[Mind's Eye] Re: Simple answers follow a collapse of ideology

Or overstanding, perhaps.

On Nov 12, 12:06 pm, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Truth is a viscous word, Vam. Especially in the context with mirror and
> self.
>
> There is this tendency to polish my receptors for the others to see my
> truthfulness, that's right, Vam. That's why Francis narrates his truth, and
> why not? Compared to Neil's lies that's what I find naive though.
>
> You see, in German we have solved the Führer/leader misery by not
> understanding or comprehending but by fourstanding. You should try one day.
> ;)
>
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > " At bottom is the question of how we
> > can rely on anything anyone says, writes etc"
>
> > F*** ! U R the biggest naive I've ever encountered in my life.
> > And that's a short compliment.
>
> > The complete compliment would be when you actually come forward and
> > suggest the only way, the only means we have in knowing the truth in
> > what anyone says, writes, etc. Our own self !
>
> > When I read the essays of Francis... I may find things factually
> > debatable, may disagree with positions he takes on specific issues...
> > but I have no reason, no cause whatsoever to deem the content as lies,
> > untrue ! My self appreciates the self in Francis, labouring to state
> > the truth, his truth albeit. And then it doesn't matter.
>
> > " the greatest truth about our life is not in how we may change the
> > world about us... but about how we may change ourselves." ~ Gandhi
>
> > The truth can only mirror in us, in our self ! And, it is true, all of
> > our ancestry come rushing in... Know thyself, Plato, Aristotle,
> > Shankara, Aquinas, Bacon, Descartes, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Sartre... and,
> > above all, the full-bloodedness of Camus !
>
> > But we do need to work upon our self to an all-encompassing extent...
> > to deserve it... the ability to know the truth when we see it, read
> > it, hear it, think it...
>
> > On Nov 12, 9:14 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I read some social epistemology over the last few days - in between
> > > not finishing painting the house and being dragged on long walks by
> > > the pup.  The sad tale of non-scientific academe continues, mostly
> > > gleaning that ideas that just inevitably arise in reflection get
> > > cornered and mystified by an elite needing to claim expertise.  There
> > > an SEP entry on the subject if anyone is interested (I only mention
> > > this because it's free and one could burn several hundred quid on
> > > books for the same information).  At bottom is the question of how we
> > > can rely on anything anyone says, writes etc.  On would think this
> > > might lead to some ideas on our lying politicians, but whatever there
> > > is is tangential.  Once one applies the critical criteria it is sadly
> > > obvious most we report is not about truth and mutual understanding.
> > > Last time I looked, social research was into the quadri-hermeneutic on
> > > understanding or the verstehen problematic - what one hears from a
> > > social informant is already her interpretation and elaborations of
> > > that in terms of your own interpretation and theoretical
> > > perspectives.  I've played these games to earn a crust, but always
> > > been disappointed   My feeling is we live in a mad scheme of things
> > > and that theory is largely therapy for those of us bright enough to
> > > get it.  One of the most laughable statements one gets to hear in
> > > academe is that common sense is the ability to see the world as flat.
> > > 'Flat Earth' was very much an academic theory - one can actually see
> > > the curvature.  And if one deigns to really academic thinking, the
> > > universe may be 'flat' and distance an illusion.
>
> > > Most academics do little more than what a car mechanic does in
> > > exploiting her skill.  The area of operation is just a bit different.
> > > We all have our ways of making sense of what goes on.  I'm not
> > > convinced I have heard-read-experienced much that addresses this
> > > across academic disciplines - the problem, as Vam often comments - is
> > > to box off the argument to paper.  The system of 'discussion' is now
> > > corrupt beyond measure - conferences are advertised more like holidays
> > > and most journals are unreadable dross.
>
> > > I believe the real reason for much of this is that the easiest way to
> > > rank a human population is through quasi-abilities in maths and
> > > language and that this is the reason for the failure of universal
> > > education where it has been practiced over the last 80 years.
> > > Whatever our education systems have done, they have not produced
> > > reasonable equality or democracies at peace with themselves.  I walk
> > > my dog on a lead not because I want to deprive him of the joy of
> > > pounding off, but because of traffic and consideration of those who do
> > > not appreciate enthusiastic, slobbering Labradors.  I fear this is the
> > > guiding metaphor behind education, though less enlightened.  The free
> > > space where my dog runs seems unavailable for human practice other
> > > than thought.
>
> > > We seem to think we can "train" human beings in "essential" skills.
> > > The reason given in answer to the question as to why the kids had to
> > > wear uniform at my grandson's school the other night was it was to
> > > teach for to 'obey rules without question'.  O my Lord!  Some social
> > > epistemology in that!  The teachers struggle to maintain discipline
> > > and out of school many of these kids are little better than louts
> > > (though by no means all of them) who litter our streets and start
> > > 'careers with the law'.
>
> > > I despair at our taken for granted in all this.  We need a new
> > > society.  I see no answers in academe and believe the issues we need
> > > to confront are practical and to do with "meritocracy" and people who
> > > believe they have worked hard for what they've got feeling
> > > "superior".  Those of us given the right 'card' through money and/or
> > > education have a lot to answer for and most of it can be described in
> > > simple terms.  We evade this at every turn by boxing off argument into
> > > rationalisation that suits us and 'backfiring' when evidence is put in
> > > contradiction.  The religion of this is neo-classical economics, the
> > > uniform of the World Bank and IMF, though we don't even know any of
> > > this, needing only 'look after number one'.  This basic issue spawns
> > > all the rest of social thinking.  I want to reject it.  Simple answers
> > > follow.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -