Author
|
Topic: Radiance (Read 4920 times) |
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender: 
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.60
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
 
|
 |
Radiance
« on: 2008-12-07 01:43:10 » |
 |
Since the near completion of the 2008 political process in the US (we are still waiting to see if Senator Norm Coleman gets defeated by my favorite court jester Al Franken, but otherwise I'm ready to move on) I'm feeling an almost natural tug back to issues religious/spiritual. Indeed in some ways considering that our political system can barely think 8 years into the future, I reckon that some sort of a spiritual tone is the only way to plan for the even more critical next ten thousand years of humanity.
So all that said, I've been involved in the Church of Virus for more than ten years. That certainly exceeds the combined sentence of both of my marriages, so on an only semi-humorous level, I feel more committed to the Church of Virus than I did to either of my two marriages. Of course we lawyers only half-jokingly refer to the third divorce as a felony (the stigma of persistent mistakes). But in any case, I have always experienced the church, however ephemeral and "merely" online, as a source clarity if not comfort. And to be fair, I've actually met many of the most influential members. Minus Blunderov, Rhino, Elven Sage, Sat, our newest Fritz and many others, all of whom I'd love to meet sometime, I've actually met IRL with Walter Watts, David McFadzean, Hermit and family, Mermaid, Zloduska, and Richard Brodie (some of whom are less active than before).
I was also present for the "Great Faith Wars" which finally established our central ethical system of Virtues (Reason, Empathy, and Vision) and Sins (Hypocrisy, Apathy, and Dogmatism). I'm also happy to say that this system still provides me with a useful menu to approach my real world ethical issues. I can't actually tell you how many times the words "Reason, Empathy, Vision, Hypocrisy, Apathy, and Dogmatism" come out of my mouth on any given day, but I'm betting that AT LEAST one of them gets mentioned in even my more boring days. The church has been nothing but complimetary to my preferred ways of framing ethical issues.
That's what has been encouraging me to begin thinking of the CoV primarily in terms of these ethics. Yes, I know that some in the congregation value specific philosophical ideas, evolution, the scientific process, or even atheism in preference to some ethical muddle like I've proposed. I know that my starting position may not immediately identify the evil-doers by label, group, or ideological impurities like others may prefer, but I think the Virtues and Sins provide a more immediate state-of-mind way of identifying the better paths, and the best possibilities for an enduring transhumanist narrative.
That's why I'd like to offer them up as a viable memeplex in and of themselves. A memeplex that interfaces with humans on this ready-to-mind tangible basis . . . regardless of whatever mythical stories you may or may not have inherited - if you as a fellow human subscribe to the virtues of reason, empathy, and vision, and seek deliverance from hypocrisy, apathy, and dogmatism, then by virtue of our mutual recognition of such an ethical universe, we can continue our most important conversations despite some disagreements about the details and circumstances. This is what I consider our radiant revelation. I wouldn't expect we all would automatically fall in line on this; I expect Hermit and others to have plenty of worthile objections to such a path, but I assume it is still a legitimate of conversation if not debate, and I think the historical path of our Church has now determined the inevitibility if not the outcome of such conversations.
In a nutshell this is how I view Radiance. A non-religious spiritual system of ethics outlined by the three virtues - Reason, Empathy, and Vision - and the three sins - Hypocrisy, Apathy, and Dogmatism, as established by the "Great Faith Wars" in the Church of Virus. Aside from any specific beliefs inherited or otherwise acquired, to whatever extent any person adheres to this system, they shall be considered fellow travelers and allies.
I'd be very interested in your feedback.
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
Fritz
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1746
Reputation: 8.85
Rate Fritz
|
|
Re:Radiance
« Reply #1 on: 2008-12-08 01:04:40 » |
|
Well stated and warm dialogue Mo. Thx
I have been watching CoV from the side lines since 1996. In those heady days it was much more esoteric and even though I found it extremely interesting I certainly felt out of my depth and intimidated. Aside from saying thanks for the site, I watched and listened. Today it is far more accessible and for that a lot of hard work and giving up of self in every sense of the word by the CoV crew, has to be acknowledged and is appreciated.
