tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post8805746156587699036..comments2023-09-15T08:07:28.542-06:00Comments on Western Hero: Liberalism is AbnormalSilverfiddlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13541652236676260219noreply@blogger.comBlogger87125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-49491667197306224392012-04-21T19:54:29.553-06:002012-04-21T19:54:29.553-06:00(Oh, baby mine)
I get so lonely when I dream about...<i>(Oh, baby mine)<br />I get so lonely when I dream about you<br />Can't do without you<br />That's why I dream about you<br />If I could only put my arms about you<br />Life would be so fair<br /><br />(If you would)<br />We two could hug and kiss<br />And never tire, I'm on fire<br />You are my one desire<br />I get so lonely when I dream about you<br />Why can't you be there<br /><br />Tossin' and turnin' in my slumber<br />(Oh, baby)<br />Holding you it seems<br />(Oh, baby)<br />I give you kisses without number<br />But only in my dreams<br /><br />(Oh, baby mine)<br />I get so lonely when I dream about you<br />Can't do without you<br />That's why I dream about you<br />If I could only put my arms about you<br />Life would be so fair<br /><br />Tossin' and turnin' in my slumber<br />(Oh, baby)<br />Holding you it seems<br />(Oh, baby)<br />I give you kisses without number<br />But only in my dreams<br /><br />(Oh, baby mine)<br />I get so lonely when I dream about you<br />Can't do without you<br />That's why I dream about you<br />If I could only put my arms about you<br />Life would be so fair<br /><br />(Oh, baby mine)<br />Life would be so fair<br /><br />(Oh, baby mine)<br />Life would be so fair</i><br /><br /><b>WOULDN'T IT?</b><br /><br />~ FreeThinke §;-DAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-1549762243717650602012-04-21T15:41:04.599-06:002012-04-21T15:41:04.599-06:00Don't toy with me, I've been hurt before.Don't toy with me, I've been hurt before.jezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14865247084509280406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-19552561730705327382012-04-20T16:50:28.747-06:002012-04-20T16:50:28.747-06:00I have a feeling, it's a feeling,
I'm conc...<i>I have a feeling, it's a feeling,<br />I'm concealing, I don't know why<br />It's just a mental, sentimental alibi<br /><br />But I adore you<br />So strong for you<br />Why go on stalling<br />I am falling<br />Our love is calling<br />Why be shy?<br /><br />Let's fall in love<br />Why shouldn't we fall in love?<br />Our hearts are made of it<br />Let's take a chance<br />Why be afraid of it<br /><br />Let's close our eyes and make our own paradise<br />Little we know of it, still we can try<br />To make a go of it<br /><br />We might have been meant for each other<br />To be or not to be<br />Let our hearts discover<br /><br />Let's fall in love<br />Why shouldn't we fall in love<br />Now is the time for it, while we are young<br />Let's fall in love<br /><br />We might have been meant for each other<br />To be or not to be<br />Let our hearts discover<br /><br />Let's fall in love<br />Why shouldn't we fall in love?<br />Now is the time for it, while we are young<br />Let's fall in love</i><br /><br />~ Diana Krall<br /><br />Presented by FreeThinke §;-DAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-10873524846046258512012-04-20T03:51:45.756-06:002012-04-20T03:51:45.756-06:00What was that you were quoting about the talked-of...What was that you were quoting about the talked-off ear? ;)<br /><br />There's no hostility on my end, Freethinke, it's all in your reading. First sentence of this comment, for example, was a joke. Don't get me wrong, I do genuinely consider you long-winded (furthermore I consider brevity to be the greatest courtesy a writer can pay his reader), but it was intended to provoke a smile, and if I'm very lucky a twinkle-eyed nod of self-recognision. Maybe a murmured "touche" would escape your lips, and perhaps a small glass of dry sherry be raised in my direction.<br />I doubt any of that will happen, you must imagine me spitting and cursing at my machine as I write even this.<br />And even as I wrote my previous comment which I intended to be calm and discursive, even-handedly considering ourselves from each perspective, all you read was insult. I wonder how!jezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14865247084509280406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-38959082310081566432012-04-20T02:34:12.114-06:002012-04-20T02:34:12.114-06:00" I do wonder if I'd concur..."
