review has been used for a long time – a process recognizably similar to the modern system was in use as early as 1731, in the Royal Society of Edinburgh’s Medical Essays and Observations. But in most scientific journals, peer review wasn’t routine until the middle of the twentieth century, a fact documented in historical papers by Burnham, Kronick, and Spier [...] Myth: Peer review is reliable. Update: Bill Hooker has pointed out that I’m using a very strong sense of “reliable” in this section, holding peer review to the standard that it nearly always picks up errors, is a very accurate gauge of quality, and rarely suppresses innovation. If you adopt a more relaxed notion of reliability, as many but not all scientists and members of the general public do, then I’d certainly back off describing this as a myth. As an approximate filter that eliminates or improves many papers, peer review may indeed function well. [...] Myth: Peer review is the way we determine what’s right and wrong in science. By now, it should be clear that the peer review system must play only a partial role in determing what scientists think of as established science. There’s no sign, for example, that the lack of peer review in the 19th and early 20th century meant that scientists then were more confused than now about what results should be regarded as well established, and what should not. Nor does it appear that the unreliability of the peer review process leaves us in any great danger of collectively coming to believe, over the long run, things that are false. (Three Myths About Peer Review)
- - -
[3] (Albert slips through the cracks.) https://theconversation.com/hate-the-pee...-too-27405
- - -
[4] (As seen in software circles. Order now!) http://www.myyesm.com/what-is-informal-or-peer-review/
- - -
[5] Karl E. Wiegers: An inspection is the most systematic and rigorous type of peer review. Inspection follows a well-defined multistage process with specific roles assigned to individual participants. Inspections are more effective at finding defects than are informal reviews. For example, inspections held on Motorola’s Iridium project detected 80% of the defects present, whereas less formal reviews discovered only 60% of the defects.
Team reviews are a type of "inspection-lite," being planned and structured but less formal and less rigorous than inspections. Typically, the overview and follow-up inspection stages are simplified or omitted, and some participant roles may be combined (e.g., moderator and reader).
A walkthrough is an informal review in which the work product’s author describes it to some colleagues and solicits comments. Walkthroughs differ significantly from inspections because the author takes the dominant role; other specific review roles are usually not defined. Walkthroughs are informal because they typically do not follow a defined procedure, do not specify exit criteria, require no management reporting, and generate no metrics.
In pair programming, two developers work on the same program simultaneously at a single workstation, continuously reviewing their joint work. Pair programming lacks the outside perspective of someone who is not personally attached to the code that a formal review brings.
In a peer deskcheck, only one person besides the author examines the work product. A peer deskcheck typically is an informal review, although the reviewer could employ defect checklists and specific analysis methods to increase effectiveness.
A passaround is a multiple, concurrent peer deskcheck, in which several people are invited to provide comments. The passaround mitigates two major risks of a peer deskcheck: the reviewer failing to provide timely feedback and the reviewer doing a poor job. (Seven Truths About Peer Review)
- - -
[6] Hermann Helmholtz: Even if we take the idealistic position, we can hardly talk about the lawful regularity of our sensations other than by saying: "Perceptions occur as if the things of the material world referred to in the realistic hypothesis actually did exist." We cannot eliminate the "as if" construction completely, however, for we cannot consider the realistic interpretation to be more than an exceedingly useful and practical hypothesis. We cannot assert that it is necessarily true, for opposed to it there is always the possibility of other irrefutable idealistic hypotheses.
It is always well to keep this in mind in order not to infer from the facts more than can rightly be inferred from them. The various idealistic and realistic interpretations are metaphysical hypotheses which, as long as they are recognised as such, are scientifically completely justified. They may become dangerous, however, if they are presented as dogmas or as alleged necessities of thought.
Science must consider thoroughly all admissible hypotheses in order to obtain a complete picture of all possible modes of explanation. Furthermore, hypotheses are necessary to someone doing research, for one cannot always wait until a reliable scientific conclusion has been reached; one must sometimes make judgments according to either probability or aesthetic or moral feelings.
