From: No name given (vampier@mac.com)
Date: Thu Feb 28 2002 - 07:49:50 MST
On Wednesday, February 27, 2002, at 09:25 PM, L' Ermit wrote:
> [Hermit 1] Unfortunately, to many of us, modern life does not appear to
> be doing a very good job of teaching people how to reach conclusions.
> To that end we engage in a process of dialog, which is intended to
> further each members ability to reach such conclusions. While we
> recognize that logic and reason cannot open all doors, they offer the
> only certain way of opening some doors. So we respect these tools and
> seek deliberately to maximize our capability to use them, while also
> recognizing the emergent nature of our Universe and the fact that it is
> complex.
>
> [nng 2] One of my majors during my undergraduate was mathematics. From
> the basic Euclidean geometry axioms, I can sit down and have a fun time
> proving the Pythagorean theorem and from there a multitude of
> trigonometric identities. Likewise, with a little bit of number theory,
> proving calculus is quite fun too.
>
> [Hermit 2] Did logic and predicate or Lambda calulus come into your
> education?
Yes. Logic and predicate calculus, in multiple courses within that
department. And then I got credit-by-examination from the philosophy
department, in anticipation of taking their "intermediate logic" course,
but it was never offered. I took a more advanced logic course later on
though, which introduced me to a variety of other logics, including
linear logic and such.
I have a working knowledge of Lambda calculus, having written much in
Lisp and various dialects thereof, but have not done many proofs
involving it.
> [nng 2] But I stopped and didn't go on to do graduate work in
> mathematics, but instead in another subject. Why? Because research -
> the advancement of knowledge - requires building upon what others have
> done - and the vast number of thousands of years that mathematics has
> been around made it such that to find out all that others had done in a
> particular area, and then try to develop on it, wasn't something I
> especially enjoyed - because I couldn't become so familiar with what
> was underlying it, and reach the level of being able to prove
> everything along the way on my own.
>
> [Hermit 2] I can understand that. But no matter the field we all stand
> to benefit by standing on the shoulders of others - or our heads will
> surly be trodden into the ground by our successors <grin> May I ask
> what subject? (There is no obligation to reply and you may choose to
> answer on or off-list).
A subject that is still defining itself.
> [nng 2] To advance, we must build upon what went before. If we don't
> share our memes regarding the conclusions we've reached about whatever
> (specifically regarding coping and self-reliance, amongst others), then
> we prevent the possibility of those memes evolving. So I say this (as I
> understand from the [url]http://www.churchofvirus.com/about.html about
> page[/url]) should be a forum for sharing such memes and allowing them
> to evolve and grow.
>
> [Hermit 2] Say rather of refining them, and learning what works and
> what doesn't. Bear in mind, that in joining our community, each member
> tacitly (and explicitly), consented to expose themselves to the
> memeplexii, which tend to circulate here. Other than that I agree with
> you.
If I dislike the memeplexii here, I will unsubscribe.
> [Hermit 1] I find the following thought modii useful. Life is neither
> good nor bad, it is a process of determining and refining our ability
> to enter relationships with others, offering many opportunities to
> experience rewards along the way. Evolution has provided us with a
> brain which has the ability to enjoy abstract thought and the company
> of others. The social nature of people also suggests that we maximize
> our pleasure by maximizing our interactions and contact with others.
> How we realize these potentials is quite probably the greatest single
> separator between men, and determinator of our satisfaction with our
> lives and ourselves.
>
> [nng 2] Should I assume then, that the comments that you are offering
> above are suggestions and not "assertions"?
>
> [Hermit 2] They are indeed "suggestions" for consideration, but
> represent some of what I (and others here, but not necessarily all
> Virians) hold to be well established.
Ok.
This seems to over-emphasize the social nature of humans.
I would humbly suggest that in addition to the virtue of "empathy" that
a virtue of "self-empathy" should be added - empathy with oneself, both
consciously and unconsciously - through a variety of techniques
including trying to not repress thoughts (suppress, perhaps, but not
repress) as well as other techniques of allowing for integration of both
aspects of our mind - including perhaps dream therapy (one of the least
invasive techniques) - which has been found to work well, as
demonstrated here:
http://www.dr-dream.com/kilton.htm
Similarly, the sin of "hypocrisy" should be extended to include the sin
of self-hypocrisy - or the lack of truthfulness to oneself (even when
others are not involved).
> [Hermit 1] There are several prerequisites to interrelating
> successfully with others. The ability to communicate effectively, the
> ability to think rationally and act ethically, the characteristics of
> dependability and predictability, an understanding of where we come
> from to determine a context for words and actions, and above all,
> seeing that men tend to react to one another depending on how they are
> treated, the anticipation that you will find the company and pleasures
> of others to be pleasant and pleasing to yourself. That way, you will
> sometimes be disappointed, but I would suggest, not nearly so much as
> those that do not engage in hopeful dialog (who, fortunately for
> themselves, seldom realize how much they are missing).
>
> [nng 2] So this forum should be for the discussion of memes to
> facilitate the development of those
> abilities/characteristics/understandings/anticipations?
>
> [Hermit 2] Certainly this is another aspect of how I (and others here)
> see the CoV, although I'd suggest that perhaps I would not particularly
> emphasize that aspect of our Church. Rather we learn to do this for
> ourselves and to ourselves, not so much discussing memes as sharing
> them, and correcting one another in a process of learning to exercise a
> measure of [i]conscious[/i] control over our thoughts, feelings, and
> actions as a result of the deliberate selection of a "better" class of
> memes. You should perhaps understand, that as a famous Virian [KMO]
> once put it, we try to "Feed the hungry" - in other words, we attempt
> to identify what is good, and if we see things where the CoV might be
> helpful, we try to change the world, first attempting to be sure that
> this is what the recipients desire. The easiest place to be sure that
> this is what the recipient desires, is right here. Our disclaimers are
> generally sufficient to put off those who do not wish to attempt this
> process.
I would suggest that "[i]conscious[/i] control over our thoughts,
feelings, and actions" if at odds with the subconscious, can result in
significant emotional/mental/physical problems - certainly not optimal
health.
> [Hermit 1] Sadly, life being good, we all die. It has been argued that
> our purpose is to propagate our genes. I would argue that we can
> already see that we will have to transcend that concept (unless we
> begin to direct our own evolution in an attempt to remain equal to the
> neural networks that I suspect may eventually replace us). I suggest
> that the logical approach is to recognize that it is not our genes,
> which are so dreadfully important to propagate, but our memes. In other
> words, what have we contributed to the idea space that we leave behind
> us.
>
> [nng 2] On this, I am willing to tentatively concede that that is the
> most probable - but I also fully believe that there's probably a lot
> more going on and that there might be other stuff to pass on
> as_well/instead.
>
> [Hermit 2] Would you care to expand on your thoughts on this?
There may be a third replicator at work. An unseen one whereby what I
shall call "sprete"s replicate (units of "spirit" - for the origin of
the name). While we (humans with "souls") might be considered to be a
"vehicle" for these, the analogy with genetics breaks down (just as the
memetic analogy with genetics breaks down). Likewise, they might exist
outside us - perhaps explaining all the hoopla over "crystal power" and
other such (unverifiable) things that are part of parapsychology.
Whereas memes and genes are in a bit of a dance, I see the potential for
"sprete"s to be the energy that powers the dancers.
Just as we cannot put a meme in a bottle and say "there it is", so too
we cannot do so with a "sprete". In fact, I can think of few arguments
against the existence of these "sprete"s that do not also apply to
"meme"s.
I do not know.
> [nng 2]Yes, I concur that the definition of self-reliance, as provided
> there, is well argued. But it seems about as useful to achieving
> self-reliance as the peano postulates are to proving Fermat's last
> theorem - there's a lot more to go before one can take those words and
> turn them into reality and "cope" with that reality. Which leads me to
> the coping
> aspect....
>
> [Hermit 2] Actually once we (as humans) learn the basic tools, rubbing
> shoulders with other Virians, and holding the basic tenets of the CoV
> as goals, the how tends to fall into place by itself.
Don't tell anyone that or the self-help industry will try to thwart your
very existence.
> I would argue, strongly, that the process of learning the ability to
> use the tools needed to practice self-efficacy teaches self-efficacy
> and with this comes a burning desire to be more self-enabled, while
> having the discipline not to attempt to thrust it at others, in a
> significant percentage of the population.
Statistics? Numbers? Facts?
> We are seeing this process being successfully implemented over a roster
> of people from a very diffuse range of social, cultural, economic and
> intellectual demographics.
The long-term consequences of anything that changes the nature of
society are always the things to watch out for.
> [nng 2] Kalkor states that coping is best achieved via acceptance of
> those two points:
> [list]
> 1) The past cannot be changed
> 2) Doing only things that benefit me, immediately and in the long term,
> is the surest way to cope with having done badly or been done wrong.
> [/list]
> [nng 2] I claim that (1) is a belief that could quite possibly be
> overturned with the advent of time-travel, and so therefore is not
> acceptable to a person with the virtue of "vision".
