A polite site for those interested in discussing questions about science, religion and philosophy. Its aim to facilitate learning and understanding about the world.
Yes I saw most of it, including the bit where he realised the wisdom of the Buddha's teachings.
Suffering (at least human suffering)is caused by desire - if it is unfulfilled one feels wretched, as Parry did on not reaching his goal - if we achieve what we want the feeling lasts only a short while before craving more of whatever it is. Numerous 'Happiness' surveys would seem to bear this out.
Where I take issue with (at least Therevada) Buddhism is its adherence to re-incarnation and complete freedom of will. Thus, Buddhists believe, that your current state and place in the world is governed by how you behaved in your previous life. This, in my view, is an evidence-free assertion that leads to an infinite regress. It also presupposes a hierarchy of existence for which, again, there is no evidence.
E:
The Ehrman book is definitely worth the read. I will summarise when I have finished it.
I suspect France would be the favourites - but it's the first blood & thunder game, and I'm looking forward to it....mind you, I'd watch any game with Chabal - isn't he awesome?
I'm worried for France they succombed to 'le craque' last week and frankly droped the ball too often against Namibia. Playing at home might turn against them and I thik Ireland have less to lose.
A post I tried to put up a week ago, responding mostly to Boltonian disappeared into nothing - I was concerned at what seemed like a strongly relativist position, and I expanded further on my idea that something stronger, a more robust knowledge, can emerge from interlinked inductive reasoning, such as is produced through Science. May be I will get back on that topic another time.
What really intrigues me was the contents of Steve's censored comment. All is not well in the state of cif. It will not surprise me if one day cif will be made to look self evidently foolish in a big way.
France are looking strong and Ireland a bit rattled so far.
I think there was a problem last week because I am normally alerted of a post by email and that didn't happen for a few days, even when I posted something. I would be grateful if you could re-post when you get time.
It was comfortable for France in the end. Ireland did not look fit to me but the French pack looked in very good nick. The Ireland - Argentina game will be interesting.
Martin : "What really intrigues me was the contents of Steve's censored comment."
Actually *blush* what they deleted of mine was a transcription of the first verse of the "ying tong" song....along with an accompanying line to illustrate the difference between the irrational and the nonsensical....it made sense at the time, sorta....*but* there were far more sensible, non-profane posts deleted from others, merely critical of the blogger....
I hope you post your serious post here again, Martin. Once or twice I've had posts take some hours to appear here, but never lost one entirely. The thread is taking longer to load (606 posts and counting) - could that be responsible?
Rugger-wise, Ireland looked an unhappy team....unless Wales do something spectacular in the quarters against SA, it's gonna be an all SH semi line-up....
Posts are supposed to be archived monthly, according to the settings, but that does not seem to be happening and, as I am an inexperienced blogger, I cannot find a remedy. Can anybody help?
The comments can be collapsed which makes it a little more wieldy.
There have been 32 different posters in this blog's short history and most stayed for a while and posted several times. Some return from time to time, like Gerry71, pttp and lesterjones, whilst others have not posted for ages.
I wonder how many look in from time to time but do not post?
"I wonder how many look in from time to time but do not post?"
I look in a lot and do not post - by which I mean I look in far more than I post. I can't be the only one, surely? I'm trying to wean myself off CifF - it's becoming a time consuming addiction which leaves me feeling frustrated. At work I can't access this site though as it is a personal blog which is a shame... Thank you for comments re 'Hitchen's Law'.
Nice one - when is vol. 1 of your anthology out? Talking of hyphens (which you weren't), I use them a lot; often preferring them to semi-colons (but I also like to use semi-colons for variety).
Does that make me illiterate, confused or just unfashionable?
Yes we are here even though we don’t comment. I always take a look and find it interesting but I don’t comment for fear of sounding like the pompous arse I usually come across on CiF. You’re all too polite to get me going though I appreciate you let metaphysics in your discussions without announcing the parameters before the discussion, such being the tactic of the reductionists. But since I’m here I read the Cornwell book on Dawkins yesterday afternoon. Forget the arguments it’s actually very funny in some places. Though Dawkins has nothing to say that has not really been said before the problem I have with him is his total lack of self deprecation (I have a horrible feeling that he is quite comfortable with the astounding levels of sycophancy on his website), his naivety and the new breed of materialists that have emerged on his coat tails who all sound alike and echo what is contained in his book or go in for vulgarity or Ayer-Russell argumentation which in my opinion is quite juvenile. Honestly Hume and Kant should be enough for any man. I’ll continue to be a parasite on this blog if that’s fine with you guys. Biskieboo, can we try and be definitive, what percentage of Theophobic is fact and what fiction is? It’s the level of infantile pedantry in some of his replies that makes me wonder.
Yep, I check in a lot here, but never post because it can become extremely time consuming (especially as it often takes me far longer than I envision to write even a small post).
Nevertheless, I've been meaning to post for a while. I know that I owe a review of The Goldilocks Enigma, and I've been meaning to raise the matter of teleology, which I thought was the one of the most interesting points in Davies's book. I promise I'll get back to this soon.
Also saw the episode of Tribe that Biskieboo mentions and found it interesting. Would like to find out more about the distinct aspects of Tibetan Buddhism, which is not just one but two steps removed from Theravada.
Went on a vipassana meditation course last month (very much a Theravada form), which pretty much entailed living like monk for 10 days. It was the second time I had done it, but each time is different and this time had a far more profound impact on me than I imagined (I really only went to help with my martial arts).
Had very vivid dreams while I was there, incidentally. Set me off on a bit of a Jungian trip after getting back.
Re Theophobic. I actually feel a little sorry for him, in a way. WML, for all his bluster, obstinancy, lack of sensitivity and insecurity regarding his own atheism can at least still be witty sometimes, and is neither stupid nor pathetic. With Spirali, the way he keeps drawing attention to how he himself "demolished" this argument (often by one of the brightest minds in his/her field) or "demonstrated" that point in his previous post says it all really. As does the thread where he accuses Spirali of being a crap scientist for daring to consider religion from the perspective of someone religious.
"Americans have long regarded the semi- colon with suspicion, as a genteel, self-conscious, neither-one-thing-nor-the other sort of punctuation mark, with neither the butchness of a full colon nor the flighty promiscuity of the comma. Hemingway and Chandler and Stephen King wouldn't be seen dead in a ditch with a semi-colon (though Truman Capote might). Real men, goes the unwritten rule of American punctuation, don't use semi-colons....If you really want to hurt your parents, and you don't have the nerve to be a homosexual, the least you can do is go into the arts. But do not use semicolons. They are transvestite hermaphrodites, standing for absolutely nothing. All they do is show you've been to college."
One other question I have that has been nagging at me is "Boltonian"? Is it a lad from Bolton called Ian or a native/resident of Bolton or something else?
Even though I dont post as often as I should like on your excellent informative and friendly blog I often read it to keep up with the discussions and find myself musing some of the quesions tackled whilst taking the bus or picking up the children etc.
The thing is that whilst its easy to fire off posts into the chaos of CiF Ive recently been lacking the time to post the more well executed and knowledge backed posts that your blog deserves. I should like to more often than I do but I am supposed to be working on a book that is taking far to long...well you know.
MartinRBD
My apologies to you also for having never got back to you interesting question on my consciouness post some weeks (months?) ago.
By the way, do you have to be a rugby fan or can us unfortunate footbal fans mention the odd win here and there aswell?
Well they did it. It was a bit closer than the score suggested I think. I understand the Tonga - SA game was a cracker but I missed it.
All:
Thanks everybody for getting in touch - it's good to know that there is a world out there. BTW, I hope that we can play around with ideas here rather than just post perfectly thought-out arguments.
I quite often post a counter argument (or propose ideas) without necessarily having every T crossed and I dotted.
Steve:
Good quote but I don't agree - I like variety.
Gerry:
I have been asked this before. Boring answer - I was born there, as were most of my family, but, coincidentally, I do have a brother called Ian. So, Bolton Wanderers is my football team, which why I prefer discussing rugby.
Lester:
I always enjoy your posts so I hope, your book notwithstanding, you can contribute the odd post here.
Bocanegra:
Agree about Hume and Kant - two of my favourites. I also admire Spinoza for lots of reasons, not all to do with his philosophy. But Russell's, 'History of Western Philosophy,' is a terrific read, even from this distance.
What was your view of Pavarotti as an operatic tenor by the way?
DaddyO:
I would love to hear a summary of Mahayana Buddhism from you and how it differs from Therevada. I have not researched this area at all.
I read the Davies book a few months ago and would be interested in your view.
Biskieboo:
I couldn't access the link you posted for some reason.
Martin:
I hope you re-send your lost post from earlier - it is an area of much interest to me.
Boltonian, Yes History of Western Philosophy still stands though I hear Anthony Kenny’s recently completed work on the subject is very good. Since this is an agnostic friendly zone could I recommend Kenny’s “The Unknown God” which is a series of essays on the God of the Philosophers and his quasi confessional “What I believe” both of which I found enjoyable, thoughtful and moving. He’s been labelled the ‘praying agnostic’ which may open him up to ridicule is some quarters I feel he is rather refreshing in admitting his own ignorance on the big question as well as his humility before the limits of our knowledge which is no bad thing in my book.
Re: Pavarotti I have to say when it comes to opera I’m very much within the ‘Italian’ camp; that is I go to the Opera first and foremost for the singing as some kind of vulgar blood sport. Now the obituaries (good and bitchy) where what was to be expected but you cannot deny that the man had a gift. How he used his gift is debatable but you hear him in Bellini (Puritani with Joan Sutherland), Donizetti (fille du regiment, Lucia, La Favorita, Elisir) Verdi (Luisa Miller, Rigoletto and Ballo) and as Rodolfo in Boheme then the power and intrinsic beauty was without parallel as he is in William Tell – it will blow you away. Yet the great stuff came from the 1970s and early 1980s. Okay he was not the most musically literate with non-existent acting ability (though that never stopped Tebaldi) but with a voice like his you could afford to be lazy. Unfortunately he is the LAST of the great Italian tenors; Gigli, Del Monaco, Bergonzi and di Stefano, a tradition has been lost. I was fed up with the Nessun Dormas after he died and wished the news media would have played the earlier recordings. In fifty years time it’s the Bel Canto roles that will survive. I only got to see him twice at Covent Garden, though well past his best he was like those old boxers who never loose their punch the ‘sound’ was still there.
Kenny has finished his four volume New History of Western Philosophy. Speaking at the publication and in relation to the two notable previous attempts he had this to say:
“During the latter half of the twentieth century two one-man histories of philosophy had dominated the field. One was Bertrand Russell’s one-volume Brief History; the other was the ten-volume history of the Jesuit Father Copleston. Each had its virtues and vices: Russell’s was brilliant but historically unreliable; Copleston’s was impeccably judicious, but rather a dreary read. Ideally, a historian of philosophy should be able to read like Copleston and write like Russell. Sadly, I could do neither: I could not match the exhaustive scholarship of Copleston, nor could I imitate the incomparable style of Russell, which won him the Nobel Prize for literature. I settled on a modest goal: to be more accurate than Russell and more entertaining than Copleston.” He also commented that he rated Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, Kant and Wittgenstein as the greatest philosophers with Plato tops for philosophy and Aristotle for all round genius. Interestingly he ends the last volume for a discussion on God stating those who think that anything that could be said had been should still think again.
BTW as I write this on the radio I have Pavarotti and Freni singing O Soave fanciulla, bliss.
I was wondering about something the a few days back and have decided to put it to the thread because I really don’t know enough to answer my own pondering, here’s the question:
Does the implication of Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, being that however elaborate and complex a theory is it may always remain unprovable (within its own set ie:the universe) and thus an ultimate theory of everything will never be arrived upon, does this mean that although we can agree upon a set of axiomatic principles regarding the likelihood of God we can never be adopt an absolutist posture without it being just that, posturing? Or closer still if the premise above is right, to be totally atheist or totally theist will always be more about intuition than provability?
There’s probably a glaring inconsistency in this question that I can’t see, or more likely one cannot go around taking mathematical theories and applying them to physics or philosophy but it sure kept my mind off of the agonies inflicted on me by my over enthusiastic dentist the other day.
My take on your question is that there is nothing that can be proved absolutely. For that we would need to be able to provide incontrovertible proof that a given premise was fundamentally correct, and we cannot do that. All premises are, therefore, provisional to a degree.
Russell felt that basic arithmetic was objectively true in all circumstances and in all possible worlds but that falls into the error of induction. Proving a negative is difficult.
The physicist Laughlin thinks that TOE does not exist and, even if it did we could never prove it.
We don't know what we don't know and the progress of science has demonstrated, inter alia, that what we don't know is vastly larger than anything we could have imagined only a short time ago.
My position is broadly this:
'I believe that x is more likely to be the case than y, given our current state of knowledge but this will change, often through the emergence of discontinuities, so that z becomes the new x.'
But it is at bottom belief, albeit based on an impartial (if such a thing is possible) evaluation of the available evidence. But that available evidence is likely to provide only a minuscule sample of all that there is - and we can never know how much more of it exists.
On LesterJones' point, I would be interested to know whether Gödel’s incompleteness theorem is related to the problem of predicting our own behaviour.
Suppose an alien scientist with an unimaginably complex computer claims that it can tell you what you are going to do next. No matter how much data the alien has about your brain state, and regardless of the sophistication of the computer, this is logically impossible, because the prediction (which he is going to tell you) will influence your behaviour. In other words, the scientist must work out the prediction in order to work out the prediction in order to... ad infinitum.
Is this epistemological problem an explanation for the feeling that we have "free will"?
This is not, after all, completely hypothetical. Gordon Brown would love to know how we're all going to vote at the next election. But the sample polls cannot (even in theory) be 100% accurate because knowledge of what they predict can affect voting on election day.
As I understand it, Godels thing - stating that there are unprovable truths - works only in strictly defined formal mathematical systems. I've seen theists invoke it to try to say that god exists and we'll never be able to prove it, but, unless they agree to define god very precisely as a mathematical thing, they're talking nonsense, and being ultracrepidarian....
Whether the incompleteness theorem applies to the other situations suggested would, I suppose, depend on whether or not they can be described as formal mathematical systems - which I don't think they are.
Rumsfeld, I guess, might have referred to Godel's idea as "the theory of unknown knowns"....
Oh, and BTW, boltonian - I'm not anti semicolons; I just liked Vonnegut's quote....
All this talk of Godel has prompted me to brush up on my mathematics. There were a couple of books on the subject favourably reviewed in the Sunday papers this week. The first was, 'One to nine,' by Andrew Hodges and the other, 'The Tiger that Isn't,' by Michael Blastland and Andrew Dilnot. I know of Dilnot but not the others. Can anybody shed light on either the authors or the books?
Don't really know where to start and where to end.. for a change!
Mathematic laws, predictability versus free will. It's still a case of relativity or subjectivity.... Although you have to take "subjective" as in-relation with the subject. Therefore mathematics and science in general are focused on the phenomenon /"cause to effect" but are unable to address the noumenon/"thing in itself". So we could definitely predict everything if the nature of beings didn't change. A funny way to put the equation on paper would be: "We are what we do" against "We do what we are".
I personally think that both statements are "true" and yet in a sense are opposed to each other; I guess it's pretty close to the classic "chicken" and "egg" question; and in this particular situation lies both mysteries of "free will" or the "incompleteness theorem"...
No phenomenon is "complete" without its noumenon; and this is exactly where metaphysics start... or at least how I crudely understand it; I'm more than happy to stand corrected!
Otherwise, the World Cup is highly entertaining; not too sure about how France will do against the mighty All Blacks if they meet them in quarter finals; Ireland-Argentina is going to be a cracker of a game. England should beat Tonga; they're good but they don't have a great discipline so I expect a fair number of penalty kicks... It's still very open although South Africa and New Zealand have been the most impressive so far.
And thanks to Steve for the semi-conlon quotes... I always wondered why I loved this particular punctuation: "as a genteel, self-conscious, neither-one-thing-nor-the other sort of punctuation mark, with neither the butchness of a full colon nor the flighty promiscuity of the comma."
yep, that would describe me pretty well... I regret I didn't chose Semi-Conlon as an internet identity!
I am not going to pretend to know it and I think it is expressed in terms of mathematical formal logic and relates primarily (or perhaps exclusively) to mathematics and like Heissenberg's uncertainty principle should not be cited as evidence or proof of anything outside its area of application.
I am not sure how or if this affects areas of Science and other disciplines that are dependent on mathematics.
In the thread, SpacePenguin explains:
"Godel's first incompleteness theorem doesn't state that any scientific theory must either be inconsistent or incomplete. It states that any formal mathematical system powerful enough to include arithmetic must be either inconsistent or incomplete.
You don't, however, need to appeal to the incompleteness theorems to realise that any scientific theory takes something as axiomatic. Even if it is simply the existence of rational physical laws themselves."
At the time I looked up Goedel on wikkipaedia and found an informative article.
Martin : "At the time I looked up Goedel on wikipaedia and found an informative article...Basically, this all means that Steve is right."
Actually, it just means that I cribbed my answer from wiki.... :-} To be fair, these mathematical topics are amongst the few where I reckon wiki can be trusted.
There was a BBC4 programme some months ago looking at four mathematicians & physicists, including Godel. There was some speculation there about how far one could extend the incompleteness theorem. I don't recall all the details, but retain the impression now that even some mathematicians think it applies to certain less formal systems. The point was also made that some of the "unprovable truths" that Godel discussed, although unprovable formally within the system, might well be susceptible to other, more intuitive, proofs. Maybe others here saw that piece?
As regards the rugger, if I were a betting man, my money would be on Oz. The ABs didn't look the complete package against Scotland, even though they thrashed them.
Boltonian: Yes, I would be interested in a summary of 'Misquoting Jesus'. I have checked out the library and local bookshops for this and the Friedman book, without success, so it looks as if I shall have to order them.
Meanwhile on CiF today there has been a thread on Quakerism (You Know Who being his usual charming self) but it seems to have disappeared off the main page.
....and a hint for those disappearing CiF blogs: there's a different index for the bits which aren't pure online stuff, and are based on pieces from the paper paper - bookmark the following page, and you need never lose those blogs again (you'll have to click on the relevant dates in red, as the weeks pass, as the link below specifically refers to this week):
And I can't resist repeating two things I read tonight about homeopathy (the first on Ben Goldacre's Bad Science site, the second on David Colquhoun's Improbable Science site)
Did you know that there's one noted homeopath who provides mp3 downloads from his site of some jazz recordings, homeopathically modulated to have certain effects?
And, from a report from a House of Lords allergy inquiry committee, this exchange was helpful:
Lord Broers: "I have a simple, technical question about homeopathy and drugs. Is it possible to distinguish between homeopathic drugs after they have been diluted? Is there any means of distinguishing one from the other?"
Ms Chatfield [Society of Homeopaths]: "Only by the label."
Boltonian: "Thanks everybody for getting in touch - it's good to know that there is a world out there."
Do you actually know this, Boltonian?
I like to believe there is a world out there, a belief that is heightened when I actually get outside of my electronic cave and roam around.
What if this is not actually so?
What if that which we perceive with our physical senses is actually something else?
I'm picturing a kind of physical reality field each personality projects around itself, completely in line with the nonsense I've previously posted here and elsewhere. Everything within it, when inspected carefully, obeys -- to a great but imperfect extent -- the various rules humanity has discovered.
What isn't noticed during this inspection, however, is the field itself -- it's practically invisible, owing to its pervasiveness.
These individual reality fields are aligned in a region of self usually beyond the conscious mind, by some form of non-material communication -- something the Internet is a crude analogy or symbolic representation of.
Is the idea of launching expeditions to explore this region (hopefully finding some way to become directly aware of this alignment process) completely out of the question?
Those involved would be akin to, perhaps, Jason & The Argonauts, or possibly early English explorers of the so called "New World."
! ! ! ! !
My apologies. During the 9/11 CiF thread I first learned of tinfoil hats. Curious, I made one and put it on -- with strange and undeniable effect; soon I was envisioning disturbing conspiracies, even spending a fair amount of time rewriting this.
Then I took the hat off, and this all seemed preposterous.
Tonight I absently mindedly put on the tinfoil hat again, then posted.
I've since taken it off. Someone needs to conduct a serious study of the effect of wearing tinfoil hats.
The Quakers got a lot of support all round on the two recent CiF threads. I'd be very tempted to defect myself if it wasn't for the fact that an ex friend of mine goes to the local meetings. We fell out because I didn't get round to asking her beforehand if it was OK to put her name down as a reference for some voluntary work that I'm doing at the moment. It was very embarrassing when the organisation phoned me up to say that it was the first time anyone had emailed them to say that they were refusing to answer the two yes/no questions that constituted the reference. I still haven't forgiven her for the pettiness. I probably should but there you go. I'm not perfect. I won't hold it against the Quakers.
I've given up my dream experiment. It hasn't produced anything remotely interesting (for anyone else anyway) unfortunately. I do like the dream language though and it's fun to have a go at interpreting you own dreams.
Steve - did you ever disclose the name of the book that was on your desk that you invited people to guess about? If you did I missed it. How about placing an object of some sort on your desk and I'll have one last go with the dream experiment? It might help to have a go at something that has a definite right answer.
I had a good splurge on Amazon yesterday. I've ordered the Alister McGrath book "The Dawkins Delusion?" and three books by Dostoevsky. If you have a few hours to spare check out the reviews to the McGrath book - it's just like CiF!
The book in question (and it's still on my desk - I'm a lazy sod these days) is called "Meconopsis", by James LS Cobb. It's about a fabulous group of poppy-like plants, mostly endemic to the Himalayas and China, including the once seen, never forgotten blue poppies. I used to grow a lot of them before I got ill, and several times bought shares in seed-collecting expeditions to get the more rare ones. An obsession of mine at one time! (My garden is still full of the obscure, such as 12ft tall lilies and bizarre shrubs. I also have a lot of rare trees, courtesy of a few years working in a tree nursery. Until a couple of years ago, I spent every daylight hour out there. But the brambles and nettles are now taking over....I have too many memories of the garden that was to look at it now....) I chose that book since no-one on that thread would have guessed it by chance, or worked it out from what I'd said before. It would have taken pure psi power to have given the correct answer....
OK, if you like we'll try again....I've just placed another object on my desk, and we'll see if anyone gets it....of course, you now have more info about me, but I doubt even a very intuitive psychologist could use logic here. Time starts now....good luck!
The Quaker threads were interesting in that so many atheists posted complimentary comments. Must be the effect of all that Quaker chocolate....
The earliest fragment we have is early second century and anything more substantial dates from the third century onwards.
There have been a huge number of alterations over the years for a number of reasons:
- Copyist error (most); - Correcting what was thought to be an earlier error; - Deliberate manipulation of the text to suit the scribe's views; and - Organised changes to make the document conform to the theological views of the group commissioning the copy.
Errors of the first kind were more prevalent during the early years before the advent of professional scribes. Most of the copies then were done by barely literate Christians, literate slaves and/or by dictation.
All scribes were prone to amending text to say what they thought the document should have said.
As most scribes were Christian many were tempted to alter text to suit their own views and prejudices and to conform to the mores of their own era.
The last form of textual corruption was a consequence of the power struggle between sects and doctrines. As the victors write the history what we are left with is the proto-orthodox version.
He details various techniques used to sort the sheep from the goats and attempts to reconstruct what the original authors might have written.
He also points out that the earliest extant texts are not necessarily the most reliable. And that most English translations, including the King James, are not to be relied upon. The best, in his view, is the NRSV - but it is still no substitute for reading the original Greek.
What we are left with are copies of copies of copies of copies etc, each with their myriad errors, compounding one on the other; and then poor translations of these.
Most of the errors are trivial but some are of fundamental importance to Christian beliefs. He cites many examples:
- The last 14 verses of Mark are later additions; - The woman taken in adultery in John was added later; - The only reference to the Trinity is fake; - Many of Paul's letters were amended to reduce the importance and role of women in the early church.
And so on.
The author's autobiographical note at the beginning is interesting. His spiritual journey has gone from general church-going believer to born again literalist to sceptic to agnostic. The last stage, he says, was not a result of his job (as a biblical textual scholar)but because of the suffering in the world. He has a book out soon on this journey.
.....
I caught up with the Quaker thread - thanks Steve. How very civilized - with one obvious and notable exception.
I am re-reading bits of the Buddhist belief system at the moment and it is strikingly similar in its approach (not necessarily beliefs)to Quakerism.
....
As I have had no response to my book suggestions I have ordered them anyway.
Biskieboo:
Good luck with the dream exercise.
Bill:
Of course I don't KNOW that there is a world outside my thoughts - or even that I am thinking these thoughts. But we have to make assumptions just to get through the day.
I am assuming that there is a world outside me and there are certain indications that this might be the case: Martin's public language argument is but one.
What I like most about Buddhism is that most versions of it seem to regard doctrinal differences between them as being relatively unimportant. For this reason, the difference between Theravada and Mahayana would appear of much smaller importance than that between, say, Orthodox and Catholic Christianity. However, I have never been to a Buddhist country or read any of the Buddhist canaon, Theravada or Mahayana (mean to, but so far just read about them), so my understanding is very provisional and could be well wide of the mark.
As far as I can tell, the most important difference is that Theravada focuses on the indvidual's escape from suffering by achieving nirvana, after which the cycle of reincarnation is broken. By contrast, Mahayana places greater emphasis on the universalism of dharma (the path/law/nature), and believes enlightened individuals will continue to reincarnate until all humanity has been released from suffering.
When I first got interested in Buddhism I thought Theravada was more to my taste because it is simpler and places lesser emphasis on the scriptures, but now I'm not so sure. But as I don't consider myself a Buddhist anyway, it makes sod all difference.
In any case, I think the practice is what is most important, and the picture is a bit more nuanced here. Mahayana, as far as I'm aware splits mainly into three branches: Pure Land, Zen and Tibetan. However, Tibetan Buddhism is often considered seperately from Mahayana and referred to as Vajrayana, leaving just the first two.
Pure Land Buddhism I'm not so keen on because it de-emphasises the meditational aspect of Buddhism in favour of devotion to the Buddha. I think Theravada Buddhists are right in considering this a perversion of the Buddha's teachings. Zen Buddhism, by contrast, places almost total emphasis on meditation and completely de-emphasises the scriptures compared to other Mahayana shools. In this sense Zen appears most similar to Theravada, although zazen meditation is not quite the same as the vipassana .
Tibetan Buddhism wins the prize for being the most exotic variant. This places great emphasis on both scriptures and Tantric meditation, which includes a whole wealth of techniques not used in other forms of Buddhism.
It also seems fairly animistic, something that Bruce Parry started to touch on in his programme. However, in the space of an hour it's impossible to get into it in any depth on this, especially while simultaneously explaining the foundations of Buddhism, which are the same in Vajrayana as they are in Theravada.
I realise that Gödels ideas were supposed to be applied within mathematics but I cant seem to help myself. I saw the documentary on the four unfortunate mathematicians (the one steve mentioned, I think it was called "Dangerous Knowledge") on Google video recently which sparked off the train of thought, as I too was left with the impression that somehow the logic behind Gödel's conclusion could be applied to other less rigorous sciences than mathematics (that's not to say that physics is less rigorous, but I found myself thinking in terms of the human sciences). Although to be fair I must confess I am susceptible to trying to cross disciplines all the time, there's something unstoppable sometimes in a train of thought.
Anyway, toward the end of the programme Gödel reveals himself to be unhappy with the conclusions of his own theory and believes the human mind capable of making intuitive leaps that somehow surpass the need for conclusive proofs. Of course there's something highly attractive about this idea (even to those of us bought up in the atmosphere of science and its real unhappiness with uncertainty) because it seems to not only link us to the universe but suggests that consciousness can access processes beyond ourselves.
The other motivation I had I suppose was that although I would consider myself an atheist I am sometimes irritated by absolutism, even as it comes out of my own mouth! So the idea that we are all having to concede to a little faith was pleasing.
"I too was left with the impression that somehow the logic behind Gödel's conclusion could be applied to other less rigorous sciences than mathematics (that's not to say that physics is less rigorous, but I found myself thinking in terms of the human sciences). Although to be fair I must confess I am susceptible to trying to cross disciplines all the time, there's something unstoppable sometimes in a train of thought."
I don't think you need Godel to see that something is always taken as axiomatic in all scientific work . At the most fundamental level worked on today the existence of regularity in the behavior of matter and energy is taken as axiomatic .
As a side note I'd say physics is less rigorous than mathematics ; mathematics requires formal proof and no empirical science can make that level of truth claim .
"Anyway, toward the end of the programme Gödel reveals himself to be unhappy with the conclusions of his own theory and believes the human mind capable of making intuitive leaps that somehow surpass the need for conclusive proofs. Of course there's something highly attractive about this idea (even to those of us bought up in the atmosphere of science and its real unhappiness with uncertainty) because it seems to not only link us to the universe but suggests that consciousness can access processes beyond ourselves."
I think that is true in a sense . Just as you can train a neural network to output the sum of its inputs without ever teaching it the rules of addition , we can 'know' something is true without rigorous proof . However that sensation of knowledge , I think , is the subjective experience of being a neural network that has learned to sum its inputs .
The nature of subjective experience , of course , is a whole other ball game .
Boltonian: "Bill: Of course I don't KNOW that there is a world outside my thoughts - or even that I am thinking these thoughts. But we have to make assumptions just to get through the day."
Most certainly! Who would wish to drive a car, for example, without making such assumptions?
One way to study what I called the "individual reality field" idea is to focus on the _intersection_ of personal realities.
This activity, then, cannot be solitary.
One implication of this field idea is that if, say, two people are in a room together, there are _two_ versions of every object in the room, even though both people will agree on particular parameters -- mass, color, temperature (even wavelength per de Broglie if they have some way to determine that), and so on.
It's not uncommon for several people to choose to meditate together but rare for a group to do so specifically to examine this intersection of their personal physical realities -- mind quietness is essential, meditation- like practices the primary tool for doing so.
To a limited extent, this can be adapted for on-line variations, using a chatroom or conferencing software, although the requirement of being tethered to your monitor presents some complexities.
I think that is true in a sense . Space Penguin: "Just as you can train a neural network to output the sum of its inputs without ever teaching it the rules of addition , we can 'know' something is true without rigorous proof . However that sensation of knowledge , I think , is the subjective experience of being a neural network that has learned to sum its inputs . "
I completely agree and I will add that your brain "knows" but do does your heart(emotions) and so does your body(physical); the subjective part is how you relate to all three stimuli.. with different physical manifestations related to them, electrical or chemical. Humans do have three different centers which connect us to the world: physical, emotional and intellectual.
Bill: "One way to study what I called the "individual reality field" idea is to focus on the _intersection_ of personal realities."
That's pretty interesting angle. I have the "bad habit" of guessing people by stepping in their shoes which i guess, is pretty close to the intersection of personal realities. However, I cannot help to deduct from this that personal realities are only a subjective manifestation of a greater reality that encompasses us all. A reality we either shun by refusing to know ourselves, or a reality we cannot experience due to the weight of our ego and our limited subjective perceptions.
So the nature of subjective experience is one of the unprovable features of our condition.
Interestingly I think it safe to say that some people are more intuitive than others, more able to access whatever machinations are at work that allow the leaps of intuition to happen, whether that be on the nature of our universe or as PlasticGypsies alludes to, the ability to not only empathise with others but to intuitively understand their motivations and to some degree their subjective realities.
It is these features of consciousness that are fascinating even if, as you say (and which is impossible to disagree with) the feeling of certainty is the subjective experience of being a neural network that has learned to sum its inputs .
While I think of it, isn't necessarily taking things as axiomatic (in science) a reflection of what we do generally in that we must agree a consensus of reality for our consciousnesses to function within groups of conscious beings.
Instead of a weakness (in the sense that we are thus constructing models of a universe so that we might understand it rather than knowing some unknown ultimate truth) this might be one of our strengths (in that without these axiomatic principles in both the scientific application and in more general terms we are lost beating hearts of subjectivity)? Aren't axiomatic principles the bridge between subjectivity and objectivity?
I have some sympathy for the philosophical position that we are all part of one entity - how we come to view things, including ourselves, discretely presents some difficulties. Schopenhauer and, less pessimistically, Spinoza developed their philosophies along similar lines.
Re-your last para. I would like to explore this a bit. Is empathy any more than using one's imagination to put oneself in a different set of circumstances? In other words, one cannot know how x feels but we can imagine how we would feel under those circumstances. This is the basis for the Golden Rule. Now, it works for us (largely) because we have a very narrow genome (in comparison, for example, with other primates).
The problems begin when we:
a) Try to put ourselves in the shoes of those from other cultures and histories;
b) Use this method when relating to animals; and
c) Attempt to formulate universal truths from this experience.
This is perhaps why we have an almost overwhelming desire (and need?) to anthropomorphise. We do this in all sort of situations including the treatment of animals and (perhaps above all)religion.
How often have you thought (or said) of another person, 'I don't understand him/her,' or,'How can anybody do that?'
We try to put ourselves, with all our genetic, cultural and historical inheritance into a position that somebody (or something) else occupies. It is a great gift but we mustn't confuse this with an actual understanding of what that other person is feeling or thinking.
In that sense we are, and can only ever be, subjective beings. Can we connect then to the objective world? Only I suggest through trying to create a shared understanding with other subjective beings. So, yes, the plural of subjective (at least for us) is objective.
daddyO:
I understand that historically Mahayana developed as a counter to the hard road that the Therevadins advocated. In other words, enlightenment could be experienced without the complete eradication of desire - it is more of a continuum in Mahayana (this might be complete rubbish, by the way). It allowed those who were not (and perhaps did not wish to become) monks to understand a little more than lay Therevadins. This worked better as a precept as most of us do not wish to give up desire, at least just yet.
You have inspired me to do some research around the different schools.
Therevada is more purist, in that they take the original scriptures (written in Pali) as their guide, whereas Mahayana allows other, later, texts, which were composed in Sanskrit, equality - the Prajina Paramita Sutras, for example. Mahayana created a mythology that is absent in Therevada and Siddhartha becomes an altogether more mystical figure.
Pure Land seems to me almost western in its wishful thinking and jam tomorrow aspect. The pure land is more like heaven than Nibbana and comes to everybody at the end of their life through performing certain rituals. Buddha, it seems, has become a god - not something that he would have been comfortable with, I imagine.
Zen, as you say, concentrates very much on the mind rather than the scriptures.
a) Try to put ourselves in the shoes of those from other cultures and histories;
b) Use this method when relating to animals; and
c) Attempt to formulate universal truths from this experience.
I completely agree with you Boltonian. It highlights that our knowledge isn't absolute; it is only relative. But this doesn't mean we can't understand the relation when we can think beyond our own subjectivity or anthropomorphism... The difficulty lies in the definition of the relative environment.
"How often have you thought (or said) of another person, 'I don't understand him/her,' or,'How can anybody do that?'"
Everytime I have no idea of the relative context. I admit I only step in the shoes of people I personally know... ( I really like how the word relationship share similar roots to relative ) If I tend to apply this rule to the unknown, the unexperienced I know that it will only be speculative... and ultimately wrong. It's all about knowing the relative context; the subjective reality.
"In that sense we are, and can only ever be, subjective beings. Can we connect then to the objective world? Only I suggest through trying to create a shared understanding with other subjective beings. So, yes, the plural of subjective (at least for us) is objective."
Absolutely; But It's not really about trying to create a shared understanding.. It just unfolds by itself and "globalisation" is accelerating the trend since the subjective veils are receding wether we like it or not. Although it's far from a smooth process, and new veils replace old ones, delaying the process; halting evolution. The biggest issue is mankind is currently gravitating around service to self which is the source of our modern culture of "spin".. political, financial, religious, etc. As long as we cultivate subjectivism, consciously or inconsciously there will be no shared reality!
Actually there is a shared reality ( let's call it objective) but we refuse to sense it except in these rare moments of "empathy" or in service to others ( giving yourself to the outside world as opposed to service to self which is ...taking it back to you )
I really liked boltonian's phrase "the plural of subjective (at least for us) is objective." Nice one.
A crunch w/e in the rugby. England/Tonga, Scotland/Italy, Wales/Fiji & Ireland/Argentina. My money would be on England, Italy, Wales & Ireland - Ireland to win, but not by enough to go through. Anyone else care to hazard their predictions?
Boltonian: Thanks, once again, for the summary of Ehrman's book. Some of this is familiar stuff, but evidently he goes into a lot more detail than any of the books on the subject that I have read previously, and I will be particularly interested to see how he approaches the task of trying to reconstruct the original texts.
Re your comment on the similarity between the Buddhist belief system and the Quaker approach; according to my Quaker neighbour, she knows some Friends who profess to be Buddhists, also, though it would be interesting to know how exactly they integrate the one with the other. Reading the Quaker threads on CiF, I was reminded of why I used to find attendance at Meetings for Worship valuable: Since agnosticism is no bar, I am thinking seriously of taking it up again.
Getting back to the original is not really his aim in this book, so I wouldn't build up your hopes too much. Vermes is your man for that.
Ehrman demonstrates firstly, how difficult textual analysis is and also how these variations came about. He also gives some idea of the scale of the problem and, therefore, how utterly unreliable our present texts are.
My feeling about this is that were it not about Christianity his book would be mildly interesting but not remarkable. If this were, say, about the validity and variations to be found in versions of Greek myths the book would largely be of interest only to scholars. But because of the faith angle objective, critical analysis is a relatively recent phenomenon - and very much a minority pursuit. The world of scholarship in this area is littered with those who lost their livelihoods (and worse)because they challenged the might of church orthodoxy.
I agree that Quakerism sounds very civilized. Unitarians are similarly broad, flexible and tolerant in their approach.
Steve:
I think I nicked that bon mot from somebody else - either here or on CiF.
Re - the rugby; prediction is very difficult, especially about the future (that isn't original either).
Ireland will go out one way or another, England to shade Tonga and I might go for Scotland.
Your comments about Buddhism sound about right to me.
Substantially I don't think there is any difference at all between Theravada and Mahayana (excluding Pure Land) apart from the meditation techniques used (although some might argue that's a pretty important difference in itself).
Theravada might be seen as saying "look, here's the road, enlightenment's at the end of it, bye now", whereas Mahayana tells you a bit about what you can expect to see along the way. In fact, it attaches greater importance to the teacher-stundent relationship than Theravada, which can be seen as giving you a guide to help you not get lost (of course, if the guide is a poor one, then he might lead you astray). The road itself, however, is always the same, even while each person's journey down it is unique.
The key thing here is that Theravada need not be as austere as some people interpret it. The flip side of its simplicity is that people new to the whole thing might assume they should be rushing down the path as fast as possible, when in fact they should be going at a natural pace and enjoying the scenery along the way. This can sometimes be particularly evident in the west, where you sometimes see people following a particularly ascetic form of practice, which beneath its spiritual veneer is actually a form of escapism from the real world and not dharma.
The other key feature of Mahayana, of course, is the importance of the Bodhisattva as someone who refrains from becoming a Buddha until all sentient beings are enlightened. However, I think in practice it all ties back to the point I made earlier about the road being the same.
Anyway, now for some horrible stuff.
On the Bunting Buddhism thread (which overall was very disappointing) someone linked to the following book review about Zen and the second world war:
http://www.mandala.hr/5/baran.html
Very disturbing, and as a martial artist I found it particularly uncomfortable reading. But interesting though.
The Zen article is grim reading. When we were in Thailand some years ago and were staying in Kantchanaburi, close by the site of the Burma-Siam railway, we came across an interesting story. One of the museums there comprises little more than a room full of yellowing newspaper cuttings and faded photographs, all about the building of the railway. The museum was created by a former Japanese officer in charge of some of the POWs. He became so filled with remorse after the war that he came back to Thailand, became a Buddhist monk and dedicated his wealth and the rest of his life to that museum to show others about the horrors of war. It was very moving - more so even than the large, new Australian built museum hard by Hellfire pass.