Metaphysical hypotheses are not to be objected to here either. A thinker is unworthy of science, however, if he forgets the hypothetical origin of his assertions. The arrogance and vehemence with which such hidden hypotheses are sometimes defended are usually the result of a lack of confidence which their advocates feel in the hidden depths of their minds about the qualifications of their claims. What we unquestionably can find as a fact, without any hypothetical element whatsoever, is the lawful regularity of phenomena.--The Facts Of Perception
(Nov 18, 2017 02:16 AM)confused2 Wrote: Narrative? - Do you mean continuity?
Perhaps, but more in line with your reference to the I Ching in the way that we cultivate reality through our observations of patterns.
confused2 Wrote:Do you have a copy of the I Ching? Like so many of my books mine is lost, stolen or stayed. The only point is that my version (King Wen?) spoke of the superior person. Locally the acts of the superior person have been a sort of standing joke for the last 30 years or more. Argh! So many times, if only I'd taken a moment or two to consider what the superior person would have done before of doing what I actually did. Written 3,000 years ago.
No, I’ve never read it, but I understand your point, and I agree.
Can I tell you another story, C2?
I’ve always hated Jung’s work. I actually cringe when I read it. Oh sure, people can easily ridicule superstitious ideas, but most of the world is still interrupted through supernatural believes, and the universal human tendency to seek patterns in random information has always creeped me out. If I reflect on my own curiosity, though, I can see that I do the same thing, but just in a different way. I only seek information to curb my fear of random events—to understand my limits of control, and to develop a level of tolerance to uncertainty.
Quote:You know...I think that people experience more anxiety today than ever before, but not because some of the old narratives are no longer useful. We need to make sense out of our surroundings, and in order to do so, we need narratives, and this is what is lacking in the way that information is currently being presented to us.
some thoughts...
humans have survived by grouping things
Grouping things tends to lend toward naratives to amplify ability to recognise & record bigger & better groups.
technology from grouping has allowed intellectual growth that has framed its self inside "grouping of naratives"
now how can those bound by naratives(religion, physics etc) think outside of the narative context ?
mostly... though not always the average person becomes psychologically injured from attempting to contemplate an existance of no narative.
Quote:I’ve always hated Jung’s work. I actually cringe when I read it. Oh sure, people can easily ridicule superstitious ideas, but most of the world is still interrupted through supernatural believes, and the universal human tendency to seek patterns in random information has always creeped me out. If I reflect on my own curiosity, though, I can see that I do the same thing, but just in a different way. I only seek information to curb my fear of random events—to understand my limits of control, and to develop a level of tolerance to uncertainty.
i found jung very hard reading, it was like drinking some horrible cough medicine while feeling quite well.
though i was only interested in specific parts of his work.
like bobbing in a bath of vinigar for cherrys.
the perceptual horrific inbalance of intellectual sensory attunement tends to drive a narative...
(Nov 18, 2017 08:42 PM)C C Wrote: As a biologist, I guess Sheldrake has done research in the past that was praised / confirmed. But when his eastern spiritual(?) inclinations cross paths with his day-job, those trespasses of course garner a skeptic's knee-jerk disdain as crankhood.
It was inspired by Collette Gaudin’s Introduction to Gaston Bachelard’s On Poetic Imagination and Reverie.
"Reverie is a playful time for Bachelard where one can approximate the state of wonder that we experienced in childhood. Such moments are very restorative to the psyche because we are momentarily "liberated from the gear-wheels of the calendar."
"Our aim, Bachelard explained, is to "cure the mind of its happy illusions, to free it from the narcissism caused by the first contact with the object."
"One task of epistemology is to make clear the mental patterns at use in science, in order to help scientists overcome the obstacles to knowledge."