In ...<i>" I do wonder if I'd concur..."</i><br /><br />In all probability you wouldn't, so there's no point in my saying anything more -- to you.<br /><br />I'm not here to be cross-examined, catechized, chastised, counseled and condemned. <br /><br />My objective is to share. Disagreement is perfectly acceptable. Badgering one another, because our views are incongruent is not.<br /><br />This is not a courtroom, and no one is on trial here.<br /><br />Many of my dearest, longtime friends are liberals, but -- usually at my insistence -- we have made a pact never to talk politics for the sake of friendship. <br /><br />Blog relationships may blossom into friendship, but because blog contributors tend to "let it all hang out," alienation and too often animosity -- sometimes startlingly ferocious -- are far more likely to develop than friendship.<br /><br />The internet certainly brings out the worst in people. I suspect this occurs because net venues -- no matter what the subject matter might be -- provide a focal point for expressing the frustration, dissatisfaction, gnawing anxiety, and increasing sense of helplessness that gives reign to all that free-floating hostility out there.<br /><br />Direct expression of hostility is taboo in normal, face-to-face business and social contexts. On the net anything and everything is possible. The animosity and censoriousness we see on blogs and interactive websites is disturbing -- even frightening -- because most of us don't want to see human nature unmasked and unfettered.<br /><br />As has often been said, despite the magnificence of the best that human achievement has to offer, the veneer of Civilization covering our essentially feral nature is extraordinarily thin and fragile.<br /><br />I'd go so far as to say that without observing and showing respect for a certain decorous hypocrisy that I'd prefer to think of a good etiquette, Civilization could hardy exist at all.<br /><br />We are by nature a fractious, contentious, disputatious and belligerent lot -- unless we make a continual effort to reign ourselves in for the sake of keeping the peace.<br /><br />Most people would find undiluted sincerity intolerable.<br /><br />~ FreeThinkeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-47987961965274684492012-04-16T17:57:57.091-06:002012-04-16T17:57:57.091-06:00Communication is fraught, we don't get each ot...Communication is fraught, we don't get each others' jokes, and we despise each others' opinions. In fact, I think you're the humourless one and consider myself somewhat wry. 3verything you frequently complain about, I see in you, egocentrism included. Your opinion of me is just as warped, for example I often announce my own shortcomings, yet you declare me unaware of them. Time and again we demonstrate how we edit incoming opinions so that they align neatly with our prior beliefs; we must either agree or disagree, completely.<br />Out of interest, what topics do you find my ignorance to be woeful? I don't wish to argue, but I do wonder if I'd concur...jezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14865247084509280406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-91788935948958380352012-04-16T14:03:58.295-06:002012-04-16T14:03:58.295-06:00"Sorry to be humorless ..."
I don't...<i>"Sorry to be humorless ..."</i><br /><br />I don't know how sorry you might be, but at least half that statement is certainly true.<br /><br />I told you a long time ago that we are not each other's type. As far as I am concerned, you live in a Parallel Universe. It's quite impossible for us to communicate with any degree of warmth or understanding because of that. It's almost as if we were members of two different species.<br /><br /> Apparently, you are one of "The New People." <i>[So by the way are many who imagine themselves to be "conservative."]</i> I find most of you a chilly, emotionally sterile, rather depressing lot. It's probably because "we" handed you a bleak new world with dismal prospects for your future. In many ways I feel sorry for you. I doubt if you will ever be able to enjoy life as I have, and being a generous-spirited fellow at root I wish you could.<br /><br />I don't really know you at all, nor you me. You're, apparently, well educated in areas where I am completely uninformed -- just as you are woefully ignorant of things I happen to know quite a lot about.<br /><br />The difference between us is that I am willing to admit my deficiencies, while you seem blissfully unaware of yours. <br /><br />I don't believe in taking "offense" at much of anything. It's a waste of energy, but I admit to being annoyed by those who make a virtual career out of being "offended" by an ever-growing number of things that are rarely-if-ever any of <i>their</i> proper business.<br /><br />I find amusing as well as revealing that you would take umbrage at something Dorothy Parker said decades before you were born, and assume it was posted entirely for your benefit.<br /><br />One of those, "If the shoe fits," situations, I suppose.<br /><br />Take care.