Quote:
The Tenants you pose are within the scope of how I hope I interact with the world including CoV, when I'm at my best anyway.
- Reason, Empathy, and Vision - and the three sins - Hypocrisy, Apathy, and Dogmatism
In a 'scientific framework' I suggest, it would require that we have an empirical way of quantifying how exchanges categorize into the Tenants. How that could be done, I'm not sure.
Mo, You I'm surmising, are coming from a more nuanced approach which would inculcate these Tenants into best practices at CoV and also use them to evaluate a Virians propositions. I'm wondering if the leeway inherent in interpretation could further a self serving Virian in the out come of any evaluation of a proposition rather then clarify it's merit.
Implementation will be the key, I think.
Quote:| [Nietzsche] "The Wanderer and His Shadow"—§206 During the journey we commonly forget its goal. Almost every profession is chosen as a means to an end but continued as an end in itself. Forgetting our objectives is the most frequent act of stupidity. |
Cheers
Fritz
PS: I have the big comfy chair, some scotch and warm slippers ready, in great anticipation of feedback from the "Others at CoV".....
|
Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains -anon-
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Radiance
« Reply #2 on: 2008-12-08 08:19:44 » |
|
I am so seldom brief. but in this case it is quite easy. I have a friend who has distilled a few helpful quotations in an on-line profile:
[Voltaire] The true triumph of reason is that it enables us to get along with those who do not possess it.
[Hermit] I desire no man to believe me - or any other. I demand that each person think for themselves and reach their own conclusions."
From the above it is easy to conclude that we can't tell others how to be a Virian (A Virian is someone who uses rational cognition to recognize, create, host, and propagate successful and beneficial memes, clew to the Virian Virtues and shun the Senseless Sins), and this might seem to be reinforced by:
[Hermit]
[1] Truth is an assertion made about something.
[2] The validity of an assertion is dependent on the perspective of the viewer.
[3] There are an infinite number of perspectives from which to view any something.
[4] There are an infinite number of truths about any something.
[5] The definite article is generally ... (but not necessarily always) inappropriate for "truth."
To which I would add:
- We have only one brain and its primary task appears to be to reassure us that it is functioning rationally and correctly, no matter what*.
The above, together with our rejection of Dogma (as a Senseless Sin), means that we can't tell other people how to be Virians; although we can try to demonstrate Virian ethics in our day to day lives, in our choice of emphasis, in our writings, in our willingness to support our statements with the reasoning that brought us to making them, and most of all, by our attempts to balance the Virian Virtues in all our dealings.
The Church of Virus has a supportable measure to infer people's standing as Virians when they are prepared, as you have done, to move out from the shadows and contribute their perspectives to the community. This is the Meridion System. The fact that the Meridion System incorporates a means of continuously re-evaluating the highest rated members of the mesh, as well as the new members, grants it several advantages over simpler Advogato style ROT systems, even though it is not exactly evaluating " quantifying how exchanges categorize into the Tenants."
It would be relatively easy (bar the coding, but that is life) to extend the system somewhat on the basis that while we cannot validly project motivations to the actions of others, we most certainly can evaluate their actions in terms of the Virian principles in a non-binary propositional continuum ranging from -1 (antithetical to), through 0 (indeterminate), to +1 (adheres to) for each of the indicators for each post or each poster even though the results might reflect the evaluator as much as those being evaluated. The trouble with this is, that as a relatively small virtual community, we don't see each other through our actions, but through the small sample of our words that make their way here. It may be easier to implement something like this for a larger community of more interactive people (for example Second Life), or even in a physical Church of Virus.
Kind Regards
Hermit
*There is no reliable way for us to diagnose a rationality failure of our own brains. Which is why it is advisable to find some like minded friends with the courage to tell the truth of their perception of you, and the empathy to do it gently, and appoint them as "brain assessors". When they agree that you are not being rational, it very likely means you have sprung the rails. This is also why I avoid the use of brain altering chemicals; I like the way I think and know both that I could not analyze how my brain is changed through their use, and that some changes are one way functions and many of these are as easy to trigger as falling through a trap door, but chacun a` son gou^t.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.60
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:Radiance
« Reply #3 on: 2008-12-08 17:15:27 » |
|
Quote from: Hermit on 2008-12-08 08:19:44 *There is no reliable way for us to diagnose a rationality failure of our own brains. Which is why it is advisable to find some like minded friends with the courage to tell the truth of their perception of you, and the empathy to do it gently, and appoint them as "brain assessors". When they agree that you are not being rational, it very likely means you have sprung the rails. This is also why I avoid the use of brain altering chemicals; I like the way I think and know both that I could not analyze how my brain is changed through their use, and that some changes are one way functions and many of these are as easy to trigger as falling through a trap door, but chacun a` son gou^t.