(Nov 19, 2017 06:19 AM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: some thoughts...
now how can those bound by naratives(religion, physics etc) think outside of the narative context ?
mostly... though not always the average person becomes psychologically injured from attempting to contemplate an existance of no narative.
Ah, well, the thing that caught my attention was when he said 'existential crisis'. You don’t usually hear that phrase when you’re out and about in my neck of the woods.
IMHO, it’s a guy thing. They imagine themselves in a void very similar to how Christians imagine themselves in heaven.
I like poetry but I’m not really good at it. This is about as far as my existential crises went.
This one, Distant Dancer is a reflection on Nietzsche’s woman as TRUTH:
He compared it to how men chase women, but never really want to know her, or actually see her for what she truly is. Truth is beauty or so they say. It’s a possession. Her greatest power is action at distance—to tease. So, they look at truth through a veil of beautiful possibilities, which only disguises the lack of truth underneath. He uses two metaphors here to show how men try to separate themselves from truth, as if they’re sorting the wheat from the chaff, the male from the females, the yin from the yang, etc. They look at her as if she were a totally different creature far off in the distance, (a cow). Similar to how Yazata blamed female mate selection for male aggression, he’s blaming male mate selection for making half of the population weak. They don’t want to see the animalistic nature in women because they want to see their reflection in her eyes.
Beautiful and ugly ["fair and foul"]. -- Nothing is more conditional--or, let us say, narrower--than our feeling for beauty. Whoever would think of it apart from man's joy in man would immediately lose any foothold. "Beautiful in itself" is a mere phrase, not even a concept. In the beautiful, man posits himself as the measure of perfection; in special cases he worships himself in it. A species cannot do otherwise but thus affirm itself alone. Its lowest instinct that of self-preservation and self-expansion, still radiates in such sublimities. Man believes the world itself to be overloaded with beauty--and he forgets himself as the cause of this. He alone has presented the world with beauty--alas! Only with a very human, all-too-human beauty. At bottom, man mirrors himself in things; he considers everything beautiful that reflects his own image: the judgment "beautiful" is the vanity of his species. For a little suspicion may whisper this question into the skeptic's ear: Is the world really beautified by the fact that man thinks it beautiful? He has humanized it that is all. But nothing, absolutely nothing, guarantees that man should be the model of beauty. Who knows what he looks like in the eyes of a higher judge of beauty? Daring perhaps? Perhaps even amusing? Perhaps a little arbitrary?
"Finally, women. Reflect on the whole history of women: do they not to be first of all and above all actresses? Listen to the physicians who have hypnotized women; love them—let yourself be "hypnotized by them!" What is always the result? That they “put on something” even when they take off everything. Woman is so artistic."
At least a genuine artist is aware of her artistic endeavors. Like women, Nietzsche saw art as supporting and sustaining life.
"To the realists—those who "feel well armed against passion and fantasies" and believe that they are observing reality, including themselves, "unveiled." These realist believe they have discovered all of life’s secrets. Distance—pure, scientific objectification—is out of the question, for the observer’s own subjectivity is always mixed up in even the most dispassionate view."
I could be wrong but I think this is also part of C C’s warning on scientism.
My thoughts on the advent of nihilism...
The common nihilist, like the realist, looked beyond heaven and hell, good and evil, and did not see his reflection in the abyss. He thought he had unveiled a little truth. He guards it and carries it with him. Ah, my precious, look at how brave I am, but he holds nothing because he embraces nothingness. In nothingness he does not exist—nothingness does not exist. He cannot exist without her—never was there a man not born of woman. He forgot where he came from, Nietzsche's (women as LIFE). Nietzsche, on the other hand, embraces the woman. A genuine artist sees the abyss as a blank slate.
"I want to learn more and more to see as beautiful what is necessary in things; then I shall be one of those who make things beautiful. Amor fati: let that be my love henceforth! I do not want to wage war against what is ugly. I do not want to accuse; I do not even want to accuse those who accuse. Looking away shall be my only negation. And all in all and on the whole: some day I wish to be only a Yes-sayer."—Nietzsche
C CNov 21, 2017 02:37 AM (This post was last modified: Nov 21, 2017 02:41 AM by C C.)