"So the nature of subjective experience is one of the unprovable features of our condition."
I'd say it is unprovable to anyone other than yourself . Subjective experience is the thing we know best of all , arguably it is the only thing we truly 'know'.
"It is these features of consciousness that are fascinating even if, as you say (and which is impossible to disagree with) the feeling of certainty is the subjective experience of being a neural network that has learned to sum its inputs ."
I'd say that there is a subjective experience of being a collection of neural firing patterns does , in itself , raise questions about the completeness of an entirely reductionist view of consciousness . The brain certainly does all the information processing (or almost certainly) but trying to lay the experience of having a thought over the transfer of brain potentials that produces the thought instinctively seems to imply a dualism between mental events and the neural correlates of that event . Perhaps we are just up against a conceptual wall primate brains can't penetrate .
"Instead of a weakness (in the sense that we are thus constructing models of a universe so that we might understand it rather than knowing some unknown ultimate truth) this might be one of our strengths (in that without these axiomatic principles in both the scientific application and in more general terms we are lost beating hearts of subjectivity)? Aren't axiomatic principles the bridge between subjectivity and objectivity?"
I think axiomatic principles are intersubjective , but that doesn't mean they are right . For instance it was once taken as axiomatic that action at a distance was impossible until Newton came along with his new fangled gravity fields .
As an aside I'd say this is why I don't like the "sky pixie" attack on belief in God . Although I don't believe in a personal God myself , I don't think the apparently obvious silliness of such a belief to an arbitrary group of humans at an arbitrary point in time is a compelling motivation for such disbelief .
steve , Boltonian :
Did either of you catch the Wales/Fiji game ? I wish I could gloat but I suspect we will only go one better .
Luckily my side are on top in the premiership where they belong (though if we are still there at the end of the season no doubt we'll lose to Leicester or wasps in the playoffs) .
I will certainly gloat and I think that we have more than a mug's chance next weekend. England are improving game by game - not yet world beaters but anything can happen in a one-off.
Which is your team? Mine (Sale)is not doing too well this season - lost again yesterday.
Agree with just about everything in your response to Lester. We perhaps will never be able to create an objective language (I mean one to describe objective reality - if there is such a thing) but we can continue in our efforts to compare subjective experiences. That is what science can do for us.
We come up against problems when either we experience things we cannot describe to others, or when we feel sensations that others have not. I think Bill has experienced difficulties in both of these areas but particularly the latter.
For example, I have a waking dream that I am being addressed by an angel (or some such) and describe this to you. Do you think:
a) He has developed a mental illness and is suffering from delusions;
b) He is as sane as I am and I would trust him to tell the truth;
c) He is an attention-seeking fantasist who is telling me a pack of lies;
d) That is very interesting I will explore this and take it at face value;
I will certainly gloat and I think that we have more than a mug's chance next weekend. England are improving game by game - not yet world beaters but anything can happen in a one-off.
Which is your team? Mine (Sale)is not doing too well this season - lost again yesterday."
I wish I'd seen it , everyone is raving on about it . I thought it would be an easy one for Wales so I didn't bother watching , more fool me .
I'm a Cherry and Whites man born and bred .
"Agree with just about everything in your response to Lester. We perhaps will never be able to create an objective language (I mean one to describe objective reality - if there is such a thing) but we can continue in our efforts to compare subjective experiences. That is what science can do for us.
We come up against problems when either we experience things we cannot describe to others, or when we feel sensations that others have not. I think Bill has experienced difficulties in both of these areas but particularly the latter."
I think intersubjective observations are the closest we can get to some 'objective' reality .
On a tangential point , I find it interesting that we find the observed world to be intersubjectively beautiful at every level we measure . Either directly or mathematically . Weinburg , the arch atheist physicist , said the universe seems to be unnecessarily beautiful . I wonder if that is telling us something about the limits of our perception . Can we only perceive that which we find satisfying in some way ? An Idle speculation obviously , but it makes me wonder .
"For example, I have a waking dream that I am being addressed by an angel (or some such) and describe this to you. Do you think:
a) He has developed a mental illness and is suffering from delusions;
b) He is as sane as I am and I would trust him to tell the truth;
c) He is an attention-seeking fantasist who is telling me a pack of lies;
d) That is very interesting I will explore this and take it at face value;
c) I have no idea what is going on?"
I suppose it would depend on what you described the 'angel' as saying and being . If you assert some supernatural basis for the encounter then I would ask for some evidence of such . I wouldn't dismiss a supernatural explanation but I would require something to motivate such an explanation .
Ireland/Argentina is shaping up to be absorbing if not great technically ...
That's real rugby country. A 'Shedhead,' hey? I was brought up with league - my mother's family are Wigan supporters.
It was the Welsh team of the 1970's (strangely) that turned me on to the joys of Union, despite their ritual humiliation of England at that time. I shared a flat in west London with some rugby aficionados and we spent most Saturdays watching Londons Welsh, Scottish and Irish, and Richmond, 'Quins and Rosslyn Park depending on who was at home and whom they were playing. London Welsh in those days had a great team and attracted the best sides in Wales to Old Deer Park.
Now Ireland are on their way home too. Scrappy but exciting game I thought. O'Gara has had a dreadful tournament on and off the field - and another bad day today. Ireland were poor apart from two pieces of individual brilliance from BOD.
Argentina must be favourites to get into the semis against Scotland. Neither the Blacks nor France will be happy having to play each other in Wales, I suspect.
Aesthetics is an interesting area. I caught the back end of a radio 4 prog. the other day. Dr Alice Roberts was saying that she thought that our sense of beauty comes from a shared experience that helped us to co-operate with each other. Our success as a species comes from (she said) a combination of violence and co-operation. She also said that it might just be a by-product of a large brain and serve no real purpose.
It's definitely rugby territory , I'd say it's more of an everymans game here than some other places in England .
I played Rugby at school , another fat prop I'm afraid , but I didn't really get into it until Uni where I shared a house with a geordie (who played for the Uni) and a Welshman ('nuff said) . I lived not far from the mem and I often got woken up to crys of glaws-ter .
France and the All Blacks will be an interesting one , if the right France turns up it could be an early final . Then again it could be a pasting .
"Aesthetics is an interesting area. I caught the back end of a radio 4 prog. the other day. Dr Alice Roberts was saying that she thought that our sense of beauty comes from a shared experience that helped us to co-operate with each other. Our success as a species comes from (she said) a combination of violence and co-operation. She also said that it might just be a by-product of a large brain and serve no real purpose."
I was more interested in the fact that we see beauty in areas of experience we could never have been exposed to during our evolution . Deep space and the mathematical beauty of QM are far removed from the creatures and landscapes we evolved with . Perhaps we are simply primed to find things beautiful and require extra effort to find them ugly . Though that wouldn't explain why a picture from Hubble of star formation seems so immensely more beautiful than , say , an attractive wardrobe .
France always seem to raise their game against the Blacks and it might be good for them not to be playing at Stade de France.
Beauty is seeing patterns in things, particularly symmetrical ones. Spotting patterns and making sense of them was very important for identifying prey and distinguishing food from predators. Seeing fish in a lake and separating them from their surroundings means you eat today, whereas spotting a tiger in the jungle might enable you to clear off in time and live for another day.
It is known that people with symmetrical features are considered more attractive to the opposite sex and, therefore, more successful in producing progeny.
Seeing the cosmos from Hubble is merely an extension of this characteristic - it is the patterns we create from the picture that gives us the sensation of beauty. Numbers ditto.
This is why we are obsessed with categorisation and sorting sheep from goats. We need order, in terms of comprehensible patterns and the more symmetrical the better. Look at how newspapers divide the world into heroes and villains - it appeals to our need for simplicity (which is why reductionism is so popular)and symmetry. The standard model, for example, is felt to be incorrect (or at least incomplete) because it is neither sufficiently simple nor beautiful.
Boltonian: "We come up against problems when either we experience things we cannot describe to others, or when we feel sensations that others have not. I think Bill has experienced difficulties in both of these areas but particularly the latter."
For some years I belonged to groups that actively explored such areas but as we were initially connected thanks to the Internet, pursuing this off-line was problematic, often involving long journeys.
We did meet in person from time to time but owing to the dynamics of such groups (and the travelling and time required) they eventually faded away.
We shared "impossible," provocative, and powerful experiences. (But then many of us had already experienced that which can be difficult to convey to another -- it was one thing we all had in common.)
These days our meetings are far apart in time, and I no longer participate in the on-line variations we pioneered, now enthusiastically practiced by successor groups.
I do have a meditation partner met in those days but even though she lives no more than one hour away, our respective schedules and life challenges are such that we don't sit together nearly as often as we'd like.
(Often, after meditating, she will get up -- eyes glazed over -- and sit at my computer, typing something a bit unusual, pertinent to whatever we discussed prior to sitting in silence; it matters not to her if I should fall asleep -- somehow, sharing this inner space, even briefly, 'psychically catalyzes' her. Once, years ago, a number of us noticed this effect we had upon each other and explored it in detail, creating a terminology for it. We were assisted by various forms of mediumship and/or channelling, something that was rife in these groups, almost contagious.)
I decided that as powerful as those group experiences were, it would be useful -- and necessary -- for me to operate outside of them, even if only by interacting on Internet sites well outside the belief zones of those antique mailing lists on which those groups arose.
Even so, I like to imagine a large facility somewhere -- a barnlike building with some nearby camping grounds, perhaps -- where once again we can gather and "raise the energy."
I refrain from posting of our adventures to most places, both out of respect for the privacy of those I once interacted with (one group included artists, published writers, and two scientists) and because the adventures would seem, simply, as unbelievable to many as they would have seemed to me, had someone described them to me before I had experienced them.
There is no real problem describing them, but the necessary format, as I see it, is narrative -- tales, in other words, and I have yet to find any place truly designed for exchanging such tales.
This restricts me in some ways, but, nevertheless, I persist. I believe I have much to learn from others in terms of expression and communication, even if this means, at times, pretending that I have not experienced certain "impossible" events or creations.
Discussion has some value, while an exposure to a great variety of differing beliefs also has value (not the least of which is examining my own beliefs).
I truly believe we are in the early stages of a massive change in how we experience ourselves and our world but we tend to view this from a snail-like perspective. It's very easy to miss or dismiss this under the circumstances, while the very idea is simply too "New Age" for a great many who have never dug into that particular zone and are not aware of the treasures to be found within that large pile of overall silliness.
'Beauty is seeing patterns in things, particularly symmetrical ones.'
The capacity for pattern recognition is hard-wired in us and may be at the root of our aesthetic sensibilities, and the tendency to evaluate and categorise thing seen or heard as beautiful, or otherwise, may be innate, but there is surely more to it than this. If it were all, there would presumably be near unanimous agreement in matters aesthetic, and this is not the case. So to what extent are judgements as to what is beautiful dependent on individual temperament, social conditioning or education? And why the enhanced emotional response, rather than just a feeling of vague satisfaction and comfort at a pattern recognised or made?
Most people probably feel awe and wonder at the sight of the night sky (when not obscured by light pollution or smog), or at the images produced by the Hubble telescope, and most would describe these as 'beautiful', but there is, and has been historically, considerable variation in what people find beautiful in the natural world, and even more so in man made artefacts. Flowers are generally seen as beautiful, or at least 'pretty', but I have known one or two people who seem blind to this (once I was in charge of an excavation surrounded by banks of ploughsoil which had been machined off the undisturbed subsoil. In summer these spoil heaps were a glory of crimson poppies, camomile and corn marigolds, but the only reaction of one colleague who visited the site was 'I don't like the smell of those weeds'). It was not common for people to see beauty in untamed natural landscapes, mountains and the like, until the Romantics persuaded them otherwise in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. 16th and early 17th century gardens might have a certain beauty of their own, but their design was founded on the belief that 'nature' was most beautiful when rigidly ordered, with geometric parterres and earthworks, and severely clipped and marshalled topiary. The 'natural' landscapes of Capability Brown and his peers are nature tamed and ordered, and even the 'naturalistic' planting of late 19th and early 20th century gardens is the product of high artifice. Some find 18th century ornate French furniture beautiful, with its symmetrically sinuous or bulbous lines and elaborate ornamentation, but I do not, although I can appreciate the beauty of the woods used, and the craftsmanship. My preference would be for Japanese art, architecture and furniture of the Shogun period (and where did that come from? I have never visited Japan, and yet this was my response from a very young age). And why do I prefer paintings of the Northern Renaissance (the Van Eycks, or Van der Weyden) to those of Titian or Tintoretto, say?
As a postscript; how does our aesthetic sense relate to that of bower birds, say, or jackdaws who decorate their nests with scraps of tinfoil or other shiny objects?
I am neither an anthropologist nor particularly adept at formal logic but let me expand on what I meant earlier using the Occam's razor approach. It might not make much sense but here goes anyway.
If you think about the time you first fell in love: the initial sexual attraction, the growing emotional intensity and, finally, the sustained and heightened state of being. The concentrated feeling of pleasure when you are together and the pain when apart is almost unbearable.
It is this feeling, writ small, I propose, that we feel when listening to a particular piece of music, seeing a piece of art or nature that moves us, or any other aesthetic experience. It is this sense of beauty that is essential to our choosing a mate. The sorts of shapes and patterns we find attractive in other human beings we also feel when encountering other sensual experiences. These apply to all our senses; aural, tactile and olfactory, as well as visual.
Why, then, do we vary in our tastes? If we did not it would be a catastrophe for the species. If all men fell in love with the same woman (or vice versa) we would not only breed more slowly but probably murder ourselves into extinction or at least narrow the gene pool considerably.
Our genetic inheritance, modified by experience, ensures that no two people on the planet have exactly the same aesthetic tastes. But we need to pass on the healthiest genes we can so there is a broad agreement on what is irremediably ugly. Few people, I suggest, enjoy music that is disharmonious, unmelodious and arrhythmic. Most of us, whether musical or not, can tell when somebody is singing out of tune, for example.
These traits about determining what is beautiful will change over the generations because we are changing both genetically and through diverse experiences. We are also influenced by our peers, so we amend our views to fit in better and make it easier to co-operate with each other.
But at bottom what drives our aesthetic sense is the survival mechanism that enables us to choose suitable mates and avoid danger. That is what drives bower birds too, I suggest.
There might be more to it than that - it might be that we are unique on the planet with an ability to appreciate beauty beyond our species (beyond that which is strictly necessary for survival, in other words). If so, then it might be that this trait is a by product of a big brain. We might have surplus capacity which enables us to keep our aesthetic sense set above the minimum required for survival.
I love poppies, especially the giant ones. When they have lost all their petals they do sort of look a bit apple-shaped don't they? A bit? Yeah?
Anyway, apologies for my absence. I finally admitted to myself that my eyesight is not what it was and took myself off to get my peepers checked. My seven year old reading glasses were totally wrong apparently so I merrily handed them in for recycling. I had forgotten however, that you do not get your new glasses immediately. They were well worth the wait though. They make me look intelligent *and* trendy, and I can also see things better.
Anyway, I have failed in my mission to guess the object on your desk. Unless it is somehow something to do with a car crashing into a bike shop, which I doubt very much. My son thinks it is a banana, but what does he know. He didn't even do it properly he just read the question on the piece of paper by my bed (what object has Steve from CiF put on his desk?) and said "I think it's a banana". Huh. Kids today. Lazy sods.
Boltonian: I'm not sure that Occam's razor is the right instrument for dissecting this particular question. It is not that I discount your thesis entirely; there are obvious evolutionary advantages in being able to place value judgements on certain visual and other stimuli, and in that these stimuli should activate the parts of the brain concerned with emotion, reward or, conversely, aversion systems (that was, obliquely, the point of the rhetorical question concerning bower birds). But, as you appear to concede in your last paragraph, our aesthetic sense and the ways in which we apply it seem to have developed in complexity and range far beyond what is advantagious in the strictly evolutionary sense, and to be applied to subjects which are not -at least in any obvious way - beneficial to our physical survival or otherwise, as individuals or as a species (that spectacular sunset which we see as beautiful might be the by-product of a major volcanic eruption, and the predictor of a cool, wet summer and poor harvests). Even in the matter of choosing a mate, physical beauty as we define it - except insofar as it is a by-product of physical health - is not an infallible predictor of reproductive fitness, nor is lack of it contra-indicative, and most people, in any case, seem to end up making their choice on the basis of other qualities.
To say that our seemingly over-developed aesthetic sensibilities could be a by- product of our having large brains may be true as far as it goes, but I do not see it as a wholly satisfactory explanation.
I googled to see if there have been any studies of the subject by neuroscientists, but it seems that so far there has been much speculation and little agreement. Ramachandran came up with a theory concerning responses to works of art, which has been heavily criticised as over-reductive, and the following describes a study using MRI scanning of subjects as they viewed paintings which details the neural correlates - mostly fairly predictable.
Just a quick response - I will follow up the link you posted.
By using Occam's razor I meant that I propose the simplest interpretation that fits all the known facts. We have an appreciation of beauty because we require it to find a mate. We differ one from another because it is necessary for the survival of the species, so we have evolved in this way.
Why can we appreciate beauty beyond our APPARENT minimum requirements (I emphasise the word because we do not know how more or less successful our species would be without this ability)? It might be a by-product of our large brain. Why is our brain larger than it need be (if it is)? Because a larger brain is more attractive to the opposite sex than a smaller. This evolutionary trait has led to our brain reaching the optimum size - we cannot support a bigger brain without a stronger body to support it and that requires a still larger brain to process its physical requirements. The law of diminishing returns.
A by-product of this successful breeding strategy is that we can appreciate beauty by proxy, as it were. Consciousness might also be a similar order phenomenon.
I wasn't suggesting that physical traits alone were determinants of a successful mating strategy. All our senses come into play - a big brain is certainly an effective attractor for women, possibly more so than for men. So, by extension, we are able to appreciate physical beauty beyond our species because we have a larger brain than is strictly necessary for survival. And that because a large brain leads to more progeny.
When you say that there must be more to it than that, what are you suggesting?
You're a sport for trying to guess the object....and your boy sounds like a decisive sort, btw....but to put you out of your misery, the mystery object was a box set of three lemmings games, which won't play on my machine, and are just sitting around like such useless objects do. There may well be a car crashing into a bike shop in one or other of the lemmings games, but as I can't play them, your guess is as good as mine....
Lemmings, the original version - best computer game ever, or what? (With honorable mentions to tetris, digger, and civilization....)....and I'll bet none of you remember my favourite arcade game, cosmic guerrillas....not to mention colossal cave, which we used to play on the uni mainframe in 1980; we had to wait until after 6pm otherwise we'd get irate screen messages from the operators....
Boltonian "By using Occam's razor I meant that I propose the simplest interpretation that fits all the known facts. We have an appreciation of beauty because we require it to find a mate. We differ one from another because it is necessary for the survival of the species, so we have evolved in this way."
The problem with Occam's razor is that you've selected the environment you want to assess and therefore miss out on the environment you chosed to ignore. In this case, aestetics isn't limited to finding a mate. I f I use Occam Razor's logic, that would assume that I wouldn't be able to find beauty in anything else but a potential mate. But I experience beauty in so many various things such as trees, mountains, the sea, flowers, music, food, perfumes; why would I (emotionally!) care about these which are essencially different from my own survival of species logic?
Concepts such as aestetics or justice belong to what Kant refers as transcendental idealism. It's the subjective emotional relation to the object of pereceived beauty. It's entirely subjective since we are not all attracted to the same things and it is not limited to our own species since it encompasses pretty much everything in this world. I can find a tree, a river, a snowflake, a painting, a math equation, a rock, a melody beautiful. It is a carefree sensory pleasure and I'm not convinced this is the privilege of humans because animals experience care-free pleasure as well since they react very well to treats. it's a form of consciousness that we relate to as humans beings. Our aestetic appreciation evolves along our consciousness.
so I would disagree with you on the fact that aestetics could be a by-product of evolution of species; I will say that evolution could be a by-product ( a consequence ) of our eternal quest for transcendantal idealism. Because if we still have different representations of beauty we still share the same emotional pleasure it confers. So it's relative in style yet absolute in substance.
I don't know if you read my earlier posts on the subject but I think I did apply the principle to the wider environment.
I am familiar with Kant's aesthetics and, as someone pointed out here a while ago, it is the weakest part of his philosophy. Also, Kant was writing pre-Origin of Species.
I am not proposing a theory of aesthetics, nor even a hypothesis; more an interpretation of the known facts. I will recapitulate:
1) Pattern recognition is (as E said) hard-wired into our being.
2) Those patterns can signify either attraction or repulsion (ie danger).
3) Various studies have shown that we are attracted by symmetry in other human beings.
4) Our bi-pedalism allows to carry a heavier brain than an equivalent-sized quadruped (some have suggested that a large brain is a by product of bi-pedalism).
5)Given 4) our relative brain size is the largest on the planet.
6)Those human beings with a slightly larger brain derived a competitive advantage over the rest and so bred more successfully. These advantages could include quicker wits, better organisational ability, more highly developed social skills etc.
7) So, our brain power increased until it reached its optimum size, which some think is about now. If our brain were to become larger we would need a larger and stronger body, which would also need a larger brain to process its requiements.
8) Our brains are about 30% over capacity. In other words 70% is used to keep us alive. This spare capacity is more than in any other species.
9) Having identical tastes in a desirable mate would be catastrophic for the species. So, each of us has, because of our varied genome, environment and experience slightly different tastes. This confers the maximum chance of the survival for the species.
10) We are able, because of our large relative brain size, to transfer patterns from one set of circumstances to another. We are conceptual thinkers. Whether other species are able to do this I don't know but it is unlikely to be as well developed as ours because of 8).
11) For example, we can empathise - in fact the Golden Rule is based on this ability.
Now, because of all these things it MIGHT mean that we are able to project our sensation of experiencing beauty beyond what is of immediate need for our survival. So, we can see attractive patterns in things other than human beings. This does not mean that our large brain is of no survival value but that other things then become possible. This spare brain capacity might also provide the key to conscious awareness.
9) surely demonstrates why we don't all share identical tastes but experience a similar feeling (so far as we can determine).
You imply that it is the quest for transcendental idealism that drives the evolutionary process. Where did this trait come from? Is it unique to us? If so, why? If not, which other creatures have this ability? Is it related to relative brain size? If so, where does one draw the line? If not, what is the cause?
Is Ashton's selection good, bad or indifferent? I do not know why Rees is not playing - not even on the bench. It looks like George Smith will have a bit of a free ride.
Hipkiss or Farrell? Robinson at full back or wing? Borthwick or Kay (or Shaw)?
Dallaglio and Worsley (the least effective back row forwards so far) both on the bench and Moody at 7. Regan preferred to Chuter and Vickery to Stevens. Ummm.
It would be a wildly successful world cup for me if we down the Aussies. What are our chances?
b : "It would be a wildly successful world cup for me if we down the Aussies. What are our chances?"
Zero, I reckon, sadly....Catt & Regan playing for England, yet they wouldn't get into the Portugal team, let alone Georgia....I fear a rout....still, at least the Aussies will be gracious afterwards, not like them to gloat, eh?
Unbelievable! It almost destroyed my lack of belief in free will.
What went wrong for the Aussies?
Even when England pragmatically nosed ahead, I expected the counter score. They played within their limitations and did their best to prevent the Aussies playing their strengths.
What about France? Again, it is easy to question the selections. The Aussies loss might just gee up the Kiwis, though equally, it could rattle them. Still, I would put France's chances as less than 1 in 10.
If you still want to buy me a cuppa and you are in London (seem to think you are though don't know for sure) I will be in London a far bit over the next few weeks. Tomorrow (Monday) I'll be at Trafalger Sqaure hopefully (need to finalise dog and child care arrangements), Wed-Fri I'll be in South Harrow and Monday 15th I'll be taking my son to the Star Wars exhibition. You can email me by clicking on my name above which will take you to my profile page where there is an email link.
The rest of you - don't get excited, it's only a cup of tea.
Boltonian: "You imply that it is the quest for transcendental idealism that drives the evolutionary process. Where did this trait come from? Is it unique to us? If so, why? If not, which other creatures have this ability? Is it related to relative brain size? If so, where does one draw the line? If not, what is the cause? "
It's just a thought. Thanks for your detailed answers by the way.
I think that this is a trait that encompasses every species, not particularly us. We just happen to have the most sophisticated patterns which is likely to be related to our brain size. Pattern recognition is hardwired into our being but we're not the only ones! From vegetals, insects, all sorts of animals have hard-wired pattern recognition which determines attraction or repulsion; some of them even mimic patterns in order to survive? and they don't even have to get a "brain" to do so; it's far more prominent in the micro-cosmos/realms of insects and plants... So I'm not utterly convinced that pattern recognition for danger/pleasure is something which is related to our brain size ( it becomes more sophisticated and I'm not even sure of that because some of the survival mechanisms observed in animal kingdom are pretty advanced)... But that would be just based on a deduction from observed behaviour of other species. It is part of their being and likely to be a projection of their being towards their own environment, at their very own scale but it is based on a relationship with the outer world which is why I find the transcendental idealism theory still relevant in this context; I actually do not find that the evolution of species contradict the theory of transcental idealism; They both support each other unless we could demonstrate that we can consciously chose to evolve/survive rather than evolution/survival just happens regardless. As far as empathy is concerned, I don't think that it is a human privilege either; what we make of empathy is different since we process it in more evolved brains and hearts; but we're only dealing with empathy as a phenomenon; and I don't think I'm making a wild assumption in saying that animals have empathy as well at their own scale... as if they had their own "golden rule"... outside of course their categorical imperatives of feeding and protecting themselves in order to survive;
We can understand how we are wired up but what and why are we wired up to is a different matter; I guess it's all down to the survival of the species but in all due fairness it's not really ground breaking since survival is obviously a categorical imperative of any being's essence;
I only entertained the idea that transcental idealism (noumenon) will be what drives evolution (phenomenon)... It's impossible to have evidence outside the realms of phenomenon; but the question to illustrate this would be how come we/all species have evolved one way rather than another? the obvious would point towards the changing nature of the environment but that as well puts things in a greater scale perspective after all stars, planets are born, live and die as well... they are living entities of the cosmos. so you could strecth the argument that our evolution is crucially linked to the solar system's evolution as well and that survival of the species is simply related to the earth going through atmospheric, climate change and that the planet laws affect the life which inhabits it. Transcendental idealism is our relationship with the universe, the one which guides our path in accordance with the path of the universe; and it's not in our brains, our brains/hearts/bodies only translate it for our own purpose at our own scale; I agree with you on more or less everything else as they all happen to be observed phenomenon; the diversity of our genome influences our chance for survival is a great illustration of adaptation, of mechanical sophistication but it just a part of the process and therefore hits the metaphysical wall once again. Our increasing level of consciousness ( spare brain ) will only be able to understand our relative relationship towards what triggers our survival mechanisms, and eventually improve it adn we're in for interesting times as we are now trying to "save the planet" from climate change - probably the biggest survival challenge mankind has faced and it requires no less than a global consciousness to eventually stand a chance ( and there's no guarantee)... it's gravity I guess!
By the way, what an exciting Rugby World Cup! Fantastic achievement for both England and France. A real breath of fresh air for the sport and humble pies for the anti-podean favorites Oz and the Kiwis; ( The blacks are still the best imho - a bit like Brazil in football even if out of a major tournament, I will still consider them as the best team)
I did not mean to imply that pattern recognition is dependent on relative brain size but that transferring patterns from one set of circumstances and applying it imaginatively to another, unrelated, area might be.
I have not studied empathy and conceptual abilities in other life forms, so I can't really comment on your suggestions. The only difficulty I have with this is that we cannot know what it is like to be something other than a human being. In fact, we can only know what other humans feel by assumption. The best we can do is examine reactions to stimuli and try to extrapolate from that. The danger here is anthropomorphism.
The noumenal world is a difficult area for me - I am not sure that there is such an entity as, 'Das Ding an sich.' And if there is how we could possibly know what it might be.
I agree that science can only get us so far - it cannot answer the most interesting question, which is,'Why?' I imagine that explains the popularity of religion.
The issue of the interconnection of things is interesting. If we are all connected to everything else, and there is some circumstantial evidence (QM) to suggest that this might be the case, how come we feel individual? Where does ego come from? In fact, why ego in the first place?
Many thanks for your answer; I share the same doubts and concerns regarding the noumenal world but I guess this is where I do make a leap of (reasoned) faith, although i'm quite aware that this is a belief.
the issue of antropomorphism is actually illustrating the peculiar relationship with the hypothetical noumenal world. As you've said yourself, we can only assume how other feel. However feelings for humans and animals are expressed as phenomenons; I think that basic feelings such as fear are easy to observe... In humans and in animals, with an empirical / pavlov-like approach;
So this raises a question on the nature of consciousness itself - what is consciousness? are we conscious with our physical body? with our feelings? with our thoughts? or could it be all of these, making different stages of consciousness? as humans, with the most advanced brain in this planet, our consciousness level would be far superior to any other lifeform but does this mean that other lifeforms failed to have any consciousness? and if so what is the difference with the survival instincts that bless every lifeform?
as far as the noumenal world is concerned there is this poem by Khalil Gibran which I like very much as good way of describing the noumenal. "The optimist sees the rose and not its thorns; the pessimist stares at the thorns, oblivious of the rose." I like this as it illustrate how easily we create relationships with what we perceive and therefore ony perceive the phenomenal part since we're concerend by "how it affects us"; the rose-"noumenon" just is... regardless of its functionality/relationships with its environement; That would work for us as well as (i believe that) we are more than the sum of how others perceive us.
But can we know the noumenon? Yes to a certain extent, we know part of it through observing its phenomenons. Can we truly know ourselves for a start? Same thing. Partly... on the basis of our actions.
I agree with you that scientific progress, particularly the fielf of QM may provide a greater understanding of phenomenas and relationships...and arguably have better guess at what the noumenon is; or know ourselves better to reach a higher state of consciousness. ( the conceptual relationship with noumenon-reality-in-itself )
Finally, I'll have to think really hard about your question about the ego and individuality!!! Have a great day!
I don't know if you have read it but, 'The Authentic Gospel of Jesus,' is the best from Vermes for trying to get back to the original writings and on what they might be based.
I followed up your link and found it very interesting. Good to see that others, like us, are groping around in the dark on this issue.
PG:
Just a couple of random thoughts from your last post.
No, we cannot know ourselves in that sense, except by reflection from others. And this is difficult because none of us tells the unvarnished truth - life would become intolerable if we did. This means we need to read between the lines, study body language and be a forensic and psychic genius, which is not given to many. But we are incontrovertibly subjective beings but dependent upon our effect on others to function. Perhaps we are more than the sum of the perceptions of others, as you say, but I am not sure how we get to it.
Fear is interesting. We can only know what that manifest fear would mean for us. For a creature of flight, for example, we cannot know but only surmise what their fear might feel like by reference to our own experience. And we are only partially creatures of flight, so our reference point might not bear much resemblance to theirs.
So far as consciousness is concerned I tend to idealism here because everything we experience comes to us through our brain, including physical sensations. Other creatures might have such a thing but how would we know?
You mention heightened mental states. Strangely, I have just finished reading an account of Gotama's life and how he did it.
RE- NZ rugby. Yes, I agree that they have been the best team in the world for the last three years and eleven-odd months but will anybody remember that?
Thanks for your answers; I agree with you, there is no proof, no evidence that we can be more than the sum of of other's perceptions although interestingly enough when you take Buddha's achievement in reaching a higher state of consciousness; it is very close to getting to know the noumena (nirvana) - "reality as it is" (bodhi). I'm really not an expert in Buddhism, just some really basic notions but I'm sure many here could build on or refute; The path to Nirvana, the Bodhi enlightment is achieved through self-observation and breaking the suffering cycles of Samsara through intense self discipline in order to break our cravings and various attachements which separate us from our true self. The stories of the Buddha's enlightement makes the point that reaching such a state requires tremendous effort and self-discipline, not something which is commonly achieved. Interestingly enough, the fundamentals are very close Gurdjieff's 4th way and fit perfectly within Kant's epistemology framework...
( although I sort of dream of East meets West philosophies! )
It's a whole concept I find very hard ( if not impossible ) to dismiss. But by all accounts it's not something which is easily achieved... after all it would take weeks, months of intense suffering before the Fakir could walk on burning charcoals!
Re: NZ, could you forget about Brazil's football team even if Italy won the last world cup? Although it's probably a good thing for both Oz and NZ, they might stop thinking they are in their own class, eat humble pies and play with a bit more passion; I think that's why both lost... they simply didn't want it as much as both England and France.
That semi will be a cracker, although I'll be supporting les bleus... how could I not? After all, I'm french...
If France beat England it will be, 'Allez les Bleus,' from me too.
Your summary of Buddhism is about right, although I would say that enlightenment is not about finding one's true self necessarily. Everything about oneself is true - it must be by definition, even one's faults and weaknesses. It is more about finding a higher level of existence, whereby one has overcome and eliminated desire.
Kant, unfortunately, did not have Buddhist texts available to him, although Schopenhauer did and it influenced his philosophy considerably. Both Hinduism and Buddhism (and scientific advances, for that matter) helped him to expand and update Kant. But he was also a pessimist (whereas Kant was an optimist)and temperament is a big determinant of one's philosophical leanings.
I've enjoyed your discussion very much. Just a few thoughts and observations on the issues raised, starting with the following:
"( although I sort of dream of East meets West philosophies! )"
On Saturday I was in central London, and on a whim decided to spend a few hours at the British Museum, which I must say was a fantastic idea as I had a wonderful time. In the South Asia section I saw some Buddha statues from Gandhara, dating to the first or second century, under the Greco-Bactrians. These just blew me away and inspired me to do a little searching on Wikipedia, where I found the following page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhism
It seems much of Western thought, dating back way further than Kant, owes a lot more to Eastern philosophy than we realised. And also, ironically, that Buddhist art owes quite a bit to the West.
On issues of noumenon, why we feel individual, consciousness etc, I would add the following observation picked up from my meditation practice. Much of our sense of what makes us individuals would appear to be tied up with our thoughts. But if we ignore the *content* of those thoughts and direct our attention to them on the sensate level, we can directly observe them for what they really are, which is just another set of sensations (from whichever of the five senses). This begs the question of what it is that is directing the attention, and therein lies the key. I don't pretend to have the answer here, but I do strongly subscribed to the view that "ultimate reality" can be directly understood through continued investigation of this sort.
But leaving aside ultimate reality for the moment to move on to the questions of other animals and empathy. If we say that thought is what seperates us from them, then once we see that those thought are in fact sensations and that our sense of a *seperate* identity is in fact illusory, then surely this opens up the possibility that we might be able to have a sense of what it is like to be a dog or a bird or possibly even a beetle.
Of course, the pitfalls are many and I agree that we could never be sure that this sense is correct. I take on board Boltonian's point that everything we experience comes to us through the brain, and it could be that the direct insights it feeds us could in fact be the grey cells having a laugh at our expense. Even if we could know, it would still be very much an approximation. But when I suggested here ages ago that ChooChoo's red insect friend Sufjan running around his garden might feel like Roger Federer on centre court I was mostly, but not entirely, joking. I also mentioned once catching my dog Eddie's eye after he had just made an embarassing fool of himself. Of course, a dog would not understand embarassment in the same way we do, and what follows such a sensation would be utterly different for him to what it is for us, but I feel pretty certain that for a fraction of a second my experience of that moment and Eddie's were one and the same.
One final point on enlightenment, "true self" and higher levels of existence. Altered states of consciousness are the result of concentration practices rather than insight (or wisdom), which is what ultimately brings about enlightenment. Althought such states are necessary in practice for insight to happen, there is no reason in theory why someone couldn't become enlightened in a normal state, even if it is vanishingly unlikely.
Also, overcoming desire is not exactly the same as eliminating desire, and this is where the "true self", which is equivalent to the oft misunderstood concept of "no self", comes in. The sensations that make up desire do not go away (if they do, this is probably a bad sign), but what is eliminated is the clinging on to these desires. This clinging is a product of ego trying to create a sense of "permanent" self. Once one realises the utter futility of clinging onto something so transitory, one stops doing it (the release can on occasions feel like a knot in your brain you never even know existed has been untied: this sensation should be examined). Once someone has become enlightened, they have become free from their desires - equivalent to finding their "true self" - and this enables them to respond to those desires in skillful ways.
Unfortunately, it's likely that even a lot of Buddhists think that ultimate goal of the whole exercise is actually the higher states of consciousness - understandably so as these can be extremely blissful. Insight is much less fun, but it here were the release from suffering comes from.
All we need now is for Argentina to beat SA and go on to win it and we will have had a full house of surprises.
DaddyO:
Thanks for your comments.
The animal ideas bring us back to Wittgenstein, who said that even if we could speak a common language with, say, a lion we could never understand each other. That is the essence - all of our references are human.
Thoughts as sensations? Yes both happen through the brain and, for some people, the experience can be similar. But for me they are of a different order. Perhaps my imagination is not sufficiently developed but pain and pleasure are more vivid when directly experienced through the senses. I accept, though, that it is we that might create the distinction between the two.
If we travel the noumenal road there is the problem of connection and accessibility, let alone evidence. The interconnectivity of everything needs to solve the problem of ego - why do I feel like me and not the universe?
Have you managed to eliminate ego, or at least moved some way along that path?
Isn't finding one's 'True self' and eliminating ego a contradictory proposition? True self suggests ego. And how will one know that this is one's true self. Is my present existence not true in some way? It feels very true to me. But then so it did when I was a seven year old child. I prefer to think of it as development and growth rather than 'True' which implies that other conditions are false.
I accept the distinction between overcoming and eliminating desire - is not the one a precursor for the second?
Have you ever reached a heightened state of consciousness through meditation (or anything else) and,if so, can you describe the sensation?
I hope to rejoin the discussion here when I can; I do read the posts.
In the meantime, I recommend _Ghost Hunters_ by Deborah Blum.
The subtitle is: "William James and the Search for Scientific Proof of Life After Death" but there is also quite a bit about Darwin, Myers, Sidgwick, Gurney, and their world, too. (I haven't finished the book yet; as usual, I am reading it here and there, when I can.)
What's interesting is how the debates of that era are echoed in the Dawkins and Blackmore inspired CiF threads; science has advanced while religion has retreated (in some places, anyway) since those long ago days, yet key issues remain unresolved; instead of a rampant Spiritualist movement, we have the continuing aftereffects of the New Age movement, but in both situations those who saw an opportunity to create wealth obscured more truly intriguing situations.
Darwin greatly disturbed many religionists of his day, yet a discussion of evolution still generates conflict.
Certain "psychic" phenomena -- and experiences -- have always existed, lying somewhere between the ardent believers of religion and those proud of their rational materialism; then as now, however, those who refuse to believe in such things ignore all evidence of it, while those who wholeheartedly accept it do so with perhaps insufficient perspicuity.
What I find a bit disheartening is how little progress has been made since the ASPR and BPR began their investigations.
There is philosophy, there are traditions -- some living, some not (Buddhism, Sufism, Gnosticism, and so on) -- that address some of the deeper questions these organizations pursued, yet no resolution is yet seen on the horizon within the larger realms of Western thought.
This is longstanding; questions raised by Sir Walter Ralegh in his time, questions in the time of James and company, too, are still questions now, at least in the collective conscious Western mind.
I maintain that it's quite possible to begin to attain knowing of such matters and even sharing this knowing somewhat with others, a la the Internet, through books, and so on, but a general consensus still seems far, far away.
Boltonian: "Isn't finding one's 'True self' and eliminating ego a contradictory proposition? True self suggests ego. And how will one know that this is one's true self. Is my present existence not true in some way? It feels very true to me. But then so it did when I was a seven year old child. I prefer to think of it as development and growth rather than 'True' which implies that other conditions are false."
Hello Boltonian,
First of all congratulations to the boys in white; it was a big game, very close! Heatbreaking for a frenchie like me, still, well done to England and for having proved the world that despite a dodgy start and fierce criticism, the team can stand tall and always be a force you write off at your own peril!
Next week will be great , a chance for both England and France to get revenge from their previous disastrous encounters with the respective teams they're meeting!
That's it for the rugby.
Regarding your paragraph on finding "true self" against the weight of "ego", I completely share your feelings and have the same outlook on this. First of all, I really like your idea of growth and development instead of absolute; It makes more sense, knowledge is something you nurture every day and leave room to grow; Voltaire made the famous "cutivate your garden" analogy in Candide, Khalil Gibran stated "never say you found the truth, but you found a truth"; while it cannot dismiss the potential validity of such absolute truth, from our point of view, we can only learn and grown as much as the effort we are willing to put in!
When you ask: "Is my present existence not true in some ways", it begs the question on what is existence if it's not necessarly true? So we're stuck with existence and truth and when it comes to humans both of these are subjective. So your existence is subjective and projected, at best it is the sum of what you are doing and how the rest of the world sees you... and this is exactly the same as "truth". Nothing absolute in here either, just depending on your willingness to learn and grow. And truth by truth, you acknowledge your existence and it will be only as good as you are willing to know. For everything you refuse to know, it is not true therefore you are not liable and everything else just happens...
It's not that it's false; it's just that there is nothing you knowingly can do about it because you still ignore "this truth".
Infinity or absolute are concept which are far too hard to comprehend for humans, hence the whole concept of noumenon; we can't dismiss its possible existence but we should only focus on the relative phenomenon we experience and we can learn and grow from instead of starring at some big pie in the sky and remain oblivious of the world we exist in.
Just followed up your Wiki link. Lots of things I didn't know - for example, that statues of Buddha were a Greek influenced idea. It has always puzzled me why this least superstitious of religions felt the need for icons.
The link with Christianity is interesting. The NT figure of Jesus has struck me as being more like either Socrates or Gotama than a Jewish religious zealot. I am sure I have read somewhere that there is a Buddhist tradition of a Westerner coming among them at about the time of the historical Jesus - after all he did disappear from the Gospels for about 20 years.
PG:
One more hurdle to overcome on Saturday. France should beat Argentina - they looked nervous and very tired on Sunday.
I agree that absolutes and infinity is impossible for us to visualise - that, of course, does not preclude their existence.
I lean to the view that truth is relative - we can only relate to everything else in the universe from our own perspective in place and time. But as the whole gamut is in a state of flux there is never one point of reality, as it were. How is it possible to step out of that to provide evidence of an objective world, even if such a thing exists? The best we can do is agree, through our imperfect and limited tool of language, that x is more likely to be the case than y.
All else is belief of one sort or another. The enemy here is dogmatism.
Bill:
This is the problem as I see it with unsubstantiated belief or subjective and unshared experience. Either it becomes a dogma (most religions and much new agery) or it simply cannot be verified by anybody else but oneself - or, at best, a small group. And the danger with that is charlatanry.
The late Larry Adler once said that it was easy to make a few thousand dollars in a morning in California - just stand on a soap box on a Saturday morning and say 'God has spoken to me; I am the new Messiah ...give me $100 to help me save the world.'
-------
The result of all this philosophising is that I have just bought the Critique of Pure Reason (Kant) and An Enquiry into Human Understanding (Hume) for re-reading. Nothing like going back to the originals.
Boltonian: "I am sure I have read somewhere that there is a Buddhist tradition of a Westerner coming among them at about the time of the historical Jesus - after all he did disappear from the Gospels for about 20 years."
I've read this too somewhere and I remember a friend of mine have a book on Jesus life in India which would fit in similar time frames; I don't know much about the story but if I remember correctly, it mentioned that Jesus was married... (no comment)
Good luck with reading Hume and Kant! If you need something easier to read and still quite insightful, I'd still recomend Ouspensky's In Search of the Miraculous; It's quite easy to read, not really dogmatic ( I've got exactly the same concerns about dogma ) and I'm pretty sure that some of the ideas expressed will strike a chord with you.
I'm currently having to seriously consider the notion that religion rots the brain. My own one seems to be struggling a little at the moment. I did make it to the anti-war rally the other week. I also went to the Star Wars exhibition on the same day, due to my ineptitude at booking the online tickets. I felt sure I had clicked on the right Monday but when I printed off the tickets I found that I had booked them a week early. My son was quite pleased to get an extra day off school in addition to the inset day when we had originally planned to go. He did pay for it by being made to stand and listen to over an hour's worth of anti-war speeches which was *very* boring as he insisted on telling me a million times. Once the marching started he got very into it and was still chanting "One, two, three, four, we don't want your bloody war" long after we had got back home. There's nothing like a bit of childhood indoctrination to make you feel like a proud parent.
I have purchased Dr Kawashima's More Brain Training (for the Nintendo DS)in the hope of halting the decline. I did quite well in the original Brain Training, supposedly attaining the brain age of 20, but I think he might just have been feeling sorry for me.
I've just finished reading Tricks Of The Mind by Derren Brown, which has a whole section on improving your memory. It was an interesting read, though I can't say that I really learnt anything new from it, other than that Derren is yet another ex-Christian. He's certainly a big fan of Richard Dawkins, but doesn't adopt the sneering tone in his own book. He comes across as an ok guy, though one that maybe should have got out a bit more in his youth. There was a good section on thinking traps which included the Monty Hall problem and A D 3 7 card problem. He does have a good old science good religion bad rant at various points in the book. Once you have rejected the religion that you were brought up with it seems that it is hard to see *any* positives that have come from it, but in Derren's case it doesn't seem to have done him too much harm. Like I said earlier, he comes across as a decent boke, apart from a rather puerile schoolboy humour which I don't really find funny because I've never been a schoolboy.
I understand that there is a rugby match on later. I might even watch it.
Thanks for the book ref. I have just ordered Kenny's magnum opus, which should keep me going for the winter.
Biskieboo:
Derren Brown sounds interesting. He admits that he was/is obsessive - presumably it is this part of his character that allows him to do what he does. Even on the TV his humour comes across as being a little immature on occasions.
I hadn't realised that he is a former Christian. Many of the most vehement atheists share a similar background. A certain prominent atheistic CIFer springs to mind.
He comes across having a strong moral objection to superstition. Presumably because it leads to the exploitation of the more credulous of us by clever charlatans. A very Christian moral stance!
I have enjoyed watching Derren Brown's programmes. I did get seriously spooked once when watching one of them. It was the seance one. I was on my own in the house watching it when there was a loud hammering on the patio doors at the back of my house. At first I wasn't sure if the sound was somehow part of the tv show which everyone heard and was meant to freak the living daylights out of you. I didn't dare go and look to see what it was. I hadn't been living in the house for very long, and didn't know that my next door neighbour had lots of unsavoury friends who would turn up late at night and if they didn't get an answer on the front door they would go around the back of the houses. They are not the cleverest of folk and sometimes get the wrong garden. I can laugh about it now.
I was fed misinformation about the rugby - apparently it's at the weekend.
Finished The Dawkins Delusion by Alister McGrath today. They ought to give a copy away with every copy of The God Delusion. I like the author very much and hope to read some of his other books in the future.
Where is he indeed? Perhaps he has been arrested for running down the street naked singing 'Swing Low Sweet Chariot,' after last weekend's heroics.
Steve - whither art thou?
We have guests over for the weekend, so an early dinner on Saturday and then gather around the box with a glass or two of something interesting. I just hope that they have the same idea as us. My wife has got completely caught up in the excitement and rugby is not big in Thailand, where she hails from.
Derren Brown never fails to amaze me even when he explains exactly how he has done it. Some of his more elaborate tricks verge on the cruel but the 'Victims' have given their consent for it to be shown, I suppose.
Your seance experience would have had me jumping through the ceiling had it happened to me.
First up, I certainly haven't eliminated ego, though I have observed it directly in action, which I guess might count as moving some way along the path.
I don't see the contradiction between self and eliminating ego, though it's possible we're working with different definitions of ego here. The way I'm using the term is to describe that part of our mind that tries to create a fixed identity for ourselves. Even if we do eliminate ego, we will still have an identity (and personality too, for that matter) but this will be something transient, beyond our power of creation.
For this, and much of what I've encountered through medition, an analogy might be with surfing a wave (although I've never been surfing so could be wrong). In fact, I find it intriguing that a lot of surfers regard their pursuit as a spiritual activity.
As for a "true" self, there is a slight danger of getting lost in semantics. In fact, I gather Buddhists generally prefer to refer to "no self", while at the same time using the concept of the relative "I". It is interesting that you bring up the example of changes from being seven years old. Most of us can probably agree, on some level, that we are not the same people we were when we were seven, but few of us would accept that we are not the same person as we were just a second ago. Yet this is what Buddhists argue.
The idea is that we are ultimately just the sum of thoughts and sensations at any given moment. Yet however much people may (or may not) agree with this view in theory, in practice people find it very hard to let go of the idea of a permanent self, so they try to create one by clinging onto pleasant thoughts and sensations and avoiding the unpleasant ones.
You ask why you feel like yourself and not the universe. Have you ever tried feeling like the universe?
Okay, this is easier said than done, and I'll grant you that I've certainly never felt like the universe. But I have found that in many instances the point of feeling like me has been lost as my consciousness has merged more with my environment. I have recently take to meditating while I'm on the underground, and find this to be particularly the case here.
Generally though I'm not too keen on the term "heightened state of consciousness" and would instead describe it more as an "altered sense of perception". If you have ever taken psychadellic drugs, there are some similarities, though it is not precisely the same. Reality seems very different, warped almost, and I have found the experience at times disorientating, though one goes through a wide spectrum of feelings too numerous to list here.
One thing I've recently started to notice, though, is time being continuous rather than discrete. This might seem quite obvious anyway, but I began seeing that the individual moments were like frames in a movie reel, fragments of reality broken up by nothingness. Noticing this alters my perception of time in ways that are not easy to describe, other than to say that it acquired a more spacious quality.
One final point: you are absolutely right that overcoming desire can often be a precursor to eliminating it. But the relationship isn't quite as mechanical as one might suppose. If you have ever given up smoking for a substantial period of time you might understand this. At the beginning you almost become your craving for cigarettes, such is you inability to think of anything else (other than chewing your own arm off, which you think of doing often). Then the power of the cravings wanes as a precursor to those cravings becoming increasingly less frequent until you hardly ever think about it anymore. But the desire to smoke never really goes away, it just sort of becomes background noise as the cravings lose the hold they had over you. As most addicts will admit, you never really lose your addiction, just learn how to keep it under control.
Plastic Gypsies: "I'd still recomend Ouspensky's In Search of the Miraculous; It's quite easy to read, not really dogmatic ( I've got exactly the same concerns about dogma ) and I'm pretty sure that some of the ideas expressed will strike a chord with you."
Dear PG:
1. In Search of the Miraculous is an intriguing book but note that followers -- those who belong to organized Gurdjieff/Ouspensky groups -- can be a very dogmatic lot.
2. G's "Watch Yourself and Remember Yourself" (discussed in the book) is one of the most powerful exercises I'm aware of but also quite difficult to sustain for any extended period. I somehow managed to do so once, many years ago, while hitch hiking hundred of miles, but have lacked the circumstances to practice it ever since. (It would help to be independently wealthy and without responsibilities of any kind.)
3. After posting here and to Michael Prescott's blog late last night I dreamt, vividly, of being in a small plane filled with UK personalities -- those who tend to populate these blogs. This included a number of details well beyond my Internet interaction, but I lack the time to attempt to verify them.
The area of dreams is closely associated with topics discussed here, particularly "ego;" the interplay of Internet and dreaming an interesting area, possibly worthy of some serious research.
Me: "3. After posting here and to Michael Prescott's blog late last night.."
I'm dealing with far too many deadlines in my work life; I concocted a long post last night and, apparently, forgot to hit the "publish" button after previewing and editing -- thus the reference to a nonexistent post.
I, too, am still here, although I have been somewhat distracted of late by other claims on my time.
Boltonian: I meant to respond to your last posts concerning our sense of beauty and where it originates, although as the discussion moved on to other matters it seemed less relevant. Essentially, what I intended to say was that your idea - that it is an extension of responses to criteria used originally in mating strategy - does not, for me, provide an adequate explanation. To me it seems over-simple and begs the question.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that it arose in a much wider and more general context, as part of our interaction with our environment as a whole. Just as our response to things on a more or less automatic level as harmful or beneficial, 'good' or 'bad' has obvious survival value for ourselves as individuals and as a species, the tendency to evaluate things in our environment as beautiful, and the emotional response that our perception of beauty evokes, could be beneficial in that it enables us to engage more intensely with that environment on many different levels. Given that, as I said, beauty is not, in itself, necessarily indicative of reproductive fitness, it seems to me more likely that the evaluation of potential mates using criteria of beauty is just one specifice application of this more general faculty, although once beauty becomes an attractor it confers an advantage, in that someone who is generally perceived as beautiful will have a wider choice of potential mates.
My knowledge of the theory of aesthetics does not extend beyond what I learned in an Inttermediate Honours course in Art History (a required subsiduary for anyone studying for an Hons degree in Archaeology in Edinburgh at the time I was there), and the role of art in attempting to capture and convey a sense of beauty and meaning in the environment is complex, so perhaps I had better not embark on a discussion of those matters.
re your question concerning Vermes' book, I have a copy of 'The Authentic Gospel of Jesus' and I certainly started to read it. I have a feeling, though, that I got distracted before I finished it, so I must go back and have another look.
*****************************
daddyOmarcos I was interested to read your account of experience during meditation, which accords with whatI have read elsewhere. I have sometimes thought of attempting it, but am not sure I have the necessary ability to focus and subdue the constant chatter of my mind. I find it difficult enough to relax physically.
*********************************
Biskieboo: If you want to read more by Alister McGrath (and if you haven't done so already) try 'Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life', which is rather more substantial than 'The Dawkins Delusion'.
P.S. I don't know if any of you do crosswords, but the Guardian cryptic crossword today is Rugby themed!
Hello! I feel if I have anything to say I shall be repeating myself. The rugby will be starting soon: if freewill genuinely existed shouldn't I be able to influence the outcome? As it is I have decided to enjoy the match, but expect little for England. I am wondering how many tries Habena will make.
I didn't think that watching telly could be so exhausting.
First Argentina making mincemeat of the French defence and then SA just scraping through against that bunch of no-hopers - England. In a way, and in the cold light of day, it is perhaps better for the future that England did not quite lift the trophy. So, it has been a SH triumph but not as we expected.
E:
I think you are right to bring in the environment. We tend to find more varied and fertile landscapes more beautiful and that might be because there is more chance of finding food and protection for such physically vulnerable omnivores as ourselves.
There is also a converse feeling - we find a certain frisson of excitement when we encounter bleak and hostile environments. This might be explained by reminding us of what is dangerous and contrasting it with the beneficial environments we find most beautiful.
There is also the important element that a shared sense of beauty acts as a cohesive force for the tribe and helps foster co-operation.
Didn't hear the radio programme, but it sounds good. I know you can often listen to old radio stuff via the net but I haven't done it myself yet. Might look the programme up and see if I can listen to it. Physics is not exactly a strong area of mine so I could probably do with it.
History is an even poorer subject area for me, in a "so bad it's embarrassing" way. I am attempting to rectify this slowly, but I need to find something really interesting to be able to really get into it. I am curious about Alfred the Great (this will make some of you laugh and interest others of you - I was told some years ago that he may be one of my spirit guides!) and so am reading a book about "Asser's Life of King Alfred". There seems to be a number of books that Alfred thought should be required reading for all men, and he was responsible for the translation of some of them from Latin into English (he had to teach himself Latin first - what dedication!). It got me wondering what would make it onto a list of books that would be thought required reading today.
In Our Time is almost always a good listen in my view. The one on Socrates the week before is also worth a listen.
History is endlessly fascinating for me but, unfortunately, I keep jumping around and never really acquire the depth of knowledge for any particular period. I read lots on Anglo-Saxon England many years ago, lent one of my prized books to somebody and never got it back. That was my excuse to move on to Neolithic Britain or Mediaeval Europe or Classical Greece or some other interesting area.
I offer three volumes of required reading for today's audience:
1) The recently published First Folio edition of the Complete Works of William Shakespeare;
2) The History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell; and
3) The Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson.
Boltonian et al. Apologies for my absence from what is the most congenial internet forum. (That sounds terribly arrogant - not meant like that).
Biskieboo - please accept my apologies. I only just read that you were in London (which is, indeed, where I live, for better or for worse - and in the same North East ish part as South Harrow). As it happens, I was in and out of London that week. But that is besides the point. I still owe you that tea.
PS - I second your recommendations, Boltonian (though I am not au fait with the recent Shakespeare edition).
Russell's History is a great read. I think one of its strengths is his openness about his slant. I read it some time back (and that's including some serious skims: I certainly recall giving up on Leibniz). I should add - absurdly, given that he was Bertrand Russell and I am not - that the sections on, roughly speaking, Medieval Philosophy are dazzling and dazzlingly shortsighted. (For instance - though this is with the caveat of a poor memory - his chapter on Aquinas is brilliant and yet brilliantly wrong, for instance on Aquinas' 'originality' or on Aquinas on authority). Still, it's great.
Out of interest, has anyone ever read - or know anyone who has ever read - Copleston's (Seven Volume?!) history of philosophy? It certainly doesn't have Russell's wit (from the absolutely tiny fraction I've read). But it's been said of it that philosophy professors cursed Copleston because their students would refer to him instead of reading the texts for themselves.
If I may add some recent reading should it be of interest to anyone - half of Mary Douglas' Natural Symbols (interrupted because a friend stole-borrowed it). Quite simply fascinating stuff. Herbert McCabe's The Good Life is a short and gentle introduction to what a marriage of an, in generalised terms, Aristotelian approach to ethics with a Wittgensteinian bolstering might look like. (Quite nice, as it happens). And Craig Brown's 1966 and all that is a little treat (though, of course, it could never topple 1066 and all that).
I have not read the Coplestone but I have just ordered Anthony Kenny's new four volume, 'Modern History of Western Philosophy,' which, according to somebody here (I think it was PG) sets out to combine Russell's readability with Coplestone's accuracy. I have just started re-reading Hume - delightful.
I quite like Craig Brown's humorous columns in the DT if I am in the mood but I have not read 1966 etc.
I have not been able to do any reading as I’m finishing a thesis and all my days and nights are dominated by macroeconomic policy co ordination in the EU. So what reading I do is restricted to finding a stool in Waterstone’s in Gower Street (this must be where Choo Choo works, no?) and stealing a few hours on the third floor. To that end I would recommend Kenny as I did previously. Boltonian there’s a quick interview with him on philosophy bites where he discusses the book I have mentioned him elsewhere but Mark Vernon’s “Science, Religion and the Meaning of Life” is coming out in paperback as “After Atheism”, I found it a great read and it is more apt than a year ago since you know what came out, so if you haven’t take a look it’s moving, clearheaded and calming. Can I also second the comments on ‘In Our Time’ nearly all of them are excellent, so much so you end up annoyed when the 45 minutes are up and you wish for another hour at least. Bragg has gone way up in my estimation since he began; so many great people get on, and I will use the cliché that it’s worth the licence fee on its own. Choo Choo, When one does ‘recommendations’ in bookshops do you really get carte blanche? I say this for the Waterstone’s at LSE recommendations shelf has Dawkins, Blackmore, Singer, Sam Harris, Hitchens and the rest as well as a window devoted to evolutionary psychology, I want to put a sign up and call it ‘Materialist Corner’ though they had put ‘Fear and Trembling’ in for a week; very strange. By the way Choo Choo I’m Germont from CiF, my monikers on blogs refer to Verdian baritones, my pet love, which may explain my sense of superiority in taking ACG to task on his insipid and trite Opera reviews, how thin does this man spread himself? Can I echo everything you said about McCabe again; a great man.
Many apologies to both of you for attributing Bocanegra's recommendation to PG. Sheer laziness, I'm afraid.
Simon, talking of Verdian baritones, my favourite is Sherrill Milnes, whom I saw at Covent Garden some years ago as Rigoletto. I have the recording of him in this role with Pavarotti and Sutherland, which includes the best version of the sextet I have ever heard.
ACG does opera reviews as well? Does the man ever have time to teach?
Sherill Milnes, absolutely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So lucky of you to have seen him in Rigoletto; his “Cortegiani vil razza” in that same recoding you mention is suberb as he is in Lucia with dame Joan and Pavarotti not to mention his Rodrigo in the legendary Giulini Don Carlo. These days I would rate Leo Nucci who I saw in Traviata in Parma about 5 years ago. Now that was an evening! I see ACG is at it again, three times in one week, I’ve banned myself from making any comments on ‘god threads’ but as Choo Choo mentions the first paragraph is beyond parody. Do you think he has any conception of how he comes across in his whiggish ways? I really fear there to be a total lack of self-deprecation and no concept of auto-irony to the man, two extremely unappealing attributes that he shares with Dawkins. What John Gray has to say is in many ways far more radical, and yes upsetting, but I had the fortune of following a series of his lectures when I was at the LSE on liberalism; he is a pleasure to listen too. Any venom the man possessed was usually aimed at his own tribe of philosophers, he is also extremely funny. When asked ‘how the hell can you get up in the morning thinking the things you do’ he said ‘I stay in bed a bit longer’. I think ACG on thoughts on religion can only be ascribed to wilful ignorance, yet his opinions are shared by otherwise intellectual people that I know. The problem is he gets away with it and it is precisely people like him who should be frisked to an inch of their lives since he does push above his weight. For this reason I think places like this are vital so we take a greater interest in religion with the humility of not disengaging as we study it in a classic terms of a ‘them’ and ‘us’ game. This is hard when people are not even able to differentiate philosophers of religion with theologians.
Re-ACG. Is there anything that the man is not a soi disant expert on?
Good response from ChooChoo. I will certainly refrain from commenting on this one.
I am sure that I saw Leo Nucci at CG many years ago. I am racking my brains as to what it might have been. Having just checked his list of credits the only thing that appears to fit is Luisa Miller in 1978 with a very young Jose Carreras. That was my first operatic experience (other than recordings)- and what a place to start!
The Rigoletto I saw at CG with Milnes also had Katia Ricciarelli as Gilda but I cannot remember the tenor.
Boltonian - is the Kenny divided into volumes: Ancient Philosophy, Medieval Ph., (Early Modern?) Ph. and Modern Ph.? In which case, I have the Medieval one. Not quite through it yet, but useful so far. (And I think for each he does a chronological section first before thematic chapters: quite useful). I think it looks pretty good: not overly-familiar with Kenny but he seems to write fluently and cogently. (I feel absurd writing that: my first year essays on [ancient] philosophy were always poo, and I once wrote badly about the Phaedo when I was supposed to be writing about the Phaedrus. Or was it the other way round.)
Bocanegra - just back from work (on which more in a sec) and while I wait for food to heat up, I am eagerly awaiting Grayling's appearance on This Week (a self-imposed tv ban since Mon has been broken by my odd fondness for watching Abbott and Portillo, though not Neal. Also for football highlights). I am sure you have cancelled all social engagements and postponed any thesis work to catch it.
I don't work at the Waterstones on Gower Street. Between c.2000-2004 I applied each summer and christmas for temporary holiday work. They always said no. Or rather didn't say anything. (For those of you not from London, it's not quite their largest - that's in Piccadilly - but it is their most 'academic', featuring an absurdly expensive second hand section and a hidden treats remainders bit). That said, I was on the 3rd floor this afternoon. And I have seen the materialist corner.
From my experience working in a bookshop (think, I'm sorry to say, Starbucks but in bookshop form to work out where I work. How I dream that it was Judd Books - on Marchmont street near Russell Square for non-Londoners, my fave 2nd hand bookshop in London at the mo) staff picks are more or less carte blanche. The line is drawn at ironic staff picks (we are not classy enough to call them recommendations).
Here're some stellar staff picks from my time.
An issue of Nuts magazine. (I can't remember the blurb, but my dear friend wrote something along the lines of it being a particularly excellent issue. It lasted only three days before a manager took it away. Curiously, the reason given was not, 'You're just being silly', but rather, 'Technically, you aren't allowed to staff pick magazines. Sorry').
The same character then resolved to staff pick Dan Brown's Deception Point, noting that no writer of English prose since Joyce had so profoundly challenged our assumptions about writing as Brown had, while his panoramic yet personal story was reminiscent of Waugh. (I think it was taken down out of guilt after someone, I am told, bought a copy picked up from that section).
My favourite, however, remains another colleagues 'staff pick' for David Icke's Tales from the Time Loop. (If you don't know Icke: former sports presenter who has since found a line in writing rather weighty tomes which can be glibly characterised as 'conspiracy theory tomes', though, of course, I have never read them). I can remember her pick more or less verbatim (and, needless to say, no writer of English prose since Joyce...etc):
"Just because someone goes onto the Wogan show sporting a shellsuit and mullet doesn't mean he shouldn't be taken seriously. In this book, Icke conclusively shows how the 'Babylonian Brotherhood' - a.k.a the Lizard Men - are well underway in setting up a secret world government. Only somebody with the sense of possibility the size of a pea could fail to be swayed by Icke's cogent arguments."
I also staff picked Peter Brown's The World of Late Antiquity - a very famous book by a luminary historian. It is, imho, one of the best introductions to a historical period ever penned (and he writes like a dream). I wrote a sober review, in which i called him "one of the world's finest living historians". It didn't really sell. My colleage - of Nuts and Dan Brown fame - crossed out "finest living" and replaced it with "best looking". And people buy it.
On a final note: among my circle of soi-disant staff pick comedians, it is considered quite vulgar to write a staff pick with a view to shifting copies. That is quite incidental. It is considered a genre of writing in itself (though my poorly remember examples will fail to convey this adequately, I fear).
I looked around my apartment after reading so many references to books and bookstores in recent posts.
I've been in the same place (not so special in itself but then it's on a tiny peninsula, the ocean a few minutes away, the play of light and color on sea, sky, and rocky shore often unbelievably spectacular) since 1988.
I've always found it much easier to purchase a book than to discard one (does anyone else suffer from this irrational behavior?), while, not having moved in so many years, memories of hefting earlier accumulations are too distant to change my behavior.
I am amazed at the extent of my present collection. My apartment, then, is very much like a used bookstore (but one that includes a complete office and the corporate records for my primary client).
I am also prone to picking up cast-off electronics (those that work or can be made to work w/o too much difficulty), enjoying wiring them together and marveling at what people throw away, so working computers, stereo systems, speakers, multi-CD-players, and televisions -- far more than I need -- are part of the mix.
Maybe I should open a used bookstore/cafe. (Recently I was quietly reading something in a local used bookstore, so quietly that the owner left and locked me in, totally surprised to encounter me upon his return.)
Bill - (hello!). I am envious (in the nice sense, as opposed to in the literally vicious sense) of the vista a walk away from your apartment. The closest thing I have to rival are the flickering silhouettes of slightly younger than me youths leaning by the bus stop a walk away from chez moi, though I am being ungrateful: I have a Morrisons two minutes away.
On your inclination never to discard books, I think I largely share it.
That said, upon clearing up a room for my mother a few weeks back, I must confess that I had no qualms about binning a battered copy of a Jeffrey Archer novel. It would be foolish, at this point, to refuse to confess to the ownership of said Jeffrey Archer novel, though it certainly wasn't a recent purchase.
I wonder what you think about one complication: I can happily give away a book to a friend (as distinct from not getting back books lent out). There are further complications of course: some books have - as that wholly inadequate phrase has it - 'sentimental value'. Others are, in some sense, needed. Still, there's something special about the 'gift': and - if you've ever received one you'll know - a copy of a book which someone has had before giving it to you is somehow more special than a (gratefully received, I stress) present of a newly bought book. Wonder what you think.
Bocanegra - forgot to mention one thing more seriously: all the best with writing up.
Following your CiF posts etc (and learning of your subject area), I wonder whether we are both doing the wrong thing. If I were to draw a Venn diagramme of our interests (and areas of, at least partial, knowledge) it might have Opera at your end, virtue ethics meets Ludwig in the middle, and football at my end.
A brief digression: I am increasingly and, thus, painfully aware of being, in some ways, a football geek. I often joke to my friends that if I were writing a thesis on the collected goals of Ray Parlour I'd have been done and dusted in a month or two: this doesn't just reflect Parlour's relative paucity of goals. They often reply, you're not funny. This geekiness remains despite my growing disgust at the behaviour of footballers off and, especially, on the pitch. This was emphasised to me when watching the South Africa - Argentina rugger semi final. I can't remember the names, but I recall, near the end, a little spat, including one Argentinian hitting out at a springbok. Two players were sin-binned - neither they nor others gave the ref any jib. And, notably, at the end of the game, the players involved went up to one another, shook hands and exhanged words. I was gobsmacked. Or, to take another example, when in India last month, I watched the India-Pakistan 20-20 match - the first one which went to cricket 'penalties' - with my grandfather, uncle and cousin. Each time a Pakistani player played a fine stroke, they would shout relevant words of praise. As much as I admire the skills of, say, Ronaldo, I can't imagine following suite in a week and a half on Saturday. Anyhow, I digress.
Given the Venn diagram, there might be an interesting collaboration: a football match between Wittgensteinians and Aristotelians - with those somewhere in between playing a half for each side, before declaring that there aren't opposite sides after all - but played out in an operatic setting? I know far worse ideas that have received funding.
Apologies to all for all these moot points: where was I? Oh yeah, the thing about eliminative materialism, right, is that...
1. Morrisons? I'll look it up. When I moved here, Lexington Avenue -- a tiny street that quickly descends to the ocean -- still had a few peculiar local cafes and coffee shops amongst consignment shops, an art frame shop, a moribund travel agency, a bicycle shop, and what not. I loved the cafes, and enjoyed the company of the eccentric characters I met in them.
(This tiny street once had huge hotels and branches of exclusive New York stores, as the little town was the summer enclave of the very wealthy; robber barons built colossal mansions not far away.)
A major fire and changing economic and demographic circumstances ended the cafe era, and it passed away just as the earlier "Gold Coast" era had.
As much as I love the ocean setting, I'm desperate for cafe society, and may just have to move somewhere to obtain it.
2. I would have no qualms about discarding a Jeffrey Archer novel. The vast majority of my books are nonfiction.
3. I rarely have a chance to either give away or receive books these days (insufficient visitors -- I have many friends met on-line and once entertained them here and travelled quite a bit to visit them but those days are gone while my local friends have tended to move out as wealth has moved in, leaving me behind, a holdout from another era).
The last book I gave away was a fairly rare biography of Hypatia, and -- I don't expect you to believe this -- I gave it to Hypatia herself, in her present form.
The tale behind this is long and ancient; I believe I could convince you of its veracity were the three of us to sit together long enough in the same room, but that's hardly likely.
Her life is much more colorful than mine -- she travels in high artistic circles.
She is of a rare category amongst those I encounter, those who cause visions of the ancient world to arise in my consciousness (even Hypatia is young -- modern -- compared to what she can evoke).
Some might call her a natural witch, but that is perhaps owing to the very long darkness we are still emerging from.
(Sorry for the ramble. It's late here, and I'm tired.)
Just a few unconnected thoughts prompted by the last few posts.
I too hardly ever throw books away. We recently completely refurbished our house (it's cheaper than moving) and I had a golden opportunity to send some of my paperbacks to the local charity shop. I completely failed - in the end I could not bear to part with any of them even though I am sure that most will never be read again. The house still looks like a library but with better decor and furniture.
Rugby Union overtook football as my winter interest in the mid 1970s (I had always enjoyed League)partly because of the violence on the terraces. Now I can't bear to watch the ridiculous antics of most of those involved with football; players, managers and administrators. If I watch a match on the box these days I can't get through more than half a game without turning it off.
I used to go along to support my local rugby team here and part of the pleasure was listening to the knowledgeable and witty comments from spectators of both sides - no segregation here.
When I lived in London my favourite bookshop was Dillon's (is that now the Waterstone's you mention?)in Mallett Street (or was it Gower Street) - miles better than Foyle's - the staff were far more knowledgeable. But Charing Cross Road was unbeatable for music.
Sorry Bill, I ought to have remembered that you're not from these here parts. (Morrisons is a drab though wallet friendly supermarket). I loved your description of where you've lived. And thanks for the Jeffrey Archer support.
"The last book I gave away was a fairly rare biography of Hypatia, and -- I don't expect you to believe this -- I gave it to Hypatia herself, in her present form."
Hypatia? She's right from my period.
(Boltonian - there's a half-famous Victorian painting of Hypatia in the Kenny vol on medieval philosophy. I understand that she might be one of the figures on the left in Raphael's School of Athens).
I know you won't be offended by this, Bill: I guess I don't believe you. (There are plenty of things I can say which others won't believe). There is a certain incommunicability about things which cushions this from outright 'delusion' smears or outright subjectivism. Still, I don't believe you: or rather, I don't believe that what you say really is what you say. None of this is to imply telling falsehoods on your part. (Again, I am aware of things I might say which would elicit similar responses in you or others). But I can't say I'm not very interested in hearing more about Hypatia. Nor can I precisely say why (or even what it is) I don't believe.
Boltonian - the Waterstones on Gower Street is where Dillons once stood. I also think that it's better than Foyles: I remember the messier Foyles of days gone by being better than the tidier one standing today. The Waterstones, though, is not perfect (this is isn't through bookshop partisanship): to my mind, there were notable absences in philosophy, (esp) theology/philosophy of religion and (early medieval) history. And football. I am such a geek. And the Foyles poetry section is better and they have a jazz cd cafe thing now.
I should have made clear: as much as the books circulating through gift exchange idea tickles my fancy, I also find it hard to get rid of (most) books. Again there are exceptions: I can remember buying a book about the history of the templars when I was about 17 or 18. It is basically conspiracy theory fare (though it is thankfully modest in approach, trying to tie together a minimalist 13 strands together to account for only about half of the world's ills). I think it is Umberto Eco who wrote something about the Templars being at the centre of every conspiracy theory (centred on the West at least). Anyhow, I have had no qualms whatsoever about charity shopping it. On the other hand, my battered copy of After Virtue will remain mine til death do us part.
Speaking of book recommendations, what do you folks think of Umberto Eco? Have managed to get through both Foucault's Pendulum and The Name of the Rose. Both are demanding, have some pretentious digressions (thinking of the former more than the latter) but are strangely gripping. Foucault's Pendulum has a wicked plot. But The Name of the Rose is wonderful for its sympathetic depiction of monastic life. It might be worth rereading as a slant on medieval philosophy (a slant which, if I have understood Eco correctly, I am not inclined towards).
Spooky....we all seem to have spent inordinate time in that Gower St bookshop in its different incarnations....assuming it's the same one, on the road just off Gower St, with the bookshop facing a back entrance to UCL, then I haunted it too, when thesisising at UCL....happy (drunken) days in ULU & Birkbeck bars (do they still have the rooftop bar there?)....
Itinerant bookshop workers will enjoy the story here (read the 25/10 entry) from the blog of a regular contributor to the GU books blog:
Eco, eh? Hmmm....read TNOTR years ago, and enjoyed it....FP more recently, and thought it better....the scam wrought by the publisher on wannabe self-publishing authors tickled me especially....but the Dan Brown-like plot disappointed me as a whole....also recently read one (title nonetheless forgotten) about a lone survivor on a ship in C17 or thereabouts - which promised much, but petered out....a man of fine ideas, but I wouldn't call him a good novelist, sadly....
Haven't posted on CiF for a long while - and probably won't, either....the religious/atheistic threads seem to have become even more squawky, and the other articles more devoid of interest of late....how many more pieces can they squeeze from Watson's misguided remarks? And the mutual adoration between a small coterie of right-on posters cloys....
ChooChoo: "I know you won't be offended by this, Bill: I guess I don't believe you."
I'm not offended at all, ChooChoo. I wouldn't have believed this myself at one time.
"There is a certain incommunicability about things which cushions this from outright 'delusion' smears or outright subjectivism. Still, I don't believe you: or rather, I don't believe that what you say really is what you say. None of this is to imply telling falsehoods on your part."
True and understandable. Even so, I find pleasure in the challenge of attempting to convey that which is truly too rich for words, particularly when it is made even more unbelievable owing to the presence of fame within it.
(What is fame? Why are some famous, so many obscure? There's more to this than one might think at first.)
This is a topic -- "reincarnation," not fame -- modern people have failed to comprehend, for the most part (I think of William James, Frederick Myers, and those others with them who did pioneering work in "psychical research" that never gained official acceptance and how this is still an area of ignorance and ridicule, in our time.)
"But I can't say I'm not very interested in hearing more about Hypatia. Nor can I precisely say why (or even what it is) I don't believe."
I have found that some of my relationships extend throughout great reaches of time, and believe this applies to everyone (and that most know or feel this when they encounter such a situation, although they might not express this in the same terms).
My relationship in this case is of of this nature, but our particular interaction in that time is a dark one for me, as I was an obscure monk whose name is lost to history, one of the mob. (Would anyone even know of Hypatia today if she had not been set upon by that very mob?)
I know of this because she, in her present form, can cause a person's inner being -- I'll call it "soul" despite the distortions associated with that word -- to emerge and commune with the conscious, egoic self.
(This can be a very powerful and startling experience; it was for me, the first time it happened with any force. This is something that can utterly destroy the usual rational stance, make it seem paper thin, the real "delusion.")
Fortunately my relationship with this particular being/person includes more noble examples (these are mostly unrecorded in any of our histories), so that the black behavior of the monk is redeemed by other episodes.
The present version of Hypatia is a writer, not at all inclined towards mathematics, although she has familiarized herself, consciously, with certain Greek-influenced philosophies as part of her research.
She wrote a history of the Etruscans as a Roman but that was destroyed in a fire -- no record of it exists -- while she visited Roman Britain as a Senator in another instance. (Records of that visit may exist; I don't know.)
Rome, England, Egypt and Ur are places we share in our personal "soul" histories, among others. (If you focus on the person of Hypatia you _might_ gain an intuitive sense of who she is, who her soul is -- there are surprises here for anyone who succeeds at such an endeavor, but this would be true of nearly any public personality you might think of, without touching on the much more pertinent question of those surprises anyone is likely to experience by investigating their own hidden experiences.)
I would use "poet" to describe the nature of her larger being, of which all of these personalities are expressions.
This "past life" stuff (and I hold that this term is an oversimplification of the realities here, a popular distortion) is unfathomable without some kind of direct experience, a barrier I've encountered many times in my interactions, but one that can be surmounted without too much difficulty.
It is far too easy to overemphasize this at the expense of one's present existence, a fault of mine at an early age, when this contributed to a certain instability. (Life is lived now, not then, but what is one to do when the present is momentarily overwhelmed by a vivid awareness of another time, another place, and long dead personalities, brought to present awareness -- triggered -- by meeting someone, a few words in a book, the sight of a painting, or something else?)
The short version of this is that we are part of greater beings for whom time is not the limiting factor it is for us; we are their experiencing physical "nodes."
(As such, do we have free will?)
These timeless regions of self are accessible, and they have loves, friendships, and other associations with each other; these relationships underlie many of our own human relationships, and are often key to why a mutual attraction is felt, above and beyond the purely physical or sexual.
(I must couch this as theory -- how can anyone "prove" this?)
We live in a time in which such access is unacceptable, but this is also a time of rapid change -- what was unacceptable to religion became unacceptable to science but then science itself began to be questioned as religion had been questioned. We have yet to see the end of this, but I suggest neither traditional religious nor scientific worldviews will prevail.
(I must do some brief business travelling and won't be back at my computer for many hours.)
I have just looked up Hypatia in Wiki. Interesting lady.
I have not been to Foyles (old or new) for more than 30 years, so I cannot compare. My visits to London these days are largely confined to business trips so, I arrive, conduct my business and depart. Sometimes I need to stay overnight, which I did quite a lot this spring but working late meant that opera and theatre were out of bounds.
