Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Vigilance

1 ... 12 [13] 14 ... 26
Interzone / Re: The way things are - The way things ought to be
« on: February 18, 2014, 07:48:18 AM »
Try looking at what you, and nearly everybody else does, as processing.
What is processing, anyway?
You take something - in the raw - and change it into something else. Usually for ease, or convenience. You do this via desire. Desire for a result that the original thing does not seem to supply. Think Kraft Cheese Slices. It bears very little resemblance to actual cheese. And that is what happens with mental processing. You end up with an understanding based upon what you have done to the original data, but not the original data, itself.
My one point is this:
Suspending intellect, you get a clear picture of things as things are, rather than what you have turned them into, by processing them. This I learned from a crow.
Call it intuition, or instinct, or whatever you feel comes closest. But whatever it is, it isn't intellect.
We are taught, early on, to process everything and subject it to intellect.
But what is the consequence of that?

Hmmm, but even the very simple act of perceiving something (like a crow), even before all processing, as you call it, is changing it from something that it is (particles, and their properties organised in a specific way to produce crow-behaviour) to something that it is not (light waves - and then, electrical signals in our brains).

I think the only way we come to know that this is the case, is via what you're calling 'processing': higher-level, analytical thought!

So by suspending intellect, we do not get a clearer picture of what things really are like, we are, as Plato would have thought, deceived. (And weren't you using analytic processing to get across your own point just now?) I know you're not going to like this, and it is not meant to challenge your worldview, as much to offer my own.

There is of course a big danger is being too analytic, and too intellectual. But what makes us special is that we can switch between these modes, when each is appropriate. When you look at a crow, or the stars, or a beautiful naked woman, you don't want to be thinking analytically all the time. But when it comes to knowing 'things-in-themselves' - then we don our Newton, Einstein, Watson or Crick hats and bow to the mystery (and then sometimes this forces you to stop thinking analytically - for sometimes it is too incredible to put 2 and 2 together and think of yourself as a manifestation of charges and particles. Sometimes you just need to sit and exist without-thinking).

I don't know that being over analytic is too much of the danger. It is dangerous to losing the correlation between the models and the things they are meant to represent. That's just the analytical side. The reflective side has it's own problems: abandoning all models for the reason that they are not the things they describe.

I'm going to go ahead and highlight an important point you made:

Our brains are literally compiling the world we see before us moment to moment from raw sensory data. If this conversation is to have any meaningful outcome, it's best we make a distinction between willed processing and the type of processing which compiles and presents reality to us.

Interzone / Re: Atheism
« on: February 17, 2014, 07:09:30 PM »
It's more along the lines that Progress posited infinite economic, technological and moral progress. Sure the science was never there to support it given the finite nature of things. But the vision itself put boots on the moon among other great feats, driving innovations in communication and so on. I'd say its like any mythology: not literally true but significant views that form the core goals of society.

There's a lot of bad, ugly, destructive things that came of it but those are all very well covered round these parts. The dream never panned itself out completely as most never do.

With regards to science, I think that's really a separate issue. Granted I believe it is held hostage by the suppositions of this mythology as well as the influence of Descartes on all modern thinking. That's a llarge conversation within itself and honestly one I'll need to brush up on.

Interzone / Re: The way things are - The way things ought to be
« on: February 17, 2014, 03:14:34 PM »
Either I haven't communicated clearly or you're not processing my words correctly.

Interzone / Re: The way things are - The way things ought to be
« on: February 17, 2014, 01:52:51 PM »
The intellect is really what we're talking about when it comes to assessment.

I've been on board with your project nearly the whole way through as far as I understood it to pertain to the ego, identity, the soul, God.

The former being a comprehension of parts (right & wrong), and the latter being an experience of the whole system (the totality of existence).

Interzone / Re: The way things are - The way things ought to be
« on: February 17, 2014, 01:30:06 PM »
You're missing the objective judgement of what is good and what is right because no human possesses the faculty to make such a call.

By what authority do you claim to know what all humans are capable or not capable of?
This is one of those examples of how one human judges the capabilities of all humans by what he, himself, is capable or not capable of.

On the authority that no human ever has produced a definite statement of absolute truth with regards to objective right and wrong.

Beyond that. Humans lack the perspective to see the full range of effects which radiate from every action as well as the effects that affect those actions. We can't even recall every moment our short lives.

It's only the hubris of the modern era that allows for the suggestion that everything can be reduced to level that it can be grasped by the human intellect. Or maybe it's more accurate to say that we believe the human intellect is so powerful that it can grasp everything.

Interzone / Re: The way things are - The way things ought to be
« on: February 17, 2014, 12:05:34 PM »
A component still has its own identify that differentiates it from other components. That's the fun part of the paradox.

You're missing the objective judgement of what is good and what is right because no human possesses the faculty to make such a call. 

Abstraction is a good tool as long as it's remembered to keep those mental models corresponding to reality. It's too often that they don't. The most unfortunate part about it is you get the Nihilists who come in later and decide all mental models are useless and trash them simply because they are not the things they describe.

Interzone / Re: The way things are - The way things ought to be
« on: February 17, 2014, 10:21:46 AM »
If that was to me, I tried to get across the point that lines of separation don't exist.

Interzone / Re: The way things are - The way things ought to be
« on: February 17, 2014, 07:35:10 AM »
As far as I'm concerned whatever people do is a part of the operation of the world.

People have tendencies like the OP described. You may be able to count on some of these to a high degree of probability. Though as absolute certainty? Yeah right! We've all seen how well economic theory, with its rational actors and all that, corresponds to what *people* actually do.

Interzone / Re: Atheism
« on: February 17, 2014, 07:25:00 AM »
There is a distinction, Imposition, between the categorical definition of Atheism and the ideologies of Ages of Rationalism that are categorically atheist.

When the Greeks coined the term to describe a particular lack of belief in Gods, they were heavily invested in the study of metaphysics. The ideology of Progress, aside from easily defined, and its evangelists are actual manifestations of real human behavior that actually occurs which textbook definitions try to describe. I really think this is the gap between us.

I said Progress no longer fits reality. Big distinction.

You misunderstood my comments on science so I can't really address any more of what you wrote.

Interzone / Re: Sanity.
« on: February 14, 2014, 12:47:52 PM »
What I meant is that I don't have goals, I'm here for the richness of experience. Not to be confused with hedonism.

That is what people mean when they talk about stars right?

Interzone / Re: Sanity.
« on: February 14, 2014, 12:30:52 PM »
I suppose I am alone enjoying my time down here. :)

Interzone / Re: Sanity.
« on: February 14, 2014, 10:55:50 AM »
What happened to the Taoism Crow? Does the master not sit at rest, while all other things are in motion, for she is within the Tao?

Try to conform and you will become a non-comformance. If you want to become straight, let yourself be crooked. If you want to be realistic. Let yourself become unrealistic.

Metal / Re: What bands are you listening to today?
« on: January 30, 2014, 07:43:13 AM »
Disclose. Dug this out of the depths of maybe 3 years. Still awesome and the only other good D-Beat band.

Therion - Gothic Kabbalah. Not sure how I feel about this. It's good in moments but the pop/mainstream/goofic stuff is really grating. Unfortunate because there is some really good ideas in here.

When I saw Iron Maiden last year, there were exactly two beautiful women. The rest were some form of trashy or obese.

Interzone / Re: Atheism
« on: January 29, 2014, 08:45:53 AM »
Haha well where you and I depart is on that sense of realism. Realism in the context of the conversation to myself is an understanding that human civilizations, given the necessary conditions, will follow through "periods" on the way up and on the way down. The outward forms will change but the underlying patterns are there.

I think it's pretty obvious that the core ideology of modern atheism, Progress, no longer fits reality. Not that it every truly did, but the vision itself bore practical fruit in the pursuit. Atheism of the present sort, clings tightly on the suppositions of Progress. I think it does have a large effect on your thinking just by how this conversation has gone.

I throw heavily into question the greater ontology/cosmology that modern science has wrought simply due to the unshaken foundations I mentioned earlier that have their origins in Christendumb. Again a lot of that has to do with my understanding of the patterns of thought throughout recorded history.

I don't think we are really going to find much of a consensus here. Which isn't really an issue.

1 ... 12 [13] 14 ... 26