(Nov 20, 2017 05:48 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: My son sent me this song.
It was inspired by Collette Gaudin’s Introduction to Gaston Bachelard’s On Poetic Imagination and Reverie.
"Reverie is a playful time for Bachelard where one can approximate the state of wonder that we experienced in childhood. Such moments are very restorative to the psyche because we are momentarily "liberated from the gear-wheels of the calendar."
"Our aim, Bachelard explained, is to "cure the mind of its happy illusions, to free it from the narcissism caused by the first contact with the object."
"One task of epistemology is to make clear the mental patterns at use in science, in order to help scientists overcome the obstacles to knowledge."
I've often found myself reading aboutcontinental philosophers more than reading them (apart from skimming around or tracking down a particular section). But as it trudges deeper into its so-called eclecticism stage, the Anglophone camp is arguably starting to round-out its conception of philosophy of science with French / Euro input or "legacy components" of it.
Babette Babich: Although continental philosophy has been marginalized in professional philosophy in general, and where this marginalization has perhaps been greatest within the philosophy of science, the very centre would seem to have shifted. In past years, traditional philosophers of science have begun to broaden their analytic conception of the philosophy of science to include approaches compatible with or even drawn from continental styles of philosophy. Such approaches reflect the philosophical reflections on science expressed from the tradition of important individual continental thinkers such as Edmund Husserl (Gethmann, Heelan, Orth, Rang, Seebohm, etc.) and Martin Heidegger (Gadamer, Heelan, Kisiel, Kockelmans), Habermas and Foucault (Radder, Rouse, Gutting), and even Friedrich Nietzsche (Babich, Maurer, Spiekermann). In this context, the philosophical reflections on science to be found in Mach, Duhem and Bachelard may be mined for what should prove to be a productive historical foundation between these two traditions addressed to a common focus. --Continental Philosophy of Science: Mach, Duhem, and Bachelard ... Chapter 6
(Nov 18, 2017 05:27 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: I decided to see if Rupert Sheldrake had any videos and a ted talk video popped up. I immediately realized that it was one that had been sitting in my 'to watch' list. Weird, huh? [video] Not that I agree with him, but in a roundabout way, your [i.e., C2] reference may have given me a little more insight on how to develop more tolerance towards the mystical and the pious.
As a biologist, I guess Sheldrake has done research in the past that was praised / confirmed. But when his eastern spiritual(?) inclinations cross paths with his day-job, those trespasses of course garner a skeptic's knee-jerk disdain as crankhood.
Setting aside this supposed metaphysical preoccupation among the educated community in general (Alfred Whitehead also called it "scientific materialism"), I expect science will go through a renascence in the future, alright. But in a rewind sense of returning to the days when formal peer review[1] wasn't viewed as a universal, standard feature of publishing.[2][3]
The 19th-century and early 20th-century was a "wild west" era for science from the standpoint of evaluation often being late at the gates in terms of what was released and more dependent upon informal peer review to regulate things and dispense any shaming rituals. The informal label also includes what takes place outside of and before the description / literature aspect, where peers meet in real-time and co-workers look over each other's shoulders.[4] Diverse conceptions of what falls under "peer review" are especially mentionable in computer fields.[5]
The philosophical pre-conceptions or constraints were more relaxed in the 19th-century. There was more recognition of science's methodological approach being "as-if" rather than it bent into a supposed personal or group ontological gospel.[6]
footnotes
[1] Timothy Gowers: So to avoid any confusion, let me use the phrase “formal peer review” for the kind that is organized by a journal and “informal peer review” for the less official scrutiny that is carried out whenever an academic reads an article and comes to some sort of judgement on it. (The end of an error?)
