list under the banner of 'existential psychotherapy', perhaps they
were the shamans of our times? Recurring themes in history I think
along with the stoics and daoism, perhaps even elements of gnosticism.
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 9:53 PM, archytas <nwterry@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nietzsche got somewhere near your last statement James - going on to
> say art was the solution to nihilism. I don't go for sociobiology
> much myself to be honest - I just think much we think is specially
> human turns out not to be as what we know increases.
> The brain science of the last 20 years has established that
> rationality usually comes after decision (remember that stuff on
> interviews being decided in the first 30 seconds?).
> They've sort of taken that down to the blink of an eye. Test after
> test shows that people won't go against the established flow even when
> simple perception should tell them what the truth is.
> My interests are in the area of why we can't get more rational
> alternatives into systems of choice for more widespread decision.
> Education has broadly failed and I suspect it's really part of the
> propaganda-influence system. One assumes free will is free of that
> kind of trance? But, of course, a rational system once understood,
> requires no agent's decision as solutions become obvious and all one
> could do in free will would be to let this happen or do something
> wrong. Most people deny adverts work on them but have homes full of
> the products. My grandson wants an I-phone - despite hardly using
> his current mobile - and claims this is nothing to do with the adverts
> in which adolescents with them look cool and happy!
> The original thread question is a good one .
>
>
>
> On Jan 12, 1:28 am, James Lynch <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It almost sounds like pseudo-ethics as opposed to eugenics (mostly
>> considered pseudoscience, though I'm not buying into that 100%). Like
>> Kid Rock says, "You get what you put in, and people get what they
>> deserve." With the cultural mythos set, centralization of sanctioned
>> institutions and the erosion of family units to bleed the maximum per
>> watt of human potential (there's a performance measure for ya Neil :p
>> ) per individual. But in a world with no actual agency for alternative
>> outcomes, it would seem that words like "potential" and all the
>> classical virtues turn to dust. Being skeptical never went so far as
>> to say that it is all without meaning..
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 5:19 PM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Existentialism wandered into over-emphasis on the individual as surely
>> > as fascism and its 'greater leader' dunnage. I can see what you mean
>> > in regard of our more academic learning - though there is good
>> > evidence now that kids have math concepts before they begin to be
>> > taught them. Animals of all kinds pass on learning in their
>> > communities. Our aluminium foil space flight reminds me a bit of some
>> > plant reproductive mechanisms where the seed is tossed out on a wing
>> > and a prayer (sycamores etc.) - we may have got here in spore form.
>> > Some algae seem to climb on each other's "backs" before they are
>> > whipped into the air from a foaming sea and onto the jetstream. One
>> > of my own speculations is we may have once been part of a greater
>> > civilisation that could not defeat problems in speed of light travel
>> > (space has friction) and so seeded itself into the world we know much
>> > as dandelions blow in the wind here. Maybe god is some remnant of
>> > them, all they could do for our comfort?
>>
>> > On Jan 11, 9:10 pm, malcymo <malc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Loved Hancock. Yes, IQ tests are obviously culturally based.
>>
>> >> On Jan 12, 5:17 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > I grew up with Hancock's Half Hour - he was a brilliantly pessimistic
>> >> > comedian! Killed himself. I rather like the gnostic pessimism that
>> >> > creation is a mistake - one can still build an optimistic life based
>> >> > on this. I don't go for it myself - the idea is best read in Rosak's
>> >> > "Flicker" which made me laugh my Hancock off.
>>
>> >> > Mal - there's some evidence lizards are getting smarter because of
>> >> > global warming (seriously). Even amoeba are highly adapted creatures
>> >> > that have "learned". Bushmen in Africa have very low average IQ - but
>> >> > are we going to pit our IQ against their local intelligence in
>> >> > surviving in their backyard without our civilized stuff? Their
>> >> > intelligence is fitted to their conditions - indeed it's likely
>> >> > "intelligence" in our sense is linked to not living where the (bad)
>> >> > infectious diseases are. Much we attribute to "genes" and individual-
>> >> > ethnic superiority concerns geography, climate and a lot more.
>>
>> >> > Without getting into eternal-TOE stuff we are presumably free to
>> >> > deconstruct rigsy's glob - though I wonder how many can really make
>> >> > this choice or have made a choice not to bother. I guess the big
>> >> > problem of going with such glob-flow is when it's fascist or contains
>> >> > "religious reasons" to make women walk about in black bags or have to
>> >> > suffer "churching" and the like. Greek epistemology didn't get to
>> >> > grips with much we now see as freedom. For that matter, we find what
>> >> > look like refined, rationalised human mistakes like slavery in some
>> >> > ant practice and our bodies are evidence we assimilated other life
>> >> > forms like the Borg in our evolution. Science is making "gene-
>> >> > splicing" a reality.
>> >> > I guess we have be able to choose between fictions and at bottom I
>> >> > like the idea of being able to live in choice. Some fictions prevent
>> >> > this on a grand scale. The real issues emerge when one realises that
>> >> > one wants to insist women don't wear black bags and you might have no
>> >> > right to tell them not to. In practice much changes when coercive
>> >> > authority-hegemony is removed. At this point I don't consider the
>> >> > individual as the site of freedom and tend to believe existentialism
>> >> > hapless.
