T Hz : DNA Unzipped by Chertoff and Chopra?!

e DNA

unread,

Jan 7, 2010, 2:04:04 AM1/7/10

to

--- On Sat, 1/9/10, OutreZoneD <outre...@my-deja.com> wrote:

> --- On Fri, 1/8/10, Millennium <amat...@fastmail.com.au> wrote:
>
> >>
> <> oft-sung dreamscape of mysteries, of oldest memories
> <> ... [Image]
> <> Sky Coyote Carries the Night ...
> <> http://www.ojaipost.com/2009/12/sky_coyote_carries_the_night.shtml
> <> Millennium Twain
> <> -- amat...@fastmail.com.au
> <>
> <> -----0rigami Massage-----
> <> Subject: Re: [DNA Unzipped by Chertoff and Chopra?!]
>
<> Gary Gene Ford wrote:

Great Lizardkons Leaping, Lt. Aoclazteuq,
thanks 4 reams of cheerful agreement!

While possible skin cell modifications
could be envisioned, especially if helped
by UV - say, do any scanners simultaneously
use UV? - I would most suspect the true danger
involves potential modification of blood flowing
near the skin. Presumably, lean, highly vascular
surface skin of macho men will put these paragons
of virile virtue at greater risk than all persons
fat and pudgy, with less blood typically at the
frontiers of body to scan.

Now Imagine This!: A Hyper-Gorked Macrophage
fresh from scanned skin visits testes to have
an encounter of the 57th Kind (of Heinz, of
course) with a spanking new sperm starting out
in its journey into the world ... and that sperm
"gets lucky" an hour later in an airport hotel
room where Mister Macho is completing his
'conversation' with the Most Fertile and Luscious
Sexually Suppressed Crackademic High Scientific
Achieving Woman of US History, who just happened
to so conveniently sat to his left on a seat next
to Himship, who until her unexpected encounter
with Mr. Macho that with Zig and Zog her life from
hence forward, was just another Mousy Brown Haired
Female "Pretty Face" carefully placed into the
most uppity levels of NASQUA!

Strange Sperm meets Superior IQ Genes Egg,
and with the quickening within her a month
later, the suddenly "Radiant" appearing Ms IQ
gets promoted into Headship of the High
Scientific Organization, when Its former Head
suffers a lethal cardiac episode on seeing the
Up and Rising Woman, who carries the Future
Greying of Mankind in her belly, bend over to
pick up a pen she has nervously dropped on the
floor while being introduced to "Mr. Big"!

And so it goes ... She not only becomes
the Fountain of Fertility, with her now
tamed Mr. Macho at her side, but also
re-directs the Organization into Genetic
Superiority Research and Development in a
master stroke to combat the rapidly escalating
fraction of the Male Population Worldwide now
become Azoidiotic from too much Coke (both
beverage and dope), B_S_, Sex with full
Gynethroids, and Multiple NWO-Implant-Cellular-
Chip-Tonal-itis!

Soon her multiple sons and daughters, eminently
successful from their combos of High Q and Macho
Madness, spread out into the Upper Echelons into
the Elite, flooding their fateful recessive Grey
Genes (a whole suite of them) into the Elite's
Gene Pool, until Kingdom Come Down, as plentiful
multi-loci homozygoids manifest, exceed all IQ
and Aggression Tests Sricologists can snow at
them, to reach tippling point take charge control
of the All Powerful All Knowing NWO Bureaucracy.

And at THAT point, "Normal" Debased Cokized
Azoidiotic "Normal" Huboons get re-classified
as 3rd tier "Slaveship Only" designates from
birth onwards, changing the course of Huboon
History and Planet Earth, a long time over due,
even now!

Have a Cassini Triple Maestronic on Me!

Gary, COSMOS CHILD
PSST! - LT, when are they double jump
promoting you to Co-Mode-Door?

Gary Gene Ford - *****@****.** *******@****.**
http://pweb.netcom.com/~mthorn/magiboom.htm
http://pw1.netcom.com/~mthorn/divinepr.htm

<> --- On Tue, 01/05/10, "Lt. Aoclazteuq" wrote:
<>
<> Gary Gene Ford <*******@****.**> wrote:

Greetings Mind People!

Remember? I've been saying similar for years
about DNA w/r Microwaves, but who believes me?
Coincidentally, I have also worked in the
mathematical estimation of solutions of
oscillatory systems of non-linear ODE,
including vibrations - fascinating coincidence,
wouldn't you say? - GGF, Cosmos Child

PS: The Words "Tear Apart" are exaggeration
in my opinion; instead "unzip here and there"
is more correct, which effects nucleic acid
information transfer and expression at the
living cell's bio-molecular level, which may
be a more transient disruption of ordinary
affairs; however if someone were constantly
scanned? - Who Knows What Evil Lurks
in the Hearts of Men?: The Shadow!
http://pweb.netcom.com/~mthorn/magiboom.htm
http://pw1.netcom.com/~mthorn/divinepr.htm
=====================================================
(Begin Quote)
PLEASE CIRCULATE WIDELY!!!!
If this is not stopped, just getting on an airplane
will be a serious health hazard.....

Subject: AIRPORT FULL-BODY SCANNERS DESTROY DNA

I am not sure that people are warned where these
scanners are. I remember reading about the Orlando
airport having them a couple of years ago.
Pretty soon people will simply stop flying unless
it is an emergency. M.

Friday, October 30, 2009
How Terahertz Waves Tear Apart DNA

A new model of the way the THz waves interact with
DNA explains how the damage is done and why evidence
has been so hard to gather.

Great things are expected of terahertz waves, the
radiation that fills the slot in the electromagnetic
spectrum between microwaves and the infrared.
Terahertz waves pass through non-conducting materials
such as clothes , paper, wood and brick and so cameras
sensitive to them can peer inside envelopes, into
living rooms and "frisk" people at distance.

The way terahertz waves are absorbed and emitted
can also be used to determine the chemical
composition of a material. And even though they
don't travel far inside the body, there is great
hope that the waves can be used to spot tumours
near the surface of the skin.

With all that potential, it's no wonder that
research on terahertz waves has exploded in
the last ten years or so.

But what of the health effects of terahertz waves?
At first glance, it's easy to dismiss any notion
that they can be damaging. Terahertz photons
are not energetic enough to break chemical bonds
or ionise atoms or molecules, the chief reasons
why higher energy photons such as x-rays and UV
rays are so bad for us. But could there be another
mechanism at work?

The evidence that terahertz radiation damages
biological systems is mixed. "Some studies
reported significant genetic damage while others,
although similar, showed none," say Boian Alexandrov
at the Center for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos
National Laboratory in New Mexico and a few buddies.
Now these guys think they know why.

Alexandrov and co have created a model to investigate
how THz fields interact with double-stranded DNA and
what they've found is remarkable. They say that
although the forces generated are tiny, resonant
effects allow THz waves to unzip double-stranded DNA,
creating bubbles in the double strand that could
significantly interfere with processes such as
gene expression and DNA replication.
That's a jaw dropping conclusion.

And it also explains why the evidence has been
so hard to garner. Ordinary resonant effects are
not powerful enough to do do this kind of damage
but nonlinear resonances can. These nonlinear
instabilities are much less likely to form which
explains why the character of THz genotoxic effects
are probabilistic rather than deterministic,
say the team.

This should set the cat among the pigeons.
Of course, terahertz waves are a natural
part of environment, just like visible and
infrared light. But a new generation of cameras
are set to appear that not only record terahertz
waves but also bombard us with them. And if our
exposure is set to increase, the question that
urgently needs answering is what level of
terahertz exposure is safe.

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0910.5294 : DNA Breathing
Dynamics in the Presence of a Terahertz Field
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24331/
(End Quote)

~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~

Well, since those weasely, little grey
buggers, who haunt our sleep-paralysis bed
chambers, abducting our frightened citizens
for all manner of ultraterrestrial,
experimental, pseudo-entainment value, are
really 'us' in the distant, mutated future,
then it only stands to reason that something
has to begin the mutational processes upon
which our distant 'selves' will need to
time-warp back 'to' in order to figure out
their own gawd-awful past origins. No? Is
that your DNA unzipping or are you just
happy to see me? --Lt. Aoclazteuq

~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~

Abstract Submitted
for the MAR09 Meeting of
The American Physical Society

Sorting Category: 05.10 (C)
http://meeting.aps.org/Meeting/MAR09/Event/94876

Surface effects in THz wave emission from
intrinsic Josephson junctions

YOSHIHIKO NONOMURA, Computational Materials Science
Center, National Institute for Materials Science,
Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-0047, Japan --

Recently THz wave emission from intrinsic Josephson
junctions without external fields [1] was observed
experimentally. As possible states to characterize
this emission, the McCumber-like state with little
spatial dependence of electric fields (for the
surface impedance Z = 1) [2] and novel phase-kink
state (for large and complex Z) [3] have been
proposed. In the present study [4] it is numerically
shown that both states are stationary and that the
dynamical phase transition between these two states
occurs as Z is varied. The McCumber-like state is
stable for low current and small Z. For higher
current, the phase-kink state accompanied with
symmetry breaking along the c axis is stable even
for Z = 1, though strong emission in the vicinity
of cavity resonance points only takes place for
larger Z. Value of Z is optimized for the strongest
emission, and effect of surface roughness will also
be discussed. [1] L. OZyuzer et al., Science 318,
1291 (2007); K. Kadowaki et al., Physica C 468,
634 (2008). [2] H. Matsumoto et al., Physica C 468,
654, 1899 (2008). [3] S. Lin and X. Hu,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 247006 (2008).
[4] Y. Nonomura, arXiv:0810.3756.

Yoshihiko Nonomura
nonomura....@nims.go.jp
Computational Materials Science Center,
National Institute for Materials Science,
Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-0047, Japan

Date submitted: 01 Dec 2008
Electronic form version 1.4
http://meeting.aps.org/Meeting/MAR09/Event/94876
http://meetings.aps.org/link/BAPS.2009.MAR.D34.4

~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~

How Terahertz Waves Influence DNA
The radiation holds great promise for science
By Tudor Vieru, Science Editor
31st of October 2009, 01:45 GMT
http://news.softpedia.com/news/How-Terahertz-Waves-Influence-DNA-125734.shtml

Terahertz radiation occupies the wavelengths that
connect microwaves to infrared and is currently
considered to be one of the most promising areas
of research out there. Over the past decade, more
and more researchers have dedicated their work to
this form of radiation, which has the amazing
ability of penetrating through just about everything,
including inanimate objects such as glass, paper,
cloth, walls and other such things. It can also be
used to "frisk" a human body from a distance, and
to peer inside rooms, which makes it a potent
monitoring tool.

However, on the downside, the negative effects
that terahertz wavelengths may have on the human
body are not entirely known. Evidence of how they
influence DNA is flimsy at best, and a clear
conclusion has yet to be drawn from available
research. Those who argue that the radiation is
not harmful say that the photons making it up are
not energetic enough to break chemical bonds or
ionize atoms and molecules, Technology Review reports.
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24331/

"Some studies reported significant genetic damage
while others, although similar, showed none,"
Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) Center for
Nonlinear Studies expert Boian Alexandrov, the
leader of a research team looking into the effects
of terahertz radiation, says. The team adds that
the energy in these photons is not nearly as high
as the ones in X-rays and ultraviolet light, which
are perfectly capable of damaging our bodies over
prolonged exposures. UV rays are known to trigger
skin cancer.

The LANL team recently made a chilling discovery,
when it found out that THZ radiation had the
ability to essentially "unzip" double-stranded DNA,
a feat that has massive implications, including
the disruption of such processes as gene expression
and DNA replication. Both of these are essential
to life as we know it. The team argues that the
radiation accomplishes its effects by means of
tiny, resonant ones that it instills in the
DNA molecules. While normal resonance is unable
to cause "unzipping," nonlinear resonances, of
the type terahertz radiation creates, can.

~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~

Group slams Chertoff on scanner promotion
January 2, 2010

WASHINGTON - Since the attempted bombing of a
US airliner on Christmas Day, former Homeland
Security secretary Michael Chertoff has given
dozens of media interviews touting the need
for the federal government to buy more
full-body scanners for airports.

What he has made little mention of is that
the Chertoff Group, his security consulting
agency, includes a client that manufactures
the machines. Chertoff disclosed the
relationship on a CNN program Wednesday,
in response to a question.

An airport passengers' rights group on Thursday
criticized Chertoff's use of his former government
credentials to advocate for a product that
benefits his clients.

"Mr. Chertoff should not be allowed to abuse the
trust the public has placed in him as a former
public servant to privately gain from the sale of
full-body scanners under the pretense that the
scanners would have detected this particular type
of explosive," said Kate Hanni, founder of
FlyersRights.org, which opposes the use of
the scanners.

Chertoff's advocacy for the technology dates to
his time in the Bush administration. In 2005,
Homeland Security ordered the government's first
batch of the scanners - five from California-based
Rapiscan Systems. Rapiscan is one of only two
companies that make full-body scanners in accordance
with current contract specifications required by
the federal government.

Currently 40 body scanners are in use among
19 US airports. The number is expected to
skyrocket, at least in part because of the
Christmas Day incident. The Transportation
Security Administration has said it will order
300 more machines.

In the summer, TSA purchased 150 more machines from
Rapiscan with $25 million in American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act funds. Rapiscan was the only company
that qualified for the contract because it had
developed technology that performs the screening
using a less-graphic body imaging system, which is
also less controversial. (Since then, another company,
L-3 Communications, has qualified for future contracts,
but no new contracts have been awarded.) -- Washington Post
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/01/02/group_slams_chertoff_on_scanner_promotion/

~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~

L-3 Communications Corporation
http://www.l-3com.com/investor-relations/

"OSI Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: OSIS) is a worldwide
company based in California that develops and
markets security and inspection systems such as
airport security X-ray machines and metal detectors,
medical monitoring and anesthesia systems, and
optoelectronic devices. As of June 2006, the company
employs approximately 2,580 personnel globally and
includes subsidiary companies Spacelabs Healthcare,
Rapiscan Systems and OSI Optoelectronics. Its CEO
and Chairman is Deepak Chopra."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_Systems

OSI System's Inc website: http://osi-systems.com
OSIS: http://investors.osi-systems.com/index.cfm

Rapiscan Systems' web site: http://www.rapiscansystems.com/

OSI Optoelectronics' web site: http://www.osioptoelectronics.com/

Spacelabs Healthcare's web site: http://www.spacelabshealthcare.com/

Caryn Anscomb: http://www.starstreamresearch.com/trickster.htm
Winifred Barton: http://usnisa.org/cosmic_cube/
Art Bell: http://www.seti-teamartbell.com/
Ben S. Bernanke: http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/bios/board/bernanke.htm
Chris R. Beskar: http://www.stavatti.com/
Brother Blue: http://web.archive.org/web/19980424200237/http://www.brotherblue.org/
Robert Bruce: http://www.astraldynamics.com/
Peter J. Carroll: http://www.specularium.org/
Dimi Chakalov: http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/QuanCon2.html
Michael Chertoff: http://www.chertoffgroup.com/
Deepak Chopra: http://osi-systems.com
Erik Davis: http://www.techgnosis.com/
James Deardorff: http://www.tjresearch.info/contents.htm
Dick Farley: http://www.google.com/search?q=Dick+Farley+cloudrider
Lachezar Filipov: http://www.space.bas.bg/astrophysics/cvfilipov.html
Joe Fleury: http://members.pingnet.ch/nbt/mail_art.htm
Gary Gene Ford: http://home.netcom.com/~mthorn/darkling
Ray Fowler: http://users.cjb.net/raymondfowler/index.html
Stanton Friedman: http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/sfhome.html
S. Goodfellow: http://goodfelloweb.com/
Patricia J. Gray: http://www.sex-doc.org/
Bernard Haisch: http://www.thegodtheory.com/
Nick Herbert: http://www2.cruzio.com/~quanta/
Michio Kaku: http://www.mkaku.org/
George Knapp: http://www.books.google.com/books?isbn=1416505210
Ray Kurzweil: http://www.kurzweilai.net/
Robert S. Lazar: http://www.unitednuclear.com/
Bruce Maccabee: http://brumac.8k.com/index.html
E. Macer-Story: http://www.magickmirror.com/
Ronald L Mallett: http://www.phys.uconn.edu/people/faculty/storrs/mallett/
Pontifex Maximus: http://www.maxpontifex.blogspot.com
Dennis J McKenna: http://www.csh.umn.edu/facultystaff/djmckenna/home.html
Terence McKenna: http://www.abrupt.org/LOGOS/tm980728.html
Jeffery Mishlove: http://www.intuition.org/jmbio.htm
Steven Mizrach: http://www.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/stargate-con.html
Chris Moore: http://www.chrismoore.com/
Dorothy Murdock: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acharya_S
Y. Nonomura: http://www.nims.go.jp/cmsc/scm/member_en.html
George Paxinos: http://home.netcom.com/~mthorn/gpaxinos.htm
Jeff Peckman: http://www.extracampaign.org/
Daniel Pinchbeck: http://www.realitysandwich.com/blog/daniel_pinchbeck
Matti Pitkanen: http://pweb.netcom.com/~mthorn/tgd.htm
Harold Puthoff: http://www.earthtech.org/principals/puthoffbio.htm
Nick Pope: http://www.nickpope.net/
Quetzalcoatl: http://www.deoxy.org/omega.htm
Lisa Randall: http://physics.harvard.edu/people/facpages/randall.html
Nancy Red Star: http://www.nancyredstar.com/content.htm
Stan Romanek: http://home.netcom.com/~mthorn/sromanek.htm
Jack Sarfatti: http://www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/parsifal.html
Saul Paul Sirag: http://twm.co.nz/consc_phys.htm#Saul-Paul
Maxwell Smart 86: http://web.archive.org/web/20010413163254/http://www.cia.gov/spy_fi/item15.html
Tony Smith: http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/worm4holes.html
Austin O. Spare: http://www.hermetic.com/spare/
Mike T Strianese: http://www.l-3com.com/investor-relations/
Whitley Strieber: http://www.unknowncountry.com/
Ingo Swann: http://www.biomindsuperpowers.com/
MT: http://pweb.netcom.com/~mthorn/stargate.htm
Russell Targ: http://www.espresearch.com/espgeneral/doc-AT.shtml
Val Valerian: http://www.trufax.org/matrix5/welcome.html
Jacques F Vallee: http://www.jacquesvallee.net/
Alfred L. Webre: http://exopolitics.blogs.com/
William Wheaton: http://www.wwheaton.com/waw/index.html
A. Whitecliff: http://www.galacticdiplomacy.com/GD-Founders.htm
Peter L. Wilson: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakim_Bey
Robert A. Wilson: http://pweb.netcom.com/~mthorn/raw.htm
Dan Winter: http://www.danwinter.com/GermanAdvisory-English.html
Edward Witten: http://www.sns.ias.edu/~witten/
Peter Woit: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/
Arthur Young: http://www.arthuryoung.com/
Zarathushtra: http://tenets.zoroastrianism.com/deen33f.html

Do you ever get that "Open the pod bay
doors, Hal," feeling, actually, post
'Dave Bowman,' post monolithic stargate,
French Provincial decorated living quarters
scenario, where you look over your shoulder
expecting to see a younger version of
yourself, only to find a much later version,
segueing into a trans-temporal 'long body'
experience of multidimensionality, starchild
infancy, etcetera? --MT - Tue, 24 Feb, 2009, 2:58 AM...
http://pweb.netcom.com/~mthorn/wi.htm
http://home.netcom.com/~mthorn/eyedead.htm
http://pw1.netcom.com/~mthorn/rocks009.htm

S e v e r a l E a r t h O r b i t s A g o . . .

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

"The Universe is a self-excited
circuit of Observer-Participators."
John Archibald Wheeler

JOTHI MARGA
http://www.jothimarga.net/swamity.html

U. G. Krishnamurti (Born 9 July 1918 Died 22 March, 2007)
http://www.well.com/user/jct/index.html

Petroleum World!
http://www.petroleumworld.com/

"You are the stillness that is eternally awake."
Antoinette Roberson [Gangaji]
http://www.gangaji.org/

"In any life, essential questions emerge that
demand answers. The answers determine the course
of your life for good or for ill. Now I pose this
essential question to you: What do you really want?"
Elliot Jay Zeldow [Eli Jaxon-Bear]
http://www.leela.org/

The Binary Soul Doctrine ...
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen09.html

******************************************

Jaynes' seminal work, The Origin of Consciousness
in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, postulates
that a profoundly important change took place in
the nature of human consciousness around 2500 BC.
[...]
[Ken] Wilber's four-quadrant system reflects a pattern
familiar to cultures across the globe; the famous
psychoanalytical pioneer Carl Jung discovered that
maps depicting a four-part reality have been drawn
as mandalas all over the world. The similarities
between these various four-part depictions of
reality are quite astounding, and all seem to
reiterate the idea that the universe is a unity
comprised of four fundamental components.
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen09.html

D a n i e l a B e r g h o f
http://www.baarsjes.amsterdam.nl/kunst_vrije_tijd/galeries

"Alone of the Valar do I exist apart from him,
hence can do so. And so I tell you this:
He is not cruel, any more than he is benevolent.
He is a force of indifference and hazard in this
universe, and what appears here upon Arda is the
result of that and no more. That is the truth
and the curse of this world: that it is bereft
of purpose. It is merely here, and it continues
as its patterns, and accident, and the force of
contesting wills press it. Finally, as all
energy upon it is drawn inexorably out into the
cosmos from whence it was fashioned, it will
grow cold, and go out." --Melkor [Pg 25],
The Second Scroll - Sauron to Pallando.
Morlindale: The Song of Illuminate Darkness
by Michael A. Aquino ((c)2003)
http://www.xeper.org/maquino

...And speaking of M E A T !
- - - --==|o)!
http://www.eng.usf.edu/%7ewilkinso/gastrobotics/

Mechanical Engineering Faculty
Stuart Wilkinson, Ph.D.
http://www.eng.usf.edu/~wilkinso/

On the other hand:

In: "D I V I S I O N T H E O R Y
IT'S A BINARY WORLD",
Peter Novak writes:

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen09.html

"... People often react very negatively to the idea
that we are double beings, that the human soul is
binary in nature. It rarely occurs to them that this
is just the reaction one would expect if the soul
was bifurcated. To be dual, after all, is to be
duplicitous and double-dealing. To have two parts to
the self makes it possible for one hand not to know
what the other is doing. It paves the way for
violated integrity, unintentional falsehood,
self-betrayal, and self-deception.

"Plus, it just seems odd. Why do we have two souls?

"Perhaps the answer is as simple as this : because
that's the way everything is made -- with two parts,
two equal-but-opposite complimentary components..."
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen09.html

Indrid Cold

unread,

Jan 9, 2010, 7:27:52 PM1/9/10

to

On Jan 11, 11:11 pm, e DNA <maxpo...@yahoo.it> wrote:

Embassy of the Republic of Yemen in Japan
http://www.yemen.jp/tourism.html
Yemen Tourism
http://www.yementourism.com/

Kazakhstan Uranium
http://www.google.com/search?q=Kazakhstan%20Uranium

Human Sacrifice on the rise in Uganda
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2010/01_january/07/uganda.shtml
http://www.legalbrief.co.za/article.php?story=20100106080326249

Paris Hilton appointed Liaison Chief for Ultraterrestrial Embassy
http://tinyurl.com/Ambassador-Paris-Hilton
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aceandvis/paris-hilton-001.jpg
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jayne-lyn-stahl/tom-fentons-emjunk-news-t_b_412620.html

***********

Whitley Strieber's 'My Greatest Fear'
http://www.unknowncountry.com/journal/?id=398
Excerpt:
"... I had about fifteen minutes of more-or-less
conscious contact with a gray... The apartment's
appearance changed while we were together.
What had seemed like a perfectly clean little
condo came to appear more like some sort of
animal burrow. I became aware of the crooked
lines, the rickety furniture, even of the
swarming bacteria, the dust mites, the moving
insects, and then of forms that we normally
don't see at all, which were moving in speeding
patterns across the walls and ceiling. A moment
later, there was a quick plunge either into the
real future or some possible future, or perhaps
a parallel universe, or some sort of situation
for which we don't even have words. Then, the
next thing I knew, the radio was playing.
It was morning. In fact, it was a Sunday.
I thought that the radio was tuned to some sort
of foreign station, because I couldn't
understand a word they were saying. When I
tried to take a shower, I discovered that I
had no sensation in my skin. I felt like a
human tent, with the water pummeling me, but
no sensation of heat or cold at all. I feared
that this would be permanent, but by the end
of the shower, sensation had, in fact, returned.
When I came out, though, the radio was still
playing gibberish. Anne was awake and she
greeted me, and I was appalled to hear that
I couldn't understand her. I remembered the
encounter perfectly well, and I feared that it
had given me a stroke. However, over the next
few minutes, as I dressed in silence, afraid
to utter a word, I gradually began to
understand the radio again. Then it came time
to go to church. Now, we were living in a
neighborhood where I had grown up. I was
familiar with every street. But when I
attempted to drive to the church, I became
completely disoriented and ended up almost
driving onto a runway at the airport. As Anne
does not drive much at all, she couldn't help
me get home. But, once again gradually, I
regained my orientation. We never got to
church, but at least we got home. For an
even more extreme example of what it's like
in the company of the grays, read my journal
of December 15, 2007.
http://www.unknowncountry.com/journal/?id=305
It is liable to be just as strange for others
as it has been for me, should they ever come
face to face with us. The disorientation is
going to be profound, and a lot of people just
are not going to manage the transition." [...]
http://www.unknowncountry.com/journal/?id=398

"EXOPOLITICS.COM" <exopo...@exopolitics.com> wrote:
[>
[> Is AVATAR a virtual extraterrestrial disclosure
[> and exopolitical experience?
[> Will it change Obama?
[>
[> January 7, 2:12 PM Alfred Lambremont Webre
[>
[> AVATAR, the 3-D fusion camera system film by
[> Canadian Oscar winning director and writer
[> James Cameron now nominated for 4 Golden Globe
[> awards, is a virtual experience of
[> extraterrestrial disclosure and the harsh
[> exopolitical reality of Earths military-
[> industrial complex and permanent war economy
[> ongoing secret colonization and exploitation
[> of our solar system and beyond.
[>
[> AVATAR is not only a future morality play
[> about the destruction of a spiritually-advanced
[> animist race of extraterrestrials for mining
[> rights, corporate greed and the survival of a
[> denuded Earth in a distant future. It is all of
[> these, and more. AVATAR offers you the viewer
[> a close-to-virtual experience of a case study
[> of what may be occurring right now in our own
[> solar system as the black budget war-mentality
[> of Earths expands it dualistic, exploitative
[> and militaristic policies into outer space
[> behind a screen of official secrecy and
[> constitutional rogue.
[>
[> Continues at:
[>
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-2912-Seattle-Exopolitics-Examiner~y2010m1d7-Is-AVATAR-a-virtual-extraterrestrial-disclosure-and-exopolitical-experience-Will-it-change-Obama

Seriously, does the average sentient being on
this planet comprehend their place as not the
center of the universe, their world revolving
around an average star 2/3rd out from a
galactic core, surrounded by billions of
other galaxies accelerating away from each
other, where evolution prevails upon all life,
where their own cherished ideologies appear
fundamentally inadequate to prepare them for
the most basic reality concerning their own
existence, let alone any sort of 'other?'

A Moon Monolith wrote:

<> Two ideologies come to mind: one says to lift
<> up the least among you and all will be elevated.
<> The other states that giving to the most well-off
<> will lead to the greater good, the famous 'trickle
<> down' theory. The first is 'public' the second is
<> 'private.' History is full of examples of the two
<> ideologies in practice. Most recently, a curious
<> hybrid occurred, one in which the wealthiest of
<> institutions, the banking industry, was observed
<> to privatize the profits and socialize the losses.
<> Another curious example of recent artful dodger
<> manipulation is the extraordinary talent the
<> 'private' ideology has exhibited in convincing
<> masses of people who tend to be the least well-off
<> to favor the dictates of the most well-off.
<> Getting the least well-off to turn against their
<> own best self-interest was a master stroke of
<> psychological assimilation by the private power
<> brokers. All it took was a little television,
<> radio, ego, and tea...

http://frank-schaeffer.blogspot.com/
http://www.amazon.com/Patience-God-People-Religion-Atheism/dp/030681854X
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7595
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/12/meep-meep.html#more

<> "THE FAMILY : The Secret Fundamentalism
<> at the Heart of American Power"
<> by Jeff Sharlet
<> http://jeffsharlet.com/content/about-the-family/
<> http://jeffsharlet.com/content/excerpt-from-the-family/
<> http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~mlindsay/news.html

<> <<snipped>>

<> Tunnel-Realities and Imprints
<> and/or Dr. Leary's perspective on these mysteries.
<> By Robert Anton Wilson (1932-2007)
<> http://www.rawilson.com/main.shtml
<> The Eightfold Model of Human Consciousness
<> http://www.deoxy.org/8circuit.htm http://deoxy.org/raw.htm

<> Card 12, The Hanged Man

<> And I saw a man with his hands tied behind his back,
<> hanging by one leg from a high gallows with his head
<> downwards, and in fearful torments.
<> Round his head was a golden halo.
<> And I heard a Voice which spoke to me:
<> "Behold, this is the man who has seen Truth.
<> "New suffering, such as no earthly misfortune can
<> ever cause, that is what awaits man on earth when
<> he finds the path to Eternity and the understanding
<> of the Infinite.
<> "He is still a man, but he already knows many things
<> inaccessible even to gods. And this conflict between
<> the big and the little in his soul makes his torture
<> and his Golgotha.
<> "In his own soul a high gallows is raised on
<> which he hangs in suffering, feeling as though he
<> was turned head downwards.
<> "He himself chose this way.
<> "It is for this that he went a long journey from trial
<> to trial, from initiation to initiation, through failures
<> and through falls.
<> "And now he has found Truth and has known himself.
<> "He now knows that it is he who stands between earth
<> and heaven controlling the elements with the magical
<> symbols, and it is also he who walks in the Fool's cap
<> along a dusty road beneath the blazing sun towards
<> the abyss where the crocodile awaits him.
<> It is he with his companion in the Garden of Eden under
<> the protection of the benficent genie; it is also he who is
<> bound with her to the black cube of lies; it is he who
<> stands as the conqueror for a moment in the deceptive
<> chariot, drawn by the sphinxes ready to rush in
<> opposite directions; and it is he again in the desert who
<> looks for Truth with a lantern in the bright of day.
<> "And now he has found Truth."
<> 1911-1929

<> A New Model Of The Universe by P.D. Ouspensky
<> The Symbolism of the Tarot Pg. 215
<> http://www.global.org/Pub/12_Hanged_Man.asp
<> http://pweb.netcom.com/~mthorn/qpchipmt.htm
<> http://www.gurdjieffdominican.com/sufi_seminar_germany.html
<> www.gurdjieff-ouspensky-centers.org-www.beingpresent.org
<> http://www.unknowncountry.com/journal/?id=137

<> DMT, Moses, and the Quest for Transcendence
<> http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/Pickover/pc/dmt.html
<> by Cliff Pickover, http://pickover.com/ Reality Carnival,
<> http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/Pickover/pc/realitycarnival.html
<> "People with Charles Bonnet Syndrome
<> See Beings from Parallel Universes"
<> http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/Pickover/pc/bonnet.html
<> and "DMT Users See Insect Gods".
<> http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/Pickover/pc/dmtinsect.html
<> "Man Discovers Intelligent Beings After Consuming DMT,"
<> "The fleeting reality of DMT machine elves," and
<> "Psychedelics, Abortion, and the Chrysanthemum."
<> http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/Pickover/pc/dmt.html

DISTRICT NINE

1977 Historical Symmetry
http://pweb.netcom.com/~mthorn/history9.htm
Strings 1978
http://pweb.netcom.com/~mthorn/string78.htm

<> Millennium <amat...@fastmail.com.au> wrote:
<>
<> Our Living Ancestral Songline Landscape, of All Mind, All Time ...
<> www.ojaipost.com/2010/01/our_living_ancestral_songline.shtml
<> Carrizo Plain:
<> http://3dparks.wr.usgs.gov/carrizo/html/thumbs.htm
<> Sapaksi, House of the Sun:
<> http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/1qd28483
<> Painted Cave, Chumash Astronomy Observatory
<> http://thedigitalstory.com/2009/03/compact_camera_to_th.html
<> Lizard Cave, San Emigdio
<> http://escholarship.org/uc/item/958478hg
<> Tierra Incognita: Rock Art, Landscape Biography, and Archaeological
Blind Spots
<> http://www.uclan.ac.uk/scitech/research/rae2008/staff_profiles/files/ROBINSON-tierra_incognita.pdf
<> Chumash Pictographs from the Topa Topas
<> http://www.bsahighadventure.org/indian_lore/pictographs/pictographs.html
<> Posted by Millennium Twain on January 6, 2010 09:40 PM
<> -- amat...@fastmail.com.au

MILLENNIUM
http://www.amazon.com/Millennium-Seasons-1-3-Lance-Henriksen/dp/B001CY5N00

Academy Group http://www.academy-group.com/company.html

DNA Unzipped by Chertoff and Chopra?!

--- On Sun, 1/10/10, OutreZoneD <outre...@my-deja.com> wrote:

Greetings Mind People!

~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~

~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

JOTHI MARGA
http://www.jothimarga.net/swamity.html

Petroleum World!
http://www.petroleumworld.com/

******************************************

On the other hand:

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen09.html

G

unread,

Jan 20, 2010, 9:28:04 AM1/20/10

to

On 10 Jan, 00:27, Indrid Cold <demohas...@yahoo.com.mx> wrote:

> On Jan 11, 11:11 pm, e DNA <maxponti...@yahoo.it> wrote:
>
> Embassy of the Republic of Yemen in Japan
> http://www.yemen.jp/tourism.html
> Yemen Tourism
> http://www.yementourism.com/
>
> Kazakhstan Uranium
> http://www.google.com/search?q=Kazakhstan%20Uranium
>
> Human Sacrifice on the rise in Uganda

> http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2010/01_januar...

> http://www.legalbrief.co.za/article.php?story=20100106080326249
>
> Paris Hilton appointed Liaison Chief for Ultraterrestrial Embassy
> http://tinyurl.com/Ambassador-Paris-Hilton
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aceandvis/paris-hilton-001.jpg

> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jayne-lyn-stahl/tom-fentons-emjunk-news...

> [>http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-2912-Seattle-Exopolitics-Examiner~...

> http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/12/meep-mee...

>
> <> "THE FAMILY : The Secret Fundamentalism
> <> at the Heart of American Power"
> <> by Jeff Sharlet
> <> http://jeffsharlet.com/content/about-the-family/
> <> http://jeffsharlet.com/content/excerpt-from-the-family/
> <> http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~mlindsay/news.html
>
> <> <<snipped>>
>
> <> Tunnel-Realities and Imprints
> <> and/or Dr. Leary's perspective on these mysteries.
> <> By Robert Anton Wilson (1932-2007)
> <>http://www.rawilson.com/main.shtml
> <> The Eightfold Model of Human Consciousness

> <>http://www.deoxy.org/8circuit.htmhttp://deoxy.org/raw.htm

> <> by Cliff Pickover, http://pickover.com/Reality Carnival,

> <> http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/Pickover/pc/realitycarnival.html
> <> "People with Charles Bonnet Syndrome
> <> See Beings from Parallel Universes"
> <> http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/Pickover/pc/bonnet.html
> <> and "DMT Users See Insect Gods".
> <> http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/Pickover/pc/dmtinsect.html
> <> "Man Discovers Intelligent Beings After Consuming DMT,"
> <> "The fleeting reality of DMT machine elves," and
> <> "Psychedelics, Abortion, and the Chrysanthemum."
> <> http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/Pickover/pc/dmt.html
>
> DISTRICT NINE
>
> 1977 Historical Symmetry
> http://pweb.netcom.com/~mthorn/history9.htm
> Strings 1978
> http://pweb.netcom.com/~mthorn/string78.htm
>

> <> Millennium <amater...@fastmail.com.au> wrote:
>
> <>
> <> ...
>
> read more »

quack

slider

unread,

Jan 20, 2010, 9:49:03 AM1/20/10

to

"G" wrote ...

> <>
> <> ...
>
> read more �

quack

### - correct!

i.e. one problem with rationality, is the option of being an intelligent,
well-meaning, but totally misinformed nutcase :)

---------------------

"Alas, I know if I ever became truly humble, I would be proud of it."
--Benjamin Franklin :)

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

Tom

unread,

Jan 20, 2010, 10:28:00 AM1/20/10

to

On Jan 20, 6:49 am, "slider" <sli...@anashram.com> wrote:
>
> i.e. one problem with rationality, is the option of being an intelligent,
> well-meaning, but totally misinformed nutcase :)

There is a distinct difference between rationality and
rationalization.

Rationality seeks to comprehend and express the underlying causal
relationships for events using both logical and empirical
methodologies. Rationalization seeks to impose one's preferred
attributions of causality upon events without any empirical testing.
Rationalization may occasionally look rational but it's not.

slider

unread,

Jan 20, 2010, 11:14:54 AM1/20/10

to

Tom wrote...

### - you're slightly out of context (my fault probably for using 'rationality'
instead of 'reason per se'), but agreed... otherwise the process of
rationalisation is still contained within the overall process of reason per se,
and reason per se can be completely misinformed and still think (and act as
though) it's right... hence the above

as for empirical evidence... the empirical evidence of our own eyes once had us
thinking that the sun orbited the earth... iow, empirical can often just be
relative to what we think we want/expect to see/find... e.g. Darwinian evolution
only accounts for some strictly physical aspects of the whole (basically because
rationality/reason precludes anything else) and is thus held above everything else
because of that very preclusion... even though it's patently incomplete :)

------------------

December 16, 1996

"Scientists are mired in respectability. Does it not penetrate their
skulls that some phenomena might only occur once? Or at a certain
pattern in time--only every 3rd Tuesday, etcetera.
And they have an insatiable appetite for data: "More data!" they scream
"and nothing anecdotal." (This may be the only data in some cases.)
"Not conclusive!"
Is anything ever?"

--extract from William Burroughs final work: 'Last Words' :)

Tom

unread,

Jan 20, 2010, 6:24:41 PM1/20/10

to

On Jan 20, 8:14 am, "slider" <sli...@anashram.com> wrote:
> Tom wrote...

> >
> > There is a distinct difference between rationality and
> > rationalization.
> >
> > Rationality seeks to comprehend and express the underlying causal
> > relationships for events using both logical and empirical
> > methodologies. Rationalization seeks to impose one's preferred
> > attributions of causality upon events without any empirical testing.
> > Rationalization may occasionally look rational but it's not.
>
> ### - you're slightly out of context (my fault probably for using 'rationality'
> instead of 'reason per se'), but agreed... otherwise the process of
> rationalisation is still contained within the overall process of reason per se,
> and reason per se can be completely misinformed and still think (and act as
> though) it's right... hence the above

I think the word you're groping for is "logic", not "reason". Logical
conclusions are no more reliable than the premises they're based on.
If the premise is true, then the conclusion is true, but if the
premise is false, then the conclusion is indeterminate.

Both "reason" and "rationality" include logic but do not depend on
logic alone, supplementing and correcting it with careful and repeated
observation.

> as for empirical evidence... the empirical evidence of our own eyes once had us
> thinking that the sun orbited the earth...

Which is certainly truer than saying the sun is stationary in the sky,
which one might assume if one only glanced at it briefly on a single
occasion. The key here is that observations have to be carefully made
and repeated over time in order to develop a clearer idea as to what's
happening. The more observations we have, the better our
approximations of causality become.

> iow, empirical can often just be
> relative to what we think we want/expect to see/find...

But observations are often unexpected as well. It's where our
observations are *not* what we expect that we begin to question our
beliefs about what's really going on and become open to an opportunity
to learn something new. Those who refuse to observe carefully and
repeatedly do so because they are already too fond of their
rationalizations and don't want any unexpected observations to disturb
them.

> e.g. Darwinian evolution
> only accounts for some strictly physical aspects of the whole (basically because
> rationality/reason precludes anything else) and is thus held above everything else
> because of that very preclusion... even though it's patently incomplete :)

No theory is ever "complete" because new data can always result in
revisions. Religious dogma is regarded as "complete" because the
believers in it refuse to question it and thus are closed to new data
and any opportunity to learn anything new. Darwin's theory, like all
theories in science, are, as you say, strictly physical. Physics is
science. Metaphysics is religion. Religion is not reasoned or
rational, although on very rare occasions it can be logical. So if
you want a theory of evolution that is not strictly physical, you want
one that is straightforwardly mythical. Don't claim your favorite
myth is "reasonable" or "rational", though, because that's not the
case.

> December 16, 1996
>
> "Scientists are mired in respectability. Does it not penetrate their
> skulls that some phenomena might only occur once? Or at a certain
> pattern in time--only every 3rd Tuesday, etcetera.
> And they have an insatiable appetite for data: "More data!" they scream
> "and nothing anecdotal." (This may be the only data in some cases.)
> "Not conclusive!"
> Is anything ever?"
>
> --extract from William Burroughs final work: 'Last Words' :)

I much prefer a world in which nothing is conclusive. That's why I
don't care for religion. It's chock full of unreasonable and
irrational conclusions. In science, one can admit a lack of
conclusion, a dearth of sufficient knowledge. This is anathema to
religion.

slider

unread,

Jan 21, 2010, 5:52:14 AM1/21/10

to

Tom wrote...

> > There is a distinct difference between rationality and
> > rationalization.
> >
> > Rationality seeks to comprehend and express the underlying causal
> > relationships for events using both logical and empirical
> > methodologies. Rationalization seeks to impose one's preferred
> > attributions of causality upon events without any empirical testing.
> > Rationalization may occasionally look rational but it's not.
>
> ### - you're slightly out of context (my fault probably for using 'rationality'
> instead of 'reason per se'), but agreed... otherwise the process of
> rationalisation is still contained within the overall process of reason per se,
> and reason per se can be completely misinformed and still think (and act as
> though) it's right... hence the above

I think the word you're groping for is "logic", not "reason". Logical
conclusions are no more reliable than the premises they're based on.
If the premise is true, then the conclusion is true, but if the
premise is false, then the conclusion is indeterminate.

Both "reason" and "rationality" include logic but do not depend on
logic alone, supplementing and correcting it with careful and repeated
observation.

### - well what would you call the 'whole process' of rationality, reason 'and'
logic in their entirety (including anything that can go wrong with it) if not
rationality and reason per se? i've always referred to this human attribute as
Reason...

> as for empirical evidence... the empirical evidence of our own eyes once had us
> thinking that the sun orbited the earth...

Which is certainly truer than saying the sun is stationary in the sky,
which one might assume if one only glanced at it briefly on a single
occasion. The key here is that observations have to be carefully made
and repeated over time in order to develop a clearer idea as to what's
happening. The more observations we have, the better our
approximations of causality become.

### - absolutely! my point though being that 'whatever' it is that's currently
upheld as being correct and proper, never is! and/or is only ever partially so...

e.g. the view created/projected by Newtonian physics appeared rock-solid and
irrefutable until quantum mechanics came along and rewrote the book? (quantum
mechanics being then the modern equivalent of say realising that perhaps the sun
doesn't in fact orbit the earth as it was previously thought to)

> iow, empirical can often just be
> relative to what we think we want/expect to see/find...

But observations are often unexpected as well. It's where our
observations are *not* what we expect that we begin to question our
beliefs about what's really going on and become open to an opportunity
to learn something new. Those who refuse to observe carefully and
repeatedly do so because they are already too fond of their
rationalizations and don't want any unexpected observations to disturb
them.

### - even unexpected observations are only yet another tweak to the current
working model (or 'belief' as you referred to it) one such unexpected observation
being the earth orbiting the sun instead of the working-belief of the time (it's
complete opposite! hehe, iow the working model of the time couldn't have been any
more wrong .. oh and err, 'sorry' anyone that may have been burned at the stake,
for err, oop's well, ahhh nothing really... sorry 'bout that ;)

> e.g. Darwinian evolution
> only accounts for some strictly physical aspects of the whole (basically because
> rationality/reason precludes anything else) and is thus held above everything
> else because of that very preclusion... even though it's patently incomplete :)

No theory is ever "complete" because new data can always result in
revisions. Religious dogma is regarded as "complete" because the
believers in it refuse to question it and thus are closed to new data
and any opportunity to learn anything new.

### - well if that's correct (and i'm sure it is) then that just makes science,
with it's 'incomplete theories': merely an 'adaptive' form OF religion?

i.e. they basically both do/achieve the same thing, in that they both project a
working model of the world that's never actually correct at the time, science just
being a more honest version of the same application (upgrades?:) in that when
forced to/cornered they'll admit that they probably aren't correct and are
prepared to some extent to adapt to new data... whereas religions typically are
not, and thus have religions been known to pass out of history (becoming dead
religions) whereas science apparently has aspirations to circumnavigate that
particular pothole in the road, and thus to live forever! :)

(meet the new boss, same as the old boss... with upgrades! :)

Darwin's theory, like all
theories in science, are, as you say, strictly physical. Physics is
science. Metaphysics is religion. Religion is not reasoned or
rational, although on very rare occasions it can be logical. So if
you want a theory of evolution that is not strictly physical, you want
one that is straightforwardly mythical. Don't claim your favorite
myth is "reasonable" or "rational", though, because that's not the
case.

### - ohhh and we were getting-along sooo well?? hehehe :)

i.e. i can't agree that metaphysics is religion, imho that's just reason flagging
everything it can't get hold of with its rational little tweezers with a 'doesn't
fit the criteria' label (reject!-reject!) even though science itself is only an
'adaptive' form of the same working principle that religion uses/used, and as such
never actually ever presents us with any kind of a truth that's as-true tomorrow
as it is today? (iow, we're not actually any better-off no matter which team/club
one supports)

basically... Science, is just religion in a pinstriped suit ;-)

> December 16, 1996
>
> "Scientists are mired in respectability. Does it not penetrate their
> skulls that some phenomena might only occur once? Or at a certain
> pattern in time--only every 3rd Tuesday, etcetera.
> And they have an insatiable appetite for data: "More data!" they scream
> "and nothing anecdotal." (This may be the only data in some cases.)
> "Not conclusive!"
> Is anything ever?"
>
> --extract from William Burroughs final work: 'Last Words' :)

I much prefer a world in which nothing is conclusive. That's why I
don't care for religion. It's chock full of unreasonable and
irrational conclusions. In science, one can admit a lack of
conclusion, a dearth of sufficient knowledge. This is anathema to
religion.

### - I too much prefer a world in which nothing is conclusive. That's why I
don't care for Science. It's chock full of reasonable and 'rational'
conclusions.. which incidentally, it admits are never actually correct, but that
wont stop them from metaphorically burning you at the stake if, and/or when, you
don't agree with them :)

------------------

"To be conscious that we are perceiving or thinking is to be conscious of our own
existence." --Aristotle

Tom

unread,

Jan 21, 2010, 11:32:41 AM1/21/10

to

On Jan 21, 2:52 am, "slider" <sli...@anashram.com> wrote:
>
> ### - well what would you call the 'whole process' of rationality, reason 'and'
> logic in their entirety (including anything that can go wrong with it) if not
> rationality and reason per se?

I call the whole process of rationality "rationality", of course. I
do not, however, consider "rationality" and "logic" to be
interchangeable terms. Logic is part of rational thought but it
cannot stand alone as rational thought.

> > as for empirical evidence... the empirical evidence of our own eyes once had us
> > thinking that the sun orbited the earth...
>
> Which is certainly truer than saying the sun is stationary in the sky,
> which one might assume if one only glanced at it briefly on a single
> occasion. The key here is that observations have to be carefully made
> and repeated over time in order to develop a clearer idea as to what's
> happening. The more observations we have, the better our
> approximations of causality become.
>
> ### - absolutely! my point though being that 'whatever' it is that's currently
> upheld as being correct and proper, never is! and/or is only ever partially so...

Now you seem to think "partially true" is the same as "never true".

> e.g. the view created/projected by Newtonian physics appeared rock-solid and
> irrefutable until quantum mechanics came along and rewrote the book?

Quantum theory did not just "come along". It arose as a result of
careful observations that had never been able to be made before and
those observations, which were quite unexpected, resulted in revisions
to Newton's theories, which were based on observations made 200 years
earlier. It is a tribute to the incredible intellect of Newton that
they lasted as long as they did. And still do last very well in most
cases. It's only when we observe extremes of size, mass, and speed
that we see any variation at all.

> > iow, empirical can often just be
> > relative to what we think we want/expect to see/find...
>
> But observations are often unexpected as well. It's where our
> observations are *not* what we expect that we begin to question our
> beliefs about what's really going on and become open to an opportunity
> to learn something new. Those who refuse to observe carefully and
> repeatedly do so because they are already too fond of their
> rationalizations and don't want any unexpected observations to disturb
> them.
>
> ### - even unexpected observations are only yet another tweak to the current
> working model (or 'belief' as you referred to it) one such unexpected observation
> being the earth orbiting the sun instead of the working-belief of the time (it's
> complete opposite! hehe, iow the working model of the time couldn't have been any
> more wrong .. oh and err, 'sorry' anyone that may have been burned at the stake,
> for err, oop's well, ahhh nothing really... sorry 'bout that ;)

Don't go flying off on a tangent just because I refuted your implied
claim that empiricism is invalid because scientists mostly see what
they expect to see. Admit that you were wrong and then we can move on
to another point honestly, instead of trying to weasel out of it and
pretend you were never wrong at all.

> > e.g. Darwinian evolution
> > only accounts for some strictly physical aspects of the whole (basically because
> > rationality/reason precludes anything else) and is thus held above everything
> > else because of that very preclusion... even though it's patently incomplete :)
>
> No theory is ever "complete" because new data can always result in
> revisions. Religious dogma is regarded as "complete" because the
> believers in it refuse to question it and thus are closed to new data
> and any opportunity to learn anything new.
>
> ### - well if that's correct (and i'm sure it is) then that just makes science,
> with it's 'incomplete theories': merely an 'adaptive' form OF religion?

If religion is nothing more than any attempt to explain phenomena,
then any method of inquiry at all is "religion". However, just as I
make a distinction between rationality and logic, I also make a
difference between various methods of explaining phenomena. The
method that relies on totally subjective personal communication with
some intangible super-being with allegedly superior knowledge and
whose pronouncements are to be accepted as completely true without any
challenge and even despite evidence to the contrary is religion. The
method that does not accept any pronouncements as completely true and
challenges all of them to produce consistent observable results in
support is science.

> i.e. they basically both do/achieve the same thing,

Actually, no, they don't. Religion achieves emotional comfort by
asserting an illusory certainty. Science achieves active learning by
asserting a demonstrable uncertainty.

> i.e. i can't agree that metaphysics is religion,

If you don't see metaphysics and religion as the same thing, please
point out exactly what the differences are. To do this, you will have
to provide very specific definitions of those two terms and then
compare and contrast them.

> imho that's just reason flagging
> everything it can't get hold of with its rational little tweezers with a 'doesn't
> fit the criteria' label (reject!-reject!)

Again you display no understanding of the rational process. The
rational person does not "reject" untestable claims. The rational
person makes no judgment at all as to their correctness or
incorrectness. "Insufficient data" is not a conclusion about the
rightness or wrongness of an assertion.

> I much prefer a world in which nothing is conclusive. That's why I
> don't care for religion. It's chock full of unreasonable and
> irrational conclusions. In science, one can admit a lack of
> conclusion, a dearth of sufficient knowledge. This is anathema to
> religion.
>
> ### - I too much prefer a world in which nothing is conclusive. That's why I
> don't care for Science. It's chock full of reasonable and 'rational'
> conclusions.

A conclusion is an end. Nothing is concluded in science. There is
always the possibility for more data and more revisions to theories.
Religion, on the other hand, precludes the possibility that more data
will ever change its dogma. Religion gives us nothing but permanent
and eternal conclusions. Science gives us no conclusions at all, or
at least only tentative ones, pending further study.

I think what you're actually objecting to is the tendency of
scientists to test your cherished ideas and find them lacking in
observeable support. You like the idea of simply making something up
and then having it turn out to be true while still having the freedom
to change your mind and have something else become true instead.
You'd like reality to conform to all your expectations all the time,
even when your expectations change, which is infantile.

I note that it's only people who dont understand the scientific method
who capitalize "Science" and treat it as if it were just another
religion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M-vnmejwXo&feature=related

slider

unread,

Jan 22, 2010, 5:35:43 PM1/22/10

to

Tom wrote...

> ### - well what would you call the 'whole process' of rationality, reason 'and'
> logic in their entirety (including anything that can go wrong with it) if not
> rationality and reason per se?

I call the whole process of rationality "rationality", of course. I
do not, however, consider "rationality" and "logic" to be
interchangeable terms. Logic is part of rational thought but it
cannot stand alone as rational thought.

### - agreed, logic is only part of the overall process of thought and thinking,
and out of a wide range the best analytical application of which indeed appears
to be the scientific method of collecting data and objectively analysing it
to arrive at various observations/conclusions about the nature of the world
around us, and i've no argument with that as it's just about the best any
averagely intelligent person whose outlook is completely given-over to a
strictly material view of life, a so-called realist as compared to say an
artist...

> > as for empirical evidence... the empirical evidence of our own eyes once had
> > us thinking that the sun orbited the earth...
>
> Which is certainly truer than saying the sun is stationary in the sky,
> which one might assume if one only glanced at it briefly on a single
> occasion. The key here is that observations have to be carefully made
> and repeated over time in order to develop a clearer idea as to what's
> happening. The more observations we have, the better our
> approximations of causality become.
>
> ### - absolutely! my point though being that 'whatever' it is that's currently
> upheld as being correct and proper, never is! and/or is only ever partially
> so...

Now you seem to think "partially true" is the same as "never true".

### - not really... plus i only really added/allowed the 'partially-so' bit as an
after-thought out of politeness to you (plus just thought it was perhaps still a
bit too early in the game to start 'nailing your ass' to the proverbial wall
haha, just kidding btw :)

my previous point being that given the shifting and ever-changing nature of
rational knowledge, society nevertheless has to draw a line in the sand somewhere
in order to be able to function, one result of which being well ok yes we burned
people yesterday, and we don't do that today... (which is surely an improvement!:)
but then just how are they going to perhaps look back tomorrow on what
will surely appear to be 'our' barbaric ways of today, i don't wonder sometimes
too?

> e.g. the view created/projected by Newtonian physics appeared rock-solid and
> irrefutable until quantum mechanics came along and rewrote the book?

Quantum theory did not just "come along". It arose as a result of
careful observations that had never been able to be made before and
those observations, which were quite unexpected, resulted in revisions
to Newton's theories, which were based on observations made 200 years
earlier.

### - pause in your dialogue here, i just want to respond to this next bit
slightly out of context...

It is a tribute to the incredible intellect of Newton that
they lasted as long as they did.

### - that, or just a terribly blasting critique of the rest of us who all took
sooo very long (200 years!:) to catch up with him, let alone being able to stand
on his shoulders lol ;-)

anyway... continue dialogue

And still do last very well in most
cases. It's only when we observe extremes of size, mass, and speed
that we see any variation at all.

### - and i agree with you! i just can't help wondering what the final
'body-count' was (and which i agree is still being added to for the foreseeable
future) for the application and enforcing of the newtonian view of the world, era?
(people put/worked to death/turned into robots with a chilling 'clockwork
efficacy' for example, i mean :)

> > iow, empirical can often just be
> > relative to what we think we want/expect to see/find...
>
> But observations are often unexpected as well. It's where our
> observations are *not* what we expect that we begin to question our
> beliefs about what's really going on and become open to an opportunity
> to learn something new. Those who refuse to observe carefully and
> repeatedly do so because they are already too fond of their
> rationalizations and don't want any unexpected observations to disturb
> them.
>
> ### - even unexpected observations are only yet another tweak to the current
> working model (or 'belief' as you referred to it) one such unexpected
> observation
> being the earth orbiting the sun instead of the working-belief of the time (it's
> complete opposite! hehe, iow the working model of the time couldn't have been
> any
> more wrong .. oh and err, 'sorry' anyone that may have been burned at the stake,
> for err, oop's well, ahhh nothing really... sorry 'bout that ;)

Don't go flying off on a tangent just because I refuted your implied
claim that empiricism is invalid because scientists mostly see what
they expect to see. Admit that you were wrong and then we can move on
to another point honestly, instead of trying to weasel out of it and
pretend you were never wrong at all.

### - i never said empiricism is 'invalid', plus wholly accept that it isn't
invalidated either by those stuck in seeing what they want/expect (or would even
just like) to see, so i'm not trying to get out of anything... rather, i'm
actually trying to 'get-in' there a little deeper with you in order to try and
communicate with you in/on more on your own terms rather than trying to force you
onto mine (i.e. you can't speak my language at all but i can speak a little of
yours, and on that basis + if i exert myself to the limit of my ability, we
can maybe even kinda communicate...

(thus i think i'll have to call you: Friday? just kidding ;)

empiricism then, is basically the previous owner/boss (the religious state)
owning-up to ITS mistake and then handing the reins of power and control over to
its successor: the age of reason, scientific and/or philosophic, wherein
empiricism is then mostly applied (i say mostly, because we have to allow for the
cretins who insist on seeing things their own way regardless of any evidence to
the contrary... 'true' scientists are surprisingly, quite rare ;)

> > e.g. Darwinian evolution
> > only accounts for some strictly physical aspects of the whole (basically
> > because
> > rationality/reason precludes anything else) and is thus held above everything
> > else because of that very preclusion... even though it's patently incomplete
> > :)
>
> No theory is ever "complete" because new data can always result in
> revisions. Religious dogma is regarded as "complete" because the
> believers in it refuse to question it and thus are closed to new data
> and any opportunity to learn anything new.
>
> ### - well if that's correct (and i'm sure it is) then that just makes science,
> with it's 'incomplete theories': merely an 'adaptive' form OF religion?

If religion is nothing more than any attempt to explain phenomena,
then any method of inquiry at all is "religion".

### - hey tom we're actually on the same page for about 5 seconds, serendipity,
nice :)

'religion' (belief-systems) being what basically always comes out of attempting to
live one's life from the pov of 'explaining' everything, or trying to... even
empirically... in fact empirically might even be worse/harder to get out of :)

However, just as I
make a distinction between rationality and logic, I also make a
difference between various methods of explaining phenomena. The
method that relies on totally subjective personal communication with
some intangible super-being with allegedly superior knowledge and
whose pronouncements are to be accepted as completely true without any
challenge and even despite evidence to the contrary is religion. The
method that does not accept any pronouncements as completely true and
challenges all of them to produce consistent observable results in
support is science.

### - i know, and agree... but then aren't you in fact just splitting hairs by
making this distinction between 'methods' of explaining phenomena, the
'explaining' part in both cases being entirely based on reasonable/semi-reasonable
rationales, constructions and projections, which rightly or wrongly (mostly
wrongly) people are encouraged to relate exclusively to, regardless of whether
it's even wholly or in part correct or not (i.e. fashionable will apparently often
do too just as long as it kinda adds up in some seemingly coherent way, or at
least one that you can 'learn' to relate to even if it's a bit weird at first :)

> i.e. they basically both do/achieve the same thing,

Actually, no, they don't. Religion achieves emotional comfort by
asserting an illusory certainty. Science achieves active learning by
asserting a demonstrable uncertainty.

### - well yeah you know, once bitten twice shy, as the saying goes... state
religion got its fingers badly burned (the Galileo incident) and knew its days
were numbered, it was adapt or die time for the powers that be, the unavoidable
age of reason was appearing over the horizon wherein people would no longer be
content to do as they're told without understanding it, but would have to be
convinced instead to kind of self-govern within clearly marked/defined socially
acceptable parameters... which could still be dictated from on-high, so no biggie
really people; everyone just carry-on, okayyy? :)

> i.e. i can't agree that metaphysics is religion,

If you don't see metaphysics and religion as the same thing, please
point out exactly what the differences are. To do this, you will have
to provide very specific definitions of those two terms and then
compare and contrast them.

### - (laughing a bit:) unfortunately i don't speak your lingo 'that' well m8 :)

what i will agree however, is that the term metaphysics is that used 'by' reason
to roughly define a very grey area in definitive rational terms, so it tends to
lump everything together under the same heading, not only because it doesn't
want to get involved with anything like that (blame it all on the previous
management gu'v, it wasn't us etc etc:) but because being definitive as such isn't
really part of the system(s) reason is trying to catalogue when it examines
'anything' (including religion) that's not strictly subject to its own rational
and logical criteria...

there's more to metaphysics then than just religion, i mean... yet it's always
going to be examined (if it ever is) as though it is religion albeit some whatever
version of it.... i mean ask a scientist/rationalist to examine Art, and he's just
never gonna get-it beyond being something pretty to decorate the walls with...

art, made by scientists = painting by numbers :)

> imho that's just reason flagging
> everything it can't get hold of with its rational little tweezers with a
> 'doesn't
> fit the criteria' label (reject!-reject!)

Again you display no understanding of the rational process. The
rational person does not "reject" untestable claims. The rational
person makes no judgment at all as to their correctness or
incorrectness. "Insufficient data" is not a conclusion about the
rightness or wrongness of an assertion.

### - in an ideal world, perhaps... nevertheless rational people still form
working-opinions they then act on based on insufficient/incomplete-data about
untestable claims, if only to distance themselves from them... usually because
these 'things' don't fit neatly into the rational criteria for definition... iow,
rationality is 'as' self-serving and self-reinforcing as any religion or cult is,
and if you can't see that then it's perhaps because you don't want to?

> I much prefer a world in which nothing is conclusive. That's why I
> don't care for religion. It's chock full of unreasonable and
> irrational conclusions. In science, one can admit a lack of
> conclusion, a dearth of sufficient knowledge. This is anathema to
> religion.
>
> ### - I too much prefer a world in which nothing is conclusive. That's why I
> don't care for Science. It's chock full of reasonable and 'rational'
> conclusions.

A conclusion is an end. Nothing is concluded in science. There is
always the possibility for more data and more revisions to theories.
Religion, on the other hand, precludes the possibility that more data
will ever change its dogma. Religion gives us nothing but permanent
and eternal conclusions. Science gives us no conclusions at all, or
at least only tentative ones, pending further study.

### - tentative ones... such as god is dead for example?? :)

not that i'm saying/suggesting there's a god or anything hehehe, only that the
above 'divorcing of itself' from that of religion is rather far from being
tentative lol :)

and ok yes it marks the demarcation line drawn between that of belief-systems and
the more advanced system of applied empiricism (a needed upgrade indeed) yet are
both systems still similar in that ultimately they both use the same mechanisms of
mind to create models of the world that people then learn to relate to... the
models produced may have been arrived at by different, even opposing routes,
nevertheless are they still only projected 'images' of reality (mental
constructions/fabrications) and not reality itself that they're relating to...

I think what you're actually objecting to is the tendency of
scientists to test your cherished ideas and find them lacking in
observeable support. You like the idea of simply making something up
and then having it turn out to be true while still having the freedom
to change your mind and have something else become true instead.
You'd like reality to conform to all your expectations all the time,
even when your expectations change, which is infantile.

### - that would indeed be infantile if it were true, only that's not where i'm
coming from at all... i mean maybe 'you' are like that to be accusing me of it, i
don't know, all i can personally say is that i have no expectations whatsoever,
let alone wanting anything to conform to them... science might do that, religion
certainly did do that... but no, i'm not into making things up, at least not in
the way you mean it... what i'm into, is reality minus all the 'man-made'
fabrications and projections that's been continually 'plastered-over' the base
reality ever since mankind first learned to think and ideate... but i guess you
wont like that idea because it's an idea that suggests letting go of 'all'
ideas... and then where would you be (a fish out of water perhaps?)

I note that it's only people who dont understand the scientific method
who capitalize "Science" and treat it as if it were just another
religion.

### - (well there's no need to be quite so hostile/defensive about it) they might
be structured differently, but you have to admit that scientific methodology is
still just another system of man-made thought and projections albeit based on
slightly different criteria to religion... and the fact that many now prefer it
over religion doesn't detract from their basic similarity in terms of human
construction and general application, and that ultimately both afford people
with a conveniently ready-made (but artificial and always inaccurate) pov :)

----------------

"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant.
We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the
gift." --Albert Einstein

Tom

unread,

Jan 22, 2010, 6:33:08 PM1/22/10

to

On Jan 22, 2:35 pm, "slider" <sli...@anashram.com> wrote:
> Tom wrote...
> > ### - well what would you call the 'whole process' of rationality, reason 'and'
> > logic in their entirety (including anything that can go wrong with it) if not
> > rationality and reason per se?
>
> I call the whole process of rationality "rationality", of course. I
> do not, however, consider "rationality" and "logic" to be
> interchangeable terms. Logic is part of rational thought but it
> cannot stand alone as rational thought.
>
> ### - agreed, logic is only part of the overall process of thought and thinking,
> and out of a wide range the best analytical application of which indeed appears
> to be the scientific method of collecting data and objectively analysing it
> to arrive at various observations/conclusions about the nature of the world
> around us, and i've no argument with that as it's just about the best any
> averagely intelligent person whose outlook is completely given-over to a
> strictly material view of life, a so-called realist as compared to say an
> artist...

The scientific equivalent to art is "elegance".

> Now you seem to think "partially true" is the same as "never true".
>
> ### - not really... plus i only really added/allowed the 'partially-so' bit as an
> after-thought out of politeness to you (plus just thought it was perhaps still a
> bit too early in the game to start 'nailing your ass' to the proverbial wall
> haha, just kidding btw :)

I don't mind a good nailing of my arguments. It's not like the nails
hurt because my ass is not involved.

> my previous point being that given the shifting and ever-changing nature of
> rational knowledge, society nevertheless has to draw a line in the sand somewhere
> in order to be able to function, one result of which being well ok yes we burned
> people yesterday, and we don't do that today... (which is surely an improvement!:)

It really doesn't take long for old societal habits to resurface. All
that has to happen is to have a bit of stress applied.
Neurologically, rationality is largely an inhibitory process. We have
to get our emotions into a dynamic balance before it can be effective.

> but then just how are they going to perhaps look back tomorrow on what
> will surely appear to be 'our' barbaric ways of today, i don't wonder sometimes
> too?

Something very profound happened to the human nervous system about
30000 years ago. That's a mere eye-blink on the physiological
evolutionary scale. Any ideas that have arisen since then are still
pretty weak and can easily be forgotten. Gaia moves on a very
different time scale than we do.

> And still do last very well in most
> cases. It's only when we observe extremes of size, mass, and speed
> that we see any variation at all.
>
> ### - and i agree with you! i just can't help wondering what the final
> 'body-count' was (and which i agree is still being added to for the foreseeable
> future) for the application and enforcing of the newtonian view of the world, era?
> (people put/worked to death/turned into robots with a chilling 'clockwork
> efficacy' for example, i mean :)

We have always been robots. The very profound change of 30000 BCE was
the very first time in the history of life on this planet (that we
know of) in which an opportunity arose by which an organism can affect
its own programming.

> empiricism then, is basically the previous owner/boss (the religious state)
> owning-up to ITS mistake and then handing the reins of power and control over to
> its successor: the age of reason, scientific and/or philosophic, wherein
> empiricism is then mostly applied (i say mostly, because we have to allow for the
> cretins who insist on seeing things their own way regardless of any evidence to
> the contrary... 'true' scientists are surprisingly, quite rare ;)

Human beings are not naturally scientific. It takes a sustained
effort to maintain a rational viewpoint. Many people who practice
science don't really comprehend it as a philosophical stance. For
most, it's strictly utilitarian. This is why post-modernistic
thinkers, such as Karl Popper, validly criticize the mindset of
"scientists" who conform to paradigms instead of accepting the
uncertainty of reality and the necessity for continual revision of
scientific theories. To work really well, science must have both
creative hypothesizers and rigorous experimenters. To have both
qualities in a single individual is exceedingly rare.

A good expression of this is found in Stephen Jay Gould's "The
Hedgehog, the Fox, and the Magister's Pox."

> ### - hey tom we're actually on the same page for about 5 seconds, serendipity,
> nice :)

Don't attribute it all to luck.

> 'religion' (belief-systems) being what basically always comes out of attempting to
> live one's life from the pov of 'explaining' everything, or trying to... even
> empirically... in fact empirically might even be worse/harder to get out of :)

One must add a critical faculty to the mix if one is to escape from
the tyranny of belief. This is detachment. We cannot allow ourselves
to treat our beliefs as treasures to be hoarded and protected from
harm. We have to be able to let go of any belief at any time. We
must treat belief as a matter of convenience instead of a matter of
eternal verity. As long as a belief conforms to independent and
careful observation, we can keep on using it, but as soon as it fails
to predict those observations, we must be willing to discard it.

It's been my contention for a number of years that the philosophy of
skepticism, with its rejection of belief, was due to the influx of the
ideas of early Buddhism into Greek philosophy. The legendary founder
of the skeptical school was Pyrrho, who traveled with Alexander on his
expeditions into India. That he met with Indian philosophers of all
sorts is only to be expected.

> However, just as I
> make a distinction between rationality and logic, I also make a
> difference between various methods of explaining phenomena. The
> method that relies on totally subjective personal communication with
> some intangible super-being with allegedly superior knowledge and
> whose pronouncements are to be accepted as completely true without any
> challenge and even despite evidence to the contrary is religion. The
> method that does not accept any pronouncements as completely true and
> challenges all of them to produce consistent observable results in
> support is science.
>
> ### - i know, and agree... but then aren't you in fact just splitting hairs by
> making this distinction between 'methods' of explaining phenomena, the
> 'explaining' part in both cases being entirely based on reasonable/semi-reasonable
> rationales, constructions and projections, which rightly or wrongly (mostly
> wrongly) people are encouraged to relate exclusively to, regardless of whether
> it's even wholly or in part correct or not (i.e. fashionable will apparently often
> do too just as long as it kinda adds up in some seemingly coherent way, or at
> least one that you can 'learn' to relate to even if it's a bit weird at first :)

Explanations are easy. Anyone can come up with them. That's
"rationalization". Rationality, on the other hand, is completely
dependent on one's methods of arriving at explanations. I wouldn't
call that "splitting hairs"; I'd call it "making precise
distinctions".

> > i.e. i can't agree that metaphysics is religion,
>
> If you don't see metaphysics and religion as the same thing, please
> point out exactly what the differences are. To do this, you will have
> to provide very specific definitions of those two terms and then
> compare and contrast them.
>
> ### - (laughing a bit:) unfortunately i don't speak your lingo 'that' well m8 :)

That's a good part of what this conversation is about. Lingo.

slider

unread,

Jan 23, 2010, 2:50:52 AM1/23/10

to

Tom wrote...

> I call the whole process of rationality "rationality", of course. I
> do not, however, consider "rationality" and "logic" to be
> interchangeable terms. Logic is part of rational thought but it
> cannot stand alone as rational thought.
>
> ### - agreed, logic is only part of the overall process of thought and thinking,
> and out of a wide range the best analytical application of which indeed appears
> to be the scientific method of collecting data and objectively analysing it
> to arrive at various observations/conclusions about the nature of the world
> around us, and i've no argument with that as it's just about the best any
> averagely intelligent person whose outlook is completely given-over to a
> strictly material view of life, a so-called realist as compared to say an
> artist...

The scientific equivalent to art is "elegance".

### - "if it doesn't transport you to another world, then it's not Art." --unknown

iow, the elegance of say a mathematical formula/solution only actually takes you
further into/clarifies the world you're already in as opposed to removing one from
it so as to visit 'another' world, that although an elegant solution may provide a
contrast to the formula that preceded it, it's remains on-topic instead of
introducing you to a another/different topic altogether...

> my previous point being that given the shifting and ever-changing nature of
> rational knowledge, society nevertheless has to draw a line in the sand
> somewhere
> in order to be able to function, one result of which being well ok yes we burned
> people yesterday, and we don't do that today... (which is surely an
> improvement!:)

It really doesn't take long for old societal habits to resurface. All
that has to happen is to have a bit of stress applied.
Neurologically, rationality is largely an inhibitory process. We have
to get our emotions into a dynamic balance before it can be effective.

### - it's actually a matter of almost neutering one's emotions altogether in
order to get reason to work properly, playing no identifiable part in the
reasoning process, the emotional side to our nature (for want of a better
description: the touchy/feely bit of our total selves that seems to work
outside/independently-of rationality) is gradually brought under mental control
and quelled to the point where it no longer interferes with/prompts/makes-demands
upon the thought processes, to the point that a rational sense of independent
identity begins to emerge, which may or may not be false or even the correct thing
to do depending on whether or not one considers the touchy/feely side of our
nature important in terms of perhaps being in-contact with/being able to properly
relate to, the rest of nature in some real and genuine way that rationality on its
own can't reproduce nor account for...

> but then just how are they going to perhaps look back tomorrow on what
> will surely appear to be 'our' barbaric ways of today, i don't wonder sometimes
> too?

Something very profound happened to the human nervous system about
30000 years ago. That's a mere eye-blink on the physiological
evolutionary scale. Any ideas that have arisen since then are still
pretty weak and can easily be forgotten. Gaia moves on a very
different time scale than we do.

### - i think i know where you're coming from, although 30,000 years seems a bit
too soon, especially when they can genetically trace modern humans back to around
150/160 thousand years ago? the point being that there was another bunch of other
people here then from which modern humans emerged + we probably had/inherited all
of their accumulated knowledge in terms of being more directly in-touch with
nature, only something seems to have happened to us later whereby at some point in
history we became somehow cut-off from any previous knowledge we held, perhaps
during something along the lines reported by plato in his flood myth story whereby
he writes that the people of the Mediterranean, for example, were almost
completely destroyed by the deluge, and the scant survivors left to start-over
again from scratch like orphaned children with no memory of their previous
history and knowledge to refer to other than stories that became myths...

> And still do last very well in most
> cases. It's only when we observe extremes of size, mass, and speed
> that we see any variation at all.
>
> ### - and i agree with you! i just can't help wondering what the final
> 'body-count' was (and which i agree is still being added to for the foreseeable
> future) for the application and enforcing of the newtonian view of the world,
> era?
> (people put/worked to death/turned into robots with a chilling 'clockwork
> efficacy' for example, i mean :)

We have always been robots. The very profound change of 30000 BCE was
the very first time in the history of life on this planet (that we
know of) in which an opportunity arose by which an organism can affect
its own programming.

### - i would propose an alternate version, in that being forced to start again
from scratch with no memory of their previous history and knowledge, the survivors
had little choice but to become extremely pragmatic/practical about their
continuing survival, and thus life and living increasingly came to be solely about
the purely physical side of life to the gradual exclusion of everything else bar
paying a kind of religious lip-service to old and increasingly forgotten memories
of a time when things were very different, but of which not enough knowledge
remained to turn it all into anything useful/substantial...

> empiricism then, is basically the previous owner/boss (the religious state)
> owning-up to ITS mistake and then handing the reins of power and control over to
> its successor: the age of reason, scientific and/or philosophic, wherein
> empiricism is then mostly applied (i say mostly, because we have to allow for
> the
> cretins who insist on seeing things their own way regardless of any evidence to
> the contrary... 'true' scientists are surprisingly, quite rare ;)

Human beings are not naturally scientific. It takes a sustained
effort to maintain a rational viewpoint. Many people who practice
science don't really comprehend it as a philosophical stance. For
most, it's strictly utilitarian.

### - argument there is that science is a utilitarian approach which has 'turned
into' a philosophical stance... and is thus more closely related to religion than
it likes to admit? (might look like a completely different animal but they're
actually the same species, and directly related:)

This is why post-modernistic
thinkers, such as Karl Popper, validly criticize the mindset of
"scientists" who conform to paradigms instead of accepting the
uncertainty of reality and the necessity for continual revision of
scientific theories. To work really well, science must have both
creative hypothesizers and rigorous experimenters. To have both
qualities in a single individual is exceedingly rare.

A good expression of this is found in Stephen Jay Gould's "The
Hedgehog, the Fox, and the Magister's Pox."

### - uncertainty is honest but doesn't create much confidence, so the myth of
infallible science and it's methods is allowed to propagate in the minds of the
masses so as to create the 'impression' of certainty and thus authority (no one is
supposed to argue with their doctor for example, and second opinions frowned upon
so as to reinforce the authority figure)

> 'religion' (belief-systems) being what basically always comes out of attempting
> to
> live one's life from the pov of 'explaining' everything, or trying to... even
> empirically... in fact empirically might even be worse/harder to get out of :)

One must add a critical faculty to the mix if one is to escape from
the tyranny of belief. This is detachment. We cannot allow ourselves
to treat our beliefs as treasures to be hoarded and protected from
harm. We have to be able to let go of any belief at any time. We
must treat belief as a matter of convenience instead of a matter of
eternal verity. As long as a belief conforms to independent and
careful observation, we can keep on using it, but as soon as it fails
to predict those observations, we must be willing to discard it.

### - obviously then people adopt 'beliefs' in order to be able to act upon them
and thus are they motivated to move around in their world as their varying beliefs
change/interact so as to produce new motivations and potential actions within the
community as a whole, the fixed belief-systems of organised religion eventually
giving-way to dynamically adaptable belief-systems (such as everything always
happens for a 'reason') as a form of evolution of rationality and reason itself,
the exponents of which feel they're now on pretty safe ground with compared to the
fixed rigidity of religion which can more easily be challenged if/and or when new
data happens to arrive (something they used to get-around before simply by banning
any new data and exterminating the originator of it, a practice that continues
perhaps even today albeit covertly as in 'death-squads' etc)

It's been my contention for a number of years that the philosophy of
skepticism, with its rejection of belief, was due to the influx of the
ideas of early Buddhism into Greek philosophy. The legendary founder
of the skeptical school was Pyrrho, who traveled with Alexander on his
expeditions into India. That he met with Indian philosophers of all
sorts is only to be expected.

### - there's always been highly intelligent people who've walked around this
world, unfortunately they have some quaint little customs on this planet,
including nailing anyone who's too clever to the nearest tree? (lol, well they do
that here haha, so be careful ok? (laughing ;)

> However, just as I
> make a distinction between rationality and logic, I also make a
> difference between various methods of explaining phenomena. The
> method that relies on totally subjective personal communication with
> some intangible super-being with allegedly superior knowledge and
> whose pronouncements are to be accepted as completely true without any
> challenge and even despite evidence to the contrary is religion. The
> method that does not accept any pronouncements as completely true and
> challenges all of them to produce consistent observable results in
> support is science.

### - as i answered previously to the above; one of the problems with reason is
its tendency to lump everything that appears a certain way to it under the same
brush? because it's not necessarily always a straightforward either/or situation
when it comes to anything that doesn't conform to the standards of reason, yet
that's how reason typically deals with such situations (it automatically
rejects/discards)

i.e. it's nothing to do with "intangible super-beings", but some phenomena doesn't
have consistent observable results, and/or doesn't necessarily produce them in
such a way so as to be recognised as being consistent by the second method you are
advocating for above... this being the reason i included that william burroughs
quote where he says it much more eloquently (elegantly?:) than i can (well he was
30 years older than me at the time, so ya never know maybe one day heh ;)

> ### - i know, and agree... but then aren't you in fact just splitting hairs by
> making this distinction between 'methods' of explaining phenomena, the
> 'explaining' part in both cases being entirely based on
> reasonable/semi-reasonable
> rationales, constructions and projections, which rightly or wrongly (mostly
> wrongly) people are encouraged to relate exclusively to, regardless of whether
> it's even wholly or in part correct or not (i.e. fashionable will apparently
> often
> do too just as long as it kinda adds up in some seemingly coherent way, or at
> least one that you can 'learn' to relate to even if it's a bit weird at first :)

Explanations are easy. Anyone can come up with them. That's
"rationalization". Rationality, on the other hand, is completely
dependent on one's methods of arriving at explanations. I wouldn't
call that "splitting hairs"; I'd call it "making precise
distinctions".

### - in the context and sense that you mean it, yes... but i meant that in a
slightly different context and sense which you've overlooked in-favour of your
own, i.e. rationalisations are lies we tell to ourselves to make ourselves feel
better... 'everything always happens for a reason' being one such which provides a
comfort-value in the face of say unsolicited/unwarranted/uncalled-for change for
example... but 'does' everything in fact always happen for a reason, or is that
not just reason expecting it to be so lest its very foundation becomes
undermined/challenged? i mean, after all, the forte of reason IS to reason, so how
can there 'not' be a reason for everything! in which case it supplies one then
whenever it has to, and/or allows for one to be discovered later if it can't come
up with something right away, and thus are any gaps in its process papered-over so
as to allow its own continuation along established and familiar lines... reason
even rationalising itself if needs be :)

my point being that even this rationalising is still a part of the overall process
of reason per se, even outright lies are part of it if only because lies
prostitute the overall system for purposes other than truth and accuracy... and so
ok, we attempt to shun lies and cleave to a demonstrable truth... but then that
cuts us off entirely from genuine phenomena that doesn't necessarily conform to
such rigid and fixed criteria, and thus is the scientific method you've very
accurately described leading mankind down a road where increasingly only that
which conforms to scientific methodology is accepted and acted upon, the division
between reason and other genuine aspects of reality that are not necessarily
rational in nature yet exist, growing ever wider the further down that road we all
go... to be rational is one thing, any asshole can be a rationalist apparently,
but to be able to be 'reasonable' about our being rational is something else
again, and imho of another order of intelligence altogether (or maybe requires
one, i dunno, i'm not too sure sometimes:)

> > i.e. i can't agree that metaphysics is religion,
>
> If you don't see metaphysics and religion as the same thing, please
> point out exactly what the differences are. To do this, you will have
> to provide very specific definitions of those two terms and then
> compare and contrast them.
>
> ### - (laughing a bit:) unfortunately i don't speak your lingo 'that' well m8 :)

That's a good part of what this conversation is about. Lingo.

### - hehe actually it's ALL about lingo and the applied use of it... we're not
born with it, reason is only a language one learns...

and as you and i know, there are actually many languages in the world, as well as
the possibility of deliberately not speaking any of them and remaining silently
detached (as in buddhism for example: the language-less language: inner silence
and stillness ;)

------------------

The practice of Zen has no secret, except standing on the verge of life and death.
Takeda Shingen, 16th Century Japanese warlord

Tom

unread,

Jan 23, 2010, 11:55:59 AM1/23/10

to

On Jan 22, 11:50 pm, "slider" <sli...@anashram.com> wrote:
> Tom wrote...
>

> The scientific equivalent to art is "elegance".
>
> ### - "if it doesn't transport you to another world, then it's not Art." --unknown
>
> iow, the elegance of say a mathematical formula/solution only actually takes you
> further into/clarifies the world you're already in as opposed to removing one from
> it so as to visit 'another' world, that although an elegant solution may provide a
> contrast to the formula that preceded it, it's remains on-topic instead of
> introducing you to a another/different topic altogether...

You are always in one world. That unknown person is talking about
worlds of the imagination, not teleportation to some other planet.
Art transforms our view of the world by transforming the way we feel.

An elegant solution to a problem does indeed produce a feeling of
beauty and grace, an aesthetic experience that goes beyond merely
solving the problem.

> It really doesn't take long for old societal habits to resurface. All
> that has to happen is to have a bit of stress applied.
> Neurologically, rationality is largely an inhibitory process. We have
> to get our emotions into a dynamic balance before it can be effective.
>
> ### - it's actually a matter of almost neutering one's emotions altogether in
> order to get reason to work properly, playing no identifiable part in the
> reasoning process,

Stillness is not powerlessness. Balance is not impotent.

> the emotional side to our nature (for want of a better
> description: the touchy/feely bit of our total selves that seems to work
> outside/independently-of rationality) is gradually brought under mental control
> and quelled to the point where it no longer interferes with/prompts/makes-demands
> upon the thought processes,

Not "quelled". Not "conquered". Balanced.

One does not achieve balance by overpowering. That only leads to
another imbalance. The control of emotions is not a matter of
disconnecting from them, but of bringing all of them into a dynamic
balance such that you can direct your attention where you'd like,
instead of where you think you must.

> Something very profound happened to the human nervous system about
> 30000 years ago. That's a mere eye-blink on the physiological
> evolutionary scale. Any ideas that have arisen since then are still
> pretty weak and can easily be forgotten. Gaia moves on a very
> different time scale than we do.
>
> ### - i think i know where you're coming from, although 30,000 years seems a bit
> too soon, especially when they can genetically trace modern humans back to around
> 150/160 thousand years ago?

Actually, anatomically "modern" human beings emerged in the Upper
Paleolithic, about 30000-35000 years ago. This period is where we see
a remarkable explosion in human creativity and global expansion.
Tools became more complex. Art was created. Burial rites were
invented (the first vestiges of religion). Agriculture and
domestication of animals was developed.