|
This is a good point, which reflects and affirms some habits I've nurtured. I've had a lot of those "Am I the crazy one here?" consultations with many of my closest friends. I suppose now I view the Virtues and Sins as a sort of formalized list of the entrance criteria for someone to join the Mo brain assessors. Not that anyone can or need demostrate perfection on any of these six ethics, but most importantly that they recognize them as worthy ethics. No matter our peculiarities, flaws, misunderstandings, or even patent irrationalities, if we at least recognize these ethics, then you speak my language and further discussion of spiritual issues may be productive.
It seems to me that the problem of many philosophical schools is that they get entirely too hung up on agreeing on some particular metaphysics before conversation may progress. Yes, even the Church of Virus has its philosophical biases, but I think what we recognize now is that the more important question is not necessarily what is the "true way" of interpreting the world, or even what is, but rather what determines your direction; which way are you going? It seems to me, that agreeing on these types of ethical issues can better work towards building effective transhumanist communities.
-Mo
ps. as to brain altering chemicals . . . I advocate checking ideas and cognition over time, - days preferably if your important decisions will allow it. Intoxication is only one of many things which may disturb cognitive balance. Really almost any intense emotion would probably qualify as very brain altering involving chemicals. Personally I wouldn't rely too heavily on the person who just lost a family member yesterday, any more than I would rely on the other guy who just smoked crack.
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Radiance
« Reply #4 on: 2008-12-08 19:48:09 » |
|
[MoEnzyme] Personally I wouldn't rely too heavily on the person who just lost a family member yesterday, any more than I would rely on the other guy who just smoked crack.
[Hermit] Let alone one who lost a family member years ago - or identifies to closely with the victims of mass murder.
[Hermit] More generally, I agree completely that the hormones we know a bit about all seem to be potent brain affecting drugs,which means the ones we know less about are probably the same. And of course, from timimg studies we already know that we act first and think up reasons for it afterwards, which may thrust a lot more responsibility on the limbic system and brain stem than is generally recognized.
Kindest Regards
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Fritz
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1746
Reputation: 8.85
Rate Fritz
|
|
Re:Radiance
« Reply #5 on: 2008-12-08 22:16:57 » |
|
The attached essay I've clipped from, has reminded me that intellect when employing the scientific method and emotions when trigger by association use rather different access mechanisms to arrive at a truth/axiom of understanding on how the brain functions; whether under the influence of physiologically induced chemicals or introduced chemicals. It is the combining of critical analysis and cathartic release that makes the whole. Music has to be the best example of this synergy.
Alfred Adler certainly kept harping on how important the social framework was to a healthy brain suggesting we maybe pre-wired to require that frame of reference for the reasonable checks and balances to be in place.
Hence the CoV ...... ?
Cheers
Fritz
Source: attached
Essay: On Life after Death
Author: C.G. Jung
By: T H E N A U T I S P R O J E C T
Page 1<snip>We cannot visualize another world ruled by quite other laws, the reason being
that we live in a specific world which has helped to shape our minds and
establish our basic psychic conditions. We are strictly limited by our innate
structure and therefore bound by our whole being and thinking to this world of
ours. Mythic man, to be sure, demands a "going beyond all that," but scientific
man cannot permit this. To the intellect, all my mythologizing is futile
speculation. To the emotions, however, it is a healing and valid activity; it gives
existence a glamour which we would not like to do without. Nor is there any
good reason why we should.<snip>
Page 22 <snip>The feeling for the infinite, however, can be attained only if we are bounded to
the utmost. The greatest limitation for man is the "self; it is manifested in the
experience: "I am only that!" Only consciousness of our narrow confinement in
the self forms the link to the limitlessness of the unconscious. In such awareness
we experience ourselves concurrently as limited and eternal, as both the one
and the other. In knowing ourselves to be unique in our personal combination—
that is, ultimately limited—we possess also the capacity for becoming conscious
of the infinite. But only then!
