Postcards:

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

d63
Posts: 755
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Postcards:

Post by d63 »

Rhizome 4/8/16 from a discourse w/ Chris Doveton and Christopher Vaughan on the issue of Free Will:

First of all, guys (and I apologize for the “dear diary” preamble (I always find it hard to get myself to do an immersion in anything but philosophy (such as art or literature –both fiction and poetry (because philosophy tends to offer me something to write my 4 to 500 words about every day. And my present immersion in David Foster Wallace’s Infinite Jest (the audiobook version and 55+ hours of listening pleasure (of which I’m about 14 hours into (has pretty much confirmed that suspicion. Still I am constantly nagging at myself to do so because, having found myself flailing my legs and arms in a sea of abstraction, I can’t help but conclude, at some point or other, I really need to get back to something a little more concrete.

That said, this experience has brought me to realize that not having anything to say about what I’m reading may be an advantage in that it gives me time to actually engage in discourses with others –something else I’m always nagging at myself to do. The icing on the cake (and the cherry on top (is that it gives me all that more license to bring more literature into my process which is important in that I’ve always been more interested in being a good writer than telling anyone what the truth is. You have to remember that I started out as a musician.

Anyway:

“I go with the argument that thoughts are internal language symbolizing and processing feeling information. I take the determinist position that we have no control over any thought, it simply issues from us or we somehow register it or receive it - we might be no more than radios with thoughts passing through as waves which we interpret and modulate into imagery - just jammin' on a rhizome.” –Chris

And your “just jammin’ on a rhizome” is what makes your approach to materialism refreshing and a lot more impressive than many of the hardcore materialists I have encountered on these boards –most of which I ended up in a state of bloodlust with because of their condescending attitude as they flashed around terms like “objectivity” and “the scientific method” while making general statements about the world that fell outside of the perimeters and criteria of both. And I’m guessing (hoping even (that the reason for this is that you have (much as I have (gotten comfortable with the materialist model via Rorty and Deleuze: mainly because it works with the model and manifesto Rorty and Deleuze present us with.

For myself, I embrace it conditionally in the sense of hypothetically accepting it for the sake of Rorty’s model of creative discourse or Deleuze’s (w/Guatarri (model of desiring production.

That said, I would offer some points on the issue I hope you will consider. First of all, I would argue that those that hold out for the possibility of Free Will (a residual of Cartesian dualism (need to stop talking about Free Will and start working in terms of what can start as a participating self, then reduce it to the notion of Participation which says nothing about the extent to which the self participates in it. Once we have done that, we can actually argue (via the science of chaotics (for something not part of the determined universe you describe that emerges in the non-linear (and evolutionary (feedback loop between the body, the brain (as well as the mind that haunts it, and the environment it is attempting to negotiate. For myself, I see the possibility for Participation in that effable and evanescent point at which the determined transforms into the random and the random transforms into the determined.

Just putting it out there.

“Things become a little awkward if our thinking is entirely determined or without any choice of freedom for if freedom is an illusory concept what would the need be of this illusory concept ever appearing in our thoughts? Furthermore, it appears self defeating to say that we can realize that our thoughts are determined, for apparently this has not been actually realized but is merely an imposed thought. Then why should this imposed thought be true? If freedom is illusory why isn't determinism an illusion?” –Christopher

This is an impressive argument, Christopher. I would only (and respectfully (caution you that it approaches a strategy similar to that of skeptic’s paradox as an argument against the skeptic. The argument runs that one can hardly say that there are no absolutes since to do so is to present yet another absolute. And the response to this from the skeptic would be that there is a big difference between saying one lives in a world in which there are no absolutes and actually living in one. The problem for me is that the paradox is primarily a semantic phenomenon that doesn’t always translate into existential statements about how the world actually works. And we have to consider the possibility that Chris saying he lives in a determined world is different than actually living in one.

But hopefully we’ll get the chance to iron this all out together. Once again: 14 hours in to 55+ hours of listening pleasure.
d63
Posts: 755
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Postcards:

Post by d63 »

Rhizome 4/9/16: continued coverage on the ongoing (a term, BTW, discouraged by Strunk and White’s Elements of Style (and may the wrath of Professor Strunk rest in its grave (discourse between me, Chris Doveton​, and Christopher Vaughan​ on the issue of Free Will (what I prefer to call Participation (in the context of Rorty’s pragmatic model of discourse which, to me, has overlaps with Deleuze and Guatarri’s model of desiring production:

“Just want to pick up on a point made by Christopher Vaughan- "...if freedom is an illusory concept what would be the need of this illusory concept ever appearing in our thoughts?" I would suggest as a pragmatist that we need these illusions- they are part of our mythological imagination.” –Chris

“Do you mean that we are not happy with accepting we are totally controlled by something else and so we imagine we are free? But who on earth would be happy to do that? Then happiness would be impossible!

Surely it would be much more productive to actually be free.

You agree there is such a thing as thought and you agree we participate in them, that is, we can think them, although you say we do not produce them, but then why don't I just produce thoughts myself and be actually free instead of accepting the rather unsatisfactory and pointless illusion of being free and thinking what something else is thinking?”

