Kevin's Watch

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:

Don Exnihilote wrote: Hashi, not trying to be a dick or anything, but I think you're conflating -- somewhat ironically -- Hobbes and Rousseau. That said, I don't think either Rousseau or Hobbes were fundamentally correct about primordial conditions, though there are merits to either of their thought experiments. Perhaps this is an example of man's duality.

I was merely responding to peter's comments. I'll be certain to let you know when or if I think you are being a dick.

You do that, and since my remarks do not seem to have been clear enough, let me put a finer point on it:

In your earlier allusion, Rousseau's "noble savage" is an idea in opposition to Hobbes "nasty, brutish, and short" description of the primitive condition. These ideas are the opposite of one another, and although the truth is paradoxical and contains elements of either, this contradictory conflation made your first sentence in your earlier post nonsensical, despite the rest of your post being well argued. If make an error of this kind I hope someone will correct me.

Don Exnihilote wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:

Don Exnihilote wrote: Sentience is a property of the universe.

Indeed. Since we are a part of the universe, and we are sentient, it must be so.

But I am not talking about sentience. I'm saying that, if there is nothing with the ability to find or assign meaning to X, then X has no meaning.

But there is not nothing. Does the universe look at itself through our eyes?

Of course it does. We are a part of the universe, and we are looking at the universe through our eyes. Therefore, the universe is looking at itself through our eyes.

It is a thing to make one wonder. At the least it is uncanny.

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:

peter wrote:One cannot but help to wonder if it might not have been better if we had perhaps not started down the long road that led us away from the 'noble savage' [not forgetting of course that his life was 'nasty, brutish and short'!] state of existence.

There never was a such a beast as "the noble savage" and life is still "nasty, brutish, and short" today. Those conclusions were based on the faulty thinking that there is some sort of mostly linear relationship between "time in the past" and "technological devolution" so that if we go back far enough in time humans would barely be used to agriculture and the wheel and before that we were still mystified by fire.

We would be better if we would stop making each other's lives miserable.

Amen to that Hasi! [Guilty as charged Peter prostrates himself before the bench and pleads for the mercy of the court. ]

Mongnihilo wrote: In your earlier allusion, Rousseau's "noble savage" is an idea in opposition to Hobbes "nasty, brutish, and short" description of the primitive condition. These ideas are the opposite of one another, and although the truth is paradoxical and contains elements of either, this contradictory conflation made your first sentence in your earlier post nonsensical, despite the rest of your post being well argued. If make an error of this kind I hope someone will correct me.

*meow* *hiss* Some T'ai Chi Ch'uan will work out that frustration you seem to be feeling. I was not the one who conflated the ideas, as a reread of the thread will illustrate.

Fist and Faith wrote: Of course it does. We are a part of the universe, and we are looking at the universe through our eyes. Therefore, the universe is looking at itself through our eyes.

Heh...well that's the problem then. The Universe is totally insane, with over 6 Billion different personalities all insisting on being "I's"...and that's just in our neck of the spacetime woods.


I confess, Hashi, to not seeing a conflation either. It looked to me like you were saying fairly specifically that the ideas were opposites and that both of them were inaccurate/incomplete descriptions.

Edited to add some words to make some complete sentences.

Vraith wrote:The Universe is totally insane

You should put that in your signature--it's classic.

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:

Vraith wrote:The Universe is totally insane

You should put that in your signature--it's classic.

Heh...for you, anything.
Done.

Bah. One point of view can't teach you much. And for something the size of the universe, even six trillion pov's won't do the job.

So says a single point of view.

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:

Mongnihilo wrote: In your earlier allusion, Rousseau's "noble savage" is an idea in opposition to Hobbes "nasty, brutish, and short" description of the primitive condition. These ideas are the opposite of one another, and although the truth is paradoxical and contains elements of either, this contradictory conflation made your first sentence in your earlier post nonsensical, despite the rest of your post being well argued. If make an error of this kind I hope someone will correct me.

*meow* *hiss* Some T'ai Chi Ch'uan will work out that frustration you seem to be feeling. I was not the one who conflated the ideas, as a reread of the thread will illustrate.

I'm still confused by that sentence, though of course you are correct in the thrust of your remarks.

Fist and Faith wrote:Bah. One point of view can't teach you much. And for something the size of the universe, even six trillion pov's won't do the job.

But the Universe doesn't "have" or "see" or "learn" from those pov's. It IS all those different views. And many are mutually exclusive, utterly contradictory. Insane.

Vraith wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:Bah. One point of view can't teach you much. And for something the size of the universe, even six trillion pov's won't do the job.

But the Universe doesn't "have" or "see" or "learn" from those pov's. It IS all those different views. And many are mutually exclusive, utterly contradictory. Insane.

How can you possibly know any of that with certainty.

Vraith wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:Bah. One point of view can't teach you much. And for something the size of the universe, even six trillion pov's won't do the job.

But the Universe doesn't "have" or "see" or "learn" from those pov's. It IS all those different views. And many are mutually exclusive, utterly contradictory. Insane.

I am a part, an aspect, of the universe. Therefore, if I "have" or "see" or "learn" anything, the universe has. And it does so from all those different views.