In an era which has concentrated exclusively upon extension of living space and
increase of rational knowledge at all costs, it is a supreme challenge to ask man
to become conscious of his uniqueness and his limitation. Uniqueness and
limitation are synonymous. Without them, no perception of the unlimited is
possible—and, consequently, no coming to consciousness either—merely a
delusory identity with it which takes the form of intoxication with large numbers
and an avidity for political power.
Our age has shifted all emphasis to the here and now, and thus brought about a
daemonization of man and his world. The phenomenon of dictators and all the
misery they have wrought springs from the fact that man has been robbed of
transcendence by the shortsightedness of the super-intellectuals. Like them, he
has fallen a victim to unconsciousness. But man's task is the exact opposite: to
become conscious of the contents that press upward from the unconscious.
Neither should he persist in his unconsciousness, nor remain identical with the
unconscious elements of his being, thus evading his destiny, which is to create
more and more consciousness. As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of
human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being. It may even
be assumed that just as the unconscious affects us, so the increase in our
consciousness affects the unconscious.<end>
|
Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains -anon-
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.91
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
Re:Radiance
« Reply #6 on: 2008-12-09 02:11:24 » |
|
Essay: On Life after Death
Author: C.G. Jung
By: T H E N A U T I S P R O J E C T
[Blunderov] Tail gone all bushy again I'm afraid...
"To the intellect, all my mythologizing is futile
speculation."
[Bl.] Well, not to my intellect to be sure. To me, the word "mythologizing"* means creating a fictional account of something that is spoken of (and passed on!) as if it were true. TMM there is a crucial difference between speaking of something as if were true and speaking of something as if it might be true; this difference is precisely that which exists between "speculating" and "mythologizing"! To speak of these words as if they mean the same thing is to go beyond mere equivocation and into the realm of the forcing of square pegs into round holes.
"To the emotions, however, it is a healing and valid activity; it gives
existence a glamour which we would not like to do without. Nor is there any
good reason why we should."
[Bl.] A highly contentious assertion; I myself do not "mythologize (in the sense which I think the article means) and yet I am struck every day by the mighty "is-ness" of it all. I'm constantly amazed that anything should bother to exist at all. I'm sure many people are similar. We are not "given" this numinous sensation by mythologizing; it is, TMM, a matter of simple stimulus/response.
"Only consciousness of our narrow confinement in
the self forms the link to the limitlessness of the unconscious."
[Bl.] I've tried very hard to understand what this sentence means but with little success. I will say this much; I'm suspicious of that word "only". You want to watch your wallet when anybody near you uses this word has been my experience.
To go further, ISTM that this whole piece is an attempt to make a big deal of the way we use binaries in language. "Limited/ unlimited". So what? Why is this more of big deal than "up/down" or "black/white"? This is the language of mysticism. It makes a superstition of words in much the same way that people sometimes make a superstition of numbers; as if they had some intrinsic power of their own.
"merely a delusory identity with it which takes the form of intoxication with large numbers
and an avidity for political power."
[Bl.] "Intoxication with large numbers" is apparently a much worse thing than an intoxication with large words! I suppose we will just have to take their "word" for that...
This business of "avidity for political power" seems to pop up out of nowhere like a mushroom in the middle of a dewy morning lawn. Gadzooks! A non sequitur! Who'd a thunk it was there at all?
"The phenomenon of dictators and all the
misery they have wrought springs from the fact that man has been robbed of
transcendence by the shortsightedness of the super-intellectuals."
[Bl.] And again! I begin to suspect the presence of a not-previously-mentioned agenda. Not that that's a crime. But I do think we should be told. More seriously, how is it possible to transcend our human nature if it is not in our nature to do so?
Or if it is within our nature, how would it be possible to avoid doing so? More mystic pizza.
"the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being"
[Bl.] Aha! The true colours are at last revealed. There is a "purpose". The "Nautisproject is so busted! 
