A Liberal Decalogue: Russell's Ten Commandments
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General discussions
Forum Description: Discuss any topic at all that is not music-related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=114918
Printed Date: July 18 2025 at 20:27
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: A Liberal Decalogue: Russell's Ten Commandments
Posted By: Logan
Subject: A Liberal Decalogue: Russell's Ten Commandments
Date Posted: July 13 2018 at 13:43
|
Bertrand Russell felt that the best answer to fanatacism was a calm, unflustered search for truth, and I think this is worth sharing. "A Liberal Decalogue" is quoted from The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell, Vol. 3: 1944-1969, p. 71--72 and originally appeared in the December 16, 1951, issue of The New York Times Magazine, "The best answer to fanaticism: Liberalism.". "Perhaps the essence of the Liberal outlook could be summed up in a new decalogue, not intended to replace the old one but only to supplement it. The Ten Commandments that, as a teacher, I should wish to promulgate, might be set forth as follows: 1. Do not feel absolutely certain of anything. 2. Do not think it worthwhile to produce belief by concealing evidence, for the evidence is sure to come to light. 3. Never try to discourage thinking, for you are sure to succeed. 4. When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your husband, [wife] or your children, endeavour to overcome it by argument and not by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and illusory. 5. Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always contrary authorities to be found. 6. Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you. 7. Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric. 8. Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent than in passive agreement, for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter. 9. Be scrupulously truthful, even if the truth is inconvenient, for it is more inconvenient when you try to conceal it. 10. Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fool’s paradise, for only a fool will think that it is happiness." See: https://www.brainpickings.org/2012/05/02/a-liberal-decalogue-bertrand-russell/" rel="nofollow - https://www.brainpickings.org/2012/05/02/a-liberal-decalogue-bertrand-russell/ ------------- Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I have observed before. It can be much like that with music for me. |
Replies:
Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: July 13 2018 at 14:22
|
I don't even see that as 'liberal' per se but as common sense and fair. ------------- One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: July 13 2018 at 14:29
|
It should be common sense. It can depend upon what means by Liberal. He uses it in the sense of being a free-thinker, is open to new ideas and is open to abandoning old ideas when new evidence is presented... Enlightenment values. The following captures thoughts of his on Liberalism. Russell wrote: "The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment." Liberal-thinking should be flexible/ mutable, unlike the rigid and dogmatic thinking of fanatics and very conservative people. It tends to be reason and evidence based -- not surprising that one commonly finds more conservatives in religious communities and less in the secular humanist crowd. I'm quite conservative in some ways, but generally am open to exploring new ideas and love the Platonic/ Socratic idea that "The first step on the road to wisdom is the recognition of one's own ignorance." EDIT: Incidentally, how much would Trump (or his fanbase) follow these "commandments"? I guess he has no, or very little respect for the authority of others, preferring to see himself as the ultimate authority (even if does respect Putin and various dictators and would like as much authority for himself). He doesn't seem to mind being eccentric much, assuming a level of self-awareness. ------------- Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I have observed before. It can be much like that with music for me. |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: July 13 2018 at 15:20
|
urrggg.. sh*t like that hurts my brain. He talks a good game but bet you he hasn't seen the business end of life for smoking his pipe in some f**king ivory tower somewhere. Real life demands real philosophy.
I like this book better...
"A Pramagist's Deca-whatever" is quoted from The Autobiography of Mick the Dick, Journies between Hell and Heaven: A life fully lived: 1969-2021, p. 69--169 and originally appeared in the November 16, 2016, issue of The Ass Kickers, Skirt Chasers, and Beer Drinkers Magazine, "The best answer to fanaticism: who the f**k cares.". 5. Have respect for the authority and experience of others, for it is rare that are contrary pertinent experiences to be found. 6. Use power, and one's knowledge and experience to destroy opinions you think bullsh*t for most ivory tower f**ks and kiddies spout opinions and stupid philosophy with any real knowledge or real life experience. 7. Do not be a pussy and care if you are thought to be eccentric in opinion, for .. well.. who gives a f**k what they think. 8. Find more pleasure in in booze, broads and blow than in intelligent dissent or passive agreement, for, if you value the experiences of living life as you should, you are smart enough to know that booze, broads and blow absolutely rule man. 9. Be scrupulously truthful, even when truth is unpopular. Respect is far more valuable than being liked. 10. Do not feel listen to f**kers telling one how one how should be happy. Life is short and often hard and unsymphathic, live it to the fullest and find and revel happiness whereever the hell you find it. ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: July 13 2018 at 15:24
Nicely compiled, Micky.  Have a clappy.  ------------- Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I have observed before. It can be much like that with music for me. |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: July 13 2018 at 15:38
|
why thank you Greg. A great book btw. Highly recommended though the chapter about the Satanist Redheaded sexfreak with mad skills tossing pots and pans is not recommended reading for young readers. bad sh*t man... ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: July 13 2018 at 15:58
As long as she's not madly tossing out Russell's teapots, I'd be game.  Sorry, I couldn't resist as this teapot analogy may be what most people know Russell for.
------------- Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I have observed before. It can be much like that with music for me. |
micky wrote:Posted By: micky
Date Posted: July 13 2018 at 16:07
|
I need a fresh beer before reading that one Greg... ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: July 13 2018 at 19:05
|
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof / evidence falls on the person who makes an extraordinary claim rather than on the sceptic who asks “Why should we believe that?” Believer: If I prayed for a beer God would grant me my wish. Sceptic: Prove it. Believer: Prove that He wouldn’t. Sceptic: I can’t, why don’t you demonstrate your beer praying powers? Believer: The power is His. Sceptic: Come on, pray for a beer and let’s drink this miracle. Believer: I’m not thirsty right now. Sceptic: I am. Believer: Okay, guess I will join you then. Grab a couple from the fridge. (Sceptic goes to fridge, Believer quietly starts praying, Sceptic come back and hands Believer a beer) Sceptic: Here you go, buddy. Believer: Ask and ye shall receive. God answered my prayer. Sceptic: No, I did. (Sceptic chugs beer) Believer: The spirit of God worked through you. Sceptic: Well, at least it seems the spirit of God is working through me, gotta take a whizz. Believer: It’s a miracle! ------------- Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I have observed before. It can be much like that with music for me. |
Posted By: Tuzvihar
Date Posted: July 14 2018 at 05:37
|
Great thread so far, guys! And long time no see, Mick!  ------------- "Music is much like f**king, but some composers can't climax and others climax too often, leaving themselves and the listener jaded and spent." Charles Bukowski |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: July 14 2018 at 06:51
^ yeah been a crazy few months at work. My boss is an idiot, the office staff incompetent, and the work more challenging (ie dangerous) than ever. My tried and true defense mechanism to stress is to withdraw into myself and drink heavily hahah
ahhh... leaving aside the religious undertones there is a interesting notion there that the Big Mick's book really dives into. you illustrate believer and skeptic in terms of proof with religion/faith/prayer Where this really hits home is a more general concept. The nature of reality itself. 2. Do not care if it worthwhile to produce belief by concealing evidence, for the evidence ivory tower types think is sure to come to light will be ignored by most if it doesn't match their particular sense of reality. what is the value of proof when reality itself is not universal but highly individual and subject to many interpretations.
------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: twseel
Date Posted: July 14 2018 at 06:54
|
I know Russell mostly for his sayings on semantics, through university, but his statements on other stuff are also very interesting. I still feel closer to Micky's citation though, I'm a big supporter of the scientific method but even scientists would do better living by Mick's rules outside of the job. ------------- 
|
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: July 14 2018 at 09:14
The idea that those deemed to be 'men of ideas' have no corroborative life experience on which they draw their conclusions is getting pretty tiresome i.e 'better to live than to know' The man himself put it best: The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. (Bertrand Russell) ------------- 
|
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: July 14 2018 at 09:59
Sorry to hear about your work stresses and dangers. Watch the drinking, though. I've been drinking more of late as stress-reliever. To b*****dise Descartes: "I drink therefore I am." I speak of evidence & proof which are related but also separate concepts. The burden of proof is used in law and logic, and formal debate, and in logic means that one should adequately demonstrate a thing to be if not absolutely true, valid reasoning for the assertion (premises should be considered acceptable, relevant and sufficient enough to convince people who have no skin in the game that the conclusion/assertion logically follows), or something similar, been ages since I studied it. Of course what's considered valid etc. depends upon the person, but in logic (and mathematics) the propositions should support the conclusion in acceptable ways that should satisfy the standards of logical reasoning. Making arguments in formal academic logic does have fairly universal standards, and it is a closed-system of propositions (within particular frameworks). In science, it's about evidence as there is no proof. It's not a closed system and every theory is open to questioning, adaptation or scrapping when new evidence comes to light. Science is about trying to understand how the universe works, but it shouldn't be making absolute truth claims as everything is open to reevaluation -- hypotheses, theories and claims are provisional and tentative -- they are subject to change. For myself, I'm agnostic, in the sense of not knowing for certain, in all things. As Russell says in his first commandment "Do not feel absolutely certain of anything." So there is only value in proof when it comes to frameworks in logic, mathematics and law (maybe some others), but there is great value in seeking evidence in science, logic, law, and I would say life in general. What is evidential to one, or a concept of proof, may not convince or be valid to another, but at least the means for determining what's acceptable (the framework of analysis) should be understood and make sense beyond one's particular biases. Standards of evidence and interpretations of what constitutes proof do vary. I know someone who claimed that a rainbow proves God's existence, well it wouldn't under the standards of logic that I was taught as I would have to accept certain assumptive premises as true that are unprovable through such formal logic, but seem evident from a certain theological perspectives if you accept that God exists and a host of other assumptions. Perspectives do matter. So the value of proof depends upon how you seek truth, and all too often, I would say, it fits our confirmation biases. There is a universal reality and also an individual one and the two need not be mutually exclusive. There is subjective truth and objective truth, bust some go too far, I think, in saying that there is no objective truth -- say that all truth depends upon one's perception and experiences. Not only scientists, but philosophers commonly accept the idea of a priori truths (reasoning or knowledge that proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience). That we can't know for certain what is objectively and even to extent subjectively true doesn't negate the worthiness of an attempt to determine objective truth -- to try to understand through empiricism and logic.... Like I paraphrased from Plato before, "The first step on the road to wisdom is the recognition of one's own ignorance." Incidentally, I wrote my last post including the dialogue stream on my phone, and not quite sure if the poor, tasteless joke worked. I was tempted to do whiskey to make the idea of the spirit passing through one's body clearer, but opted for the liquid gold of beer (depends on what beer) for the sake of parallelism with your mention of beer. No offence intended to any who are Theists or Deists with it, was just a bit of frivolity in attempt to keep up the humorous momentum. The existence of God or gods (or some related concept) can neither be proved nor disproved and I ultimately remain "agnostic" on the matter, but yeah, I don't want to turn this into another religious thread, though religion and Theism is hard to avoid when discussing such a topic. Long post, and I expect many silly mistakes here. ------------- Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I have observed before. It can be much like that with music for me. |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: July 14 2018 at 10:10
-------------
|
Posted By: Tuzvihar
Date Posted: July 15 2018 at 06:03
What he says! You make me worried, Micky...  ------------- "Music is much like f**king, but some composers can't climax and others climax too often, leaving themselves and the listener jaded and spent." Charles Bukowski |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: July 15 2018 at 09:34
|
^ It can be especially worrying in a high risk job where safety issues are a major concern. I wouldn't expect someone drinking a mickey or a beer on the job, but someone getting DTs (delirium tremens) on the job could end up being very shocking indeed for an electrician. ^^ I think Micky might need a few more beers to try to get through what I wrote as it could be a real slog to read.