First of all, guys, in the narrative running through my mind (my fancy (while reading this interchange, I find myself approaching this rhizome as some kind of referee. This is disconcerting to me in that by approaching it in that capacity, I could come off as some kind of final authority which I can assure you is not my intent. In other words, anything that follows is just me adding my two cents. Anyway (and I apologize for repeating the already stated –it is strictly a matter of the continuity of my process justified by the present influence of David Foster Wallace’s Infinite Jest:

“Just want to pick up on a point made by Christopher Vaughan- "...if freedom is an illusory concept what would be the need of this illusory concept ever appearing in our thoughts?" I would suggest as a pragmatist that we need these illusions- they are part of our mythological imagination.” –Chris

I would add to this, Chris, the popular theory from an evolutionary perspective: that our experience of consciousness may have been an evolutionary adaption in that it was what gave us an advantage in having some sense of what it was we were trying to keep going –that which (if we are to accept Dawkin’s theory about the selfish gene (is the conscious expression of some subconscious imperative to sustain our genetic makeup. So I would hesitate before totally dismissing your take on it. At the same time, I would hesitate to dismiss Christopher’s argument for Free Will (what I would prefer to refer to think of as Participation (because I can’t help but feel, due to the model of an emergent property I described in rhizome 4/8/16:

“That said, I would offer some points on the issue I hope you will consider. First of all, I would argue that those that hold out for the possibility of Free Will (a residual of Cartesian dualism (need to stop talking about Free Will and start working in terms of what can start as a participating self, then reduce it to the notion of Participation which says nothing about the extent to which the self participates in it. Once we have done that, we can actually argue (via the science of chaotics (for something not part of the determined universe you describe that emerges in the non-linear (and evolutionary (feedback loop between the body, the brain (as well as the mind that haunts it, and the environment it is attempting to negotiate. For myself, I see the possibility for Participation in that effable and evanescent point at which the determined transforms into the random and the random transforms into the determined.”

:it seems to me (for reasons I hope to articulate on throughout this discourse, Chris, that the semi-eliminative materialism and strict determinism you are backing results from a linear model of causality as compared to the feedback loops of causality I am seeing. This is why, for instance, the homunculus argument against Free Will is so effective in that comes off (because of the linear model of causality (as an infinite regress. But more on that later as I am contractually obligated to get to Christopher’s point:

“Do you mean that we are not happy with accepting we are totally controlled by something else and so we imagine we are free? But who on earth would be happy to do that? Then happiness would be impossible!

Surely it would be much more productive to actually be free.

You agree there is such a thing as thought and you agree we participate in them, that is, we can think them, although you say we do not produce them, but then why don't I just produce thoughts myself and be actually free instead of accepting the rather unsatisfactory and pointless illusion of being free and thinking what something else is thinking?”

What I would ask you to consider here (via Spinoza), Christopher, is that happiness is a cumulative effect (a kind of narrative even (of pleasant experiences: what Spinoza would refer to as joyful affects. But you are right (in the sense of me agreeing with you (when you say:

“Surely it would be much more productive to actually be free. “

I mean in terms of the evolutionary model and imperative I am offering, it would be far more productive to actually have a consciousness w/ free will (or, once again, Participation (than an illusion of one. But we have to remember that we’re mainly making a deductive argument here. At same time, I find myself clearly in your corner when you say:

“You agree there is such a thing as thought and you agree we participate in them, that is, we can think them, although you say we do not produce them, but then why don't I just produce thoughts myself and be actually free instead of accepting the rather unsatisfactory and pointless illusion of being free and thinking what something else is thinking?”

I ask once again: if consciousness and Free Will (Participation (is an illusion, what exactly is it an illusion to?
d63
Posts: 755
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Postcards:

Post by d63 »

Rhizome 4/10/16 on the ongoing (and may the wrath of Professor Strunk rest in its grave (between me, Christopher Vaughan, and Chris Doveton in which I find myself having to referee for the sake of de-escalating what could escalate into bloodsport –that is while exploiting the opportunity to bring in a quote from D.F. Wallace’s Infinite Jest:


“There is nothing to wrap up as you are refusing to address any questions I ask and have instead resorted to rather provocative remarks implying your superiority” –Christopher


“I've read back and I see you are absolutely right! Condescending etc...Sorry about that! Ok then, hope that's cleared up , Cya.” –Chris


“ D Edward Tarkington over to you Ed, to wrap things up here...” -Chris


First of all, guys, we need to take it a little easier here and ask ourselves how much life would be really changed if either side of the debate was finally declared, beyond question, to be the correct one. It’s like the joke I like to offer to hardcore determinists: if they were to give me the next winning lotto numbers I would be more than willing to admit they were right; that way they could have the satisfaction of being confirmed while I could have the satisfaction of being rich. A win-win by any criteria as far as I’m concerned.

But no one has to win here. Right?

Christopher, on these boards I have found myself in a kind of bloodlust with 2 types: hardcore Libertarians and Hardcore Materialists. They tend to come off as condescending and dismissive. But let’s give Chris a little credit for not doing so. He, for instance (as many materialists do, has not thrown out words like “objectivity” and “the scientific method” then made assertions that fit the criteria of neither. Thus far, to me, he has just been making his point. And I would note that he doesn’t baffle us with big words as you noted on another post that I have saved and plan to respond to.


Chris, having dealt with hardcore materialists as I have on these boards, I know perfectly well how easy it is for someone who holds out for some possibility of Free Will (or Participation (to develop a bit of a hairline trigger when it comes to how condescending those who argue from the Capitalist backed position of scientism can be. I would only ask that you be sensitive to that and keep in mind that the issue, as of yet, has not been conclusively determined.