* http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mythologizing
Verb 1. mythologize - construct a myth; "The poet mythologized that the King had three sons"
mythologise
cook up, fabricate, invent, manufacture, make up - make up something artificial or untrue
2. mythologize - make into a myth; "The Europeans have mythicized Rte. 66"
|
|
|
|
|
Walter Watts
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1571
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Walter Watts
Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in
|
|
Re:Radiance
« Reply #7 on: 2008-12-09 03:03:50 » |
|
Hey Blunderov.
>>[Bl.] I've tried very hard to understand what this sentence means but with little success. I will say this much; I'm suspicious of that word "only". You want to watch your wallet when anybody near you uses this word has been my experience.
I agree about being suspicious of the word "only".
We might add the word "all" as sort of the "yang" to only's "ying". "All" should also make one suspicious.
My two favorite suspicion arousing words are "always" and "never".
Only. All. Always. Never.
Any fairly steady grasp of statistics and complexity theory should make the appearance of any of those four words peg ones "suspicion meter".
Walter
|
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Radiance
« Reply #8 on: 2008-12-09 06:09:56 » |
|
The alleged joy of the anti-intellect, and blaming of the intellect for the evils of the world are not new ideas.A little rational cognition before giving up on thought should lead you to conclude that once you dispense with the intellect you also dispense with the mechanisms to evaluate and establish the truth value (or lack of it) for this trapdoor proposition. Which means that intellectual investigation shows that they are not valid ideas, even though acceptance of them hands you defenseless to their proponents who will, presumably, perform the evil thinking on your behalf.
Having invalidated the thesis, it ought to come as no big surprise that the corollaries are also invalid. Thinking, as we do, that the laws we have are arbitrary and established by happenstance in the earliest moments of our Universe, we can not only envision other worlds, we can model other universii, including our own, with laws different from our own. Which leaves the rest of the putative argument in broken shards.
I see the author as engaging in mental masturbation, playing with words without attempting to communicate and without establishing meaning. This means that, like most common or garden religious works, the reader, through projection, brings any meaning that may be found in the mishmash to the party.
The moral may be to be cautious of complex works. Just because you do not understand something, whether it uses familiar words in unfamiliar ways or is loaded with polysyllables, does not mean that it has a deeper meaning which may be descried. It may merely be because it is wrong, or worse, meaningless. Even if it was written by an icon.
Kindest Regards
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.60
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:Radiance
« Reply #9 on: 2008-12-09 13:44:21 » |
|
I've lately gotten a bit more skeptical about dichotomies, or necessary conflict between intellect and emotion. I do recognize them as different kinds of cognition acting in different contexts, but to me that doesn't mean that they don't each have valid reasons driving them. I don't see them as irreconcilable. I can see how the work and difficulties reconciling them can lead to lots of stories about how they are incompatible.
Certainly everyone can recognize the frustrations of resolving the "heart and mind" that it makes a very compelling and thus memetically powerful story, but to me these stories are simply parasitic to our tendency to tolerate hypocrisy. If my heart and mind consistently disagree, it might be more evidence of some overlooked hypocrisies I've permitted rather than any actual incompatibility between the two. On the virtuous side of the equation, such heart/mind disagreements may simply present an opportunity for Vision to take hold.
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
the.bricoleur
Archon
Posts: 341
Reputation: 8.45
Rate the.bricoleur
making sense of change
 
|
|
Re:Radiance
« Reply #10 on: 2008-12-09 14:38:08 » |
|
Quote from: MoEnzyme on 2008-12-09 13:44:21
I've lately gotten a bit more skeptical about dichotomies, or necessary conflict between intellect and emotion. |
Well, the place I started at to tear down this false dichotomy was to consider all thought to be emotion.
I do not weyken that emotion and reason can be juxtaposed as opposites. All thought is emotion. Reason is always an “afterthought” because it is reflective, unlike heuristics (which is what emotions have evolved to act as), and not because it is unemotional. All thoughts are associations between neural pathways and all associations are made and maintained through neurotransmitters, which produce emotion. The emotions of reason are very subtle and quite unlike the heuristic emotions which are blatant and sometimes overpowering. But reason is not separate from emotion. All thought is emotion. Reflective thought/emotion is just slower than non-reflective thought/emotion.
