[FRIAM] [dis]integrated

Tue Oct 12 11:50:20 EDT 2021

The source of all evil is *'is'*.

This notion is implicit and semi-explicit in most mystical philosophies and is explicitly applied to thinking in the works of Korzibski and the General Semantics literature that was briefly popular and widespread a few decades back.

davew

On Tue, Oct 12, 2021, at 9:29 AM, uǝlƃ ☤>$ wrote:
> Exactly, which is why Hume's Law is a criticism of axiomatic thinking. 
> We clearly do derive ought from is. Is is the only is that is. Is this 
> a type of moral realism? Emergentist morality?
>
> On 10/12/21 6:03 AM, Roger Critchlow wrote:
>> As Yogi Berra might have said: all this talk about the ineffable, je ne sais quoi.
>> 
>> The way that can be spoken is not the way, because the speaking itself spoils the effect.  Chuang Tzu's butcher can carve a beast in one fluid stroke of the knife, but he can't explain how he's doing it; and if he did explain how he was doing it, it wouldn't be the same it anymore.
>> 
>> https://inference-review.com/article/primate-memory <https://inference-review.com/article/primate-memory>
>> 
>>     IN MY OWN WORK, I have often described the social learning techniques of chimpanzees as education by master-apprenticeship.11 <https://inference-review.com/article/primate-memory#endnote-11> Mothers and other adults take on the role of the master. The young chimpanzees in the community learn by carefully observing the behavior of the masters. Observational learning has three important aspects: the master models behavior but does not actively teach it; the apprentice has a strong and intrinsic motivation to copy the behavior; and, importantly, the masters are tolerant toward their apprentices while they learn.
>> 
>> 
>> Note that the chimpanzees also learn to be teachers by the same method, they model the "moral obligation" to teach along with the practical lesson.  One could almost say that the chimpanzees "believe" in teaching their young.  Or that the chimps are practicing a kind of "ancestor worship" by preserving these activities in their "culture".  Then again one could write it all off to natural selection of traits that accidentally map to moral categories.
>> 
>> And we taller primates also learn a lot this way, language, moral judgment, bragging about our language skills and moral judgment, and bullying others to acknowledge our skills and accept our judgments.
>> 
>> -- rec --
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 4:53 AM uǝlƃ ☤>$ <gepropella at gmail.com <mailto:gepropella at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>>     I feel that way about anyone who "stands in awe" of anything, actually. We're consistently bombarded with phrases like "the majesty of" this or that ... or this or that "takes my breath away" and whatnot. Maybe we could call such nonsense the Idioms of Awe. Religious belief is the favorite bogey of atheists. But we find it everywhere. Back in Portland, I abutted so many "foodies", it literally dis-gusted me. Food is fuel. That's it. No matter how much the True Believers proselytize the latest fad, that Awesome New Breakfast Place or whatever. It's just food. Please eat so we don't have to hear you talk anymore.
>> 
>>     We see it a lot in our obComplexity crowd. We see it in the Singularians. We see it in the formalists and even the Dionysians. Runners are especially bad, coonnssttantly yapping about their religion. But weightlifters are no better. Even the mobility bros seem to have drunk the Kool-Aid. Pretty much anywhere anyone can "get carried away" with something, you'll find the True Believers waiting in the wings to swoop in and brainwash you.
>> 
>>     At least the Rationalists have a method for mind-changing, unlike most True Believers. But rationality isn't *fascinating*. People need to be fascinated. My own pet theory is that our anatomy has been pressured toward fascination, a desire to concentrate, to focus for an extended time. The trick is to ask, given the target domain/problem/issue, how long do we need to focus on it? Perhaps some domains really do need multiple generations of concentrating individuals. Perhaps some domains only need a few people to focus on it for a year or so.
>> 
>>     In that context, those who are seemingly stuck in some gravity well of True Belief are more pitiful than repulsive. (Or maybe they're repulsive *because* they're so pitiable?) What we need is an education program that gives the pathetic True Believers some tools that help them climb out of their hole. But like the cops responding to a call from a homeless camp littered with human feces and used needles, educating the True Believers can be dangerous. The abyss stares back into you.
>> 