Alright:


“Son, you’re ten, and this is hard news for somebody ten, even if you’re almost five-eleven, a possible pituitary freak. Son, you’re a body, son. That quick little scientific-prodigy’s mind she’s so proud of and won’t quit twittering about: son, it’s just neural spasms, those thoughts in your mind are just the sound of your head revving, and head is still just body, Jim. Commit this to memory. Head is body. Jim, brace yourself against my shoulders here for this hard news, at ten: you’re a machine a body an object, Jim, no less than this rutilant Montclair, this coil of hose here or that rake there for the front yard’s gravel or sweet Jesus this nasty fat spider flexing in its web over there up next to the rake-handle, see it? See it?” -Wallace, David Foster (2009-04-03). Infinite Jest (p. 159). Little, Brown and Company. Kindle Edition.


Here, as we have seen with Spinoza, Deleuze, and Rorty, the value of accepting the materialist position for sake of a usable model that can help us explain the world and how to act in it. Still, choices seem to be being made. This is where I depart with you, Chris. You say:


“I first came to a skeptical position on free will after working through the homunculus or infinite regress argument. Even without the neuroscience, this seems to fairly damn free will in any traditional essentialist sense. There is certainly something irrefutable about "will" of course, but I imagine it in the way Schopenhauer or those sort of people wrote about it....Rorty writes very cogently about how Freud de-centered the self into a series of cyclic processes with no governing agency - like a machine as he put it...”


Now before I go on, I want to first make my own attempt to explain the Homunculus problem for Christopher and its relation to infinite regress:


From its perspective, Christopher, we start with a supposed little man that is in our brain that is, as Chris describes, acting as the captain of the ship: our body. The problem is that we then have to imagine yet another little man inside the head of the captain that must contain yet another little man and so on and so on until we end up with a kind of infinite regress.


And this is where I depart from Chris in questioning the linear nature of causality folded in to the argument when, as I see it, causality is more about non-linear feedback loops between the body, the brain (as well as the mind (consciousness as we experience it, and our environment. And I would respectfully ask Chris to consider the possibility that his embrace of homunculus argument is based on a questionable assumption: the linear model of causality. Also, I think we have to question why it is that an infinite regress automatically constitutes some kind of failure. To me, it seems to be the way things are: the strings of causality all receding and converging into the distance, into nothingness.
d63
Posts: 755
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Postcards:

Post by d63 »

Rhizome 4/11/16: kind of an odds and ends approach in which, having nothing in particular to say, I follow through just to see where my 4 to 5 hundred word window takes me:

“ I think it's good to avoid the dualism and not favor a team here... the substance of the universe is only read in these binary dialectical terms as a function of our cognitive reach...if that makes any sense!” -Chris Doveton​

It’s referred to as overcoding in the terms of Deleuze and Guatarri. And it’s likely due to the structure of our brains which gives some credibility to the materialist position. In this sense, it is a quirk of language, as it has evolved from the brain (an evolutionary adaption even (and likely the source of the post-structuralist and postmodern view that there is something about reality that seems to transcend or overflow the language we use to describe it: or what Lacan referred to as the Real in relation to the symbolic order. By referring to the world with such dualities, Chris, we allow ourselves a sense of order that reality, as it actually is (the Real, doesn’t offer us. It’s basically a kind of capture (a momentary stay against confusion (in a universe that is in a constant state of becoming.

The point, as you infer elsewhere, is to evolve beyond it. That’s what makes what we do (even if it is for the fun and beauty (shits and giggles (important.

To give you sense of how important it is (something I think you’ll appreciate as a European who has had America’s cut-throat form of Capitalism shoved down your throat: America, in historical terms, is a relatively young country compared to other western industrialized nations. And I would argue that because of that, we are in ways far less evolved. And nothing could make this clearer than our dualistic political system as compared to the multi-party systems we see in every other western industrialized nation. And it’s not just that we have this system; it’s that we act like there is no other system we could possibly have. No one here seems to question the duality of Democrat or Republican. We may be more technologically and militarily evolved. But we’re still basically adolescent primates. This is why I can’t help but feel we are prime for a fascist experiment for which I would offer the success of Trump as proof.

That said, I want to address a point you made elsewhere (which I cannot seem to find at this point (in which you pointed out the questionable idea of consciousness being able to detach from itself. And Christopher​, I hope you are listening in:

Dennett, in Consciousness Explained, argued for a multiple drafts theory for the way we come to know an object which consisted of the data being passed around to various modules of the brain and revised until we came to a workable conclusion about what it was we were looking at. And it is a reasonable theory. At the same time, he offered it as an argument against the Cartesian Theater: the idea that everything passes before consciousness like a kind of stage play for which consciousness is audience to. But it seems to me is that all he really did was make the actors the spectators as well. In other words, consciousness doesn’t necessarily need to be detached from the body in order act outside of it: to participate. This is why I am sympathetic with Christopher when he says:

“The thing I am struggling with is that both the homunculus and infinite regress argument have been introduced as if they are necessary to my believing we have free will, but I respectfully say that no such argument has been made so far in this discussion which explains why they so apply.“
d63
Posts: 755
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Postcards:

Post by d63 »

Christopher's point on Ryle:

It seems to me, Chris, that you are replaying what Gilbert Ryle argues in "Concept of Mind".

He claims that people who talk of material bodies controlled by immaterial minds are making a "category mistake" because minds are not things in the way that physical bodies are but are more like forms of organization.

He gives, as examples, how "a foreigner" visiting an English "university" does not realize the university is an institution organizing the colleges and so on and is not a building, like a college is, and an army "division" is not the same as a battalion for a battalion is just one part of an organization called a division, or that "team spirit" during a cricket match is how players organize their responses to the challenges of the game but this is not one of the operations of the playing of the game itself.

