[FRIAM] A longer response to Dave's question
Steven A Smith
sasmyth at swcp.com
Mon Feb 24 15:39:05 EST 2020
/On the Utility of Perception/Mood/Judgement/Inhibition-Altering
conditions and Reality/
It feels as if this subset of FriAM has begun to converge on a common
discussion, albeit from different perspectives with different
assumptions and different judgements. Let me add my own subroutine to
the annealing schedule:
Re: Dave's communion with a faux Brigham Young in the desert in front
of a virtual burning bush (erh... campfire). I think Dave will agree
that the specific imagery of one of the most revered elders in the
faith-tradition he was raised in is not coincidental for him to
"consult" while on a mystical quest to untangle a Gordian knot central
to his identity and place in the world. I think he would NOT expect
anyone without that embedding to meet Brigham or Joseph. A good
friend/colleague a few years my elder likes to make the deliberate
mis-statement "too much LDS in the sixties" to describe people whose
perceptions are not aligned with his own.
Among FriAMsters, there would be some here who would instead meet Peirce
or Einstein or Newton or even Aquinas or Aristotle. Sarbajit or
Mohammed would more likely meet a character from their own pantheons.
Others might commune with Coyote or Raven or a Tree. And rather than a
discussion, they might have a wrestling match or flying contest or
illicit orgy to work on their Gordian Knot of choice.
Eric's point that the apocryphal Benzene-as-Ouroboros ultimately yielded
insight about circularity/ringness/closedness, while the
snake/dragon/worm aspect was discarded as "excess meaning" (to try to
use Glen's terminology?). Dave's "vision in the desert mountains"
might have lead to insights (loosening/re-arranging of his Gordian Knot
regarding the ?pro-female? Ibrahamic religions) and maybe some insights
about his own relationship to the Patriarchy in which he was raised, but
he would probably NOT prescribe to any of us NOT from the LDS fold to
jack up on pain/drugs/breathing and go to that particular arroyo/wash
and expect to meet Brigham Young.
Dave's metaphor of a sieve with square and triangular holes and whether
it passes spheres well if at all is a very loosely applicable one I
suppose, if you assume a specific size or shapes that are not symmetric
(geometric cross-sections rather than tetrahedra/cubes/spheres).
Certainly more complex semi-permeable membranes which select for shape
would be yet more apt.
I very strongly agree with his analysis that in our multi-scale
adaptation to our environment and the threats/opportunities offered
against our survival/procreation unction (deeper than, but presented as
instincts?) has lead us to have some pretty specific filters. As
multicellular, warm-blooded vertebrates with highly developed visual and
linguistic neural mechanisms we are both *highly adaptable* and
*somewhat specific* at the same time. We probably can't perceive/think
very well in the milieu that the great cetaceans do (communication over
vast distances, a mostly 3D volumetric domain with relatively
"boring-to-them" surfaces, etc.) and vice-versa.
Given this, anything that helps us make excursions (excurde?) from the
envelopes of perception we have co-created with our environments (built
environments, infrastructures, etc.) has the potential for expanding our
awareness and admitting qualitatively new insights into "the nature of
reality" (assuming there IS such a thing as an objective reality outside
of our individual/collective selves).
I personally use computer-mediated perception (including simulation
models and visual-auditory-haptic synthetic sensoria) to try to achieve
this expanded awareness/insight into real-world phenomena, but with a
tacit goal of being able to "find my way back" and "lead someone else
there", or better yet "kit others out to find their own way".
The early "mountain men" of US expansion were perhaps most effective
if they *didn't* function well in polite society, or at least were tuned
to perform much better *outside of* polite society. But if they didn't
bother to come back TO society (recross the Mississippi to the
bars/brothels for the dead of winter, profligately spending up their
wealth of beaver-pelts or gold nuggets) or were unable to articulate
*where* they had been (even through tall tales, but possibly through
detailed journals/maps) and what they had seen, then they didn't provide
much utility to the rest of us. Similarly opium eaters and other
mystics who simply fall into their own navels and/or return from such
journeys a raving lunatics (of any amplitude) don't (superficially?)
offer us a lot. On the other hand, those of us who can *tolerate* what
seem like wild ravings long enough hear the signal in the noise *might*
learn something, just as the bar/brothel-keeps who
humored/endured/embraced the trappers and lone-prospectors who wintered
among them might very well have learned a LOT about the plains and the
Rockies and the great basin and Sierras, etc. by listening well and
sorting out the tall tales from the factual information, or perhaps more
aptly, being able to reduce the colorful descriptions to more mundane
ones... knowing when "thousands and thousands" means "hundreds" or
when "streams glittering with gold" actually refer to iron pyrite
deposits... etc.