Great quote, and as he also puts it: "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." This helps to explain the apparent idiocracy which we seem to live in. ------------- Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I have observed before. It can be much like that with music for me. |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: July 18 2018 at 15:06
|
you guys are too sweet. I wish I could say not to worry but I do so I can't say not to worry hahah. Stress is a killer and unfortunately I have a lot of it in the job and it is hard to deal with and on top of the physical issues that I am dealing with with thanks to our stellar health care system have yet to be resolved. I am never sure if I will drop dead or worse pass out on the job, or behind the wheel. It is a lot to deal with I suppose and yeah, booze does help. Greg, you might remember I have mentioned I have had my experiences with alcholism, after the Gulf War. Trust me, though I drink a lot, it is a drop in the hat compared to drinking Jack by the gallon and smoking dope like they were Winstons. The job I do is seriously dangerous. I love dope, but can count on one finger the times I've smoked it in the last 20 years. We are drug tested and all that jazz because if we f**k up, we not only could blow ourselves up, but do so to others. Never once come to work drunk or drank on the job. I think the think I am dealing most with, 7 days short 49, is my own mortality. Well into my 30's I was still carded for Winton's.. well into my 40's I was carded for booze. However I have aged rapidly in the last few years, stress man, and with my emergency room experience last fall, my bulletproof and 10 foot tall mental outlook took a big hit. It's funny Greg, Bartek. I noticed that in the last year my appreciation of music has really suffered. I find it hard to get involved in the scene, care about new releases, or really music in general. Even to the point where Raff and I had a serious dicussion about even going to Progday this year. However today I had a wonderful reminder of just how music can soove one's soul. I had another day today where the heat and stress were just eating me up so I took an extended lunch to get my head back on task. I was smoking a Winston and flipping through radio stations and I came upon a station that.. bam.. within 5 seconds I recognized the piece of music. I am legendary among friend and coworkers for doing just that, able to pick out music from the shortest of samples. The piece... Rhapsody on a theme of Paganini by Rachmaninoff oh my.. I cried tears of beauty during the famous 18th varation that might be one of the single most beautiful pieces of music man has ever made yet by the 21st.. I was pounding the steering wheel with the greatest of fury in the best air piano one would have ever seen. when I came off of lunch, I was cool. Relaxed... smiling and even sent Raff a text that made her blush. Sometimes music really can refill the soul, I wasn't really sure how empty it was, until it was refilled. Peace brothers.... ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: July 19 2018 at 03:22
They're liberal because they advocate tolerance of beliefs and opinions you may not personally share. People have also forgotten what 'liberal' means by dictionary definition. I've known many so called liberals whose outlook is actually quite controlling and authoritarian. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: July 19 2018 at 14:57
Still don't see the liberal tag needing to apply...I know plenty of conservatives who are more tolerant and open minded than some of the liberals I know. ------------- One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: July 19 2018 at 16:20
|
Then it sounds like those people who identify as conservatives are liberal in the sense that Russell means, and those people who identify as liberal are not very liberal (which reinforces what Blacksword is saying)). The root of Liberal is the same as Liberty, it means free, and it implies free-thinking (of course the term liberal can mean different things, and in the US it tends to have a different connotation with people than here). Sorry repeating this as I already said this, but: "The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment" (Bertrand Russell) The decalogue is part of longer article, but he is contrasting that "Liberal outlook" to fanaticism, dogmatism and orthodoxy. If you want a term other than Liberalism to describe his outlook, that's fine. Incidentally, many classic liberals also identify politically as Conservatives and NeoLiberalism is commonly considered Conservative. I also know people who call themselves liberal whose outlook is controlling, authoritarian, rigid and closed-minded, but they are not liberals in Russell's sense, nor do I consider them to be truly liberal in how I use the term. Conservatism by definition favours orthodoxy, and maintaining traditional values, and is less open to change and new ideas. That said, one can consider oneself to be politically Conservative while still being open-minded, tolerant, flexible, and open to change, and so be Liberal in that sense while still identifying as Conservative. I think it often rather silly how people label themselves and others into too tidy little boxes as we are complex individuals (some see the world in more black and white ways than others), and sometimes what people label themselves and others shows some ignorance. ------------- Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I have observed before. It can be much like that with music for me. |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: July 19 2018 at 16:33
uhhh.. Doc. This is philosophy, not politics. Liberalism in context of a school of philosophy not politics. Besides, and as you surely know, Liberalism in a political context is vastly different in Europe than in the US ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: July 19 2018 at 17:33
|
Bertrand Russell (1872 to 1970) was a British philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian, and writer, so, yeah, better not to view it through a narrow, modern American political lens. I'm from Canada, and in Philosophy courses as well as in my Political Science courses here we used it differently than many Americans seem to (and I'm not talking about our Liberal Party), and in an especially different light from how I would hear American Conservatives paint it. In the early days of my forum use, I posted on political forums, and it could be really hard to have a constructive discussion partially because of terminological differences. When I'd use Liberal, or someone else would (often people who identified as Conservatives and often used as a slur), we would talk past each other (not that you can generally have good discussions with people who rely on slurs). Anyway, it would get really confusing, and even after trying to research the history of Liberalism in the US, I still had trouble understanding the vitriol. Bit like how I have argued with people over the semantics of socialism Anyway, a tangential note, I've read American studies/ surveys which correlate our personal psychology to our politics. Not surprisingly, those who are open to new ideas and open to change, and are more agreeable, tend to favour Liberal politics. Those who are averse to change and less open to new ideas favour Conservative politics. Liberals score higher in the neurotic category and Conservatives score higher in conscientiousness and work ethic which may be a factor in why some Liberals are more favourable to a Welfare state. And Micky, I read your earlier post, and I feel for you. Try to take it easy. Love that Rachmaninoff myself (a favourite composer of mine), but classical music sometimes releases my emotions too much. ------------- Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I have observed before. It can be much like that with music for me. |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: July 19 2018 at 20:17
|
Thanks Greg and yeah... I read your earlier post. Not ignoring it, still mulling it. Problem is I tend to shut the brain off after work M-Th and after the few sentences your post became a jumble of vowels and consonants that left me crosseyed and painless. The fault is not yours. I am the classic ADHD internet type. I dig concise posts telling me I rule/I am full of sh*t or how much I am loved or being told to f**k off and die. Easier to read and react to those than thoughtful stimulating posts, rare as they might be haha, which deserve thoughtful replies. I'll hit that post up over the weekend. ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: July 20 2018 at 08:09
|
I'm getting more ADHD as I get older, and actually I'm having some vision issues, so reading long posts can put a strain on my eyes. With people who use really long posts that aren't broken up into spaced paragraphs or have really long paragraphs, it becomes a jumble of words for me. No need to respond to that post. I delved into differences in the terms "burden of proof" (a term used in logic and law that means that the onus is on the claimant to demonstrate/ make a good argument for the assertion) and "evidence" (there is no "proof" in science; open to new evidence...), and some stuff about the nature of reality, and the reality of nature? But if you do make it through it and wish to respond, I would be interested in your thoughts and to get to understand your perspective better. EDIT: Removed my problems with an aggressive neighbour, perhaps I'll do a "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Neighbour" or "Boys and Girls in the Neighbourhood" topic at some time. "Neighbours, everybody needs good neighbours With a little understanding, you can find the perfect blend Neighbours, should be there for one another That's when good neighbours become good friends" (from an Australian TV show called Neighbours). "The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge" (Bertrand Russell). ------------- Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I have observed before. It can be much like that with music for me. |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: August 06 2018 at 08:22
Yea, I've know many conservatives who ae more liberal than many people who identify as liberal. Sanctimoniously preaching to people about what they should be doing and thinking, and actively seeking to force egislation to force peole to think in a particular way isn't liberal. I think some folk need reminding of that. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: August 06 2018 at 11:54
|
^ Agree. And... Zealotry can be found operating under various ideological/ political guises. The illiberal "Liberal" and the illiberal "Conservative" may have different agenda, but they often operate much the same way. They may have totally different backgrounds, but I think that their brains are wired in similar ways. Both are intolerant and dogmatic, are unopen to reason and differing perspectives, and often try to force their agenda. They lack nuance. I'm wary of fanatics of any stripe. We need to root out the illiberal wherever, whatever, and whomever they may be, and utterly obliterate them. ;) ------------- Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I have observed before. It can be much like that with music for me. |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: August 08 2018 at 08:59
|
Hi, Ken Russell's Ten Commandments would be way more interesting and much less political! 1. Do not bother looking for a meaning in any of my films. 2. Do not think it worthwhile to produce belief by concealing evidence, for the evidence is sure to come to light somewhere in one of my films. 3. Never try to discourage thinking, or my film will burn your mind's memory with an image of Oliver Reed! 4. When you meet one of my films, you will not like the things you see. It will get you paranoid. No scarves necessary! 5. Have no respect for the authority, even if you are a priest! 6. Do not use power to suppress opinions, like Richelieu did. Or I did in another film! 7. Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion will become accepted tomorrow night at the drunken party after a rave up in the sheets! 8. Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent than in passive agreement ... specially when you compose out in the middle of nowhere, and your wife is out having some extra fun with a younger guy! 9. Be scrupulously truthful, for the camera does not lie! 10. Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fool’s paradise, of ideas in the arts. We're all just paintings in the making, anyway! ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: August 08 2018 at 10:54
|
"Reality is a dirty word for me, I know it isn't for most people, but I am not interested. There's too much of it about" (Ken Russell). "The secret to happiness is to face the fact that the world is horrible" (Bertrand Russell). ------------- Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I have observed before. It can be much like that with music for me. |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: February 09 2019 at 09:51
