[FRIAM] hidden

[David Eric Smith]

This is why lists are a death trap, a kind of cognitive-affective pitcher plant.  Always there is the impulse to say “Oh no no no! You have misunderstood me!”.  But of course there is no sentence compassable that can’t be misunderstood.  Whoever is most tenacious will simply outlive the others, and I can promise you it won’t be me.  I can’t even imagine what social media must be like for the generation born into it.

So I can’t do even 1/10 of the line-by-line reply toward which I twitch, or this would turn into the through-the-night conversations between Moriarty and Ginsburg that Kerouac relates in On the Road, and I will accept defeat at the outset rather than go that way.

Only a couple of things, then.  I need to re-arrange:

> On May 20, 2020, at 3:48 AM, <thompnickson2 at gmail.com> <thompnickson2 at gmail.com> wrote:

>   They are so hell-bent on not giving an inch to the spiritualists (a worthy position IMO)
> [NST===>OK, so here I am about to confirm my philistinity… (By the way, when is the world going to wake up and remember that Philistine is a racist term.)

I do remember it, always since finding out about it.  Miserably it is part of the aggression in which such terms are used.  The people who would use it against the physicists do not intend to be kind.

> … by asking you what you think spiritualism is and what it is worthy OF?  In other words, I don’t think you get your “by the way.” It may be “in the way.”    <===nst] 

My original sentence can be read two ways, one of which is a good-natured, humorous supportive one toward what I read as your motive.  Being hell-bent on denying the spiritualists an inch is a worthy position IMO.   That was the intended meaning, both the good humor and the supportiveness, to say that my objections are bounded, and there is much in which I am on your side.   Should I say more about why you read it the other way?  No, clearly not.  Interestingly, because I _cannot_, and there is some fundamental element of courtesy in realizing there are limits to what one can know about another.  Something about being hidden….  (Sorry; that is trolling.)

And then:

> HEP: In principle, whatever you care about is a result of interaction of our building blocks.
> ROS: Well, okay, but your saying that hasn’t addressed basically anything in what we wanted to understand from what we do.
> HEP: Whatever you wanted to understand was just a problem of assembly.
> ROS: “Just assembly” has its own rules which are not already expressed in the rules by which you characterize your building blocks (Of course, the objection was never made with such circumspection, but usually in less clear terms.)
> HEP: Well, in principle we understand all that.
> ROS: Then In Practice, say something we find useful or interesting.
> HEP: In Principle we understand all that.
> ROS: You are a robot.
>  
> And in that way, “reductionist” got entrenched as a synonym for “philistine” who thinks there isn’t anything left to explain beyond a few descriptions of building blocks.  Not only did it lead to a lot of unproductive fighting, it also made it much harder for those who had useful points of view on what reductionism is, or isn’t, to relate its contributions to all the other work that involves understanding of new explanatory primitives.
> [NST===>If anybody on this list thinks I hold the above position, I have been a very poor expositor, indeed. <===nst] 


Followed by 

> [NST===>
[yes I have clipped content here, which does affect context, to highlight a part still intending good faith]
>  I am an “up-reductionist”.  My crime is that I assert that the one key to the mind is to look up and out, rather than down and in.   Our minds are something about us, not something within us.   <===nst]


“The one key to the mind”. “Our minds are … about … not … within”

This is why I answered Glen about Brouwer (Intuitionism, constructivism) versus the formalists.

If you make your above assertions as answers to a conversation in which you are not constructing something to address what the conversation is about (this question of inner/outer or hidden or whatever), what is the content of the formal assertions?  

Someone is asking you to search in the void for the surprise of a new thought.  You are answering by declaring a certain kind of sufficiency of thoughts you have long held fixed.  You are not claiming to be in possession of all constructions — I understand that and always have — but your “about … not … within” is a certain kind of changing the subject as a pre-emption.

In my cartoon of the reductionism of the physicists above, I wasn’t asking you to make a mapping from the domain-content of that discussion to the domain-content of this one — there is a crass older-school behaviorism, as you say, for which that kind of mapping would have worked, and I know that is not what is at work here, and you are not from that kind of mind — I was asking you to consider the style of thought that substitutes a formalist-style declaration of scope in answer to a constructivist-style search for something surprising because it is hard to find.

You did address this, in a style I recognize:
> My monism is limited to formal thought, to the project of building an approach to understanding that is as comprehensive and consistent as possible.  I.e., a scientific understanding. 

I understood a few days ago that this was the source of your (also good-natured) dig at me asking “must one be doing science all the time?  Isn’t it okay to sometimes have a bit of fun?” as a read of my position.

I believe I am as on-board with you as a person can be, in liking consistency, believing that science as an aspiration is somehow in that direction, etc.  If there is a difference in the way we are fencing over this position — and there may not be in substance so much as in style — it could be that I expect my belief in my ability to recognize that consistency to be much more thoroughly upended by new thoughts of kinds I could not anticipate.  So I don’t think I could define what “science” is, except from a very unimaginative appeal to things I currently happen to know about from our shared past,   I would include in that all the Piercing positions I have learned from you on this list, and more things I want to do with them.  But that’s just what is already in the library.  I hope to be floored by what is opened up by new ideas, the way I am floored by the curved spacetime geometry of black holes as a thinkable thing, which comes from outside my whole experiential history as an animal living in the nearly-flat spacetime of Earth.  

I just got off a long Skype call with a student, which is why this awful post got delayed.  At several points in the conversation, he started laughing, because suddenly he saw things, and understood that they had been just at his elbow seeable all the time, but not seen.  That laughter is the evidence.  He is a wonderful student because he would never think of suppressing the admission of it to maintain an image.  That surprise is what makes the miserable rest of it worth getting through.


But in the end, all was well anyway:

> [NST===>
[a clip, not related to what is kept]
> OK, so how about we commit ourselves right now to the design and execution of a research project on dreams.  How would we go about it?  I think it might turn out to be the hardest thing we ever did.  <===nst] 

Here you have yourself summarized everything I wanted to say. 

All best,

Eric

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20200520/e0a59d20/attachment.html>