There have been hominid species around for several hundred thousand
years previously to this, but they are not considered to be modern
humans at all and showed virtually none of this ability to innovate.

> the point being that there was another bunch of other

> people here then from which modern humans emerged we probably had/inherited all

> of their accumulated knowledge in terms of being more directly in-touch with
> nature, only something seems to have happened to us later whereby at some point in
> history we became somehow cut-off from any previous knowledge we held, perhaps
> during something along the lines reported by plato in his flood myth story whereby
> he writes that the people of the Mediterranean, for example, were almost
> completely destroyed by the deluge, and the scant survivors left to start-over
> again from scratch like orphaned children with no memory of their previous
> history and knowledge to refer to other than stories that became myths...

It wasn't a flood so much as a freeze created by the Ice Age
compounded with the global cooling of a large amount of volcanic
particulates in the air.
What may have made the Upper Paleolithic evolutionary change so potent
was that hominids had been reduced in population to only a few
thousand individuals following the eruption of an Indonesian super-
volcano about 70000 years ago. This tiny population was particularly
vulnerable to mutations that would rapidly transform the whole
species.

However, archaeological records indicate that hominids didn't
accumulate a lot of lore. They had essentially no means to
communicate it because language and represntational art hadn't
developed yet. Culture among early hominids was not appreciably
different from that of chimps and bonobos today. So there really was
no accumulated knowledge to be cut off from.

> > (people put/worked to death/turned into robots with a chilling 'clockwork
> > efficacy' for example, i mean :)
>
> We have always been robots. The very profound change of 30000 BCE was
> the very first time in the history of life on this planet (that we
> know of) in which an opportunity arose by which an organism can affect
> its own programming.
>
> ### - i would propose an alternate version, in that being forced to start again
> from scratch with no memory of their previous history and knowledge, the survivors
> had little choice but to become extremely pragmatic/practical about their
> continuing survival, and thus life and living increasingly came to be solely about
> the purely physical side of life to the gradual exclusion of everything else bar
> paying a kind of religious lip-service to old and increasingly forgotten memories
> of a time when things were very different, but of which not enough knowledge
> remained to turn it all into anything useful/substantial...

This is contradicted by the fact that evidence of religion doesn't
show up at all until after the Upper Paleolithic expansion.

> Human beings are not naturally scientific. It takes a sustained
> effort to maintain a rational viewpoint. Many people who practice
> science don't really comprehend it as a philosophical stance. For
> most, it's strictly utilitarian.
>
> ### - argument there is that science is a utilitarian approach which has 'turned
> into' a philosophical stance...

It began as a philsophical stance. What became "science" was
originally "natural philosophy".

http://www.iep.utm.edu/thales/

> ### - uncertainty is honest but doesn't create much confidence, so the myth of
> infallible science and it's methods is allowed to propagate in the minds of the
> masses

Just as the myth of infallible religion does. People who don't
understand science think it's just like their religion, but it's not.
Science is not about soothing your anxieties. It's about discovering
what's going on. If that's soothing, then fine, but if it's not,
that's also fine.

slider

unread,

Jan 25, 2010, 2:14:59 AM1/25/10

to

Tom wrote...

> The scientific equivalent to art is "elegance".
>
> ### - "if it doesn't transport you to another world, then it's not
> Art." --unknown
>
> iow, the elegance of say a mathematical formula/solution only actually takes you
> further into/clarifies the world you're already in as opposed to removing one

> fromit so as to visit 'another' world, that although an elegant solution may

> a contrast to the formula that preceded it, it's remains on-topic instead of
> introducing you to a another/different topic altogether...

You are always in one world. That unknown person is talking about
worlds of the imagination, not teleportation to some other planet.
Art transforms our view of the world by transforming the way we feel.

### - it's obviously not 'literally' another world, but another view of the same
world, a more wholesome/harmonious one, perhaps even the original one from which
we as a species perceptually diverged from in-favour of the worlds created by our
own imagination... iow genuine art transforms/restores one's unhealthy/partial
view of the world back into what it 'aught' to be instead of what we turned it
into... plus it doesn't transport us by changing the way we feel, but by altering
our personal perception of the world which of course is reflected then in the way
we feel about it, and not the other way around :)

An elegant solution to a problem does indeed produce a feeling of
beauty and grace, an aesthetic experience that goes beyond merely
solving the problem.

### - reason patting itself on the back and feeling damn pleased with itself isn't
the same as Art, which is designed to 'remove' one from the world of reason and
logic and return you to the 'real' world, the touchy/feely world that reason,
because it can't define it, doesn't recognise (has difficulty doing so)

> the emotional side to our nature (for want of a better
> description: the touchy/feely bit of our total selves that seems to work
> outside/independently-of rationality) is gradually brought under mental control
> and quelled to the point where it no longer interferes
> with/prompts/makes-demands
> upon the thought processes,

Not "quelled". Not "conquered". Balanced.

One does not achieve balance by overpowering. That only leads to
another imbalance. The control of emotions is not a matter of
disconnecting from them, but of bringing all of them into a dynamic
balance such that you can direct your attention where you'd like,
instead of where you think you must.

### - balanced??, they're not balanced at all, the emotions play no part at
all in the reasoning process and are in fact only a distraction to it, so in ideal
cases they're all pushed down and quelled/turned-off, to the point that reason can
then become powerfully focused... and then it's: enter mr spock!

only of course the vast majority only manage to do this to a lesser degree and
thus is their reasoning mostly only a thin veneer of rationality, in most
instances scratch the surface (step on its toe) and you'll soon see the reasoning
process go straight out the window to be instantly replaced by something
foaming at the mouth and gettin' ready to 'explain things' to ya in a very
different way indeed ha ha:)

this control of the emotions actually being quite impressive; the equivalent of
accomplishing the second stage of yoga... but then without the first and third
stages of yoga to compliment it one is always just gonna end up as
some kind of one-sided (and completely unbalanced) oddball... you know?

> Something very profound happened to the human nervous system about
> 30000 years ago. That's a mere eye-blink on the physiological
> evolutionary scale. Any ideas that have arisen since then are still
> pretty weak and can easily be forgotten. Gaia moves on a very
> different time scale than we do.
>
> ### - i think i know where you're coming from, although 30,000 years seems a bit
> too soon, especially when they can genetically trace modern humans back to
> around 150/160 thousand years ago?

Actually, anatomically "modern" human beings emerged in the Upper
Paleolithic, about 30000-35000 years ago. This period is where we see
a remarkable explosion in human creativity and global expansion.
Tools became more complex. Art was created. Burial rites were
invented (the first vestiges of religion). Agriculture and
domestication of animals was developed.

### - modern humans have been genetically traced back via mitochondria dna to a
woman in east africa existing about 150,000 to 160,000 years ago, and all people
alive today are her direct descendants... the first evidence of art goes even
further back to crosshatch patterns that were discovered in a cave in south africa
that were obviously deliberately scratched onto the sides of someone's
favourite/personal piece of red ochre, either for personal identification,
decoration, and/or both...

There have been hominid species around for several hundred thousand
years previously to this, but they are not considered to be modern
humans at all and showed virtually none of this ability to innovate.

### - for goodness sake even chimpanzees use tools innovatively, so what makes
you think early humans didn't do the same and/or weren't even better at it than
chimps?? besides which, you don't seriously think that that first modern human
mitochondria dna one day just dropped off the side of some monkey do you? of
course it didn't, there were 'dozens' of human-type species around that in
competition/combination eventually gave rise to it, language was also firmly
established by then by the identification of a particular arrangement of physical
vocal attributes that just doesn't exist in more primitive species like gorillas
for example, plus even Neanderthals had complex language, and art, and were not
actually as primitive as they're often made out to look (strange how we 'modern'
humans often have a rather 'primitive' view of the past isn't it heh:)

> the point being that there was another bunch of other
> people here then from which modern humans emerged we probably had/inherited all
> of their accumulated knowledge in terms of being more directly in-touch with
> nature, only something seems to have happened to us later whereby at some point
> in
> history we became somehow cut-off from any previous knowledge we held, perhaps
> during something along the lines reported by plato in his flood myth story
> whereby he writes that the people of the Mediterranean, for example, were almost
> completely destroyed by the deluge, and the scant survivors left to start-over
> again from scratch like orphaned children with no memory of their previous
> history and knowledge to refer to other than stories that became myths...

It wasn't a flood so much as a freeze created by the Ice Age
compounded with the global cooling of a large amount of volcanic
particulates in the air.
What may have made the Upper Paleolithic evolutionary change so potent
was that hominids had been reduced in population to only a few
thousand individuals following the eruption of an Indonesian super-
volcano about 70000 years ago. This tiny population was particularly
vulnerable to mutations that would rapidly transform the whole species.

### - possibly.. the global human population was somehow reduced to
around only 10,000 individuals at about that time (we very nearly went out) and
every person alive today, from all races, can be traced directlyback to that
small group... although fyi i think we were already 'well beyond' the hominid
stage by then :)

However, archaeological records indicate that hominids didn't
accumulate a lot of lore. They had essentially no means to
communicate it because language and represntational art hadn't
developed yet. Culture among early hominids was not appreciably
different from that of chimps and bonobos today. So there really was
no accumulated knowledge to be cut off from.

### - well chimps don't collect a lot of lore either hehehe, but the several
species of humans that we know about (plus also maybe the dozens we don't) had a
very different and remarkably intelligent view of the world, something maybe more
along the lines of the fast disappearing Kalahari bushmen of today perhaps?

1000's upon 1000's of years of knowing the world around us and living in direct
harmony with it, quite naturally gave rise to a certain 'understanding' shall we
say, about how it all is and our place in it all, a knowledge and understanding
that was slowly accumulated over 1000's of years about plants and animals and
medicines and passed from generation to generation until something interrupted
that timeline and smashed it all to pieces... the few scattered survivors of which
being forced to start again from scratch with no knowledge of their previous
history and lore, surviving to populate the world today with largely estranged
human beings, who for very utilitarian purposes have literally 'paved-over
paradise and put up parking lots' (paraphrased old song ;)

> > (people put/worked to death/turned into robots with a chilling 'clockwork
> > efficacy' for example, i mean :)
>
> We have always been robots. The very profound change of 30000 BCE was
> the very first time in the history of life on this planet (that we
> know of) in which an opportunity arose by which an organism can affect
> its own programming.
>
> ### - i would propose an alternate version, in that being forced to start again
> from scratch with no memory of their previous history and knowledge, the
> survivors
> had little choice but to become extremely pragmatic/practical about their
> continuing survival, and thus life and living increasingly came to be solely
> about
> the purely physical side of life to the gradual exclusion of everything else bar
> paying a kind of religious lip-service to old and increasingly forgotten
> memories
> of a time when things were very different, but of which not enough knowledge
> remained to turn it all into anything useful/substantial...

This is contradicted by the fact that evidence of religion doesn't
show up at all until after the Upper Paleolithic expansion.

### - i think the point you are missing is that of looking back to 'before'
religion (as we know it anyway) arrived... i.e. religion is actually a fairly
modern affair, the Kalahari bushmen don't have a religion as such, but a
living and working 'relationship' with the world around them that goes back 1000's
of years predating modern reason and the rationalisation we know today as
religion, there IS a difference...

> Human beings are not naturally scientific. It takes a sustained
> effort to maintain a rational viewpoint. Many people who practice
> science don't really comprehend it as a philosophical stance. For
> most, it's strictly utilitarian.
>
> ### - argument there is that science is a utilitarian approach which has 'turned
> into' a philosophical stance...

It began as a philsophical stance. What became "science" was
originally "natural philosophy".

http://www.iep.utm.edu/thales/

### - i'll grant you that today's civilisation is basically the direct result of
the greeks and everything they invented/created, 40% of the english language being
of direct greek origin (as denoted in dictionaries by the capital letter G) the
rest being mainly from the latin (capital letter L), which some say they (the
romans) stole everything they had anyway 'from' the greeks (e.g. zeus became
jupiter, the goddess of love became venus etc etc, all the way down the line) so
we're living in a mainly greek-based society...

however, the world was here long before the greeks ever came along with their
'ology' this and their 'ology' that (all words ending in 'ology' originate from
greek) plus a lot of the greek myths themselves were in fact woven/created from
even older local folktales... the point being that the scientific method is purely
practical and pertains to purely practical/pragmatic material things, and as such
represents merely the best way to go about examining things in the most pragmatic
and expedient manner and nothing more, only later does it become a philosophical
pov when promoted by the likes of thales...

> ### - uncertainty is honest but doesn't create much confidence, so the myth of
> infallible science and it's methods is allowed to propagate in the minds of the
> masses

Just as the myth of infallible religion does. People who don't
understand science think it's just like their religion, but it's not.
Science is not about soothing your anxieties. It's about discovering
what's going on. If that's soothing, then fine, but if it's not,
that's also fine.

### - the vast-vast majority of people view/experience science as the replacement
to religion in that it instead of religion now dictates how everyone should live,
and as such in the minds of uneducated people (the vast majority) represents the
currently respected authority of the day (if 'science' says it's so then it must
be so, do what the doctor tells you etc etc), plus of the minority that 'do'
understand it properly the majority of 'them' are more involved in
rationalisations and personal interpretations compared to those very few rare
individuals we've touched on before who actually 'apply' those methods instead of
merely espousing and asserting them for their own more-selfish purposes...

iow, science per se doesn't actually offer a philosophy as such... it can't tell
you 'what' to do, it can only sort of tell you what not to do, even though in many
cases it's prostituted to back-up the sales claims of shampoo and toilet cleaners
whatever... the public are hit from all sides by statistics and averages and
running-totals, their life is encouraged to run like clockwork from
morning to night, and everyone in authority says it's ok and good and is even
god's will (this last being added just in case to catch any stragglers from the
last era ;)

early learning and school, and the way it's all carefully structured... literally
being a microcosm of the society/world kids will later be forced to enter into, of
which school is the training-ground and preparation for... and that's fine! but
'outside' of that carefully constructed, mutually exclusive world, there's another
world, the real world, the world that was there all the time before humans even
arrived...

that basically, and from an outsider's pov... the universe isn't actually rational
or reasonable in any way whatsoever... that that's just an 'impression' created by
a bunch of people going around being all scientific and rational about everything
because in many ways, and just like religion, it's kinda comforting to have the
feeling that one knows/understands what's going on, when in-reality all they're
really looking at is a snapshot, a frozen moment in time, of what is ostensibly a
mass movement/explosion of what can only really be described as... total chaos!!!

oooh but look, there's a squiggly pattern in that huge swirling mass over there,
maybe it 'means' something, and then we wouldn't have to be so terrified all the
time because we'd know what we're doing... fucking idiot! listen m8, 'thinking'
you know what you're doing isn't the same as 'actually' knowing what you're doing,
right? plus what if there's nothing to know that's actually worth anything, or
that would change any of 'that' even one iota? so why pretend (big question eh?:)

i mean, it's bad enough 'being' in this dreadful situation, without having to be
deluded as well? :)

--------------------

"All our lauded technological progress -- our very civilization - is like the axe
in the hand of the pathological criminal." --Albert Einstein

Tom

unread,

Jan 25, 2010, 12:37:15 PM1/25/10

to

On Jan 24, 11:14 pm, "slider" <sli...@anashram.com> wrote:
> Tom wrote...
> > The scientific equivalent to art is "elegance".
>
> > ### - "if it doesn't transport you to another world, then it's not
> > Art." --unknown
>
> > iow, the elegance of say a mathematical formula/solution only actually takes you
> > further into/clarifies the world you're already in as opposed to removing one
> > fromit so as to visit 'another' world, that although an elegant solution may
> > a contrast to the formula that preceded it, it's remains on-topic instead of
> > introducing you to a another/different topic altogether...
>
> You are always in one world. That unknown person is talking about
> worlds of the imagination, not teleportation to some other planet.
> Art transforms our view of the world by transforming the way we feel.
>
> ### - it's obviously not 'literally' another world, but another view of the same
> world,

No, sir, not the same world. Each theory is a model of the world,
just as every other work of art is a model of the world. No model of
the world is the same as any other.

> plus it doesn't transport us by changing the way we feel, but by altering
> our personal perception of the world which of course is reflected then in the way
> we feel about it, and not the other way around :)

Reagrdless of the path by which we process a work of art, it affects
how we feel. Music doesn't affect us the same way architecture does,
for example. Different parts of the brain are stimulated and the
overall result is a change in the way we feel. Does that mean that
architecture is art and music isn't or vice versa? An elegant theory
is a creative effort disciplined to conform to independent phenomena.

An elegant theory does indeed affect the way we feel. It is an error
to conceive of science as completely cut off from feelings. It simply
isn't ruled by them.

> An elegant solution to a problem does indeed produce a feeling of
> beauty and grace, an aesthetic experience that goes beyond merely
> solving the problem.
>
> ### - reason patting itself on the back and feeling damn pleased with itself isn't
> the same as Art,

That's no more true than an accusation that painting is just patting
itself on the back for dabbing pretty pigments on canvas. Any monkey
can do that. That's not Art.

> > the emotional side to our nature (for want of a better
> > description: the touchy/feely bit of our total selves that seems to work
> > outside/independently-of rationality) is gradually brought under mental control
> > and quelled to the point where it no longer interferes
> > with/prompts/makes-demands
> > upon the thought processes,
>
> Not "quelled". Not "conquered". Balanced.
>
> One does not achieve balance by overpowering. That only leads to
> another imbalance. The control of emotions is not a matter of
> disconnecting from them, but of bringing all of them into a dynamic
> balance such that you can direct your attention where you'd like,
> instead of where you think you must.
>
> ### - balanced??, they're not balanced at all, the emotions play no part at
> all in the reasoning process and are in fact only a distraction to it,

You are incorrect. Possibly this is due to your unfamiliarity with
using rational thought. I might have the same reaction to dance, if I
had little rhythm or coordination. It doesn't feel expressive to me
because I'm not good enough at it to be able to both perform the
movements correctly and still pay attention to the feelings it is
supposed to engender. So I end up thinking that dance is just painful
muscle discipline with no aesthetic content at all. So it is with
scientific discipline. It's hard for a lot of people to get good
enough at it to notice the feelings of wonder, awe, and amusement that
a person who is good at it would immediately feel.

You have this deeply canalized view of science in which it is divorced
from human feelings and opposed to them. That's just a caricature of
science, a calumny heaped upon it by religions who see themselves in
competition with it and politicians who don't want people to have any
way to discover how they've been lied to.

Try reminding yourself the Mr. Spock is not a real person. That may
help.

> Actually, anatomically "modern" human beings emerged in the Upper
> Paleolithic, about 30000-35000 years ago. This period is where we see
> a remarkable explosion in human creativity and global expansion.
> Tools became more complex. Art was created. Burial rites were
> invented (the first vestiges of religion). Agriculture and
> domestication of animals was developed.
>
> ### - modern humans have been genetically traced back via mitochondria dna to a
> woman in east africa existing about 150,000 to 160,000 years ago, and all people
> alive today are her direct descendants...

She was a hominid, not a modern human being. Her physiology was very
different from ours. We did descend from her, and others like her,
but that doesn't mean we are the same as her. A number of critically
important mutations have occured since she walked the earth, among
them a huge increase in brain size and complexity.

> the first evidence of art goes even
> further back to crosshatch patterns that were discovered in a cave in south africa
> that were obviously deliberately scratched onto the sides of someone's
> favourite/personal piece of red ochre, either for personal identification,
> decoration, and/or both...

That one goes back only to about 70000 years ago. Last time I checked
70000 was not more than 150000. But even so, the art I was talking
about was not mere patterns scraped in rocks or shell but
representational art. Images from life, not just some crosshatches
and pits.

> There have been hominid species around for several hundred thousand
> years previously to this, but they are not considered to be modern
> humans at all and showed virtually none of this ability to innovate.
>
> ### - for goodness sake even chimpanzees use tools innovatively,

That does not make them humans.

> so what makes
> you think early humans didn't do the same and/or weren't even better at it than
> chimps??

They were. But we weren't talking about mere fist axes chopped from
flint. We were talking about complex tools and representative art.
And the difference between a human and a hominid.

> besides which, you don't seriously think that that first modern human
> mitochondria dna one day just dropped off the side of some monkey do you?

No one claims that the mitochondial DNA in hominids is "modern
human". It's hominid mitochondrial DNA.

You do understand the differences between mitochondrial DNA and
nuclear DNA, don't you? Nuclear DNA is what makes humans human, not
the mitochondrial DNA. You might want to think of mitochondria as a
separate but entirely symbiotic species in their own right. You don't
decide whether or not someone is human by examining mitochondrial
DNA. You can, however, determine female familial descent from it.

> ### - possibly.. the global human population was somehow reduced to
> around only 10,000 individuals at about that time (we very nearly went out) and
> every person alive today, from all races, can be traced directlyback to that
> small group... although fyi i think we were already 'well beyond' the hominid
> stage by then :)

No we weren't. In fact, we modern humans are simply the only
surviving version of the hominid family. But what you want to call
"modern human" depends on how picky you want to be about certain
features. The difference between the 190000-year-old hominid skull
found by Richard Leakey and that of modern skulls are fairly small.
But the lifestyle differences were huge. So it all comes down to what
you think makes a hominid organism a "human".

> However, archaeological records indicate that hominids didn't
> accumulate a lot of lore. They had essentially no means to
> communicate it because language and represntational art hadn't
> developed yet. Culture among early hominids was not appreciably
> different from that of chimps and bonobos today. So there really was
> no accumulated knowledge to be cut off from.
>
> ### - well chimps don't collect a lot of lore either hehehe, but the several
> species of humans that we know about (plus also maybe the dozens we don't) had a
> very different and remarkably intelligent view of the world, something maybe more
> along the lines of the fast disappearing Kalahari bushmen of today perhaps?

Oh, early hominid life was lots less complex than Bushman culture.
Language, for example. Complex tools. Highly evolved art. Religious
myth and ritual. There is no evidence of hominids having such things
before the Upper Paleolithic.

> 1000's upon 1000's of years of knowing the world around us and living in direct
> harmony with it, quite naturally gave rise to a certain 'understanding' shall we
> say, about how it all is and our place in it all, a knowledge and understanding
> that was slowly accumulated over 1000's of years about plants and animals and
> medicines and passed from generation to generation until something interrupted
> that timeline and smashed it all to pieces... the few scattered survivors of which
> being forced to start again from scratch with no knowledge of their previous
> history and lore, surviving to populate the world today with largely estranged
> human beings, who for very utilitarian purposes have literally 'paved-over
> paradise and put up parking lots' (paraphrased old song ;)

Well, that's a great bit of romantic speculation, but the evidence for
it is lacking. "Here there be dragons!"

Message has been deleted

Tom

unread,

Jan 25, 2010, 1:14:34 PM1/25/10

to

On Jan 24, 11:14 pm, "slider" <sli...@anashram.com> wrote:

> > ### - i would propose an alternate version, in that being forced to start again
> > from scratch with no memory of their previous history and knowledge, the
> > survivors
> > had little choice but to become extremely pragmatic/practical about their
> > continuing survival, and thus life and living increasingly came to be solely
> > about
> > the purely physical side of life to the gradual exclusion of everything else bar
> > paying a kind of religious lip-service to old and increasingly forgotten
> > memories
> > of a time when things were very different, but of which not enough knowledge
> > remained to turn it all into anything useful/substantial...
>
> This is contradicted by the fact that evidence of religion doesn't
> show up at all until after the Upper Paleolithic expansion.
>
> ### - i think the point you are missing is that of looking back to 'before'
> religion (as we know it anyway) arrived... i.e. religion is actually a fairly
> modern affair,

That's my point.

> but a
> living and working 'relationship' with the world around them that goes back 1000's
> of years predating modern reason and the rationalisation we know today as
> religion,

Except that there's no evidence of it. You want to believe it, but
things aren't necessarily so just because you want them to be.

> > ### - argument there is that science is a utilitarian approach which has 'turned
> > into' a philosophical stance...
>
> It began as a philsophical stance. What became "science" was
> originally "natural philosophy".
>
> http://www.iep.utm.edu/thales/
>
> ### - i'll grant you that today's civilisation is basically the direct result of
> the greeks and everything they invented/created, 40% of the english language being
> of direct greek origin (as denoted in dictionaries by the capital letter G) the
> rest being mainly from the latin (capital letter L), which some say they (the
> romans) stole everything they had anyway 'from' the greeks (e.g. zeus became
> jupiter, the goddess of love became venus etc etc, all the way down the line) so
> we're living in a mainly greek-based society...
>
> however, the world was here long before the greeks ever came along with their
> 'ology' this and their 'ology' that (all words ending in 'ology' originate from
> greek) plus a lot of the greek myths themselves were in fact woven/created from
> even older local folktales... the point being that the scientific method is purely
> practical and pertains to purely practical/pragmatic material things, and as such
> represents merely the best way to go about examining things in the most pragmatic
> and expedient manner and nothing more, only later does it become a philosophical
> pov when promoted by the likes of thales...

Again you waltz off into pure speculation as if it were verifiable
evidence. Thales' ideas were philosophy and had, as an extra feature,
some wonderful practical value which developed over time. There was
no practical science before Thales. Not anywhere.

> > ### - uncertainty is honest but doesn't create much confidence, so the myth of
> > infallible science and it's methods is allowed to propagate in the minds of the
> > masses
>
> Just as the myth of infallible religion does. People who don't
> understand science think it's just like their religion, but it's not.
> Science is not about soothing your anxieties. It's about discovering
> what's going on. If that's soothing, then fine, but if it's not,
> that's also fine.
>
> ### - the vast-vast majority of people view/experience science as the replacement
> to religion

The vast-vast majority of people don't understand science at all. As
I just got finished saying, they think it's just like religion. They
look at scientific theories and think they are just like religious
dogma. They have no idea how those theories evolved or why they will
evolve more. To most folks, a "scientist" is just the modern
equivalent of a sorceror and technology is simply magic made out of
plastic and metal instead of ectoplasm and moonbeams.

> iow, science per se doesn't actually offer a philosophy as such...

Perhaps you mean something different than I do by the term
"philosophy". It seems like you're trying to say that science doesn't
have a set of moral imperatives. That is not, to my mind, the
critical trait that makes some way of thinking a "philosophy".

> it can't tell
> you 'what' to do, it can only sort of tell you what not to do,

Which is really a bummer if you are too afraid or stupid to decide
what to do on your own. Such people never become scientists.

> that basically, and from an outsider's pov... the universe isn't actually rational
> or reasonable in any way whatsoever...

Since rational human beings are part of the universe, the universe is
indeed rational where it has to capacity to be so. However, we should
also mention that the universe is not capricious. The utility of
reason comes from the consistent qualities of phenomena. If the laws
of nature changed often and arbitrarily, reason wouldn't work at
all.

slider

unread,

Jan 27, 2010, 2:50:34 AM1/27/10

to

Tom wrote...

> > The scientific equivalent to art is "elegance".
>
> > ### - "if it doesn't transport you to another world, then it's not
> > Art." --unknown
>
> > iow, the elegance of say a mathematical formula/solution only actually takes
> > you
> > further into/clarifies the world you're already in as opposed to removing one
> > fromit so as to visit 'another' world, that although an elegant solution may
> > a contrast to the formula that preceded it, it's remains on-topic instead of
> > introducing you to a another/different topic altogether...
>
> You are always in one world. That unknown person is talking about
> worlds of the imagination, not teleportation to some other planet.
> Art transforms our view of the world by transforming the way we feel.
>
> ### - it's obviously not 'literally' another world, but another view of the same
> world,

No, sir, not the same world. Each theory is a model of the world,
just as every other work of art is a model of the world. No model of
the world is the same as any other.