He says the foreigner does not understand the differences because he does not yet understand the meanings of the particular words: "university", "division" and "team spirit".

I remain to be convinced these examples actually work because all of them are based on the perceptions of people who are supposedly not familiar - Ryle calls them "foreigners" - with a particular language game, in this case the English language or culture although it could be unfamiliarity with any language or cultural activity, and therefore supposedly do not understand the difference between a college and a university, a battalion and division or player and their team spirit.

It is also paramount to understand that Ryle does not address the reality that a foreign person would immediately know the distinction of these words or categories if they were translated into his familiar language and that in Ryle's examples the foreigners are not so much actually reaching the point of making category mistakes at all but are at an earlier stage of simply not knowing the meaning of particular words in a language game they otherwise seem to be learning to understand successfully.

Why is this important to understand? It is because Ryle's examples actually picture the reverse of the reality he is claiming they can be used to analyze. His examples involve a man who is not understanding only one or a few words of a language game that he does successfully learn and everyone else in the culture he is visiting also understand. But it is strange the foreigner can understand so much of what he is apparently unfamiliar with, he knows what colleges and battalions are and so forth but only struggles with certain other concepts like university and division for Ryle completely suppresses the fact that the foreigner would definitely understand a university or a division or team spirit are different kinds of entities if he knew what the words meant in English. What could actually be going on is that for some strange reason the people teaching the foreigner are not teaching the language correctly because they teach the foreigner words like university without explaining their meaning fully.

Ryle has created an inversion of the language game he is targeting for analysis. Ryle is claiming an "official doctrine" of the separation of the mind and the body, that is, the general language game everyone is using to theorize the distinction, is wrong, and he is the individual, or the "foreigner", who is noticing the language game is nonsensical. But his method of analysis is actually the inverse of this, as all his examples are of a single individual, a foreigner, who is unfamiliar with some parts of a language game coming across a language game which is not faulty and who does not know the meanings of all the words he has heard.

It is not clear to me how an analysis of a properly functioning language game, which has clear categories, and is then mysteriously misunderstood by a foreigner deprived of the meanings of select words enlightens our understanding of a language game Ryle claims is not properly functioning, that is its categories are unclear, yet all the language users have not noticed this? Surely examples have to have some likeness to the circumstance they are intended to explain but where is the likeness here of Ryle's examples to the reality his claims exists for them to analyze?
d63
Posts: 755
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Postcards:

Post by d63 »

Rhizome 4/13/16 on the continuing discourse between me, Chris, and Christopher on the issue of free will (what I prefer to call Participation (with an emphasis on Christopher’s attached post on Gilbert Ryle’s categorical mistake:

(Starting song: Norman Greenbaum’s Spirit in the Sky.)

“So far we have discussed the idea of conscious free will as a ghost in the machine/ homunculus/ captain of the ship…. minus ghost Lacan talks about the self as a product of desire meeting reality. The ghost is our libidinal drive - I will go into this more fully cos I know you're all interested!!!” –Chris

Not to brag or pat myself on the back here, Chris, or claim that I have some kind of final take on this, but I’m starting to feel like the synthesis here in that while I wouldn’t go as far as Christopher does in arguing for dualism (that is to the extent he does while limiting himself, I still would argue for some degree of participation. Once again, the deductive arguments you present against free will are compelling. But when we drop the notion of Free Will for the notion of participation, they, for me at least, start to become less effective. For instance, the notion of participation is perfectly compatible with your second point:

“….minus ghost Lacan talks about the self as a product of desire meeting reality. The ghost is our libidinal drive….”

This seems like a reasonable model for me –much as it was with Deleuze and Guatarri. At the same time, I’m not sure that the model necessarily excludes the possibility of Participation. And Christopher’s post on Ryle’s categorical mistake offers me some new conceptual toys to play with towards this end.

“It seems to me, Chris, that you are replaying what Gilbert Ryle argues in "Concept of Mind".

He claims that people who talk of material bodies controlled by immaterial minds are making a "category mistake" because minds are not things in the way that physical bodies are but are more like forms of organization. “ –Christopher

And once again, Christopher, we have to ask: Categorical Mistake to what? And this, as far as I’m concerned, is the one deductive issue that hardcore materialists can’t get past. And the homunculus problem is primarily a deductive one –that is one that the notion of Participation bypasses.

Furthermore, it seems to me that Ryle’s Categorical Mistake (as you and he describe it (can be turned back on the hardcore materialist in that it is primarily focused on the concept of dualism as a whole as compared to the individual arguments in themselves. In this sense, the materialist like Ryle becomes the foreigner more focused on the individual components of the various colleges as compared to the more abstract concept of the university. Because of this, they tend to focus on the individual actions of the brain while failing to see how the component of Participation (via its interaction with the determined systems of the brain, body, and the environment they are negotiating (can lead to a composite effect that is very much like Free Will: may even be Free Will.

“I remain to be convinced these examples actually work because all of them are based on the perceptions of people who are supposedly not familiar - Ryle calls them "foreigners" - with a particular language game, in this case the English language or culture although it could be unfamiliarity with any language or cultural activity, and therefore supposedly do not understand the difference between a college and a university, a battalion and division or player and their team spirit. “ –Christopher

Dennett referred to these as intuition pumps. He wrote a whole book on them that I really need to read.
d63
Posts: 755
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Postcards:

Post by d63 »

Rhizome 4/14/16 in which I randomly thread my way through the ongoing discourse (and may the wrath of Strunk rest in its grave (between me, Christopher, and Chris on the issue of free will:

“Can you elaborate on "participation" as simply as possible, please! Also I understand that the deductive regress argument relies on causality but what is looped causality? Is it a reflexive model, a-temporal in effect?” –Chris

To approach it from a different angle, Chris, and to better explain why I consider it a kind of synthesis between your MORE (not pure (materialist take and Christopher’s MORE (once again: not pure (dualistic approach to the issue, you have to look at Participation as a component (as compared to “Captain of the ship” in the system that, via its interaction with the various determined systems it interacts with, and through the kind of transcendent resonances (emergent properties (that results from their interactions, creates a composite effect that is a conditional form of free will.