<br /><br />~ FreeThinkeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-74594804515398901002012-04-16T08:25:08.501-06:002012-04-16T08:25:08.501-06:00Paranoid? Ho ho. You're the one in the clutche...Paranoid? Ho ho. You're the one in the clutches of a conspiracy theory that you're desperate to convince us all of, but which no-one else considers plausible.<br />And yes, I'm aware that you didn't address me by name, so feel free to pretend have been addressing someone else if it somehow amuses you.<br />(Sorry to be humorless, but your dismissive characterisation of mental illness is offensive. I think you'll find it's more complicated than that.)jezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14865247084509280406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-34374708505210241472012-04-16T07:16:10.393-06:002012-04-16T07:16:10.393-06:00The paranoid personality always assumes every crit...The paranoid personality always assumes every criticism is directed specifically at him and him alone.<br /><br />Paranoia and most other mental disorders stem from extreme egocentrism.<br /><br />Paranoiacs take themselves much too seriously and seem largely devoid of any discernible sense of humor.<br /><br />~ FreeThinkeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-49303364555483985892012-04-15T07:11:30.613-06:002012-04-15T07:11:30.613-06:00Free thinke: if I'm boring you then by all mea...Free thinke: if I'm boring you then by all means, don't read me ever again. By the way, I wouldn't want to compete against you in an ear-chewing contest.jezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14865247084509280406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-37367754650957285442012-04-14T22:36:25.417-06:002012-04-14T22:36:25.417-06:00Ballade Of A Talked-Off Ear
Daily I listen to won...<b>Ballade Of A Talked-Off Ear<br /><br />Daily I listen to wonder and woe,<br />Nightly I hearken to knave or to ace,<br />Telling me stories of lava and snow,<br />Delicate fables of ribbon and lace,<br />Tales of the quarry, the kill, the chase,<br />Longer than heaven and duller than hell-<br />Never you blame me, who cry my case:<br />"Poets alone should kiss and tell!"<br /><br />Dumbly I hear what I never should know,<br />Gently I counsel of pride and of grace;<br />Into minutiae gayly they go,<br />Telling the name and the time and the place.<br />Cede them your silence and grant them space-<br />Who tenders an inch shall be raped of an ell!<br />Sympathy's ever the boaster's brace;<br />Poets alone should kiss and tell.<br /><br />Why am I tithed what I never did owe?<br />Choked with vicarious saffron and mace?<br />Weary my lids, and my fingers are slow-<br />Gentlemen, damn you, you've halted my pace.<br />Only the lads of the cursed race,<br />Only the knights of the desolate spell,<br />May point me the lines the blood-drops trace-<br />Poets alone should kiss and tell.<br /><br /><br />L'ENVOI<br /><br />Prince or commoner, tenor or bass,<br />Painter or plumber or never-do-well,<br />Do me a favor and shut your face<br />Poets alone should kiss and tell.</b> <br /><br />~ Dorothy Parker<br /><br />Submitted by FreeThinkeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-69357129022393270252012-04-14T10:16:39.571-06:002012-04-14T10:16:39.571-06:00I'm not saying that believers can't be phy...I'm not saying that believers can't be physicists, only that they must suspend their supernatural beliefs while doing science.jezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14865247084509280406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-39886948500257897282012-04-13T16:22:18.831-06:002012-04-13T16:22:18.831-06:00I don't believe in angels. So how is my belie...I don't believe in angels. So how is my belief getting in the way of "science" again?Thersiteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15751286903359745316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-61438984331934902612012-04-13T06:56:34.309-06:002012-04-13T06:56:34.309-06:00Free Thinke:
Please, make things as simple as poss...Free Thinke:<br />Please, make things as simple as possible, but not simpler.jezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14865247084509280406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-87114475433196961742012-04-13T06:14:20.759-06:002012-04-13T06:14:20.759-06:00SIMPLE GIFTS
'Tis the gift to be simple, '...<b>SIMPLE GIFTS<br /><br />'Tis the gift to be simple, 'tis the gift to be free, 'tis the gift to come down where you ought to be, And when we find ourselves in the place just right, <br />It will be in the valley of love and delight.<br /><br />REFRAIN: <br /><br /><i>When true simplicity is gained, <br />To bow and to bend we shan't be ashamed.<br /> To turn, turn will be our delight, <br />'Til by turning, turning we come round right.</i><br /><br /><br />'Tis the gift to be loved and that love to return,<br /> 'Tis the gift to be taught and a richer gift to learn, And when we expect of others what we try to live each day, <br />Then we'll all live together and we'll all learn to say,<br /><br />REFRAIN<br />: <br /><i>When true simplicity is gained, <br />To bow and to bend we shan't be ashamed. <br />To turn, turn will be our delight,<br /> 'Til by turning, turning we come round right.</i><br /><br /><br />'Tis the gift to have friends and a true friend to be, 'Tis the gift to think of others not to only think of "me", <br />And when we hear what others really think and really feel, <br />Then we'll all live together with a love that is real.<br /> <br />REFRAIN:<br /> <br /><i>When true simplicity is gained, <br />To bow and to bend we shan't be ashamed. <br />To turn, turn will be our delight, <br />'Til by turning, turning we come round right.</i></b><br /><br />~ Elder Joseph Brackett (composed 1848)<br /><br />Submitted by FreeThinkeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-18082527077674227422012-04-13T02:38:53.208-06:002012-04-13T02:38:53.208-06:00"lol! Materialism doesn't encumber the be..."lol! Materialism doesn't encumber the believer with any cultural ideas and/or non-belief in spiritual essences?"<br /><br />Thanks for saying "non-belief" rather than "dis-belief".<br />Specifically, materialism doesn't get in the way of doing science, which spiritualism kind of does, in that the moment you ascribe some observation to the activities of angels, you're not longer doing science but something else.<br />Like you, I don't rule anything out, except that while doing science it is necessary to restrict oneself to the materialist realm. This is why I objected to your Davies and Gribbin quote in the first place. I repeat: quantum mechanics is <i>not</i> in opposition to materialism.<br /><br />"emergent from "what"?"<br /><br />Emergent from primitive physics. Just as tornadoes and tsunamis arise from a system where every element obeys simple laws but the interaction is chaotic, so might causality, on the large scale, arise from somewhat non-deterministic and/or non-chronological laws on the quantum or relativistic scales.<br /><br />You go on to complain about "information", and I expect you're inspired by the 2nd law of thermodynamics, via information's relationship with entropy. In which case I need only point you towards the 2nd law's "closed system" clause.<br /><br />"Which came first the chicken or the egg?"<br /><br />The egg, since chickens evolved from egg-laying ancestors.<br /><br />"Is quantuum physics close to revealing it? The "human" element?"<br /><br />No, of course not. Do you expect it to? If so, blame the non-scientists who talk so much bollocks about it.<br /><br />"Abiogenesis, even if not stated, is the "materialist's" logical answer and the default basis for his supposedly non-existent metaphysics."<br /><br />What's wrong with a little mystery? I'm happier with the answer "I don't know" than I am with some vague ad-hoc spiritual formulation that, to me, is indistinguishable from bollocks.<br /><br />"But what would acceptance of this possibility mean for us... the destruction of all "hope"... upon the human psyche? No "hope" of justice or redemption?"<br /><br />Probably something like adulthood. After all, no-one has a deeper-rooted sense of justice than a child who perceives some "unfairness" -- also no adult is as capable of redemption as a child.<br /><br />"Eternal Recurrence can be a bitter pill for humans to swallow."<br /><br />Have you read Milan Kundera's the unbearable lightness of being?jezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14865247084509280406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-88447472089443084402012-04-12T12:14:33.082-06:002012-04-12T12:14:33.082-06:00Notice I use the term "mind" rather than...<i>Notice I use the term "mind" rather than "soul", because "soul" is encumbered with cultural ideas such as immortality and non-material spiritual essence. There is no evidence for these things, and they get in the way of any seriously scientific consideration of the mind. </i><br /><br />lol! Materialism doesn't encumber the believer with any cultural ideas and/or non-belief in spiritual essences? <br /><br />And there may exist no "direct evidence" for these things, yet they form part of even your underlying pre-suppositions as evidenced by the following statement:<br /><br /><i>It may well be that causality is an emergent property of systems </i>... <br /><br />...and so I must ask, emergent from "what". Information moves from where, to where? Does matter which enter's a black hole erase ALL previous evidence of a particle's former existence? <br /><br /><i>Omne vivum ex ovo!</i><br /><br />Which came first the chicken or the egg?<br /><br />...and what is the essence of "life" that transforms an "inanimate" object into a self-moving "animate" one? Is quantuum physics close to revealing it? The "human" element?<br /><br />Abiogenesis, even if not stated, is the "materialist's" logical answer and the default basis for his supposedly non-existent metaphysics. This means that perhaps Nietzsche was right in his postulated "Theory of Eternal Return"... in a theoretical parallel quantum multiverse or with an eternal sequence of never ending big bangs.<br /><br /><i>Disagree, it's more deeply built into the universe than that, it's like conservation of energy -- I expect that either would happen in a universe which did not contain any subjective entities to experience it.</i><br /><br />I agree, it is deeply built into the universe... including the presence of subjective entities to experience it. But what materialism has so far failed to determine is where these "subjective entities" came from. <br /><br />And personally, I'm not willing to preclude any possibilities at this point. I'm a Deist. To my mind, G_d set the universe in motion... and didn't stick around to take "requests". But he did leave a record of what He did for us to figure out our place in this world.<br /><br />And we're also speaking of the human condition in most of our human affairs, not the inorganic already-in-motion physical world. The placebo effect is not "null", and psychology is a field completely divorced from quantum physics to self-movers. Could it be that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lack_(manque)" rel="nofollow">manque</a> is the true human condition? Possibly. But what would acceptance of this possibility mean for us... the destruction of all "hope"... upon the human psyche? No "hope" of justice or redemption? Eternal Recurrence can be a bitter pill for humans to swallow. I'm for letting them have a "choice" whether or not to follow the rabbit down the rabbit hole. Not just arbitrarly "precluding" it.Speedy Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01640242783952822072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-38072133014431002912012-04-12T10:45:44.396-06:002012-04-12T10:45:44.396-06:00Thersites: love the Nietzsche.
Speedy:
"Are ...Thersites: love the Nietzsche.<br /><br />Speedy:<br />"Are you familiar with the concept of "quantuum entaglement""<br /><br />yes.<br /><br />"This is due to the fact that the quantum and qualia are never the same"<br /><br />Disagree, it's more deeply built into the universe than that, it's like conservation of energy -- I expect that either would happen in a universe which did not contain any subjective entities to experience it.jezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14865247084509280406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-43814844198659546672012-04-12T10:32:31.647-06:002012-04-12T10:32:31.647-06:00FJ:
"If it isn't "deterministic"...FJ:<br />"If it isn't "deterministic", it's only "probablistic"...(correlation coefficients not "equal" to 1) this doesn't make the information any less "useful", but a "material cause is not the same as a "formal" cause."<br /><br />What do you mean? What does material vs form have to do with it?<br />Despite non-deterministic elements of QM, causality remains largely intact. Although it might break down at extreme scales, it is still correct to associate the cause (punching yourself in the nuts) with the effect (agony).<br /><br />"I find it funny that you'll accept the "conception" of a materialist drawing boundary lines around a "bunch of energy" and calling it a "photon", but you "draw the line" against fictionalizing concepts at drawing a line around a human mind and pronouncing the cumulative products of his mental cogitations a "soul"."<br /><br />Can you share the joke?<br />1) sufficiently dim light is always received in quanta, a tap tap tap of raindrops rather than a continuous trickle of water. For this reason, it is completely natural to call these indivisible photons "particles".<br />2) By declaring the QM understanding of small particles to be "matter", I do not insist that they be bound in the manner of a billiard ball, if that's what you mean.<br />3) I absolutely do not object to giving names to emergent properties of large systems. Even though I would not expect that any element of a weather system or a brain behaves in opposition to the primitive laws of physics, it still makes sense to consider weather and mind as a system and to study meteorology and psychology in their own right.<br />4) Notice I use the term "mind" rather than "soul", because "soul" is encumbered with cultural ideas such as immortality and non-material spiritual essence. There is no evidence for these things, and they get in the way of any seriously scientific consideration of the mind. Notice that we don't (any longer) imbue the weather with any spiritual motivation, having discovered adequate materialist explanations for eg. rainbows.<br /><br />"QM can't ever contradict the "materialist" paradigmas it has subsumed "spirit" into the realm of "energy"."<br /><br />What does this even <i>mean</i>? Are you claiming that "spirit" has something to do with probability wavefunctions?<br /><br />"QM can't due is distinguish between Plato's Ninth and Tenth categories of motion, ... spiritualists/transcendentalists have. They call it's "point of origin" the soul."<br /><br />Is there any way of telling whether they're talking bollocks?jezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14865247084509280406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-30469278319612399272012-04-12T07:25:28.912-06:002012-04-12T07:25:28.912-06:00Are you familiar with the concept of "quantuu...Are you familiar with the concept of "quantuum entaglement" and the idea that the results will vary based upon the experimental setup? This is due to the fact that the quantum and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia" rel="nofollow">qualia</a> are never the same... another duality.<br /><br />Is a non-materialist perspective "useful"? Gauging from the arguments over the existence of qualia in the above link, I'd have to state, "yes." For only from "opposites" can there be a "generation" (a fundamental philosophical principle on the order of a "first" principle). ;)Speedy Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01640242783952822072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-33578499243176093092012-04-12T07:03:25.563-06:002012-04-12T07:03:25.563-06:00Useful errors such as "causality", albei...Useful errors such as "causality", albeit useful, are still errors (therefore, "fictions"). Some are "intentionally" and others "unintentionally" made. But the source of that "intent" can only lie in the "soul" of those who "experience" it.<br /><br />from the Jowett summary of Plato's "Laws"<br /><br /><i>What is the name which is given to self-motion when manifested in any material substance? 'Life.' And soul too is life? 'Very good.' And are there not three kinds of knowledge—a knowledge (1) of the essence, (2) of the definition, (3) of the name? And sometimes the name leads us to ask the definition, sometimes the definition to ask the name. For example, number can be divided into equal parts, and when thus divided is termed even, and the definition of even and the word 'even' refer to the same thing. 'Very true.' And what is the definition of the thing which is named 'soul'? Must we not reply, 'The self-moved'? And have we not proved that the self-moved is the source of motion in other things? 'Yes.' And the motion which is not self-moved will be inferior to this? 'True.' And if so, we shall be right in saying that the soul is prior and superior to the body, and the body by nature subject and inferior to the soul? 'Quite right.' And we agreed that if the soul was prior to the body, the things of the soul were prior to the things of the body? 'Certainly.' And therefore desires, and manners, and thoughts, and true opinions, and recollections, are prior to the length and breadth and force of bodies. 'To be sure.'</i>Thersiteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15751286903359745316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-67922517492549599462012-04-12T06:54:12.758-06:002012-04-12T06:54:12.758-06:00Nietzsche, "Gay Science 115"
The Four E...Nietzsche, "Gay Science 115"<br /><br /><i>The Four Errors. Man has been reared by his errors: firstly, he saw himself always imperfect; secondly, he attributed to himself imaginary qualities; thirdly, he felt himself in a false position in relation to the animals and nature; fourthly, he always devised new tables of values, and accepted them for a time as eternal and unconditioned, so that at one time this, and at another time that human impulse or state stood first, and was ennobled in consequence. When one has deducted the effect of these four errors, one has also deducted humanity, humaneness, and "human dignity." </i>Thersiteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15751286903359745316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-50139998360178569272012-04-12T06:53:19.087-06:002012-04-12T06:53:19.087-06:00... but that doesn't make it fictional.
Perha...<i>... but that doesn't make it fictional.</i><br /><br />Perhaps an "error" would be a preferable term?<br /><br />Nietzsche, "Gay Science, 112"<br /><br /><i>Cause and Effect. We say it is "explanation "; but it is only in "description" that we are in advance of the older stages of knowledge and science. We describe better, we explain just as little as our predecessors. We have discovered a manifold succession where the naive man and investigator of older cultures saw only two things, "cause" and "effect,"as it was said; we have perfected the conception of becoming, but have not got a knowledge of what is above and behind the conception. The series of "causes" stands before us much more complete in every case; we conclude that this and that must first precede in order that that other may follow - but we have not grasped anything thereby. The peculiarity, for example, in every chemical process seems a "miracle," the same as before, just like all locomotion; nobody has "explained" impulse. How could we ever explain? We operate only with things which do not exist, with lines, surfaces, bodies, atoms, divisible times, divisible spaces - how can explanation ever be possible when we first make everything a conception, our conception? It is sufficient to regard science as the exactest humanizing of things that is possible; we always learn to describe ourselves more accurately by describing things and their successions. Cause and effect: there is probably never any such duality; in fact there is a continuum before us, from which we isolate a few portions - just as we always observe a motion as isolated points, and therefore do not properly see it, but infer it. The abruptness with which many effects take place leads us into error; it is however only an abruptness for us. There is an infinite multitude of processes in that abrupt moment which escape us. An intellect which could see cause and effect as a continuum, which could see the flux of events not according to our mode of perception, as things arbitrarily separated and broken - would throw aside the conception of cause and effect, and would deny all conditionality.</i>Thersiteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15751286903359745316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-59916765862051797792012-04-12T06:32:02.730-06:002012-04-12T06:32:02.730-06:00(cont)
We should go to the ornithologist with a n...(cont)<br /><br /><i>We should go to the ornithologist with a new feeling, if he could teach us what the social birds say, when they sit in the autumn council, talking together in the trees. The want of sympathy makes his record a dull dictionary. His result is a dead bird. The bird is not in its ounces and inches, but in its relations to Nature; and the skin or skeleton you show me, is no more a heron, than a heap of ashes or a bottle of gases into which his body has been reduced, is Dante or Washington. The naturalist is led from the road by the whole distance of his fancied advance. The boy had juster views when he gazed at the shells on the beach, or the flowers in the meadow, unable to call them by their names, than the man in the pride of his nomenclature. Astrology interested us, for it tied man to the system. Instead of an isolated beggar, the farthest star felt him, and he felt the star. However rash and however falsified by pretenders and traders in it, the hint was true and divine, the soul's avowal of its large relations, and, that climate, century, remote natures, as well as near, are part of its biography. Chemistry takes to pieces, but it does not construct. Alchemy which sought to transmute one element into another, to prolong life, to arm with power, — that was in the right direction. All our science lacks a human side. The tenant is more than the house. Bugs and stamens and spores, on which we lavish so many years, are not finalities, and man, when his powers unfold in order, will take Nature along with him, and emit light into all her recesses. The human heart concerns us more than the poring into microscopes, and is larger than can be measured by the pompous figures of the astronomer.</i><br /><br />and QM can't ever contradict the "materialist" paradigmas it has subsumed "spirit" into the realm of "energy". But what QM can't due is distinguish between Plato's Ninth and Tenth categories of motion, that which moves, and that which "moves itself". And spiritualists/transcendentalists have. They call it's "point of origin" the <i>soul</i>.-FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16745768408538827278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-9395969353335727992012-04-12T06:31:44.648-06:002012-04-12T06:31:44.648-06:00It may well be that causality is an emergent prope...<i>It may well be that causality is an emergent property of systems sufficiently larger than the Planck scale (and sufficiently slower than the speed of light, and sufficiently less dense than a black hole, and sufficiently less whatever than whichever half-understood buzz-word physics you want to type into Bing), but that doesn't make it fictional.</i><br /><br />from Wiki on "Quantuum Physics":<br /><br /><i>The Copenhagen interpretation - due largely to the Danish theoretical physicist Niels Bohr - remains the quantum mechanical formalism that is currently most widely accepted amongst physicists, some 75 years after its enunciation. According to this interpretation, the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics is not a temporary feature which will eventually be replaced by a deterministic theory, <b>but instead must be considered a final renunciation of the classical idea of "causality".</b> It is also believed therein that any well-defined application of the quantum mechanical formalism must always make reference to the experimental arrangement, due to the complementarity nature of evidence obtained under different experimental situations.</i><br /><br />If it isn't "deterministic", it's only "probablistic"...(correlation coefficients not "equal" to 1) this doesn't make the information any less "useful", but a "material cause is not the same as a "formal" cause. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus" rel="nofollow">Theseus' ship</a> will sail in either case.<br /><br />I find it funny that you'll accept the "conception" of a materialist drawing boundary lines around a "bunch of energy" and calling it a "photon", but you "draw the line" against fictionalizing concepts at drawing a line around a human mind and pronouncing the cumulative products of his mental cogitations a "soul".<br /><br />As the <i>trancendentalist</i> Ralph Waldo Emerson stated in his seried of essays upon "The Conduct of Life"<br /><br /><i>The spiral tendency of vegetation infects education also. Our books approach very slowly the things we most wish to know. What a parade we make of our science, and how far off, and at arm's length, it is from its objects! Our botany is all names, not powers: poets and romancers talk of herbs of grace and healing; but what does the botanist know of the virtues of his weeds? The geologist lays bare the strata, and can tell them all on his fingers: but does he know what effect passes into the man who builds his house in them? what effect on the race that inhabits a granite shelf? what on the inhabitants of marl and of alluvium?</i>-FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16745768408538827278noreply@blogger.com