### - smile, i was actually agreeing with you albeit expanding it at the same
time, but you've jumped away even from your own first point of :

"You are always in one world. That unknown person is talking about
worlds of the imagination, not teleportation to some other planet."

and i'm agreeing with you in principle, but disagreeing that they're fantasy
worlds as such and suggesting that they're representations of the real world (this
world) as seen through the 'eyes' of the imagination which colours and
distorts/clouds the original picture/perception... 'fantasy' worlds in the context
we're talking would be other imaginary planets, dimensions and maybe the
weird life-forms that live there... plus in this instance the unknown person isn't
referring to another fantasy world of the imagination, but is pointing to the same
world all genuine artists point to: the original world, that isn't just a product
of someone's imagination but the world as it is, 'devoid' of all man's
imaginatitive projections, adornments and rationalisations...

i.e. the world 'without' the dirty great black muddy footprint we humans stamped
all over it, and which rather ironically often passes for art -;)

> plus it doesn't transport us by changing the way we feel, but by altering
> our personal perception of the world which of course is reflected then in the
> way we feel about it, and not the other way around :)

Reagrdless of the path by which we process a work of art, it affects
how we feel. Music doesn't affect us the same way architecture does,
for example. Different parts of the brain are stimulated and the
overall result is a change in the way we feel. Does that mean that
architecture is art and music isn't or vice versa? An elegant theory
is a creative effort disciplined to conform to independent phenomena.

### - i'm not as 'mechanically-minded' as you (+ i was kinda presenting you with a
chicken/egg scenario: which comes first, the perception or one's feelings about it
etc etc, a conundrum with no real answer) and thus you so easily speak in terms of
"path(s) by which we process a work of art", and 'stimulated brains' that alters
our feelings (feelings being more irrational) which then affects the way we
see/experience things, these unmanageable 'feelings' presumably 'subjecting' us to
varying views of the world, and over which we have no control etc etc... which is
all very logical and sequential and reasonable, and even plausible... only Art is
'none' of those things, in fact i'd even go as far as to say that art is at least
the complete 'opposite' of such things, and that if it got 'any' further away from
them on this globe it would actually be on its way back again! :)

i.e. 'genuine art' (as opposed to mere graphic representations, diagrams and
pretty patterns etc) pertains more to that which *isn't* neccessarily rational in
nature, e.g. that as perceieved through the eyes of the 'soul' rather than of
reason (using the term 'soul' with a certain amount of poetic licence to
describle/allude-to that which exists but cannot be rationally defined; as in the
true 'inner person' as opposed to the outwardly sociologically
groomed-to-be-a-moron robot)

An elegant theory does indeed affect the way we feel. It is an error
to conceive of science as completely cut off from feelings. It simply
isn't ruled by them.

### - 'agreed' - feelings/emotions are assigned a 'secondary role' in the
reasoning process rather than being forced-out altogether, but only because
there's no need to force them out completely before reason begins to operate to
varying degrees, a variation/increase in intensity and clarity which is directly
proportional to the amount they 'are' forced out...

> An elegant solution to a problem does indeed produce a feeling of
> beauty and grace, an aesthetic experience that goes beyond merely
> solving the problem.
>
> ### - reason patting itself on the back and feeling damn pleased with itself
> isn't the same as Art,

That's no more true than an accusation that painting is just patting
itself on the back for dabbing pretty pigments on canvas. Any monkey
can do that. That's not Art.

### - monkeys don't attempt to communicate anything with their art, they might be
decorating the walls but it's not telling a story, there's nothing profound about
it that could alter your view... well, not unless it was actually 'blocking' your
view, which incidentally i've been suggesting through-out because that's exactly
what 'reason' does: blocks our view of reality while revealing another one: its
own, because that's its primary role and function in terms of perception...

my previous point being that elegant formulas don't transport you to a 'different'
view, they only transport you (if they do at all) to an 'extended/expanded' view
of the one you're already standing 'in' (i.e. newton saw 'further-into' what
everyone was 'already' looking at, he wasn't for example seeing further into
something that 'undermined' his rationally material stance, but was in fact
expanding/extending/widening it... which is great if ya wanna be a scientist, but
a downright handicap if ya ever wanted to be an artist, or just a whole human
being :)

### - well i'm definitely not as 'deep' in it as you are, that's for sure!
(wink-wink to tempy, private joke;) plus nice analogy btw, only one doesn't
exactly have to be a 'genius' to be able to appreciate say the apparent symmetry
and vastness of a huge spiral-arm galaxy, or the seeming elegance of the
mandelbrot feedback-equation that produces/demonstrates fractals... only you're
still missing the overall point i've been making all along (although you did make
one hit on it with your remark about 'lingo') that reason and rationality (and
even the scientific method) is still basically only a 'language' in which, and i
agree with you above, one can to varying degrees, become 'fluent' in... but is a
language nevertheless: a set or system of symbols used in a more or less uniform
fashion by a number of people, who are thus enabled to communicate intelligibly
with one another (Random House Dictionary)

the point being that art is said to be able to express Truth more adequately,
essentially because it 'departs' from language rather than further reinforcing it?
iow, in attempting to 'define' things language only really succeeds in pushing
further away from us the Reality we set out in the first place to discover...

it's a bit like that zen thing where it says something like: you can never really
find happiness until you stop looking for it (basically because to be looking for
something is to be implicitly affirming/reinforcing the fact that you don't
actually have it yet etc, a kind of catch-22 situation/paradox wherein any attempt
to 'know' something only ever results in ruining one's chances of knowing it,
something that can't be solved rationally and only really understood from a direct
encounter with it... in which case you might then spend the rest of your life
'trying' to describe/define it in order to communicate it to your friends for
example... only that's called 'Art' :)

You have this deeply canalized view of science in which it is divorced
from human feelings and opposed to them. That's just a caricature of
science, a calumny heaped upon it by religions who see themselves in
competition with it and politicians who don't want people to have any
way to discover how they've been lied to.

Try reminding yourself the Mr. Spock is not a real person. That may
help.

### - "caricature" is correct, and because i'm faced with the difficulty of trying
to speak to you in 'cartoons' (verbal images/symbols and allusions) basically
because that's the only language you're able to speak... with 'spock' representing
the 'epitome' of the rational/logical mind (emotion-less) yet is undesirable to us
humans for being too extreme and because the little bit of our emotional nature
that we 'do' still have access to is used as a pre-programmed response to elicit
sensations of guilt (be self-arresting) under certain sets of socially defined
circumstances and situations (2 legs good, 4 legs baaaad, baaaad etc etc etc:)

> Actually, anatomically "modern" human beings emerged in the Upper
> Paleolithic, about 30000-35000 years ago. This period is where we see
> a remarkable explosion in human creativity and global expansion.
> Tools became more complex. Art was created. Burial rites were
> invented (the first vestiges of religion). Agriculture and
> domestication of animals was developed.
>
> ### - modern humans have been genetically traced back via mitochondria dna to a
> woman in east africa existing about 150,000 to 160,000 years ago, and all people
> alive today are her direct descendants...

She was a hominid, not a modern human being. Her physiology was very
different from ours. We did descend from her, and others like her,
but that doesn't mean we are the same as her. A number of critically
important mutations have occured since she walked the earth, among
them a huge increase in brain size and complexity.

### - 'humans' are defined by strict parameters, we are modern humans, and she was
the first known modern human (homo sapiens) and probably looked exactly like we do
today + had exactly the same potential (a quick bikini-wax and a flip through the
sears catalogue and ya probably wouldn't even know the difference! haha:) -
whereas all other species of the genus 'Homo' eventually died out, we were the
only survivors... hominids were 'apes' ya dope :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

> the first evidence of art goes even
> further back to crosshatch patterns that were discovered in a cave in south

> africathat were obviously deliberately scratched onto the sides of someone's

> favourite/personal piece of red ochre, either for personal identification,
> decoration, and/or both...

That one goes back only to about 70000 years ago. Last time I checked
70000 was not more than 150000. But even so, the art I was talking
about was not mere patterns scraped in rocks or shell but
representational art. Images from life, not just some crosshatches
and pits.

### - Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way
that appeals to the senses or emotions. It encompasses a diverse range of human
activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music, literature, film,
sculpture, and paintings (wikipedia)

also this re 200,000 years ago...

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/science-magazine.php

Tom

unread,

Jan 27, 2010, 12:59:47 PM1/27/10

to

On Jan 26, 11:50 pm, "slider" <sli...@anashram.com> wrote:
>
> and i'm agreeing with you in principle, but disagreeing that they're fantasy
> worlds as such and suggesting that they're representations of the real world (this
> world) as seen through the 'eyes' of the imagination which colours and
> distorts/clouds the original picture/perception... 'fantasy' worlds in the context
> we're talking would be other imaginary planets, dimensions and maybe the
> weird life-forms that live there...

You have tried to claim that elegance in science is not art while I
say it is. You haven't yet agreed with me on that point.

> plus in this instance the unknown person isn't
> referring to another fantasy world of the imagination, but is pointing to the same
> world all genuine artists point to: the original world, that isn't just a product
> of someone's imagination but the world as it is, 'devoid' of all man's
> imaginatitive projections, adornments and rationalisations...

You really think that all artists represent the world the same way and
that this representation is devoid of the products of imagination?
Art is jam-packed with imaginative projections, adornments, and
rationalizations. It *is* a product of imagination.

> i.e. the world 'without' the dirty great black muddy footprint we humans stamped
> all over it, and which rather ironically often passes for art -;)

So any art you don't like is automatically not art? Well, that makes
things nice and simple. Completely arbitrary and self-referenced, but
simple.

> > plus it doesn't transport us by changing the way we feel, but by altering
> > our personal perception of the world which of course is reflected then in the
> > way we feel about it, and not the other way around :)
>
> Reagrdless of the path by which we process a work of art, it affects
> how we feel.

Pretty much everything affects how we feel.

> ### - i'm not as 'mechanically-minded' as you (+ i was kinda presenting you with a
> chicken/egg scenario: which comes first, the perception or one's feelings about it
> etc etc, a conundrum with no real answer) and thus you so easily speak in terms of
> "path(s) by which we process a work of art", and 'stimulated brains' that alters
> our feelings (feelings being more irrational) which then affects the way we
> see/experience things, these unmanageable 'feelings' presumably 'subjecting' us to
> varying views of the world, and over which we have no control etc etc...

Just where do you think I said that feelings were unmanageable or that
we have no control over them? I'm telling you that control is
established by creating a dynamic emotional balance, an idea that you
don't seem to comprehend at all.

If we were to translate your idea into physical actions, what you're
saying is that we have only two actions to choose from, spasmodic
flailing or paralysis.

> i.e. 'genuine art' (as opposed to mere graphic representations, diagrams and
> pretty patterns etc) pertains more to that which *isn't* neccessarily rational in
> nature, e.g. that as perceieved through the eyes of the 'soul' rather than of
> reason (using the term 'soul' with a certain amount of poetic licence to
> describle/allude-to that which exists but cannot be rationally defined; as in the
> true 'inner person' as opposed to the outwardly sociologically
> groomed-to-be-a-moron robot)

I think your notion of "genuine art" is of the same order as "true
religion". Any art that doesn't conform to your values isn't "genuine
art", just as any religion that doesn't conform to a fanatic's beliefs
isn't "true religion".

> An elegant theory does indeed affect the way we feel. It is an error
> to conceive of science as completely cut off from feelings. It simply
> isn't ruled by them.
>
> ### - 'agreed' - feelings/emotions are assigned a 'secondary role' in the
> reasoning process rather than being forced-out altogether,

You seem to be indulging in a false dilemma. You're suggesting that
whatever isn't the master must be the slave. There are plenty of
other choices, though. My spouse does not rule me, but I certainly
wouldn't say that she's "secondary" to me in any way.

> but only because
> there's no need to force them out completely before reason begins to operate to
> varying degrees, a variation/increase in intensity and clarity which is directly
> proportional to the amount they 'are' forced out...

Feelings are not "forced out" of any rational process. They simply
aren't involved in that particular process at the moment. I don't
need to cut off my arms to use my legs. In fact, in order to use my
legs most efficiently, my arms have to be engaged some other activity
which provides me with... (are you ready?)... balance.

> > An elegant solution to a problem does indeed produce a feeling of
> > beauty and grace, an aesthetic experience that goes beyond merely
> > solving the problem.
>
> > ### - reason patting itself on the back and feeling damn pleased with itself
> > isn't the same as Art,
>
> That's no more true than an accusation that painting is just patting
> itself on the back for dabbing pretty pigments on canvas. Any monkey
> can do that. That's not Art.
>
> ### - monkeys don't attempt to communicate anything with their art,

But scientists *do* attempt to communicate something with their
theories.

So why are you so sure that an elegant theory, which has aesthetic
value as well as emotional and intellectual content and is
deliberately designed to alter our worldview, is not art? So far, it
fulfills every one of your stated criteria. As far as I can tell,
your only objection is that you don't personally like the style.

> my previous point being that elegant formulas don't transport you to a 'different'
> view, they only transport you (if they do at all) to an 'extended/expanded' view
> of the one you're already standing 'in'

As I said, we're always in one world, but we have vast numbers of
models of the world we can choose from, some of them quite new and
others ancient, some quite simple and others enormously complex. What
an artist transports you into is not the real world but some different
model of the world. An elegant theory does the same thing. It
transports one from one's current worldview to a new one that is
slightly, but significantly, different, and it does so in an
aesthetically pleasing fashion, which you can appreciate if you have a
taste for arts that have a lot of intellectual content.

> (i.e. newton saw 'further-into' what
> everyone was 'already' looking at, he wasn't for example seeing further into
> something that 'undermined' his rationally material stance, but was in fact
> expanding/extending/widening it... which is great if ya wanna be a scientist, but
> a downright handicap if ya ever wanted to be an artist, or just a whole human
> being :)

I find your attempt to dehumanize scientists, to depict them as only
partially or superficially human, to be as offensively degrading as
any other irrational prejudice, such as racism.

> > One does not achieve balance by overpowering. That only leads to
> > another imbalance. The control of emotions is not a matter of
> > disconnecting from them, but of bringing all of them into a dynamic
> > balance such that you can direct your attention where you'd like,
> > instead of where you think you must.
>
> > ### - balanced??, they're not balanced at all, the emotions play no part at
> > all in the reasoning process and are in fact only a distraction to it,
>
> You are incorrect. Possibly this is due to your unfamiliarity with
> using rational thought. I might have the same reaction to dance, if I
> had little rhythm or coordination. It doesn't feel expressive to me
> because I'm not good enough at it to be able to both perform the
> movements correctly and still pay attention to the feelings it is
> supposed to engender. So I end up thinking that dance is just painful
> muscle discipline with no aesthetic content at all. So it is with
> scientific discipline. It's hard for a lot of people to get good
> enough at it to notice the feelings of wonder, awe, and amusement that
> a person who is good at it would immediately feel.
>
> ### - well i'm definitely not as 'deep' in it as you are, that's for sure!
> (wink-wink to tempy, private joke;) plus nice analogy btw, only one doesn't
> exactly have to be a 'genius' to be able to appreciate say the apparent symmetry
> and vastness of a huge spiral-arm galaxy, or the seeming elegance of the
> mandelbrot feedback-equation that produces/demonstrates fractals...

Yes, you can be amused by pretty pictures, but you have a hard time
finding anything to relate to in an elegant theory. Perhaps the math
is off-putting. Lots of people get defensive when someone talks in a
language that they don't understand well enough to follow easily.

Remember when your teachers in school assigned you to read
Shakespeare"? How dull and uncommunicative you found it at first,
mostly because the language was unfamiliar? Yet, if you ever managed
to get to the point where you understood what he was writing, the
depth and power of the story, even the phraseology, moved you
profoundly. At first, Shakespeare might not have seemed like art to
you. It may have seemed like a pointless and barren intellectual
exercise in decryption. So it appears to you that scientific theory
has no art to it. It's simply a matter of your unfamiliarity with it.

> the point being that art is said to be able to express Truth more adequately,
> essentially because it 'departs' from language rather than further reinforcing it?

So, in your definition of art, Shakespeare is subhuman? After all,
his work is one hundred percent language. It has no pretty pictures
for you to look at. Donald Duck comic books, however, would be far
superior as examples of art, because they have lots of colorful
pictures and don't strain your intellect much.

Perhaps some rethinking of your approach to art is on order.

Elan: "You wanna buy some death sticks?"
Obi-Wan: "You don't want to sell me death sticks."
Elan: "Na, I don't wanna sell you death sticks."
Obi-Wan: "You want to go home and rethink your life."
Elan: "I wanna go home and rethink my life"

Sorry. I couldn't resist the allusion. Humor. Har, har.

> You have this deeply canalized view of science in which it is divorced
> from human feelings and opposed to them. That's just a caricature of
> science, a calumny heaped upon it by religions who see themselves in
> competition with it and politicians who don't want people to have any
> way to discover how they've been lied to.
>
> Try reminding yourself the Mr. Spock is not a real person. That may
> help.
>
> ### - "caricature" is correct, and because i'm faced with the difficulty of trying
> to speak to you in 'cartoons' (verbal images/symbols and allusions) basically
> because that's the only language you're able to speak...

That's the Usenet medium, pal. Text-based. If you want to
communicate in pictures, go to YouTube. Do you communicate in
simplistic, distorted stereotypes because you lack the ability to be
more precise in either your thinking or your verbal expressions?

> with 'spock' representing
> the 'epitome' of the rational/logical mind (emotion-less) yet is undesirable to us
> humans for being too extreme and because the little bit of our emotional nature
> that we 'do' still have access to is used as a pre-programmed response to elicit
> sensations of guilt (be self-arresting) under certain sets of socially defined
> circumstances and situations (2 legs good, 4 legs baaaad, baaaad etc etc etc:)

Again you seem to think that Spock is a real person and that
scientists are all Spocks. This is not the case. You are using
simplistic, dehumanizing stereotypes to represent real people. This
grossly distorts your understanding of what I'm talking about.

> ### - 'humans' are defined by strict parameters, we are modern humans, and she was
> the first known modern human (homo sapiens)

You do realize, don't you, that the "mitochondrial Eve" is a
hypothetical entity? We don't have her bones. All we have are
statistical samplings of mitochondrial DNA from all over the world
which indicate that a common female ancestor carrying that mDNA must
have lived in Africa around 150000 years ago. Since mDNA can tell us
ancestry but not the nuclear genetic make-up, we have no information
at all as to whether or not this hypothetical individual was a "modern
human" at all. What we do have is a pretty good theory as to where
and when this hominid lived. It's completely unknown what species of
hominid she was. What rational and informed people accept is that
there's a good likelihood that some common hominid ancestor to modern
humans lived in Africa 150000 years ago.

> ### - Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way
> that appeals to the senses or emotions.

My, that seems quite a bit different from your declarations of what
"genuine art" is.

" 'genuine art' (as opposed to mere graphic representations, diagrams
and pretty patterns etc) pertains more to that which *isn't*
neccessarily rational in nature,"

So earlier in this very post, you proclaimed that art *is not* just
pretty patterns while here you proclaim that art *is* just pretty
patterns. Consistency isn't your storng point, I see. No wonder you
have such problems understanding science.

slider

unread,

Jan 28, 2010, 8:50:21 AM1/28/10

to

Tom wrote...

You have tried to claim that elegance in science is not art while I
say it is. You haven't yet agreed with me on that point.

### - smile, and i thought you were the logical one?

i.e. Science isn't Art, so how can anything science produces 'be' Art? :)

> plus in this instance the unknown person isn't
> referring to another fantasy world of the imagination, but is pointing to the

> sameworld all genuine artists point to: the original world, that isn't just a

> product
> of someone's imagination but the world as it is, 'devoid' of all man's
> imaginatitive projections, adornments and rationalisations...

You really think that all artists represent the world the same way and
that this representation is devoid of the products of imagination?
Art is jam-packed with imaginative projections, adornments, and
rationalizations. It *is* a product of imagination.

### - i thought i'd already spelled this all out to you in my own way, but
apparently not...

the artist may indeed use their imagination in their representations in order to
communicate things to people who are locked-in to the language of symbols (iow the
artist may borrow from their familiar objects and things and incorporate them into
his work because they will be recognised) and/or then use his/her imagination to
arrange those objects and things in a particular way/order, or even just
imaginatively, so as to say deliberately juxtapose opposing values thereby
highlighting blatant contradictions in our beliefs for example... but the
'message' the artist is attempting to communicate, via whatever medium, isn't
itself the product of imagination, any more than the destinations drawn and
contained in city maps are the products of imagination

> i.e. the world 'without' the dirty great black muddy footprint we humans stamped
> all over it, and which rather ironically often passes for art -;)

So any art you don't like is automatically not art? Well, that makes
things nice and simple. Completely arbitrary and self-referenced, but
simple.

### - it's got nothing to do with what people like or don't like, the fact that
people tend to prefer one type of art over another being something else
entirely... it's the 'message' that one looks for in art... and if there isn't one
then it's not Art :)

> > plus it doesn't transport us by changing the way we feel, but by altering
> > our personal perception of the world which of course is reflected then in the
> > way we feel about it, and not the other way around :)
>
> Reagrdless of the path by which we process a work of art, it affects
> how we feel.

Pretty much everything affects how we feel.

> ### - i'm not as 'mechanically-minded' as you (+ i was kinda presenting you with

> achicken/egg scenario: which comes first, the perception or one's feelings about
> itetc etc, a conundrum with no real answer) and thus you so easily speak in

> terms
> of"path(s) by which we process a work of art", and 'stimulated brains' that
> alters
> our feelings (feelings being more irrational) which then affects the way we
> see/experience things, these unmanageable 'feelings' presumably 'subjecting' us

> tovarying views of the world, and over which we have no control etc etc...

Just where do you think I said that feelings were unmanageable or that
we have no control over them? I'm telling you that control is
established by creating a dynamic emotional balance, an idea that you
don't seem to comprehend at all.

If we were to translate your idea into physical actions, what you're
saying is that we have only two actions to choose from, spasmodic
flailing or paralysis.

### - that's a funny image hehehe... but perhaps you intuit a truth, in that from
an artists pov rationality 'could' be viewed as being a peculiar form of
perceptual paralysis (a very one-sided affair) - plus as it is i don't see any
emotional balance at all with reason other than the silencing of them to the point
of almost nothing at all, emotions playing a minimal role in the world of reason
apart from the occasional eureka moment and/or the self-congratulatory afterglow
of warm fuzzy feelings of accomplishment and/or breakthrough... nope, with reason
the emotions are basically 'quelled' so that ideally all one really feels, is
nothing at all

> i.e. 'genuine art' (as opposed to mere graphic representations, diagrams and
> pretty patterns etc) pertains more to that which *isn't* neccessarily rational

> innature, e.g. that as perceieved through the eyes of the 'soul' rather than of

> reason (using the term 'soul' with a certain amount of poetic licence to
> describle/allude-to that which exists but cannot be rationally defined; as in

> thetrue 'inner person' as opposed to the outwardly sociologically
> groomed-to-be-a-moron robot)

I think your notion of "genuine art" is of the same order as "true
religion". Any art that doesn't conform to your values isn't "genuine
art", just as any religion that doesn't conform to a fanatic's beliefs
isn't "true religion".

### - lol are you seriously comparing dogma to Art?? :)

plus 'my' values are of little or no consequence at all, 'genuine Art' either
contains/presents a liberating message, or it doesn't in which case it isn't art
with a capital 'A'

> An elegant theory does indeed affect the way we feel. It is an error
> to conceive of science as completely cut off from feelings. It simply
> isn't ruled by them.
>
> ### - 'agreed' - feelings/emotions are assigned a 'secondary role' in the
> reasoning process rather than being forced-out altogether,

You seem to be indulging in a false dilemma. You're suggesting that
whatever isn't the master must be the slave. There are plenty of
other choices, though. My spouse does not rule me, but I certainly
wouldn't say that she's "secondary" to me in any way.

### - well i don't know what she'd maybe say then about your using her here in
such a mercenary manner? (i.e. let's leave your spouse out of the analogies shall
we? otherwise anything i might say could be construed by you as me casting
aspersions on her, and i don't wish to provide you with that 'out-er' :)

> but only because
> there's no need to force them out completely before reason begins to operate to
> varying degrees, a variation/increase in intensity and clarity which is directly
> proportional to the amount they 'are' forced out...

Feelings are not "forced out" of any rational process. They simply
aren't involved in that particular process at the moment.

### - same difference! hehehe :)

I don't
need to cut off my arms to use my legs. In fact, in order to use my
legs most efficiently, my arms have to be engaged some other activity
which provides me with... (are you ready?)... balance.

### - whether 'forced out' or 'not involved in that process', the end result is
the same, the only 'balance' being established between them being that of
quietitude on the part of the emotions... whereas as far as i'm concerned the term
'balance' suggests of sharing, e.g. 50/50 representing an 'equal' balance,
whereas "simply aren't involved in that particular process" is not suggestive of
any sharing whatsoever, an effective balance of 100/zero... and thus no such
'balance' as you claim even exists other than because you don't like the idea and
want there to be one... iow that's just a rationalisation on your part, and as a
consequence of that rationalising you're also indirectly attempting to rationalise
Art (which btw, can't be done :)

> > An elegant solution to a problem does indeed produce a feeling of
> > beauty and grace, an aesthetic experience that goes beyond merely
> > solving the problem.
>
> > ### - reason patting itself on the back and feeling damn pleased with itself
> > isn't the same as Art,
>
> That's no more true than an accusation that painting is just patting
> itself on the back for dabbing pretty pigments on canvas. Any monkey
> can do that. That's not Art.
>
> ### - monkeys don't attempt to communicate anything with their art,

But scientists *do* attempt to communicate something with their
theories.

### - yeah well... rational theories still ain't art :)

So why are you so sure that an elegant theory, which has aesthetic
value as well as emotional and intellectual content and is
deliberately designed to alter our worldview, is not art? So far, it
fulfills every one of your stated criteria. As far as I can tell,
your only objection is that you don't personally like the style.

### - forget 'me personally', we're talking universal values here, and art and
science just don't jibe maaan (geeze what have i gotta do, eat a banana? ;)

> my previous point being that elegant formulas don't transport you to a
> 'different'
> view, they only transport you (if they do at all) to an 'extended/expanded' view
> of the one you're already standing 'in'

As I said, we're always in one world, but we have vast numbers of
models of the world we can choose from, some of them quite new and
others ancient, some quite simple and others enormously complex. What
an artist transports you into is not the real world but some different
model of the world. An elegant theory does the same thing. It
transports one from one's current worldview to a new one that is
slightly, but significantly, different, and it does so in an
aesthetically pleasing fashion, which you can appreciate if you have a
taste for arts that have a lot of intellectual content.

### - it's ok, i've found the glitch hehe, just a couple of simple tweaks to it
and we might even end up on the same page again one day :)

i.e. it's contained in your line : "What an artist transports you into is not the
real world but some different model of the world." - and then you go-on about
models etc...

the point being... that what a genuine/real artist transports you into is 'not' a
model of the world, but a world 'devoid' of models altogether! (didn't i just say
that before?) which is perhaps even the 'original' world - which kinda makes sense
because the original world, and universe, aren't models, they actually 'are', that
is unless you think some god somewhere is maybe playing with models (now there's
a scary thought lol)

> (i.e. newton saw 'further-into' what
> everyone was 'already' looking at, he wasn't for example seeing further into
> something that 'undermined' his rationally material stance, but was in fact
> expanding/extending/widening it... which is great if ya wanna be a scientist,
> but
> a downright handicap if ya ever wanted to be an artist, or just a whole human
> being :)

I find your attempt to dehumanize scientists, to depict them as only
partially or superficially human, to be as offensively degrading as
any other irrational prejudice, such as racism.

### - it's not just scientists, but the whole rational world of which scientists
are only the epitome and flag-bearers of...

i.e. scientists are like reasons' flagships, you know? they are the great (or
current anyway) authority, and it's not like they're a breed-apart from the rest
of the human race, imho they're just human beings who have become lost/trapped in
the wonderful world of reason and scientism, probably because they just so
happened to be fairly good at it (this last being something they usually
sophically pride themselves on, almost as if they think they 'are' a breed apart
and/or have the gall to imagine they're the privileged few/above everyone else...
kinda like how you've been sneering at me all-along perhaps?)

### - sneer, sneer, sneer... see what i mean? :)

Remember when your teachers in school assigned you to read
Shakespeare"? How dull and uncommunicative you found it at first,
mostly because the language was unfamiliar? Yet, if you ever managed
to get to the point where you understood what he was writing, the
depth and power of the story, even the phraseology, moved you
profoundly. At first, Shakespeare might not have seemed like art to
you. It may have seemed like a pointless and barren intellectual
exercise in decryption. So it appears to you that scientific theory
has no art to it. It's simply a matter of your unfamiliarity with it.