Walter Jon Williams, a successful but not all that famous Science
Fiction writer from ABQ (Belen?) wrote a novel in the 90's entitled
"HardWired" which was set in the Albuqurque-Flatstaff strip city of the
near future. His protaganist was some kind of hardboiled futuristic
private detective, but the salient feature was that he had 3 "pumps"
(one Red, one White, one Blue) wired into his body, not unlike an
insulin pump or a morphine drip. They appeared to be fairly
well-accepted future tech, with the unintended side effects of the
Red/White/Blue pharmaceuticals being minimal or at least understood.
As this character went through his daily routine of seeking out the bad
guys or fighting the powers that be (I forget the nature of the
antagonists), he would dose himself with "white" to raise his energy and
perceptual acuity, or "red" to take the edge off of the last dose of
"white" or to allow his body/mind to rest/relax/refresh or counteract
his basal biochemistry of adrenals to remain "cool" in a harsh
situation. He reserved "blue" for expanding his awareness/sensorium to
seek subtle clues or better insight into a problem. It was the first
time I had found perception/mood altering drug-use as anything but
self-indulgent self-abuse. Of course, the framing in the story was that
this was all highly technically defined and controlled and as I remember
it the protaganist had a strong sense of his own limits of how far to
expand his perception/performance envelope with these drugs. Reducing
it to a tristimulus red/white/blue basis vector to convolve with the
higher-dimensional biochemical/perceptual/mood space of an unmodified
human was a new way of seeing "drug culture" for me. Being of the
emerging cyberpunk genre, it nicely mixed the human-enhancement of hard
tech with pharmacuetical-tech.
Another writer (recently deceased), Vonda McIntyre, wrote "Of Mist,
Grass, and Sand" with a more biogenic version of this deliberate dosing,
though more in the context of healing using three snakes and their venom
which they would reformulate after "tasting" their patients...
generating appropriate sedatives, anti-biotic/viral/toxins, or
hallucinagens according to their "needs". Written in the late 60s,
there was a strong overtone of the drug-culture and undercurrent of
back-to-nature of the time.
Ramble,
- Steve
On 2/24/20 9:16 AM, thompnickson2 at gmail.com wrote:
>
> David,
>
>
>
> Well, Peirce begins with the premise that doubt is a painful state and
> that violation of expectations leads to doubt. Let say, for a
> moment, that you were wired up so that doubt is a joyful state. That
> would lead you across the map of experience by a very different route
> than I am led. Now even Peirce admits that a little bit of doubt
> can be diverting. He has an example of passing time between
> connections at a train station by entertaining doubts as to the best
> route to take from one city to another. So, the
> doubt-pleasure-doubt-pain thing seems to be a dimension, even in
> Peirce. Heck, even I enjoy a little bit of doubt in my life. But
> from my years-ago reading of Castenada and talking to people who
> enjoyed hallucinogens, I am pretty sure taking drugs would too much
> doubt for this old apollonian.
>
>
>
> Now this would explain why Peirce is of so little use to you. The test
> for reality for Peirce is predictability. In my discussion, and
> perhaps Eric’s, we have been asking you to apply that test to your
> experiences. I E, if your experiences in extremis don’t lead to a
> capacity to predict better and experience less doubt, then to hell
> with them. But if you love doubt, then Peirce’s pragmaticism is of no
> use to you. Am I getting closer?
>
>
>
> But there is another possibility. Konrad Lorenz, the ethologist who
> won a Nobel with Tinbergen and vonFrisch, loved to talk about the
> “Innate School Marm”. I think of her as sitting at the head of the
> room, with a box of tiny but potent candies on her desk. Every time a
> student does something “good”, she gives him or her one of these
> little candies. Now, the brain (OH GOD HERE I AM A BEHAVIORIST
> TALKING ABOUT THE BRAIN) seems to be wired up like the I.S.M. It has
> at its disposal a pot of pleasure from which it doles out little
> dollops as we go through our day. When we take drugs, it’s like the
> day when the bad boys in the class stole the box of candies, locked
> themselves in the storeroom, and consumed them all at once. You have
> overthrown the Innate School Marm.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Nicholas Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
>
> Clark University
>
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com <mailto:ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com>
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Prof David West
> *Sent:* Monday, February 24, 2020 3:27 AM
> *To:* friam at redfish.com
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] A longer response to Dave's question
>
>
>
> Nick,
>
>
>
> Not dismissive,but definitely skeptical.
>
>
>
> A metaphorical account of my problem.
>
>
>
> Since the Age of Enlightenment, a host of people interested in
> knowledge, how we know, what we can know, what we can take as "fact,"
> what might be deemed as "truth," etc. have developed philosophies and
> methods to answer these questions. Peirce is but one example.
>
>
>
> Visualize that all of this thinking resulted in a really fine-grained
> sieve, through which we could pour our raw "stuff" and have it sort
> out the useful from the non. Upon close examination we note that the
> holes in the sieve consist, exclusively, of triangles and squares.
>
>
>
> My "stuff" consists of spheres. None of my spheres can pass through
> the sieve, not because they are absent of, at least potentially,
> "knowledge" or "fact" or "truth:" but only because they are spherical
> and the sieve cannot deal with them.
>
>
>
> Those responsible for creating the sieve and those who have made
> careers using the sieve to sift and sort "stuff" tend to hold the
> attitude that _Our Sieve _is the best sieve that human minds could
> possibly conceive and therefore anything not Sieve-able is irrelevant
> and of no possible value.
>
>
>
> Peirce has produced a very fine sieve, but it is of no, (or very
> little), use to me. This was a disappointing discovery, for me,
> because, at least initially, I thought Peirce admitted a bit of the
> mystical into his philosophy.
>
>
>
> ******
>
>
>
> There have been sieve-makers who specialize in circles instead of
> triangles and squares. I have studied many of them, noting
> consistencies and differences. I also "know" where one "has got it
> right" and another "just misses the mark." But how do I "know" this?
>
>
>
> Two years ago, I was driving overnight from Salt Lake City to Santa Fe
> to come to FRIAM. En route, just southeast of Moab, I stopped to have
> a conversation with Brigham Young. (A combination of pain, drugs, and
> Hatha Yoga made this possible.) The conversation concerned the reasons
> and mechanisms responsible for the evolution of very pro-female
> religions (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Mormonism) to near absolute
> misogyny. I took notes and later went back to see if Brigham had
> actually said any of this while he was alive. He did. I had read all
> of that material decades ago. What was the mechanism that
> allowed/prompted the mental coalescence of that information into a
> cogent conversation in a dry wash, sitting naked, next to an imaginary
> campfire, with Brigham's "presence" in the shadows? Could it be
> replicated? Could I drop a bit of acid and use the same "method" to
> write an academic paper — or at least a good first draft of one?
>
>
>
> In Buddhism there is no "self." So what is it that reincarnates? I
> "know" the answer.
>
>
>
> Right now I am trying to sort out an amalgam of process philosophy
> (Bergson, Whitehead), Hermeneutics (Heidegger), quantum
> interpretations, quantum consciousness, embodied mind and a couple of
> other threads; and from that mixture craft a "lens" through which I
> can examine all that I have read about Zen, alchemy, hermetic, Sufism,
> ... and all the other esoterica (and first hand experience) I have
> absorbed over the decades.
>
>
>
> Open for suggestions.
>
>
>
>
>
> [An aside: discounting Kekule's Ouroboros dream would be easier were
> it not for the fact that his notation and a host of other organic
> chemistry derived from dreams of atoms dancing, holding hands, and
> forming chains. Benzene was but one of many instances of his "dream
> induced chemistry."]
>
>
>
> davew
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 23, 2020, at 6:16 PM, thompnickson2 at gmail.com
> <mailto:thompnickson2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dave,
>
>
>
> You have indulged me as much as any other human on earth, and so
> it distresses me to hear you say that I would dismiss experiences
> in extremis out of hand. Let it be the case that Archimedes
> solved the king’s crown problem while lolling in a hot bath. Let
> it be the case that Kerkule solved the benzene problem while
> lolling in a hot bath. Let it be the case that Watson and Crick
> were lolling in a hot bath (oh those Brits!) when they discovered
> the double helix. I would say that, there was SOME grounds
> (however weak) to suspect that hot bathing led to scientific
> insight. In fact, it is one of the great advantages of Peirce’s
> position that weak inductions and abduction have the same
> /logical/ status as strong ones and worthy always to be
> entertained. I DON’T believe, as I think many do, that extreme
> experiences have any special claim on wisdom. Dying declarations
> are attended to NOT because a dying person necessarily has great
> wisdom, but because we are unlikely to hear from that person again
> in the future.
>
>
>
> I suppose you might ague that the reason to go to extreme states
> is the same as the reason to go the Antarctic or the moon. There
> MIGHT be something interesting there, but until you have been
> there, you will never know, for sure, will you? The crunch comes
> when you are deciding on how much resources to devote to the
> exploration of extremes, given that those resources will be
> subtracted from those devoted to the stuff such known realities as
> climate change. If it’s a choice of exploring Mars or exploring
> climate change, you know where my vote would go.
>
>
>
> But that has no bearing on whether I would encourage or discourage
> anyone to go with their individual curiosity. One of our number
> here is interested in exploring a variant of ESP. I say let’s go!