And you have to look at it in the context of evolution in order to understand the role the feedback loops have played in it. Having evolved from simple organisms that evolved simple nervous systems that coalesced into central nervous systems that budded (step by step (into the brains that allow us to do what we are doing here. And what has driven this process is the body’s effort to negotiate its environment in ways that will optimize the success of its given gene pool -much as Dawkins describes it. Hence: the non-linear feedback loops described by chaotics: that between the body, its brain, and the environment it is attempting to negotiate.

And to answer your question about a-temporal effects: yes. What evolved along the way was an ability to imagine the future and to anticipate which made the already non-linear feedback loop (that is between body, brain, and environment (even more non-linear –especially given the fact that the body and brain have always been and will always be prone to misguided anticipations of what their environment will bring.

And I would add here that the mathematics of chaotic have presented the possibility of attractors and strange attractors which, by definition, imply a role for the future in the feedback loops I am describing.

“Edward, just to correct one point you make, in which you say that I am defending dualism. By criticising Ryle, I am merely revealing the flaws in his supposed analysis of dualism, which is not the same thing as defending dualism. “–Christopher

In my defense, Christopher, I would refer to a point I made in rhizome 4/13/16:

“Not to brag or pat myself on the back here, Chris, or claim that I have some kind of final take on this, but I’m starting to feel like the synthesis here in that while I wouldn’t go as far as Christopher does in arguing for dualism (that is to the extent he does while LIMITING HIMSELF….”

That said, I kind of get what you are saying. At the same time, I would caution you that it will be taken as dualism and argued against as such. I get it in that you are working from a univocal concept of being in the same sense that Berkeley came to a univocal concept of being later reinforced by quantum physics and Deleuze. But you are looking for proof of a soul, bro, that will continue to exist after we die. And that is a hard product to sell in these jaded times. But, at least, you are in the good company of David Chalmers.

Godspeed! I really do hope you succeed.
d63
Posts: 755
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Postcards:

Post by d63 »

Rhizome 4/15/16: no particular point; no particular song:

First of all guys, I notice the conspicuous absence of Chris here today. But then I had gotten the feeling he was at the end of his run with this particular “individuation” and was ready to seek another. And we all gotta find our flow (our individuation, don’t we? And this goes to today’s rhizome as I am picking it out of the material you have offered me. Anyway, enough preamble (as something I would edit out in a more finished piece, I always go to work at night regretting it anyway:

“I have to admit, Edward, that my interest in philosophy is guided by Plato's interpretation of Socrates, for whom the central question seems to have been how to live a good life and therefore philosophy is a discussion between people to determine what a good life is and then how to persuade other people that a living a good life should be their priority. “ –Christopher

Once again, Christopher, we all have to find our flow. We all come to philosophy for various reasons and find other reasons along the way. And that, as far as I’m concerned, is the way it should be because when it comes to the political/social points you and Dan made:

“The current popular revolt seems to be founded on the belief that such discussion is now useless - or rather, it has been 'bought' - leaving merely a contest(ation) of utopias. In the vacuum left by the techno-governance of global economics, faith has replaced (political) philosophy.” –Dan

“Yes and this is why commentators have treasured Plato's dialogues as examples of discussing how to live which provoke further discussion rather than providing answers. Also that a discussion in which all the people have to be sincere otherwise the discussion is not real.” –You

I tend to agree with you when you say:

“But the answer is not a book or a prophet but the discussion between people. This is crucial to understand.”

Given the complexity and subtle components of the mess we are in, it’s going to take a lot of different people doing a lot of different things guided by different belief systems just falling into place.

That said, I tend (in my reading choices, by nature and disposition, to veer away from the ethical. This is because at the core of my process is a sense of philosophy as a form of Play (a kind of stand in for the psychedelic experiences I had in the 70's which were, by nature, Metaphysical: the dreamlike process of playing conceptual schemes off of other conceptual schemes just to see what happens. But I consider it a form of Play with some perhaps serious consequences. In other words, even though I, by nature, tend to veer away from it, it is not a matter of me willfully determining it as not being worth my time. In fact, one of the main sources of my push into philosophy (I started out as a musician (was the War on Drugs (which was an ethical issue. And I would also note that it was through conceptual play that I landed on the conceptual system I consider to be one of my golden eggs: Efficiency which is not just an ecological model (in the sense of how systems interact (but offers up ethical imperatives as well –imperatives that stand against the expansionist model of producer/consumer Capitalism which, as far as I’m concerned, is no longer sustainable if we are to save ourselves as a species.