>
> [Hermit 2] I would suggest that there is a difference between "vision"
> and "fantasy". For a vast number of reasons and almost all apparently
> woven into the fabric of the Universe, time travel (into the past)
> seems to be unlikely if such time travel is to convey any information.
> If it cannot convey information, then it cannot affect the past. Which
> would tend to affirm Kalkor's assertion.
See my other post.
> [nng 2] I also claim that (2) begs the question - it is too shrouded in
> notions of "benefit", "badly", and "wrong" to be immediately obviously
> applicable.
>
> [Hermit 2] That is partly what we are all here for. To learn the
> ìrightî way to communicate these concepts. Iím fairly sure that I
> understood, and approved, of what Kalkor had to say. Perhaps because I
> know him better than you - one of the advantages of a church - we learn
> to understand each other over time.
Again, I appear to be told to learn through observation rather than
through direct cognitive comprehension.
> [nng 2] A more thorough discussion of those terms is relevant before
> (2) can have any meaning.
>
> [Hermit 2] I think that using "ordinary" definitions permits one to
> gain an excellent sense of what Kalkor meant. And as a working rule of
> thumb (how we do most things) it seems that it is vastly superior to
> many other philosophies. Not all of us have all of the words
> immediately to hand, but (almost) everyone here works towards
> communicating his or her ideas effectively. Kalkor seems to be doing an
> excellent job to me.
Again, I appear to be told to learn through observation rather than
through direct cognitive comprehension.
> [Hermit 1] It can of course be used to disprove anything amenable to
> the scientific process - and asserts (stipulating that Hawking
> radiation is information free) that there is nothing, which exists
> outside of a singularity, which is not amenable to this process. As we
> cannot experience a singularity at this stage of our existence, we can
> simplify this to assert that the scientific method can be applied to
> everything that exists. That is not to suggest that the scientific
> method is perfect, error free or in its final form. It too is emergent
> and provisional (which simply means subject, at least in principle, to
> refutation cf. Karl Popper and Popperian falsifiability). This provides
> a glimpse of the three principle differences between the scientific
> method and other ways of considering things. What it addresses must be
> at least founded in observation (most scientists would say, "must be
> founded in an observation"), or it is not possible, even in theory to
> refute it. It is consensual and self-correcting. It progresses most
> rapidly precisely when the most important things we assert through it
> are overturned. These attributes are diametrically opposed to classical
> religions, mysticism, belief and even politics.
>
> [nng 2] Not so close. Consider works such as
> [url=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0761910131/ref=cm_wl_topnav_books/
> ref=cm_mp_wli_/102-8403530-2359342?coliid=I2BGTPD5QQJBQO]"Transpersonal
> Research Methods in the Social Sciences : Honoring Human Experience",
> Rosemarie Anderson (Editor), William Braud (Editor)[/url]
>
> [nng 2] This presents the synthesis of the "truths" from mysticism into
> a scientific framework that is rigorous and amenable to repeated
> experimentation.
>
> [Hermit 2] From what you say, I understand that you are asserting that
> the end result has withstood enquiry using the scientific method? If
> so, I have no difficulty with how the original hypothesis was derived.
> So your "not so" is perhaps misplaced. But the proof of the pudding is
> in the consensual support of peers for the theory after due challenge,
> and as it is not one with which I am familiar, would you care to
> describe it further? It is unlikely that I will be reading the
> referenced work any time soon, if ever.
Alas, I have not read the work myself, but a friend should be reading it
soon. When she informs me of what she has thought, I will be happy to
forward her summary to the list.
But I am not so much asserting that the "end result has withstood
enquiry using the scientific method" but rather that, through the
scientific method, the scientific method itself has been extended to
including many of the notions that are typically thought to be unique to
mysticism.
> [Hermit 2] I very much doubt that that is "all" you are "going to find
> here" (we embrace a vast range of personal philosophies), although I
> opine that there is nothing wrong with neo-Epicureanism per se, at
> least as a component of a more holistic philosophy. This was rather a
> pre-emptive strike on my part to ensure that my focus on the rational
> view did not lead to a misunderstanding of a different sort. There have
> been many visitors here who did not grasp the essential concept that
> all of life, including rather abstract concepts, is in principle, quite
> amenable to being dealt with on a rational basis.
The "provisional nature of truth" that is associated with "rational"
though, is disturbing to me. I'm looking for something not so
disturbing. If the fact that I'm looking for something not so disturbing
means I shouldn't be here, feel free to let me know.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:44 MDT