>>     On 10/11/21 12:38 PM, David Eric Smith wrote:
>>     > Yeah I don’t know. 
>>     >
>>     > For some years I was working in ocean-floor engineering, and got a feel for seawater.  For all the devices you design, it is all-surrounding and omnipresent.  It relentlessly intrudes through any crack, seam, or pore, and it corrodes whatever it touches.  For whatever reason, this describes the affect of my response to people’s religiosity.  The more genuine and sincere they are, the stronger my aversion to that in them.  It’s not even the same as being averse to the whole person.  There are people of whom I think the world, and to whom I am very attached, in whom I just have to work around this one radioactive thing.  n.b., however, that all such people are related to me by birth.  There don’t seem to be any ones I have sought out as friends of whom that happens to be the case.  Maybe, borderline, one or two Jews, who seem to have a decorum and sense of proper privacy (those particular people, I mean) for themselves and for others.
>>     >
>>     > There is another metaphor that also serves.  I have a friend with fairly bad arachnophobia.  I was commenting that I didn’t know what that would feel like, as spiders don’t particularly bother me, was for example ticks do.  She commented that it was funny, because her brother had said the same thing, using the same examples.  The reason, of course, is that most spiders prefer to mind their own business.  (Some Australian mouse spiders, perhaps less so.)  For ticks, their business is _you_.  Likewise, there is no box within which religiosity is content to stay.  It’s business is always _you_, so you can never turn your back on it in rest.
>>     >
>>     > In trying to form a clear view, for my own purposes, of why I respond this way, in a quite different context earlier this week, I was thinking of trying to explain to someone that I grew up with religious people on me trying to force some kind of “religious conversion” and, in looking for a metaphor, the one that came to me was “like cops on a black man”.  And no matter how submissive I am and how much I would like to be cooperative, I so far have not found it in myself to want to go back into that.
>>     >
>>     > It surprises me that these studies don’t seem to address questions of domination and constriction, and the degree to which being able to breathe matters to one or another person.
>>     >
>>     > Eric
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >> On Oct 11, 2021, at 2:07 PM, Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com <mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com>> wrote:
>>     >>
>>     >> Doesn't work for me.   My parents are in a very liberal church and (I think) like it because it gives some structure and support in their community.   My dad's (I think formative) education at a strong liberal arts college probably contributed to my tendency to deconstruct things.   I'm not particularly annoyed with their semi-religious activities, but there were plenty of people in my high school that I found to be religious crazies who I almost felt obligated to abuse.  That hardened my atheism, but really it was hard right away in my early teenage years.
>>     >>
>>     >> -----Original Message-----
>>     >> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com>> On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$
>>     >> Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 9:43 AM
>>     >> To: FriAM <friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>>
>>     >> Subject: [FRIAM] [dis]integrated
>>     >>
>>     >> Study: Atheists are Made By Their Parents https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fskepchick.org%2f2021%2f10%2fstudy-atheists-are-made-by-their-parents%2f&c=E,1,2G1IsnysW37qkXOrMoyLXGgacehySvzlBBD0wGXgUiHZFPFiq8oRkLu4J8VyPqz0vteY4F9ijy0I1jQMz57JJIg1WkOeQPeOqYDV9WgSFj4,&typo=1 <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fskepchick.org%2f2021%2f10%2fstudy-atheists-are-made-by-their-parents%2f&c=E,1,2G1IsnysW37qkXOrMoyLXGgacehySvzlBBD0wGXgUiHZFPFiq8oRkLu4J8VyPqz0vteY4F9ijy0I1jQMz57JJIg1WkOeQPeOqYDV9WgSFj4,&typo=1>
>>     >>
>>     >> Much of the argument is about credible displays of faith and hypocrisy. I thought this might be interesting following on the epically bent thread on [in]consistency, as well as some old conversations about how well one can describe/explain some historical decision/branch-point in their own life.
>>     >>
>>     >> I land about where Rebecca does, I think.
>
>
> -- 
> "Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie."
> ☤>$ uǝlƃ
>
>
> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:
>  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20211012/839acdf7/attachment.html>