### - you're actually very good at intellectually making/arguing your points,
which i figure to be related to a certain 'quality of clarity' you appear to
possess (you're obviously intelligent and your mind is pretty sharp) so from my
pov it's just your choice of 'materials' that you've chosen to 'express' that
intelligence through and via...

for example, maybe instead you could have applied your intelligence to
literature/art and lived a very different life altogether as a direct consequence?
and that while science and logic is all very well and respected and all that, the
only way they'll ever get to 'other worlds' is in the glorified washing machines
they call rocketships :)

> the point being that art is said to be able to express Truth more adequately,
> essentially because it 'departs' from language rather than further reinforcing
> it?

So, in your definition of art, Shakespeare is subhuman? After all,
his work is one hundred percent language. It has no pretty pictures
for you to look at. Donald Duck comic books, however, would be far
superior as examples of art, because they have lots of colorful
pictures and don't strain your intellect much.

### - i know it's difficult for you to understand if everything's not all in nice
neat little sequential boxes and pigeonholes, so trying to explain to you just how
it is then that written literature, which (as in the case of Shakespeare) contains
no pictures or explanatory diagrams, can be worded in such a way so as to
deliberately manipulate/work someone's imagination in such a way so as communicate
something of potential value that isn't always necessarily obvious at first
glance...

but then perhaps that's even part of the art 'of' it that 'makes' it art rather
than just another bunch of empty words on some advertising leaflet for the next
meeting of 'science-club' :)

Perhaps some rethinking of your approach to art is on order.

Elan: "You wanna buy some death sticks?"
Obi-Wan: "You don't want to sell me death sticks."
Elan: "Na, I don't wanna sell you death sticks."
Obi-Wan: "You want to go home and rethink your life."
Elan: "I wanna go home and rethink my life"

Sorry. I couldn't resist the allusion. Humor. Har, har.

### - sounds like sneering and ridicule to me rather than genuine humour, but
then maybe that's just me being silly :)

> You have this deeply canalized view of science in which it is divorced
> from human feelings and opposed to them. That's just a caricature of
> science, a calumny heaped upon it by religions who see themselves in
> competition with it and politicians who don't want people to have any
> way to discover how they've been lied to.
>
> Try reminding yourself the Mr. Spock is not a real person. That may
> help.
>
> ### - "caricature" is correct, and because i'm faced with the difficulty of
> trying
> to speak to you in 'cartoons' (verbal images/symbols and allusions) basically
> because that's the only language you're able to speak...

That's the Usenet medium, pal. Text-based. If you want to
communicate in pictures, go to YouTube. Do you communicate in
simplistic, distorted stereotypes because you lack the ability to be
more precise in either your thinking or your verbal expressions?

### - i've already admitted that i'm no expert in speaking your 'lingo' - you're a
nice guy and all that, but frankly i'm just not prepared to 'wade-in' that deep to
chat to you! haha! (private joke, don't worry about it;)

you, however, 'could' make an effort to at least meet me 'half-way' instead of
being and remaining deliberately pedantic and obtuse? - 'precision', my
intellectual friend, is an intellectual (and perceptual) boundary that art easily
reaches across and beyond, whereas reason is absolutely held back/imprisoned by
its own criteria of having to be 'precise' and 'never' crosses that arbitrary
boundary.

> with 'spock' representing
> the 'epitome' of the rational/logical mind (emotion-less) yet is undesirable to
> us
> humans for being too extreme and because the little bit of our emotional nature
> that we 'do' still have access to is used as a pre-programmed response to elicit
> sensations of guilt (be self-arresting) under certain sets of socially defined
> circumstances and situations (2 legs good, 4 legs baaaad, baaaad etc etc etc:)

Again you seem to think that Spock is a real person and that
scientists are all Spocks. This is not the case. You are using
simplistic, dehumanizing stereotypes to represent real people. This
grossly distorts your understanding of what I'm talking about.

### - i actually said that 'spock' (in inverted commas etc) was the epitome/ideal
of reason yet is/was considered to be too extreme for general purposes and use,
iow: discouraged... so yes spock is a cartoon image and thus only a symbol/ideal
as explored in the likes of stars-truck/star-struck? no, star-trek, yeah that's
it, star-truck hehehe, soap-operas (baywatch) in space (more sex and bad
behaviour, but with aliens! ha! ;)

> ### - 'humans' are defined by strict parameters, we are modern humans, and she
> was the first known modern human (homo sapiens)

You do realize, don't you, that the "mitochondrial Eve" is a
hypothetical entity? We don't have her bones. All we have are
statistical samplings of mitochondrial DNA from all over the world
which indicate that a common female ancestor carrying that mDNA must
have lived in Africa around 150000 years ago. Since mDNA can tell us
ancestry but not the nuclear genetic make-up, we have no information
at all as to whether or not this hypothetical individual was a "modern
human" at all. What we do have is a pretty good theory as to where
and when this hominid lived. It's completely unknown what species of
hominid she was. What rational and informed people accept is that
there's a good likelihood that some common hominid ancestor to modern
humans lived in Africa 150000 years ago.

### - as i said before: that dna didn't just drop of the side of some hominid
monkey but obviously arose within a large community of similar homo-genus species,
of which there were dozens! many of which remain as yet unknown... the people that
started leaving africa 200,000 years ago and that eventually walked all the way to
Australia over 1000's of years, didn't leave africa being monkeys and end up in
Australia as homo sapiens, ya know? :)

> ### - Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way
> that appeals to the senses or emotions.

My, that seems quite a bit different from your declarations of what
"genuine art" is.

" 'genuine art' (as opposed to mere graphic representations, diagrams
and pretty patterns etc) pertains more to that which *isn't*
neccessarily rational in nature,"

So earlier in this very post, you proclaimed that art *is not* just
pretty patterns while here you proclaim that art *is* just pretty
patterns. Consistency isn't your storng point, I see. No wonder you
have such problems understanding science.

### - you shouldn't throw stones you know tom... because are you really such a
dullard?? - art, in anthropological terms, refers to when mankind first began to
make deliberate symbolic representations (the non practical usage of) as opposed
say to crude or even skilful tool making (monkeys make and use tools but they
don't draw pictures of themselves or of trees or whatever) something that's
thought to be linked to when we humans first began to think and to talk, the one
thing that distinguishes us from the rest of the animal kingdom, and the point at
which we truthfully departed from it...

those crosshatched patterns deliberately carved onto stone considered by experts
to currently be the earliest known evidence of that transition...

these 'patterns' deliberately carved that possibly represents/heralds mankind's
learning to think and talk, being contextually a world-away (if you'll forgive the
pun) from the fancy patterns mentioned earlier in regards to making a distinction
between that of decorative art (as in wallpaper patterns) and communicative Art
per se...

(btw, are you always this annoyed tom? i mean, i'd of thought this would be 'one'
conversation you'd particularly wish to keep your emotions 'out' of, no? :)

Tom

unread,

Jan 28, 2010, 1:07:24 PM1/28/10

to

On Jan 28, 5:50 am, "slider" <sli...@anashram.com> wrote:
> Tom wrote...
>
> You have tried to claim that elegance in science is not art while I
> say it is. You haven't yet agreed with me on that point.
>
> ### - smile, and i thought you were the logical one?
>
> i.e. Science isn't Art, so how can anything science produces 'be' Art? :)

Now this is the greatest of the postmodernistic fallacies, the
assumption of some great, uncrossable gulf between science and art.
Mostly this is due to the inability of artists to do math. Those who
can see no such gulf.

I will refer you to two books. E. O. Wilson's "Consilience" and

Stephen Jay Gould's "The Hedgehog, the Fox, and the Magister's Pox."

Both books deal with the subject of how the sciences and the arts are
reconciled.

> You really think that all artists represent the world the same way and
> that this representation is devoid of the products of imagination?
> Art is jam-packed with imaginative projections, adornments, and
> rationalizations. It *is* a product of imagination.
>
> ### - i thought i'd already spelled this all out to you in my own way, but
> apparently not...

But you just contradicted it.

"all genuine artists point to: the original world, that isn't just a
product of someone's imagination but the world as it is, 'devoid' of
all man's imaginatitive projections, adornments and
rationalisations..."

If all "genuine artists" point at a world unadorned with the products
of imagination, as you said, then "genuine art" is devoid of those
self-same products.

> the artist may indeed use their imagination in their representations in order to
> communicate things to people who are locked-in to the language of symbols (iow the
> artist may borrow from their familiar objects and things and incorporate them into
> his work because they will be recognised) and/or then use his/her imagination to
> arrange those objects and things in a particular way/order, or even just
> imaginatively, so as to say deliberately juxtapose opposing values thereby
> highlighting blatant contradictions in our beliefs for example... but the
> 'message' the artist is attempting to communicate, via whatever medium, isn't
> itself the product of imagination, any more than the destinations drawn and
> contained in city maps are the products of imagination

Once again you have completely eliminated any verbal art, such as
poetry or literature, which are comprised solely of that awful,
counterproductive, and inartistic "language". Language refers to the
world, represents the world, in just the same way your nonverbal arts
do, but in a different medium. When I say the word "apple", I don't
just think of the letters of the word but of the fruit itself. It's
completely nonsensical to declare that verbal arts are unconnected to
the real world just because they have words in them.

> > i.e. the world 'without' the dirty great black muddy footprint we humans stamped
> > all over it, and which rather ironically often passes for art -;)
>
> So any art you don't like is automatically not art? Well, that makes
> things nice and simple. Completely arbitrary and self-referenced, but
> simple.
>
> ### - it's got nothing to do with what people like or don't like, the fact that
> people tend to prefer one type of art over another being something else
> entirely... it's the 'message' that one looks for in art... and if there isn't one
> then it's not Art :)

So if someone does not get the message, it's because the artist isn't
really producing art? What does a blind person get from painting? So
painting, by failiing to get its message across to a blind person, is
not "Art" in your esitmation. The way you are portraying it, art is
only "Art" if you can appreciate it with whatever neurological
deficits you might have. So the existence of "Art" is entirely a
subjective value judgment of the beholder. In other words, it's what
you like versus what you don't like.

> > ### - i'm not as 'mechanically-minded' as you (+ i was kinda presenting you with
> > achicken/egg scenario: which comes first, the perception or one's feelings about
> > itetc etc, a conundrum with no real answer) and thus you so easily speak in
> > terms
> > of"path(s) by which we process a work of art", and 'stimulated brains' that
> > alters
> > our feelings (feelings being more irrational) which then affects the way we
> > see/experience things, these unmanageable 'feelings' presumably 'subjecting' us
> > tovarying views of the world, and over which we have no control etc etc...
>
> Just where do you think I said that feelings were unmanageable or that
> we have no control over them? I'm telling you that control is
> established by creating a dynamic emotional balance, an idea that you
> don't seem to comprehend at all.
>
> If we were to translate your idea into physical actions, what you're
> saying is that we have only two actions to choose from, spasmodic
> flailing or paralysis.
>
> ### - that's a funny image hehehe... but perhaps you intuit a truth, in that from
> an artists pov rationality 'could' be viewed as being a peculiar form of
> perceptual paralysis (a very one-sided affair)

Because your hypothesized "artist" is like a blind man trying to
appreciate a painting. He hasn't got the right equipment, so he can't
see the beauty or get the message. This is not a deficit of the
artform but a deficit of the particular audience. Just because *you*
can't see it doesn't mean that nobody can.

> - plus as it is i don't see any
> emotional balance at all with reason other than the silencing of them to the point
> of almost nothing at all, emotions playing a minimal role in the world of reason
> apart from the occasional eureka moment and/or the self-congratulatory afterglow
> of warm fuzzy feelings of accomplishment and/or breakthrough... nope, with reason
> the emotions are basically 'quelled' so that ideally all one really feels, is
> nothing at all

That's because you have put blinders on your view of science to such a
degree that you can't even see scientists as whole human beings. The
emotional balance that allows rationality to work is not within the
rational process but exists in the matrix in which reason happens.
Because you see rationality as completely divorced from humanity
because of the impassible gulf you assume to exist between science and
humanity, you conclude that emotion has no part in the process of
reasoning and therefore the creature that does science is some cold,
emotionless, artless subhuman.

> I think your notion of "genuine art" is of the same order as "true
> religion". Any art that doesn't conform to your values isn't "genuine
> art", just as any religion that doesn't conform to a fanatic's beliefs
> isn't "true religion".
>
> ### - lol are you seriously comparing dogma to Art?? :)

No, I'm comparing *you* to a religious fanatic.

> plus 'my' values are of little or no consequence at all,

Then we really shouldn't be paying any attention at all to any of your
judgments. They are of no consequence.

> 'genuine Art' either
> contains/presents a liberating message, or it doesn't in which case it isn't art
> with a capital 'A'

So, if you personally fail to feel "liberated" by some expression, you
decide it's not "genuine art" for anybody. Once again, it gets back
to the simple fact that you call it art if you like it but it's not
art if you don't. That's why I compared you to a religious fanatic,
because you think your personal beliefs are universals that everyone
else must believe or they are dehumanized into "the outwardly
sociologically groomed-to-be-a-moron robots".

> You seem to be indulging in a false dilemma. You're suggesting that
> whatever isn't the master must be the slave. There are plenty of
> other choices, though. My spouse does not rule me, but I certainly
> wouldn't say that she's "secondary" to me in any way.
>
> ### - well i don't know what she'd maybe say then about your using her here in
> such a mercenary manner? (i.e. let's leave your spouse out of the analogies shall
> we? otherwise anything i might say could be construed by you as me casting
> aspersions on her, and i don't wish to provide you with that 'out-er' :)

You have completely failed to address the argument by focusing instead
on your objection to the example I used to illustrate it. Stop
dodging. You're using a false dilemma to make your case. (Not that
it would be surprising for a person arguing for the superiority of
irrationality over rationality to use irrational arguments.)

> Feelings are not "forced out" of any rational process. They simply
> aren't involved in that particular process at the moment.
>
> ### - same difference! hehehe :)

No it's not. Quit giggling. Read on.

> I don't
> need to cut off my arms to use my legs. In fact, in order to use my
> legs most efficiently, my arms have to be engaged some other activity
> which provides me with... (are you ready?)... balance.
>
> ### - whether 'forced out' or 'not involved in that process', the end result is
> the same,

It's not the same at all. Without the balance provided by the arms,
the legs aren't going to be able to kick very efficiently. While the
arms are not involved in the kicking directly, it's only by their
actions that the kicking is done properly. So it is with emotions and
rationality. One cannot be emotionally imbalanced and still think
rationally, so emotional balance, not emotional exclusion, is
essential to rationality. I suspect the reason you cannot understand
this is because you fail to see that scientists are whole human
beings. You think of them as unfeeling machines. You cling to this
ridiculous stereotype as if your life depended on it.

> the only 'balance' being established between them being that of
> quietitude on the part of the emotions...

On the contrary, scientists regularly talk about their excitement,
their passion, for what they do. It is emotional intensity that
provides the scientist with the motivation they need to expend a huge
amount of energy in concentrated effort. They may look to you as if
they are feeling very little, since their activities are usually not
noisy and they are unwilling to allow distractions, but that's only
because you have such a limited sense of control over yourself that
you cannot conceive how a person might be outwardly quiet while
experiencing deep feelings. Once again, it's as if you have only two
choices open to you, spasmodic flailing or paralysis. Focused and
coordinated effort seems to be beyond the range of the capabilities
you'll allow yourself to acknowledge.

> > > ### - reason patting itself on the back and feeling damn pleased with itself
> > > isn't the same as Art,
>
> > That's no more true than an accusation that painting is just patting
> > itself on the back for dabbing pretty pigments on canvas. Any monkey
> > can do that. That's not Art.
>
> > ### - monkeys don't attempt to communicate anything with their art,
>
> But scientists *do* attempt to communicate something with their
> theories.
>
> ### - yeah well... rational theories still ain't art :)

Repeating yourself does not make you right.

> So why are you so sure that an elegant theory, which has aesthetic
> value as well as emotional and intellectual content and is
> deliberately designed to alter our worldview, is not art? So far, it
> fulfills every one of your stated criteria. As far as I can tell,
> your only objection is that you don't personally like the style.
>
> ### - forget 'me personally', we're talking universal values here,

Your values are not universal. Your likes and dislikes are not
universal. Your opinions about art and science are not universal.
Lots and lots of people disagree with you. Your only reply to that is
that all those people are wrong. And that doesn't make what you say
universal either. It just makes you the equivalent of a religious
fanatic.

> the point being... that what a genuine/real artist transports you into is 'not' a
> model of the world, but a world 'devoid' of models altogether!

A world devoid of models is devoid of art, language, and thought. So,
once "transported" to that world, no further art is possible. No
further thoughts are possible, not even the thought of self. With no
thought and no self, no movement occurs. What you're saying is that
one exposure to art renders anyone totally catatonic.

> I find your attempt to dehumanize scientists, to depict them as only
> partially or superficially human, to be as offensively degrading as
> any other irrational prejudice, such as racism.
>
> ### - it's not just scientists, but the whole rational world of which scientists
> are only the epitome and flag-bearers of...

"It's not just the niggers, it's all the mud races!"

> > You are incorrect. Possibly this is due to your unfamiliarity with
> > using rational thought. I might have the same reaction to dance, if I
> > had little rhythm or coordination. It doesn't feel expressive to me
> > because I'm not good enough at it to be able to both perform the
> > movements correctly and still pay attention to the feelings it is
> > supposed to engender. So I end up thinking that dance is just painful
> > muscle discipline with no aesthetic content at all. So it is with
> > scientific discipline. It's hard for a lot of people to get good
> > enough at it to notice the feelings of wonder, awe, and amusement that
> > a person who is good at it would immediately feel.
>
> > ### - well i'm definitely not as 'deep' in it as you are, that's for sure!
> > (wink-wink to tempy, private joke;) plus nice analogy btw, only one doesn't
> > exactly have to be a 'genius' to be able to appreciate say the apparent symmetry
> > and vastness of a huge spiral-arm galaxy, or the seeming elegance of the
> > mandelbrot feedback-equation that produces/demonstrates fractals...
>
> Yes, you can be amused by pretty pictures, but you have a hard time
> finding anything to relate to in an elegant theory. Perhaps the math
> is off-putting. Lots of people get defensive when someone talks in a
> language that they don't understand well enough to follow easily.
>
> ### - sneer, sneer, sneer... see what i mean? :)

Scientists are subhumans to you, "outwardly sociologically groomed-to-
be-a-moron robots". If you're going to complain about sneering, dude,
you'd better wipe the sneer off your own face first. I don't put up
with that kind of hypocritical whining. When you dish it out, you're
going to get it right back.

> Remember when your teachers in school assigned you to read
> Shakespeare"? How dull and uncommunicative you found it at first,
> mostly because the language was unfamiliar? Yet, if you ever managed
> to get to the point where you understood what he was writing, the
> depth and power of the story, even the phraseology, moved you
> profoundly. At first, Shakespeare might not have seemed like art to
> you. It may have seemed like a pointless and barren intellectual
> exercise in decryption. So it appears to you that scientific theory
> has no art to it. It's simply a matter of your unfamiliarity with it.
>
> ### - you're actually very good at intellectually making/arguing your points,
> which i figure to be related to a certain 'quality of clarity' you appear to
> possess (you're obviously intelligent and your mind is pretty sharp) so from my
> pov it's just your choice of 'materials' that you've chosen to 'express' that
> intelligence through and via...
>
> for example, maybe instead you could have applied your intelligence to
> literature/art and lived a very different life altogether as a direct consequence?
> and that while science and logic is all very well and respected and all that, the
> only way they'll ever get to 'other worlds' is in the glorified washing machines
> they call rocketships :)

There you go again, directing your attention to me while you
completely ignore the argument so that you don't have to deal with
it. You have taken a position that no literature is art because it
uses words instead of pictures. That has nothing to do with your
speculations about my career choices, of which you are completely
ignorant. Nor does it have anything to do with whether or not
"rocketships" are "glorified washing machines".

"the point being that art is said to be able to express Truth more
adequately, essentially because it 'departs' from language rather than

further reinforcing it? iow, in attempting to 'define' things language

only really succeeds in pushing further away from us the Reality we
set out in the first place to discover..."

That indicates that any use of language is not "genuine art", since
art "departs" from language and "language only pushes us further from
Reality". So, according to you, Shakespeare was a hack, not a
"genuine artist".

> So, in your definition of art, Shakespeare is subhuman? After all,
> his work is one hundred percent language. It has no pretty pictures
> for you to look at. Donald Duck comic books, however, would be far
> superior as examples of art, because they have lots of colorful
> pictures and don't strain your intellect much.
>
> ### - i know it's difficult for you to understand if everything's not all in nice
> neat little sequential boxes and pigeonholes, so trying to explain to you just how
> it is then that written literature, which (as in the case of Shakespeare) contains
> no pictures or explanatory diagrams, can be worded in such a way so as to
> deliberately manipulate/work someone's imagination in such a way so as communicate
> something of potential value that isn't always necessarily obvious at first
> glance...

Nice backpedalling, but it's to no avail. Your statement that
"language only pushes us further from reality" is actually wrong and
art doesn't always "'depart' from language". At least have the
intergrity to admit your errors when you make them.

> but then perhaps that's even part of the art 'of' it that 'makes' it art rather
> than just another bunch of empty words on some advertising leaflet for the next
> meeting of 'science-club' :)

Your sneering is becoming almost constant now. I strongly doubt you
have the emotional control necessary to stop the degeneration of your
conversation into nothing but a series of attempts to insult and
belittle once you've gotten that ball rolling. I'll warn you, though,
that I'm pretty competent at that sort of thing too.

> ### - i've already admitted that i'm no expert in speaking your 'lingo' - you're a
> nice guy and all that, but frankly i'm just not prepared to 'wade-in' that deep to
> chat to you!

As I said, I don't think you have the emotional control necessary to
continue this conversation with mutual respect. I think you're all
tuckered out and getting a little crabby.

Message has been deleted

slider

unread,

Jan 29, 2010, 12:23:57 AM1/29/10

to

Tom wrote...

> ### - i thought i'd already spelled this all out to you in my own way, but
> apparently not...

But you just contradicted it.

"all genuine artists point to: the original world, that isn't just a
product of someone's imagination but the world as it is, 'devoid' of
all man's imaginatitive projections, adornments and
rationalisations..."

If all "genuine artists" point at a world unadorned with the products
of imagination, as you said, then "genuine art" is devoid of those
self-same products.

### - genuine art is only an 'attempt' to represent that which cannot actually be
accurately portrayed or represented, thus is all art by necessity and nature
incomplete, so in a way you're actually correct but not quite in the negative
way you construed it to mean...

> the artist may indeed use their imagination in their representations in order to
> communicate things to people who are locked-in to the language of symbols (iow
> the
> artist may borrow from their familiar objects and things and incorporate them
> into
> his work because they will be recognised) and/or then use his/her imagination to
> arrange those objects and things in a particular way/order, or even just
> imaginatively, so as to say deliberately juxtapose opposing values thereby
> highlighting blatant contradictions in our beliefs for example... but the
> 'message' the artist is attempting to communicate, via whatever medium, isn't
> itself the product of imagination, any more than the destinations drawn and
> contained in city maps are the products of imagination

Once again you have completely eliminated any verbal art, such as
poetry or literature, which are comprised solely of that awful,
counterproductive, and inartistic "language". Language refers to the
world, represents the world, in just the same way your nonverbal arts
do, but in a different medium. When I say the word "apple", I don't
just think of the letters of the word but of the fruit itself. It's

completely nonsensical to declare that just because they have words in them.

### - verbal 'descriptions' (not arts) are unconnected to the real world if, for
example, that original/real world is completely silent and totally devoid of
language altogether... in which case any attempt to describe/define it only
distorts/clouds it, one can allude to it but never actually accurately describe
it... iow language and description can 'only' pertain to un-real worlds that
language and description has modelled and created itself which 'makes' them unreal
no matter how real those worlds may 'appear' to reason to be...

So if someone does not get the message, it's because the artist isn't
really producing art?

### - either that... or because they're just too wilfully blind, pedantic and
obtuse to 'allow' themselves to get it? (maybe because they don't 'want' to get
it? but then that would be like those scientists seeing only what they want to see
and rationalising, wouldn't it :)

i.e. just because someone doesn't get the message doesn't necessarily mean it's
not art, it might mean that the viewer's a bit thick, or just has his eyes
closed :)

What does a blind person get from painting? So
painting, by failiing to get its message across to a blind person, is
not "Art" in your esitmation.

### - i don't know if you realise just how dumb that looks?

The way you are portraying it, art is
only "Art" if you can appreciate it with whatever neurological
deficits you might have. So the existence of "Art" is entirely a
subjective value judgment of the beholder. In other words, it's what
you like versus what you don't like.

### - this is what you get when reason tries to define art using its own criteria
to do so, it can't possibly make it but refuses to admit defeat, and so it goes
around in circles and imagines it's actually getting somewhere when really it's
just turning on the spot in a form of almost deliberate denial of a reality that's
potentially devoid of reason altogether...

thus in the hands of reason art has to be what reason wants and needs it to be,
even if that's not what it actually is, and even if it has to totally distort it
in the process to make said art fit into the pigeonhole labelled 'art'

plus it's not at all what i, or you, or anyone, even the artist himself, likes or
dislikes beyond maybe deciding what materials/medium to use... only the 'message'
contained therein actually counts for anything, and seeing as there's only ever
the one single message to communicate every time, the artist thus has free reign
then to get that message across in any way, shape or form he so desires and/or can
possibly come up with...

> If we were to translate your idea into physical actions, what you're
> saying is that we have only two actions to choose from, spasmodic
> flailing or paralysis.
>
> ### - that's a funny image hehehe... but perhaps you intuit a truth, in that
> from
> an artists pov rationality 'could' be viewed as being a peculiar form of
> perceptual paralysis (a very one-sided affair)

Because your hypothesized "artist" is like a blind man trying to
appreciate a painting. He hasn't got the right equipment, so he can't
see the beauty or get the message. This is not a deficit of the
artform but a deficit of the particular audience. Just because *you*
can't see it doesn't mean that nobody can.

### - well here you've just answered your own question of before + this above last
of yours is almost exactly the same answer i gave to you in reply the first time
round when you didn't understand (how very odd :)

> - plus as it is i don't see any
> emotional balance at all with reason other than the silencing of them to the
> point
> of almost nothing at all, emotions playing a minimal role in the world of reason
> apart from the occasional eureka moment and/or the self-congratulatory afterglow
> of warm fuzzy feelings of accomplishment and/or breakthrough... nope, with
> reason
> the emotions are basically 'quelled' so that ideally all one really feels, is
> nothing at all

That's because you have put blinders on your view of science to such a
degree that you can't even see scientists as whole human beings. The
emotional balance that allows rationality to work is not within the
rational process but exists in the matrix in which reason happens.

### - you're confused... so i'll attempt to clear it up like this :

i.e. we loosely agreed once before about certain 'rare' individuals who stuck to
the scientific method to a greater degree than their fellow scientists who
sometimes can perhaps also be guilty of rationalisation/seeing what they want to
personally see etc, but which in no way detracts from the scientific method just
because of them and their personal sloppiness etc etc... my question to you now
being: of the above two types you've described, which then would you say is the
'more' whole, the one's with a tendency to rationalise or the rarer ones that
don't?

iow, obviously there are 'degrees' of wholesomeness... so from the artists pov
it's not that scientists are subhuman, it's just that they (like many others) are
lacking in another part to their nature because it's been (and is being) globally
suppressed as part and parcel of the overall processes of reason which states:

"They simply aren't involved in that particular process at the moment"

Because you see rationality as completely divorced from humanity

because of the impassible gulf you assume to exist between science and
humanity, you conclude that emotion has no part in the process of
reasoning and therefore the creature that does science is some cold,
emotionless, artless subhuman.

### - essentially yes because as you said: "They simply aren't involved in that

particular process at the moment"

plus it's not that rationality is completely divorced from humanity so much as
rationality is the process/tool by which humanity divorced/divorces itself from
Reality...

> I think your notion of "genuine art" is of the same order as "true
> religion". Any art that doesn't conform to your values isn't "genuine
> art", just as any religion that doesn't conform to a fanatic's beliefs
> isn't "true religion".
>
> ### - lol are you seriously comparing dogma to Art?? :)

No, I'm comparing *you* to a religious fanatic.

### - smile, well you're completely wrong on both counts then heh :)

> plus 'my' values are of little or no consequence at all,

Then we really shouldn't be paying any attention at all to any of your
judgments. They are of no consequence.