And if you think about it, it’s kind of hard to engage in philosophy from any approach without somehow touching on other points in the philosophical spectrum. And I base this on my revision of Will Durant’s 5 concerns of philosophy:

Metaphysics, Logic, Ethics, Aesthetics, and Politics

:which I would revise to:

Metaphysics/Ontology (ontology being a metaphysics w/ its feet on the ground><Logic/Epistemology><Ethics/Aesthetics (both being about value judgments>< and the social/political

And touching upon any one of these points we find ourselves, sooner or later, touching upon the others.
d63
Posts: 755
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Postcards:

Post by d63 »

Rhizome 4/17/16: a continuation of a digression between me and Christopher on the nature of Jesus as a historical figure as compared to the mythical one embraced by Christianity:

(Pre-note: I would bring up again a recommendation by my respected peer, Greg: The Existential Jesus –a book I have to put on the shortlist of my reading bucket list.”

“Yes this farce of the second coming for surely the point is that his example was that we can all behave like him if we choose and be gentle and care for the poor and the sick and the suffering. Really that is all that is needed to transform the world.

That little step when we decide we are not going to allow others to suffer wherever possible becomes the transformation.” –Christopher

This, Christopher, is exactly why I am beginning to see Christianity as it is generally practiced, as a false religion full of false prophets –especially as concerns the Baptist and Calvinistic elements of it. This is not to say that all its practitioners are false in their faith. Pope Francis, for instance, seems to have learned a few tricks from Jesus; as did a priest documented by Michael Moore in Capitalism: an American Love Story who outright said that Capitalism is evil. The problem is that the false form of Christianity (that which has entwined itself (via Calvinism (with the power structure of Capitalism (has embedded itself so deeply in American culture that it (via whatever superficial models of evil it holds up (will end up being the main instigators of evil. As I said:

“And all we have to do to understand this, Christopher, is imagine the so-called "second coming of Christ" that our Christians are so looking forward to and imagining him saying to them: you know what? Everything you are doing is wrong and against everything I preached. Capitalism is your only god.

“We would crucify him just like we did 2000 years ago.”

What I forgot to say was that many of our so-called Christians would be right at the front of that lynch mob. And they act like Islam is the only source of evil in the world. What is starting to crystallize for me is the extent to which there is no difference between secular libertarian Republicans and the Christian ones.

Now imagine a scenario in which the democrats and liberals are no longer in the picture. Don’t you think, Christopher, that they (having lost their common enemy (would turn on each other? And wouldn’t it be because the Christian factor considered itself above the libertarian one because they are “less self indulgent”?

But let’s take a look at how self indulgent the Christian factor actually is –that is via the Calvinistic sensibility. Basically what they want is a world that reflects their values: a world focused on prosperity and undistracted by gays, drug users, welfare recipients, whoremongers, and anything else that God might punish us for via less prosperity. They are basically as self indulgent as the Libertarians are while claiming to prop up their values with the teachings of Christ.

Once again: a false religion.

It gets really telling when you consider the republican’s “second choice”, Ted Cruz (whom the Republicans will likely choose over Trump, whose main claim to fame is having banned sex toys in Texas based on the conviction that sex should only be engaged in for the sake of reproduction, that is at a time when the earth is quickly approaching an unsustainable population growth. And let us note here the shifting assumptions involved in the Republican platform based on self indulgence that we’ll see if Cruz gets the nomination and repeatedly talks about limited government –a limit, apparently, that doesn’t apply to how one, two (whatever floats your boat, individuals choose to sexually satisfy themselves.

And this window, Christopher (and note this Keith, has only allowed me to touch the tip of the iceberg of how really bad the reasoning of the Republican Party really is.
d63
Posts: 755
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Postcards:

Post by d63 »

Background to the following rhizome:

Edward, I think the controlling power of all the world's religions, whether it be Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity and so on, is a critical issue for the world.

I suppose I feel that it is critical because the question of whether we live on after death is one of the most powerful thoughts we can have and when it is taken control of it can take control of the whole being of a person.

I really include atheism in this issue for although it is not a belief controlled by religions it is still controlled by other organizations formed by other groups like scientists and philosophers and these groups still seek to control people's ideas of what happens after death and this then impacts on how they live their life on earth.

The truth is that we do not know what will happen after we die and because death is unusual in this world, in denying us access to knowledge about it, then all we have left to examine it is reason.

For example, an atheist can convincingly argue that since there is no definitive evidence of existence after death then there is no existence after death. This seems to me a strong argument, however, it is not quite strong enough for the reason that absence of evidence of something existing does not mean something does not exist. We know from experience that things may exist which we will never discover up until the point of discovery and therefore we can reason that death is just such a thing, that is, no one can experience life after death until they die and since we know we can only experience this life while living it is an impossibility to know the next life while we are not in the state required to experience it, that is, dead.

I cannot remember who it was but I remember hearing someone saying they believe all the world's religions because one of them might be true and they don't want to miss out by picking the wrong one. It sounds like a Woody Allen joke, no? But there is truth in this joke. In a sense we should entertain as many possibilities as possible, including atheism, and yet no possibilities at the same time for we simply do not know and surely it is the best course of action when we do not know what will happen to be open minded and wait and see what happens.

This does not mean we cannot prepare ourselves and in fact we should prepare ourselves for while if we cease existing then obviously we cannot be anything to do anything, if we do continue existing we will have something to deal with it and experience teaches us that having prepared for the future can help us deal with the future.

So this is what I think that much maligned word, "faith", actually means, it is knowledge. Faith is often described as a word meaning we believe in what is not seen, and this is a correct definition, but then people often say "I believe this... will happen because I have faith" or someone will criticize another by saying "your faith is not knowledge" but I would argue that true faith is knowledge because faith is really having the correct attitude regarding the unknown. In this instance, faith is knowing that the question of what, if anything, happens after death is relevant to the way we live now and because we do not know the answer to whether there is life after death this is a kind of knowledge that we have to approach the question of life after death with an open and not a closed mind.