|
I was enjoying this discussion and was sorry to see it peter out. I consider myself to be liberal in terms of being open-minded, free thinking, as opposed to conservative in terms of inflexible, rigid minded thinking, and I value so-called enlightenment values which are associated with liberalism. I am also conservative in the sense in that I do believe in the conservation of that which I value. I think one should be cautious when it comes to certain types of "progress". I'm something of a moral-relativist (I wouldn't describe myself as one), but I tend to believe in the notion that's what is morally best can, does, and will provide the least suffering and the greatest amount of happiness for both humanity and nature generally, and is sustainable. I rather fancy the idea of truth writ large being written in the stars. I see rational altruism as desirable. I do value the self and the individual, but also the community. One doesn't need to be selfless, but one should try not to be selfish (not that I am good at that). Politically, I will find myself in agreement with individuals on particular issues across the spectrum, but I have a definite socialist bent (I've moved more to the centre as I got older, which might be considered a leftist position in the US). With some of my views, some would consider those left-wing, with others right-wing, but I don't hold any of my views as absolute truth. I do care about societal injustices and see systemic inequality which I would like to see alleviated while caring about individual freedoms and the ability for all to maximise their potential. I'm quite individualistic. I care about having societal safety-nets, I think that a government's primary responsibility is to protect its citizens from harm (that "social contract" , the problem can be that protecting from harm can be used to justify different things, but I support what I think of as safety which does not mean that one should inflict harm on others nations and not care about other peoples well-being), and I don't blame people for being disadvantaged or generally in a bad place. Some people are born with more advantage than others, and that tends to perpetuate down the generations. And I'm a determinist. I've always been interested in ideology. I'm ultimately agnostic when it comes to all things, and I like to think that I'm open to both new evidence and different perspectives which might change my perspective, especially provided they seem rational/logical. I think most of us are quite nuanced, complex and individualistic thinkers, and we don't need to hold very opinion that whichever "tribe" we identify with politically seems to hold. It's sad when I see apparent shunning for holding unpopular ideas from whatever group we seem to most identify with. That shuts down communication, and such alienation can have psychological costs, and it's just not a good way to approach "validity". I feel that all ideas should be able to be discussed and debated, even while thinking that not all ideas should be given a soapbox. I like talking and thinking about controversial issues. I know I'm rambling,and wouldn't expect anyone to read all of this. Liberal can mean various things, and depending on the country it has different connotations. When I belonged to a political issues forum years before joining here, I would get confused by how some of the Conservative Americans would use the term or more how they would misinterpret my intended use of the term, since that's not how it would be used in any of my studies (political science/ history, sociology, or Economics where the focus on the term Liberal was all rather different between courses). That semantic confusion due to our national and cultural identities (I aligned as a socialist) led to much cross-purpose talk. So I would define the term in how I was using it, and go into the history (mostly British history), and then ask them to define it, since the confusion did not lead to productive discussion -- these really were close-minded, dogmatic thinkers with a lot of assumptions and insults on the whole, but I did have some really interesting discussions with some people who considered themselves to be politically conservative and lacked that dogmatism. I never did get quite how certain Americans who used the word liberal as an insult defined the term (subsequently I have researched that). Even by my standards, this is a very rambling post. On second-thought, it is par for the course coming from me. So what does liberal and liberal-minded mean to you? I think one can identify as politically conservative while having a liberal mindset and have come across quite a few people who identify as progressives whom I have found downright illiberal (really intolerant and dogmatic -- preachy rather than inquisitive). With the idea of tolerance in liberalism,I do think that tolerance should have its limits, and it can be hard to tolerate the intolerant. For me one of the most important ideas of thinking as a liberal is being open to at least thinking about new ideas, being open to new evidence, and not only being different perspectives but wanting to hear different perspective to better formulate their own. A liberal thinker should be a flexible thinker. Bonus question: If liberal is a dirty word to you, why? How do you define the term (it has various connotations, both regional and historical, as well as depending on the discipline), and what associations do you draw from it? I'm quoting this again for those who have not read through the thread because it's important to understand from Russell's, and my and many others, perspective: "The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment" (Bertrand Russell). ------------- Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I have observed before. It can be much like that with music for me. |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: February 09 2019 at 11:37
|
Sorry triple-posting: "If liberal is a dirty word to you, why? How do you define the term (it has various connotations, both regional and historical, as well as depending on the discipline), and what associations do you draw from it?" This is a question I have asked many times of people, including people who use the term libtard, but I almost never got a coherent reply or any response (I can think of one person who had used it in a pejorative sense whom I had a truly enjoyable, thoughtful and enlightening online discussion with where I felt we both got to understand and appreciate each others perspectives, and that changed mine). Those who "liberally" resort to denigration aren't generally interested in engaging in a conversation at all, let alone an open and honest one which may expose one's own vulnerabilities (often trollish behavior). Speaking of vulnerabilities, too often people pounce on those in the hopes of scoring points, which again is not conducive to having a thoughtful discussion and shifting your "opponents" perceptions. The intent more often is to appeal to one's tribe (or for purely selfish reasons of vanity) rather than helping that person to gain new insight, or just in sharing a different perspective. It's hard talking to agenda-driven people who are intractable, and one will not reach what is for me the sweet spot of much dialectic communication (the synthesis of ideas). And on another note: What is it that appeals most to people in terms of conservative values/ thinking, or in orthodoxy generally? I think such an outlook of orthodoxy is comforting; its rather playing things safe according to what you think you know, or what you might say you know you know even if you can't objectively know that thing. Change, and even new ideas, can be scary and disconcerting, pondering ideas can lead to cognitive dissonance and alienation, and of course change is not always desirable in many ways. I do consider myself quite conservative in various ways, though I don't politically identify as conservative -- if our conservative government had favoured the conservation of the environment, and didn't go against most scientists on issues such as climate change, then I would have been tempted to vote for them before as there are issues that I would align with many conservatives, or classic liberals, on than with so-called progressives. I think many progressives are hurting the cause for true liberalism, but then I don't see such people as truly liberal. Most of the conservatives I know tend to be very religious (mostly born again Christians), and being non-religious, that has also been an alienating factor for me. I get why they feel that the Conservatives will better defend and perpetuate their so-called Christian values (my wife who was in the Pentecostal Church once heard a preacher claim that Jesus was a conservative, whereas I had thought of him as a reformer). And I get why some people want to preserve the status quo (especially those in power as they want to maintain power). I understand and feel fear of change, and change, while ultimately inevitable, can be for the worse. If it's life worth living, would I want to risk losing my way of life and go well outside my comfort zone even if said change is good for many others? I want to conserve my neighborhood which has been changing fast due to development, monster houses, condos, and many new people moving in (often with very big, multi-generational households). I moved here some years ago because I liked it the way it was, but my house value has gone up considerably because of it. If my parents had managed to wait a few years, the house they sold for something over 600,000 dollars went up to three million -- the price had held steady for very many years (I paid more for my house some years later than they sold their for in a much inferior neighborhood far from the sea and mountains that I love so much, wish I had bought theirs). I wish I could afford to live in the neighborhood that I grew up in. I only stay where I now live because of my kids' schools. I don't even really like the idea of private property and resisted buying for many years, but I also don't like renting. Well, I was hoping not to stay in Canada. I have a British, Australian and Canadian passport and I most enjoyed living in Japan. The kids, as well as my marriage, made going other places more challenging. Still hope to move to New Zealand one day, but it probably won't happen now (and housing prices have gone up so much there). Yeah, changes, some good, some bad.... I don't like the change -- I lost the privacy that my plot afforded as a monster house was erected behind it (which has effected the salability of my house). So we do have many people in the neighborhood who are calling to preserve our neighborhood, and some of those have become very anti-immigration as it has brought about cultural changes (the place looks and feels different, sounds different, and can even smell different). The signs of religiosity are much more common, especially in a neighborhood near mine which has seen a dramatic shift in terms of population. I like living in a multi-cultural neighborhood, but when one culture is seen to take over, that can lead to resentment, culturalism and even racism. My wife is of a different ethnicity to me, and I did want an ethnically diverse neighborhood (good for cuisine choice and I thought it might be better for my kids). I am just trying to illustrate the point that types of conservatism are understandable to me and a progressive agenda (as I hear it here from some) does not always align with what I want (that can be very selfish, but I think more and more people are feeling marginalised and its such fears that can in part lead to the rise of people like Trump). Xenophobia (fear of the other) seems to have evolutionary reasons, and tribalism seems to be getting more prevalent (it was always there, it just wasn't always talked about so much). Many people feel like their way of life is threatened, but that's often exaggerated for political ends, and their lives often weren't as good as they should or could have been to begin with. There are many people who identify as Conservative that I admire (Some also call themselves classic liberals), and quite a few of those are atheists (hard or soft atheism). It really depends upon what issue I'm interested in, and I generally am more interested in individual ideas than over-all affiliations (though the affiliations and ideological slants are important to gain a better understanding of that person and their views). To understand a person's ideology and their general perspective on things and political motivations, their hopes, their fears, its good to gain more personal insight into that persons background, their psychological state, where they are, and where they want to go. Which is, of course, all too obvious. Too often I see vilification and denigration of "the other" and black and white thinking on all manner of issues when there is usually a grey area open to discussion and shifts in attitudes. The personal is political.... Lots of edits later: perhaps this will become my [not so] Deep Thinking blog for my general ramblings. It doesn't matter if I don't have an audience other than myself even if I prefer conversation with people other than myself (heck, other people prefer conversation with people other than myself too, so I'm in good company). ;) ------------- Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I have observed before. It can be much like that with music for me. |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: February 09 2019 at 18:21
oh man you've always got an audience  We do love our forum deep thinkers.. I did enjoy this topic myself. Hopefully you'll get some and different input into it with the bump...------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: February 10 2019 at 05:56
While I enjoy the process of such writing, when I actually put such ramblings out for the public I do feel somewhat apprehensive. I worry that I will receive this  or  or  or  or  from someone. But that has all been balanced out by your generous use of clappies over the years. (it's a manly hug, I assure you, just imagine that it's coming from Sean Connery in a red loincloth and thigh-high boots).  I do enjoy reading the thoughts, and especially the experiences, of many others, including yourself. There are various truly deep people who post with substance in the politics threads (that's where most of the best discussion and debate happens these days at the forum). ------------- Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I have observed before. It can be much like that with music for me. |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: February 10 2019 at 09:56
|
would you think any worse of me than you already do if I found that post slightly erotic... love ya brother.. here.. have another clappie and yeah... no surprise you and Pedro are probably my top 2 favorite posters. You two exist on a higher plane than I do and that is meant as a compliment... ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Snicolette
Date Posted: February 10 2019 at 10:19
|
Ooooooh, I just discovered this, will have some reading to do this afternoon. Love this kind of stuff. ------------- "Into every rain, a little life must fall." ~Tom Rapp |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: February 10 2019 at 10:42
|
look forward to any thoughts you might have on this ivory tower kind of stuff haha ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Snicolette
Date Posted: February 10 2019 at 13:08
Can't help but wonder if that stirred up a tempest about a teapot.  ------------- "Into every rain, a little life must fall." ~Tom Rapp |
Posted By: Snicolette
Date Posted: February 10 2019 at 13:43
Left Coast American here. To me, liberal and liberal-minded should walk hand in hand, but agree that they often do not. I, too, admire the enlightment values and try to apply them to my life....As far as "progress," yes, just because we can, does not mean that we should. Driverless cars! No faith in that kind of technology. In fact, I have coined a phrase, "Modern life is a waste of time," not in the sense that our personal time is a waste, but so much of our personal time is devoured by technology by it's additional demand and creation of more "work," instead of less, as it should do (at least by my hedonistic reckoning). Life is too short not be be enjoyed. Alexa scares the hell out of me. As I type this on my laptop. Your paragraph on politics certainly resonates with me and what I think of as my political values. Theism. My pendulum swings pretty far and wide on this one. Sometimes I think there absolutely can be no God. No grand intelligence. And sometimes, I feel like surely there must be. Or there must be something. Something bigger and grander and so freaking artistic that it sends messages to others in the form of inspiration to create absolute beauty from nothing and that it surely has an incredible sense of humour. Surely it doesn't care what you call it, how and if you worship it, if it is indeed there. Which makes me digress into afterlife. Is there? I don't know. I can't help but think of some very eerie things that have happened in my lifetime that seem to be from "the other side." If there is a big crazy Dali guy or woman out there who painted my life and then painted my loved ones (human and animal) out of it, never to meet again, then that would prove it had a very sadistic sense of humour. And that certainly could be, as well. I used to think that perhaps, whatever you believed in your life would come true for you when you died. Like Reincarnationists would come back as whatever and those who were Fundamentalist Christians would go to their version of heaven (or hell, for that matter), Atheists would find that there was no God. Etc etc etc (spoken in Yul Brenner's voice). It seems a shame that people who devote such a large part of their lives in religion would have wasted it. Which makes me think of time. I think that time goes forwards and backwards and is also present in the here and now. Right after my husband died, I read Alan Moore's Jerusalem (which he had insistently bought for me the last time we went to our favourite bookstore), one of the main themes is Eternalism. Accident or signs from the pending afterlife (as I started reading it while he was being hospitalized for a few times before we brought him home to die in peace)? Well, I think I've gone on enough.... ------------- "Into every rain, a little life must fall." ~Tom Rapp |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: February 10 2019 at 15:28
Very nice.While he wrote that as an article for Illustrated Magazine in 1952, it wasn't published, and so it didn't get the immediate audience (Russell elaborated more on it later). They almost say a watched teapot never boils, and this wasn't watched at first, draw from that what you will, in space, assuming that the teapot had liquid if it popped into existence there (or however it got there), the lack of pressure would mean instant boiling. Richard Dawkins (the evolutionary biologist) popularised it with many, but there is a Canterbury Prog connection. Daevid Allen of Gong referenced it more than once, and Gong's Flying Teapot is a reference to Russell's teapot. ------------- Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I have observed before. It can be much like that with music for me. |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: February 10 2019 at 15:34
|
the thread lives... way to go Nickie!!! I'll try to work myself into an intellectual frame of mind and add my thoughts.. but hard to do at the moment listening to this album.. all I feel to urge to do is drink heavily, crash cars at high rates of speeed, and throw frat boys through bar room front windows and leave with their girlfrends... God bless music and good memories it brings back ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Snicolette
Date Posted: February 10 2019 at 15:38
|
Amen to that, Micky. And thanks, Logan, for this thread and the music/philosophical references. ------------- "Into every rain, a little life must fall." ~Tom Rapp |
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: February 10 2019 at 16:08
|
My preference is towards liberality, of course, because conservatism by its very nature precludes thinking in the abstract or even attempting an amelioration with beliefs outside the Stygian darkness which encapsulates the narrow corridors of their stratified minds. Not all conservatives think in this manner. Certainly, a thinker like C.S. Lewis was conservative, but was humble enough to know that there were things he simply did not know -- not that they were unknowable; however, he had not had the pleasure to make the unknowing's acquaintance. To quote Bertrand Russell, which seems the trendy thing on this thread: "We all have a tendency to think that the world must conform to our prejudices. The opposite view involves some effort of thought, and most people would die sooner than think -- in fact, they do so." ------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology... |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: February 10 2019 at 16:14
Thank you for sharing that and talking about your personal experiences. It's a beautiful piece to read. I know my response does not do it justice, and I'm not trying to. There are so many dangers with technology, I'm not thinking about the obvious scary things but things that are seen as beneficial to the great many, there are individual and existential risks. I'm concerned about the rise of AI, and whether we will find ourselves in a Gattaca like world, whether I'll lose my digital photos.... I've pretty much always been ultimately agnostic on the issue of God, but my pendulum has shifted too and still can shift daily. It's a big multi-verse out there, possibly, and I see no reason to discount the possibility even while seeing no reason to fully embrace it. I've had various conceptions of God over the years, and certainly at times I have believed more than at others. The vaguer the conception of God the more likely I can grok that as being likely. I pray to God sometimes, even if I don't really think that anyone is listening or assume that God answers prayers. And I talk to "departed" loved ones (they don't generally respond...) And there have been times when I felt that presence. I would not be comfortable with the really hard atheist stance that claims there is not and cannot be a God. There may be an afterlife of some sort, we don't even fully understand consciousness, and even our understanding of the universe we have, and everything we think we know for sure, is based on assumptions. The universe could be very different to how we perceive it, or to how we think we perceive it. I've had all sorts of eerie things that have happened to me, which I won't go into now. And when my dad died about a decade ago, I felt very sure that his presence remained. Now one could explain that in various ways, and I'm not saying he was, but the feeling was strong. I don't know if you've read Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land (I love that story and not just for the word "grok"), but part of what you say is reminding me of that. Every believer has their own afterlife based on the belief systems. And I do find the idea of Karma appealing. It's interesting that you mention time, because I have the same intuition. I love to talk to my son about such things (he is 12). In a sense I feel that all times exists as one, it can be cyclical, and our perception of it is limited. If we could travel around time, that would change the way we see things. All that has happened can be going on now and in different nows. I don't know, and I can't describe it now. I tend to think that that more than this moment exists, to put it that way. I'm glad that you could take your husband home and share that time. While not exactly religious, though fascinated by religion, I do consider myself to be very spiritual and I've had many wonderful transcendent and numinous experiences. I've had a sense of oneness, I had very strong experience at a temple in Japan, and I've felt this overwhelming love and joy for "creation". The saddest time have also felt deeply spiritual to me and I've taken comfort in something "grander", something that seemed very transcendent. I'm going to read Alan Moore's Jerusalem. ------------- Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I have observed before. It can be much like that with music for me. |
Posted By: jamesbaldwin
Date Posted: February 10 2019 at 16:23
|
In America, a politician, or even an intellectual, a writer, an artist, may define himself as a socialist without this damaging him? ------------- Amos Goldberg (professor of Genocide Studies at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem): Yes, it's genocide. It's so difficult and painful to admit it, but we can no longer avoid this conclusion. |
Posted By: Snicolette
Date Posted: February 10 2019 at 17:01
I am touched that I reached you in my writing. AI is very worrisome to me...read enough SciFi and we've all been forewarned, right? The idea of the multiverse is an attractive one for me, as well. Why not? And yes, there is a certainly a time after someone dies that we feel them very strongly. Our dog, I swear, saw Tom's "spirit" leave his body about 20 minutes after he died (I may have posted that elsewhere around these parts), his son, who was here with me, witnessed Ribsey's reaction as well. Stranger In A Strange Land is one of my all-time favourite tales, I wonder if that is where I kind of got the idea from, it's been a long time since I read it, but I keep it in my library. I always talked with my son (now 25) as well about such things. We liked to walk around old cemeteries and talk about the people who were there, learning about local history by reading the inscriptions, etc, when he was young(er). I can imagine that your 12 year old is very bright, these are great things to think about and ponder, really, so much the essence of life and living. I also have experienced those elevated moments from time to time. Never to be forgotten. I think you will enjoy Jerusalem. It's a big, long book (1266 pages), be ready for a long long ride. Think of it as a trilogy and it won't be so daunting. One thing that was fascinating to me that this author, who came from graphic novels and visual arts was so literate. And his descriptions of actual painting techniques etc were so wonderfully done...It is many stories within a story, as are all of our lives in this world. Sometimes it's not pretty. But I found it incredibly powerful. ------------- "Into every rain, a little life must fall." ~Tom Rapp |
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: February 10 2019 at 18:49
Being labelled as "socialist" is a favorite pariah word that neo-fascists and conning cons cavort out in order to smear politicians if they appear to want things like decent healthcare for everyone, a working wage, a healthy environment and ecology, and relief from student debt. Many uneducated and under-educated folks who blindly vote Republican in the addled belief that trickle-down economics is not just being pissed on by the rich, and that Republicans will save them from the brown-skinned menace, do not understand socialism, and equate it with communism. And the cons who run the shell game on them point to failed despotic socialist governments like Venezuela rather than places these voters might find wonderful to live in, like Norway or Sweden, for instance. ------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology... |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: February 10 2019 at 18:51
James, having not lived in the US, I'm not really sure, but I imagine it depends on where you live in the US as well as your vocation. I do think, and know, that there is space for socialists within the intellectual/ academic/ artist community within the US, and there have been many successful ones. For a politician I think it would be harder to be a socialist (as well as an open atheist, I use the term merely meaning without theistic belief). Bernie Sanders has done well and has made clear his socialist leanings. Plenty of filmmakers have let their socialism be known. In academia, especially in Sociology, I would be very surprised if there aren't many open socialists working as both tenured and non-tenured professors. There is a strong history of socialism in the US, and while one still finds pinkophobia I think socialism, having lost some traction, is gaining steam in the US. It's not quite the McCarthy era. Incidentally, British Bertrand Russell, mathematician, logician, historian and philosopher extraordinaire, was both an aristrocrat and a socialist. On a personal note, I had a fling with communism here while in school, and my Sociology professor as well as various students were at me to try joining up with their Marxist-Leninist group. I went to some meetings, but I found the anger, the dogma and militancy very off-putting. I still like various communist ideals. I guess my favourite communist has been Robert Wyatt (of course he is English) and I doubt that his politics would go down well with the Ted Nugent crowd. Perhaps some Americans will have more insight into your query. EDIT: I see a Greg has replied to it. ------------- Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I have observed before. It can be much like that with music for me. |
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: February 10 2019 at 18:57
"A Greg", but not "the" Greg, evidently, eh Greg?
p.s. But since this discussion has turned rather metaphysical, I am assuming you are referring to a "token" as opposed to a "type" -- a general "Greg" rather than the sui generis. ------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology... |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: February 10 2019 at 19:21
I love novels where I learn about something, such as art restoration in The Sixteen Pleasures or about book-binding in Arturo Pérez-Reverte's The Club Duams (a novel I highly enjoyed). I'm sure that I will enjoy Jersualem. By the way, I learn so much from my kids (with my daughter, her thing is art and my son is more mathematics, sciences and languages oriented). Speaking of technology, my son does learn far more from using his iPad than he does at school -- certainly when it comes to science, mathematics, and learning new languages and scripts -- he's in French immersion. He's very interested in many things, and understands many concepts and knows the terminology far better than I do. Being young, he does still have a mind like a sponge and can retain information much better than I can. That's very interesting with your son, and I think it's important to do such things as taking one's child to graveyards when young so that they can also learn that death is natural, and to get a sense of that history of the place and the people. I rather like IN England how the graveyards are nestled into the communities and in the church yards (it feels more natural and less industrial). Hopefully the child being exposed to such things doesn't turn into Harold from Harold and Maude. ------------- Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I have observed before. It can be much like that with music for me. |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: February 10 2019 at 19:28
Unus multorum, that said I would say that you are "the Greg" around here. ------------- Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I have observed before. It can be much like that with music for me. |
Posted By: Snicolette
Date Posted: February 10 2019 at 19:36
I will now have to also look up and probably buy that book! I see my retirement $ disappearing at an alarming rate. Ah well, I will be a smart homeless elder. Just kidding. I will not be homeless, thanks to some good luck in live and loving supportive friends, who have offered me lifelong residence at their beautiful farm down the road. Known them since we were 12 (12 keeps coming up), met in our collective home town of San Pedro. My son's knowledge amazes me! He is always learning something new and is so open to new experience and ideas. He also uses tech as a free library and researches his interests pretty much constantly. He was taught to think for himself, gather info from wide sources and come to his own conclusions. He has also been teaching himself French this past year and sometimes gets a chance to practice it around the Boston area. Sounds like your son is getting an excellent education. We have as much to learn from them as they from us. As you can probably guess, I loved Harold and Maude. Great story. I have met Bud Cort, who was very charming. He came to a party I was at in the Laurel Canyon area and brought his two Boston terriers. Also loved Brewster McCloud. Still looked about 12 years old. See, there it is again. Yes, people need to be involved in all stages of life. We learned so much from those walks and talks out in the graveyards. It is in part, so scary to think of death because we have dissociated so far from it in our culture. Best thing I ever did (other than finding and marrying Tom) was to bring him home before he died. He was much happier here and got to be with those who loved him best without all of that antiseptic-ness of hospital. This thread has been very profound....Thank you for introducing it and resurrecting it. ------------- "Into every rain, a little life must fall." ~Tom Rapp |
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: February 10 2019 at 19:45
|
I contend Cat Steven's soundtrack in "Harold and Maude" is the best by a single performer ever. Particularly since the songs themselves are so germane to the dialogue of the film. But I digress.... ------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology... |
Posted By: Snicolette
Date Posted: February 10 2019 at 19:47
Absolutely perfect for that film. ------------- "Into every rain, a little life must fall." ~Tom Rapp |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: February 10 2019 at 21:01
I like digressions, especially when it comes to things that I love. And I think this digression fits such a thread, which I sort of think as http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=99339" rel="nofollow - Deep Thinking Mark II. It is a fantastic soundtrack that does work so well with the film. Love the whole thing, but the whole https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEbSkybMuqs" rel="nofollow - "Trouble" sequence still hits me quite hard. ------------- Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I have observed before. It can be much like that with music for me. |
Posted By: Snicolette
Date Posted: February 10 2019 at 21:14
|
It is just beautiful. And I know that part of the world, so it is even more poignant. Digression is just conversation, as it should be. Film can be so powerful, proof evident here. ------------- "Into every rain, a little life must fall." ~Tom Rapp |
Posted By: Snicolette
Date Posted: February 11 2019 at 16:19
|
From the read any good books section, thought some here may like The Sparrow, by Mary Doria Russell. Additional info on The Sparrow, which may intrigue or not, depending: From Wikipedia: Nancy Pearl, a reviewer at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_Journal" rel="nofollow - Library Journal , felt that this book was mistakenly categorized as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction" rel="nofollow - science fiction , and that it is really "a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_fiction" rel="nofollow - philosophical novel about the nature of good and evil and what happens when a man tries to do the right thing, for the right reasons and ends up causing incalculable harm". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sparrow_%28novel%29#cite_note-3" rel="nofollow - [3] I just thought it was an excellent and thought-provoking book.  ------------- "Into every rain, a little life must fall." ~Tom Rapp |
Posted By: jamesbaldwin
Date Posted: February 11 2019 at 17:14
In fact, I know Russell was a socialist. And I read that you felt close to socialism when you were younger, so I asked the question. Another great intellectual of whom I read almost all the books was an American naturalized socialist: Erich Fromm. And speaking of British singers very busy on the socialist front, I remember Billy Bragg. When Michael Moore in the film Sicko came to Canada to describe how health care works in that country, he explained that for the Americans, that model was considered socialist. Who knows what a republican would say about how socialism is health in Europe!!? In that film I also discovered that Italy was in fourth place in the ranking of the best world health (in step with Germany and France). If you interview an Italian, he will tell you that we are at the 200th place. ------------- Amos Goldberg (professor of Genocide Studies at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem): Yes, it's genocide. It's so difficult and painful to admit it, but we can no longer avoid this conclusion. |
Posted By: jamesbaldwin
Date Posted: February 11 2019 at 17:19
So it's like I imagined. Warren Beatty in the film Bullworth had the courage to speak openly about socialism while impersonating a candidate for president. Here from Italy we talked about Sanders as a socialist but I didn't understand if even Sanders had the courage to use this word. ------------- Amos Goldberg (professor of Genocide Studies at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem): Yes, it's genocide. It's so difficult and painful to admit it, but we can no longer avoid this conclusion. |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: February 11 2019 at 18:56
|
^^ posting on my phone which makes writing a little harder. I didn’t think it was a random question, James, and I should have said “For those that don’t know, Bertrand Russell was both a socialist and an aristocrat” instead of incidentally since I meant it it for the general audience who may not be very familiar with Russell. I thought you would know with Russell, but I didn’t want to assume and had remembered that I talked about socialism. Erich Fromm has been a favourite of mine. I still identify with socialism, and like principles, but the older I get the less I would want to label myself. I am socialist-leaning. There has been a lot of anti-socialist propaganda in the United States, and a lot of misunderstandings about what it means. I’ve had some interesting and frustrating conversations at this site with people about it and others when it came to communism, Marxism, socialism, liberalism, atheism and some other isms. There are political costs, and surely other costs, in openly calling oneself a Socialist in the US. A great many people with very strong opinions on these issues have not really researched these things, and even they did try to, their biases might well prevent them from having a more balanced perspective and nuanced view (and it could cause cognitive dissonance in various people).. I bet many would ratherr be in the closet when it comes to such things. ------------- Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I have observed before. It can be much like that with music for me. |
Posted By: Lewian
Date Posted: February 12 2019 at 06:26
|
I've just made my way through much though not all of this thread.
I'm a terribly slow writer and not a fast reader either so probably
can't make big contributions. However, two thoughts. 1)
I have been interested in the limits of logic and rationality for a
long time. I should say that this is because there is always a strong voice in me that sounds like Russell/Logan and this one side of me can identify strongly with these thoughts, but then another voice in me is deeply skeptical about it. There are many problems that logic and rationality can't
solve, and some of the deepest are among them. Probably the key problem of having an open mind and respecting other peoples' opinions (which to me seems very closely related to the Russell commandments put up in the beginning although this could be debatable) is what to do with people who hold the opinion that my own view shouldn't be respected. Open mindedness and probably in the same way liberality must have limits and there's no way logic or rationality can tell you where these limits should be. Whatever rational rule you make can be driven into paradox. Obviously close-mindedness and anti-liberality will not solve the problem either. Practised consistently they spell standing still and ultimately death. Consistency isn't very helpful in life despite it being central in logic and rationality. Oh, it may even be quite good in life occasionally, if not applied all too consistently. You've got to live, try out, get yourself a bloody nose and try out something else; you may revisit a point that hadn't been viable in the past and you may find it is now. I like good argument and reasoning a lot but they tend to lead me to places where they stop helping. 2) I think that it's usually a misleading question to ask what terms such as "liberal" really mean. Meaning of terms is always constructed in life, negotiated and re-negotiated, and if they become popular, different people will use them in wildly different and incompatible ways, all of which then belong to the "cultural field" of their use. A key thought about language is, in my view, that language does not in the first place refer to truth and reality, but rather is a means of life, so it is often more illuminating to ask what X wants to achieve by using term Y in this-or-that way, and whether this is achieved or why not, rather than what it "really means". Am I a liberal? Well I don't like to identify with any such descriptor too strongly; one reason is that I know that different people will hear very different things if I declare myself a liberal, and I don't think there's any answer out there to the question whether I "really" am. But then I'm not neutral in all kinds of political discussions, so at least temporarily I may be pretty liberal, annoyingly and inappropriately denying it on some meaningless "philosophical" grounds. Who knows? "The opposite is also true." |
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: February 12 2019 at 06:58
|
The word "liberal" has been so widely defined with varied nuances as to be completely meaningless in the modern day. I don't really agree with everything on your list. Just one small example: 1. Do not feel absolutely certain of anything. Sounds like a commandment for left brain imbalance and passivity. While skepticism is essential for a careful analysis of anything, evidence can lead to conclusive results. Are you not certain that gravity exists? Are you not certain when someone who rapes and murders children is evil? There are indeed certainties in this world and so called axioms like this are created to pacify intellects into non-action. -------------  https://rateyourmusic.com/~siLLy_puPPy |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: February 12 2019 at 08:18
I am reasonably certain, but not with absolutely certainty of course, that I am not certain about anything. I think I think, therefore I think I think I am, I think? This is true when it comes to physics and metaphysics for me; for ethical and scientific thinking. That said, with those two examples, I strongly believe that neither of those are conclusive. With gravity, as I said on page one, science deals in evidence, not proof. It is still commonly called the theory of gravity and certainly the ideas of how gravity works have changed in physics (ideas such a as gravitons in quantum physics). That no one has been able to disprove that gravity exists (science works with falsifiability) does not mean for certain that it does exist. Gravity may be extremely probable, but that doesn't make it certain. One doesn't have to go far as to say that we may be totally misunderstanding and observing the universe a la we are in some kind of a Matrix or a brain in vat to go down that route. While I would describe rape and murder as evil, and the very idea of raping and murdering children fills me with fear and disgust, I could not say with certainty that the perpetrator is evil (in fact, I would resist such statements). Rather like with liberalism, it depends on the approach to what constitutes evil. First of all, I would describe myself as a hard determinist (again, I'm not absolutely certain of determinism). I don't think we have free will in a a true sense, or heredity and environment force or decisions, and causal chains force action. Now this can lead to passivity, but I have a more compatibilist of approaching agency which I won't delve into (I did write papers on it). There are psychological and physiological reasons why someone would do such a thing. Often it's the result of past trauma, the psychopath's brain seems different (there have been many MRI studies on this) in at least one case it was found that someone who became murderous had developed a brain tumour that caused behavioral differences. We don't fully understand consciousness. To me the idea of someone being evil implies that that person is fully responsible and to be blamed for their actions, and people are complex (a person who has done even the most heinous of acts may contain both the capacity for good and evil, and have done both good and evil acts). I do not believe that one needs certainty, either moral or scientific, to take a very active approach. We can operate according to sets of assumptions. We act as if gravity exists (whatever the ultimate cause of the effect) and we take actions when it comes o the murderer to protect society. I'm comfortable enough feeling reasonably certain of things and holding assumptions that may be false. That understanding need not lead to apathy. I hold the idea that a world with the greatest amount of happiness and the least harm and misery for people is better than the opposite, and that it is generally morally better to try to bring happiness than sorrow to others. It is enough that I feel quite certain of that. ------------- Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I have observed before. It can be much like that with music for me. |
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: February 12 2019 at 08:27
REALLY? If you jumped off a cliff you are not certain that you would fall off? How have you survived this long with that sort of denial of absolutes? Just because we do not understand fully the fundamental sources of a given universal force does not negate its existence. You seem to be confusing the uncertain mechanisms of what creates gravity with its actual existence and BTW there have been more than 40,000 studies in Russia regarding torsion physics which strongly suggest gravity is the source of both time and consciousness. Sometimes its easy to get caught up in intellectual and linguistic gobbledeegoop. Some things just EXIST even if we do not have the mental faculties to discern the larger picture regarding their functions within certain paradigms. ------------- https://rateyourmusic.com/~siLLy_puPPy |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: February 12 2019 at 08:35
|
I act as if it exists and assume it to exist -- I have confidence that it exists, but am open to the possibility that it does not, no matter how unlikely that seems to me. Our existence may be very different to what we perceive even if extremely improbable. ------------- Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I have observed before. It can be much like that with music for me. |
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: February 12 2019 at 08:44
And why do you act if it exists if there are no certainties? Maybe because when you jump off a cliff you ALWAYS fall off? Sorry, but this is a form of mental masturbation. Of course there are multi-dimensional aspects of reality but what we call the spiritual world in the ethers is just another onion skin layer of reality that we interact with. Within certain systems, absolutes are governed by natural laws and just because you do not understand these laws does not mean they do not exist. I guarantee you that no matter what you believe, you will fall towards the center of the Earth if you jump off a cliff. This sort of cognitive dissonance you are experiencing is a form of right / left brain imbalance. Sounds like those religious nuts who believe poisonous snakes won't bite them when they dance with them because they pray to Jesus and then end up dead. The universe is governed by perceptible and immutable natural laws and to deny these ubiquitous forces is at your own detriment. ------------- https://rateyourmusic.com/~siLLy_puPPy |
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: February 12 2019 at 08:55
|
^ and yes i do believe there are higher beings that exist in dimensions above us that can supersede our limitations but i'm talking about the systems we experience ourselves as mere mortals. And if you are trying to get into the Matrix sort of thing where everything is just a cosmic computer program where any laws can be changed by an insert of a cosmic algorhythm then i can hang with that. Theoretical hypothesis and speculation is quite fascinating but doesn't negate natural laws in the plane of reality where we currently exist. ------------- https://rateyourmusic.com/~siLLy_puPPy |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: February 12 2019 at 08:59
|
I can be extremely sure of something (I'll fancifully say infinity minus one) such as I will fall (of which I can think with almost absolute confidence that I would, and wouldn't assume otherwise) without being an absolutist on anything. That keeps me safe, I think. I don't deny that those forces/ natural laws exist but I will say that there is a possibility, however improbable, that they do not. As I said on page one: In science, it's about evidence as there is no proof. It's not a closed system and every theory is open to questioning, adaptation or scrapping when new evidence comes to light. Science is about trying to understand how the universe works, but it shouldn't be making absolute truth claims as everything is open to reevaluation -- hypotheses, theories and claims are provisional and tentative -- they are subject to change. For myself, I'm agnostic, in the sense of not knowing for certain, in all things. As Russell says in his first commandment "Do not feel absolutely certain of anything." ------------- Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I have observed before. It can be much like that with music for me. |
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: February 12 2019 at 09:11
|
^ good luck with all that! Belieiving gravity is real isn't science. It's about experience. Just like burning your hand on a hot stove. I will never assume that i won't injure myself on a hot stove under any circumstances. Not everything is a theory. I do agree that much science is represented as truth when in fact it is theory but there are certain things that are. I understand where you're coming from because i used to be that way myself. Certain spiritual disciplines have given more insight into the tangible nature of certain universal principles. Like i said, it's a left / brain imbalance that kept me in this state. Interesting topic! I'm all about philosphy and existential quandaries of life :) ------------- https://rateyourmusic.com/~siLLy_puPPy |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: February 12 2019 at 09:12
|
By the way, my non-absolutist perspective is very different to "those religious nuts who believe poisonous snakes won't bite them when they dance with them because they pray to Jesus and then end up dead" in that I would not take such things on faith. They are believers whereas I don't believe in anything with absolute certainty. My assumptions would not lead me into such situations. ------------- Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I have observed before. It can be much like that with music for me. |