### - you're confused, and you're trying to confuse me hehe... but all this
dodging around and playing silly + rather simple logical games of reversal (as in
ping-pong ;) is not only inaccurate but isn't actually getting you anywhere
either, which is precisely what i think you're actually trying to achieve at this
juncture with all this fancy-pancy 'dancing around' which in the final analysis is
only a somewhat dismal ploy on your part to delay/forestall the inevitable
downfall of your whole argument and you with it because you identify with all that
crap so utterly and completely...

fyi i don't play, i might laugh a lot but i ain't playin' :)

> 'genuine Art' either
> contains/presents a liberating message, or it doesn't in which case it isn't art
> with a capital 'A'

So, if you personally fail to feel "liberated" by some expression, you
decide it's not "genuine art" for anybody.

### - that's ridiculous tom... if i 'personally' fail to grasp something then
that's my problem alone and nothing to do with the particular art involved... so
ok a particular painting just doesn't particularly do it for me, that doesn't
automatically mean the art itself is invalid... that's maybe just something to do
with me, in which case perhaps i'll get it from the next piece instead...

Once again, it gets back
to the simple fact that you call it art if you like it but it's not
art if you don't. That's why I compared you to a religious fanatic,

### - then i think we've just covered all that + it turns out you were wrong to
compare me to a religious fanatic, your whole premise being wrong...

because you think your personal beliefs are universals that everyone
else must believe or they are dehumanized into "the outwardly
sociologically groomed-to-be-a-moron robots".

### - art doesn't deal in beliefs, whereas science does...

> You seem to be indulging in a false dilemma. You're suggesting that
> whatever isn't the master must be the slave. There are plenty of
> other choices, though. My spouse does not rule me, but I certainly
> wouldn't say that she's "secondary" to me in any way.
>
> ### - well i don't know what she'd maybe say then about your using her here in
> such a mercenary manner? (i.e. let's leave your spouse out of the analogies
> shall
> we? otherwise anything i might say could be construed by you as me casting
> aspersions on her, and i don't wish to provide you with that 'out-er' :)

You have completely failed to address the argument by focusing instead
on your objection to the example I used to illustrate it. Stop
dodging. You're using a false dilemma to make your case. (Not that
it would be surprising for a person arguing for the superiority of
irrationality over rationality to use irrational arguments.)

### - sheesh, all i was saying/suggesting was for you to use a different analogy
( i.e. i don't want to talk about your spouse, because what happens if i have to
slag her off/disparage her in the context of the analogy itself? i'll tell what
would happen, you'd get extremely annoyed and feel all justified about getting all
up on your high horse and regardless of the actual argument start throwing a fit
instead! and like i said, i'd rather curtail that possible eventuality/disaster by
nipping it in the bud right now (bringing emotive subjects into rational arguments
is not a good or practical idea, unless of course someone 'wants' to destroy
everything because they maybe feel they're losing ground? ;-)

> Feelings are not "forced out" of any rational process. They simply
> aren't involved in that particular process at the moment.
>
> ### - same difference! hehehe :)

No it's not. Quit giggling. Read on.

### - it's just hard to take you seriously when you argue so glibly and badly :)

> I don't
> need to cut off my arms to use my legs. In fact, in order to use my
> legs most efficiently, my arms have to be engaged some other activity
> which provides me with... (are you ready?)... balance.
>
> ### - whether 'forced out' or 'not involved in that process', the end result is
> the same,

It's not the same at all. Without the balance provided by the arms,
the legs aren't going to be able to kick very efficiently. While the
arms are not involved in the kicking directly, it's only by their
actions that the kicking is done properly. So it is with emotions and
rationality. One cannot be emotionally imbalanced and still think
rationally, so emotional balance, not emotional exclusion, is
essential to rationality. I suspect the reason you cannot understand
this is because you fail to see that scientists are whole human
beings. You think of them as unfeeling machines. You cling to this
ridiculous stereotype as if your life depended on it.

### - well if you're talking about some sort a balance within the emotions
'themselves' then yes i can certainly accept that, it's just that i'd assumed from
the outset that we weren't even considering the disturbed and/or nutter types...

however, and that little misunderstanding cleared up, my original arguement still
stands re the existance of there being some sort of a balance existing between the
emotions and reason that isn't just our emotional nature being crowded almost
completely out of the picture...

> the only 'balance' being established between them being that of
> quietitude on the part of the emotions...

On the contrary, scientists regularly talk about their excitement,
their passion, for what they do. It is emotional intensity that
provides the scientist with the motivation they need to expend a huge
amount of energy in concentrated effort.

### - well people who have subsequently been found to have been barking up the
wrong tree altogether may have also worked with equal enthusiasm and zeal, as
indeed do people in their local stamp and chess clubs, or some kid passionately
collecting baseball cards etc etc, there's nothing particularly special about
people enjoying themselves, even when what they're doing is sometimes completely
mad/inane... this simple range of basic emotions being available to just about
everyone... it's other emotions (and/or aspects of them all together) that i'm
talking about...

They may look to you as if
they are feeling very little, since their activities are usually not
noisy and they are unwilling to allow distractions, but that's only
because you have such a limited sense of control over yourself that
you cannot conceive how a person might be outwardly quiet while
experiencing deep feelings. Once again, it's as if you have only two
choices open to you, spasmodic flailing or paralysis. Focused and
coordinated effort seems to be beyond the range of the capabilities
you'll allow yourself to acknowledge.

### - well only a minute ago you flatly stated "They simply aren't involved in
that particular process" - but now you're saying "They may look to you as if they

are feeling very little, since their activities are usually not noisy and they are

unwilling to allow distractions" - so which is it? you can't have it both ways you
know :)

> > > ### - reason patting itself on the back and feeling damn pleased with itself
> > > isn't the same as Art,
>
> > That's no more true than an accusation that painting is just patting
> > itself on the back for dabbing pretty pigments on canvas. Any monkey
> > can do that. That's not Art.
>
> > ### - monkeys don't attempt to communicate anything with their art,
>
> But scientists *do* attempt to communicate something with their
> theories.
>
> ### - yeah well... rational theories still ain't art :)

Repeating yourself does not make you right.

### - repeatedly evading the point as though you never heard it before wont make
you any more correct either :)

> So why are you so sure that an elegant theory, which has aesthetic
> value as well as emotional and intellectual content and is
> deliberately designed to alter our worldview, is not art? So far, it
> fulfills every one of your stated criteria. As far as I can tell,
> your only objection is that you don't personally like the style.
>
> ### - forget 'me personally', we're talking universal values here,

Your values are not universal. Your likes and dislikes are not
universal.

### - exactly what i said, it's nothing to do with 'me' even though you keep
attempting to make that the issue instead of just addressing the intellectual
points as and when they're raised... my values aren't universal, which is why i
said to leave 'me' out of it, i may have my own personal interpretations but
that's something else.. i'm merely an observer, an outsider to your belief-system,
if not in fact to 'all' systems :)

Your opinions about art and science are not universal.
Lots and lots of people disagree with you.

### - artists would probably agree with me and/or at least be able to
grasp/appreciate where i'm coming from without even breaking a sweat, whereas
rationalists, so-called realists and scientists probably wouldn't in just about
the same way the authority at the time got very angry with a certain well known
local preacher who slagged-off their church and called them all a bunch of
misleading lying vipers (or words to that effect) whereon they immediately started
plotting against him etc etc... ya get the picture yet tom? (plus if you resort to
yelling your head off that i now think i'm jesus christ or something, then i'll
scream! lol:)

Your only reply to that is
that all those people are wrong. And that doesn't make what you say
universal either. It just makes you the equivalent of a religious
fanatic.

### - what people, rationalists/scientists you mean? well so what if they do, plus
what about all the artists who wouldn't disagree with me, are they all just
'wrong' too from your pov?

> the point being... that what a genuine/real artist transports you into is 'not'
> a
> model of the world, but a world 'devoid' of models altogether!

A world devoid of models is devoid of art, language, and thought. So,
once "transported" to that world, no further art is possible. No
further thoughts are possible, not even the thought of self. With no
thought and no self, no movement occurs. What you're saying is that
one exposure to art renders anyone totally catatonic.

### - now look i know this is difficult for you to even 'consider' let-alone
accept, but you are essentially correct in the above, in that once 'there' there's
simply no more art or even any need of it, 'art' in that sense would have already
served its purpose in placing you there into a world where suddenly literally
'everything' is/becomes art! the Real Art that cannot ever be accurately depicted
nor ever truly represented... and yes, no thoughts of self... no thought!... which
isn't to say that perforce one becomes immediately immobilised, only that a
completely different (+ rationally unknowable) set of criteria for moving around
in the world replaces the former set... what else! certainly not the paralysis
that you're inclined to imagine...

i.e. there are no absolutes tom, nothing is ever simply black and white... the
existence of matter, life and living, All This! is somehow marvellously comprised
of competing and/or opposing poles... iow, nothing in this world is ever actually
just black or white (or in halves) but is somehow always comprised of both
extremes in every single instance throughout nature, without exception... and if
you want to talk about 'balance' then right there is the real and only balance
worth mentioning/discussing, everything else is just man-made illusions based upon
a man-made state of mind that perceptually separates and divides where no such
division actually exists...

plus i don't know how to make this more plain to you, other than to perhaps to
illustrate it by saying whereas most people are going around stating that their
glass is either half empty or half full of water etc etc... all i personally (plus
actually) see, is just a glass with some water in it, everything else is adorments
and baloney...

> I find your attempt to dehumanize scientists, to depict them as only
> partially or superficially human, to be as offensively degrading as
> any other irrational prejudice, such as racism.
>
> ### - it's not just scientists, but the whole rational world of which scientists
> are only the epitome and flag-bearers of...

"It's not just the niggers, it's all the mud races!"

### - it's not just all the mud races (whatever 'that' means lol, i.e. you accuse
me of racism and then start making racist remarks yourself? whoa!) it's all
humanity and a certain, shall we say: 'creeping malaise' that's slowly sucking
said humanity deeper and deeper down into the mire of self-created/generated
worlds of illusion, or models as you quite accurately called them...

an almost endless array of entirely man-made creations, fabrications, and
projections... which we seem to have a knack/gift for then 'inhabiting' to the
point that to all extents and purposes they appear completely real and utterly
convincing (any religion, any cult, any belief (including that of science) can be
so inhabited to the point that it and it alone appears as the only real/genuine
option...

only of course it isn't, converts from one club/team to another come in many
sizes, and is even a matter of course when it comes to politics for example...
cell-swapping is rife in the prison (ha!:) and it's a common enough practice
albeit somewhat generally frowned upon/not encouraged for all the standard reasons
(wont be much in the collection bowl this week if they've all moved to the church
down the road! :)

> Yes, you can be amused by pretty pictures, but you have a hard time
> finding anything to relate to in an elegant theory. Perhaps the math
> is off-putting. Lots of people get defensive when someone talks in a
> language that they don't understand well enough to follow easily.
>
> ### - sneer, sneer, sneer... see what i mean? :)

Scientists are subhumans to you, "outwardly sociologically groomed-to-
be-a-moron robots". If you're going to complain about sneering, dude,
you'd better wipe the sneer off your own face first. I don't put up
with that kind of hypocritical whining. When you dish it out, you're
going to get it right back.

### - if that were true then children would also fall into the category of being
subhuman, only they're not...plus hey i can handle it alright? just don't start
something you can't finish (or even need to start) just because someone/anyone
doesn't agree with you... besides, i don't sneer... although i'm not above lobbing
back a rock someone just threw over my fence (i.e. people living in glass houses
and all that applies, so be warned ;)

besides, there's essentially no need for enmity, i may joke, be irreverent + make
wise-cracks etc, but never maliciously unless i'm returning something that was
'just' thrown over, in which case i'm not responsible for any damage it causes,
they threw it, it circled round and landed back right on their greenhouse breaking
several panes, but then it would have never happened if they hadn't thrown that
rock in the first place, see? so basically they did it to themselves, tough luck
then + don't do it if you can't handle any consequences :)

> for example, maybe instead you could have applied your intelligence to
> literature/art and lived a very different life altogether as a direct
> consequence?
> and that while science and logic is all very well and respected and all that,
> the
> only way they'll ever get to 'other worlds' is in the glorified washing machines
> they call rocketships :)

There you go again, directing your attention to me while you
completely ignore the argument so that you don't have to deal with
it.

### - well you started it, not me heh...

You have taken a position that no literature is art because it
uses words instead of pictures.

### - no i haven't lol... that's just you saying i did... i never said that... (ok
then show me where exactly:)

That has nothing to do with your
speculations about my career choices, of which you are completely
ignorant. Nor does it have anything to do with whether or not
"rocketships" are "glorified washing machines".

### - i used you as a benign example, big deal + no biggie... and i used it to
make a point you're singularly ignoring in-favour of making things personal (which
appears as deliberate evasion on your part)

i didn't want to, but so ok if ya wanna make it all personal then i can do that
too, hence using you 'in' an example... but you couldn't even handle that without
becoming outraged and indignant, all these emotions, tsk tsk, no wonder you can't
reason properly without descending to personal insults and the like? (and btw that
'was' a dig, you've been begging for one and i've obliged if-only so you'll be
able to tell the difference in future between 'imagined' insults and 'actual'
ones...

"the point being that art is said to be able to express Truth more
adequately, essentially because it 'departs' from language rather than
further reinforcing it? iow, in attempting to 'define' things language
only really succeeds in pushing further away from us the Reality we
set out in the first place to discover..."

That indicates that any use of language is not "genuine art", since
art "departs" from language and "language only pushes us further from
Reality". So, according to you, Shakespeare was a hack, not a
"genuine artist".

### - hahaha i think you're not making any effort at all? i.e. you're not actually
making any attempt to understand (even scientifically) you're so desperately
trying to nail everything down and thus making everything into an either/or
situation... that you can no longer even see the flaws in your own arguments and
logic...

so intent have you in fact become on grinding me into the dust beneath your heal
that you haven't noticed just how lame your cherished reasoning has actually
become of late? what started out all shiny and bright and crisp has suddenly
become rather dull and sullen instead... (for goodness sake stop being soo
negative! i mean)

> So, in your definition of art, Shakespeare is subhuman? After all,
> his work is one hundred percent language. It has no pretty pictures
> for you to look at. Donald Duck comic books, however, would be far
> superior as examples of art, because they have lots of colorful
> pictures and don't strain your intellect much.
>
> ### - i know it's difficult for you to understand if everything's not all in
> nice
> neat little sequential boxes and pigeonholes, so trying to explain to you just
> how
> it is then that written literature, which (as in the case of Shakespeare)
> contains
> no pictures or explanatory diagrams, can be worded in such a way so as to
> deliberately manipulate/work someone's imagination in such a way so as
> communicate
> something of potential value that isn't always necessarily obvious at first
> glance...

Nice backpedalling, but it's to no avail.

### - lol it's not back-peddling if that's what i've been saying all long (which i
have and is the case even if you didn't understand it:)

Your statement that
"language only pushes us further from reality" is actually wrong and
art doesn't always "'depart' from language". At least have the
intergrity to admit your errors when you make them.

### - Reality is ostensibly wordless and language-less... basically because
Reality arrived without one single word or though being involved in the process...

years later, billions of years later i mean, the microbe mankind stands up on his
little soapbox and proclaims language king and himself along with it, abruptly
turns his back on the ways of the rest of the universe and goes his 'own' way
while now proclaiming that it's always been like this... that language is reality
and reality language and that's the end of the argument... next subject please etc
etc etc :)

> but then perhaps that's even part of the art 'of' it that 'makes' it art rather
> than just another bunch of empty words on some advertising leaflet for the next
> meeting of 'science-club' :)

Your sneering is becoming almost constant now. I strongly doubt you
have the emotional control necessary to stop the degeneration of your
conversation into nothing but a series of attempts to insult and
belittle once you've gotten that ball rolling. I'll warn you, though,
that I'm pretty competent at that sort of thing too.

### - well i'm not just gonna stand there and let you run all over me tom lol,
what did you expect? (if you can't handle it then don't start it ok?) added to
which you're accusing me of the very things you yourself do, something i think
must be also pretty obvious to anyone else reading all this too... you've
obviously played this hardball game-tack before, but you'll never get one over on
old slider hehehe, i'm not as rationally confused as you are, see? :)

> ### - i've already admitted that i'm no expert in speaking your 'lingo' - you're
> a
> nice guy and all that, but frankly i'm just not prepared to 'wade-in' that deep
> to chat to you!

As I said, I don't think you have the emotional control necessary to
continue this conversation with mutual respect. I think you're all
tuckered out and getting a little crabby.

### - haha you wish! lol i'm only getting started my friend + i'll meet you on
'any' terms and still get my message across (if you want a pissing contest i can
do that too, and still beat you... but i'd rather not do it that way + the choice
is being left entirely up to you which way it goes... i can't be fairer than
that...

personally i suggest returning to the early ways of our debating, keep it all
clean and personal-insult free, argue one's points as best they can in whatever
way they have to/can, and try to agree to leave our 'egos' outside of the debating
room...

i can return to all the above in an instant, can you?

let's see if we can't beat the odds :)

-----------------------

"It is not enough to have a good mind.
The main thing is to use it well." --Descartes

Evergreen

unread,

Jan 29, 2010, 12:35:48 AM1/29/10

to

On alt.magick, slider <sli...@anashram.com> wrote:

> Tom wrote...
>
>> ### - i thought i'd already spelled this all out to you in my
>> own way, but apparently not...

Yeh. You've forgotten: Tom knows more about everything than
anyone on Earth. Just ask him.

Sensible people killfile this motormouthed jerk like I have.

No thread he participates in is worth reading.

[delete]

Sid

--
Sidney Lambe
Apprentice Magician
http://tinyurl.com/7vs9zb
usenet4444 (at) gmail (dot) com

slider

unread,

Jan 29, 2010, 11:08:52 AM1/29/10

to

Evergreen wrote...

>> Tom wrote...
>>
>>> ### - i thought i'd already spelled this all out to you in my
>>> own way, but apparently not...
>
> Yeh. You've forgotten: Tom knows more about everything than
> anyone on Earth. Just ask him.
>
> Sensible people killfile this motormouthed jerk like I have.
>
> No thread he participates in is worth reading.
>
> [delete]
>
>
> Sid

### - hey sid, the guy is obviously highly intelligent, something which might
account for the annoying know-it-all/high-handed attitude...

i.e. perhaps it's just that no one has ever successfully challenged him that
accounts for it :)

-----------------

"We don't see things as they are. We see them as *we* are." - Talmud

Message has been deleted

slider

unread,

Jan 29, 2010, 12:41:32 PM1/29/10

to

-hi wrote...

For cryin' out loud, get a clue, buy a vowel ... the wheel is rigged.

### - pardon? :)

Scoop

unread,

Jan 29, 2010, 2:48:05 PM1/29/10

to

In alt.fan.rawilson, slider <sli...@anashram.com> wrote:

: "We don't see things as they are. We see them as *we* are." - Talmud

No, it doesn't.

Tom

unread,

Jan 29, 2010, 4:05:44 PM1/29/10

to

On Jan 28, 9:23 pm, "slider" <sli...@anashram.com> wrote:
> Tom wrote...
>

> If all "genuine artists" point at a world unadorned with the products
> of imagination, as you said, then "genuine art" is devoid of those
> self-same products.
>
> ### - genuine art is only an 'attempt' to represent that which cannot actually be
> accurately portrayed or represented, thus is all art by necessity and nature
> incomplete, so in a way you're actually correct but not quite in the negative
> way you construed it to mean...

So "genuine art" is that which does not accurately represent the world
as it is. A lie does that. Doesn't that make all "genuine art" a
lie? Does that mean that telling the truth, that is, accurately
representing actual events or feelings, is never "genuine art"? Or,
if no representation could possibly be accurate, does that mean every
representation is "genuine art"?

> Once again you have completely eliminated any verbal art, such as
> poetry or literature, which are comprised solely of that awful,
> counterproductive, and inartistic "language". Language refers to the
> world, represents the world, in just the same way your nonverbal arts
> do, but in a different medium. When I say the word "apple", I don't
> just think of the letters of the word but of the fruit itself. It's
> completely nonsensical to declare that just because they have words in them.
>
> ### - verbal 'descriptions' (not arts) are unconnected to the real world if, for
> example, that original/real world is completely silent and totally devoid of
> language altogether...

But the real world is not completely silent nor is the real world
totally devoid of language altogether, unless you are arguing that
language doesn't actually exist, in which case this conversation does
not actually exist either. Do you suggest that you are merely
imagining that we are communicating in some non-existent language?

Now all that is merely language goes away when language stops and yet
there is reality that persists even in the absence of language, but
that's not to say that reality is devoid of language entirely. Only
some of reality is apart from language, not all of it. Language
represents the world. It's a food part of the stuff upon which we
build our models of the world. Those representations are real
representations, even if they are not the things that are
represented. The map is not the territory, but it *is* a map.

> iow language and description can 'only' pertain to un-real worlds that
> language and description has modelled and created itself which 'makes' them unreal
> no matter how real those worlds may 'appear' to reason to be...

If I describe an apple, does that mean there is no fruit upon which
the description is based? If, as you assert, language can only
describe unreal things, then there can be no real apples. Now, if I
describe an apple as a small round red fruit that tastes sweet, my
description is not completely accurate, because apples are not exactly
circular nor are they all red or all sweet. Yet, the description does
fit accurately enough that someone who hears and understanding it
could tell that I'm not describing a cow. Are you suggesting that my
description of an apple could be confused with that of a cow? A
description does not have to be perfect to be serviceable.

Further, there are degrees of accuracy, depending on how detailed you
want to make your descriptions. For example, if I describe an apple
as an irregular spheroid, that is more accurate than if I describe it
as round.

> So if someone does not get the message, it's because the artist isn't
> really producing art?
>
> ### - either that... or because they're just too wilfully blind, pedantic and
> obtuse to 'allow' themselves to get it?

> i.e. just because someone doesn't get the message doesn't necessarily mean it's
> not art, it might mean that the viewer's a bit thick, or just has his eyes
> closed :)

The reasons why don't matter. The plain fact is that what you
consider art is only that art whose message you get. But as you say,
that has nothing to do with whether the work is art or not, but only
whether you get it or not. Yet, you are proclaiming that this or that
work is not art simply because you don't get it.

So, if you personally don't get it, does that mean its not art
universally, or only for you personally? Must a work of art be
interpreted identically by everyone in order to be art, or is it art
if even people disagree about what it means, including the opinion of
some that it means nothing to them?

> (maybe because they don't 'want' to get
> it? but then that would be like those scientists seeing only what they want to see
> and rationalising, wouldn't it :)

Are you suggesting that scientists cannot see anything but what they
expect to see? Are you aware of how flagrantly your statement flies
in the face of facts?

Let me give you a couple of examples of unexpected scientific
discoveries. In 1791, Luigi Galvani was studying nerve fibers. He
had dissected some frog legs and had them hanging from some thin
copper wire that he had handy. A puff of wind blew in through a
window and caused the copper wire to swing back and forth,
accidentally touching an iron railing. A static electric discharge
sparked and the frog legs jumped. Galvani was totally surprised. It
was a phenomenon that he had never even suspected. Yet here was the
key to the electrical nature of nerve action.

In 1879, Louis Pasteur was trying to apply some of his principles of
sterilization to the problem of cholera among chickens. In his
earlier work, he had found that microorganisms could be selectively
killed or discouraged from breeding by altering some critical
condition in their environment before they were introduced to a host
(pasteurization). He expected to find some chemical agent or filter
that would sterilize whatever it was that was introducing cholera into
the chickens. To that end, he had cultivated the chicken cholera
bacilli in a number of jars, which he would then introduce into the
chickens in a variety of ways. By finding the ways that the bacteria
were getting to the chickens, he could then find a way to sterilize
that medium and thus prevent the animals from getting cholera. That
was what he was after, what he expected. What he ended up with was
radically different and totally unexpected.

One of his assistants had been careless and had not properly sealed
one of the jars of cholera bacteria just before Pasteur and his team
went on a vacation. While they were out playing, the bacteria in that
badly closed jar was gradually becoming more and more weakened by
exposure to the air. Pasteur and crew came back a few days later and
started work again. However, when they introduced the bacteria from
that bad jar, the chickens didn't die as he expected they would.
Instead they got a little sick and then got better. Well, that was
puzzling, but sometimes puzzling things happen, so he simply continued
and tried a different jar with the fully active cholera germs in it.
And here came another, even bigger, surprise. The chickens that had
been exposed to the weakened bacteria no longer got sick no matter how
they introduced the strong bacteria. Somehow, the very bodies of the
chickens who survived cholera had become immune to any further
infections by the germ. By a totally unexpected event, Pasteur had
discovered the principle of vaccines.

So here are two major advances in scientific research that took place
because the scientists didn't see what they expected. There are
plenty of other examples, but those two should serve as a complete
refutation of your claim that scientists see only what they expect.

> What does a blind person get from painting? So
> painting, by failiing to get its message across to a blind person, is
> not "Art" in your esitmation.
>
> ### - i don't know if you realise just how dumb that looks?

It does indeed look dumb. That's why I'm asking you if that's what
you really meant, because it sure looks like it.

> The way you are portraying it, art is
> only "Art" if you can appreciate it with whatever neurological
> deficits you might have. So the existence of "Art" is entirely a
> subjective value judgment of the beholder. In other words, it's what
> you like versus what you don't like.
>
> ### - this is what you get when reason tries to define art using its own criteria
> to do so, it can't possibly make it but refuses to admit defeat, and so it goes
> around in circles and imagines it's actually getting somewhere when really it's
> just turning on the spot in a form of almost deliberate denial of a reality that's
> potentially devoid of reason altogether...

Is that what you're doing then, denying reality? It seems so, because
you're going round and round, refusing to admit defeat, and are
imagining that you're getting somewhere when what you're really doing
is simply getting caught in contradiction after contradiction. You
are saying that some work is "genuine art" only if it fits your
personal criteria, regardless of how anyone else feels about it, which
is a totally subjective judgment. And yet you are also trying to
claim that whatever you personally deem to be "genuine art" or "not
art" is universally true. Further, you claim that the pretty patterns
made 70000 years ago is art but then also claim that art is not pretty
patterns. Round and round you go, contradicting yourself again and
again.

> plus it's not at all what i, or you, or anyone, even the artist himself, likes or
> dislikes beyond maybe deciding what materials/medium to use... only the 'message'
> contained therein actually counts for anything,
> and seeing as there's only ever
> the one single message to communicate every time, the artist thus has free reign
> then to get that message across in any way, shape or form he so desires and/or can
> possibly come up with...

You only approve it as art if it sends you, personally, a certain
message. If it doesn't send you the message you want and expect, you
don't consider it art. And you declare that it's not art in a
universal sense, not just in your personal opinion. And here you are
complaining about *scientists* seeing only what they expect to see!
You are consciously choosing to do just that.

> This is not a deficit of the
> artform but a deficit of the particular audience. Just because *you*
> can't see it doesn't mean that nobody can.
>
> ### - well here you've just answered your own question of before + this above last
> of yours is almost exactly the same answer i gave to you in reply the first time
> round when you didn't understand (how very odd :)

Perhaps it has to do with all the other contradictory messages you've
been sending at the same time. It appears that you pick and choose
your among your mutually exclusive statements according to whatever
paragraph we happen to be in. That's what I've been calling
"rationalization", the finding of convenient excuses, as distinct from
"rationality", which exhibits consistency across the paragraphs.

Of course, you're arguing *against* rationality, so I suppose that's
only to be expected.

> That's because you have put blinders on your view of science to such a
> degree that you can't even see scientists as whole human beings. The
> emotional balance that allows rationality to work is not within the
> rational process but exists in the matrix in which reason happens.
>
> ### - you're confused...

I'm quoting you directly.

"...which is great if ya wanna be a scientist, but a downright

handicap if ya ever wanted to be an artist, or just a whole human

being".

Clearly you are saying that scientists are not whole human beings.
There is no confusion about that. It's an overt and unambiguous
statement that you consider scientists to be less than whole human
beings. It's simply a blind prejudice on your part and one that
distorts your view of the rational process and the scientific metthod
into nothing more than a disparaging cartoon.

> i.e. we loosely agreed once before about certain 'rare' individuals who stuck to
> the scientific method to a greater degree than their fellow scientists who
> sometimes can perhaps also be guilty of rationalisation/seeing what they want to
> personally see etc, but which in no way detracts from the scientific method just
> because of them and their personal sloppiness etc etc...