In other words, having faith is knowing that we are ignorant of what is to come but knowing we are ignorant of what is to come is after all knowledge of something.
d63
Posts: 755
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Postcards:

Post by d63 »

Rhizome 4/18/16: a response to my increasingly respected peer Christopher’s rather well written post (rhizome (on the issue of religion [text attached:

First of all, Christopher, I have to say I’m really starting to admire your writing style. Like me, you like to keep it clear and clean which goes a long ways towards facilitating discourse. This, of course, goes to a point you made elsewhere:

“I am surprised just how many people use fancy sounding words when they talk about supposedly deep subjects but do not actually engage in debate about these subjects in any great depth.
What I feel I may be discovering is that people mostly get their ideas from other people, often authority figures, and perhaps do not even understand these ideas well and they have killed these ideas anyway by using them simply to justify a choice they have made about how they are going to live their life.
Surely we should think for ourselves and when we discuss an issue we should think there and then about that issue and not try to regurgitate what someone else has said which destroys all discussion and ends up becoming like a fortress the person defends without using any reason.”

:a point I agree with in a conditional kind of way. As I have said before:

“I’m drawn to French/continental concepts while being equally drawn to the Anglo-American style of exposition.”

Your style suggests the same generosity of a Rorty or even a Jaspers in the cultural context he was working in. At the same time, there is still the question of whether the obscure and oblique approach to meaning utilized by such thinkers as Deleuze or Derrida was necessary to get at the point they were trying to get at. I mainly bring this up as an enticement to a future discourse.

Now to the point:

“I suppose I feel that it is critical because the question of whether we live on after death is one of the most powerful thoughts we can have and when it is taken control of it can take control of the whole being of a person.

I really include atheism in this issue for although it is not a belief controlled by religions it is still controlled by other organizations formed by other groups like scientists and philosophers and these groups still seek to control people's ideas of what happens after death and this then impacts on how they live their life on earth.“

In other words: we have to admit that atheism (for all its claims to be otherwise (is still basically a faith. And we, furthermore, must admit that what props it up (in ways described by Foucault (are the power structures behind science and, to some extent, philosophy. In that sense, there is a kind of operationalism at work as described by Marcuse.

What makes your point a step forward for me is when you point out:

“For example, an atheist can convincingly argue that since there is no definitive evidence of existence after death then there is no existence after death. This seems to me a strong argument, however, it is not quite strong enough for the reason that absence of evidence of something existing does not mean something does not exist. “

I have, for some time, made the argument that you cannot turn a negative argument into a positive one. For instance, one could reasonably argue that there is no way of knowing that proof for evolution is not the result of some man with horns and cloven hooves planting all this evidence in order to throw us off his scent. The best we can say is that it is not likely. The problem, however, starts when one tries to convert that possibility into an argument for evolution as a misguided belief system: to argue that since there is no way of knowing that there isn’t a devil seeking to mislead us, evolution must be false.

What I hadn’t thought about before is how this applies the atheistic position as well. And I would also point out the role that the inductive limit might play in this: the fact that no matter how much data you collect, it will always be haunted by the data you don’t –the always finite in the face of the infinite.
d63
Posts: 755
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Postcards:

Post by d63 »

Rhizome 4/23/16 in which I (hopefully (d.construct my dear friend Keith Adkins​’ self description as a “constitutionalist” and, in the process, defuse some of the hostility:

“Wow you don't even know me. I am a Constitutionalist. Hate both parties. P.s. still need to get laid.”

As far as getting laid or needing to, Keith, I would only respond with the question: who doesn’t? But that is just one kind of need among others. The ambition of pushing beyond what most people get to think is another. And sometimes that requires that one defer baser needs like getting laid.

That said, I would first point out that our political divide began to emerge in our early 20’s. And this means that I have been dealing with your guys’ shit for about 30 years. And don’t you think, me being the intellectually and creatively curious person you’ve always known me to be, that I would have taken time out to listen and analyze what you are saying and try to figure why it was it took what was to me a surprising position? In fact, a large part of my process has been defined by trying to figure out how people I love and respect can take on ideologies that I am almost certain are dangerous, self destructive, and just a really bad use of our higher cognitive functions.

And because of that, Keith, when you say you’re a “constitutionalist” there is no doubt in my mind about your sincerity: your belief that that is how you define your position. But it reminds me of a bumper sticker I read the other day:

I read the constitution,
therefore, I am a conservative.

And I’m guessing that if you polled most conservatives, most of them would also claim to be so-called “constitutionalists”. Furthermore, I could rightfully respond to that bumper sticker with:

Not only can I read the constitution,
I can also claim to understand the spirit of it
and am perfectly aware of the flexibility the original designers wrote into it;
therefore, I am a progressive.

In fact, if you think about it, Keith, anyone who has ever appealed to the authority of the constitution can pretty much make the same claim as you of being a “constitutionalist”. The only difference to you, of course, is that you are claiming some supposed privilege as concerns what the Constitution actually means. It’s pretty much the same thing most conservatives do when, in fact, all they have really done is read their own interests into it.