And it would seem they are NOT mutually exclusive, utterly contradictory. They are all components of the same system - the universe. They are only mutually exclusive, utterly contradictory in a system that you are cuttently thinking of, which is not the universe.

I think there's more evidence that a lot of people are aware of for the proposition that there is a realm of mind that is somewhat distinct in quality from that which is understood as material. In any case, metaphysical statements that deny the existence of this noosphere have no particular standing to be thought of as extra-credible. They are merely the articulation of reductionist aesthetics and the somewhat self serving idea that man's scientific knowledge is the ne plus ultra of civilization.

Have to be the one to confess to the 'conflation of ideas' guys re Rousseau and Hobbes, though hand on heart it was a deliberate attempt at illustrating opposition rather than a conflation [clearly failed there! ]. This is the trouble with a) philosophy and b) the internet. In philosophy it doesn't matter what idea you put forward someone else will put forward [equally convincingly] the opposit; on the internet it doesn't matter what idea you try to convey, someone will read [equally reasonably] the opposit.

Mongnihilo wrote:

Vraith wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:Bah. One point of view can't teach you much. And for something the size of the universe, even six trillion pov's won't do the job.

But the Universe doesn't "have" or "see" or "learn" from those pov's. It IS all those different views. And many are mutually exclusive, utterly contradictory. Insane.

How can you possibly know any of that with certainty.

Heh...one of the few things I am certain of is that very few, if any, things can be known with certainty by anyone. Even that I am only conditionally certain of. That's complicated by the fact that it is the condition of humans that surviving/moving forward requires some certainty, some ground to stand on.

But, as initially suggested, the options are limited.
Reduces us to "instruments," and our identities/individual existence is illusion.
Or it is non-existent as a thing capable of observing.
Or it is mad, I tell you, MAD!
[perhaps it can become otherwise?]
It's all just analogy, extrapolation, and fun, anyway.
Though the idea, in a way, reminds me a bit of the AI's use of humans in Hyperion.

But I'm not a reductionist...I've had that argument before...especially in aesthetics, and I certainly [conditionally, at the moment] don't believe science is the be all/end all...it won't be even IF, at some point, it has an absolute knowledge of, and monopoly on, all facts.

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:

We would be better if we would stop making each other's lives miserable.

And that, right there, is the real answer to life, the universe and everything.

--A

Vraith wrote:

Mongnihilo wrote:

Vraith wrote: But the Universe doesn't "have" or "see" or "learn" from those pov's. It IS all those different views. And many are mutually exclusive, utterly contradictory. Insane.

How can you possibly know any of that with certainty.

Heh...one of the few things I am certain of is that very few, if any, things can be known with certainty by anyone. Even that I am only conditionally certain of. That's complicated by the fact that it is the condition of humans that surviving/moving forward requires some certainty, some ground to stand on.

But, as initially suggested, the options are limited.
Reduces us to "instruments," and our identities/individual existence is illusion.
Or it is non-existent as a thing capable of observing.
Or it is mad, I tell you, MAD!
[perhaps it can become otherwise?]
It's all just analogy, extrapolation, and fun, anyway.
Though the idea, in a way, reminds me a bit of the AI's use of humans in Hyperion.

But I'm not a reductionist...I've had that argument before...especially in aesthetics, and I certainly [conditionally, at the moment] don't believe science is the be all/end all...it won't be even IF, at some point, it has an absolute knowledge of, and monopoly on, all facts.

I don't find much meaning within the idea that existence might somehow be equivalent to non existence.
I also think that the second option relies on materialistic determinism that harkens back to a Newtonian conception of the universe, and overestimates the value of our observations of what we construe as physical reality. It ignores the hidden quantum voodoo and hocus pocus underneath it all.
The third option involves the Elder Gods and Cthulhu.

I think there are many spiritual traditions that could be thought of as metaphysical hints at the archetypal reality behind existence. Everything conjures a spirit of one kind or another, everything connects to mind and soul at some point. Or at least that is the mystical connection between idea and perception. How do I perceive a rock unless it is somehow connected to a plane of ideas and essences? And if a rock has an essence, perhaps it has an intention, a will that is manifest as it exists, pushing back against the rain and holding itself proof against the blistering sun and the scouring wind for aeons, only gradually disintegrating into other things with their own essences and potentials. How can my existence cancel its essence by contrast, engender it with null, void it as an entity? For if I am an entity, and everything connects with me, then isn't my essence thereby propagated as a common thread throughout existence, touching all things and by all things touched, making all things and by all things made?

Vraith wrote:But I'm not a reductionist...I've had that argument before...especially in aesthetics, and I certainly [conditionally, at the moment] don't believe science is the be all/end all...it won't be even IF, at some point, it has an absolute knowledge of, and monopoly on, all facts.[/color]

Of course not; logos is quite different to mythological/spiritual thought and both push forward the boundries of the human condition in their own respective areas. Logos could teach the paleolithic hunter how to trap and kill his prey - but it could not teach him how to deal with the complex set of emotions that the killing brought forth. For that, the ritual of myth with it's power to mitigate the pain and sorrow of existence was required. Similarly today, logos will carry us forward in the practical sense of scientific advancement but there will always be a place for 'less rational' modes of thought in areas such as art, literature and the humanities, for the human condition must advance in these areas too.