-iolo
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Radiance
« Reply #11 on: 2008-12-09 20:27:48 » |
|
[Iolo Morganwg] All thought is emotion. Reflective thought/emotion is just [Hermit: My emphasis] slower than non-reflective thought/emotion.
[Hermit] I largely agree. Except for the use of "just". Since at least the time of Athenians, and very likely earlier, it has been recognized that reason requires training and maturity as well as mental discipline. I don't recall seeing anything that suggests that this is no longer required, although evidence of the consequences of omitting these prerequisites is arguably near omnipresent.
Kindest Regards
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
the.bricoleur
Archon
Posts: 341
Reputation: 8.45
Rate the.bricoleur
making sense of change
|
|
Re:Radiance
« Reply #12 on: 2008-12-10 05:13:51 » |
|
Thanks Hermit.
I agree.
-iolo
|
|
|
|
|
Fritz
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1746
Reputation: 8.85
Rate Fritz
|
|
Re:Radiance
« Reply #13 on: 2008-12-10 22:28:17 » |
|
[Fritz]As the vultures would circle over the eyeless remains of poor 'Carl', including a vulture with a curious bushy Tail ... 'I do not wish to praise Dr. Jung' but comment on where I suspect that through his self affirmed God delusions he enabled himself to dismiss the Victorian Christian chains of Dogma, which in the society of his day was no mean feat. It is unfortunate he seems to have sublimated them with 'Mystical Illusions' and a rather self serving appointment to divine status among mere mortals. I think he, as a Virian, did inject into contemporary Western societies the DNA of 'Mysticism' and 'Free Love'. These then expressed themselves in the Hippie moment of the sixties, (again my assertion), but were actually an echo, of the echo Jung drew, from the tribal myths of the Aryan and Celtic tribes in a personal effort to replace the social norms of the day with something else; god knows nothing sucks like a vacuum (especially in my head) the dictum I framed for myself was that emotionalism, coded as Mysticism and Intellectualism coded as rejection of Christendom was the issue at hand and in "Radiance" was what we were trying to come to terms with ?
I would submit that Mystical thinking as emotional stimulus is, if acknowledged, as much able to further an idea as is a statistical analysis, since both can alter the frame of reference, "out side the box" to use the jargon .... oh my; Vultures again, or are they 'Bats' out to get me .... ?
The critique of the Essay I enjoyed and found stimulating thank you, so I've extracted the lines that in my brain I suspect have a [Iolo]'reflective thought/emotional resonance' : so you can inspect my lower Brain function
Quote:| [MoEnzyme]In a nutshell this is how I view Radiance. A non-religious spiritual system of ethics outlined by the three virtues - Reason, Empathy, and Vision - and the three sins - Hypocrisy, Apathy, and Dogmatism, as established by the "Great Faith Wars" in the Church of Virus. Aside from any specific beliefs inherited or otherwise acquired, to whatever extent any person adheres to this system, they shall be considered fellow travelers and allies. |
Quote:| [Hermit]The above, together with our rejection of Dogma (as a Senseless Sin), means that we can't tell other people how to be Virians; although we can try to demonstrate Virian ethics in our day to day lives, in our choice of emphasis, in our writings, in our willingness to support our statements with the reasoning that brought us to making them, and most of all, by our attempts to balance the Virian Virtues in all our dealings.. |
Quote:| [MoEnzyme]It seems to me that the problem of many philosophical schools is that they get entirely too hung up on agreeing on some particular metaphysics before conversation may progress. Yes, even the Church of Virus has its philosophical biases, but I think what we recognize now is that the more important question is not necessarily what is the "true way" of interpreting the world, or even what is, but rather what determines your direction; which way are you going? It seems to me, that agreeing on these types of ethical issues can better work towards building effective transhumanist communities. |
Quote:| [Hermit] More generally, I agree completely that the hormones we know a bit about all seem to be potent brain affecting drugs,which means the ones we know less about are probably the same. And of course, from timimg studies we already know that we act first and think up reasons for it afterwards, which may thrust a lot more responsibility on the limbic system and brain stem than is generally recognized. |
Quote:[Bl.] And again! I begin to suspect the presence of a not-previously-mentioned agenda. Not that that's a crime. But I do think we should be told. More seriously, how is it possible to transcend our human nature if it is not in our nature to do so?