I would note, for instance, your constant griping about Hollywood celebrities using their popularity to push liberal agendas, that is while neglecting to say anything about Kid Rock prancing around a Republican fund raiser with a flag draped over his shoulders or Ted Nugent reducing his concerts to anti-democrat rallies which, when I saw it, looked like something you would see in Germany in the 30’s. It’s like Tom Moreno from Rage Against the Machine said:

“It’s as if the minute you get famous, you lose your right to free speech. “

So how, Keith, does this figure in to a strict and authoritative interpretation of the constitution? You being the "constitutionalist" and all?
d63
Posts: 755
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Postcards:

Post by d63 »

My answer to the PN question of the month: is morality objective?:

Well, there is a reason people are more likely to violate moral codes than kick stones with their bare foot. It’s because moral principles are somewhat more ethereal than the rock that stubs your toe. And given that, we have to admit that any attempt to attribute objectivity to morality would have to appeal to some perfectly observable phenomenon. And that can only bring us up against the Humean disconnect between the “is” and the “ought”.

First of all, any appeal to doctrine is out. While a book or a parchment may be a perfectly observable phenomenon, the content of what is written has the same ethereal quality as any moral precept we might assert in speech. It becomes little more than an appeal to authority. We could make a teleological appeal to some process we all share such as evolution. But that would assume some end that, at best, would be a human construct based on agreement about where we should go as a species. Finally, we could appeal to the obvious pain and suffering that others feel when moral codes are violated. And we have to admit that the thought of a child or animal being abused has an effect powerful enough to feel like an objective foundation. But that's just empathy: a perfectly subjective experience.


But shouldn't empathy be enough? Or the human and subjective agreement that none of us wants to be harmed and are therefore obligated not to harm others? Granted, there is a kind of nobility in the classicist ambition to establish some kind of solid foundation for our moral assertions or some fixed system that will make everything work like some well oiled machine. But it is an ambition -not to mention a form of bad faith. You have to ask if, as they seem to believe, we come up with some kind of ethical/moral system that can be said to be “objective”, it will actually stop people from violating those moral codes in the same way the thought of stubbing one’s toe generally stops people from kicking stones with their bare foot.


I just can't help but feel we'll have to settle for the pragmatic truth test of what works. It's all we seem to have. Or we could take on the postmodern model of the objectively subjective and subjectively objective and effectively render the whole question mute.
d63
Posts: 755
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Postcards:

Post by d63 »

My answer to the PN question of the month: is morality objective?:

Well, there is a reason people are more likely to violate moral codes than kick stones with their bare foot. It’s because moral principles are somewhat more ethereal than the rock that stubs your toe. And given that, we have to admit that any attempt to attribute objectivity to morality would have to appeal to some perfectly observable phenomenon. And that can only bring us up against the Humean disconnect between the “is” and the “ought”.

First of all, any appeal to doctrine is out. While a book or a parchment may be a perfectly observable phenomenon, the content of what is written has the same ethereal quality as any moral precept we might assert in speech. It becomes little more than an appeal to authority. We could make a teleological appeal to some process we all share such as evolution. But that would assume some end that, at best, would be a human construct based on agreement about where we should go as a species. Finally, we could appeal to the obvious pain and suffering that others feel when moral codes are violated. And we have to admit that the thought of a child or animal being abused has an effect powerful enough to feel like an objective foundation. But that's just empathy: a perfectly subjective experience.


But shouldn't empathy be enough? Or the human and subjective agreement that none of us wants to be harmed and are therefore obligated not to harm others? Granted, there is a kind of nobility in the classicist ambition to establish some kind of solid foundation for our moral assertions or some fixed system that will make everything work like some well oiled machine. But it is an ambition -not to mention a form of bad faith. You have to ask if, as they seem to believe, we come up with some kind of ethical/moral system that can be said to be “objective”, it will actually stop people from violating those moral codes in the same way the thought of stubbing one’s toe generally stops people from kicking stones with their bare foot.


I just can't help but feel we'll have to settle for the pragmatic truth test of what works. It's all we seem to have. Or we could take on the postmodern model of the objectively subjective and subjectively objective and effectively render the whole question mute.
d63
Posts: 755
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Postcards:

Post by d63 »

Dear Editor: While the New Realism (Issue 113) is compelling and to be applauded for the accommodations to postmodern strains of thought, that is as compared to the snubbing of more traditional Realism, and while it certainly warrants further exploration, I’m not sure the concessions are enough to avert the Postmodern and Pragmatic reactions that resulted in the theoretical over-reach of Strong Constructivism such as that of DesKant and FouKant. I’m still more comfortable with the model of the objectively subjective (nothing could be more objective to us than what is running through our heads) and the subjectively objective since no matter what is actually “out there”, it (for us) still happens in our heads (See Zizek).

It is this entwined nature of subject and object that seems undervalued to me. For example, if the realist position of objects imposing themselves on a passive consciousness was true, that is sans qualia or a veil of perception, then the psychedelic experience would be one of everything looking like it normally does and the brain juxtaposing images on top of it. But any psychonaut (see Timothy Leary) knows better. Reality itself is transformed, usually into something that looks more like a cartoon or some children’s show from our youth: our psychological baggage.

Granted, Gabriel’s point about the optical interference of bad eyes and the letter A still being the letter A would apply to this argument. But the optical model is about interference in the input of data while the psychedelic model is about interference in the subject itself. Furthermore, Ferraris’ Unamendability would apply in that the person doing the psychedelic would always return to the reality they started with –that is, mind you, with a clearer sense of the vulnerabilities in their sensory experience. This, in turn, would lead to some perfectly justified speculation about the more subtle forms of interference that might be at work in day-to-day experience.

And it is this possibility that has been posed against Realism and other representational schemes, not just to undermine realism, but to avert the hierarchical models propped up by it: the notion that there is a reality out there that can be known if we have the right tools to grasp it or the right language game to describe it. We land, again (and despite the compromises), with yet another power discourse as Foucault describes.
Post Reply