- - -
[2] Michael Nielsen: The myth that scientists adopted peer review broadly and early in the history of science is surprisingly widely believed, despite being false. It’s true that peer review has been used for a long time – a process recognizably similar to the modern system was in use as early as 1731, in the Royal Society of Edinburgh’s Medical Essays and Observations. But in most scientific journals, peer review wasn’t routine until the middle of the twentieth century, a fact documented in historical papers by Burnham, Kronick, and Spier [...] Myth: Peer review is reliable. Update: Bill Hooker has pointed out that I’m using a very strong sense of “reliable” in this section, holding peer review to the standard that it nearly always picks up errors, is a very accurate gauge of quality, and rarely suppresses innovation. If you adopt a more relaxed notion of reliability, as many but not all scientists and members of the general public do, then I’d certainly back off describing this as a myth. As an approximate filter that eliminates or improves many papers, peer review may indeed function well. [...] Myth: Peer review is the way we determine what’s right and wrong in science. By now, it should be clear that the peer review system must play only a partial role in determing what scientists think of as established science. There’s no sign, for example, that the lack of peer review in the 19th and early 20th century meant that scientists then were more confused than now about what results should be regarded as well established, and what should not. Nor does it appear that the unreliability of the peer review process leaves us in any great danger of collectively coming to believe, over the long run, things that are false. (Three Myths About Peer Review)
- - -
[3] (Albert slips through the cracks.) https://theconversation.com/hate-the-pee...-too-27405
- - -
[4] (As seen in software circles. Order now!) http://www.myyesm.com/what-is-informal-or-peer-review/
- - -
[5] Karl E. Wiegers: An inspection is the most systematic and rigorous type of peer review. Inspection follows a well-defined multistage process with specific roles assigned to individual participants. Inspections are more effective at finding defects than are informal reviews. For example, inspections held on Motorola’s Iridium project detected 80% of the defects present, whereas less formal reviews discovered only 60% of the defects.
Team reviews are a type of "inspection-lite," being planned and structured but less formal and less rigorous than inspections. Typically, the overview and follow-up inspection stages are simplified or omitted, and some participant roles may be combined (e.g., moderator and reader).
A walkthrough is an informal review in which the work product’s author describes it to some colleagues and solicits comments. Walkthroughs differ significantly from inspections because the author takes the dominant role; other specific review roles are usually not defined. Walkthroughs are informal because they typically do not follow a defined procedure, do not specify exit criteria, require no management reporting, and generate no metrics.
In pair programming, two developers work on the same program simultaneously at a single workstation, continuously reviewing their joint work. Pair programming lacks the outside perspective of someone who is not personally attached to the code that a formal review brings.
In a peer deskcheck, only one person besides the author examines the work product. A peer deskcheck typically is an informal review, although the reviewer could employ defect checklists and specific analysis methods to increase effectiveness.
A passaround is a multiple, concurrent peer deskcheck, in which several people are invited to provide comments. The passaround mitigates two major risks of a peer deskcheck: the reviewer failing to provide timely feedback and the reviewer doing a poor job. (Seven Truths About Peer Review)
- - -
[6] Hermann Helmholtz: Even if we take the idealistic position, we can hardly talk about the lawful regularity of our sensations other than by saying: "Perceptions occur as if the things of the material world referred to in the realistic hypothesis actually did exist." We cannot eliminate the "as if" construction completely, however, for we cannot consider the realistic interpretation to be more than an exceedingly useful and practical hypothesis. We cannot assert that it is necessarily true, for opposed to it there is always the possibility of other irrefutable idealistic hypotheses.
It is always well to keep this in mind in order not to infer from the facts more than can rightly be inferred from them. The various idealistic and realistic interpretations are metaphysical hypotheses which, as long as they are recognised as such, are scientifically completely justified. They may become dangerous, however, if they are presented as dogmas or as alleged necessities of thought.
