[FRIAM] Unmediated perception - sheldrake

[Steven A Smith]

Dave -
>
> It seems like the ideas that seem to capture my imagination -
> Sheldrake, quantum consciousness among them - tend to be labeled as
> "pseudo." This is annoying, first because my hermeneutical hackles
> bristle whenever anyone tries to  assert their interpretation as
> privileged over someone else's; and because there seem to be so many
> cross-connections that afford all within the net to gain plausibility
> simply from being in the net.
>
Thanks for making this point and sharing this predilection.   I find a
duality in this experience myself which can be a challenge to manage.  I
deeply share your suspicion/resentment of "privileged interpretation".  
I also am deeply suspicious of persuasive modes of communication (NLP as
an extreme example, bad but conventional rhetoric second to that).  I
have been a direct "victim" of this in my life from time to time, but
more chronically I have *observed* others being persuaded to believe
things for which there is either shaky evidence or which is highly
contradicted by the evidence available.   My judgement of this can sound
or feel like my own positioning with "privileged interpretation" which
is what makes manipulative rhetoric so insidious.   I agree that all
that is labeled "pseudo" is not false or flimsy, or is only
*contingently* so. 

On the other hand, one of the common tools I've seen in this type of
manipulative rhetoric is to *claim* that dismissal by the mainstream is
nearly "proof" of truthiness.  For example, Climate Denial, AntiVax,
ChemTrails, UFOlogy, etc.  seem to hold up as their prime (or at least
significant) evidence the simple fact that the "mainstream" or the
"establishment" dismisses them.   The apparent bias of many to believe
anything wrapped up in the trappings of a "conspiracy".

On the other other hand, new or changing or revolutionary paradigms in
knowledge are *naturally* strongly or fundamentally counter to the
common/standard "truth".   Copernicus and Galileo and their move from
geocentric to heliocentric astronomical models.

You use the phrase "capture my imagination" which I find *also* holds a
dualism for me.   On the one hand, I believe that intuition is a
critical element in my own understanding and knowledge of the world.  On
the other, I find that my "imagination" is vulnerable to "whimsy" and a
carefully constructed "whimsy" can be as compelling in it's own way as
the biases of "conspiracy".   The carrot to go with the stick.

Being trained formally in Science and Mathematics, I have a deep respect
for the methods and sensibilities of those domains.   Working in "Big
Science" among a broad cross-cutting set of disciplines (27 years at
LANL) also gave me a deep suspicion of "received wisdom".   While the
largest portion of the work I observed stood on it's own merits, the
largest portion of the *funding* for the work seemed to follow the
biases of "privileged interpretation" and "received wisdom".   I also
felt that *publication* of scientific work went through a similar but
not as extreme biased filter.   Peer review and reproduction of results
are central to scientific progress, so this can be problematic. On the
other, other, other hand, irresponsible publication of "hooey" without
proper peer review seems somewhat pervasive and corrupts the process in
it's own insidious way.

<ramble off>

- Steve

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20190918/c9342faa/attachment.html>