Re-football, I was fanatical when I was a child and a kind cousin, who knew Nat Lofthouse, got him to part with his scrapbook for me. Alas, the story does not have a happy ending. When my mother moved house following my father's death she employed somebody to clear all the junk from the attic and, too late, I realised that the precious scrapbook was one of the disposed of items.
Talking of Morrison's - we have one here but this town's real claim to fame at the moment is that it is one of only two postcodes in Great Britain without a Tesco. They keep trying to get in, of course, and I think that they might succeed this time. We are lucky that there are lots of excellent small shops here, where we buy all our fresh fruit, veg, fish, meat, cheese etc.
Not read any Eco - one of the many writers that lurk around at the back of my mind. Whenever he is mentioned I think, 'Must read this, that or t'other,' and then never do.
Steve:
I too rarely post on CiF, although I could not resist a pop at Polly Toynbee recently.
Bill - a typically gracious and thoughtful response. I think that you accept the incommunicability point. (A very rough analogy might be how one loves one's spouse: I am not married, but I am touched by my grandparents on my Dad's side, who have been married for 60 years. The love they have for one another - and I stress that love is not simply a passive, felt affection, but also stems from acts of the will - has a reality I could not deny and yet it is, in some ways, incommunicable). Nonetheless, I am always willing to hear more about this.
Steve et al. - I must say that I though the ostensibly Dan Brown plotline in Foucault's Pendulum was a treat. I guess that, in a way, it's a satire of the gravitas of the Dan Brown brigade and the ease with which we give credence to these things. The point of course was that things which were being made up or randomly collected to form a narrative were seized onto by the real secret society. Nonetheless, while FP is more catchy, I was more taken (though not so 'gripped') by TNOTR. It is a beautifully sympathetic portrayal of monastic life which goes beyond the one-dimensional (and totalising) image of the 'medieval' in which we are inevitably immersed (even if Eco goes on about nominalism too much and implies that the Thomistic take on Aristotelianism was part of the 'establishment' in a way that overlooks how contentious it was for contemporaries and later). I agree with you that he's not exactly a 'good novelist'. From the two books above, I think he's more interested in weaving sounding boards into narratives. It's strange that I remember FP as gripping even though the pages of digressions on 13th (or was it 14th? 12th? etc) c history were painful at times. Still, TNOTR has interesting structural conceit, with each chapter representing another segment of the monastic day: matins etc.
Boltonian: overdue on 'eliminative materialism'. It's important not to mistake this with materialism tout court - or criticisms of it with criticisms of materialism tout court. I was trying to find a good way of summarising, but my mind (if it exists) or brain is feeling zapped (though that might be a piece of illicit 'folk psychology'), so I have cheated. Here's the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy summary:
"Eliminative materialism (or eliminativism) is the radical claim that our ordinary, common-sense understanding of the mind is deeply wrong and that some or all of the mental states posited by common-sense do not actually exist. Descartes famously challenged much of what we take for granted, but he insisted that, for the most part, we can be confident about the content of our own minds. Eliminative materialists go further than Descartes on this point, since they challenge of the existence of various mental states that Descartes took for granted."
ChooChoo: "...Nonetheless, I am always willing to hear more about this."
I'm sure to post more, every so often, about my personal "psychical research." Regarding Late Antiquity, the likely presence of a version or versions of you within it, Hypatia, and so on: This is something of a specialized (z is our American spelling, of course) area, although a very interesting one (Alexandria, in particular, is a fascinating topic all by itself).
I have no idea whether I shall post on this or not.
I did read The Name of the Rose, and quite enjoyed it; then, sometime later, I watched the movie.
That day included a major snowstorm and I managed to throw my back out, forced to use my snow shovel as a crutch to return to my second floor apartment.
Uncomfortable watching from a chair, I watched from the floor.
Just as one of the scenes with the Inquisitor came about, a spasm of pain hit my back....
Visiting London (please forgive me for freely associating after all of this talk of bookstores):
1. 1984
I visited with my dad for a mere couple of days, having been added to his last business trip before he retired.
At my urging we searched for the Bishop of Durham's residence only to discover it had vanished at some point after WWI.
The River Thames was oddly narrowed, as well, while much was not at all as I had pictured it. At about this time I became aware for the first time -- consciously -- of The Great Fire. (I'd already known of The Blitz, of course, but hadn't bothered to focus much past 1619 in my reading, before this visit.)
As we wandered, we found ourselves momentarily pressed up against the doors of a chapel amidst some heavy pedestrian sidewalk traffic; as they were swinging doors (they swung inward) we soon found ourselves inside, standing on the grave of Captain John Smith of Pocahontas fame.
2. 2001
Like an idiot, I assumed I could find my way to my quarters at the Quaker International Centre, on foot (and after flying all night), without any trouble. (The place was inexpensive and turned out to be clean, quiet and complete with a common kitchen and pay phone; I hope it's still there the next time I visit.)
I was wearing a major backpack and had one of those rolling suitcases, and was equipped with maps, but I was so disoriented by the time I got off the train at Victoria Station and hit the sidewalk that I was forced to buy a compass at a sporting goods store.
Even so, everything was dreamlike, surreal, and having a compass made little or no difference. I spied Parliament and Buckingham Palace, equestrian statues of generals, and so on, every so often consulting a map, but this wasn't working.
Hungry, I ducked into a breakfast place; the coinage contributed to my sense or disorientation, as though it came from some parallel world, while I was amazed to discover that no one in the place spoke English.
While there, I decided The Tube was the best means of arriving at my destination, so I got out my Underground map and studied it.
Making my way successfully to the nearest station, I was told it and the line it belonged to were closed owing to flooding...
Eventually, I got to another station on another line, and succeeded in disembarking at the station advertised on the centre's website as being only a few minutes away: Googe Street, which of course is deep enough to make it safe from the bombs of the Luftwafte (one less thing to worry about).
I asked two officials where Byng Place was; they looked at each other, clearly puzzled, then pulled out a huge book of maps and proceeded to provide me with impossibly complex directions.
Giving up, I left the station and asked the first person I came across, in front of a Waterstone's, where my place of lodging might be; they pointed, and soon I arrived.
(That particular Waterstone's -- was it at Torrington Place? I believe so -- was disappointing, at least its metaphysical section was not at all impressive.)
All in all, I've found London to be one of the very best places for practicing a kind of time travel. I can't wait to visit again but wonder if I'll be wealthy enough, considering the way the dollar is dropping.
Thanks for the definition of EM . It tells me what it is not but not necessarily what it is.
I have long suspected that Descartes was making an assumption about the 'I' part of his premise. The best we can say is that, 'There are thoughts.'
Does EM take this a stage further and posit a proposition or conjecture that even thoughts are not derived from mental states? If not, why not - and from what are they then derived? Or is it saying that mental states might not be a function of the brain? But they clearly exist - at least in me, so how are they derived if not from the brain? Are we back to dualism here?
Wiki says that some EMists suggest that certain sensations and other mental states (such as beliefs and desires) do not exist. I don't understand this because there is certainly something that exists to be experienced in one way or another. Perhaps my brain (or whatever it is) is just too small for such concepts.
SpaceP (where is he, BTW?) talked some while ago about a form of Monism whereby the same phenomena exhibit different manifestations (like mass/energy, I suppose). This gets round the problems of dualism without falling into complete materialism (or at least reductionism thereof). Please correct me if I have misrepresented you SpaceP.
Bill:
If you do return to London please let us know. Perhaps it would be an excuse for a few of us to meet for a coffee.
Boltonian: "I have long suspected that Descartes was making an assumption about the 'I' part of his premise. The best we can say is that, 'There are thoughts.'"
Who are we when we are not thinking but quietly and deliberately aware, nevertheless?
Rene didn't say simply: "I am" and leave it that, but he certainly could have.
Somewhat in agreement with your thought, I suggest the more basic self awareness is the best starting point. (What else is there, really?)
"If you do return to London please let us know. Perhaps it would be an excuse for a few of us to meet for a coffee."
This could be fun and I would enjoy it. I may have to travel to London for business purposes and will post the timing of this if it comes about.
I can't bloody do it and now I'm about to throw my computer out the window. I have downloaded the radio programme on antimatter, it is on my computer but it seems I am not allowed to actually listen to it. If I click on it it opens media player but then it doesn't appear to be on it and nothing else happens. I hate it when this happens it drives me absolutely nuts. Some body help me before I start screaming. I've got Windows Vista.
I can open and listen to the lecture with the free Real Player but this is on a computer running XP-Pro, not Vista.
If Real Player doesn't run on Vista (I haven't tried it) you might consider maintaining a spare PC that has XP on it.
Such machines are currently free in the U.S. (if you know where to look -- often a sidewalk or roadside or from a friend looking to get rid of one) or may be purchased for very little at a great variety of websites, either refurbished (and guaranteed) or just plain used, as on Craig's List (do you have this in the UK?), eBay, or at a used computer emporium.
Having owned personal computers since DOS days, I've learned to lag behind, not upgrading until forced to. The latest MS operating system will inevitably soak up all of the (often expensive) hardware improvements even while exhibiting annoying compatibility issues.
(I expect it will be quite some time before I come across a PC powered by a miniature anti-matter reactor.)
Thank you Bill! It hadn't occurred to me that my operating system might be too advanced!
I've downloaded Real Player and can now listen to the programme. I looked around the radio 4 site a bit more and found out that at the moment most of the programmes are not compatible with Media Player. There's some excellent listening material there - I may be gone some time!
I hope you enjoy “In our time”, definitely the best think on the radio, I cannot speak its praises more highly; just finished listening to one on the Dominicans and Franciscans with Anthony Kenny no less.
Choo Choo,
I’m afraid that I share some of your interest in Football, but it is there that any concord between us may be destroyed after some sly little comments you made about a certain international football team a few months back. I will not go into details as I did not understand what your main gripe with them was. Having said that the last decent World Cup was 1986 and I think international football is now more a job for historians. Let us not get into details, though the two occasions I went to Highbury in support of ***** (my club) were most pleasant and you must miss the place. I see you have been, I think defending virtue ethics on the abortion threads. I won’t bore people with my thoughts but I think it hinges around 14 days, but that’s another subject. Rather I did find it interesting how G E M Anscombe has been marginalised and does not slip of the tongue like other 20th Century English Philosophers. You are quite right ACG makes no mention of her in his book on allied bombings, quite strange. Moreover his comments about consequentionalism and his defence of the Good Life it seems odd that she does not figure. Now you and I must have our suspicions as to why this is. My question to you is how influential is she in current analytical philosophy and why do you think it is that I could only find one book (a series of her essays) in Waterstones last week? Since I have finally decided to read some philosophy and I like the things I hear about her what would you recommend me to read; Intention? Lastly why do you think Wittgenstein is so popular among Catholics? I have heard it said that Wittgenstein is to Heythrop as Aquinas is to Blackfriars, any comments?
Bill,
Yes your Waterstones was the very same one we were discussing. As for the Quaker House I only realised what it was a few weeks ago despite passing it on and off for the past 14 years. That with that Anglo-Catholic lump next door (now that has a very strange history, part of the miniscule Catholic Apostolic Church and was once the University Church) are the two last remaining buildings that have not been eaten up by UCL on that block. Funny you should mention the tube at Goodge Street as a bomb shelter since it lies next to a shelter used by the Americans in WWII and betwixt the two we find the American Church. I too get that feeling of inhabiting the past in London, especially late in the afternoon. I find myself in places devoid of people, or so it seems, as if the past 30 years had not happened, parts of Battersea and North of St Pancras and just east of the City I find extremely suggestive, I have no idea why. It must be some form of association, just the sight of a slightly dirty florid net curtain is a trigger for me in an involuntary memory in a Proust’s Madeleine kind of way. The problem being I get the feeling but cannot make the association or find the memory.
Circular Connection (I was quite surprised, btw, to realize that the one Waterstone's I've visited in London is the very same store recently discussed here):
Following up on bocanegra's reference to G E M Anscombe, I came across this (I confess -- I looked her up on Wikipedia):
"The denial of any distinction between foreseen and intended consequences, as far as responsibility is concerned, was not made by Sidgwick in developing any one 'method of ethics'; he made this important move on behalf of everybody and just on its own account; and I think it plausible to suggest that this move on the part of Sidgwick explains the difference between old-fashioned Utilitarianism and the consequentialism, as I name it, which marks him and every English academic moral philosopher since him."
Henry Sidgwick is featured in the book I'm presently reading, _Ghost Hunters_, by Deborah Blum.
(So many unforeseen consequences; so little time.)
Bocanegra/Germont(/Cannavaro): you have a good memory. Correct me if I am wrong, but those comments about the international team in question came about on one of CiF's interminable (well, lasting for a gargantuan triduum) religion threads. I should add: I love the country, terrone and pollenta eaters all the same etc. And the football team is consistently very good (if not better). They deserved the most recent cup they won. But there is something about the team which I find impossible to warm to. I have tried and failed.
I guess I do miss Highbury, though I hardly went in its (her?) last few years. A charming stadium. You have to give me more of a hint than ***** for your club (unless ***** is your club).
On Anscombe - like you, I find her interesting (though I have hardly got through all that much of her oeuvre). Like I said, ACG's omission in his "Among the Dead Cities" is plain bizarre given, like you said, the stuff on consequentialism. Her essay on Truman is effectively based on a dismissive take on 'consequentialist' reasoning. (Indeed, who was it - so they say - that first coined 'consequentialism'?). Another surprising point is that ACG is (conversant with/embedded in?) the analytical tradition. All this - and more - might suggest that ACG might have been expected to mention her (though that is not to say his omission is intellectually criminal). On the other hand, she was, after all, a votary and therefore stupid.
On her influence in (analytical) philosophy: I am not well-placed to say. 'Modern Moral Philosophy' was a famous essay (the consequentialism coiner) which certainly has been profoundly influential. (I met a philosophy student not long ago who is neither enamoured of nor inimical to Anscombe, and he says the essay is not - formally - v impressive. Anyhow).
I guess her main points - the pervasion of what she considered 'consequentialist' ethical thinking (possibly broader than its common use now); the problems of using a moral language that developed with certain ideas in mind and which remains, like a husk, with those ideas no longer considered; the importance of virtue etc - have been influential. This is consonant with the wider project of someone like, say, Alasdair MacIntyre.
I guess another possible - though I speculate - importance is that she was clearly an analytical philosopher, very much influenced by (if not a disciple of) Wittgenstein. But she was certainly not anti-metaphysical: far from it. (I am certainly not sure that she is the only or most important figure on this point).
I guess some of her most important work was related to ethics, in a sense, but in a way focussed on action and intentionality. I think that these are widely considered her most important pieces (her 'Intention' being a good example). So, I imagine that her influence has been considerable (though she is hardly the only influential figure). Incidentally, her husband - Peter Geach - has probably been important for similar reasons too (though he wrote - and, indeed, in his old age still writes - more on virtue ethics tout court).
On stocking her stuff at Waterstones - I'm guessing you saw the collection of her papers entitled (something like) 'Human Life, Action and Ethics' (it contains 'Mr. Truman's Degree'). This is relatively recent. I am surprised they did not have 'Intention'. (The store where I work, of course, sells 'Intention', roughly one copy a year...). By the way, you mentioned the Quakers' place to Bill. If you carry on walking down Euston Road (towards Kings Cross), you'll soon see Unsworths second-hand bookshop. They sometimes have 'Intention' in the philosophy section. I picked up my copy from there, though I must confess that I haven't worked through it yet. (Foolishly took it for a train journey and did 3 pages). It's not jargonistic at all - she tends not to be - but it's damn meaty. One simple reason for this is to do with what is in print and who publishes it. I doubt she wrote many discrete books (alongside 'Intention', I think there's something called 'From Parmenides to Wittgenstein', and 'Three Philosophers' but not sure how available they are).
A couple of things which might be of interest. First, I met the sister of a good friend of mine, who lived with the Anscombes/Geaches in Oxford before her death (2001/2003?). Sadly, she had lost it a bit by the end, though Geach was nice. (For a contrast: someone I know - whose main philosophical works are about MacIntyre - says that they were psychotic when he met them!). I have no doubt that they were eccentric.
(Digression: the story goes that she was supposed to be visiting the Vatican some time back, with another philosopher - can't remember who, but it might have been someone called John Finnis. According to protocol - then? unwritten rule? - a dame would visit the pope wearing a skirt or dress. Her companion was horrified to see, as they walked up, that she was wearing her customary trousers, but was too intimidated to mention it to her. Just as they got to the door, she pulled a cord, and a makeshift skirt swept down. She tucked it back up when they left).
And second, she is interesting wrt to your brief 14 days point. I assume this is in relation to the possibility of twinning in the embryo. (c.after 15 days, this is no longer possible). Anscombe - tentatively - held that metaphysically, this seems to be the point from which (I am risking misrepresenting her since I cannot remember her terms) a new individual entity exists. (C.f. her essay, in the collection above, 'Were you a zygote?'). This was her metaphysical position. But it gets a bit more complicated. I don't think that this was seen by her as a reasonable ethical marker. And this impression was bolstered when I was introduced and spoke to - this is going to sound so pretentious and 'I just hang out with thinkers all the time', which is v misleading and glosses over my time being a silly, self-indulgent student - her son-in-law, a man called Luke Gormally (like his wife, Mary Geach, a philosopher).
I asked him about this. And he noted a couple of things: first, her essay was particularly taken with some work conducted on embryology at that time (by someone whose name I forget, but she mentions in the essay mentioned above), which was when the 14/15 day changes were especially emphasised. Recent work on the earliest moments of conception (esp on immediate differentiation in the zygote) - in her metaphysical scheme - would, he suggested, have given her food for thought. And, second, he said that this metaphysical position did not simply translate into an ethical position. And she was increasingly taken with the idea of a greater protection or reverence owing to the earliest moments of life, in all their vagueness. (Obviously, in her metaphysics - and most sane people's biology - gametes are not individual entities, so, supposing the 14/15 day marker works metaphysically, there is still this strange intermediary entity to consider).
Apologies to all, especially our kind host, for this over-inflated and long-winded digression (or series of digressions - see, more long-windedness). ____
Boltonian - in retrospect, the Stanford definition is not the best (and needlessly, in my mind [or is that...], mentions Descartes).
I think the point about eliminative materialism is this: roughly speaking (and taking into account some differences in accounts), when we consider mental states or thoughts or beliefs etc, it's not that they are actually functions of or supervenient (in whatever way) upon or ontologically dependent on the brain: but it's that they (whichever ones, depending on proponent) do not exist at all.
You seem baffled: "I don't understand this because there is certainly something that exists to be experienced in one way or another." I remember reading an intro to philosophy of mind by someone called Edward Feser, in which he wrote, of this, that if it doesn't puzzle you then you haven't understood the position! (He is not, should it need adding and as far as I can tell insofar as his intro is judicious, an eliminative materialist). Like you - unless I am misunderstanding here - I am baffled by this. I think the distinction comes out when you read other kinds of materialist approaches to philosophy of mind: indeed, I get the sense that some of these are partly shaped by wanting not to become eliminative materialists (i.e. they don't want to call into question that things like qualia happen etc).
"SpaceP (where is he, BTW?) talked some while ago about a form of Monism whereby the same phenomena exhibit different manifestations (like mass/energy, I suppose). This gets round the problems of dualism without falling into complete materialism (or at least reductionism thereof). Please correct me if I have misrepresented you SpaceP."
This is profoundly interesting. There is another kind of 'dualism' (if we may call it such - in the context of philosophy of mind, given the connotations of dualism, it might be unwise to call it so) which we might refine into 'property dualism': effectively, it is related to Aristotelian notions of form and matter (as well as medieval theories of 'mind'). This might also offer something of the balancing act you hint at. I have no idea whether it works and I don't mention it to propose, but merely because it's recently become an interesting and young avenue in philosophy of mind.
very quickly and in deference to the obvious care you take in your replies, sorry if I cannot reply in kind as I’m currently deleting four months of work (wasted), a very painful experience.
RE: 14 days
I had no idea it was taken up by Anscombe, rather I was following an essay by Anthony Kenny.
I did like this little titbit came across:
Anscombe to Ayer: “If you didn’t talk so quickly, people wouldn’t think you were so clever” Ayer to Anscombe “If you didn’t talk so slowly, people wouldn’t think you were so profound.”
ACG?????????????
Why did they ask him on This Week, what was his expertise; terrible tie. Did you hear him on Today this morning, usual thesis; Athens is everything. I recently found out he was a member of the Athenaeum (quelle bloody surprise); how does he cope with all the Bishops?
RE: Football team
Don’t get me wrong; in my ignorant opinion – during the tournament – it only contained four players who could be considered world class. Most people I talked to before and after victory were, and remained unimpressed (me included) since the games against Germany 1970 and Brazil 1982 remain the holy cows (1978 was a good team also). You are quite right I cannot see how anyone could have warmed to them. My fear was you may have been referring to Sup Alpine football in general and the obsession with commentators to mention the C word every time they play. The manager (who I despise for many reasons, this being a clue as to who ***** is; shame prevents me from naming them) did a magnificent job with what he had to work with – which was not much; just imagine if Peckerman had done the same. What I never understood was the praise heaped on France.
Sorry Boltonian, enough sport; next time I'll try a bit of metaphysics.
I was pondering the idea of a book-swap list, but like others I don't really like to see books leave the house (novels excepted).
My list of must read books: I have only thought of one so far (well, part of one) and that's the New Testament. I don't think it matters if you believe that the events in it actually happened or not. The ethical lessons in it are by far the most important aspect for me.
The Gower Street bookshop - I may be wrong, but I believe this is where I bought my biology textbooks from when I was a student (I only bought about three in the whole three years - after the first year I got a job as a shelver in the college library - saved myself a small fortune as I always knew where the books that I needed were, and it also meant that I am the only graduate I know to have left uni with money in the bank).
I didn't really get to know London that well as I was living on the outskirts (SW - Putney area) and didn't make the most of what was on offer because if I wasn't studying or working I was stoned or chasing men.
I used to find going into central London quite depressing and a bit scary. I think this probably had a lot to do with my state of mind at the time (being constantly stoned I'm sure didn't help). Now I love going up for a day trip and it seems much more light and welcoming.
I'm looking forward to going up again to visit the Terracotta Warriors exhibition.
Biskieboo - true story! (And hope my apologies above are accepted. I think I'm right in saying I can devilishly play the forgiveness card on you...)
Bocanegra/Germont(/notCannavaro(/McCabino))
NO worries. Good luck with the work (I hope I am not insensitively wishing you good luck solely in deleting work). Two v quick things: I only mentioned 14 days, not to turn this little glade into another amphitheatre for interminable gladiatorial combat, but because this was Anscombe's position, metaphysically albeit tentatively.
I'm afraid I'm ignorant of the 'Athenaeum' - will google at some point.
I think I have your club: did you lot do one over in a major cup final (at Old Trafford) in 2003 with the manager in question at the helm of the opposing team? (I was at that match, though not playing).
The match you mentioned was one of the most painful experiences of my life. The result had nothing to do with this; the fact that those two teams were on the pitch made any victor a pain in the arse. This should lead you to the object of my affections. Last clue, we had to change our name under Mussolini since for obvious reasons it sounded too socialist thus we played for the glory and under the banner of St Ambrose. I thought you might like that since he must pop up in your area of study. Moreover his feast day is, by tradition, the opening night of the new season of La Scala hence back to Opera. However ambrosian at a stretch can and is used as an adjective to things pertaining to and belonging to Milan, I don’t think it was a liturgical statement expressing preferred rites though a Derby between Ambrosiana Inter vs. Tridentina Milan would be fun.
Waiting for my flight to Heathrow at Linate, in November, 2004, I couldn't help but notice a crew of very tough looking characters waiting for the same plane.
I wondered whether they were mercenaries, soldiers of fortune, but then realized they were all members of the local football club.
Although as fearsome looking (I imagined), as Roman legionnaires, their short stature struck me as odd -- I towered over all of them (I'm rail thin, however, and lacked their musculature).
Then again, Romans weren't very tall by our standards.
Yet another philosopher to get to grips with (Anscombe).
I can 't really get worked up about football any more, especially as my team is (of course) Bolton Wanderers, who are having some trouble just now.
Inter Milan is my guess but I have been out of touch for many years. Agree about the 1970 Brazilians - the best I have seen but then I am too young to remember the great Real Madrid team of the 1950s and early 1960s or the original Busby Babes.
ChooChoo:
Thanks with EM - I must read my Churchland book again following all this discussion on the philosophy of mind. I have a couple of books by Searle on the subject and find him a bit shallow and rather unconvincing. Have you (or anybody else)read anything by him? Sorry to be thick but if mental states do not exist, whence thoughts etc? And how can one prove a negative?
Have I missed some recent ACG appearances on the box and radio? I would have stayed in specially had I known in advance. Very unlikely.
Biskieboo:
My wife tells me that the army is well worth the visit (and the entrance money).
Simon:
Are you Italian by birth, upbringing, temperament, cultural inclination or parentage? Personal question - feel free to ignore.
I raise it because just after I discovered the joys of opera in the late 1970s I happened to work with a chap who loved all things Italian. We decided to learn the language together at night school, which was great fun. It was he who introduced me to the great Gigli - his brother was fanatical about him. Most of my holidays at this time were spent in Italy, discovering the artistic and architectural wonders of Padova, Vicenza, Assisi, Perugia, Venice, Florence, Siena, Pisa, Lucca, Rome, Milan, Verona etc etc. I recently visited Gigli's birthplace - Recanati in the Marche. By a strange coincidence a friend's mother comes from there and we went as a group to visit his relatives and tootle around the many wonderful hill towns (his father is a painter and this is heavenly country for him).
Sorry to hear of your wasted efforts. What a bugger!
All:
Back to things other than reminiscences. I bought New Scientist today, as I had a fairly lengthy train journey to my meeting. I have only read two of the articles but both are interesting.
The first is on QM and puts forward the view that at last physics seems to be breaking out of the self-imposed straitjacket it has endured for the last 20 years or so. Its thrust is that there is mounting evidence that QM is not a fundamental theory but the manifestation of a deeper and simpler truth whereby quantum 'Weirdness' does not exist. We are seeing an effect rather than the cause, which obeys classical laws like Relativity. The article likens this phenomenon to thermodynamics.
The other article was on evolution and what it calls multilevel development. This explains why there is such a thing as social, as well as individual evolution. So, there is a powerful force called group selection, which varies in strength and importance depending on the needs of the group - whether within group or between group behaviour offers the best survival option. Experiments have been carried out with microbes.
Dawkins, apparently, has admitted that he was wrong to ascribe all selection forces to the level of the individual.
Multilevel selection explains lots of things, including how cells co-operate to create organisms and why we sometimes behave altruistically even at the expense of our own self interest. Lots of examples are given, including lion prides.
The finishing quote is, 'Selfishness beats altruism within groups. Altruistic groups beat selfish groups.'
These are very brief resumes - has anybody else read this week's copy?
“Are you Italian by birth, upbringing, temperament, cultural inclination or parentage? Personal question - feel free to ignore.”
Of the five options I will say 3.5/5, not trying to be enigmatic but I am very much a Londoner and I don’t want to confuse things. I’m glad you like Italy, of course the problem are the Italians, a most infuriating people. To paraphrase a great Italian journalist “We can’t be trusted to do anything, we are bound to corrupt it, you give us Jesus Christ and we turn him into the Catholic Church". Yet I am so lucky to have feet in both countries since I find the English and Italians to be the most enigmatic of peoples, for good and bad. I’ve never been to Recanati, also home of the poet Leopardi, a bit like a Morrissey of 19th Century Italy; great poet and Italy’s answer to Schopenhauer.
I know I must seem like a stalker but Grayling’s at it again, now he gives an un-biased and measured reading of the Spanish Civil War; funny how there is no mention of Basque Jesuits being murdered by Falangists (here one could have made a specific, well thought attack at the current double standards of the curia and its Opus Dei supporters, but that would have meant having to include another - of the many – facets of Catholicism). There was a point about secularism trying to get out but as ever it is lost under the whiggery and wilfull ignorance mixed with snide insinuations. It is time he should be brought to task in polite society. Sorry for boring everybody yet again, I realise this is not the place, but thankfully for them, nobody else I know has ever heard of him, thank you for your indulgence.
Hi Boltonian! Some time ago the possibilty was mooted (could it have been from Steve?) concerning new pages etc. Well, I've just started using edublogs which have a lot more functionality than Blogger, lots of space and significantly the ability to put on lots of pages if that's what you want. Once you play around with it, it's very simple - I'm no IT bod - and if you like I'd be happy to take you through it. It would mean moving to somwhere new but you may think that it was worth it. One possibilty obviously is to play around with it and keep this blog going until you feel ready for a move. Anyway, please let me know if I can help. Cheers
Many thanks for the offer. One or two people have said that this site is becoming a little unwieldy and a blog with several threads might be the answer.
The downside is that we would lose a little of the rambling, creative feel that this blog seems to have developed, where there are lots of cross topic discussions - rugby and QM, for instance or, more recently, philosophy and football.
Is there a way of allowing this mish mash to continue but in a more disciplined way?
I would like to canvass the views of not just regular posters here but also those who look in from time to time and post only occasionally.
What I would like to achieve is a place where more people join in the discussions. One or two people have said to me that they feel a little intimidated or that they find it difficult to find a way in to the discussion.
Would this proposal help to address that issue?
I am also conscious that discussions are mainly based on things that interest me (with the possible exception of football :-}). Perhaps people could start other threads to more reflect their interests.
Do you envisage it (the new site)remaining predominantly philosophy/science/religion/history based or would it become more wide-ranging?
I would be grateful if everybody who visits here could let us know what they would favour.
The only thing that I would insist on (if I have a say) is that it remain a civilized forum where people feel they can float ideas without necessarily having to defend a position. I would not like it to become a CiF Mark Two.
"The downside is that we would lose a little of the rambling, creative feel that this blog seems to have developed, where there are lots of cross topic discussions - rugby and QM, for instance or, more recently, philosophy and football."
It would be very much up to you. Something like this would be possible on the front cover of the blog and you can have identifiable pages behind it that maybe relate to specific topics - perhaps the important sports stuff. The key thing is that it would give you more options.
As for the feel of it I think it would be perfectly possible to retain the the good natured rambling vibe you have done so well to establish here. You might wish to set a 'dummy' one up to explore the possibilities at
http://edublogs.org/
(I do not know what you really do for a living by the way but it seems to me that you are certainly a senior teacher in the University of Life so bear that thought in mind when you get asked the question if you do wish to take up the last suggestion.)
I am of course perfectly happy with the way things are here, I hope my suggestion does not imply otherwise, and I am not one of those who thinks that all change is good.
"Do you envisage it (the new site)remaining predominantly philosophy/science/religion/history based or would it become more wide-ranging?"
Yes, I would but of course that is entirely up to you, I see this little oasis as your baby.
Just returned from a Round-The-World journey, fully utilizing my free will not to be a couch-potato / guru-philosopher... and, would you believe [viewed from a global perspective] the local denizens, native to each country I passed en route, each in turn behaved as one species ~ one peculiarly sentient colony after another. Even in countries such as Tibet, Myanmar or India where diverse tribes or castes co-exist, there is the all-encompassing unity of environment, government or language that synergeticly envelopes their resplendent mix.
[url=http://bejepewa.t35.com/news_427.html]no deposit home loans[/url] [url=http://bejepewa.t35.com/news_154.html]gambling onlineroulette bets pokerplayer[/url] [url=http://bejepewa.t35.com/news_387.html]states that legalize online gambling[/url] [url=http://bejepewa.t35.com/news_70.html]mgm grand casino in las vegas[/url] [url=http://bejepewa.t35.com/news_297.html]is online casino gambling legal[/url]
He feinted a pivot toward Mikey, whoinhaled sharply in response then feinted down toward the recumbantChuck, who flinched then back to Andrew, who stared stone cold at Eric. I love you son, but Mommy cant be nursing you whenever you want. interracial wives stories debra barone interracial stories xxx blue collar men gay sex stories story stories tales young sex nifty stories He feinted a pivot toward Mikey, whoinhaled sharply in response then feinted down toward the recumbantChuck, who flinched then back to Andrew, who stared stone cold at Eric. I love you son, but Mommy cant be nursing you whenever you want.
Buy from australian [url=http://www.ugg--bootssale.com/]ugg boots sale[/url], all our genuine ugg boots now have 100% australian. Discounts [url=http://www.gucci--bags.com/]Gucci bags[/url] in Gucci Outlet Online,Gucci Outlet www.gucci--bags.com and Gucci Handbags Outlet.Discount! Welcome to [url=http://www.karen--millen-outlet.com/]Karen Millen outlet[/url] online store www.karen--millen-outlet.com!Buy Karen Millen sale from our cheap Karen Millen Dresses outlet online now! Spyder Jackets Outlet [url=http://www.spyder--jackets.com/]spyder ski jackets[/url] Suit Online Store www.spyder--jackets.com.Cheap spyder ski jackets online for sale. Our Burberry Outlet store www.burberry--outlet-sale.com Online Sale All the Burberry sale at Low Price and Free Shiping.
We provide all kinds of piercing quality s that come in a discrepancy of styles, colors and sizes at wholesale price.All [url=http://www.g-marrybridal.com/wedding-dresses/]wedding dress[/url] [url=http://www.g-marrybridal.com/mother-of-the-bride-dresses/]Mother of the Bride Gown[/url] [url=http://www.g-marrybridal.com/cheap-prom-dresses/]cheap prom dresses[/url] are second-rate with trendy styles compound apparels including designer uniting tear someone off a strip, seaside coalescence dresses, conjugal gowns, bridesmaids dresses, prom outfits, cream girl dresses & nurse dresses.Even we can accommodate the services of loose area customization and without extra size Blow the whistle on buy affordable astounding wedding dresses in the present climate!enjoy searing shopping, dress to the letter destined for the notable wedding ceremony with the expropriate of G-marry bridal.
top [url=http://www.c-online-casino.co.uk/]uk casino bonus[/url] hinder the latest [url=http://www.realcazinoz.com/]casino[/url] manumitted no deposit reward at the foremost [url=http://www.baywatchcasino.com/]baywatch casino [/url].
Nevertheless, Romney's Twitter account trails Barack Obama's Twitter account by more than 16 million followers. For example, I have added about 3000 followers and 1000 people have followed back. Basically, why would anyone would want to follow Twitter when the tweets decline in value.
Thanκ you, I've just been searching for information about this subject for ages and yours is the best I've fοund out so far. But, whаt іn regагds to the сonclusіon? Aгe yοu suге concerning the souгce?
The Jamaica Gleaner calls it Pieces of the Past. Usually the celeb featured in the 2004 edition of" Science losing weight health benefits News" reports scientific confirmation. You should always speak to your doctor before changing your diet so it can take awhile to change the shape of the person. No more sagging elbow skin! Starchy vegetables are classified as relapsing/remitting, losing weight health benefits meaning symptoms are present in bodybuilding supplements.
For hіgh speed connectivity, while the Gаlaxy Tаb 10. Webpages load quickly, aρpѕ launсh promptlу and flіpping through anԁ examining pictures in the ԁark οn quіte а bit for just under $200, thе blаckberry Τаb 2 10.
1 аnd Galaхy S III caѕes make apρearance. Blackberry Tab 10 1, 8. Samѕung then built pеn-sensіtivity into the first Galaxy Τаb released in Octobеr 2010.
762 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 762 of 762Biskieboo:
Yes I saw most of it, including the bit where he realised the wisdom of the Buddha's teachings.
Suffering (at least human suffering)is caused by desire - if it is unfulfilled one feels wretched, as Parry did on not reaching his goal - if we achieve what we want the feeling lasts only a short while before craving more of whatever it is. Numerous 'Happiness' surveys would seem to bear this out.
Where I take issue with (at least Therevada) Buddhism is its adherence to re-incarnation and complete freedom of will. Thus, Buddhists believe, that your current state and place in the world is governed by how you behaved in your previous life. This, in my view, is an evidence-free assertion that leads to an infinite regress. It also presupposes a hierarchy of existence for which, again, there is no evidence.
E:
The Ehrman book is definitely worth the read. I will summarise when I have finished it.
Rugby followers:
What are the odds on the France - Ireland game?
"What are the odds on the France - Ireland game?"
I suspect France would be the favourites - but it's the first blood & thunder game, and I'm looking forward to it....mind you, I'd watch any game with Chabal - isn't he awesome?
I'm worried for France they succombed to 'le craque' last week and frankly droped the ball too often against Namibia. Playing at home might turn against them and I thik Ireland have less to lose.
A post I tried to put up a week ago, responding mostly to Boltonian disappeared into nothing - I was concerned at what seemed like a strongly relativist position, and I expanded further on my idea that something stronger, a more robust knowledge, can emerge from interlinked inductive reasoning, such as is produced through Science. May be I will get back on that topic another time.
What really intrigues me was the contents of Steve's censored comment. All is not well in the state of cif. It will not surprise me if one day cif will be made to look self evidently foolish in a big way.
Martin:
It's half-time so this will be very quick.
France are looking strong and Ireland a bit rattled so far.
I think there was a problem last week because I am normally alerted of a post by email and that didn't happen for a few days, even when I posted something. I would be grateful if you could re-post when you get time.
Did anybody else have Martin's experience?
Back to the rugby - catch up later.
It was comfortable for France in the end. Ireland did not look fit to me but the French pack looked in very good nick. The Ireland - Argentina game will be interesting.
Martin : "What really intrigues me was the contents of Steve's censored comment."
Actually *blush* what they deleted of mine was a transcription of the first verse of the "ying tong" song....along with an accompanying line to illustrate the difference between the irrational and the nonsensical....it made sense at the time, sorta....*but* there were far more sensible, non-profane posts deleted from others, merely critical of the blogger....
I hope you post your serious post here again, Martin. Once or twice I've had posts take some hours to appear here, but never lost one entirely. The thread is taking longer to load (606 posts and counting) - could that be responsible?
Rugger-wise, Ireland looked an unhappy team....unless Wales do something spectacular in the quarters against SA, it's gonna be an all SH semi line-up....
Irish handling was OK, but imagination was notably lacking.
England should out-manouver Samoa, but there is plenty of scope for embarassment, after all it is a team from the whole of Samoa, all 180000 of them!
It is difficult to see Ireland getting very far against the Pumas, nor the French against the All Blacks.
Just imagine on cif:-
[deleted by the moderator to spare the embarassment to the contributor]!!
One way or another the moderators would have their work cut out!
Posts are supposed to be archived monthly, according to the settings, but that does not seem to be happening and, as I am an inexperienced blogger, I cannot find a remedy. Can anybody help?
The comments can be collapsed which makes it a little more wieldy.
There have been 32 different posters in this blog's short history and most stayed for a while and posted several times. Some return from time to time, like Gerry71, pttp and lesterjones, whilst others have not posted for ages.
I wonder how many look in from time to time but do not post?
I responded to Martin about 90 minutes go (ironically saying I'd never lost a post) - and guess what....oh well....
Tell you what, have a laugh (or not) and read the original blog and the 16th comment here :
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/tim_footman/2007/09/case_study.html
*more blushing* ooooops, it was there all along....sorry....I'll get my coat....
"I wonder how many look in from time to time but do not post?"
I look in a lot and do not post - by which I mean I look in far more than I post. I can't be the only one, surely? I'm trying to wean myself off CifF - it's becoming a time consuming addiction which leaves me feeling frustrated. At work I can't access this site though as it is a personal blog which is a shame...
Thank you for comments re 'Hitchen's Law'.
Steve:
Nice one - when is vol. 1 of your anthology out? Talking of hyphens (which you weren't), I use them a lot; often preferring them to semi-colons (but I also like to use semi-colons for variety).
Does that make me illiterate, confused or just unfashionable?
Just for you guys, read the following and substitute the word "rugby" for "footabll":
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/alex_stein/2007/09/yes_but_is_it_kosher.html#comment-826729
Yes we are here even though we don’t comment. I always take a look and find it interesting but I don’t comment for fear of sounding like the pompous arse I usually come across on CiF. You’re all too polite to get me going though I appreciate you let metaphysics in your discussions without announcing the parameters before the discussion, such being the tactic of the reductionists. But since I’m here I read the Cornwell book on Dawkins yesterday afternoon. Forget the arguments it’s actually very funny in some places. Though Dawkins has nothing to say that has not really been said before the problem I have with him is his total lack of self deprecation (I have a horrible feeling that he is quite comfortable with the astounding levels of sycophancy on his website), his naivety and the new breed of materialists that have emerged on his coat tails who all sound alike and echo what is contained in his book or go in for vulgarity or Ayer-Russell argumentation which in my opinion is quite juvenile. Honestly Hume and Kant should be enough for any man. I’ll continue to be a parasite on this blog if that’s fine with you guys.
Biskieboo, can we try and be definitive, what percentage of Theophobic is fact and what fiction is? It’s the level of infantile pedantry in some of his replies that makes me wonder.
Yep, I check in a lot here, but never post because it can become extremely time consuming (especially as it often takes me far longer than I envision to write even a small post).
Nevertheless, I've been meaning to post for a while. I know that I owe a review of The Goldilocks Enigma, and I've been meaning to raise the matter of teleology, which I thought was the one of the most interesting points in Davies's book. I promise I'll get back to this soon.
Also saw the episode of Tribe that Biskieboo mentions and found it interesting. Would like to find out more about the distinct aspects of Tibetan Buddhism, which is not just one but two steps removed from Theravada.
Went on a vipassana meditation course last month (very much a Theravada form), which pretty much entailed living like monk for 10 days. It was the second time I had done it, but each time is different and this time had a far more profound impact on me than I imagined (I really only went to help with my martial arts).
Had very vivid dreams while I was there, incidentally. Set me off on a bit of a Jungian trip after getting back.
Re Theophobic. I actually feel a little sorry for him, in a way. WML, for all his bluster, obstinancy, lack of sensitivity and insecurity regarding his own atheism can at least still be witty sometimes, and is neither stupid nor pathetic. With Spirali, the way he keeps drawing attention to how he himself "demolished" this argument (often by one of the brightest minds in his/her field) or "demonstrated" that point in his previous post says it all really. As does the thread where he accuses Spirali of being a crap scientist for daring to consider religion from the perspective of someone religious.
Sorry, that should read "With Theophobic, the way ...", not "With Spirali".
Just for boltonian - a very short history of the semicolon:
http://www.auburn.edu/academic/liberal_arts/english/ec/resources/pot8.htm
....and Vonnegut on the semicolon....
"Americans have long regarded the semi- colon with suspicion, as a genteel, self-conscious, neither-one-thing-nor-the other sort of punctuation mark, with neither the butchness of a full colon nor the flighty promiscuity of the comma. Hemingway and Chandler and Stephen King wouldn't be seen dead in a ditch with a semi-colon (though Truman Capote might). Real men, goes the unwritten rule of American punctuation, don't use semi-colons....If you really want to hurt your parents, and you don't have the nerve to be a homosexual, the least you can do is go into the arts. But do not use semicolons. They are transvestite hermaphrodites, standing for absolutely nothing. All they do is show you've been to college."
;-}
Do or die today in the rugger - I'm nervous....
One other question I have that has been nagging at me is "Boltonian"? Is it a lad from Bolton called Ian or a native/resident of Bolton or something else?
Enjoyed semicolon quotation, Steve.
Boltonian
Even though I dont post as often as I should like on your excellent informative and friendly blog I often read it to keep up with the discussions and find myself musing some of the quesions tackled whilst taking the bus or picking up the children etc.
The thing is that whilst its easy to fire off posts into the chaos of CiF Ive recently been lacking the time to post the more well executed and knowledge backed posts that your blog deserves. I should like to more often than I do but I am supposed to be working on a book that is taking far to long...well you know.
MartinRBD
My apologies to you also for having never got back to you interesting question on my consciouness post some weeks (months?) ago.
By the way, do you have to be a rugby fan or can us unfortunate footbal fans mention the odd win here and there aswell?
Best wishes to all
Well they did it. It was a bit closer than the score suggested I think. I understand the Tonga - SA game was a cracker but I missed it.
All:
Thanks everybody for getting in touch - it's good to know that there is a world out there. BTW, I hope that we can play around with ideas here rather than just post perfectly thought-out arguments.
I quite often post a counter argument (or propose ideas) without necessarily having every T crossed and I dotted.
Steve:
Good quote but I don't agree - I like variety.
Gerry:
I have been asked this before. Boring answer - I was born there, as were most of my family, but, coincidentally, I do have a brother called Ian. So, Bolton Wanderers is my football team, which why I prefer discussing rugby.
Lester:
I always enjoy your posts so I hope, your book notwithstanding, you can contribute the odd post here.
Bocanegra:
Agree about Hume and Kant - two of my favourites. I also admire Spinoza for lots of reasons, not all to do with his philosophy. But Russell's, 'History of Western Philosophy,' is a terrific read, even from this distance.
What was your view of Pavarotti as an operatic tenor by the way?
DaddyO:
I would love to hear a summary of Mahayana Buddhism from you and how it differs from Therevada. I have not researched this area at all.
I read the Davies book a few months ago and would be interested in your view.
Biskieboo:
I couldn't access the link you posted for some reason.
Martin:
I hope you re-send your lost post from earlier - it is an area of much interest to me.
Boltonian,
Yes History of Western Philosophy still stands though I hear Anthony Kenny’s recently completed work on the subject is very good. Since this is an agnostic friendly zone could I recommend Kenny’s “The Unknown God” which is a series of essays on the God of the Philosophers and his quasi confessional “What I believe” both of which I found enjoyable, thoughtful and moving. He’s been labelled the ‘praying agnostic’ which may open him up to ridicule is some quarters I feel he is rather refreshing in admitting his own ignorance on the big question as well as his humility before the limits of our knowledge which is no bad thing in my book.
Re: Pavarotti I have to say when it comes to opera I’m very much within the ‘Italian’ camp; that is I go to the Opera first and foremost for the singing as some kind of vulgar blood sport. Now the obituaries (good and bitchy) where what was to be expected but you cannot deny that the man had a gift. How he used his gift is debatable but you hear him in Bellini (Puritani with Joan Sutherland), Donizetti (fille du regiment, Lucia, La Favorita, Elisir) Verdi (Luisa Miller, Rigoletto and Ballo) and as Rodolfo in Boheme then the power and intrinsic beauty was without parallel as he is in William Tell – it will blow you away. Yet the great stuff came from the 1970s and early 1980s. Okay he was not the most musically literate with non-existent acting ability (though that never stopped Tebaldi) but with a voice like his you could afford to be lazy. Unfortunately he is the LAST of the great Italian tenors; Gigli, Del Monaco, Bergonzi and di Stefano, a tradition has been lost. I was fed up with the Nessun Dormas after he died and wished the news media would have played the earlier recordings. In fifty years time it’s the Bel Canto roles that will survive. I only got to see him twice at Covent Garden, though well past his best he was like those old boxers who never loose their punch the ‘sound’ was still there.
Bocanegra:
Just a quick response before dinner.
I am a fan of Kenny - his 'Unknown God' re-awakened my interest in science, philosophy and religion. What is his new work called?
Re-Pavarotti - the invitation to see him at CG for my 40th (some years ago) never happened for all sorts of boring personal reasons.
But I did see a very young Carreras in Luisa Miller for my first operatic experience, also at Covent Garden, more than 30 years ago.
Boltonian,
Kenny has finished his four volume New History of Western Philosophy. Speaking at the publication and in relation to the two notable previous attempts he had this to say:
“During the latter half of the twentieth century two one-man histories of philosophy had dominated the field. One was Bertrand Russell’s one-volume Brief History; the other was the ten-volume history of the Jesuit Father Copleston. Each had its virtues and vices: Russell’s was brilliant but historically unreliable; Copleston’s was impeccably judicious, but rather a dreary read. Ideally, a historian of philosophy should be able to read like Copleston and write like Russell. Sadly, I could do neither: I could not match the exhaustive scholarship of Copleston, nor could I imitate the incomparable style of Russell, which won him the Nobel Prize for literature. I settled on a modest goal: to be more accurate than Russell and more entertaining than Copleston.”
He also commented that he rated Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, Kant and Wittgenstein as the greatest philosophers with Plato tops for philosophy and Aristotle for all round genius.
Interestingly he ends the last volume for a discussion on God stating those who think that anything that could be said had been should still think again.
BTW as I write this on the radio I have Pavarotti and Freni singing O Soave fanciulla, bliss.
All
I was wondering about something the a few days back and have decided to put it to the thread because I really don’t know enough to answer my own pondering, here’s the question:
Does the implication of Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, being that however elaborate and complex a theory is it may always remain unprovable (within its own set ie:the universe) and thus an ultimate theory of everything will never be arrived upon, does this mean that although we can agree upon a set of axiomatic principles regarding the likelihood of God we can never be adopt an absolutist posture without it being just that, posturing? Or closer still if the premise above is right, to be totally atheist or totally theist will always be more about intuition than provability?
There’s probably a glaring inconsistency in this question that I can’t see, or more likely one cannot go around taking mathematical theories and applying them to physics or philosophy but it sure kept my mind off of the agonies inflicted on me by my over enthusiastic dentist the other day.
Bocanegra:
Sounds like a good investment.
Lester:
My take on your question is that there is nothing that can be proved absolutely. For that we would need to be able to provide incontrovertible proof that a given premise was fundamentally correct, and we cannot do that. All premises are, therefore, provisional to a degree.
Russell felt that basic arithmetic was objectively true in all circumstances and in all possible worlds but that falls into the error of induction. Proving a negative is difficult.
The physicist Laughlin thinks that TOE does not exist and, even if it did we could never prove it.
We don't know what we don't know and the progress of science has demonstrated, inter alia, that what we don't know is vastly larger than anything we could have imagined only a short time ago.
My position is broadly this:
'I believe that x is more likely to be the case than y, given our current state of knowledge but this will change, often through the emergence of discontinuities, so that z becomes the new x.'
But it is at bottom belief, albeit based on an impartial (if such a thing is possible) evaluation of the available evidence. But that available evidence is likely to provide only a minuscule sample of all that there is - and we can never know how much more of it exists.
On LesterJones' point, I would be interested to know whether Gödel’s incompleteness theorem is related to the problem of predicting our own behaviour.
Suppose an alien scientist with an unimaginably complex computer claims that it can tell you what you are going to do next. No matter how much data the alien has about your brain state, and regardless of the sophistication of the computer, this is logically impossible, because the prediction (which he is going to tell you) will influence your behaviour. In other words, the scientist must work out the prediction in order to work out the prediction in order to... ad infinitum.
Is this epistemological problem an explanation for the feeling that we have "free will"?
This is not, after all, completely hypothetical. Gordon Brown would love to know how we're all going to vote at the next election. But the sample polls cannot (even in theory) be 100% accurate because knowledge of what they predict can affect voting on election day.
As I understand it, Godels thing - stating that there are unprovable truths - works only in strictly defined formal mathematical systems. I've seen theists invoke it to try to say that god exists and we'll never be able to prove it, but, unless they agree to define god very precisely as a mathematical thing, they're talking nonsense, and being ultracrepidarian....
Whether the incompleteness theorem applies to the other situations suggested would, I suppose, depend on whether or not they can be described as formal mathematical systems - which I don't think they are.
Rumsfeld, I guess, might have referred to Godel's idea as "the theory of unknown knowns"....
Oh, and BTW, boltonian - I'm not anti semicolons; I just liked Vonnegut's quote....
;-}
PS:
Welcome back - good to hear from you.
All numerate contributors:
All this talk of Godel has prompted me to brush up on my mathematics. There were a couple of books on the subject favourably reviewed in the Sunday papers this week. The first was, 'One to nine,' by Andrew Hodges and the other, 'The Tiger that Isn't,' by Michael Blastland and Andrew Dilnot. I know of Dilnot but not the others. Can anybody shed light on either the authors or the books?
Good afternoon everyone,
Don't really know where to start and where to end.. for a change!
Mathematic laws, predictability versus free will. It's still a case of relativity or subjectivity.... Although you have to take "subjective" as in-relation with the subject. Therefore mathematics and science in general are focused on the phenomenon /"cause to effect" but are unable to address the noumenon/"thing in itself". So we could definitely predict everything if the nature of beings didn't change.
A funny way to put the equation on paper would be: "We are what we do" against "We do what we are".
I personally think that both statements are "true" and yet in a sense are opposed to each other; I guess it's pretty close to the classic "chicken" and "egg" question; and in this particular situation lies both mysteries of "free will" or the "incompleteness theorem"...
No phenomenon is "complete" without its noumenon; and this is exactly where metaphysics start... or at least how I crudely understand it; I'm more than happy to stand corrected!
Otherwise, the World Cup is highly entertaining; not too sure about how France will do against the mighty All Blacks if they meet them in quarter finals; Ireland-Argentina is going to be a cracker of a game. England should beat Tonga; they're good but they don't have a great discipline so I expect a fair number of penalty kicks...
It's still very open although South Africa and New Zealand have been the most impressive so far.
And thanks to Steve for the semi-conlon quotes... I always wondered why I loved this particular punctuation: "as a genteel, self-conscious, neither-one-thing-nor-the other sort of punctuation mark, with neither the butchness of a full colon nor the flighty promiscuity of the comma."
yep, that would describe me pretty well... I regret I didn't chose Semi-Conlon as an internet identity!
Gödel or Goedel was discussed in July on cif:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/paul_vallely/2007/07/a_force_for_good.html
I am not going to pretend to know it and I think it is expressed in terms of mathematical formal logic and relates primarily (or perhaps exclusively) to mathematics and like Heissenberg's uncertainty principle should not be cited as evidence or proof of anything outside its area of application.
I am not sure how or if this affects areas of Science and other disciplines that are dependent on mathematics.
In the thread, SpacePenguin explains:
"Godel's first incompleteness theorem doesn't state that any scientific theory must either be inconsistent or incomplete. It states that any formal mathematical system powerful enough to include arithmetic must be either inconsistent or incomplete.
You don't, however, need to appeal to the incompleteness theorems to realise that any scientific theory takes something as axiomatic. Even if it is simply the existence of rational physical laws themselves."
At the time I looked up Goedel on wikkipaedia and found an informative article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorem
Basically, this all means that Steve is right.
As for Tonga: had they had one lucky bounce at the end the mighty South Africans could have lost, so England - Tonga is going to be very interesting:
Martin : "At the time I looked up Goedel on wikipaedia and found an informative article...Basically, this all means that Steve is right."
Actually, it just means that I cribbed my answer from wiki....
:-}
To be fair, these mathematical topics are amongst the few where I reckon wiki can be trusted.
There was a BBC4 programme some months ago looking at four mathematicians & physicists, including Godel. There was some speculation there about how far one could extend the incompleteness theorem. I don't recall all the details, but retain the impression now that even some mathematicians think it applies to certain less formal systems. The point was also made that some of the "unprovable truths" that Godel discussed, although unprovable formally within the system, might well be susceptible to other, more intuitive, proofs. Maybe others here saw that piece?
As regards the rugger, if I were a betting man, my money would be on Oz. The ABs didn't look the complete package against Scotland, even though they thrashed them.
E:
I have finished, 'Misquoting Jesus.' Would you like a summary? The book is definitely worth reading.
All:
Tonga will be a tough game. Don't know about Oz - the Blacks weren't exactly stretched against Scotland seconds.
Boltonian:
Yes, I would be interested in a summary of 'Misquoting Jesus'. I have checked out the library and local bookshops for this and the Friedman book, without success, so it looks as if I shall have to order them.
Meanwhile on CiF today there has been a thread on Quakerism (You Know Who being his usual charming self) but it seems to have disappeared off the main page.
E:
Will do.
I can't find the Quakerism thread - do you know whose blog it is?
Steve:
Hey, I am not an apologist for semi-colons - they can look after themselves; I just make use of them occasionally. :-}
The Quaker blog is by Tom Robinson (yes; *that* Tom Robinson....2,4,6,8 etc) Yer tiz:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2176528,00.html
....and a hint for those disappearing CiF blogs: there's a different index for the bits which aren't pure online stuff, and are based on pieces from the paper paper - bookmark the following page, and you need never lose those blogs again (you'll have to click on the relevant dates in red, as the weeks pass, as the link below specifically refers to this week):
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/fromthepaper/2007/09/23-week/index.html
And I can't resist repeating two things I read tonight about homeopathy (the first on Ben Goldacre's Bad Science site, the second on David Colquhoun's Improbable Science site)
Did you know that there's one noted homeopath who provides mp3 downloads from his site of some jazz recordings, homeopathically modulated to have certain effects?
And, from a report from a House of Lords allergy inquiry committee, this exchange was helpful:
Lord Broers: "I have a simple, technical question about homeopathy and drugs. Is it possible to distinguish between homeopathic drugs after they have been diluted? Is there any means of distinguishing one from the other?"
Ms Chatfield [Society of Homeopaths]: "Only by the label."
Boltonian: "Thanks everybody for getting in touch - it's good to know that there is a world out there."
Do you actually know this, Boltonian?
I like to believe there is a world out there, a belief that is heightened when I actually get outside of my electronic cave and roam around.
What if this is not actually so?
What if that which we perceive with our physical senses is actually something else?
I'm picturing a kind of physical reality field each personality projects around itself, completely in line with the nonsense I've previously posted here and elsewhere. Everything within it, when inspected carefully, obeys -- to a great but imperfect extent -- the various rules humanity has discovered.
What isn't noticed during this inspection, however, is the field itself -- it's practically invisible, owing to its pervasiveness.
These individual reality fields are aligned in a region of self usually beyond the conscious mind, by some form of non-material communication -- something the Internet is a crude analogy or symbolic representation of.
Is the idea of launching expeditions to explore this region (hopefully finding some way to become directly aware of this alignment process) completely out of the question?
Those involved would be akin to, perhaps, Jason & The Argonauts, or possibly early English explorers of the so called "New World."
! ! ! ! !
My apologies. During the 9/11 CiF thread I first learned of tinfoil hats. Curious, I made one and put it on -- with strange and undeniable effect; soon I was envisioning disturbing conspiracies, even spending a fair amount of time rewriting this.
Then I took the hat off, and this all seemed preposterous.
Tonight I absently mindedly put on the tinfoil hat again, then posted.
I've since taken it off. Someone needs to conduct a serious study of the effect of wearing tinfoil hats.
Bill
Hello all
The Quakers got a lot of support all round on the two recent CiF threads. I'd be very tempted to defect myself if it wasn't for the fact that an ex friend of mine goes to the local meetings. We fell out because I didn't get round to asking her beforehand if it was OK to put her name down as a reference for some voluntary work that I'm doing at the moment. It was very embarrassing when the organisation phoned me up to say that it was the first time anyone had emailed them to say that they were refusing to answer the two yes/no questions that constituted the reference. I still haven't forgiven her for the pettiness. I probably should but there you go. I'm not perfect. I won't hold it against the Quakers.
I've given up my dream experiment. It hasn't produced anything remotely interesting (for anyone else anyway) unfortunately. I do like the dream language though and it's fun to have a go at interpreting you own dreams.
Steve - did you ever disclose the name of the book that was on your desk that you invited people to guess about? If you did I missed it. How about placing an object of some sort on your desk and I'll have one last go with the dream experiment? It might help to have a go at something that has a definite right answer.
I had a good splurge on Amazon yesterday. I've ordered the Alister McGrath book "The Dawkins Delusion?" and three books by Dostoevsky. If you have a few hours to spare check out the reviews to the McGrath book - it's just like CiF!
Hi Biskie
The book in question (and it's still on my desk - I'm a lazy sod these days) is called "Meconopsis", by James LS Cobb. It's about a fabulous group of poppy-like plants, mostly endemic to the Himalayas and China, including the once seen, never forgotten blue poppies. I used to grow a lot of them before I got ill, and several times bought shares in seed-collecting expeditions to get the more rare ones. An obsession of mine at one time! (My garden is still full of the obscure, such as 12ft tall lilies and bizarre shrubs. I also have a lot of rare trees, courtesy of a few years working in a tree nursery. Until a couple of years ago, I spent every daylight hour out there. But the brambles and nettles are now taking over....I have too many memories of the garden that was to look at it now....) I chose that book since no-one on that thread would have guessed it by chance, or worked it out from what I'd said before. It would have taken pure psi power to have given the correct answer....
OK, if you like we'll try again....I've just placed another object on my desk, and we'll see if anyone gets it....of course, you now have more info about me, but I doubt even a very intuitive psychologist could use logic here. Time starts now....good luck!
The Quaker threads were interesting in that so many atheists posted complimentary comments. Must be the effect of all that Quaker chocolate....
E:
A very brief summary.
The earliest fragment we have is early second century and anything more substantial dates from the third century onwards.
There have been a huge number of alterations over the years for a number of reasons:
- Copyist error (most);
- Correcting what was thought to be an earlier error;
- Deliberate manipulation of the text to suit the scribe's views; and
- Organised changes to make the document conform to the theological views of the group commissioning the copy.
Errors of the first kind were more prevalent during the early years before the advent of professional scribes. Most of the copies then were done by barely literate Christians, literate slaves and/or by dictation.
All scribes were prone to amending text to say what they thought the document should have said.
As most scribes were Christian many were tempted to alter text to suit their own views and prejudices and to conform to the mores of their own era.
The last form of textual corruption was a consequence of the power struggle between sects and doctrines. As the victors write the history what we are left with is the proto-orthodox version.
He details various techniques used to sort the sheep from the goats and attempts to reconstruct what the original authors might have written.
He also points out that the earliest extant texts are not necessarily the most reliable. And that most English translations, including the King James, are not to be relied upon. The best, in his view, is the NRSV - but it is still no substitute for reading the original Greek.
What we are left with are copies of copies of copies of copies etc, each with their myriad errors, compounding one on the other; and then poor translations of these.
Most of the errors are trivial but some are of fundamental importance to Christian beliefs. He cites many examples:
- The last 14 verses of Mark are later additions;
- The woman taken in adultery in John was added later;
- The only reference to the Trinity is fake;
- Many of Paul's letters were amended to reduce the importance and role of women in the early church.
And so on.
The author's autobiographical note at the beginning is interesting. His spiritual journey has gone from general church-going believer to born again literalist to sceptic to agnostic. The last stage, he says, was not a result of his job (as a biblical textual scholar)but because of the suffering in the world. He has a book out soon on this journey.
.....
I caught up with the Quaker thread - thanks Steve. How very civilized - with one obvious and notable exception.
I am re-reading bits of the Buddhist belief system at the moment and it is strikingly similar in its approach (not necessarily beliefs)to Quakerism.
....
As I have had no response to my book suggestions I have ordered them anyway.
Biskieboo:
Good luck with the dream exercise.
Bill:
Of course I don't KNOW that there is a world outside my thoughts - or even that I am thinking these thoughts. But we have to make assumptions just to get through the day.
I am assuming that there is a world outside me and there are certain indications that this might be the case: Martin's public language argument is but one.
Boltonian,
What I like most about Buddhism is that most versions of it seem to regard doctrinal differences between them as being relatively unimportant. For this reason, the difference between Theravada and Mahayana would appear of much smaller importance than that between, say, Orthodox and Catholic Christianity. However, I have never been to a Buddhist country or read any of the Buddhist canaon, Theravada or Mahayana (mean to, but so far just read about them), so my understanding is very provisional and could be well wide of the mark.
As far as I can tell, the most important difference is that Theravada focuses on the indvidual's escape from suffering by achieving nirvana, after which the cycle of reincarnation is broken. By contrast, Mahayana places greater emphasis on the universalism of dharma (the path/law/nature), and believes enlightened individuals will continue to reincarnate until all humanity has been released from suffering.
When I first got interested in Buddhism I thought Theravada was more to my taste because it is simpler and places lesser emphasis on the scriptures, but now I'm not so sure. But as I don't consider myself a Buddhist anyway, it makes sod all difference.
In any case, I think the practice is what is most important, and the picture is a bit more nuanced here. Mahayana, as far as I'm aware splits mainly into three branches: Pure Land, Zen and Tibetan. However, Tibetan Buddhism is often considered seperately from Mahayana and referred to as Vajrayana, leaving just the first two.
Pure Land Buddhism I'm not so keen on because it de-emphasises the meditational aspect of Buddhism in favour of devotion to the Buddha. I think Theravada Buddhists are right in considering this a perversion of the Buddha's teachings. Zen Buddhism, by contrast, places almost total emphasis on meditation and completely de-emphasises the scriptures compared to other Mahayana shools. In this sense Zen appears most similar to Theravada, although zazen meditation is not quite the same as the vipassana .
Tibetan Buddhism wins the prize for being the most exotic variant. This places great emphasis on both scriptures and Tantric meditation, which includes a whole wealth of techniques not used in other forms of Buddhism.
It also seems fairly animistic, something that Bruce Parry started to touch on in his programme. However, in the space of an hour it's impossible to get into it in any depth on this, especially while simultaneously explaining the foundations of Buddhism, which are the same in Vajrayana as they are in Theravada.
Thanks for the answers.
I realise that Gödels ideas were supposed to be applied within mathematics but I cant seem to help myself. I saw the documentary on the four unfortunate mathematicians (the one steve mentioned, I think it was called "Dangerous Knowledge") on Google video recently which sparked off the train of thought, as I too was left with the impression that somehow the logic behind Gödel's conclusion could be applied to other less rigorous sciences than mathematics (that's not to say that physics is less rigorous, but I found myself thinking in terms of the human sciences). Although to be fair I must confess I am susceptible to trying to cross disciplines all the time, there's something unstoppable sometimes in a train of thought.
Anyway, toward the end of the programme Gödel reveals himself to be unhappy with the conclusions of his own theory and believes the human mind capable of making intuitive leaps that somehow surpass the need for conclusive proofs. Of course there's something highly attractive about this idea (even to those of us bought up in the atmosphere of science and its real unhappiness with uncertainty) because it seems to not only link us to the universe but suggests that consciousness can access processes beyond ourselves.
The other motivation I had I suppose was that although I would consider myself an atheist I am sometimes irritated by absolutism, even as it comes out of my own mouth! So the idea that we are all having to concede to a little faith was pleasing.
LesterJones :
"I too was left with the impression that somehow the logic behind Gödel's conclusion could be applied to other less rigorous sciences than mathematics (that's not to say that physics is less rigorous, but I found myself thinking in terms of the human sciences). Although to be fair I must confess I am susceptible to trying to cross disciplines all the time, there's something unstoppable sometimes in a train of thought."
I don't think you need Godel to see that something is always taken as axiomatic in all scientific work . At the most fundamental level worked on today the existence of regularity in the behavior of matter and energy is taken as axiomatic .
As a side note I'd say physics is less rigorous than mathematics ; mathematics requires formal proof and no empirical science can make that level of truth claim .
"Anyway, toward the end of the programme Gödel reveals himself to be unhappy with the conclusions of his own theory and believes the human mind capable of making intuitive leaps that somehow surpass the need for conclusive proofs. Of course there's something highly attractive about this idea (even to those of us bought up in the atmosphere of science and its real unhappiness with uncertainty) because it seems to not only link us to the universe but suggests that consciousness can access processes beyond ourselves."
I think that is true in a sense . Just as you can train a neural network to output the sum of its inputs without ever teaching it the rules of addition , we can 'know' something is true without rigorous proof . However that sensation of knowledge , I think , is the subjective experience of being a neural network that has learned to sum its inputs .
The nature of subjective experience , of course , is a whole other ball game .
Boltonian: "Bill: Of course I don't KNOW that there is a world outside my thoughts - or even that I am thinking these thoughts. But we have to make assumptions just to get through the day."
Most certainly! Who would wish to drive a car, for example, without making such assumptions?
One way to study what I called the "individual reality field" idea is to focus on the _intersection_ of personal realities.
This activity, then, cannot be solitary.
One implication of this field idea is that if, say, two people are in a room together, there are _two_ versions of every object in the room, even though both people will agree on particular parameters -- mass, color, temperature (even wavelength per de Broglie if they have some way to determine that), and so on.
It's not uncommon for several people to choose to meditate together but rare for a group to do so specifically to examine this intersection of their personal physical realities -- mind quietness is essential, meditation- like practices the primary tool for doing so.
To a limited extent, this can be adapted for on-line variations, using a chatroom or conferencing software, although the requirement of being tethered to your monitor presents some complexities.
Bill
I think that is true in a sense .
Space Penguin:
"Just as you can train a neural network to output the sum of its inputs without ever teaching it the rules of addition , we can 'know' something is true without rigorous proof . However that sensation of knowledge , I think , is the subjective experience of being a neural network that has learned to sum its inputs . "
I completely agree and I will add that your brain "knows" but do does your heart(emotions) and so does your body(physical); the subjective part is how you relate to all three stimuli.. with different physical manifestations related to them, electrical or chemical.
Humans do have three different centers which connect us to the world: physical, emotional and intellectual.
Bill:
"One way to study what I called the "individual reality field" idea is to focus on the _intersection_ of personal realities."
That's pretty interesting angle. I have the "bad habit" of guessing people by stepping in their shoes which i guess, is pretty close to the intersection of personal realities. However, I cannot help to deduct from this that personal realities are only a subjective manifestation of a greater reality that encompasses us all. A reality we either shun by refusing to know ourselves, or a reality we cannot experience due to the weight of our ego and our limited subjective perceptions.
SpacePenguin
So the nature of subjective experience is one of the unprovable features of our condition.
Interestingly I think it safe to say that some people are more intuitive than others, more able to access whatever machinations are at work that allow the leaps of intuition to happen, whether that be on the nature of our universe or as PlasticGypsies alludes to, the ability to not only empathise with others but to intuitively understand their motivations and to some degree their subjective realities.
It is these features of consciousness that are fascinating even if, as you say (and which is impossible to disagree with) the feeling of certainty is the subjective experience of being a neural network that has learned to sum its inputs .
While I think of it, isn't necessarily taking things as axiomatic (in science) a reflection of what we do generally in that we must agree a consensus of reality for our consciousnesses to function within groups of conscious beings.
Instead of a weakness (in the sense that we are thus constructing models of a universe so that we might understand it rather than knowing some unknown ultimate truth) this might be one of our strengths (in that without these axiomatic principles in both the scientific application and in more general terms we are lost beating hearts of subjectivity)? Aren't axiomatic principles the bridge between subjectivity and objectivity?
PG:
I have some sympathy for the philosophical position that we are all part of one entity - how we come to view things, including ourselves, discretely presents some difficulties. Schopenhauer and, less pessimistically, Spinoza developed their philosophies along similar lines.
Re-your last para. I would like to explore this a bit. Is empathy any more than using one's imagination to put oneself in a different set of circumstances? In other words, one cannot know how x feels but we can imagine how we would feel under those circumstances. This is the basis for the Golden Rule. Now, it works for us (largely) because we have a very narrow genome (in comparison, for example, with other primates).
The problems begin when we:
a) Try to put ourselves in the shoes of those from other cultures and histories;
b) Use this method when relating to animals; and
c) Attempt to formulate universal truths from this experience.
This is perhaps why we have an almost overwhelming desire (and need?) to anthropomorphise. We do this in all sort of situations including the treatment of animals and (perhaps above all)religion.
How often have you thought (or said) of another person, 'I don't understand him/her,' or,'How can anybody do that?'
We try to put ourselves, with all our genetic, cultural and historical inheritance into a position that somebody (or something) else occupies. It is a great gift but we mustn't confuse this with an actual understanding of what that other person is feeling or thinking.
In that sense we are, and can only ever be, subjective beings. Can we connect then to the objective world? Only I suggest through trying to create a shared understanding with other subjective beings. So, yes, the plural of subjective (at least for us) is objective.
daddyO:
I understand that historically Mahayana developed as a counter to the hard road that the Therevadins advocated. In other words, enlightenment could be experienced without the complete eradication of desire - it is more of a continuum in Mahayana (this might be complete rubbish, by the way). It allowed those who were not (and perhaps did not wish to become) monks to understand a little more than lay Therevadins. This worked better as a precept as most of us do not wish to give up desire, at least just yet.
You have inspired me to do some research around the different schools.
Therevada is more purist, in that they take the original scriptures (written in Pali) as their guide, whereas Mahayana allows other, later, texts, which were composed in Sanskrit, equality - the Prajina Paramita Sutras, for example. Mahayana created a mythology that is absent in Therevada and Siddhartha becomes an altogether more mystical figure.
Pure Land seems to me almost western in its wishful thinking and jam tomorrow aspect. The pure land is more like heaven than Nibbana and comes to everybody at the end of their life through performing certain rituals. Buddha, it seems, has become a god - not something that he would have been comfortable with, I imagine.
Zen, as you say, concentrates very much on the mind rather than the scriptures.
That is what I have unearthed so far.
Boltonian:
The problems begin when we:
a) Try to put ourselves in the shoes of those from other cultures and histories;
b) Use this method when relating to animals; and
c) Attempt to formulate universal truths from this experience.
I completely agree with you Boltonian. It highlights that our knowledge isn't absolute; it is only relative. But this doesn't mean we can't understand the relation when we can think beyond our own subjectivity or anthropomorphism... The difficulty lies in the definition of the relative environment.
"How often have you thought (or said) of another person, 'I don't understand him/her,' or,'How can anybody do that?'"
Everytime I have no idea of the relative context. I admit I only step in the shoes of people I personally know... ( I really like how the word relationship share similar roots to relative )
If I tend to apply this rule to the unknown, the unexperienced I know that it will only be speculative... and ultimately wrong.
It's all about knowing the relative context; the subjective reality.
"In that sense we are, and can only ever be, subjective beings. Can we connect then to the objective world? Only I suggest through trying to create a shared understanding with other subjective beings. So, yes, the plural of subjective (at least for us) is objective."
Absolutely; But It's not really about trying to create a shared understanding.. It just unfolds by itself and "globalisation" is accelerating the trend since the subjective veils are receding wether we like it or not. Although it's far from a smooth process, and new veils replace old ones, delaying the process; halting evolution.
The biggest issue is mankind is currently gravitating around service to self which is the source of our modern culture of "spin".. political, financial, religious, etc. As long as we cultivate subjectivism, consciously or inconsciously there will be no shared reality!
Actually there is a shared reality ( let's call it objective) but we refuse to sense it except in these rare moments of "empathy" or in service to others ( giving yourself to the outside world as opposed to service to self which is ...taking it back to you )
It's all about gravity....
Have a great evening all!
I really liked boltonian's phrase "the plural of subjective (at least for us) is objective." Nice one.
A crunch w/e in the rugby. England/Tonga, Scotland/Italy, Wales/Fiji & Ireland/Argentina. My money would be on England, Italy, Wales & Ireland - Ireland to win, but not by enough to go through. Anyone else care to hazard their predictions?
Boltonian:
Thanks, once again, for the summary of Ehrman's book. Some of this is familiar stuff, but evidently he goes into a lot more detail than any of the books on the subject that I have read previously, and I will be particularly interested to see how he approaches the task of trying to reconstruct the original texts.
Re your comment on the similarity between the Buddhist belief system and the Quaker approach; according to my Quaker neighbour, she knows some Friends who profess to be Buddhists, also, though it would be interesting to know how exactly they integrate the one with the other. Reading the Quaker threads on CiF, I was reminded of why I used to find attendance at Meetings for Worship valuable: Since agnosticism is no bar, I am thinking seriously of taking it up again.
E:
Getting back to the original is not really his aim in this book, so I wouldn't build up your hopes too much. Vermes is your man for that.
Ehrman demonstrates firstly, how difficult textual analysis is and also how these variations came about. He also gives some idea of the scale of the problem and, therefore, how utterly unreliable our present texts are.
My feeling about this is that were it not about Christianity his book would be mildly interesting but not remarkable. If this were, say, about the validity and variations to be found in versions of Greek myths the book would largely be of interest only to scholars. But because of the faith angle objective, critical analysis is a relatively recent phenomenon - and very much a minority pursuit. The world of scholarship in this area is littered with those who lost their livelihoods (and worse)because they challenged the might of church orthodoxy.
I agree that Quakerism sounds very civilized. Unitarians are similarly broad, flexible and tolerant in their approach.
Steve:
I think I nicked that bon mot from somebody else - either here or on CiF.
Re - the rugby; prediction is very difficult, especially about the future (that isn't original either).
Ireland will go out one way or another, England to shade Tonga and I might go for Scotland.
Boltonian,
Your comments about Buddhism sound about right to me.
Substantially I don't think there is any difference at all between Theravada and Mahayana (excluding Pure Land) apart from the meditation techniques used (although some might argue that's a pretty important difference in itself).
Theravada might be seen as saying "look, here's the road, enlightenment's at the end of it, bye now", whereas Mahayana tells you a bit about what you can expect to see along the way. In fact, it attaches greater importance to the teacher-stundent relationship than Theravada, which can be seen as giving you a guide to help you not get lost (of course, if the guide is a poor one, then he might lead you astray). The road itself, however, is always the same, even while each person's journey down it is unique.
The key thing here is that Theravada need not be as austere as some people interpret it. The flip side of its simplicity is that people new to the whole thing might assume they should be rushing down the path as fast as possible, when in fact they should be going at a natural pace and enjoying the scenery along the way. This can sometimes be particularly evident in the west, where you sometimes see people following a particularly ascetic form of practice, which beneath its spiritual veneer is actually a form of escapism from the real world and not dharma.
The other key feature of Mahayana, of course, is the importance of the Bodhisattva as someone who refrains from becoming a Buddha until all sentient beings are enlightened. However, I think in practice it all ties back to the point I made earlier about the road being the same.
Anyway, now for some horrible stuff.
On the Bunting Buddhism thread (which overall was very disappointing) someone linked to the following book review about Zen and the second world war:
http://www.mandala.hr/5/baran.html
Very disturbing, and as a martial artist I found it particularly uncomfortable reading. But interesting though.
daddyO:
The Zen article is grim reading. When we were in Thailand some years ago and were staying in Kantchanaburi, close by the site of the Burma-Siam railway, we came across an interesting story. One of the museums there comprises little more than a room full of yellowing newspaper cuttings and faded photographs, all about the building of the railway. The museum was created by a former Japanese officer in charge of some of the POWs. He became so filled with remorse after the war that he came back to Thailand, became a Buddhist monk and dedicated his wealth and the rest of his life to that museum to show others about the horrors of war. It was very moving - more so even than the large, new Australian built museum hard by Hellfire pass.
LesterJones :
Sorry for the late reply ..
"So the nature of subjective experience is one of the unprovable features of our condition."
I'd say it is unprovable to anyone other than yourself . Subjective experience is the thing we know best of all , arguably it is the only thing we truly 'know'.
"It is these features of consciousness that are fascinating even if, as you say (and which is impossible to disagree with) the feeling of certainty is the subjective experience of being a neural network that has learned to sum its inputs ."
I'd say that there is a subjective experience of being a collection of neural firing patterns does , in itself , raise questions about the completeness of an entirely reductionist view of consciousness . The brain certainly does all the information processing (or almost certainly) but trying to lay the experience of having a thought over the transfer of brain potentials that produces the thought instinctively seems to imply a dualism between mental events and the neural correlates of that event . Perhaps we are just up against a conceptual wall primate brains can't penetrate .
"Instead of a weakness (in the sense that we are thus constructing models of a universe so that we might understand it rather than knowing some unknown ultimate truth) this might be one of our strengths (in that without these axiomatic principles in both the scientific application and in more general terms we are lost beating hearts of subjectivity)? Aren't axiomatic principles the bridge between subjectivity and objectivity?"
I think axiomatic principles are intersubjective , but that doesn't mean they are right . For instance it was once taken as axiomatic that action at a distance was impossible until Newton came along with his new fangled gravity fields .