Science must consider thoroughly all admissible hypotheses in order to obtain a complete picture of all possible modes of explanation. Furthermore, hypotheses are necessary to someone doing research, for one cannot always wait until a reliable scientific conclusion has been reached; one must sometimes make judgments according to either probability or aesthetic or moral feelings.
Metaphysical hypotheses are not to be objected to here either. A thinker is unworthy of science, however, if he forgets the hypothetical origin of his assertions. The arrogance and vehemence with which such hidden hypotheses are sometimes defended are usually the result of a lack of confidence which their advocates feel in the hidden depths of their minds about the qualifications of their claims. What we unquestionably can find as a fact, without any hypothetical element whatsoever, is the lawful regularity of phenomena.--The Facts Of Perception
- - -
pondering cultural differences in power systems and generic cultural differences in systems of education structure...
USA vs UK
Quote:Setting aside this supposed metaphysical preoccupation among the educated community in general (Alfred Whitehead also called it "scientific materialism"), I expect science will go through a renascence in the future, alright. But in a rewind sense of returning to the days when formal peer review[1] wasn't viewed as a universal, standard feature of publishing.[2][3]
aside, i had a lecturer explain to me the process of publishing as a scientific process for post graduate studys(thats an apprentice professor or apprentice doctor)
[aside] i notice in the USA they try and give themselves names of doctor or professor even though they have not passed the test or the training. which as a matter of fact, i find quite intellectually disingenuous.
Back to the publishing part which pre-dates the peer review concept.
Thus told that simply being able to publish something gave one the ability to quote the nature of published content and then be party to certain levels of accepted criteria.
inspite the inconsequential nature of the publication format.
now add to this peer review...
peer review by its self suggests a sense of incapability to publish without peer review..
which is obviousely quite wrong...
thus the question begs, is this more about some trying to hatchet a few easy steps up a ladder that would otherwise be a real test of ability & intellect ?
and here we are left with a question...
is this[trend] all about cheaters, trying to cheat their way in to a system that they cant just bribe or buy their way in to ?
(Nov 18, 2017 08:42 PM)C C Wrote: As a biologist, I guess Sheldrake has done research in the past that was praised / confirmed. But when his eastern spiritual(?) inclinations cross paths with his day-job, those trespasses of course garner a skeptic's knee-jerk disdain as crankhood.
It was inspired by Collette Gaudin’s Introduction to Gaston Bachelard’s On Poetic Imagination and Reverie.
"Reverie is a playful time for Bachelard where one can approximate the state of wonder that we experienced in childhood. Such moments are very restorative to the psyche because we are momentarily "liberated from the gear-wheels of the calendar."
"Our aim, Bachelard explained, is to "cure the mind of its happy illusions, to free it from the narcissism caused by the first contact with the object."
"One task of epistemology is to make clear the mental patterns at use in science, in order to help scientists overcome the obstacles to knowledge."
(Nov 19, 2017 06:19 AM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: some thoughts...
now how can those bound by naratives(religion, physics etc) think outside of the narative context ?
mostly... though not always the average person becomes psychologically injured from attempting to contemplate an existance of no narative.
Ah, well, the thing that caught my attention was when he said 'existential crisis'. You don’t usually hear that phrase when you’re out and about in my neck of the woods.
IMHO, it’s a guy thing. They imagine themselves in a void very similar to how Christians imagine themselves in heaven.
I like poetry but I’m not really good at it. This is about as far as my existential crises went.
This one, Distant Dancer is a reflection on Nietzsche’s woman as TRUTH:
He compared it to how men chase women, but never really want to know her, or actually see her for what she truly is. Truth is beauty or so they say. It’s a possession. Her greatest power is action at distance—to tease. So, they look at truth through a veil of beautiful possibilities, which only disguises the lack of truth underneath. He uses two metaphors here to show how men try to separate themselves from truth, as if they’re sorting the wheat from the chaff, the male from the females, the yin from the yang, etc. They look at her as if she were a totally different creature far off in the distance, (a cow). Similar to how Yazata blamed female mate selection for male aggression, he’s blaming male mate selection for making half of the population weak. They don’t want to see the animalistic nature in women because they want to see their reflection in her eyes.