You put "rare" in quotes. Who are you quoting? You or me? Or are
you just now making the word up and declaring that we both agreed upon
it somehow by means of some sort of time travel? I don't see
understanding of the scientific method as "rare" at all. Not everyone
who works in a profession that is labelled "scientific" understands
it, but quite a lot do.

> my question to you now
> being: of the above two types you've described, which then would you say is the
> 'more' whole, the one's with a tendency to rationalise or the rarer ones that
> don't?

Not all human beings have the same outlook, but a difference in
outlook is not a divorce from the species. It is typical of people
who like to use derogatory stereotypes to represent people who
disagree with them to refer to them in dehumanizing terms. Like "OK
for scientists but not for whole human beings" or "of the 'soul'
rather than of reason". Both are attempts to dehumanize those who
advocate for rationality. In one they are overtly less than human and
in the other they lack human "souls".

> iow, obviously there are 'degrees' of wholesomeness...

No, actually there aren't in this case. They are simply derogatory
attempts to dehumanize people who don't agree with you on the subject
of rationality.

> so from the artists pov
> it's not that scientists are subhuman, it's just that they (like many others) are
> lacking in another part to their nature

I don't think that this is really "the artists POV". I think it is
your personal POV and that lots of artists who are more egalitarian
than you are would disagree with you. Of course, in those cases, you
would simply declare that such heretics were not "genuine artists",
since they aren't sending you the one message you demand that all
artists must send. They would also then be denounced as "lacking a
part to their nature" that "whole human beings" possess. And so your
dehumanizing rationalization would continue.

> because it's been (and is being) globally
> suppressed as part and parcel of the overall processes of reason which states:
> "They simply aren't involved in that particular process at the moment"

That's paranoid nonsense. Nobody is engaged in any global conspiracy
to rob you of your feelings.

> > Because you see rationality as completely divorced from humanity
> > because of the impassible gulf you assume to exist between science and
> > humanity, you conclude that emotion has no part in the process of
> > reasoning and therefore the creature that does science is some cold,
> > emotionless, artless subhuman.
>
> ### - essentially yes

I thought so. Now you confirm it directly.

> because as you said: "They simply aren't involved in that
> particular process at the moment"

That's your latest excuse, perhaps. However, I suspect you've held
your belief in the lack of humanity of anyone who thinks differently
from you for a lot longer than that.

Tom

unread,

Jan 29, 2010, 4:07:24 PM1/29/10

to

On Jan 28, 9:35 pm, Evergreen <sidneyla...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> Yeh. You've forgotten: Tom knows more about everything than
> anyone on Earth. Just ask him.

Ironically, Sid has never asked me this question.

> Sensible people killfile this motormouthed jerk like I have.

Sid's definition of "sensible people" is Sid.

-hi-

unread,

Jan 29, 2010, 5:04:20 PM1/29/10

to

On Jan 29, 4:05 pm, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Jan 28, 9:23 pm, "slider" <sli...@anashram.com> wrote:

You guys are just kidding, right? "Mine is longer than yours."?!?
After all this, that's the best your two great minds can come up with?

Thanks, but no thanks. I'm unsubscribed to this group as of now. If
anybody wants to talk, you'll know how to find me. Have a nice day.

-hi-

slider

unread,

Jan 29, 2010, 5:50:51 PM1/29/10

to

Tom wrote...

> If all "genuine artists" point at a world unadorned with the products
> of imagination, as you said, then "genuine art" is devoid of those
> self-same products.
>
> ### - genuine art is only an 'attempt' to represent that which cannot actually

>beaccurately portrayed or represented, thus is all art by necessity and nature

> incomplete, so in a way you're actually correct but not quite in the negative
> way you construed it to mean...

So "genuine art" is that which does not accurately represent the world
as it is. A lie does that. Doesn't that make all "genuine art" a
lie? Does that mean that telling the truth, that is, accurately
representing actual events or feelings, is never "genuine art"? Or,
if no representation could possibly be accurate, does that mean every
representation is "genuine art"?

### - your difficulty in understanding stems from the fact that you're trying to
pin down something that can't actually 'be' pinned down and defined... accordingly
even genuine art cannot accurately represent the real world, at best all it can do
is to accurately 'allude' to it... it can 'point' towards it or in its direction,
but the finger that points is not the thing it's pointing at...

i.e. a representation is what it says: a representation, and not the object it's
representing... therefore in a 'sense' representations are indeed lies if you wish
to think of it that way... iow nothing can 'actually' + 'truly represent the real
world in a literal sense except that real world itself, and that world doesn't
bother with representations... a world one can only discover/experience by digging
underneath mile-high stacks of representative 'models' of reality (iow, and
figuratively speaking: we paved 'paradise' and erected all our 'own' vastly
simplified intellectual and reasonable 'versions' of that original world)

> Once again you have completely eliminated any verbal art, such as
> poetry or literature, which are comprised solely of that awful,
> counterproductive, and inartistic "language". Language refers to the
> world, represents the world, in just the same way your nonverbal arts
> do, but in a different medium. When I say the word "apple", I don't
> just think of the letters of the word but of the fruit itself. It's
> completely nonsensical to declare that just because they have words in them.
>
> ### - verbal 'descriptions' (not arts) are unconnected to the real world if, for
> example, that original/real world is completely silent and totally devoid of
> language altogether...

But the real world is not completely silent nor is the real world
totally devoid of language altogether, unless you are arguing that
language doesn't actually exist, in which case this conversation does
not actually exist either. Do you suggest that you are merely
imagining that we are communicating in some non-existent language?

### - animals may have rudimentary language, but those sounds they make are not at
all in the same category as human speech, thought and ideation, animals for
example make no representations or models of anything, in fact nothing animals do
is ever anything but right in the moment right where they are, thus one cannot at
all compare the sounds animals make in order to communicate with each other with
human language and chatter... so no the world isn't exactly 'silent', but in terms
of thought, thinking and language like humans do it, it absolutely is silent, only
'we' do that :)

Now all that is merely language goes away when language stops and yet
there is reality that persists even in the absence of language,

### - correct!!! (at last!) and that's basically all i've been saying/alluding to
throughout... (by jove, i think he's got it! :)

'the reality that exists in the absence of language' being the original reality
that existed long-long before humans ever appeared on the scene to alter it in any
way... plus i really like the way you've worded the above

basically now, we could at this point dump everything previously and begin again
with at least some common understanding between us that isn't all just forms of
logical arm-wrestling, and maybe even make some progress into the nature of that
'silent' (of descriptive language) world...

e.g. your opening words in the above statement of "all that is merely language
goes away when language stops" is imho a rather useful and astute observation in
that it tends to suggest/imply that the things/objects of language are somehow
illusionary and/or insubstantial, and only exist (if indeed they actually do) for
only just so long as the descriptive language of them is being
upheld/maintained...

which is a very strange proposition for logic to actually get-hold of unless it
first accepts the true nature of the results of descriptive language which
perforce has to include even itself at some point too... in which case "i think
therefore i am" has to become amended to 'i think therefore i'm not as real as i
would be if only i could stop thinking and describing' :)

understandably, logic absolutely hates (and resents) this whole argument because
if accepted it immediately effectively removes all and any influence logic can
ever come up with as being invalid and totally inappropriate in the real world,
which is not exactly an idea it appreciates very much and could get a bit ratty
(smile:)

the inescapable truth being that we human beings are obviously more (maybe even
much more) than just language alone, even though until now language has been
hogging all the limelight by placing itself, and all it's 'own' doings, completely
centre-stage!

the 'point' being that if one can do that (i.e. accept that we are more than
language alone demands/dictates) then it is precisely at this point one can begin
to look/enquire 'beyond' all those things that language has defined and
proscribes!

at which point the only thing left for reason and rationality to do is to
basically stand to one side in order to allow that enquiry/exploration to
commence, something which can only now be achieved because reason has finally
learned of (and accepted) something of its own limitations and abilities in
perceptual terms, and thus it can begin to learn to relax its hard/firm grip over
the total being that we in-reality actually are, the scope of which remains almost
totally unexplored because reason per se until now has always rather selfishly
kept a very firm lid on it all...

plus i suggest that in the light of the above to let's continue on from here tom,
as i feel to return to our previous 'haggling' over definitions would now be
completely superfluous, what say you? :)

Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq.

unread,

Jan 29, 2010, 6:10:52 PM1/29/10

to

Tom wrote:
>
>
> But the real world is not completely silent nor is the real world
> totally devoid of language altogether,

*Chuckle* so much for inner silence stopping talk.

--

Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq.

Domine, dirige nos.

Let the games begin!
http://fredeeky.typepad.com/fredeeky/files/sf_anthem.mp3
Owner|Moderator
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JoeTarot
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SomeThingsTarot

slider

unread,

Jan 29, 2010, 6:31:14 PM1/29/10

to

-hi- wrote...

You guys are just kidding, right? "Mine is longer than yours."?!?
After all this, that's the best your two great minds can come up with?

Thanks, but no thanks. I'm unsubscribed to this group as of now. If
anybody wants to talk, you'll know how to find me. Have a nice day.

### - awww don't give up quite so easily, some plays are rather boring for the
first three quarters of it, sometimes deliberately so in order to create/intensify
everything that suddenly all comes together in the final act (i can think of so
many plays along those lines, Arnold Wesker's 'Roots' comes to mind for one ;)

slider

unread,

Jan 29, 2010, 10:57:48 PM1/29/10

to

Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq.wrote...

> *Chuckle* so much for inner silence stopping talk.

### - sometimes you gotta get in to get out :)

Tom

unread,

Jan 29, 2010, 10:58:09 PM1/29/10

to

On Jan 29, 3:10 pm, "Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq." <jpsti...@isp.com>
wrote:

> Tom wrote:
>
> > But the real world is not completely silent nor is the real world
> > totally devoid of language altogether,
>
> *Chuckle* so much for inner silence stopping talk.

Are you still wandering around trying to stop other people from
talkiing by pretending you've "achieved inner silence"?

slider

unread,

Jan 29, 2010, 10:59:03 PM1/29/10

to

Scoop wrote...

> : "We don't see things as they are. We see them as *we* are." - Talmud
>
> No, it doesn't.

### - it?

Tom

unread,

Jan 29, 2010, 11:01:33 PM1/29/10

to

On Jan 29, 3:31 pm, "slider" <sli...@anashram.com> wrote:
> -hi- wrote...
>
> You guys are just kidding, right? "Mine is longer than yours."?!?

Well, it is.

> Thanks, but no thanks. I'm unsubscribed to this group as of now.

OBES noted.

> ### - awww don't give up quite so easily,

The guys has been posting on and off for years. Even if he does
leave, he'll wander back sooner or later.

His real complaint is that our posts are too long. Attention span
issues, you know.

slider

unread,

Feb 1, 2010, 12:19:02 AM2/1/10

to

Tom wrote...

> Thanks, but no thanks. I'm unsubscribed to this group as of now.

OBES noted.

> ### - awww don't give up quite so easily,

The guys has been posting on and off for years. Even if he does
leave, he'll wander back sooner or later.

### - i gotcha', we used to have a guy on our group who threathened almost every
week that he was "outa' here" - a way of expressing ultimate disgust perhaps, so
as if to: walk away disgusted :)

His real complaint is that our posts are too long. Attention span
issues, you know.

### - i tend to agree... not so much about sid (whom i've only spoken to once so i
don't really know him) but as to that of low attention span in general, something
which i observe often wavers in the face of the enormous concentration required in
order to not only maintain an increasingly exclusively conceptualised view of the
world around us, but also that of subsequently supplying our resulting actions
with the characteristic continuity that maintains and further expands said view...

this complicated by the fact that this acquiring of longer attention spans is
somewhat actively discouraged by a society who in true reductionist-style has
increasingly made 'concision' the focal point of nearly everything it does and
discusses (e.g. news items and concise comments that have exactly 15 seconds and
no longer to make their points clear if all the items included in the newscast are
to condensed into a 20 minute slot of valuable airtime)

which is actually a complex and fairly accurate analogy perhaps worthy of deeper
reflection and examination, but i hope you at least get my general/surface meaning
about how this drive to conceptualising exclusively, plus the concentration
required, conflicts/is conflicted with society's need/drive for concision wherein
if all the points involved are not all made and quickly resolved in timely
fashion, then attention span accordingly begins to waver and fidget
uncomfortably...

something which for some reason unknown makes me want to giggle
(don't ask, don't ask... it's just funny hehehe :)

Tom

unread,

Feb 1, 2010, 1:42:27 AM2/1/10

to

On Jan 31, 9:19 pm, "slider" <sli...@anashram.com> wrote:
> Tom wrote...
>

> His real complaint is that our posts are too long. Attention span
> issues, you know.
>
> ### - i tend to agree... not so much about sid (whom i've only spoken to once so i
> don't really know him)

Sid can only pay attention to one thing. Sid. His attention slips
right off anything else. You'll see.

> but as to that of low attention span in general, something
> which i observe often wavers in the face of the enormous concentration required in
> order to not only maintain an increasingly exclusively conceptualised view of the
> world around us, but also that of subsequently supplying our resulting actions
> with the characteristic continuity that maintains and further expands said view...

What was that again? I wasn't paying attention.

> this complicated by the fact that this acquiring of longer attention spans is
> somewhat actively discouraged by a society who in true reductionist-style has
> increasingly made 'concision' the focal point of nearly everything it does and
> discusses (e.g. news items and concise comments that have exactly 15 seconds and
> no longer to make their points clear if all the items included in the newscast are
> to condensed into a 20 minute slot of valuable airtime)

I would think you would approve of the shrinkage of attention span,
since ultimately rational thought depends on the ability to keep one's
focus. The more distracted one is, the less rational thought can be
engaged. Emotional reactions and mindless habits happen much faster
than rationality. Motivational psychologists have understood this for
many years. The best way to sell anything is to present it very
simply and briefly along with powerful sensory/emotional stimulation.
As attention span decreases, so does sales resistance and critical
thinking. Complex ideas and chains of logic cannot compete with
flashing lights, loud music, sexual arousal, and violence.

slider

unread,

Feb 1, 2010, 4:36:11 AM2/1/10

to

Tom wrote...

> His real complaint is that our posts are too long. Attention span
> issues, you know.

> but as to that of low attention span in general, something

> which i observe often wavers in the face of the enormous concentration required

> inorder to not only maintain an increasingly exclusively conceptualised view of
> theworld around us, but also that of subsequently supplying our resulting

> actions with the characteristic continuity that maintains and further expands
> said view...

What was that again? I wasn't paying attention.

### - i summed up the first and second paragraphs in the third which you've
snipped

*i hope you at least get my general/surface meaning

about how this drive to conceptualising exclusively, plus the concentration
required, conflicts/is conflicted with society's need/drive for concision wherein
if all the points involved are not all made and quickly resolved in timely
fashion, then attention span accordingly begins to waver and fidget

uncomfortably...*

iow, offset 'against' increasing our attention span (the better to concern
ourselves with rational and reasonable things) is this very thing you describe in
the next part of your reply re the likes of motivational psychologists
deliberately shaping reason in such a way so as to reduce attention span for the
purposes of not only increased sales etc, but also that too of a more generalised
kind of general apathy wherein it then becomes increasingly easier to just let
someone else make all our decisions for us and/or on our behalf...

a situation that suits any advertising agency no end, but also has other very
useful knock-on sociological purposes/ripple-effects too, as for example in the
highest field of public influence and control there is: politics and politicians,
all of whom are purportedly elected to represent/speak-for everyone else (i.e.
thus not only telling us what to buy, but also whom/what to vote for based on
those now same 'reduced' sets of induced arbitrary values, all of which no doubt
(and by necessity) contains trimmed snippets of information/news that can now be
trimmed in such a way so as to elicit just about any public reaction that's
desired)

> this complicated by the fact that this acquiring of longer attention spans is
> somewhat actively discouraged by a society who in true reductionist-style has
> increasingly made 'concision' the focal point of nearly everything it does and
> discusses (e.g. news items and concise comments that have exactly 15 seconds and
> no longer to make their points clear if all the items included in the newscast

> are to (be) condensed into a 20 minute slot of valuable airtime)

I would think you would approve of the shrinkage of attention span,
since ultimately rational thought depends on the ability to keep one's
focus.

### - the one has nothing to do with the other... e.g. faulty assumptions are the
result of too-rapid/brief examination of the data involved... the point being that
once someone is 'already' operating within the field of reason and rationality, to
have their attention span reduced only results in them becoming
rational/reasonable to increasingly mundane degrees/levels, which although exposes
them to greater emotional influences doesn't actually remove them from the field
of reason per se...

and because to achieve 'that' one needs 'inordinate' amounts of
attention span that supersedes even that of maintaining very high levels of
reason (e.g. long enough to even 'arrive' at the point of contemplating reason
per se as a whole, and thus the possibility of perceiving beyond it and
reason/language per se)

The more distracted one is, the less rational thought can be
engaged. Emotional reactions and mindless habits happen much faster
than rationality.

### - a shallow person doesn't concern themselves with the pursuits of higher
reasoning but typically occupies their time with more mundane trivial pursuits and
practical things, which from an advertisers pov becomes sheer heaven-on-legs
(shooting ducks in a barrel etc) in that they can then appeal to buyers on that
same mundane level using various coercions/powerful emotional appeals to which
anyone barred from higher reasoning will automatically be subject to...

further information on this can be found in Noam Chomsky's book/video documentary
'Manufacturing Consent' which rather amazingly can still be found in its entirety
on google videos here...

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-5631882395226827730#

Motivational psychologists have understood this for
many years. The best way to sell anything is to present it very
simply and briefly along with powerful sensory/emotional stimulation.
As attention span decreases, so does sales resistance and critical
thinking. Complex ideas and chains of logic cannot compete with
flashing lights, loud music, sexual arousal, and violence.

### - exactly... society wants people to be rational for utilitarian purposes, but
not deep thinkers lest their automatons become dissatisfied with their lot, turn
into oliver twists and start asking for 'more' :)

Tom

unread,

Feb 1, 2010, 11:11:29 AM2/1/10

to

On Feb 1, 1:36 am, "slider" <sli...@anashram.com> wrote:
>
> *i hope you at least get my general/surface meaning
> about how this drive to conceptualising exclusively, plus the concentration
> required, conflicts/is conflicted with society's need/drive for concision wherein
> if all the points involved are not all made and quickly resolved in timely
> fashion, then attention span accordingly begins to waver and fidget
> uncomfortably...*

Sorry, it still looks like babble to me. I have no idea what
"conceptualising exclusively" means, if anything. Nor can I find a
"society's need/drive for concision". I see a struggle for control,
which can be simulated by oversimplification, but concision is quite
different from oversimplification.

I doubt you'll ever be able to put your statement into a coherent
structure, since it's based on your admitted prejudice against
rational thinking and those who engage in it. There is no way you can
argue rationally against rationality. Thus you've doomed yourself to
incoherence.

> iow, offset 'against' increasing our attention span (the better to concern
> ourselves with rational and reasonable things) is this very thing you describe in
> the next part of your reply re the likes of motivational psychologists
> deliberately shaping reason in such a way so as to reduce attention span for the
> purposes of not only increased sales etc,

They are not shaping *reason*. They are shaping *behavior*.

> but also that too of a more generalised
> kind of general apathy wherein it then becomes increasingly easier to just let
> someone else make all our decisions for us and/or on our behalf...

Apathy is exactly what the herder wants from his sheep. And the sheep
generally like it too. It's peaceful and comfortable, being protected
and provided for from birth to death.

> > this complicated by the fact that this acquiring of longer attention spans is
> > somewhat actively discouraged by a society who in true reductionist-style has
> > increasingly made 'concision' the focal point of nearly everything it does and
> > discusses (e.g. news items and concise comments that have exactly 15 seconds and
> > no longer to make their points clear if all the items included in the newscast
> > are to (be) condensed into a 20 minute slot of valuable airtime)
>
> I would think you would approve of the shrinkage of attention span,
> since ultimately rational thought depends on the ability to keep one's
> focus.
>
> ### - the one has nothing to do with the other... e.g. faulty assumptions are the
> result of too-rapid/brief examination of the data involved...

Assumptions are *never* rational. So that's something else I'd think
you'd approve of.

> the point being that
> once someone is 'already' operating within the field of reason and rationality, to
> have their attention span reduced only results in them becoming
> rational/reasonable to increasingly mundane degrees/levels,

No, they become *less* rational. I thought I'd already pointed that
out. Rationality takes time and doesn't jump to conclusions. The
less time one has to think and the more random jumping around one
does, the less rational one becomes.

> The more distracted one is, the less rational thought can be
> engaged. Emotional reactions and mindless habits happen much faster
> than rationality.
>
> ### - a shallow person doesn't concern themselves with the pursuits of higher
> reasoning

So you approve of shallowness?

> Motivational psychologists have understood this for
> many years. The best way to sell anything is to present it very
> simply and briefly along with powerful sensory/emotional stimulation.
> As attention span decreases, so does sales resistance and critical
> thinking. Complex ideas and chains of logic cannot compete with
> flashing lights, loud music, sexual arousal, and violence.
>
> ### - exactly... society wants people to be rational for utilitarian purposes,

No, "society" wants stability. Rationality doesn't offer nearly as
much stability as passive obedience.

> but
> not deep thinkers lest their automatons become dissatisfied with their lot, turn
> into oliver twists and start asking for 'more' :)

But the herders want the sheep to ask for more. It motivates even
greater obedience. You cannot reliably motivate someone to do what
you tell them if that person doesn't want anything.

slider

unread,

Feb 1, 2010, 2:48:33 PM2/1/10

to

Tom wrote...

> *i hope you at least get my general/surface meaning
> about how this drive to conceptualising exclusively, plus the concentration
> required, conflicts/is conflicted with society's need/drive for concision

> whereinif all the points involved are not all made and quickly resolved in

> timely fashion, then attention span accordingly begins to waver and fidget
> uncomfortably...*

Sorry, it still looks like babble to me. I have no idea what
"conceptualising exclusively" means, if anything. Nor can I find a
"society's need/drive for concision". I see a struggle for control,
which can be simulated by oversimplification, but concision is quite
different from oversimplification.

I doubt you'll ever be able to put your statement into a coherent
structure, since it's based on your admitted prejudice against
rational thinking and those who engage in it. There is no way you can
argue rationally against rationality. Thus you've doomed yourself to
incoherence.

### - well let's just say it's certainly a challenge heh ;)

'conceptualising exclusively' basically refers to the way human thinking has
changed over the last 100 years or so... thinking in those times being of a more
practical nature than today wherein we tend more to pure conceptualising than
practical matters...

for example... if 100 years ago one asked to describe a rabbit and a dog, the
likely explanation would have been that one chases the other, whereas today we'd
more likely say that both are mammals... which if you understand denotes a shift
towards that of abstract conceptualising...

the point being that humanity is heading for dealing in rational
conceptualisations ever-more exclusively as opposed to moving away from
rationality/reason as in Art, especially in an age where deep thinking is being
discouraged in favour of people leaving themselves open to the influence of
advertisers and politicians for example, who increasingly tell us all what to do
regardless of whether or not it's compromising our humanity...

> iow, offset 'against' increasing our attention span (the better to concern
> ourselves with rational and reasonable things) is this very thing you describe
> in the next part of your reply re the likes of motivational psychologists
> deliberately shaping reason in such a way so as to reduce attention span for the
> purposes of not only increased sales etc,

They are not shaping *reason*. They are shaping *behavior*.

### - yes, and they are shaping that behaviour by reducing/damaging people ability
to reason more than so...

> but also that too of a more generalised
> kind of general apathy wherein it then becomes increasingly easier to just let
> someone else make all our decisions for us and/or on our behalf...

Apathy is exactly what the herder wants from his sheep. And the sheep
generally like it too. It's peaceful and comfortable, being protected
and provided for from birth to death.

### - absolutely agreed! that's exactly what they all want! or rather, have come
to want for the reasons already given...

> > this complicated by the fact that this acquiring of longer attention spans is
> > somewhat actively discouraged by a society who in true reductionist-style has
> > increasingly made 'concision' the focal point of nearly everything it does and
> > discusses (e.g. news items and concise comments that have exactly 15 seconds

> > andno longer to make their points clear if all the items included in the

> > newscast
> > are to (be) condensed into a 20 minute slot of valuable airtime)
>
> I would think you would approve of the shrinkage of attention span,
> since ultimately rational thought depends on the ability to keep one's
> focus.
>
> ### - the one has nothing to do with the other... e.g. faulty assumptions are

> theresult of too-rapid/brief examination of the data involved...

Assumptions are *never* rational. So that's something else I'd think
you'd approve of.

### - you've assumed (or are at least acting on) the idea/conviction that just
because i've stated that i don't see reason and rationality as being sacrosanct
and/or as being the only thing that exists, that anything that then derides or
criticises said rationality is automatically approved of by me, even when i've
already said several times to you that this is not the case... iow, you're
assuming i would approve of something because it fits your own idea(s) of how
things should be... which if you don't stop doing it and enquire about the
discrepancy instead of over-riding my protestations, is only gonna really make you
look like a bit of hypocrite in the end, if you see what i mean...

> the point being that
> once someone is 'already' operating within the field of reason and rationality,
> to have their attention span reduced only results in them becoming
> rational/reasonable to increasingly mundane degrees/levels,

No, they become *less* rational. I thought I'd already pointed that
out. Rationality takes time and doesn't jump to conclusions. The
less time one has to think and the more random jumping around one
does, the less rational one becomes.

### - they may indeed become less rational, but that doesn't mean they leave (or
even consider leaving) the general field of reason altogether, rather they have a
lesser experience of it, which as i formerly maintained, renders them more open to
emotional influences than they otherwise would be... (something which suits the
likes of advertisers and politicians just fine)

> The more distracted one is, the less rational thought can be
> engaged. Emotional reactions and mindless habits happen much faster
> than rationality.
>
> ### - a shallow person doesn't concern themselves with the pursuits of higher
> reasoning

So you approve of shallowness?

### - lol you see here you go again with the erroneous assumptions haha... i mean,
who in their right mind would ever approve of shallowness?? so obviously i must
have meant something else which appears to be passing you by, even though several
times now i've pointed it out to you, plus even suggested at one point that you
were being wilfully obtuse...

i.e. why do you keep taking things 'out' of context and giving them your own? :)

> Motivational psychologists have understood this for
> many years. The best way to sell anything is to present it very
> simply and briefly along with powerful sensory/emotional stimulation.
> As attention span decreases, so does sales resistance and critical
> thinking. Complex ideas and chains of logic cannot compete with
> flashing lights, loud music, sexual arousal, and violence.
>
> ### - exactly... society wants people to be rational for utilitarian purposes,

No, "society" wants stability. Rationality doesn't offer nearly as
much stability as passive obedience.

### - well it wants stability as well, but only after they've been
persuaded/coerced to spend all their hard-earned monthly wages on a bunch of
commercialised rubbish, not to mention having also voted for whomever they've been
told to vote for this week :)

> but
> not deep thinkers lest their automatons become dissatisfied with their lot, turn
> into oliver twists and start asking for 'more' :)

But the herders want the sheep to ask for more. It motivates even
greater obedience. You cannot reliably motivate someone to do what
you tell them if that person doesn't want anything.

### - they certainly want them to ask for more, but only that which it has
previously been decided for them 'to' want and to ask for, and in order to
accomplish that intelligent beings perforce have first to be turned into obedient
sheeps, or at least scared ones who'll do what they're told by authority figures,
and that's done via keeping them all busy and under carefully worked out and
constructed sociological stress/duress...

e.g....

john lennon-- 'working class hero'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lKwXwU5iWs

As soon as you're born they make you feel small
By giving you no time instead of it all
Till the pain is so big you feel nothing at all
A working class hero is something to be
A working class hero is something to be

They hurt you at home and they hit you at school
They hate you if you're clever and they despise a fool
Till you're so fucking crazy you can't follow their rules
A working class hero is something to be
A working class hero is something to be

When they've tortured and scared you for twenty odd years
Then they expect you to pick a career
When you can't really function you're so full of fear
A working class hero is something to be
A working class hero is something to be

Keep you doped with religion and sex and tv
And you think you're so clever and classless and free
But you're still fucking peasants as far as I can see
A working class hero is something to be
A working class hero is something to be

There's room at the top they are telling you still
But first you must learn how to smile as you kill
If you want to be like the folks on the hill
A working class hero is something to be
A working class hero is something to be