Or if it is within our nature, how would it be possible to avoid doing so? More mystic pizza. |
Quote:| [Walter]Any fairly steady grasp of statistics and complexity theory should make the appearance of any of those four words peg ones "suspicion meter". |
Quote:| [Hermit]The moral may be to be cautious of complex works. Just because you do not understand something, whether it uses familiar words in unfamiliar ways or is loaded with polysyllables, does not mean that it has a deeper meaning which may be descried. It may merely be because it is wrong, or worse, meaningless. Even if it was written by an icon. |
Quote:| [Mo]On the virtuous side of the equation, such heart/mind disagreements may simply present an opportunity for Vision to take hold. |
Quote:| [Iolo Morganwg ]I do not weyken that emotion and reason can be juxtaposed as opposites. All thought is emotion. Reason is always an “afterthought” because it is reflective, unlike heuristics (which is what emotions have evolved to act as), and not because it is unemotional. All thoughts are associations between neural pathways and all associations are made and maintained through neurotransmitters, which produce emotion. The emotions of reason are very subtle and quite unlike the heuristic emotions which are blatant and sometimes overpowering. But reason is not separate from emotion. All thought is emotion. Reflective thought/emotion is just slower than non-reflective thought/emotion. |
Quote:| [Hermit] I largely agree. Except for the use of "just". Since at least the time of Athenians, and very likely earlier, it has been recognized that reason requires training and maturity as well as mental discipline. I don't recall seeing anything that suggests that this is no longer required, although evidence of the consequences of omitting these prerequisites is arguably near omnipresent. |
Quote:[Fritz]The attached essay I've clipped from, has reminded me that intellect when employing the scientific method and emotions when trigger by association use rather different access mechanisms to arrive at a truth/axiom of understanding on how the brain functions; whether under the influence of physiologically induced chemicals or introduced chemicals. It is the combining of critical analysis and cathartic release that makes the whole. Music has to be the best example of this synergy.
Alfred Adler certainly kept harping on how important the social framework was to a healthy brain suggesting we maybe pre-wired to require that frame of reference for the reasonable checks and balances to be in place.
Hence the CoV ...... ? |
Quote:| [Hermit]Even if it was written by an icon. |
|
Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains -anon-
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.60
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:Radiance
« Reply #14 on: 2008-12-11 00:48:37 » |
|
As to Jung - and as a general statement, I'm not into throwing out babies with the bathwater. If you find some useful material out of him then by all means use it. I think the idea of mythology shaping us is largely true. Humans think both narratively and metaphorically, so creating myths about ourselves certainly comes naturally. I think Joseph Campbell made some very interesting points on this, and I know that he liked to draw on Carl Jung. I wouldn't rely on these guys for scientifically vetted opinions, but I do think they intuitively understood and grasped the power of narrative and metaphor in ways that cognitive scientists are only just now appreciating.
I suppose the sentiment I'm disagreeing with, is that narrative metaphors - aka "myths" - are inherently emotional and hence somehow inscrutible to reason. Some myths are reasonable in that we at least theoretically and sometimes actually submit them to rational criticism. When we do it right, we like to call those surviving myths "History". In any case, to not imbue the topic with any biases, I like to simply call them all stories. History, myths, fairy tales, the record, minutes from the meeting, my resume, what have you. Some are more true than others, some more reasonable than others, but they all have the structure of a narrative so they are stories - we can subdivide from there.
-Mo
PS - to some extent I may be doing something similar with Carlton Pearson http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=4;action=display;threadid=42444 I know the man probably still believes in various supernaturalisms, however his recent behavior seems to be counter to dogmatism, reflective of empathy, and possibly not immune to reason. Despite some of his particular beliefs, do I think he could be a potential Mo brain assessor (ie could he be radiant?) Maybe, maybe not; I'd have to meet him myself to be sure, but its not something I'd preclude out of hand given evidence of his recently sane behavior.
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
|
Logged
C.G._Jung_-_On_Life_After_Death.pdf