Beautiful and ugly ["fair and foul"]. -- Nothing is more conditional--or, let us say, narrower--than our feeling for beauty. Whoever would think of it apart from man's joy in man would immediately lose any foothold. "Beautiful in itself" is a mere phrase, not even a concept. In the beautiful, man posits himself as the measure of perfection; in special cases he worships himself in it. A species cannot do otherwise but thus affirm itself alone. Its lowest instinct that of self-preservation and self-expansion, still radiates in such sublimities. Man believes the world itself to be overloaded with beauty--and he forgets himself as the cause of this. He alone has presented the world with beauty--alas! Only with a very human, all-too-human beauty. At bottom, man mirrors himself in things; he considers everything beautiful that reflects his own image: the judgment "beautiful" is the vanity of his species. For a little suspicion may whisper this question into the skeptic's ear: Is the world really beautified by the fact that man thinks it beautiful? He has humanized it that is all. But nothing, absolutely nothing, guarantees that man should be the model of beauty. Who knows what he looks like in the eyes of a higher judge of beauty? Daring perhaps? Perhaps even amusing? Perhaps a little arbitrary?
"Finally, women. Reflect on the whole history of women: do they not to be first of all and above all actresses? Listen to the physicians who have hypnotized women; love them—let yourself be "hypnotized by them!" What is always the result? That they “put on something” even when they take off everything. Woman is so artistic."
At least a genuine artist is aware of her artistic endeavors. Like women, Nietzsche saw art as supporting and sustaining life.
"To the realists—those who "feel well armed against passion and fantasies" and believe that they are observing reality, including themselves, "unveiled." These realist believe they have discovered all of life’s secrets. Distance—pure, scientific objectification—is out of the question, for the observer’s own subjectivity is always mixed up in even the most dispassionate view."
I could be wrong but I think this is also part of C C’s warning on scientism.
My thoughts on the advent of nihilism...
The common nihilist, like the realist, looked beyond heaven and hell, good and evil, and did not see his reflection in the abyss. He thought he had unveiled a little truth. He guards it and carries it with him. Ah, my precious, look at how brave I am, but he holds nothing because he embraces nothingness. In nothingness he does not exist—nothingness does not exist. He cannot exist without her—never was there a man not born of woman. He forgot where he came from, Nietzsche's (women as LIFE). Nietzsche, on the other hand, embraces the woman. A genuine artist sees the abyss as a blank slate.
"I want to learn more and more to see as beautiful what is necessary in things; then I shall be one of those who make things beautiful. Amor fati: let that be my love henceforth! I do not want to wage war against what is ugly. I do not want to accuse; I do not even want to accuse those who accuse. Looking away shall be my only negation. And all in all and on the whole: some day I wish to be only a Yes-sayer."—Nietzsche
Just my two cents. What do you think, RU?
VeryLike !
Quote:The gravity of his body stretched the colors of my atmospheric haze.
His coiled confidence drew together the day’s denial. His constricting strength squeezed triumphs to the surface. With pride strong enough to stand against envy before my feet touched the ground. I danced off into a new day…
not quite, from a slightly different angle.
in that those who have pre programmed paradigms of absolute values attached through development to the ego and self may have a response the likes of midlife crisis, panic attacks, depresion, mania, drug addiction/addictive process(risk taking semi suicidal behaviour). come careening out as their mind is incapable of bending around a reality they feel to be real yet at odds to negate the ego that they know to be their perceptual true self.
you see this behaviour quite a lot in teenage children of baptist conservative christians.
having socialised quite extensively with christian youth going through puberty etc etc... i am well aware of the incongruity of the nature of the conservative religious beleifs and how they run quite wildly at odds with the intellectual development of the teenagers mind.
i have on many occasions assisted in interventions of teenagers going wild on alcahol or risky sexual behaviour as they have been let off the conservative christian leash.
lucky for them they have gone through that as a early or late teen instead of mid to late 20s when soo much more damage can occur to the mind.
or late 30s to 40s when homicidal/suicidal issues can easily arise.