As an aside I'd say this is why I don't like the "sky pixie" attack on belief in God . Although I don't believe in a personal God myself , I don't think the apparently obvious silliness of such a belief to an arbitrary group of humans at an arbitrary point in time is a compelling motivation for such disbelief .
steve , Boltonian :
Did either of you catch the Wales/Fiji game ? I wish I could gloat but I suspect we will only go one better .
Luckily my side are on top in the premiership where they belong (though if we are still there at the end of the season no doubt we'll lose to Leicester or wasps in the playoffs) .
SpaceP:
What a game! Riveting stuff from start to end.
I will certainly gloat and I think that we have more than a mug's chance next weekend. England are improving game by game - not yet world beaters but anything can happen in a one-off.
Which is your team? Mine (Sale)is not doing too well this season - lost again yesterday.
Agree with just about everything in your response to Lester. We perhaps will never be able to create an objective language (I mean one to describe objective reality - if there is such a thing) but we can continue in our efforts to compare subjective experiences. That is what science can do for us.
We come up against problems when either we experience things we cannot describe to others, or when we feel sensations that others have not. I think Bill has experienced difficulties in both of these areas but particularly the latter.
For example, I have a waking dream that I am being addressed by an angel (or some such) and describe this to you. Do you think:
a) He has developed a mental illness and is suffering from delusions;
b) He is as sane as I am and I would trust him to tell the truth;
c) He is an attention-seeking fantasist who is telling me a pack of lies;
d) That is very interesting I will explore this and take it at face value;
c) I have no idea what is going on?
boltonian :
"What a game! Riveting stuff from start to end.
I will certainly gloat and I think that we have more than a mug's chance next weekend. England are improving game by game - not yet world beaters but anything can happen in a one-off.
Which is your team? Mine (Sale)is not doing too well this season - lost again yesterday."
I wish I'd seen it , everyone is raving on about it . I thought it would be an easy one for Wales so I didn't bother watching , more fool me .
I'm a Cherry and Whites man born and bred .
"Agree with just about everything in your response to Lester. We perhaps will never be able to create an objective language (I mean one to describe objective reality - if there is such a thing) but we can continue in our efforts to compare subjective experiences. That is what science can do for us.
We come up against problems when either we experience things we cannot describe to others, or when we feel sensations that others have not. I think Bill has experienced difficulties in both of these areas but particularly the latter."
I think intersubjective observations are the closest we can get to some 'objective' reality .
On a tangential point , I find it interesting that we find the observed world to be intersubjectively beautiful at every level we measure . Either directly or mathematically . Weinburg , the arch atheist physicist , said the universe seems to be unnecessarily beautiful . I wonder if that is telling us something about the limits of our perception . Can we only perceive that which we find satisfying in some way ? An Idle speculation obviously , but it makes me wonder .
"For example, I have a waking dream that I am being addressed by an angel (or some such) and describe this to you. Do you think:
a) He has developed a mental illness and is suffering from delusions;
b) He is as sane as I am and I would trust him to tell the truth;
c) He is an attention-seeking fantasist who is telling me a pack of lies;
d) That is very interesting I will explore this and take it at face value;
c) I have no idea what is going on?"
I suppose it would depend on what you described the 'angel' as saying and being . If you assert some supernatural basis for the encounter then I would ask for some evidence of such . I wouldn't dismiss a supernatural explanation but I would require something to motivate such an explanation .
Ireland/Argentina is shaping up to be absorbing if not great technically ...
SpaceP:
'I'm a Cherry and Whites man born and bred .'
That's real rugby country. A 'Shedhead,' hey? I was brought up with league - my mother's family are Wigan supporters.
It was the Welsh team of the 1970's (strangely) that turned me on to the joys of Union, despite their ritual humiliation of England at that time. I shared a flat in west London with some rugby aficionados and we spent most Saturdays watching Londons Welsh, Scottish and Irish, and Richmond, 'Quins and Rosslyn Park depending on who was at home and whom they were playing. London Welsh in those days had a great team and attracted the best sides in Wales to Old Deer Park.
Now Ireland are on their way home too. Scrappy but exciting game I thought. O'Gara has had a dreadful tournament on and off the field - and another bad day today. Ireland were poor apart from two pieces of individual brilliance from BOD.
Argentina must be favourites to get into the semis against Scotland. Neither the Blacks nor France will be happy having to play each other in Wales, I suspect.
Aesthetics is an interesting area. I caught the back end of a radio 4 prog. the other day. Dr Alice Roberts was saying that she thought that our sense of beauty comes from a shared experience that helped us to co-operate with each other. Our success as a species comes from (she said) a combination of violence and co-operation. She also said that it might just be a by-product of a large brain and serve no real purpose.
boltonian :
It's definitely rugby territory , I'd say it's more of an everymans game here than some other places in England .
I played Rugby at school , another fat prop I'm afraid , but I didn't really get into it until Uni where I shared a house with a geordie (who played for the Uni) and a Welshman ('nuff said) . I lived not far from the mem and I often got woken up to crys of glaws-ter .
France and the All Blacks will be an interesting one , if the right France turns up it could be an early final . Then again it could be a pasting .
"Aesthetics is an interesting area. I caught the back end of a radio 4 prog. the other day. Dr Alice Roberts was saying that she thought that our sense of beauty comes from a shared experience that helped us to co-operate with each other. Our success as a species comes from (she said) a combination of violence and co-operation. She also said that it might just be a by-product of a large brain and serve no real purpose."
I was more interested in the fact that we see beauty in areas of experience we could never have been exposed to during our evolution . Deep space and the mathematical beauty of QM are far removed from the creatures and landscapes we evolved with . Perhaps we are simply primed to find things beautiful and require extra effort to find them ugly . Though that wouldn't explain why a picture from Hubble of star formation seems so immensely more beautiful than , say , an attractive wardrobe .
SpaceP:
France always seem to raise their game against the Blacks and it might be good for them not to be playing at Stade de France.
Beauty is seeing patterns in things, particularly symmetrical ones. Spotting patterns and making sense of them was very important for identifying prey and distinguishing food from predators. Seeing fish in a lake and separating them from their surroundings means you eat today, whereas spotting a tiger in the jungle might enable you to clear off in time and live for another day.
It is known that people with symmetrical features are considered more attractive to the opposite sex and, therefore, more successful in producing progeny.
Seeing the cosmos from Hubble is merely an extension of this characteristic - it is the patterns we create from the picture that gives us the sensation of beauty. Numbers ditto.
This is why we are obsessed with categorisation and sorting sheep from goats. We need order, in terms of comprehensible patterns and the more symmetrical the better. Look at how newspapers divide the world into heroes and villains - it appeals to our need for simplicity (which is why reductionism is so popular)and symmetry. The standard model, for example, is felt to be incorrect (or at least incomplete) because it is neither sufficiently simple nor beautiful.
Boltonian: "We come up against problems when either we experience things we cannot describe to others, or when we feel sensations that others have not. I think Bill has experienced difficulties in both of these areas but particularly the latter."
For some years I belonged to groups that actively explored such areas but as we were initially connected thanks to the Internet, pursuing this off-line was problematic, often involving long journeys.
We did meet in person from time to time but owing to the dynamics of such groups (and the travelling and time required) they eventually faded away.
We shared "impossible," provocative, and powerful experiences. (But then many of us had already experienced that which can be difficult to convey to another -- it was one thing we all had in common.)
These days our meetings are far apart in time, and I no longer participate in the on-line variations we pioneered, now enthusiastically practiced by successor groups.
I do have a meditation partner met in those days but even though she lives no more than one hour away, our respective schedules and life challenges are such that we don't sit together nearly as often as we'd like.
(Often, after meditating, she will get up -- eyes glazed over -- and sit at my computer, typing something a bit unusual, pertinent to whatever we discussed prior to sitting in silence; it matters not to her if I should fall asleep -- somehow, sharing this inner space, even briefly, 'psychically catalyzes' her. Once, years ago, a number of us noticed this effect we had upon each other and explored it in detail, creating a terminology for it. We were assisted by various forms of mediumship and/or channelling, something that was rife in these groups, almost contagious.)
I decided that as powerful as those group experiences were, it would be useful -- and necessary -- for me to operate outside of them, even if only by interacting on Internet sites well outside the belief zones of those antique mailing lists on which those groups arose.
Even so, I like to imagine a large facility somewhere -- a barnlike building with some nearby camping grounds, perhaps -- where once again we can gather and "raise the energy."
I refrain from posting of our adventures to most places, both out of respect for the privacy of those I once interacted with (one group included artists, published writers, and two scientists) and because the adventures would seem, simply, as unbelievable to many as they would have seemed to me, had someone described them to me before I had experienced them.
There is no real problem describing them, but the necessary format, as I see it, is narrative -- tales, in other words, and I have yet to find any place truly designed for exchanging such tales.
This restricts me in some ways, but, nevertheless, I persist. I believe I have much to learn from others in terms of expression and communication, even if this means, at times, pretending that I have not experienced certain "impossible" events or creations.
Discussion has some value, while an exposure to a great variety of differing beliefs also has value (not the least of which is examining my own beliefs).
I truly believe we are in the early stages of a massive change in how we experience ourselves and our world but we tend to view this from a snail-like perspective. It's very easy to miss or dismiss this under the circumstances, while the very idea is simply too "New Age" for a great many who have never dug into that particular zone and are not aware of the treasures to be found within that large pile of overall silliness.
Regards
Bill
'Beauty is seeing patterns in things, particularly symmetrical ones.'
The capacity for pattern recognition is hard-wired in us and may be at the root of our aesthetic sensibilities, and the tendency to evaluate and categorise thing seen or heard as beautiful, or otherwise, may be innate, but there is surely more to it than this. If it were all, there would presumably be near unanimous agreement in matters aesthetic, and this is not the case. So to what extent are judgements as to what is beautiful dependent on individual temperament, social conditioning or education? And why the enhanced emotional response, rather than just a feeling of vague satisfaction and comfort at a pattern recognised or made?
Most people probably feel awe and wonder at the sight of the night sky (when not obscured by light pollution or smog), or at the images produced by the Hubble telescope, and most would describe these as 'beautiful', but there is, and has been historically, considerable variation in what people find beautiful in the natural world, and even more so in man made artefacts. Flowers are generally seen as beautiful, or at least 'pretty', but I have known one or two people who seem blind to this (once I was in charge of an excavation surrounded by banks of ploughsoil which had been machined off the undisturbed subsoil. In summer these spoil heaps were a glory of crimson poppies, camomile and corn marigolds, but the only reaction of one colleague who visited the site was 'I don't like the smell of those weeds'). It was not common for people to see beauty in untamed natural landscapes, mountains and the like, until the Romantics persuaded them otherwise in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. 16th and early 17th century gardens might have a certain beauty of their own, but their design was founded on the belief that 'nature' was most beautiful when rigidly ordered, with geometric parterres and earthworks, and severely clipped and marshalled topiary. The 'natural' landscapes of Capability Brown and his peers are nature tamed and ordered, and even the 'naturalistic' planting of late 19th and early 20th century gardens is the product of high artifice. Some find 18th century ornate French furniture beautiful, with its symmetrically sinuous or bulbous lines and elaborate ornamentation, but I do not, although I can appreciate the beauty of the woods used, and the craftsmanship. My preference would be for Japanese art, architecture and furniture of the Shogun period (and where did that come from? I have never visited Japan, and yet this was my response from a very young age). And why do I prefer paintings of the Northern Renaissance (the Van Eycks, or Van der Weyden) to those of Titian or Tintoretto, say?
As a postscript; how does our aesthetic sense relate to that of bower birds, say, or jackdaws who decorate their nests with scraps of tinfoil or other shiny objects?
E:
I am neither an anthropologist nor particularly adept at formal logic but let me expand on what I meant earlier using the Occam's razor approach. It might not make much sense but here goes anyway.
If you think about the time you first fell in love: the initial sexual attraction, the growing emotional intensity and, finally, the sustained and heightened state of being. The concentrated feeling of pleasure when you are together and the pain when apart is almost unbearable.
It is this feeling, writ small, I propose, that we feel when listening to a particular piece of music, seeing a piece of art or nature that moves us, or any other aesthetic experience. It is this sense of beauty that is essential to our choosing a mate. The sorts of shapes and patterns we find attractive in other human beings we also feel when encountering other sensual experiences. These apply to all our senses; aural, tactile and olfactory, as well as visual.
Why, then, do we vary in our tastes? If we did not it would be a catastrophe for the species. If all men fell in love with the same woman (or vice versa) we would not only breed more slowly but probably murder ourselves into extinction or at least narrow the gene pool considerably.
Our genetic inheritance, modified by experience, ensures that no two people on the planet have exactly the same aesthetic tastes. But we need to pass on the healthiest genes we can so there is a broad agreement on what is irremediably ugly. Few people, I suggest, enjoy music that is disharmonious, unmelodious and arrhythmic. Most of us, whether musical or not, can tell when somebody is singing out of tune, for example.
These traits about determining what is beautiful will change over the generations because we are changing both genetically and through diverse experiences. We are also influenced by our peers, so we amend our views to fit in better and make it easier to co-operate with each other.
But at bottom what drives our aesthetic sense is the survival mechanism that enables us to choose suitable mates and avoid danger. That is what drives bower birds too, I suggest.
There might be more to it than that - it might be that we are unique on the planet with an ability to appreciate beauty beyond our species (beyond that which is strictly necessary for survival, in other words). If so, then it might be that this trait is a by product of a big brain. We might have surplus capacity which enables us to keep our aesthetic sense set above the minimum required for survival.
Steve -
I love poppies, especially the giant ones. When they have lost all their petals they do sort of look a bit apple-shaped don't they? A bit? Yeah?
Anyway, apologies for my absence. I finally admitted to myself that my eyesight is not what it was and took myself off to get my peepers checked. My seven year old reading glasses were totally wrong apparently so I merrily handed them in for recycling. I had forgotten however, that you do not get your new glasses immediately. They were well worth the wait though. They make me look intelligent *and* trendy, and I can also see things better.
Anyway, I have failed in my mission to guess the object on your desk. Unless it is somehow something to do with a car crashing into a bike shop, which I doubt very much. My son thinks it is a banana, but what does he know. He didn't even do it properly he just read the question on the piece of paper by my bed (what object has Steve from CiF put on his desk?) and said "I think it's a banana". Huh. Kids today. Lazy sods.
Boltonian:
I'm not sure that Occam's razor is the right instrument for dissecting this particular question. It is not that I discount your thesis entirely; there are obvious evolutionary advantages in being able to place value judgements on certain visual and other stimuli, and in that these stimuli should activate the parts of the brain concerned with emotion, reward or, conversely, aversion systems (that was, obliquely, the point of the rhetorical question concerning bower birds). But, as you appear to concede in your last paragraph, our aesthetic sense and the ways in which we apply it seem to have developed in complexity and range far beyond what is advantagious in the strictly evolutionary sense, and to be applied to subjects which are not -at least in any obvious way - beneficial to our physical survival or otherwise, as individuals or as a species (that spectacular sunset which we see as beautiful might be the by-product of a major volcanic eruption, and the predictor of a cool, wet summer and poor harvests). Even in the matter of choosing a mate, physical beauty as we define it - except insofar as it is a by-product of physical health - is not an infallible predictor of reproductive fitness, nor is lack of it contra-indicative, and most people, in any case, seem to end up making their choice on the basis of other qualities.
To say that our seemingly over-developed aesthetic sensibilities could be a by- product of our having large brains may be true as far as it goes, but I do not see it as a wholly satisfactory explanation.
I googled to see if there have been any studies of the subject by neuroscientists, but it seems that so far there has been much speculation and little agreement. Ramachandran came up with a theory concerning responses to works of art, which has been heavily criticised as over-reductive, and the following describes a study using MRI scanning of subjects as they viewed paintings which details the neural correlates - mostly fairly predictable.
http://mixingmemory.blogspot.com/2005/02/cognitive-science-of-art-beauty-and.html
E:
Just a quick response - I will follow up the link you posted.
By using Occam's razor I meant that I propose the simplest interpretation that fits all the known facts. We have an appreciation of beauty because we require it to find a mate. We differ one from another because it is necessary for the survival of the species, so we have evolved in this way.
Why can we appreciate beauty beyond our APPARENT minimum requirements (I emphasise the word because we do not know how more or less successful our species would be without this ability)? It might be a by-product of our large brain. Why is our brain larger than it need be (if it is)? Because a larger brain is more attractive to the opposite sex than a smaller. This evolutionary trait has led to our brain reaching the optimum size - we cannot support a bigger brain without a stronger body to support it and that requires a still larger brain to process its physical requirements. The law of diminishing returns.
A by-product of this successful breeding strategy is that we can appreciate beauty by proxy, as it were. Consciousness might also be a similar order phenomenon.
I wasn't suggesting that physical traits alone were determinants of a successful mating strategy. All our senses come into play - a big brain is certainly an effective attractor for women, possibly more so than for men. So, by extension, we are able to appreciate physical beauty beyond our species because we have a larger brain than is strictly necessary for survival. And that because a large brain leads to more progeny.
When you say that there must be more to it than that, what are you suggesting?
Hi Biskie
You're a sport for trying to guess the object....and your boy sounds like a decisive sort, btw....but to put you out of your misery, the mystery object was a box set of three lemmings games, which won't play on my machine, and are just sitting around like such useless objects do. There may well be a car crashing into a bike shop in one or other of the lemmings games, but as I can't play them, your guess is as good as mine....
Lemmings, the original version - best computer game ever, or what? (With honorable mentions to tetris, digger, and civilization....)....and I'll bet none of you remember my favourite arcade game, cosmic guerrillas....not to mention colossal cave, which we used to play on the uni mainframe in 1980; we had to wait until after 6pm otherwise we'd get irate screen messages from the operators....
nostalgiafest, sorry ;-}
Boltonian
"By using Occam's razor I meant that I propose the simplest interpretation that fits all the known facts. We have an appreciation of beauty because we require it to find a mate. We differ one from another because it is necessary for the survival of the species, so we have evolved in this way."
The problem with Occam's razor is that you've selected the environment you want to assess and therefore miss out on the environment you chosed to ignore.
In this case, aestetics isn't limited to finding a mate. I f I use Occam Razor's logic, that would assume that I wouldn't be able to find beauty in anything else but a potential mate. But I experience beauty in so many various things such as trees, mountains, the sea, flowers, music, food, perfumes; why would I (emotionally!) care about these which are essencially different from my own survival of species logic?
Concepts such as aestetics or justice belong to what Kant refers as transcendental idealism.
It's the subjective emotional relation to the object of pereceived beauty. It's entirely subjective since we are not all attracted to the same things and it is not limited to our own species since it encompasses pretty much everything in this world. I can find a tree, a river, a snowflake, a painting, a math equation, a rock, a melody beautiful. It is a carefree sensory pleasure and I'm not convinced this is the privilege of humans because animals experience care-free pleasure as well since they react very well to treats.
it's a form of consciousness that we relate to as humans beings. Our aestetic appreciation evolves along our consciousness.
so I would disagree with you on the fact that aestetics could be a by-product of evolution of species; I will say that evolution could be a by-product ( a consequence ) of our eternal quest for transcendantal idealism. Because if we still have different representations of beauty we still share the same emotional pleasure it confers. So it's relative in style yet absolute in substance.
PG:
I don't know if you read my earlier posts on the subject but I think I did apply the principle to the wider environment.
I am familiar with Kant's aesthetics and, as someone pointed out here a while ago, it is the weakest part of his philosophy. Also, Kant was writing pre-Origin of Species.
I am not proposing a theory of aesthetics, nor even a hypothesis; more an interpretation of the known facts. I will recapitulate:
1) Pattern recognition is (as E said) hard-wired into our being.
2) Those patterns can signify either attraction or repulsion (ie danger).
3) Various studies have shown that we are attracted by symmetry in other human beings.
4) Our bi-pedalism allows to carry a heavier brain than an equivalent-sized quadruped (some have suggested that a large brain is a by product of bi-pedalism).
5)Given 4) our relative brain size is the largest on the planet.
6)Those human beings with a slightly larger brain derived a competitive advantage over the rest and so bred more successfully. These advantages could include quicker wits, better organisational ability, more highly developed social skills etc.
7) So, our brain power increased until it reached its optimum size, which some think is about now. If our brain were to become larger we would need a larger and stronger body, which would also need a larger brain to process its requiements.
8) Our brains are about 30% over capacity. In other words 70% is used to keep us alive. This spare capacity is more than in any other species.
9) Having identical tastes in a desirable mate would be catastrophic for the species. So, each of us has, because of our varied genome, environment and experience slightly different tastes. This confers the maximum chance of the survival for the species.
10) We are able, because of our large relative brain size, to transfer patterns from one set of circumstances to another. We are conceptual thinkers. Whether other species are able to do this I don't know but it is unlikely to be as well developed as ours because of 8).
11) For example, we can empathise - in fact the Golden Rule is based on this ability.
Now, because of all these things it MIGHT mean that we are able to project our sensation of experiencing beauty beyond what is of immediate need for our survival. So, we can see attractive patterns in things other than human beings. This does not mean that our large brain is of no survival value but that other things then become possible. This spare brain capacity might also provide the key to conscious awareness.
9) surely demonstrates why we don't all share identical tastes but experience a similar feeling (so far as we can determine).
You imply that it is the quest for transcendental idealism that drives the evolutionary process. Where did this trait come from? Is it unique to us? If so, why? If not, which other creatures have this ability? Is it related to relative brain size? If so, where does one draw the line? If not, what is the cause?
In other words, where is your evidence?
Any thoughts on the BIG game?
Is Ashton's selection good, bad or indifferent? I do not know why Rees is not playing - not even on the bench. It looks like George Smith will have a bit of a free ride.
Hipkiss or Farrell? Robinson at full back or wing? Borthwick or Kay (or Shaw)?
Dallaglio and Worsley (the least effective back row forwards so far) both on the bench and Moody at 7. Regan preferred to Chuter and Vickery to Stevens. Ummm.
It would be a wildly successful world cup for me if we down the Aussies. What are our chances?
b : "It would be a wildly successful world cup for me if we down the Aussies. What are our chances?"
Zero, I reckon, sadly....Catt & Regan playing for England, yet they wouldn't get into the Portugal team, let alone Georgia....I fear a rout....still, at least the Aussies will be gracious afterwards, not like them to gloat, eh?
steve:
I hadn't realised that Farrell was crocked - not that it will make much difference.
Slim, I would say, rather than zero.
YES! YES! YES!
Sorry, I got carried away.
What's the best sauce when eating a hat?
Boy O Boy was that satisfying....
boltonian 1, steve 0.....
;-}
Unbelievable! It almost destroyed my lack of belief in free will.
What went wrong for the Aussies?
Even when England pragmatically nosed ahead, I expected the counter score. They played within their limitations and did their best to prevent the Aussies playing their strengths.
What about France? Again, it is easy to question the selections. The Aussies loss might just gee up the Kiwis, though equally, it could rattle them. Still, I would put France's chances as less than 1 in 10.
Martin - it was when we rucked them off their own ball in the first half that I began to wonder....
M : "Unbelievable! It almost destroyed my lack of belief in free will."
....only "almost" ?
;-}
Steve and Martin:
I said slim chance, not odds on favourites. But what a great result.
For me the sight of Sheridan and co making mincemeat of their scrum (as previously) was very satisfying. And Jonny had an off-day with his kicking.
Fair play to Mike Catt - good performance for a pensioner. And, Steve, Regan didn't do too badly either.
Can't wait for NZ - France. Again the Blacks are strong favourites but what price three NH sides in the semis?
Well! What about that?
2NH sides already and one more to go tomorrow.
Big favourites out.
Wow! Not pretty but very exciting.
Don't you just hate these SH dominated world cups? Makes you wonder what would happen if we in the NH ever get the hang of this rugby thing....
And Amir Khan from my home town........
What a weekend!
Utterly speechless................................
Whatever next? Fiji to out muscle SA? And Argentina to take the cup?
I wonder if Laporte will use the same strategy with England and keep Michelak back until the big men have battered each other.
I predict that if I made a prediction it would turn out to be wrong!
ChooChoo -
If you still want to buy me a cuppa and you are in London (seem to think you are though don't know for sure) I will be in London a far bit over the next few weeks. Tomorrow (Monday) I'll be at Trafalger Sqaure hopefully (need to finalise dog and child care arrangements), Wed-Fri I'll be in South Harrow and Monday 15th I'll be taking my son to the Star Wars exhibition. You can email me by clicking on my name above which will take you to my profile page where there is an email link.
The rest of you - don't get excited, it's only a cup of tea.
Well, we are guaranteed a NH/SH final. England - Argentina anybody?
Biskie/Chooch:
I hope you manage to arrange your liaison over a cup of tea.
SpaceP:
Gloucester go from strength to strength. What will happen when the internationals return?
All:
Steven Pinker has a new book out; it is about language - anybody here read it yet? The review I have just read is favourable.
BTW, if anybody wants to contact me by email please use this address: gengmaak@hotmail.co.uk
Boltonian:
"You imply that it is the quest for transcendental idealism that drives the evolutionary process. Where did this trait come from? Is it unique to us? If so, why? If not, which other creatures have this ability? Is it related to relative brain size? If so, where does one draw the line? If not, what is the cause? "
It's just a thought.
Thanks for your detailed answers by the way.
I think that this is a trait that encompasses every species, not particularly us. We just happen to have the most sophisticated patterns which is likely to be related to our brain size. Pattern recognition is hardwired into our being but we're not the only ones! From vegetals, insects, all sorts of animals have hard-wired pattern recognition which determines attraction or repulsion; some of them even mimic patterns in order to survive? and they don't even have to get a "brain" to do so; it's far more prominent in the micro-cosmos/realms of insects and plants...
So I'm not utterly convinced that pattern recognition for danger/pleasure is something which is related to our brain size ( it becomes more sophisticated and I'm not even sure of that because some of the survival mechanisms observed in animal kingdom are pretty advanced)... But that would be just based on a deduction from observed behaviour of other species. It is part of their being and likely to be a projection of their being towards their own environment, at their very own scale but it is based on a relationship with the outer world which is why I find the transcendental idealism theory still relevant in this context; I actually do not find that the evolution of species contradict the theory of transcental idealism; They both support each other unless we could demonstrate that we can consciously chose to evolve/survive rather than evolution/survival just happens regardless.
As far as empathy is concerned, I don't think that it is a human privilege either; what we make of empathy is different since we process it in more evolved brains and hearts; but we're only dealing with empathy as a phenomenon; and I don't think I'm making a wild assumption in saying that animals have empathy as well at their own scale... as if they had their own "golden rule"... outside of course their categorical imperatives of feeding and protecting themselves in order to survive;
We can understand how we are wired up but what and why are we wired up to is a different matter; I guess it's all down to the survival of the species but in all due fairness it's not really ground breaking since survival is obviously a categorical imperative of any being's essence;
I only entertained the idea that transcental idealism (noumenon) will be what drives evolution (phenomenon)... It's impossible to have evidence outside the realms of phenomenon; but the question to illustrate this would be how come we/all species have evolved one way rather than another? the obvious would point towards the changing nature of the environment but that as well puts things in a greater scale perspective after all stars, planets are born, live and die as well... they are living entities of the cosmos. so you could strecth the argument that our evolution is crucially linked to the solar system's evolution as well and that survival of the species is simply related to the earth going through atmospheric, climate change and that the planet laws affect the life which inhabits it. Transcendental idealism is our relationship with the universe, the one which guides our path in accordance with the path of the universe; and it's not in our brains, our brains/hearts/bodies only translate it for our own purpose at our own scale;
I agree with you on more or less everything else as they all happen to be observed phenomenon; the diversity of our genome influences our chance for survival is a great illustration of adaptation, of mechanical sophistication but it just a part of the process and therefore hits the metaphysical wall once again. Our increasing level of consciousness ( spare brain ) will only be able to understand our relative relationship towards what triggers our survival mechanisms, and eventually improve it adn we're in for interesting times as we are now trying to "save the planet" from climate change - probably the biggest survival challenge mankind has faced and it requires no less than a global consciousness to eventually stand a chance ( and there's no guarantee)... it's gravity I guess!
By the way, what an exciting Rugby World Cup! Fantastic achievement for both England and France. A real breath of fresh air for the sport and humble pies for the anti-podean favorites Oz and the Kiwis; ( The blacks are still the best imho - a bit like Brazil in football even if out of a major tournament, I will still consider them as the best team)
PG:
Many thanks.
I did not mean to imply that pattern recognition is dependent on relative brain size but that transferring patterns from one set of circumstances and applying it imaginatively to another, unrelated, area might be.
I have not studied empathy and conceptual abilities in other life forms, so I can't really comment on your suggestions. The only difficulty I have with this is that we cannot know what it is like to be something other than a human being. In fact, we can only know what other humans feel by assumption. The best we can do is examine reactions to stimuli and try to extrapolate from that. The danger here is anthropomorphism.
The noumenal world is a difficult area for me - I am not sure that there is such an entity as, 'Das Ding an sich.' And if there is how we could possibly know what it might be.
I agree that science can only get us so far - it cannot answer the most interesting question, which is,'Why?' I imagine that explains the popularity of religion.
The issue of the interconnection of things is interesting. If we are all connected to everything else, and there is some circumstantial evidence (QM) to suggest that this might be the case, how come we feel individual? Where does ego come from? In fact, why ego in the first place?
Botonian,
Many thanks for your answer; I share the same doubts and concerns regarding the noumenal world but I guess this is where I do make a leap of (reasoned) faith, although i'm quite aware that this is a belief.
the issue of antropomorphism is actually illustrating the peculiar relationship with the hypothetical noumenal world. As you've said yourself, we can only assume how other feel. However feelings for humans and animals are expressed as phenomenons; I think that basic feelings such as fear are easy to observe... In humans and in animals, with an empirical / pavlov-like approach;
So this raises a question on the nature of consciousness itself - what is consciousness? are we conscious with our physical body? with our feelings? with our thoughts? or could it be all of these, making different stages of consciousness? as humans, with the most advanced brain in this planet, our consciousness level would be far superior to any other lifeform but does this mean that other lifeforms failed to have any consciousness? and if so what is the difference with the survival instincts that bless every lifeform?
as far as the noumenal world is concerned there is this poem by Khalil Gibran which I like very much as good way of describing the noumenal.
"The optimist sees the rose and not its thorns; the pessimist stares at the thorns, oblivious of the rose."
I like this as it illustrate how easily we create relationships with what we perceive and therefore ony perceive the phenomenal part since we're concerend by "how it affects us"; the rose-"noumenon" just is... regardless of its functionality/relationships with its environement;
That would work for us as well as (i believe that) we are more than the sum of how others perceive us.
But can we know the noumenon? Yes to a certain extent, we know part of it through observing its phenomenons. Can we truly know ourselves for a start? Same thing. Partly... on the basis of our actions.
I agree with you that scientific progress, particularly the fielf of QM may provide a greater understanding of phenomenas and relationships...and arguably have better guess at what the noumenon is; or know ourselves better to reach a higher state of consciousness. ( the conceptual relationship with noumenon-reality-in-itself )
Finally, I'll have to think really hard about your question about the ego and individuality!!!
Have a great day!
E:
I don't know if you have read it but, 'The Authentic Gospel of Jesus,' is the best from Vermes for trying to get back to the original writings and on what they might be based.
I followed up your link and found it very interesting. Good to see that others, like us, are groping around in the dark on this issue.
PG:
Just a couple of random thoughts from your last post.
No, we cannot know ourselves in that sense, except by reflection from others. And this is difficult because none of us tells the unvarnished truth - life would become intolerable if we did. This means we need to read between the lines, study body language and be a forensic and psychic genius, which is not given to many. But we are incontrovertibly subjective beings but dependent upon our effect on others to function. Perhaps we are more than the sum of the perceptions of others, as you say, but I am not sure how we get to it.
Fear is interesting. We can only know what that manifest fear would mean for us. For a creature of flight, for example, we cannot know but only surmise what their fear might feel like by reference to our own experience. And we are only partially creatures of flight, so our reference point might not bear much resemblance to theirs.
So far as consciousness is concerned I tend to idealism here because everything we experience comes to us through our brain, including physical sensations. Other creatures might have such a thing but how would we know?
You mention heightened mental states. Strangely, I have just finished reading an account of Gotama's life and how he did it.
RE- NZ rugby. Yes, I agree that they have been the best team in the world for the last three years and eleven-odd months but will anybody remember that?
Boltonian,
Thanks for your answers; I agree with you, there is no proof, no evidence that we can be more than the sum of of other's perceptions although interestingly enough when you take Buddha's achievement in reaching a higher state of consciousness; it is very close to getting to know the noumena (nirvana) - "reality as it is" (bodhi). I'm really not an expert in Buddhism, just some really basic notions but I'm sure many here could build on or refute; The path to Nirvana, the Bodhi enlightment is achieved through self-observation and breaking the suffering cycles of Samsara through intense self discipline in order to break our cravings and various attachements which separate us from our true self.
The stories of the Buddha's enlightement makes the point that reaching such a state requires tremendous effort and self-discipline, not something which is commonly achieved. Interestingly enough, the fundamentals are very close Gurdjieff's 4th way and fit perfectly within Kant's epistemology framework...
( although I sort of dream of East meets West philosophies! )
It's a whole concept I find very hard ( if not impossible ) to dismiss. But by all accounts it's not something which is easily achieved... after all it would take weeks, months of intense suffering before the Fakir could walk on burning charcoals!
Re: NZ, could you forget about Brazil's football team even if Italy won the last world cup?
Although it's probably a good thing for both Oz and NZ, they might stop thinking they are in their own class, eat humble pies and play with a bit more passion; I think that's why both lost... they simply didn't want it as much as both England and France.
That semi will be a cracker, although I'll be supporting les bleus... how could I not? After all, I'm french...
PG:
If France beat England it will be, 'Allez les Bleus,' from me too.
Your summary of Buddhism is about right, although I would say that enlightenment is not about finding one's true self necessarily. Everything about oneself is true - it must be by definition, even one's faults and weaknesses. It is more about finding a higher level of existence, whereby one has overcome and eliminated desire.
Kant, unfortunately, did not have Buddhist texts available to him, although Schopenhauer did and it influenced his philosophy considerably. Both Hinduism and Buddhism (and scientific advances, for that matter) helped him to expand and update Kant. But he was also a pessimist (whereas Kant was an optimist)and temperament is a big determinant of one's philosophical leanings.
Boltonian & PG,
I've enjoyed your discussion very much. Just a few thoughts and observations on the issues raised, starting with the following:
"( although I sort of dream of East meets West philosophies! )"
On Saturday I was in central London, and on a whim decided to spend a few hours at the British Museum, which I must say was a fantastic idea as I had a wonderful time. In the South Asia section I saw some Buddha statues from Gandhara, dating to the first or second century, under the Greco-Bactrians. These just blew me away and inspired me to do a little searching on Wikipedia, where I found the following page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhism
It seems much of Western thought, dating back way further than Kant, owes a lot more to Eastern philosophy than we realised. And also, ironically, that Buddhist art owes quite a bit to the West.
On issues of noumenon, why we feel individual, consciousness etc, I would add the following observation picked up from my meditation practice. Much of our sense of what makes us individuals would appear to be tied up with our thoughts. But if we ignore the *content* of those thoughts and direct our attention to them on the sensate level, we can directly observe them for what they really are, which is just another set of sensations (from whichever of the five senses). This begs the question of what it is that is directing the attention, and therein lies the key. I don't pretend to have the answer here, but I do strongly subscribed to the view that "ultimate reality" can be directly understood through continued investigation of this sort.
But leaving aside ultimate reality for the moment to move on to the questions of other animals and empathy. If we say that thought is what seperates us from them, then once we see that those thought are in fact sensations and that our sense of a *seperate* identity is in fact illusory, then surely this opens up the possibility that we might be able to have a sense of what it is like to be a dog or a bird or possibly even a beetle.
Of course, the pitfalls are many and I agree that we could never be sure that this sense is correct. I take on board Boltonian's point that everything we experience comes to us through the brain, and it could be that the direct insights it feeds us could in fact be the grey cells having a laugh at our expense. Even if we could know, it would still be very much an approximation. But when I suggested here ages ago that ChooChoo's red insect friend Sufjan running around his garden might feel like Roger Federer on centre court I was mostly, but not entirely, joking. I also mentioned once catching my dog Eddie's eye after he had just made an embarassing fool of himself. Of course, a dog would not understand embarassment in the same way we do, and what follows such a sensation would be utterly different for him to what it is for us, but I feel pretty certain that for a fraction of a second my experience of that moment and Eddie's were one and the same.
One final point on enlightenment, "true self" and higher levels of existence. Altered states of consciousness are the result of concentration practices rather than insight (or wisdom), which is what ultimately brings about enlightenment. Althought such states are necessary in practice for insight to happen, there is no reason in theory why someone couldn't become enlightened in a normal state, even if it is vanishingly unlikely.
Also, overcoming desire is not exactly the same as eliminating desire, and this is where the "true self", which is equivalent to the oft misunderstood concept of "no self", comes in. The sensations that make up desire do not go away (if they do, this is probably a bad sign), but what is eliminated is the clinging on to these desires. This clinging is a product of ego trying to create a sense of "permanent" self. Once one realises the utter futility of clinging onto something so transitory, one stops doing it (the release can on occasions feel like a knot in your brain you never even know existed has been untied: this sensation should be examined). Once someone has become enlightened, they have become free from their desires - equivalent to finding their "true self" - and this enables them to respond to those desires in skillful ways.
Unfortunately, it's likely that even a lot of Buddhists think that ultimate goal of the whole exercise is actually the higher states of consciousness - understandably so as these can be extremely blissful. Insight is much less fun, but it here were the release from suffering comes from.
All we need now is for Argentina to beat SA and go on to win it and we will have had a full house of surprises.
DaddyO:
Thanks for your comments.
The animal ideas bring us back to Wittgenstein, who said that even if we could speak a common language with, say, a lion we could never understand each other. That is the essence - all of our references are human.
Thoughts as sensations? Yes both happen through the brain and, for some people, the experience can be similar. But for me they are of a different order. Perhaps my imagination is not sufficiently developed but pain and pleasure are more vivid when directly experienced through the senses. I accept, though, that it is we that might create the distinction between the two.
If we travel the noumenal road there is the problem of connection and accessibility, let alone evidence. The interconnectivity of everything needs to solve the problem of ego - why do I feel like me and not the universe?
Have you managed to eliminate ego, or at least moved some way along that path?
Isn't finding one's 'True self' and eliminating ego a contradictory proposition? True self suggests ego. And how will one know that this is one's true self. Is my present existence not true in some way? It feels very true to me. But then so it did when I was a seven year old child. I prefer to think of it as development and growth rather than 'True' which implies that other conditions are false.
I accept the distinction between overcoming and eliminating desire - is not the one a precursor for the second?
Have you ever reached a heightened state of consciousness through meditation (or anything else) and,if so, can you describe the sensation?
I hope to rejoin the discussion here when I can; I do read the posts.
In the meantime, I recommend _Ghost Hunters_ by Deborah Blum.
The subtitle is: "William James and the Search for Scientific Proof of Life After Death" but there is also quite a bit about Darwin, Myers, Sidgwick, Gurney, and their world, too. (I haven't finished the book yet; as usual, I am reading it here and there, when I can.)
What's interesting is how the debates of that era are echoed in the Dawkins and Blackmore inspired CiF threads; science has advanced while religion has retreated (in some places, anyway) since those long ago days, yet key issues remain unresolved; instead of a rampant Spiritualist movement, we have the continuing aftereffects of the New Age movement, but in both situations those who saw an opportunity to create wealth obscured more truly intriguing situations.
Darwin greatly disturbed many religionists of his day, yet a discussion of evolution still generates conflict.
Certain "psychic" phenomena -- and experiences -- have always existed, lying somewhere between the ardent believers of religion and those proud of their rational materialism; then as now, however, those who refuse to believe in such things ignore all evidence of it, while those who wholeheartedly accept it do so with perhaps insufficient perspicuity.
What I find a bit disheartening is how little progress has been made since the ASPR and BPR began their investigations.
There is philosophy, there are traditions -- some living, some not (Buddhism, Sufism, Gnosticism, and so on) -- that address some of the deeper questions these organizations pursued, yet no resolution is yet seen on the horizon within the larger realms of Western thought.
This is longstanding; questions raised by Sir Walter Ralegh in his time, questions in the time of James and company, too, are still questions now, at least in the collective conscious Western mind.
I maintain that it's quite possible to begin to attain knowing of such matters and even sharing this knowing somewhat with others, a la the Internet, through books, and so on, but a general consensus still seems far, far away.
Bill
Boltonian:
"Isn't finding one's 'True self' and eliminating ego a contradictory proposition? True self suggests ego. And how will one know that this is one's true self. Is my present existence not true in some way? It feels very true to me. But then so it did when I was a seven year old child. I prefer to think of it as development and growth rather than 'True' which implies that other conditions are false."
Hello Boltonian,
First of all congratulations to the boys in white; it was a big game, very close! Heatbreaking for a frenchie like me, still, well done to England and for having proved the world that despite a dodgy start and fierce criticism, the team can stand tall and always be a force you write off at your own peril!
Next week will be great , a chance for both England and France to get revenge from their previous disastrous encounters with the respective teams they're meeting!
That's it for the rugby.
Regarding your paragraph on finding "true self" against the weight of "ego", I completely share your feelings and have the same outlook on this. First of all, I really like your idea of growth and development instead of absolute; It makes more sense, knowledge is something you nurture every day and leave room to grow; Voltaire made the famous "cutivate your garden" analogy in Candide, Khalil Gibran stated "never say you found the truth, but you found a truth"; while it cannot dismiss the potential validity of such absolute truth, from our point of view, we can only learn and grown as much as the effort we are willing to put in!
When you ask: "Is my present existence not true in some ways", it begs the question on what is existence if it's not necessarly true?
So we're stuck with existence and truth and when it comes to humans both of these are subjective. So your existence is subjective and projected, at best it is the sum of what you are doing and how the rest of the world sees you... and this is exactly the same as "truth". Nothing absolute in here either, just depending on your willingness to learn and grow.
And truth by truth, you acknowledge your existence and it will be only as good as you are willing to know. For everything you refuse to know, it is not true therefore you are not liable and everything else just happens...
It's not that it's false; it's just that there is nothing you knowingly can do about it because you still ignore "this truth".
Infinity or absolute are concept which are far too hard to comprehend for humans, hence the whole concept of noumenon; we can't dismiss its possible existence but we should only focus on the relative phenomenon we experience and we can learn and grow from instead of starring at some big pie in the sky and remain oblivious of the world we exist in.
Steve:
Did you see the game?
DaddyO:
Just followed up your Wiki link. Lots of things I didn't know - for example, that statues of Buddha were a Greek influenced idea. It has always puzzled me why this least superstitious of religions felt the need for icons.
The link with Christianity is interesting. The NT figure of Jesus has struck me as being more like either Socrates or Gotama than a Jewish religious zealot. I am sure I have read somewhere that there is a Buddhist tradition of a Westerner coming among them at about the time of the historical Jesus - after all he did disappear from the Gospels for about 20 years.
PG:
One more hurdle to overcome on Saturday. France should beat Argentina - they looked nervous and very tired on Sunday.
I agree that absolutes and infinity is impossible for us to visualise - that, of course, does not preclude their existence.
I lean to the view that truth is relative - we can only relate to everything else in the universe from our own perspective in place and time. But as the whole gamut is in a state of flux there is never one point of reality, as it were. How is it possible to step out of that to provide evidence of an objective world, even if such a thing exists? The best we can do is agree, through our imperfect and limited tool of language, that x is more likely to be the case than y.
All else is belief of one sort or another. The enemy here is dogmatism.
Bill:
This is the problem as I see it with unsubstantiated belief or subjective and unshared experience. Either it becomes a dogma (most religions and much new agery) or it simply cannot be verified by anybody else but oneself - or, at best, a small group. And the danger with that is charlatanry.
The late Larry Adler once said that it was easy to make a few thousand dollars in a morning in California - just stand on a soap box on a Saturday morning and say 'God has spoken to me; I am the new Messiah ...give me $100 to help me save the world.'
-------
The result of all this philosophising is that I have just bought the Critique of Pure Reason (Kant) and An Enquiry into Human Understanding (Hume) for re-reading. Nothing like going back to the originals.
Erratum:
Should read '...Concerning Human ...' of course.
Boltonian:
"I am sure I have read somewhere that there is a Buddhist tradition of a Westerner coming among them at about the time of the historical Jesus - after all he did disappear from the Gospels for about 20 years."
I've read this too somewhere and I remember a friend of mine have a book on Jesus life in India which would fit in similar time frames; I don't know much about the story but if I remember correctly, it mentioned that Jesus was married...
(no comment)
Good luck with reading Hume and Kant! If you need something easier to read and still quite insightful, I'd still recomend Ouspensky's In Search of the Miraculous; It's quite easy to read, not really dogmatic ( I've got exactly the same concerns about dogma ) and I'm pretty sure that some of the ideas expressed will strike a chord with you.
Hello everyone.
I'm currently having to seriously consider the notion that religion rots the brain. My own one seems to be struggling a little at the moment. I did make it to the anti-war rally the other week. I also went to the Star Wars exhibition on the same day, due to my ineptitude at booking the online tickets. I felt sure I had clicked on the right Monday but when I printed off the tickets I found that I had booked them a week early. My son was quite pleased to get an extra day off school in addition to the inset day when we had originally planned to go. He did pay for it by being made to stand and listen to over an hour's worth of anti-war speeches which was *very* boring as he insisted on telling me a million times. Once the marching started he got very into it and was still chanting "One, two, three, four, we don't want your bloody war" long after we had got back home. There's nothing like a bit of childhood indoctrination to make you feel like a proud parent.
I have purchased Dr Kawashima's More Brain Training (for the Nintendo DS)in the hope of halting the decline. I did quite well in the original Brain Training, supposedly attaining the brain age of 20, but I think he might just have been feeling sorry for me.
I've just finished reading Tricks Of The Mind by Derren Brown, which has a whole section on improving your memory. It was an interesting read, though I can't say that I really learnt anything new from it, other than that Derren is yet another ex-Christian. He's certainly a big fan of Richard Dawkins, but doesn't adopt the sneering tone in his own book. He comes across as an ok guy, though one that maybe should have got out a bit more in his youth.
There was a good section on thinking traps which included the Monty Hall problem and A D 3 7 card problem.
He does have a good old science good religion bad rant at various points in the book. Once you have rejected the religion that you were brought up with it seems that it is hard to see *any* positives that have come from it, but in Derren's case it doesn't seem to have done him too much harm. Like I said earlier, he comes across as a decent boke, apart from a rather puerile schoolboy humour which I don't really find funny because I've never been a schoolboy.
I understand that there is a rugby match on later. I might even watch it.
PG:
Thanks for the book ref. I have just ordered Kenny's magnum opus, which should keep me going for the winter.
Biskieboo:
Derren Brown sounds interesting. He admits that he was/is obsessive - presumably it is this part of his character that allows him to do what he does. Even on the TV his humour comes across as being a little immature on occasions.
I hadn't realised that he is a former Christian. Many of the most vehement atheists share a similar background. A certain prominent atheistic CIFer springs to mind.
He comes across having a strong moral objection to superstition. Presumably because it leads to the exploitation of the more credulous of us by clever charlatans. A very Christian moral stance!
Boltonian -
I have enjoyed watching Derren Brown's programmes. I did get seriously spooked once when watching one of them. It was the seance one. I was on my own in the house watching it when there was a loud hammering on the patio doors at the back of my house. At first I wasn't sure if the sound was somehow part of the tv show which everyone heard and was meant to freak the living daylights out of you. I didn't dare go and look to see what it was. I hadn't been living in the house for very long, and didn't know that my next door neighbour had lots of unsavoury friends who would turn up late at night and if they didn't get an answer on the front door they would go around the back of the houses. They are not the cleverest of folk and sometimes get the wrong garden. I can laugh about it now.
I was fed misinformation about the rugby - apparently it's at the weekend.
Finished The Dawkins Delusion by Alister McGrath today. They ought to give a copy away with every copy of The God Delusion. I like the author very much and hope to read some of his other books in the future.
Where has Steve gone? I hope he's ok.
Biskieboo:
Where is he indeed? Perhaps he has been arrested for running down the street naked singing 'Swing Low Sweet Chariot,' after last weekend's heroics.
Steve - whither art thou?
We have guests over for the weekend, so an early dinner on Saturday and then gather around the box with a glass or two of something interesting. I just hope that they have the same idea as us. My wife has got completely caught up in the excitement and rugby is not big in Thailand, where she hails from.
Derren Brown never fails to amaze me even when he explains exactly how he has done it. Some of his more elaborate tricks verge on the cruel but the 'Victims' have given their consent for it to be shown, I suppose.
Your seance experience would have had me jumping through the ceiling had it happened to me.
...and Martin, ChooChoo, elephantschild, spacepenguin and other regulars for that matter?
Still here, still reading, still lacking inspiration....
Boltonian,
Apologies for the delayed response.
First up, I certainly haven't eliminated ego, though I have observed it directly in action, which I guess might count as moving some way along the path.
I don't see the contradiction between self and eliminating ego, though it's possible we're working with different definitions of ego here. The way I'm using the term is to describe that part of our mind that tries to create a fixed identity for ourselves. Even if we do eliminate ego, we will still have an identity (and personality too, for that matter) but this will be something transient, beyond our power of creation.
For this, and much of what I've encountered through medition, an analogy might be with surfing a wave (although I've never been surfing so could be wrong). In fact, I find it intriguing that a lot of surfers regard their pursuit as a spiritual activity.
As for a "true" self, there is a slight danger of getting lost in semantics. In fact, I gather Buddhists generally prefer to refer to "no self", while at the same time using the concept of the relative "I". It is interesting that you bring up the example of changes from being seven years old. Most of us can probably agree, on some level, that we are not the same people we were when we were seven, but few of us would accept that we are not the same person as we were just a second ago. Yet this is what Buddhists argue.
The idea is that we are ultimately just the sum of thoughts and sensations at any given moment. Yet however much people may (or may not) agree with this view in theory, in practice people find it very hard to let go of the idea of a permanent self, so they try to create one by clinging onto pleasant thoughts and sensations and avoiding the unpleasant ones.
You ask why you feel like yourself and not the universe. Have you ever tried feeling like the universe?
Okay, this is easier said than done, and I'll grant you that I've certainly never felt like the universe. But I have found that in many instances the point of feeling like me has been lost as my consciousness has merged more with my environment. I have recently take to meditating while I'm on the underground, and find this to be particularly the case here.
Generally though I'm not too keen on the term "heightened state of consciousness" and would instead describe it more as an "altered sense of perception". If you have ever taken psychadellic drugs, there are some similarities, though it is not precisely the same. Reality seems very different, warped almost, and I have found the experience at times disorientating, though one goes through a wide spectrum of feelings too numerous to list here.
One thing I've recently started to notice, though, is time being continuous rather than discrete. This might seem quite obvious anyway, but I began seeing that the individual moments were like frames in a movie reel, fragments of reality broken up by nothingness. Noticing this alters my perception of time in ways that are not easy to describe, other than to say that it acquired a more spacious quality.
One final point: you are absolutely right that overcoming desire can often be a precursor to eliminating it. But the relationship isn't quite as mechanical as one might suppose. If you have ever given up smoking for a substantial period of time you might understand this. At the beginning you almost become your craving for cigarettes, such is you inability to think of anything else (other than chewing your own arm off, which you think of doing often). Then the power of the cravings wanes as a precursor to those cravings becoming increasingly less frequent until you hardly ever think about it anymore. But the desire to smoke never really goes away, it just sort of becomes background noise as the cravings lose the hold they had over you. As most addicts will admit, you never really lose your addiction, just learn how to keep it under control.
Plastic Gypsies: "I'd still recomend Ouspensky's In Search of the Miraculous; It's quite easy to read, not really dogmatic ( I've got exactly the same concerns about dogma ) and I'm pretty sure that some of the ideas expressed will strike a chord with you."
Dear PG:
1. In Search of the Miraculous is an intriguing book but note that followers -- those who belong to organized Gurdjieff/Ouspensky groups -- can be a very dogmatic lot.
2. G's "Watch Yourself and Remember Yourself" (discussed in the book) is one of the most powerful exercises I'm aware of but also quite difficult to sustain for any extended period. I somehow managed to do so once, many years ago, while hitch hiking hundred of miles, but have lacked the circumstances to practice it ever since. (It would help to be independently wealthy and without responsibilities of any kind.)
3. After posting here and to Michael Prescott's blog late last night I dreamt, vividly, of being in a small plane filled with UK personalities -- those who tend to populate these blogs. This included a number of details well beyond my Internet interaction, but I lack the time to attempt to verify them.
The area of dreams is closely associated with topics discussed here, particularly "ego;" the interplay of Internet and dreaming an interesting area, possibly worthy of some serious research.
Regards
Bill I.
Me: "3. After posting here and to Michael Prescott's blog late last night.."
I'm dealing with far too many deadlines in my work life; I concocted a long post last night and, apparently, forgot to hit the "publish" button after previewing and editing -- thus the reference to a nonexistent post.
Apologies
Bill
I, too, am still here, although I have been somewhat distracted of late by other claims on my time.
Boltonian: I meant to respond to your last posts concerning our sense of beauty and where it originates, although as the discussion moved on to other matters it seemed less relevant. Essentially, what I intended to say was that your idea - that it is an extension of responses to criteria used originally in mating strategy - does not, for me, provide an adequate explanation. To me it seems over-simple and begs the question.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that it arose in a much wider and more general context, as part of our interaction with our environment as a whole. Just as our response to things on a more or less automatic level as harmful or beneficial, 'good' or 'bad' has obvious survival value for ourselves as individuals and as a species, the tendency to evaluate things in our environment as beautiful, and the emotional response that our perception of beauty evokes, could be beneficial in that it enables us to engage more intensely with that environment on many different levels. Given that, as I said, beauty is not, in itself, necessarily indicative of reproductive fitness, it seems to me more likely that the evaluation of potential mates using criteria of beauty is just one specifice application of this more general faculty, although once beauty becomes an attractor it confers an advantage, in that someone who is generally perceived as beautiful will have a wider choice of potential mates.
My knowledge of the theory of aesthetics does not extend beyond what I learned in an Inttermediate Honours course in Art History (a required subsiduary for anyone studying for an Hons degree in Archaeology in Edinburgh at the time I was there), and the role of art in attempting to capture and convey a sense of beauty and meaning in the environment is complex, so perhaps I had better not embark on a discussion of those matters.
re your question concerning Vermes' book, I have a copy of 'The Authentic Gospel of Jesus' and I certainly started to read it. I have a feeling, though, that I got distracted before I finished it, so I must go back and have another look.
*****************************
daddyOmarcos
I was interested to read your account of experience during meditation, which accords with whatI have read elsewhere. I have sometimes thought of attempting it, but am not sure I have the necessary ability to focus and subdue the constant chatter of my mind. I find it difficult enough to relax physically.
*********************************
Biskieboo:
If you want to read more by Alister McGrath (and if you haven't done so already) try 'Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life', which is rather more substantial than 'The Dawkins Delusion'.
P.S. I don't know if any of you do crosswords, but the Guardian cryptic crossword today is Rugby themed!
Hello! I feel if I have anything to say I shall be repeating myself. The rugby will be starting soon: if freewill genuinely existed shouldn't I be able to influence the outcome? As it is I have decided to enjoy the match, but expect little for England. I am wondering how many tries Habena will make.
Well, what a weekend!
I didn't think that watching telly could be so exhausting.
First Argentina making mincemeat of the French defence and then SA just scraping through against that bunch of no-hopers - England. In a way, and in the cold light of day, it is perhaps better for the future that England did not quite lift the trophy. So, it has been a SH triumph but not as we expected.
E:
I think you are right to bring in the environment. We tend to find more varied and fertile landscapes more beautiful and that might be because there is more chance of finding food and protection for such physically vulnerable omnivores as ourselves.
There is also a converse feeling - we find a certain frisson of excitement when we encounter bleak and hostile environments. This might be explained by reminding us of what is dangerous and contrasting it with the beneficial environments we find most beautiful.
There is also the important element that a shared sense of beauty acts as a cohesive force for the tribe and helps foster co-operation.
Did anybody manage to listen to 'In Our Time' the other week? I have just listened to it via the BBC website. Lots of unanswered questions such as:
'Why did anti-matter and matter created at Big Bang not completely annihilate?'
'Why is there now slightly more matter than anti-matter?'
'Is there an anti-matter universe - a mirror image of our own?'
Answers anybody? SpaceP?
Boltonian -
Didn't hear the radio programme, but it sounds good. I know you can often listen to old radio stuff via the net but I haven't done it myself yet. Might look the programme up and see if I can listen to it. Physics is not exactly a strong area of mine so I could probably do with it.
History is an even poorer subject area for me, in a "so bad it's embarrassing" way. I am attempting to rectify this slowly, but I need to find something really interesting to be able to really get into it. I am curious about Alfred the Great (this will make some of you laugh and interest others of you - I was told some years ago that he may be one of my spirit guides!) and so am reading a book about "Asser's Life of King Alfred".
There seems to be a number of books that Alfred thought should be required reading for all men, and he was responsible for the translation of some of them from Latin into English (he had to teach himself Latin first - what dedication!).
It got me wondering what would make it onto a list of books that would be thought required reading today.
Any thoughts from anyone?
Biskieboo:
Here is the link for the Anti-matter prog:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/
inourtime/inourtime_20071004.shtml
In Our Time is almost always a good listen in my view. The one on Socrates the week before is also worth a listen.
History is endlessly fascinating for me but, unfortunately, I keep jumping around and never really acquire the depth of knowledge for any particular period. I read lots on Anglo-Saxon England many years ago, lent one of my prized books to somebody and never got it back. That was my excuse to move on to Neolithic Britain or Mediaeval Europe or Classical Greece or some other interesting area.
I offer three volumes of required reading for today's audience:
1) The recently published First Folio edition of the Complete Works of William Shakespeare;
2) The History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell; and
3) The Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson.
Boltonian et al. Apologies for my absence from what is the most congenial internet forum. (That sounds terribly arrogant - not meant like that).
Biskieboo - please accept my apologies. I only just read that you were in London (which is, indeed, where I live, for better or for worse - and in the same North East ish part as South Harrow). As it happens, I was in and out of London that week. But that is besides the point. I still owe you that tea.
PS - I second your recommendations, Boltonian (though I am not au fait with the recent Shakespeare edition).
Russell's History is a great read. I think one of its strengths is his openness about his slant. I read it some time back (and that's including some serious skims: I certainly recall giving up on Leibniz). I should add - absurdly, given that he was Bertrand Russell and I am not - that the sections on, roughly speaking, Medieval Philosophy are dazzling and dazzlingly shortsighted. (For instance - though this is with the caveat of a poor memory - his chapter on Aquinas is brilliant and yet brilliantly wrong, for instance on Aquinas' 'originality' or on Aquinas on authority). Still, it's great.
Out of interest, has anyone ever read - or know anyone who has ever read - Copleston's (Seven Volume?!) history of philosophy? It certainly doesn't have Russell's wit (from the absolutely tiny fraction I've read). But it's been said of it that philosophy professors cursed Copleston because their students would refer to him instead of reading the texts for themselves.
If I may add some recent reading should it be of interest to anyone - half of Mary Douglas' Natural Symbols (interrupted because a friend stole-borrowed it). Quite simply fascinating stuff. Herbert McCabe's The Good Life is a short and gentle introduction to what a marriage of an, in generalised terms, Aristotelian approach to ethics with a Wittgensteinian bolstering might look like. (Quite nice, as it happens). And Craig Brown's 1966 and all that is a little treat (though, of course, it could never topple 1066 and all that).
ChooChoo:
Welcome back - I have called off the manhunt.
I have not read the Coplestone but I have just ordered Anthony Kenny's new four volume, 'Modern History of Western Philosophy,' which, according to somebody here (I think it was PG) sets out to combine Russell's readability with Coplestone's accuracy. I have just started re-reading Hume - delightful.
I quite like Craig Brown's humorous columns in the DT if I am in the mood but I have not read 1966 etc.
I have not been able to do any reading as I’m finishing a thesis and all my days and nights are dominated by macroeconomic policy co ordination in the EU. So what reading I do is restricted to finding a stool in Waterstone’s in Gower Street (this must be where Choo Choo works, no?) and stealing a few hours on the third floor. To that end I would recommend Kenny as I did previously. Boltonian there’s a quick interview with him on philosophy bites where he discusses the book I have mentioned him elsewhere but Mark Vernon’s “Science, Religion and the Meaning of Life” is coming out in paperback as “After Atheism”, I found it a great read and it is more apt than a year ago since you know what came out, so if you haven’t take a look it’s moving, clearheaded and calming.
Can I also second the comments on ‘In Our Time’ nearly all of them are excellent, so much so you end up annoyed when the 45 minutes are up and you wish for another hour at least. Bragg has gone way up in my estimation since he began; so many great people get on, and I will use the cliché that it’s worth the licence fee on its own.
Choo Choo,
When one does ‘recommendations’ in bookshops do you really get carte blanche? I say this for the Waterstone’s at LSE recommendations shelf has Dawkins, Blackmore, Singer, Sam Harris, Hitchens and the rest as well as a window devoted to evolutionary psychology, I want to put a sign up and call it ‘Materialist Corner’ though they had put ‘Fear and Trembling’ in for a week; very strange. By the way Choo Choo I’m Germont from CiF, my monikers on blogs refer to Verdian baritones, my pet love, which may explain my sense of superiority in taking ACG to task on his insipid and trite Opera reviews, how thin does this man spread himself? Can I echo everything you said about McCabe again; a great man.
Simon and PG:
Many apologies to both of you for attributing Bocanegra's recommendation to PG. Sheer laziness, I'm afraid.
Simon, talking of Verdian baritones, my favourite is Sherrill Milnes, whom I saw at Covent Garden some years ago as Rigoletto. I have the recording of him in this role with Pavarotti and Sutherland, which includes the best version of the sextet I have ever heard.
ACG does opera reviews as well? Does the man ever have time to teach?
Sherill Milnes, absolutely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So lucky of you to have seen him in Rigoletto; his “Cortegiani vil razza” in that same recoding you mention is suberb as he is in Lucia with dame Joan and Pavarotti not to mention his Rodrigo in the legendary Giulini Don Carlo. These days I would rate Leo Nucci who I saw in Traviata in Parma about 5 years ago. Now that was an evening!
I see ACG is at it again, three times in one week, I’ve banned myself from making any comments on ‘god threads’ but as Choo Choo mentions the first paragraph is beyond parody. Do you think he has any conception of how he comes across in his whiggish ways? I really fear there to be a total lack of self-deprecation and no concept of auto-irony to the man, two extremely unappealing attributes that he shares with Dawkins.
What John Gray has to say is in many ways far more radical, and yes upsetting, but I had the fortune of following a series of his lectures when I was at the LSE on liberalism; he is a pleasure to listen too. Any venom the man possessed was usually aimed at his own tribe of philosophers, he is also extremely funny. When asked ‘how the hell can you get up in the morning thinking the things you do’ he said ‘I stay in bed a bit longer’. I think ACG on thoughts on religion can only be ascribed to wilful ignorance, yet his opinions are shared by otherwise intellectual people that I know. The problem is he gets away with it and it is precisely people like him who should be frisked to an inch of their lives since he does push above his weight. For this reason I think places like this are vital so we take a greater interest in religion with the humility of not disengaging as we study it in a classic terms of a ‘them’ and ‘us’ game. This is hard when people are not even able to differentiate philosophers of religion with theologians.
Simon:
Re-ACG. Is there anything that the man is not a soi disant expert on?
Good response from ChooChoo. I will certainly refrain from commenting on this one.
I am sure that I saw Leo Nucci at CG many years ago. I am racking my brains as to what it might have been. Having just checked his list of credits the only thing that appears to fit is Luisa Miller in 1978 with a very young Jose Carreras. That was my first operatic experience (other than recordings)- and what a place to start!
The Rigoletto I saw at CG with Milnes also had Katia Ricciarelli as Gilda but I cannot remember the tenor.
Simon:
Just listened to the Kenny interview on Philosophy Bites - thanks. I am looking forward to receiving my copy even more now.
Two recommendations for McCabe - that means I have no choice but to read it.
Hello Boltonian, Bocanegra/Germont et al.
Boltonian - is the Kenny divided into volumes: Ancient Philosophy, Medieval Ph., (Early Modern?) Ph. and Modern Ph.? In which case, I have the Medieval one. Not quite through it yet, but useful so far. (And I think for each he does a chronological section first before thematic chapters: quite useful). I think it looks pretty good: not overly-familiar with Kenny but he seems to write fluently and cogently. (I feel absurd writing that: my first year essays on [ancient] philosophy were always poo, and I once wrote badly about the Phaedo when I was supposed to be writing about the Phaedrus. Or was it the other way round.)
Bocanegra - just back from work (on which more in a sec) and while I wait for food to heat up, I am eagerly awaiting Grayling's appearance on This Week (a self-imposed tv ban since Mon has been broken by my odd fondness for watching Abbott and Portillo, though not Neal. Also for football highlights). I am sure you have cancelled all social engagements and postponed any thesis work to catch it.
I don't work at the Waterstones on Gower Street. Between c.2000-2004 I applied each summer and christmas for temporary holiday work. They always said no. Or rather didn't say anything. (For those of you not from London, it's not quite their largest - that's in Piccadilly - but it is their most 'academic', featuring an absurdly expensive second hand section and a hidden treats remainders bit). That said, I was on the 3rd floor this afternoon. And I have seen the materialist corner.
From my experience working in a bookshop (think, I'm sorry to say, Starbucks but in bookshop form to work out where I work. How I dream that it was Judd Books - on Marchmont street near Russell Square for non-Londoners, my fave 2nd hand bookshop in London at the mo) staff picks are more or less carte blanche. The line is drawn at ironic staff picks (we are not classy enough to call them recommendations).
Here're some stellar staff picks from my time.
An issue of Nuts magazine. (I can't remember the blurb, but my dear friend wrote something along the lines of it being a particularly excellent issue. It lasted only three days before a manager took it away. Curiously, the reason given was not, 'You're just being silly', but rather, 'Technically, you aren't allowed to staff pick magazines. Sorry').
The same character then resolved to staff pick Dan Brown's Deception Point, noting that no writer of English prose since Joyce had so profoundly challenged our assumptions about writing as Brown had, while his panoramic yet personal story was reminiscent of Waugh. (I think it was taken down out of guilt after someone, I am told, bought a copy picked up from that section).
My favourite, however, remains another colleagues 'staff pick' for David Icke's Tales from the Time Loop. (If you don't know Icke: former sports presenter who has since found a line in writing rather weighty tomes which can be glibly characterised as 'conspiracy theory tomes', though, of course, I have never read them). I can remember her pick more or less verbatim (and, needless to say, no writer of English prose since Joyce...etc):
"Just because someone goes onto the Wogan show sporting a shellsuit and mullet doesn't mean he shouldn't be taken seriously. In this book, Icke conclusively shows how the 'Babylonian Brotherhood' - a.k.a the Lizard Men - are well underway in setting up a secret world government. Only somebody with the sense of possibility the size of a pea could fail to be swayed by Icke's cogent arguments."
I also staff picked Peter Brown's The World of Late Antiquity - a very famous book by a luminary historian. It is, imho, one of the best introductions to a historical period ever penned (and he writes like a dream). I wrote a sober review, in which i called him "one of the world's finest living historians". It didn't really sell. My colleage - of Nuts and Dan Brown fame - crossed out "finest living" and replaced it with "best looking". And people buy it.
On a final note: among my circle of soi-disant staff pick comedians, it is considered quite vulgar to write a staff pick with a view to shifting copies. That is quite incidental. It is considered a genre of writing in itself (though my poorly remember examples will fail to convey this adequately, I fear).
I looked around my apartment after reading so many references to books and bookstores in recent posts.
I've been in the same place (not so special in itself but then it's on a tiny peninsula, the ocean a few minutes away, the play of light and color on sea, sky, and rocky shore often unbelievably spectacular) since 1988.
I've always found it much easier to purchase a book than to discard one (does anyone else suffer from this irrational behavior?), while, not having moved in so many years, memories of hefting earlier accumulations are too distant to change my behavior.
I am amazed at the extent of my present collection. My apartment, then, is very much like a used bookstore (but one that includes a complete office and the corporate records for my primary client).
I am also prone to picking up cast-off electronics (those that work or can be made to work w/o too much difficulty), enjoying wiring them together and marveling at what people throw away, so working computers, stereo systems, speakers, multi-CD-players, and televisions -- far more than I need -- are part of the mix.
Maybe I should open a used bookstore/cafe. (Recently I was quietly reading something in a local used bookstore, so quietly that the owner left and locked me in, totally surprised to encounter me upon his return.)
Bill
Bill - (hello!). I am envious (in the nice sense, as opposed to in the literally vicious sense) of the vista a walk away from your apartment. The closest thing I have to rival are the flickering silhouettes of slightly younger than me youths leaning by the bus stop a walk away from chez moi, though I am being ungrateful: I have a Morrisons two minutes away.
On your inclination never to discard books, I think I largely share it.
That said, upon clearing up a room for my mother a few weeks back, I must confess that I had no qualms about binning a battered copy of a Jeffrey Archer novel. It would be foolish, at this point, to refuse to confess to the ownership of said Jeffrey Archer novel, though it certainly wasn't a recent purchase.
I wonder what you think about one complication: I can happily give away a book to a friend (as distinct from not getting back books lent out). There are further complications of course: some books have - as that wholly inadequate phrase has it - 'sentimental value'. Others are, in some sense, needed. Still, there's something special about the 'gift': and - if you've ever received one you'll know - a copy of a book which someone has had before giving it to you is somehow more special than a (gratefully received, I stress) present of a newly bought book. Wonder what you think.
Bocanegra - forgot to mention one thing more seriously: all the best with writing up.
Following your CiF posts etc (and learning of your subject area), I wonder whether we are both doing the wrong thing. If I were to draw a Venn diagramme of our interests (and areas of, at least partial, knowledge) it might have Opera at your end, virtue ethics meets Ludwig in the middle, and football at my end.
A brief digression: I am increasingly and, thus, painfully aware of being, in some ways, a football geek. I often joke to my friends that if I were writing a thesis on the collected goals of Ray Parlour I'd have been done and dusted in a month or two: this doesn't just reflect Parlour's relative paucity of goals. They often reply, you're not funny. This geekiness remains despite my growing disgust at the behaviour of footballers off and, especially, on the pitch. This was emphasised to me when watching the South Africa - Argentina rugger semi final. I can't remember the names, but I recall, near the end, a little spat, including one Argentinian hitting out at a springbok. Two players were sin-binned - neither they nor others gave the ref any jib. And, notably, at the end of the game, the players involved went up to one another, shook hands and exhanged words. I was gobsmacked. Or, to take another example, when in India last month, I watched the India-Pakistan 20-20 match - the first one which went to cricket 'penalties' - with my grandfather, uncle and cousin. Each time a Pakistani player played a fine stroke, they would shout relevant words of praise. As much as I admire the skills of, say, Ronaldo, I can't imagine following suite in a week and a half on Saturday. Anyhow, I digress.
Given the Venn diagram, there might be an interesting collaboration: a football match between Wittgensteinians and Aristotelians - with those somewhere in between playing a half for each side, before declaring that there aren't opposite sides after all - but played out in an operatic setting? I know far worse ideas that have received funding.
Apologies to all for all these moot points: where was I? Oh yeah, the thing about eliminative materialism, right, is that...
Choochoo:
1. Morrisons? I'll look it up. When I moved here, Lexington Avenue -- a tiny street that quickly descends to the ocean -- still had a few peculiar local cafes and coffee shops amongst consignment shops, an art frame shop, a moribund travel agency, a bicycle shop, and what not. I loved the cafes, and enjoyed the company of the eccentric characters I met in them.
(This tiny street once had huge hotels and branches of exclusive New York stores, as the little town was the summer enclave of the very wealthy; robber barons built colossal mansions not far away.)
A major fire and changing economic and demographic circumstances ended the cafe era, and it passed away just as the earlier "Gold Coast" era had.
As much as I love the ocean setting, I'm desperate for cafe society, and may just have to move somewhere to obtain it.
2. I would have no qualms about discarding a Jeffrey Archer novel. The vast majority of my books are nonfiction.
3. I rarely have a chance to either give away or receive books these days (insufficient visitors -- I have many friends met on-line and once entertained them here and travelled quite a bit to visit them but those days are gone while my local friends have tended to move out as wealth has moved in, leaving me behind, a holdout from another era).
The last book I gave away was a fairly rare biography of Hypatia, and -- I don't expect you to believe this -- I gave it to Hypatia herself, in her present form.
The tale behind this is long and ancient; I believe I could convince you of its veracity were the three of us to sit together long enough in the same room, but that's hardly likely.
Her life is much more colorful than mine -- she travels in high artistic circles.
She is of a rare category amongst those I encounter, those who cause visions of the ancient world to arise in my consciousness (even Hypatia is young -- modern -- compared to what she can evoke).
Some might call her a natural witch, but that is perhaps owing to the very long darkness we are still emerging from.
(Sorry for the ramble. It's late here, and I'm tired.)
Bill
Just a few unconnected thoughts prompted by the last few posts.
I too hardly ever throw books away. We recently completely refurbished our house (it's cheaper than moving) and I had a golden opportunity to send some of my paperbacks to the local charity shop. I completely failed - in the end I could not bear to part with any of them even though I am sure that most will never be read again. The house still looks like a library but with better decor and furniture.
Rugby Union overtook football as my winter interest in the mid 1970s (I had always enjoyed League)partly because of the violence on the terraces. Now I can't bear to watch the ridiculous antics of most of those involved with football; players, managers and administrators. If I watch a match on the box these days I can't get through more than half a game without turning it off.
I used to go along to support my local rugby team here and part of the pleasure was listening to the knowledgeable and witty comments from spectators of both sides - no segregation here.
When I lived in London my favourite bookshop was Dillon's (is that now the Waterstone's you mention?)in Mallett Street (or was it Gower Street) - miles better than Foyle's - the staff were far more knowledgeable. But Charing Cross Road was unbeatable for music.
Sorry Bill, I ought to have remembered that you're not from these here parts. (Morrisons is a drab though wallet friendly supermarket). I loved your description of where you've lived. And thanks for the Jeffrey Archer support.
"The last book I gave away was a fairly rare biography of Hypatia, and -- I don't expect you to believe this -- I gave it to Hypatia herself, in her present form."
Hypatia? She's right from my period.
(Boltonian - there's a half-famous Victorian painting of Hypatia in the Kenny vol on medieval philosophy. I understand that she might be one of the figures on the left in Raphael's School of Athens).
I know you won't be offended by this, Bill: I guess I don't believe you. (There are plenty of things I can say which others won't believe). There is a certain incommunicability about things which cushions this from outright 'delusion' smears or outright subjectivism. Still, I don't believe you: or rather, I don't believe that what you say really is what you say. None of this is to imply telling falsehoods on your part. (Again, I am aware of things I might say which would elicit similar responses in you or others). But I can't say I'm not very interested in hearing more about Hypatia. Nor can I precisely say why (or even what it is) I don't believe.
Boltonian - the Waterstones on Gower Street is where Dillons once stood. I also think that it's better than Foyles: I remember the messier Foyles of days gone by being better than the tidier one standing today. The Waterstones, though, is not perfect (this is isn't through bookshop partisanship): to my mind, there were notable absences in philosophy, (esp) theology/philosophy of religion and (early medieval) history. And football. I am such a geek. And the Foyles poetry section is better and they have a jazz cd cafe thing now.
I should have made clear: as much as the books circulating through gift exchange idea tickles my fancy, I also find it hard to get rid of (most) books. Again there are exceptions: I can remember buying a book about the history of the templars when I was about 17 or 18. It is basically conspiracy theory fare (though it is thankfully modest in approach, trying to tie together a minimalist 13 strands together to account for only about half of the world's ills). I think it is Umberto Eco who wrote something about the Templars being at the centre of every conspiracy theory (centred on the West at least). Anyhow, I have had no qualms whatsoever about charity shopping it. On the other hand, my battered copy of After Virtue will remain mine til death do us part.
Speaking of book recommendations, what do you folks think of Umberto Eco? Have managed to get through both Foucault's Pendulum and The Name of the Rose. Both are demanding, have some pretentious digressions (thinking of the former more than the latter) but are strangely gripping. Foucault's Pendulum has a wicked plot. But The Name of the Rose is wonderful for its sympathetic depiction of monastic life. It might be worth rereading as a slant on medieval philosophy (a slant which, if I have understood Eco correctly, I am not inclined towards).
Spooky....we all seem to have spent inordinate time in that Gower St bookshop in its different incarnations....assuming it's the same one, on the road just off Gower St, with the bookshop facing a back entrance to UCL, then I haunted it too, when thesisising at UCL....happy (drunken) days in ULU & Birkbeck bars (do they still have the rooftop bar there?)....
Itinerant bookshop workers will enjoy the story here (read the 25/10 entry) from the blog of a regular contributor to the GU books blog:
http://thedictionaryofoscarmacsweeny.wordpress.com/
Eco, eh? Hmmm....read TNOTR years ago, and enjoyed it....FP more recently, and thought it better....the scam wrought by the publisher on wannabe self-publishing authors tickled me especially....but the Dan Brown-like plot disappointed me as a whole....also recently read one (title nonetheless forgotten) about a lone survivor on a ship in C17 or thereabouts - which promised much, but petered out....a man of fine ideas, but I wouldn't call him a good novelist, sadly....
Haven't posted on CiF for a long while - and probably won't, either....the religious/atheistic threads seem to have become even more squawky, and the other articles more devoid of interest of late....how many more pieces can they squeeze from Watson's misguided remarks? And the mutual adoration between a small coterie of right-on posters cloys....
ChooChoo: "I know you won't be offended by this, Bill: I guess I don't believe you."
I'm not offended at all, ChooChoo. I wouldn't have believed this myself at one time.
"There is a certain incommunicability about things which cushions this from outright 'delusion' smears or outright subjectivism. Still, I don't believe you: or rather, I don't believe that what you say really is what you say. None of this is to imply telling falsehoods on your part."
True and understandable. Even so, I find pleasure in the challenge of attempting to convey that which is truly too rich for words, particularly when it is made even more unbelievable owing to the presence of fame within it.
(What is fame? Why are some famous, so many obscure? There's more to this than one might think at first.)
This is a topic -- "reincarnation," not fame -- modern people have failed to comprehend, for the most part (I think of William James, Frederick Myers, and those others with them who did pioneering work in "psychical research" that never gained official acceptance and how this is still an area of ignorance and ridicule, in our time.)
"But I can't say I'm not very interested in hearing more about Hypatia. Nor can I precisely say why (or even what it is) I don't believe."
I have found that some of my relationships extend throughout great reaches of time, and believe this applies to everyone (and that most know or feel this when they encounter such a situation, although they might not express this in the same terms).
My relationship in this case is of of this nature, but our particular interaction in that time is a dark one for me, as I was an obscure monk whose name is lost to history, one of the mob. (Would anyone even know of Hypatia today if she had not been set upon by that very mob?)
I know of this because she, in her present form, can cause a person's inner being -- I'll call it "soul" despite the distortions associated with that word -- to emerge and commune with the conscious, egoic self.