>
>
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
>
> Clark University
>
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com <mailto:ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com>
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com
> <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com>> *On Behalf Of *Prof David West
>
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 23, 2020 4:15 AM
>
> *To:* friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] A longer response to Dave's question
>
>
>
> Eric, Nick, et.al.,
>
>
>
> "Well, [Dave] here's another nice mess you've gotten me into."
>
>
>
> My issue/problem/quest — I have a body of "stuff" and I want to
> determine if there are ways to think about it in a "useful" manner.
>
>
>
> The "stuff" appears pretty mundane: assertions, observations,
> conjectures, metaphors and models, even theory. The problem is
> provenance: directly or indirectly from, loosely defined, altered
> states of consciousness. Examples of indirect would be reports
> from enlightened mystics or dream experiences (ala Kekule or
> Jung). Direct would be psychedelics.
>
>
>
> Nick might have me dismiss the entire corpus; stating it has the
> same value as the latest Marvel universe movie.
>
>
>
> I disagree. But, by what means, what method, can "fact" even
> "truth" be discovered and shared. Peirce offers no real
> assistance. Nor does any other school of epistemology I have
> encountered.
>
>
>
> Is there an approach to thinking about my "stuff" that would, at
> minimum, enable more consistent discovery of examples like Eric
> cites in #8 of his list. Would it not be useful to be able to
> quickly identify and focus on insights with the potential to "hold
> up pretty well."
>
>
>
> Eric states there are reasons to believe (in #7) that altered
> states are less reliable, but I would argue, in some cases, the
> exact opposite. Especially with regard the ability to perceive
> stimuli of which perceive but never consciously "register" because
> our brain has filtered them out as being irrelevant. Mescaline can
> be an instrument as revealing as a microscope or a telescope and
> it would be worthwhile, I think, to learn how to make effective
> use of it.
>
>
>
> The crux of my dilemma remains, I think there is gold in them thar
> hills, but don't have a means of mining and refining.
>
>
>
> davew
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 22, 2020, at 10:41 PM, Eric Charles wrote:
>
> If we are willing to go back and forth a bit between being
> philosophers and psychologists for a moment, there are far
> more interesting things to talk about regarding "altered
> states".... here are the some of the issues:
>
>
>
> 1. When someone claims to be responding to something, we
> should believe they are responding to /something/.
> 2. People generally suck at stating what they are responding
> to, even in highly mundane situations.
> 3. It is worth studying any types of experiences that lead
> fairly reliably to other certain future experiences,
> because in such situations one has a chance discover what
> it is people are /actually /responding to.
> 4. As we are complex dynamic systems, human development is
> affected by all sorts of things in non-obvious ways.
> 5. There is no /a priori /reason to discount the insights one
> experiences under "altered states of consciousness", but
> also no /a priori/ reason to give them special credence.
> 6. The degree to which a someone has a sense of certainty
> about something is not generally a reliable measure of how
> likely that thing is to hold up in the long run, unless
> many, many, many other assumptions are met.
> 7. There is likely good reason to think that altered states
> of consciousness are less reliable in general than
> "regular" states.
> 8. There are many examples that suggest certain
> insights-that-turn-out-to-hold-up-pretty-well, which were
> first experienced when under an altered state, were
> unlikely to have been experienced without that altered
> state.
>
> Is that the type of stuff we were are poking at?
>
>
>
>
>
> -----------
>
> Eric P. Charles, Ph.D.
>
> Department of Justice - Personnel Psychologist
>
> American University - Adjunct Instructor
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 2:30 PM Frank Wimberly
> <wimberly3 at gmail.com <mailto:wimberly3 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Agreed
>
>
>
> ---
>
> Frank C. Wimberly, PhD
>
> 505 670-9918
>
> Santa Fe, NM
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 22, 2020, 12:25 PM Marcus Daniels
> <marcus at snoutfarm.com <mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com>> wrote:
>
> Frank writes:
>
>
>
> <It would constitute proof that Marcus exists if he
> were to admit that I was correct in our years-ago
> argument when I said that gender defines an
> equivalence relation on the set of people.>
>
>
>
> Definitions. Notation. Argh, who cares. Where’s
> that neuralyzer, let me get rid of them.
>
> (That should at least be evidence of continuity!)
>
>
>
> Marcus
>
> ============================================================
>
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>
> to unsubscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr.
> Strangelove
>
> ============================================================
>
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>
> to unsubscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr.
> Strangelove
>
> ============================================================
>
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>
> to unsubscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
>
>
>
> ============================================================
>
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20200224/8e683f24/attachment.html>
More information about the Friam
mailing list