Quote:IMHO, it’s a guy thing. They imagine themselves in a void very similar to how Christians imagine themselves in heaven.
yes see you were kinda on the right track.
the chauvinistic subconscious heavily biased sexist insular male(or female) with no real empathy for others(female more soo victim perpetuator mania instead of the psychopathic male hunter), other than a recognition of social practice to agree with various flash card exchanges of cross gender trade for sex & other bargaining processess.
Quote:He compared it to how men chase women, but never really want to know her, or actually see her for what she truly is. Truth is beauty or so they say. It’s a possession. Her greatest power is action at distance—to tease. So, they look at truth through a veil of beautiful possibilities, which only disguises the lack of truth underneath. He uses two metaphors here to show how men try to separate themselves from truth, as if they’re sorting the wheat from the chaff, the male from the females, the yin from the yang, etc. They look at her as if she were a totally different creature far off in the distance, (a cow). Similar to how Yazata blamed female mate selection for male aggression, he’s blaming male mate selection for making half of the population weak. They don’t want to see the animalistic nature in women because they want to see their reflection in her eyes.
Reminds me of this song(as if a female was singing it)
an infrequent female friend was saying to me "im soo messy you would hate it"
what i did not say to her was
"the aspects of my self that attune to the nature of bhuddism percieve you as complete and my knowledge of love is to recognise that i infact like the nature of the inner person i detected and engage with on a level beyond the normal social narative which i can speak to directly(so you would be beyond a shadow of doubt to whom of you i am a friend) to which i percieve as your real inner you"
(she would have percieved it as me coming on to her when i knew she was not interested in anything other than a casual friend)
LoL
instead i said "that type of thing does not bother me... mostly" & we both laughed
Quote:"To the realists—those who "feel well armed against passion and fantasies" and believe that they are observing reality, including themselves, "unveiled." These realist believe they have discovered all of life’s secrets. Distance—pure, scientific objectification—is out of the question, for the observer’s own subjectivity is always mixed up in even the most dispassionate view."
me making a metaphor...
using her beauty as a shield & sword, she cut her way through the enemy to put her name on the blood soaked ground she stood on. were it not for her fitness of spirit she could not have endured endlesly climbing over the corpses of young beautiful women.
Quote:"I want to learn more and more to see as beautiful what is necessary in things; then I shall be one of those who make things beautiful. Amor fati: let that be my love henceforth! I do not want to wage war against what is ugly. I do not want to accuse; I do not even want to accuse those who accuse. Looking away shall be my only negation. And all in all and on the whole: some day I wish to be only a Yes-sayer."—Nietzsche
i do not think many men really comprehend this position of the self.
with such un-relenting dogmatic obsession the cut n thrust of patriarchal metaphysics dominates the self actualisation process as it interacts with the other as a form of cloak & dagger empathy.
"you must smash it to prove you are real & in control of yourself" said society to the little boy.
-the little girl looked on bemused & disgusted as the little boy ran off like a marionette soldier in a fit of mania...
Remember how I was talking about buying used books and about how I could never figure out the reasons why some stranger would highlight certain words?
Well, yesterday, I was thinking about one book in particular that has always bothered me, "The Stranger" by Albert Camus. Someone had highlighted all the colors, reddish scabs, brown bodies, wispy yellow, blue skies, etc. I thought it was strange and a little creepy because they also highlighted all the words like blood, breasts, and underlined sentences about smacking women around, and killing someone. I decided to google "colors and Camus" and I found out that colors were employed by Camus to reflect Meursault's thought process and his emotions.
Nov 18, 2017 05:17 PM