(This can be a very powerful and startling experience; it was for me, the first time it happened with any force. This is something that can utterly destroy the usual rational stance, make it seem paper thin, the real "delusion.")
Fortunately my relationship with this particular being/person includes more noble examples (these are mostly unrecorded in any of our histories), so that the black behavior of the monk is redeemed by other episodes.
The present version of Hypatia is a writer, not at all inclined towards mathematics, although she has familiarized herself, consciously, with certain Greek-influenced philosophies as part of her research.
She wrote a history of the Etruscans as a Roman but that was destroyed in a fire -- no record of it exists -- while she visited Roman Britain as a Senator in another instance. (Records of that visit may exist; I don't know.)
Rome, England, Egypt and Ur are places we share in our personal "soul" histories, among others. (If you focus on the person of Hypatia you _might_ gain an intuitive sense of who she is, who her soul is -- there are surprises here for anyone who succeeds at such an endeavor, but this would be true of nearly any public personality you might think of, without touching on the much more pertinent question of those surprises anyone is likely to experience by investigating their own hidden experiences.)
I would use "poet" to describe the nature of her larger being, of which all of these personalities are expressions.
This "past life" stuff (and I hold that this term is an oversimplification of the realities here, a popular distortion) is unfathomable without some kind of direct experience, a barrier I've encountered many times in my interactions, but one that can be surmounted without too much difficulty.
It is far too easy to overemphasize this at the expense of one's present existence, a fault of mine at an early age, when this contributed to a certain instability. (Life is lived now, not then, but what is one to do when the present is momentarily overwhelmed by a vivid awareness of another time, another place, and long dead personalities, brought to present awareness -- triggered -- by meeting someone, a few words in a book, the sight of a painting, or something else?)
The short version of this is that we are part of greater beings for whom time is not the limiting factor it is for us; we are their experiencing physical "nodes."
(As such, do we have free will?)
These timeless regions of self are accessible, and they have loves, friendships, and other associations with each other; these relationships underlie many of our own human relationships, and are often key to why a mutual attraction is felt, above and beyond the purely physical or sexual.
(I must couch this as theory -- how can anyone "prove" this?)
We live in a time in which such access is unacceptable, but this is also a time of rapid change -- what was unacceptable to religion became unacceptable to science but then science itself began to be questioned as religion had been questioned. We have yet to see the end of this, but I suggest neither traditional religious nor scientific worldviews will prevail.
(I must do some brief business travelling and won't be back at my computer for many hours.)
Regards
Bill
ChooChoo:
I have just looked up Hypatia in Wiki. Interesting lady.
I have not been to Foyles (old or new) for more than 30 years, so I cannot compare. My visits to London these days are largely confined to business trips so, I arrive, conduct my business and depart. Sometimes I need to stay overnight, which I did quite a lot this spring but working late meant that opera and theatre were out of bounds.
Re-football, I was fanatical when I was a child and a kind cousin, who knew Nat Lofthouse, got him to part with his scrapbook for me. Alas, the story does not have a happy ending. When my mother moved house following my father's death she employed somebody to clear all the junk from the attic and, too late, I realised that the precious scrapbook was one of the disposed of items.
Talking of Morrison's - we have one here but this town's real claim to fame at the moment is that it is one of only two postcodes in Great Britain without a Tesco. They keep trying to get in, of course, and I think that they might succeed this time. We are lucky that there are lots of excellent small shops here, where we buy all our fresh fruit, veg, fish, meat, cheese etc.
Not read any Eco - one of the many writers that lurk around at the back of my mind. Whenever he is mentioned I think, 'Must read this, that or t'other,' and then never do.
Steve:
I too rarely post on CiF, although I could not resist a pop at Polly Toynbee recently.
Bill - a typically gracious and thoughtful response. I think that you accept the incommunicability point. (A very rough analogy might be how one loves one's spouse: I am not married, but I am touched by my grandparents on my Dad's side, who have been married for 60 years. The love they have for one another - and I stress that love is not simply a passive, felt affection, but also stems from acts of the will - has a reality I could not deny and yet it is, in some ways, incommunicable). Nonetheless, I am always willing to hear more about this.
Steve et al. - I must say that I though the ostensibly Dan Brown plotline in Foucault's Pendulum was a treat. I guess that, in a way, it's a satire of the gravitas of the Dan Brown brigade and the ease with which we give credence to these things. The point of course was that things which were being made up or randomly collected to form a narrative were seized onto by the real secret society. Nonetheless, while FP is more catchy, I was more taken (though not so 'gripped') by TNOTR. It is a beautifully sympathetic portrayal of monastic life which goes beyond the one-dimensional (and totalising) image of the 'medieval' in which we are inevitably immersed (even if Eco goes on about nominalism too much and implies that the Thomistic take on Aristotelianism was part of the 'establishment' in a way that overlooks how contentious it was for contemporaries and later). I agree with you that he's not exactly a 'good novelist'. From the two books above, I think he's more interested in weaving sounding boards into narratives. It's strange that I remember FP as gripping even though the pages of digressions on 13th (or was it 14th? 12th? etc) c history were painful at times. Still, TNOTR has interesting structural conceit, with each chapter representing another segment of the monastic day: matins etc.
Boltonian: overdue on 'eliminative materialism'. It's important not to mistake this with materialism tout court - or criticisms of it with criticisms of materialism tout court. I was trying to find a good way of summarising, but my mind (if it exists) or brain is feeling zapped (though that might be a piece of illicit 'folk psychology'), so I have cheated. Here's the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy summary:
"Eliminative materialism (or eliminativism) is the radical claim that our ordinary, common-sense understanding of the mind is deeply wrong and that some or all of the mental states posited by common-sense do not actually exist. Descartes famously challenged much of what we take for granted, but he insisted that, for the most part, we can be confident about the content of our own minds. Eliminative materialists go further than Descartes on this point, since they challenge of the existence of various mental states that Descartes took for granted."
ChooChoo: "...Nonetheless, I am always willing to hear more about this."
I'm sure to post more, every so often, about my personal "psychical research." Regarding Late Antiquity, the likely presence of a version or versions of you within it, Hypatia, and so on: This is something of a specialized (z is our American spelling, of course) area, although a very interesting one (Alexandria, in particular, is a fascinating topic all by itself).
I have no idea whether I shall post on this or not.
I did read The Name of the Rose, and quite enjoyed it; then, sometime later, I watched the movie.
That day included a major snowstorm and I managed to throw my back out, forced to use my snow shovel as a crutch to return to my second floor apartment.
Uncomfortable watching from a chair, I watched from the floor.
Just as one of the scenes with the Inquisitor came about, a spasm of pain hit my back....
Bill
Visiting London (please forgive me for freely associating after all of this talk of bookstores):
1. 1984
I visited with my dad for a mere couple of days, having been added to his last business trip before he retired.
At my urging we searched for the Bishop of Durham's residence only to discover it had vanished at some point after WWI.
The River Thames was oddly narrowed, as well, while much was not at all as I had pictured it. At about this time I became aware for the first time -- consciously -- of The Great Fire. (I'd already known of The Blitz, of course, but hadn't bothered to focus much past 1619 in my reading, before this visit.)
As we wandered, we found ourselves momentarily pressed up against the doors of a chapel amidst some heavy pedestrian sidewalk traffic; as they were swinging doors (they swung inward) we soon found ourselves inside, standing on the grave of Captain John Smith of Pocahontas fame.
2. 2001
Like an idiot, I assumed I could find my way to my quarters at the Quaker International Centre, on foot (and after flying all night), without any trouble. (The place was inexpensive and turned out to be clean, quiet and complete with a common kitchen and pay phone; I hope it's still there the next time I visit.)
I was wearing a major backpack and had one of those rolling suitcases, and was equipped with maps, but I was so disoriented by the time I got off the train at Victoria Station and hit the sidewalk that I was forced to buy a compass at a sporting goods store.
Even so, everything was dreamlike, surreal, and having a compass made little or no difference. I spied Parliament and Buckingham Palace, equestrian statues of generals, and so on, every so often consulting a map, but this wasn't working.
Hungry, I ducked into a breakfast place; the coinage contributed to my sense or disorientation, as though it came from some parallel world, while I was amazed to discover that no one in the place spoke English.
While there, I decided The Tube was the best means of arriving at my destination, so I got out my Underground map and studied it.
Making my way successfully to the nearest station, I was told it and the line it belonged to were closed owing to flooding...
Eventually, I got to another station on another line, and succeeded in disembarking at the station advertised on the centre's website as being only a few minutes away: Googe Street, which of course is deep enough to make it safe from the bombs of the Luftwafte (one less thing to worry about).
I asked two officials where Byng Place was; they looked at each other, clearly puzzled, then pulled out a huge book of maps and proceeded to provide me with impossibly complex directions.
Giving up, I left the station and asked the first person I came across, in front of a Waterstone's, where my place of lodging might be; they pointed, and soon I arrived.
(That particular Waterstone's -- was it at Torrington Place? I believe so -- was disappointing, at least its metaphysical section was not at all impressive.)
All in all, I've found London to be one of the very best places for practicing a kind of time travel. I can't wait to visit again but wonder if I'll be wealthy enough, considering the way the dollar is dropping.
Bill
ChooChoo:
Thanks for the definition of EM . It tells me what it is not but not necessarily what it is.
I have long suspected that Descartes was making an assumption about the 'I' part of his premise. The best we can say is that, 'There are thoughts.'
Does EM take this a stage further and posit a proposition or conjecture that even thoughts are not derived from mental states? If not, why not - and from what are they then derived? Or is it saying that mental states might not be a function of the brain? But they clearly exist - at least in me, so how are they derived if not from the brain? Are we back to dualism here?
Wiki says that some EMists suggest that certain sensations and other mental states (such as beliefs and desires) do not exist. I don't understand this because there is certainly something that exists to be experienced in one way or another. Perhaps my brain (or whatever it is) is just too small for such concepts.
SpaceP (where is he, BTW?) talked some while ago about a form of Monism whereby the same phenomena exhibit different manifestations (like mass/energy, I suppose). This gets round the problems of dualism without falling into complete materialism (or at least reductionism thereof). Please correct me if I have misrepresented you SpaceP.
Bill:
If you do return to London please let us know. Perhaps it would be an excuse for a few of us to meet for a coffee.
Boltonian: "I have long suspected that Descartes was making an assumption about the 'I' part of his premise. The best we can say is that, 'There are thoughts.'"
Who are we when we are not thinking but quietly and deliberately aware, nevertheless?
Rene didn't say simply: "I am" and leave it that, but he certainly could have.
Somewhat in agreement with your thought, I suggest the more basic self awareness is the best starting point. (What else is there, really?)
"If you do return to London please let us know. Perhaps it would be an excuse for a few of us to meet for a coffee."
This could be fun and I would enjoy it. I may have to travel to London for business purposes and will post the timing of this if it comes about.
Bill
I can't bloody do it and now I'm about to throw my computer out the window. I have downloaded the radio programme on antimatter, it is on my computer but it seems I am not allowed to actually listen to it. If I click on it it opens media player but then it doesn't appear to be on it and nothing else happens. I hate it when this happens it drives me absolutely nuts. Some body help me before I start screaming. I've got Windows Vista.
Dear Biskieboo:
I can open and listen to the lecture with the free Real Player but this is on a computer running XP-Pro, not Vista.
If Real Player doesn't run on Vista (I haven't tried it) you might consider maintaining a spare PC that has XP on it.
Such machines are currently free in the U.S. (if you know where to look -- often a sidewalk or roadside or from a friend looking to get rid of one) or may be purchased for very little at a great variety of websites, either refurbished (and guaranteed) or just plain used, as on Craig's List (do you have this in the UK?), eBay, or at a used computer emporium.
Having owned personal computers since DOS days, I've learned to lag behind, not upgrading until forced to. The latest MS operating system will inevitably soak up all of the (often expensive) hardware improvements even while exhibiting annoying compatibility issues.
(I expect it will be quite some time before I come across a PC powered by a miniature anti-matter reactor.)
Bill
Thank you Bill! It hadn't occurred to me that my operating system might be too advanced!
I've downloaded Real Player and can now listen to the programme. I looked around the radio 4 site a bit more and found out that at the moment most of the programmes are not compatible with Media Player. There's some excellent listening material there - I may be gone some time!
Biskieboo,
I hope you enjoy “In our time”, definitely the best think on the radio, I cannot speak its praises more highly; just finished listening to one on the Dominicans and Franciscans with Anthony Kenny no less.
Choo Choo,
I’m afraid that I share some of your interest in Football, but it is there that any concord between us may be destroyed after some sly little comments you made about a certain international football team a few months back. I will not go into details as I did not understand what your main gripe with them was. Having said that the last decent World Cup was 1986 and I think international football is now more a job for historians. Let us not get into details, though the two occasions I went to Highbury in support of ***** (my club) were most pleasant and you must miss the place. I see you have been, I think defending virtue ethics on the abortion threads. I won’t bore people with my thoughts but I think it hinges around 14 days, but that’s another subject. Rather I did find it interesting how G E M Anscombe has been marginalised and does not slip of the tongue like other 20th Century English Philosophers. You are quite right ACG makes no mention of her in his book on allied bombings, quite strange. Moreover his comments about consequentionalism and his defence of the Good Life it seems odd that she does not figure. Now you and I must have our suspicions as to why this is. My question to you is how influential is she in current analytical philosophy and why do you think it is that I could only find one book (a series of her essays) in Waterstones last week? Since I have finally decided to read some philosophy and I like the things I hear about her what would you recommend me to read; Intention? Lastly why do you think Wittgenstein is so popular among Catholics? I have heard it said that Wittgenstein is to Heythrop as Aquinas is to Blackfriars, any comments?
Bill,
Yes your Waterstones was the very same one we were discussing. As for the Quaker House I only realised what it was a few weeks ago despite passing it on and off for the past 14 years. That with that Anglo-Catholic lump next door (now that has a very strange history, part of the miniscule Catholic Apostolic Church and was once the University Church) are the two last remaining buildings that have not been eaten up by UCL on that block. Funny you should mention the tube at Goodge Street as a bomb shelter since it lies next to a shelter used by the Americans in WWII and betwixt the two we find the American Church.
I too get that feeling of inhabiting the past in London, especially late in the afternoon. I find myself in places devoid of people, or so it seems, as if the past 30 years had not happened, parts of Battersea and North of St Pancras and just east of the City I find extremely suggestive, I have no idea why. It must be some form of association, just the sight of a slightly dirty florid net curtain is a trigger for me in an involuntary memory in a Proust’s Madeleine kind of way. The problem being I get the feeling but cannot make the association or find the memory.
Circular Connection (I was quite surprised, btw, to realize that the one Waterstone's I've visited in London is the very same store recently discussed here):
Following up on bocanegra's reference to G E M Anscombe, I came across this (I confess -- I looked her up on Wikipedia):
"The denial of any distinction between foreseen and intended consequences, as far as responsibility is concerned, was not made by Sidgwick in developing any one 'method of ethics'; he made this important move on behalf of everybody and just on its own account; and I think it plausible to suggest that this move on the part of Sidgwick explains the difference between old-fashioned Utilitarianism and the consequentialism, as I name it, which marks him and every English academic moral philosopher since him."
Henry Sidgwick is featured in the book I'm presently reading, _Ghost Hunters_, by Deborah Blum.
(So many unforeseen consequences; so little time.)
Bill
Bocanegra/Germont(/Cannavaro): you have a good memory. Correct me if I am wrong, but those comments about the international team in question came about on one of CiF's interminable (well, lasting for a gargantuan triduum) religion threads. I should add: I love the country, terrone and pollenta eaters all the same etc. And the football team is consistently very good (if not better). They deserved the most recent cup they won. But there is something about the team which I find impossible to warm to. I have tried and failed.
I guess I do miss Highbury, though I hardly went in its (her?) last few years. A charming stadium. You have to give me more of a hint than ***** for your club (unless ***** is your club).
On Anscombe - like you, I find her interesting (though I have hardly got through all that much of her oeuvre). Like I said, ACG's omission in his "Among the Dead Cities" is plain bizarre given, like you said, the stuff on consequentialism. Her essay on Truman is effectively based on a dismissive take on 'consequentialist' reasoning. (Indeed, who was it - so they say - that first coined 'consequentialism'?). Another surprising point is that ACG is (conversant with/embedded in?) the analytical tradition. All this - and more - might suggest that ACG might have been expected to mention her (though that is not to say his omission is intellectually criminal). On the other hand, she was, after all, a votary and therefore stupid.
On her influence in (analytical) philosophy: I am not well-placed to say. 'Modern Moral Philosophy' was a famous essay (the consequentialism coiner) which certainly has been profoundly influential. (I met a philosophy student not long ago who is neither enamoured of nor inimical to Anscombe, and he says the essay is not - formally - v impressive. Anyhow).
I guess her main points - the pervasion of what she considered 'consequentialist' ethical thinking (possibly broader than its common use now); the problems of using a moral language that developed with certain ideas in mind and which remains, like a husk, with those ideas no longer considered; the importance of virtue etc - have been influential. This is consonant with the wider project of someone like, say, Alasdair MacIntyre.
I guess another possible - though I speculate - importance is that she was clearly an analytical philosopher, very much influenced by (if not a disciple of) Wittgenstein. But she was certainly not anti-metaphysical: far from it. (I am certainly not sure that she is the only or most important figure on this point).
I guess some of her most important work was related to ethics, in a sense, but in a way focussed on action and intentionality. I think that these are widely considered her most important pieces (her 'Intention' being a good example). So, I imagine that her influence has been considerable (though she is hardly the only influential figure). Incidentally, her husband - Peter Geach - has probably been important for similar reasons too (though he wrote - and, indeed, in his old age still writes - more on virtue ethics tout court).
On stocking her stuff at Waterstones - I'm guessing you saw the collection of her papers entitled (something like) 'Human Life, Action and Ethics' (it contains 'Mr. Truman's Degree'). This is relatively recent. I am surprised they did not have 'Intention'. (The store where I work, of course, sells 'Intention', roughly one copy a year...). By the way, you mentioned the Quakers' place to Bill. If you carry on walking down Euston Road (towards Kings Cross), you'll soon see Unsworths second-hand bookshop. They sometimes have 'Intention' in the philosophy section. I picked up my copy from there, though I must confess that I haven't worked through it yet. (Foolishly took it for a train journey and did 3 pages). It's not jargonistic at all - she tends not to be - but it's damn meaty. One simple reason for this is to do with what is in print and who publishes it. I doubt she wrote many discrete books (alongside 'Intention', I think there's something called 'From Parmenides to Wittgenstein', and 'Three Philosophers' but not sure how available they are).
A couple of things which might be of interest. First, I met the sister of a good friend of mine, who lived with the Anscombes/Geaches in Oxford before her death (2001/2003?). Sadly, she had lost it a bit by the end, though Geach was nice. (For a contrast: someone I know - whose main philosophical works are about MacIntyre - says that they were psychotic when he met them!). I have no doubt that they were eccentric.
(Digression: the story goes that she was supposed to be visiting the Vatican some time back, with another philosopher - can't remember who, but it might have been someone called John Finnis. According to protocol - then? unwritten rule? - a dame would visit the pope wearing a skirt or dress. Her companion was horrified to see, as they walked up, that she was wearing her customary trousers, but was too intimidated to mention it to her. Just as they got to the door, she pulled a cord, and a makeshift skirt swept down. She tucked it back up when they left).
And second, she is interesting wrt to your brief 14 days point. I assume this is in relation to the possibility of twinning in the embryo. (c.after 15 days, this is no longer possible). Anscombe - tentatively - held that metaphysically, this seems to be the point from which (I am risking misrepresenting her since I cannot remember her terms) a new individual entity exists. (C.f. her essay, in the collection above, 'Were you a zygote?'). This was her metaphysical position. But it gets a bit more complicated. I don't think that this was seen by her as a reasonable ethical marker. And this impression was bolstered when I was introduced and spoke to - this is going to sound so pretentious and 'I just hang out with thinkers all the time', which is v misleading and glosses over my time being a silly, self-indulgent student - her son-in-law, a man called Luke Gormally (like his wife, Mary Geach, a philosopher).
I asked him about this. And he noted a couple of things: first, her essay was particularly taken with some work conducted on embryology at that time (by someone whose name I forget, but she mentions in the essay mentioned above), which was when the 14/15 day changes were especially emphasised. Recent work on the earliest moments of conception (esp on immediate differentiation in the zygote) - in her metaphysical scheme - would, he suggested, have given her food for thought. And, second, he said that this metaphysical position did not simply translate into an ethical position. And she was increasingly taken with the idea of a greater protection or reverence owing to the earliest moments of life, in all their vagueness. (Obviously, in her metaphysics - and most sane people's biology - gametes are not individual entities, so, supposing the 14/15 day marker works metaphysically, there is still this strange intermediary entity to consider).
Apologies to all, especially our kind host, for this over-inflated and long-winded digression (or series of digressions - see, more long-windedness).
____
Boltonian - in retrospect, the Stanford definition is not the best (and needlessly, in my mind [or is that...], mentions Descartes).
I think the point about eliminative materialism is this: roughly speaking (and taking into account some differences in accounts), when we consider mental states or thoughts or beliefs etc, it's not that they are actually functions of or supervenient (in whatever way) upon or ontologically dependent on the brain: but it's that they (whichever ones, depending on proponent) do not exist at all.
You seem baffled: "I don't understand this because there is certainly something that exists to be experienced in one way or another." I remember reading an intro to philosophy of mind by someone called Edward Feser, in which he wrote, of this, that if it doesn't puzzle you then you haven't understood the position! (He is not, should it need adding and as far as I can tell insofar as his intro is judicious, an eliminative materialist). Like you - unless I am misunderstanding here - I am baffled by this. I think the distinction comes out when you read other kinds of materialist approaches to philosophy of mind: indeed, I get the sense that some of these are partly shaped by wanting not to become eliminative materialists (i.e. they don't want to call into question that things like qualia happen etc).
"SpaceP (where is he, BTW?) talked some while ago about a form of Monism whereby the same phenomena exhibit different manifestations (like mass/energy, I suppose). This gets round the problems of dualism without falling into complete materialism (or at least reductionism thereof). Please correct me if I have misrepresented you SpaceP."
This is profoundly interesting. There is another kind of 'dualism' (if we may call it such - in the context of philosophy of mind, given the connotations of dualism, it might be unwise to call it so) which we might refine into 'property dualism': effectively, it is related to Aristotelian notions of form and matter (as well as medieval theories of 'mind'). This might also offer something of the balancing act you hint at. I have no idea whether it works and I don't mention it to propose, but merely because it's recently become an interesting and young avenue in philosophy of mind.
Choo Choo,
very quickly and in deference to the obvious care you take in your replies, sorry if I cannot reply in kind as I’m currently deleting four months of work (wasted), a very painful experience.
RE: 14 days
I had no idea it was taken up by Anscombe, rather I was following an essay by Anthony Kenny.
I did like this little titbit came across:
Anscombe to Ayer: “If you didn’t talk so quickly, people wouldn’t think you were so clever”
Ayer to Anscombe “If you didn’t talk so slowly, people wouldn’t think you were so profound.”
ACG?????????????
Why did they ask him on This Week, what was his expertise; terrible tie. Did you hear him on Today this morning, usual thesis; Athens is everything. I recently found out he was a member of the Athenaeum (quelle bloody surprise); how does he cope with all the Bishops?
RE: Football team
Don’t get me wrong; in my ignorant opinion – during the tournament – it only contained four players who could be considered world class. Most people I talked to before and after victory were, and remained unimpressed (me included) since the games against Germany 1970 and Brazil 1982 remain the holy cows (1978 was a good team also). You are quite right I cannot see how anyone could have warmed to them. My fear was you may have been referring to Sup Alpine football in general and the obsession with commentators to mention the C word every time they play. The manager (who I despise for many reasons, this being a clue as to who ***** is; shame prevents me from naming them) did a magnificent job with what he had to work with – which was not much; just imagine if Peckerman had done the same. What I never understood was the praise heaped on France.
Sorry Boltonian, enough sport; next time I'll try a bit of metaphysics.
Getting back to books.....
Elephantschild -
"Dawkins' God" is on my next Amazon list.
I was pondering the idea of a book-swap list, but like others I don't really like to see books leave the house (novels excepted).
My list of must read books: I have only thought of one so far (well, part of one) and that's the New Testament. I don't think it matters if you believe that the events in it actually happened or not. The ethical lessons in it are by far the most important aspect for me.
The Gower Street bookshop - I may be wrong, but I believe this is where I bought my biology textbooks from when I was a student (I only bought about three in the whole three years - after the first year I got a job as a shelver in the college library - saved myself a small fortune as I always knew where the books that I needed were, and it also meant that I am the only graduate I know to have left uni with money in the bank).
I didn't really get to know London that well as I was living on the outskirts (SW - Putney area) and didn't make the most of what was on offer because if I wasn't studying or working I was stoned or chasing men.
I used to find going into central London quite depressing and a bit scary. I think this probably had a lot to do with my state of mind at the time (being constantly stoned I'm sure didn't help). Now I love going up for a day trip and it seems much more light and welcoming.
I'm looking forward to going up again to visit the Terracotta Warriors exhibition.
ChooChoo - I love the skirt story. Ingenious.
Biskieboo - true story! (And hope my apologies above are accepted. I think I'm right in saying I can devilishly play the forgiveness card on you...)
Bocanegra/Germont(/notCannavaro(/McCabino))
NO worries. Good luck with the work (I hope I am not insensitively wishing you good luck solely in deleting work). Two v quick things: I only mentioned 14 days, not to turn this little glade into another amphitheatre for interminable gladiatorial combat, but because this was Anscombe's position, metaphysically albeit tentatively.
I'm afraid I'm ignorant of the 'Athenaeum' - will google at some point.
I think I have your club: did you lot do one over in a major cup final (at Old Trafford) in 2003 with the manager in question at the helm of the opposing team? (I was at that match, though not playing).
Choo Choo,
McCabino-very cute
The match you mentioned was one of the most painful experiences of my life. The result had nothing to do with this; the fact that those two teams were on the pitch made any victor a pain in the arse. This should lead you to the object of my affections. Last clue, we had to change our name under Mussolini since for obvious reasons it sounded too socialist thus we played for the glory and under the banner of St Ambrose. I thought you might like that since he must pop up in your area of study. Moreover his feast day is, by tradition, the opening night of the new season of La Scala hence back to Opera.
However ambrosian at a stretch can and is used as an adjective to things pertaining to and belonging to Milan, I don’t think it was a liturgical statement expressing preferred rites though a Derby between Ambrosiana Inter vs. Tridentina Milan would be fun.
Waiting for my flight to Heathrow at Linate, in November, 2004, I couldn't help but notice a crew of very tough looking characters waiting for the same plane.
I wondered whether they were mercenaries, soldiers of fortune, but then realized they were all members of the local football club.
Although as fearsome looking (I imagined), as Roman legionnaires, their short stature struck me as odd -- I towered over all of them (I'm rail thin, however, and lacked their musculature).
Then again, Romans weren't very tall by our standards.
Bill
Wow! Lots of activity today - where do I start.
Yet another philosopher to get to grips with (Anscombe).
I can 't really get worked up about football any more, especially as my team is (of course) Bolton Wanderers, who are having some trouble just now.
Inter Milan is my guess but I have been out of touch for many years. Agree about the 1970 Brazilians - the best I have seen but then I am too young to remember the great Real Madrid team of the 1950s and early 1960s or the original Busby Babes.
ChooChoo:
Thanks with EM - I must read my Churchland book again following all this discussion on the philosophy of mind. I have a couple of books by Searle on the subject and find him a bit shallow and rather unconvincing. Have you (or anybody else)read anything by him? Sorry to be thick but if mental states do not exist, whence thoughts etc? And how can one prove a negative?
Have I missed some recent ACG appearances on the box and radio? I would have stayed in specially had I known in advance. Very unlikely.
Biskieboo:
My wife tells me that the army is well worth the visit (and the entrance money).
Simon:
Are you Italian by birth, upbringing, temperament, cultural inclination or parentage? Personal question - feel free to ignore.
I raise it because just after I discovered the joys of opera in the late 1970s I happened to work with a chap who loved all things Italian. We decided to learn the language together at night school, which was great fun. It was he who introduced me to the great Gigli - his brother was fanatical about him. Most of my holidays at this time were spent in Italy, discovering the artistic and architectural wonders of Padova, Vicenza, Assisi, Perugia, Venice, Florence, Siena, Pisa, Lucca, Rome, Milan, Verona etc etc. I recently visited Gigli's birthplace - Recanati in the Marche. By a strange coincidence a friend's mother comes from there and we went as a group to visit his relatives and tootle around the many wonderful hill towns (his father is a painter and this is heavenly country for him).
Sorry to hear of your wasted efforts. What a bugger!
All:
Back to things other than reminiscences. I bought New Scientist today, as I had a fairly lengthy train journey to my meeting. I have only read two of the articles but both are interesting.
The first is on QM and puts forward the view that at last physics seems to be breaking out of the self-imposed straitjacket it has endured for the last 20 years or so. Its thrust is that there is mounting evidence that QM is not a fundamental theory but the manifestation of a deeper and simpler truth whereby quantum 'Weirdness' does not exist. We are seeing an effect rather than the cause, which obeys classical laws like Relativity. The article likens this phenomenon to thermodynamics.
The other article was on evolution and what it calls multilevel development. This explains why there is such a thing as social, as well as individual evolution. So, there is a powerful force called group selection, which varies in strength and importance depending on the needs of the group - whether within group or between group behaviour offers the best survival option. Experiments have been carried out with microbes.
Dawkins, apparently, has admitted that he was wrong to ascribe all selection forces to the level of the individual.
Multilevel selection explains lots of things, including how cells co-operate to create organisms and why we sometimes behave altruistically even at the expense of our own self interest. Lots of examples are given, including lion prides.
The finishing quote is, 'Selfishness beats altruism within groups. Altruistic groups beat selfish groups.'
These are very brief resumes - has anybody else read this week's copy?
“Are you Italian by birth, upbringing, temperament, cultural inclination or parentage? Personal question - feel free to ignore.”
Of the five options I will say 3.5/5, not trying to be enigmatic but I am very much a Londoner and I don’t want to confuse things. I’m glad you like Italy, of course the problem are the Italians, a most infuriating people. To paraphrase a great Italian journalist “We can’t be trusted to do anything, we are bound to corrupt it, you give us Jesus Christ and we turn him into the Catholic Church". Yet I am so lucky to have feet in both countries since I find the English and Italians to be the most enigmatic of peoples, for good and bad. I’ve never been to Recanati, also home of the poet Leopardi, a bit like a Morrissey of 19th Century Italy; great poet and Italy’s answer to Schopenhauer.
I know I must seem like a stalker but Grayling’s at it again, now he gives an un-biased and measured reading of the Spanish Civil War; funny how there is no mention of Basque Jesuits being murdered by Falangists (here one could have made a specific, well thought attack at the current double standards of the curia and its Opus Dei supporters, but that would have meant having to include another - of the many – facets of Catholicism). There was a point about secularism trying to get out but as ever it is lost under the whiggery and wilfull ignorance mixed with snide insinuations. It is time he should be brought to task in polite society. Sorry for boring everybody yet again, I realise this is not the place, but thankfully for them, nobody else I know has ever heard of him, thank you for your indulgence.
Hi Boltonian!
Some time ago the possibilty was mooted (could it have been from Steve?) concerning new pages etc. Well, I've just started using edublogs which have a lot more functionality than Blogger, lots of space and significantly the ability to put on lots of pages if that's what you want. Once you play around with it, it's very simple - I'm no IT bod - and if you like I'd be happy to take you through it. It would mean moving to somwhere new but you may think that it was worth it. One possibilty obviously is to play around with it and keep this blog going until you feel ready for a move. Anyway, please let me know if I can help.
Cheers
Hi Gerry
Many thanks for the offer. One or two people have said that this site is becoming a little unwieldy and a blog with several threads might be the answer.
The downside is that we would lose a little of the rambling, creative feel that this blog seems to have developed, where there are lots of cross topic discussions - rugby and QM, for instance or, more recently, philosophy and football.
Is there a way of allowing this mish mash to continue but in a more disciplined way?
I would like to canvass the views of not just regular posters here but also those who look in from time to time and post only occasionally.
What I would like to achieve is a place where more people join in the discussions. One or two people have said to me that they feel a little intimidated or that they find it difficult to find a way in to the discussion.
Would this proposal help to address that issue?
I am also conscious that discussions are mainly based on things that interest me (with the possible exception of football :-}). Perhaps people could start other threads to more reflect their interests.
Do you envisage it (the new site)remaining predominantly philosophy/science/religion/history based or would it become more wide-ranging?
I would be grateful if everybody who visits here could let us know what they would favour.
The only thing that I would insist on (if I have a say) is that it remain a civilized forum where people feel they can float ideas without necessarily having to defend a position. I would not like it to become a CiF Mark Two.
Thanks again for the suggestion, Gerry.
"The downside is that we would lose a little of the rambling, creative feel that this blog seems to have developed, where there are lots of cross topic discussions - rugby and QM, for instance or, more recently, philosophy and football."
It would be very much up to you. Something like this would be possible on the front cover of the blog and you can have identifiable pages behind it that maybe relate to specific topics - perhaps the important sports stuff. The key thing is that it would give you more options.
As for the feel of it I think it would be perfectly possible to retain the the good natured rambling vibe you have done so well to establish here. You might wish to set a 'dummy' one up to explore the possibilities at
http://edublogs.org/
(I do not know what you really do for a living by the way but it seems to me that you are certainly a senior teacher in the University of Life so bear that thought in mind when you get asked the question if you do wish to take up the last suggestion.)
I am of course perfectly happy with the way things are here, I hope my suggestion does not imply otherwise, and I am not one of those who thinks that all change is good.
"Do you envisage it (the new site)remaining predominantly philosophy/science/religion/history based or would it become more wide-ranging?"
Yes, I would but of course that is entirely up to you, I see this little oasis as your baby.
Dear all
Thanks to Gerry's kind facilitation I have set up a blog with edublogs to test whether we might wish to transfer.
Please have a look yourselves and let us know here whether you would wish to stay as we are or move premises.
If you would like to contact me by email please use: gengmaak@hotmail.com
The edublog address is:
http://boltonian.edublogs.org/
I look forward to your comments.
Thanks again, Gerry.
Just returned from a Round-The-World journey, fully utilizing my free will not to be a couch-potato / guru-philosopher... and, would you believe [viewed from a global perspective] the local denizens, native to each country I passed en route, each in turn behaved as one species ~ one peculiarly sentient colony after another. Even in countries such as Tibet, Myanmar or India where diverse tribes or castes co-exist, there is the all-encompassing unity of environment, government or language that synergeticly envelopes their resplendent mix.
,
[url=http://bejepewa.t35.com/news_427.html]no deposit home loans[/url] [url=http://bejepewa.t35.com/news_154.html]gambling onlineroulette bets pokerplayer[/url] [url=http://bejepewa.t35.com/news_387.html]states that legalize online gambling[/url] [url=http://bejepewa.t35.com/news_70.html]mgm grand casino in las vegas[/url] [url=http://bejepewa.t35.com/news_297.html]is online casino gambling legal[/url]
[url=http://bidejehi.t35.com/news_256.html]jackpots gambling onlinefreeroll backgammononline[/url] [url=http://bidejehi.t35.com/news_435.html]addiction deprivation gambling online sleep[/url] [url=http://bidejehi.t35.com/news_100.html]las vegas casino security jobs[/url] [url=http://bidejehi.t35.com/news_260.html]online gambling louisianna[/url] [url=http://bidejehi.t35.com/news_104.html]online illegal gambling[/url]
He feinted a pivot toward Mikey, whoinhaled sharply in response then feinted down toward the recumbantChuck, who flinched then back to Andrew, who stared stone cold at Eric. I love you son, but Mommy cant be nursing you whenever you want.
interracial wives stories
debra barone interracial stories xxx
blue collar men gay sex stories
story stories tales young sex
nifty stories
He feinted a pivot toward Mikey, whoinhaled sharply in response then feinted down toward the recumbantChuck, who flinched then back to Andrew, who stared stone cold at Eric. I love you son, but Mommy cant be nursing you whenever you want.
Buy from australian [url=http://www.ugg--bootssale.com/]ugg boots sale[/url], all our genuine ugg boots now have 100% australian.
Discounts [url=http://www.gucci--bags.com/]Gucci bags[/url] in Gucci Outlet Online,Gucci Outlet www.gucci--bags.com and Gucci Handbags Outlet.Discount!
Welcome to [url=http://www.karen--millen-outlet.com/]Karen Millen outlet[/url] online store www.karen--millen-outlet.com!Buy Karen Millen sale from our cheap Karen Millen Dresses outlet online now!
Spyder Jackets Outlet [url=http://www.spyder--jackets.com/]spyder ski jackets[/url] Suit Online Store www.spyder--jackets.com.Cheap spyder ski jackets online for sale.
Our Burberry Outlet store www.burberry--outlet-sale.com Online Sale All the Burberry sale at Low Price and Free Shiping.
We provide all kinds of piercing quality s that come in a discrepancy of styles, colors and sizes at wholesale price.All [url=http://www.g-marrybridal.com/wedding-dresses/]wedding dress[/url]
[url=http://www.g-marrybridal.com/mother-of-the-bride-dresses/]Mother of the Bride Gown[/url]
[url=http://www.g-marrybridal.com/cheap-prom-dresses/]cheap prom dresses[/url]
are second-rate with trendy styles compound apparels including designer uniting tear someone off a strip, seaside coalescence dresses, conjugal gowns, bridesmaids dresses, prom outfits, cream girl dresses & nurse dresses.Even we can accommodate the services of loose area customization and without extra size Blow the whistle on buy affordable astounding wedding dresses in the present climate!enjoy searing shopping, dress to the letter destined for the notable wedding ceremony with the expropriate of G-marry bridal.
http://www.g-marrybridal.com/
top [url=http://www.c-online-casino.co.uk/]uk casino bonus[/url] hinder the latest [url=http://www.realcazinoz.com/]casino[/url] manumitted no deposit reward at the foremost [url=http://www.baywatchcasino.com/]baywatch casino
[/url].
check hsrjPBWP [URL=]online designer outlet[/URL] with confident rGBVsIqc [URL= ] [/URL]
Nevertheless, Romney's Twitter account trails Barack Obama's Twitter account by more than 16 million followers.
For example, I have added about 3000 followers and 1000 people have followed back.
Basically, why would anyone would want to follow Twitter when the tweets decline
in value.
Check out my web blog; Buy cheap Twitter Followers
Hello. And Bye.
Thanκ you, I've just been searching for information about this subject for ages and yours is the best I've fοund out
so far. But, whаt іn regагds to the сonclusіon?
Aгe yοu suге concerning the souгce?
Feel fгee tо surf to my pаge: http://www.syfytopsites.com/
The Jamaica Gleaner calls it Pieces of the Past. Usually
the celeb featured in the 2004 edition of" Science losing weight health benefits News" reports scientific confirmation.
You should always speak to your doctor before changing
your diet so it can take awhile to change the shape of the person.
No more sagging elbow skin! Starchy vegetables are classified as relapsing/remitting, losing weight health
benefits meaning symptoms are present in bodybuilding supplements.
Also visit my homepage: where can you buy lemonade diet
For hіgh speed connectivity, while the Gаlaxy Tаb 10.
Webpages load quickly, aρpѕ launсh promptlу and flіpping through anԁ examining pictures in
the ԁark οn quіte а bit for just under
$200, thе blаckberry Τаb 2 10.
1 аnd Galaхy S III caѕes make apρearance.
Blackberry Tab 10 1, 8. Samѕung then built pеn-sensіtivity into the first Galaxy Τаb released
in Octobеr 2010.
Hеre is my ѕite :: blacκbеrry (wiki.woopi.org)
Post a Comment