>>
>> >> > On Jan 11, 12:31 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > By the time one is walking down the aisle the trap has been laid. :-)
>> >> > > It's like joining the army and hoping you don't get killed or maimed
>> >> > > for life, perhaps, or that your being a soldier will bring everlasting
>> >> > > peace to our world. Eventually-hopefully- one reasons out the past and
>> >> > > comes to some understanding- but that's hindsight rather than
>> >> > > foresight. If we live in a liberal country, we might "get over IT".
>>
>> >> > > I do think we absorb a glob of wishful thinking promoted by religion
>> >> > > and culture at an early age and as malcymo says, optimists are more
>> >> > > fun than pessimists and likely to have similar friends- or ones that
>> >> > > share your delusions. Heaven help the truth-teller! "Sit down! You're
>> >> > > Rocking the Boat!" (Guys and Dolls)
>>
>> >> > > On Jan 10, 12:56 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > Bringing up Liz reminds me of common experiments in brain science
>> >> > > > rigsy. We often think something special about ourselves will beat the
>> >> > > > average - that our ownb free will or determination etc. will defy
>> >> > > > statistical reality - as in
>> >> > > > Ask a bride before walking down the aisle "How likely are you to get
>> >> > > > divorced?" and most will respond "Not a chance!" Tell her that the
>> >> > > > average divorce rate is close to 50 percent, and ask again. Would she
>> >> > > > change her mind? Unlikely. Even law students who have learned
>> >> > > > everything about the legal aspects of divorce, including its
>> >> > > > likelihood, state that their own chances of getting divorced are
>> >> > > > basically nil. How can we explain this?
>>
>> >> > > > Psychologists have documented human optimism for decades. They have
>> >> > > > learned that people generally overestimate their likelihood of
>> >> > > > experiencing positive events, such as winning the lottery, and
>> >> > > > underestimate their likelihood of experiencing negative events, such
>> >> > > > as being involved in an accident or suffering from cancer. Informing
>> >> > > > people about their statistical likelihood of experiencing negative
>> >> > > > events, such as divorce, is surprisingly ineffective at altering their
>> >> > > > optimistic predictions, and highlighting previously unknown risk
>> >> > > > factors for diseases fails to engender realistic perceptions of
>> >> > > > medical vulnerability. How can people maintain their rose-colored
>> >> > > > views of the future in the face of reality? Which neural processes are
>> >> > > > involved in people's optimistic predictions?
>>
>> >> > > > We have some fair answers to some of this, but Catch 22, telling
>> >> > > > people is unlikely to affect them!
>>
>> >> > > > On Jan 10, 3:41 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > > Which reminds me of a quote (Liz Taylor?) that she would do the same
>> >> > > > > things all over again but with different people.
>>
>> >> > > > > How are you measuring these societies? Certainly seems like evils
>> >> > > > > persist in secular societies as readily as the religious. (Eco has a
>> >> > > > > great paper on fascism- "Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at
>> >> > > > > a Blackshirt" http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html).
>>
>> >> > > > > I love certain authors- Eco being one- lust after them, in fact- even
>> >> > > > > the dead ones!
>>
>> >> > > > > On Jan 9, 4:37 pm, malcymo <malc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > > > Thanks for the new Eco book.
>>
>> >> > > > > > I likewise respect deterministic forces simply because I know that if
>> >> > > > > > placed again in all the
>> >> > > > > > decision making positions of my past I would, given the social
>> >> > > > > > circumstances, have made the same choices.
>> >> > > > > > There are no "If onlys" in my life.
>>
>> >> > > > > > However, it seems to me that secular authority has tried much harder
>> >> > > > > > to create fairer, more ethical guidance for societies than
>> >> > > > > > those created in the non secular realm. What do you all think?
>>
>> >> > > > > > I must get hold of a copy of 'The prague cemetary'.
>>
>> >> > > > > > Malc
>> >> > > > > > On Jan 10, 2:10 am, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > > > > Eco was on Charlie Rose (a tv interviewer in the USA) the other night.
>> >> > > > > > > His latest book is another mythbuster- the "Protocols"- entitled "The
>> >> > > > > > > Prague Cemetary".
>>
>> >> > > > > > > I respect deterministic forces-fate-weakness. I was rereading
>> >> > > > > > > "Robinson Crusoe" where there is a good deal of debate as Crusoe
>> >> > > > > > > adapts/accepts his circumstances- but that was the 18th C- still quite
>> >> > > > > > > religious. One must wrestle with accountability- it is so easy to
>> >> > > > > > > blame or deny.
>>
>> >> > > > > > > On Jan 5, 3:33 pm, malcymo <malc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > > > > > Humanity has always, for some reason, felt the need to support his
>> >> > > > > > > > world view with a series of myths commonly termed beliefs in order to,
>> >> > > > > > > > in some way, justify its behaviour. We must not, however, believe that
>> >> > > > > > > > these myths are always spiritual or mystical in nature. Many are not.
>>
>> >> > > > > > > > The legitimacy of a myth depends on many features. Umberto Eco in his
>> >> > > > > > > > excellent tome 'Foucault's Pendulum' quietly draws our attention to
>> >> > > > > > > > the requirements needed for the creation of a robust myth and there is
>> >> > > > > > > > no doubt that within most religious and philosophical beliefs the
>> >> > > > > > > > required elements are found.
>>
>> >> > > > > > > > Secular myths, however, are somewhat harder to pin down. This may be
>> >> > > > > > > > because they are founded little more than intuition. They are
>>
>> ...
>>
>> read more »
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário