logo Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
2024-03-29 07:54:18 CoV Wiki
Learn more about the Church of Virus
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Donations now taken through PayPal

  Church of Virus BBS
  General
  Church Doctrine

  Unreason: a meme you need
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
   Author  Topic: Unreason: a meme you need  (Read 9685 times)
Walpurgis
Initiate
**

Posts: 67
Reputation: 5.11
Rate Walpurgis





View Profile
Unreason: a meme you need
« on: 2002-06-10 04:44:52 »
Reply with quote

(First of all, I'd like to mention I have a habit of critiquing the central tenats of philosophical groups like this. I do this, not because I'm an asshole, but because I like to see such groups grow through healthy dialogue. I don't bother with groups which are espousing ideas that are stupid - they'll fail by themselves without my input. I hope my comments provide a reflection on CoV, highlight problems, suggest solutions and stimulate debate. - Basically: I screw memes for your pleasure. So what is this bastard child?)

Unless I'm mistaken, CoV advocates a purely rational or extremely rational approach to life. In the very least, it lauds and values rationality higher than irrationality.

This could be a problem.

I am not writing to denigrate reason, but to show that unreason has its uses. A brief overview of Western civilsation will leave one with the impression that unreasonable beliefs have been the prime motivating factor of human action and organisation. It will be evident that the results of this have often been terrible. It is less evident to rationalists that the results have *also* been very good.

First of all, reason and unreason have been in a constant dialogue, which has lead to the furtherance of both positions. In recent history, there was the rational Enlightenment, the irrational Romanticism, the rational Modernity and the irrational Post-Modernity; each responding to the other.

Second, religion and spirituality (as well have some philosophy) is often irrational, yet its contribution to the arts is well documented and understood. The irrational, emotionality of religious art, building and ceremony can be understood in our distance from it. Nietzsche once argued that we will not be able to understand Christian art one day because our emotional connection will have changed (not necessarily that we have become more rational).  And it has. Ones sense of appreciation inside a grand Cathedral is as nothing compared to the cowed awe of the 15th century peasant-worshipper.

Third, art is informed by unreason and develops from it. Though there are plenty of art forms that employ rational methods, there are also a great many that are impulsive, seemingly senseless and without method. The arts are an important media for memes, and without the irrational spontaineity many of the arts create, a great many memes will not proliferate.

The response to irrational forms of art and religion is not necessarily irrational either, as evidenced by the historical dialogue.

The final related point is that unreason inspires, it creates followers, believers - highly motivated people. Unreason also creates fanatics, saints, martyrs, artists, neurotics and psychopaths. This isn't to argue that such people are good, but that they are sometimes useful. Certainly, inspiration can be good and useful. A tub-thumping rhetorical speech can elicite more cheers than a careful analysis. A painting can be more moving than an equation.

In this light, the uses of unreason must be harnessed by rationalist groups. Unreason can be bad and dangerous, but is not absolutely so. Unreason reflects and develops reason. Unreason informs us of personal truths, connections with others and hints at the unknowabilities and mysteries beyond the very real limits of reason.  Indeed, isn't empathy (one of the Virtues), sometimes an unreasonable feeling (assuming not all feelings are unreasonable)?

Reasonable and unreasonable comments please
Report to moderator   Logged
rhinoceros
Adept
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 1318
Reputation: 7.97
Rate rhinoceros



My point is ...

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:Unreason: a meme you need
« Reply #1 on: 2002-06-10 18:42:42 »
Reply with quote

I could agree with a lot of that, but instead of the catch-all word "unreason" I would use more specific words suitable for each case, such as intuition, wholistic view, radicalism, conflicting interests, mischief, greed, paranoia, short-sightedness, or even stupidity (a very important actor).

Even if, by today's standard for rationality, someone could say that Isaac Newton was irrational because he proposed a theory of gravity allowing instantaneous action at a distance, I guess in most of the above cases nobody became creative by saying "now I am going to be unreasonable". Why should we say it now?

That said, I believe that this kind of "unreason" is reasonable, just because it is a part of reality.
Report to moderator   Logged
Walpurgis
Initiate
**

Posts: 67
Reputation: 5.11
Rate Walpurgis





View Profile
Re:Unreason: a meme you need
« Reply #2 on: 2002-06-11 04:50:35 »
Reply with quote

(Damn, don't these forums have a clear, threaded reply function!?)

[rhinoceros] I could agree with a lot of that, but instead of the catch-all word "unreason" I would use more specific words suitable for each case, such as intuition, wholistic view, radicalism, conflicting interests, mischief, greed, paranoia, short-sightedness, or even stupidity (a very important actor).

I fail to see how holism and radicalism fall into the sphere of unreason. Holism characterises quantum physics and our world ecology, economy and society, as well as our body/minds. Radicalism  is just an extreme idea/change - not necessarily an unreasonable one.

Interesting how intuition and mistakes lead to great scientific discoveries.

[rhinoceros]  Even if, by today's standard for rationality, someone could say that Isaac Newton was irrational

I would say he was irrational because he was a fundamentalist Christian.




Report to moderator   Logged
bitspotter
Neophyte
*

Gender: Male
Posts: 2
Reputation: 0.00





View Profile E-Mail
Damn Walp
« Reply #3 on: 2002-06-11 23:05:32 »
Reply with quote

[[ author reputation (0.00) beneath threshold (3)... display message ]]

Report to moderator   Logged
rhinoceros
Adept
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 1318
Reputation: 7.97
Rate rhinoceros



My point is ...

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:Unreason: a meme you need
« Reply #4 on: 2002-06-11 23:07:25 »
Reply with quote

I guess I should not despair for beein unreasonable :-)
Report to moderator   Logged
phanerothyme
Neophyte
**

Posts: 8
Reputation: 0.00



phanerothyme

View Profile WWW
unreason/areason/mutation
« Reply #5 on: 2002-06-15 10:06:39 »
Reply with quote

[[ author reputation (0.00) beneath threshold (3)... display message ]]

Report to moderator   Logged
David Lucifer
Archon
*****

Posts: 2641
Reputation: 8.89
Rate David Lucifer



Enlighten me.

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:Damn Walp
« Reply #6 on: 2002-06-15 13:28:51 »
Reply with quote


Quote from: bitspotter on 2002-06-11 23:05:32   

In other words, whatever this most effective technique is, that's the most reasonable way to approach whatever goal you're after.

That's one definition, but not the only. Another common definition is "Governed by or being in accordance with reason or sound thinking". Obviously I don't think it is a coincidence that that the same word has these two definitions.


Quote:

if wholism, intuition, >x<ism does it better, well, even that would be reasonable.

I don't see anything irrational about holism or intuition if used in the right ways.
Report to moderator   Logged
bitspotter
Neophyte
*

Gender: Male
Posts: 2
Reputation: 0.00





View Profile E-Mail
Re:Unreason: a meme you need
« Reply #7 on: 2002-06-15 15:05:59 »
Reply with quote

[[ author reputation (0.00) beneath threshold (3)... display message ]]

Report to moderator   Logged
Walpurgis
Initiate
**

Posts: 67
Reputation: 5.11
Rate Walpurgis





View Profile
in a agreement
« Reply #8 on: 2002-06-15 15:39:52 »
Reply with quote

I'd agree with you're comments bitspot. But I'm not sure what you mean by:

"So I'd return to Walpurgis and ask why he assumes that the "ism" he cites are necessarily unreasonable, arational or irrational to begin with."

What "ism"?

To me "irrational" seems to be a rhetorical word used to denigrate/invalidate/slur a position.

On the other end, "rational" is used to validate/uphold/secure a position.

Report to moderator   Logged
David Lucifer
Archon
*****

Posts: 2641
Reputation: 8.89
Rate David Lucifer



Enlighten me.

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:Unreason: a meme you need
« Reply #9 on: 2002-06-15 18:13:49 »
Reply with quote

[bitspotter] defining "reasonable" with the word "reason" is self-referential, and thus not very helpful

[Lucifer] I hate to point out the obvious but every english word that ends in the suffix -able is defined in reference to the root which has to be defined in turn. It is not self-referential.

[bitspotter] leaving us with "sound thinking", which, to my mind, doesn't clear up the issue, at all. I prefer basing reason on the efficacy of accomplish, seating it firmly in the court of desire and purpose.

[Lucifer] I supposed you can redefine it however you like. But if you don't include some reference to "reason" you will be talking past most readers.

[bitspotter] I'm seeing a problem here; the more we cite examples of arational or irrational approcahes to things, the less they seem unreasonable upon examination. what matters is to what purpose you are applying the techniques.

[Lucifer] Maybe that's because we haven't seen any irrational examples yet. Here's one: Get so jealous of something or someone you "possess" you destroy it so that no one else can have it. Another: commit a serious crime without taking into account the probability of getting caught and spending the rest of your life incarcerated.

[bitspotter] The Tarot, for example, in the mentioned context, is a way to let randomness aid you in creating a breakthrough in life perspective, introducing you to ways of interpreting the events of your experience in ways you may not have previously considered.

[Lucifer] The Tarot can be reasonably used in this manner, but it is my understanding that the vast majority of useage has someone else interpreting the cards for you.

[bitspotter]
<snip>
After examination, even the human emotional reactions that are typically characterized as "irrational" don't seem to be - they operate via understandable principles - just different ones. They evolved in a reasonable fashion over thousands of years of human social evolution prior to the advent of what we now call "reason". They make sense, and, to a certain extent, are predictable.  In this sense, emotions are reasonable as well - they are simply less refined, and are being replaced by more complex, self-improved results of the accelerating process of memetic evolution.

[Lucifer] I agree with this completely. I have often said (on the list) that emotions often generate perfectly reasonable behavior (in every sense of the word), but I was met with a lot of resistance from people that seem to think emotions are irrational by definition.

[bitspotter] In this same sense, we shouldn't be surprised when the reason we're so smug and impressed with today is superceded in the coming century by yet another as-yet-unimagined higher-order mode of thinking.

[Lucifer] I can see logical thinking being augmented in the future, but I doubt it will be superceded. One area where contemporary humans can really improve is enhancing their conception of causality. Most tend to act as if events have one or few simple causes when the reality is quite different.

Report to moderator   Logged
Walpurgis
Initiate
**

Posts: 67
Reputation: 5.11
Rate Walpurgis





View Profile
Re:Unreason: a meme you need
« Reply #10 on: 2002-06-16 01:48:18 »
Reply with quote

[bitspotter] leaving us with "sound thinking", which, to my mind, doesn't clear up the issue, at all. I prefer basing reason on the efficacy of accomplish, seating it firmly in the court of desire and purpose.

[Lucifer] I supposed you can redefine it however you like. But if you don't include some reference to "reason" you will be talking past most readers.

[Walpurgis] "the efficacy of accomplish" *is* a definition of reason.

[Lucifer] Maybe that's because we haven't seen any irrational examples yet. Here's one: Get so jealous of something or someone you "possess" you destroy it so that no one else can have it. Another: commit a serious crime without taking into account the probability of getting caught and spending the rest of your life incarcerated.

[Walpurgis] See your comments on emotions as reasonable below.

[Lucifer] The Tarot can be reasonably used in this manner, but it is my understanding that the vast majority of useage has someone else interpreting the cards for you.

[Walpurgis] This is not a problem of un/reason but irresponsibility. This is a problem giving up ones power to use a tool and ones own intuition, and rely on someone elses. However, this can be useful if the reader is better at these things than you (though you could learn) and would be like going to any other expert. Just because someone else is offering you a catalyst for your own thought, it doesn't invalidate it. After all, artists, scientists and writers all do this too. So is this dialogue

[Lucifer] I have often said (on the list) that emotions often generate perfectly reasonable behavior (in every sense of the word), but I was met with a lot of resistance from people that seem to think emotions are irrational by definition.

[Walpurgis] Our understanding of emotion and our uses of "reason" all have histories which illustrate different paradigms of what is un/reason. Typically, these things are ideologically informed. Women were (and still are) perceived as "irrational" due to biological factors (how reasonable is this view now?). It was very reasonable to believe in god, but is it now? Logic owes a lot to the 19th century (thanks Frege), so what were people doing before that? What were irrational were positions contra to these.

[Lucifer] I can see logical thinking being augmented in the future, but I doubt it will be superceded.

[Walpurgis] Homo sapiens sapiens have a (approx) 200 000 year old history and a brain size of 1 350 cc. (up from 800 cc. from our previous ancestor 300 000 years earlier). We hunted and gathered for around 190 000 years. We've had agriculture circa. 10 000 years and industrialisation and modern logic for 200 years. Over the last century we've seen a technological, computational and population explosion beyond all compare.

How likely is it, at this rate of change and considering how much longer we might exist in our present form (which, according to some Extropians and Singularitarians is going to be around 50 years), that we will continue to use logic and not leave it behind for something better?

[Lucifer]  One area where contemporary humans can really improve is enhancing their conception of causality. Most tend to act as if events have one or few simple causes when the reality is quite different.

[Walpurgis] Agreed. From a ethical perspective it is helpful to remember Abbagnano: The double aspect theory of possibilities: Existence must be interpreted as the series of possibilities that follow the realization of being and every act of choice. Each possibility has a multitude of positive and negative aspects.




Report to moderator   Logged
Kharin
Archon
***

Posts: 407
Reputation: 8.77
Rate Kharin



In heaven all the interesting people are missing.

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:Unreason: a meme you need
« Reply #11 on: 2002-06-18 12:26:39 »
Reply with quote


Quote:
In recent history, there was the rational Enlightenment, the irrational Romanticism, the rational Modernity and the irrational Post-Modernity; each responding to the other.

I am less than persuaded that modernism could be described as being a rationalist movement in the same terms as the Enlightenment. In the first place, modernism was arguably more of  a continuation of romantic and victorian literature than any profound break. It's strongest influence was certainly the Freudian notion of the unconscious which can be clearly seen in the work of the likes of Lawrence and Woolf, which placed its strongest emphasis on  essentially 'unreasoned' forces. I concur with your notion of dialogue but find this example to be a poor one.


Quote:
Third, art is informed by unreason and develops from it.

I find this assertion somewhat questionable. The chiastic opposition of reason and unreason is a fiercely romantic concept and I am less than persuaded that many artists prior to that period would have understood or appreciated this notion. 


Quote:
Unreason also creates fanatics, saints, martyrs, artists, neurotics and psychopaths. This isn't to argue that such people are good, but that they are sometimes useful.

Idealism of that kind may indeed be a wonderful thing, but as the great sage once observed, all you need is someone rational to put it to proper use.


Quote:
In this light, the uses of unreason must be harnessed by rationalist groups.

My view precisely. I would suggest that this was also the ancient greek view.
Report to moderator   Logged
David Lucifer
Archon
*****

Posts: 2641
Reputation: 8.89
Rate David Lucifer



Enlighten me.

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:Unreason: a meme you need
« Reply #12 on: 2002-06-18 14:16:24 »
Reply with quote

[Lucifer1] Maybe that's because we haven't seen any irrational examples yet. Here's one: Get so jealous of something or someone you "possess" you destroy it so that no one else can have it. Another: commit a serious crime without taking into account the probability of getting caught and spending the rest of your life incarcerated.

[Walpurgis2] See your comments on emotions as reasonable below.

[Lucifer3] My point was that emotion-driven behavior in not necessarily irrational. It is, however, prone to error because emotions are an evolutionary shortcut to reasoning.

[Lucifer1] The Tarot can be reasonably used in this manner, but it is my understanding that the vast majority of useage has someone else interpreting the cards for you.

[Walpurgis2] This is not a problem of un/reason but irresponsibility.

[Lucifer3] Isn't it unreasonable and irrational to be irresponsible?

[Walpurgis2] Our understanding of emotion and our uses of "reason" all have histories which illustrate different paradigms of what is un/reason. Typically, these things are ideologically informed. Women were (and still are) perceived as "irrational" due to biological factors (how reasonable is this view now?). It was very reasonable to believe in god, but is it now? Logic owes a lot to the 19th century (thanks Frege), so what were people doing before that? What were irrational were positions contra to these.

[Lucifer3] The premises have changed over time, but logic has not. And formalizing logic hasn't changed it either.

[Lucifer1] I can see logical thinking being augmented in the future, but I doubt it will be superceded.

[Walpurgis2]  <snip>
How likely is it, at this rate of change and considering how much longer we might exist in our present form (which, according to some Extropians and Singularitarians is going to be around 50 years), that we will continue to use logic and not leave it behind for something better?

[Lucifer3] About the same chance that arithematic and calculus will be left behind for something better. (Close to zero.) I think fuzzy logic is a very useful recent addition, but it certainly doesn't replace predicate logic.

[Lucifer1]  One area where contemporary humans can really improve is enhancing their conception of causality. Most tend to act as if events have one or few simple causes when the reality is quite different.

[Walpurgis2] Agreed. From a ethical perspective it is helpful to remember Abbagnano: The double aspect theory of possibilities: Existence must be interpreted as the series of possibilities that follow the realization of being and every act of choice. Each possibility has a multitude of positive and negative aspects.

[Lucifer3] Agreed. Another area that has a lot of room for improvement is probabilistic inference. Humans have very poor intuition when it comes to applying Bayes theorem.

Report to moderator   Logged
Kharin
Archon
***

Posts: 407
Reputation: 8.77
Rate Kharin



In heaven all the interesting people are missing.

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:Unreason: a meme you need
« Reply #13 on: 2002-06-19 04:41:16 »
Reply with quote


Quote:
Typically, these things are ideologically informed. Women were (and still are) perceived as "irrational" due to biological factors (how reasonable is this view now?)

To which the obvious reply would be: how reasonable and grounded on evidence was it then? Or was it in fact based on prejudice from the outset? As I recall, such arguments were vigorously contested by the likes of Margaret Fuller and Mary Wollstonecraft, and on reasoned grounds.

That said, our behaviour is driven at least to some extent by out biochemistry, which would mean that we are all arguably irrational for precisely that reason...
Report to moderator   Logged
Walpurgis
Initiate
**

Posts: 67
Reputation: 5.11
Rate Walpurgis





View Profile
Re:Unreason: a meme you need
« Reply #14 on: 2002-06-19 08:22:06 »
Reply with quote

[Lucifer3] My point was that emotion-driven behavior in not necessarily irrational. It is, however, prone to error because emotions are an evolutionary shortcut to reasoning.

Increasingly, I'm less and less sure that there is such a clear split between emotion and reason. It is more likely that one informs the other is a feedback loop. How seperable are these seemingly differentiate phenomenon?

[Lucifer3] Isn't it unreasonable and irrational to be irresponsible?

Good point. But that is a point about /irrresponsibility, not emotion.

[Lucifer3] About the same chance that arithematic and calculus will be left behind for something better. (Close to zero.) I think fuzzy logic is a very useful recent addition, but it certainly doesn't replace predicate logic.

I'm not sure how you assess these chances and what time frame you are working in... I speculate that we will change/grow beyond these systems in our evolutionary future... In 50 years, 200, 500, 10 000 and 100 000 years from now I expect we will be using different understandings.

If truth is just a good model that does not correspond to anything absolute outside of the system, then why should our methods remain the same?

[Lucifer3] Humans have very poor intuition when it comes to applying
Bayes theorem

Who's this?

[kharin] I concur with your notion of dialogue but find this example to be a poor one.

This is fair, my example was over-simple. (and Hegelian tehehe)








Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
Jump to:


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Church of Virus BBS | Powered by YaBB SE
© 2001-2002, YaBB SE Dev Team. All Rights Reserved.

Please support the CoV.
Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS! RSS feed