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: February 12 2019 at 09:15
NOT believing in anything, just like atheism is just another form of fundamentalism. I have had this argument with a friend for years who refused to believe in the possibilities. However religious believers and not believing in anything have more in common than is readily apparent. Different shades of gray. You are more grounded in reality but you'd be surprise that despite your words, you really do believe in certain things. ------------- https://rateyourmusic.com/~siLLy_puPPy |
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: February 12 2019 at 09:22
|
BTW, what i'm reading from you is that you believe in probabilities where the paranormal and preternatural forces can intervene in what we deem as reality. I'm down with all that actually. Once upon a time airplanes would've been seen as impossible etc. But come on. Is it not a certainty that if you called me a %$#^*&() and threatened my life on this chat that you wouldn't be dealt with accordingly? LOL My main gripe about this is that NOTHING can be certain. It is clear that given a certain universal equation without divine intervention, certainty is guaranteed. The sun rises in the east (at the equator) and no matter how much i really want to i am certain i cannot grow suction cup tentacles like an octopus ------------- https://rateyourmusic.com/~siLLy_puPPy |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: February 12 2019 at 09:35
I wouldn't be surprised. I believe in a great many things, including gravity, but I see that as different as in being absolutely certain of things (partially this is a question of semantics). I guess it depends on what you mean by fundamentalism (we all have fundamental beliefs and assumptions, I think). For the general audience, there is a spectrum in atheism, it means without theism for those that don't know. I am a soft atheist (otherwise known as agnostic atheism). I don't claim that there is or isn't a God, hard atheists claim that there is no God, which seems closer to the orthodox religious mindset to me in that there is a belief system which makes claims (claims that I don't think can be adequately answered). I think we all have plenty in common in different ways and we all operate using sets of assumptions. I act as if things are true and false even if when thinking about it I think that it is not necessarily 100 percent true or false. I was branded a nihilist when young by a friend, but I would reject such a claim. ------------- Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I have observed before. It can be much like that with music for me. |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: February 12 2019 at 09:58
Just quoting for now without much substance on my end as I wouldn't want to see such a thoughtful and elegant post go unnoticed as it fell as the final post on the last page. What you have written does resonate strongly with me and you have brought up a lot that I have pondered and continue to ponder. I agree that open-mindedness, tolerance and liberty must/should/will have its limits. I'm not that keen on tolerating intolerant people. I like a quote that I heard from Richard Dawkins, "I try to keep an open mind, just not so open that my brains fall out." ------------- Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I have observed before. It can be much like that with music for me. |
Posted By: Lewian
Date Posted: February 12 2019 at 10:49
Why do you need certainty to act? Why would you need to be certain to fall off in order to not jump? We're acting on subjective probability all the time, don't we?
In my view talking of absolute certainty is more "intellectual and linguistic gobbledeegoop" than accepting that we can't have that. Understanding gravity good enough to stay safe where you can is useful, putting an unnecessary absolutist label on it is definitely not what keeps us alive. Having some ideas of what will probably happen is good enough to act; whether something exists objectively (whatever that exactly means) doesn't matter much in life. Writing EXIST in big capital letters is just rhetoric. |
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: February 12 2019 at 10:58
Probability is definitely the norm. When do the effects of gravity never lead to falling down instead of up? Give me an example and you'll have a point otherwise you're just refusing to acknowledge the obvious. Even I were to take the point of incertainty to heart then by definition incertainty becomes a certainly just as change I'd the only constant in the universe ------------- https://rateyourmusic.com/~siLLy_puPPy |
Posted By: twseel
Date Posted: February 12 2019 at 11:16
|
With regards to the example of gravity, the doubt is there for the attempts to describe gravity as an amalgamation of other existing forces, meaning that the theory of gravity would almost always be true as it stands today, but only because it has come so close to a more accurate account for what causes things to attract to mass. And then there is the more wacko theories of the earth moving upwards (or perhas outward for non-flat-earthers, but it's mostly flat-earthers promoting this theory), which with some theoretical hassle (a lot, actually) might also be the basis of a plausible alternative theory... None of this requires you doubt the fact that you can fall of a ledge if you tried, but it is the stuff that motivates theoretical science to keep developing. -------------
|
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: February 12 2019 at 11:22
|
^ whether gravity is an agglutination of other forces is irrelevant to the example of certainty. It is the accepted term that describes the force that pulls matter towards the center of a larger aggregation of matter. Once again if you can provide one example of this, then you have a case, otherwise it is simply denying the obvious. ------------- https://rateyourmusic.com/~siLLy_puPPy |
Posted By: Lewian
Date Posted: February 12 2019 at 11:40
|
siLLy puPPy: Regarding gravity I probably believe the same as you do, so why would I come up with a counterexample? However, that I won't hasn't any implication on whether or not certainty is absolute, which was your case (mine is that for acting in life the absoluteness case is irrelevant). |
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: February 12 2019 at 11:47
Then by default, gravitational effects are a certainty. Certainty is absolute. Therfore gravitational forces are absolute. Of course we're talking about where we can perceive. Quantum reality is another reality. ------------- https://rateyourmusic.com/~siLLy_puPPy |
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: February 12 2019 at 12:45
|
Closer to home. Is it not a certainty and absolute that symphonic prog is a subgenre on this site? When is it never the absolute case that 1 plus 1 doesn't equal 2? Why is their certainty and absolutism? Because mathematics proves it to be so. I think that the axioms could've been worded better. When it comes to human values, behaviors and philosophies I think that it does apply. ------------- https://rateyourmusic.com/~siLLy_puPPy |
Posted By: twseel
Date Posted: February 12 2019 at 13:38
|
That's just certainty for practical purposes, not for theoretical purposes. -------------
|
Posted By: twseel
Date Posted: February 12 2019 at 13:41
|
On the theoretical level we can doubt the THEORY of gravity, in practice we practically assume that the same consistent phenomenon we describe as gravity will stay consistent. -------------
|
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: February 12 2019 at 16:35
|
^ gravity is not a theory, it's a fact. WHAT gravity is, is another matter. ------------- https://rateyourmusic.com/~siLLy_puPPy |
Posted By: Snicolette
Date Posted: February 12 2019 at 16:53
This reminded me of when my son was about 9, he asked me what space was made of. So we wrote to NASA KIDS and they wrote back with some details. ------------- "Into every rain, a little life must fall." ~Tom Rapp |
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: February 12 2019 at 17:04
I know. I never grew up. My sense of wonder of a child is still in tact but my adult analytical skills have been nurtured to excessiveness! My point is that we don't have to know what gravity is in order for us to understand it's effect. Sorry to hijack this thread. I've made my point so i'll shut the BLEEEEEP up now. Thanks for enduring my rants ------------- https://rateyourmusic.com/~siLLy_puPPy |
Posted By: Snicolette
Date Posted: February 12 2019 at 17:24
It's a discussion, so much is subjective here, after all. Not everything, of course. That "sense of wonder," is why I never would begin to pretend that I did know something that I did not. How on earth (or anywhere else) could I ever learn new things, if I knew everything....I think that idea was expressed elsewhere herein in a famous quote, the idea of knowing enough to know you don't know.... ------------- "Into every rain, a little life must fall." ~Tom Rapp |
Posted By: twseel
Date Posted: February 13 2019 at 01:09
But I think the point you're still missing about this radical rationality is how it can form the basis for understanding things that seem incomprehensible at first. How can you accept quantum physics without reducing the truth value you've ascribed to your earlier understanding of physics? You may be dazed and confused at first but when it matters to you and you put in the conscious effort, your brain can develop a more comprehensive and reliable understanding of the world every time you accept the evidence for something seemingly unlikely. That's what I get from it at least. -------------
|
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: February 13 2019 at 07:28
To use your thoughts as a springboard for my own which are getting a bit masturbatory (your term, I'd say w**ky): First of all, if anyone is taking these "commandments" as absolutes, one would be missing the point since a non-absolutist would not take anything as absolute, including their universal dismissal of absolutism (and I think there is something tongue-in-cheek in calling it commandments after the Ten Commandments).. It can lead to some paradoxical thinking, but I don't think it need lead to cognitive dissonance (since you brought that up before and perhaps I did before that). Being able to hold multiple possibilities, and even contradictions, in one's mind at the same time can show adept thinking and need not lead to psychological stress. If one does not hold either proposition as absolute fact, then, I don't think that need be a problem. The left brain and right brain works in concert. I won't get into that, but some research indicates less compartmentalisation than was thought with the hemispheres. It is extremely improbable that symphonic prog is not a subgenre on this site. Assuming we have a known, shared universe between us, and it exists when we are not observing it, then I would say that yes, it exists, I think it exists, but still some assumptions need to be made. That said, I think it's better to take a more general message about being open to new ideas and evidence (there is evidence that it exists) from "Do not feel absolutely certain of anything." "The first step on the road to wisdom is the recognition of one's own ignorance" (paraphrased by me from Plato). What's most important to me is recognising that what we assume to be true/ absolute may be false or invalid, or there may be other valid interpretations and perspectives, and we should question our notions that we hold as absolute or even just probable. I'm reminded of O'Brian in 1984 when he's interrogating Winston and they are talking about the nature of reality in this(to take one quote). "You believe that reality is something objective, external, existing in its own right. You also believe that the nature of reality is self-evident. When you delude yourself into thinking that you see something, you assume that everyone else sees the same thing as you. But I tell you, Winston, that reality is not external. Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else. Not in the individual mind, which can make mistakes, and in any case soon perishes: only in the mind of the Party, which is collective and immortal. Whatever the Party holds to be the truth, is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party. That is the fact that you have got to relearn, Winston. It needs an act of self- destruction, an effort of the will. You must humble yourself before you can become sane." (3.2.51, O’Brien in 1984) 2+24 Winston persists. Mathematics (at least "hard" mathematics and logic) is a closed-set, within that approach and framework, proof exists. Science, theory, physics and metaphysics is not a closed set but it utilises closed sets. Now aside from being a philosopher Bertrand Russell was an acclaimed mathematician, and yet he as not an absolutist. He held strong beliefs, he used proof within the constructed field of mathematics (a useful tool). His axioms were part of an article as I recall, and he has gone into more depth elsewhere. He's deliberately keeping it short in echoing The Ten Commandments. Think of it as a summary of the ideas. In terms of practicality, it is best suited to human values, behaviors and philosophies, and this outlook is best thought of as of that realm. The commandments are part of an article he write for The New York Times called “The Best Answer to Fanaticism--Liberalism; Its calm search for truth, viewed as dangerous in many places, remains the hope of humanity” and it is best viewed within the context of the article: Quotes from the article (I bolded one part): "But the liberal attitude does not say that you should oppose authority. It says only that you should be free to oppose authority, which is quite a different thing. The essence of the liberal outlook in the intellectual sphere is a belief that unbiased discussion is a useful thing and that men should be free to question anything if they can support their questioning by solid arguments. The opposite view, which is maintained by those who cannot be called liberals, is that the truth is already known, and that to question it is necessarily subversive." "The teacher who urges doctrines subversive to existing authority does not, if he is a liberal, advocate the establishment of a new authority even more tyrannical than the old. He advocates certain limits to the exercise of authority, and he wishes these limits to be observed not only when the authority would support a creed with which he disagrees but also when it would support one with which he is in complete agreement. I am, for my part, a believer in democracy, but I do not like a regime which makes belief in democracy compulsory." {Edited to add a "don't"} ------------- Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I have observed before. It can be much like that with music for me. |
Posted By: twseel
Date Posted: February 13 2019 at 07:55
|
To agree one thing though, Puppy, I too can get really annoyed when I see the 'but you don't know for sure' argument used as a way to shut down better informed people, and I think the 'nothing is certain' principle should be used as a motivation to produce more evidence rather than less. -------------
|
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: February 13 2019 at 08:05
I find this a slightly perplexing response at first from Silly Puppy as you had explicitly framed your initial clause within the theoretical perspective. There are laws of gravity and there are theories of gravity (Newton, Einstein, later). In practicality, one might call the effect (say falling) a fact, but gravity itself to not be a fact. There are different ways to look at it methinks. Science works on sets of assumptions, and as said, it is not a closed-set. Gravity is a theory in the way that it explains an observed "fact" (say falling) which is arrived at through inductive logic. I would not use the term fact to describe gravity itself even if it is a fact that things fall down (one doesn't need to go into brains in vat or various metaphysical avenues) -- that things fall down is a simpler form of data which can be directly observed and I am fine with calling that "a fact" within the context of a knowable and observable universe. A proper scientific theory is a very strong claim, much stronger than a hypothesis, it has withstood falsifiability and scrutiny. Gravity as a means of explaining phenomena is not a fact, but a theory. It's a way of explaining an observed fact -- for instance falling down without being the falling down itself. This is way I don't accept it as absolute or fact even when not going down the metaphysical route. By the way, I was hoping to understand your views on this better (I snipped our posts and corrected some typosfrom my earlier post without changing the thoughts):
------------- Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I have observed before. It can be much like that with music for me. |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: February 13 2019 at 08:07
If I seem to be doing that, please do let me know. I don't want to shut down argument and I like to be open to a wide variety of perspectives and hope to learn in conversation. ------------- Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I have observed before. It can be much like that with music for me. |
Posted By: Lewian
Date Posted: February 13 2019 at 09:15
|
Some more on "1. Do not feel absolutely certain of anything." As I wrote earlier, I often find more interesting what the use of language is meant to achieve than what it "really" means, whether it's "really" true or false etc. This commandment in my view can also be understood in this way. I think it is meant to apply to situations in which there is controversy, and proper controversy (i.e. not something made up by somebody just to provoke or annoy). I'd think we all have some basic agreement about how gravity works and what this means in daily life, and therefore regarding these issues this commandment doesn't really apply, or isn't really of interest or importance. I disagreed with siLLy puPPy earlier but the disagreement whether we should or should not feel certain about gravity isn't really important to me; rather I think that the examples that he brought up (incl. Symphonic Prog and 1+1=2) aren't examples for which Russell's commandment is relevant in the sense that we really get any benefit out of it. Rather this becomes interesting when faced with somebody who has seriously different views, and the question then is, do we give such a person and the view they hold a chance, or do we shut her down believing that we're absolutely right and she's not going to change that at all anyway?
Well said, and actually in perfect agreement with Russell's commandment, which doesn't come as a supposedly objective statement "nobody knows for sure" but rather I understand it as an appeal for openness and against shutting down anybody, surely not those who might know better! Regarding 1+1=2 and "Symphonic Prog is a genre on PA" by the way I'd say that these are true relative to specific systems of reference, within which they cannot be doubted because they are essential parts of the constitution of these systems (somebody who says that "Symphonic Prog is not a genre on PA" maybe right but only if she talks about another PA); however it's a stretch to call these truths "absolute". |
Posted By: twseel
Date Posted: February 13 2019 at 09:35
-------------
|
Posted By: Polymorphia
Date Posted: February 13 2019 at 20:13
|
My understanding is that Russell is essentially championing the practice of methodical doubt that Descartes used without believing in an axiom like Descartes did. So the "certainty" that Russell speaks of is mathematical certainty, which cannot involve the senses or experience unless the senses and experience were reasoned deductively from an axiom. According to my experience (can I trust yours as much as mine?), gravity being part of an illusory reality created by lizard-like overlords (that we, of course, cannot sense) from another dimension rather than an actual physical phenomenon is very, very, very, very ^10000 improbable, but still possible, like Russell's tea pot (although meant to make a different point). For Russell, anything that we "know" is known in probabilities. Is this practical? In some cases, probably not with gravity. Being absolutely certain of gravity and being only practically certain of gravity will probably produce the same results. fwiw, I'm with Descartes. ------------- https://dreamwindow.bandcamp.com/releases" rel="nofollow - My Music 
|
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: February 13 2019 at 20:17
So, a David Icke fan, huh? I knew it all boiled down to the Reptilean Overlords GRAVITY is an illusion conceived by SATAN, just like the round earth ------------- https://rateyourmusic.com/~siLLy_puPPy |
Posted By: jamesbaldwin
Date Posted: February 15 2019 at 09:32
|
Very interesting thread. 1) the reality of common sense. That is to say: the world (the universe) exists. It is not an effect of our perception. There is a fact (it is not all relative). Almost all scientists start from here. In other words, there are certainties, starting from the existence of the universe. 2) scientific theories explain the phenomena of the world, and when they are always corroborated by the facts (and never refuted), after a while scientists consider it a fact. No longer a theory. Some theories are easy to verify, such as gravity (many reproducible experiments are made), others not, such as biological ones: they require different types of evidence (macroevolution: based on a unique story, each experiment is unique, and how to prove a 'evolution occurred in billions of years? You can not do such a long experiment, hence also the various critics of evolution: no one can prove in the laboratory how a new species is formed: of course it would take thousands of years!). For example, the geocentric theories of Copernicus and Kepler, is considered a fact today. Then, of course, with regard to the force of gravity, which is the force that attracts every object present in the Universe on the basis of the mass, even today this is considered a fact. The Earth revolves around the Sun and not inversely because the center of gravity of the masses between Earth and Sun, being the Sun much bigger, is practically in the Sun, near its center. Returning to Russell, I believe that he meant to always doubt, understood as a methodical doubt, of everything (scientific assumption is one of which he can prove his falsity: "tomorrow it will rain" is a scientific assumption: it could happen that instead there will be the Sun. Tomorrow is Saturday is not scientific: it is sure). "You better be doubtful" sings Housemartins: Yes, always taking into consideration that you can make mistakes, as an opinion, is always wise. But I think that Russell accepted that in science, some statements are considered facts.
------------- Amos Goldberg (professor of Genocide Studies at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem): Yes, it's genocide. It's so difficult and painful to admit it, but we can no longer avoid this conclusion. |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: February 15 2019 at 11:35
|
Some very interesting and thoughtful posts here. While science and epistemology (theory of knowledge for those who might be unfamiliar with the term) is based on assumptions, we and science can consider many things to be facts based on observation, experimentation, and logic that has withstood falsifiability attempts. I would sooner consider gravity to be a fact than that a mass murderer who has done terrible things is necessarily "evil" (but then that can come down to one's own frameworks and biases). It can rather depend on how one "frames" the word fact. I would maintain that science deals in evidence rather than proof (while utilising types of proof, for instance in logic and mathematics) as it's not a closed system, but facts work in science. This is where clear definitions are useful, and terms can be used differently in different disciplines and systems, one certainly can say that science deals in fact and that that which has has been carefully observed and tested can be considered fact. I see fact in science as very well substantiated data, but it need not imply absolute certainty. The theory is the well-established/ very well-substantiated explanation of the data which is considered factual. Facts in this scientific sense are simple, they are based on empirical evidence and rely on meticulous, repeatable observation or measurement. This, and science generally, relies on a knowable, observable universe, it is consistent with objective, observable and testable reality. That said, indeed, while this an interesting avenue to explore, it's clear to me that the logician, mathematician and philosopher Bertrand Russell's meaning was that one should doubt and that one should back up one's beliefs and claims with evidence and logic as various people including myself have said. He promoted reason and rational scepticism. To quote this once again from his article that contains his "commandments": "The essence of the liberal outlook in the intellectual sphere is a belief that unbiased discussion is a useful thing and that men should be free to question anything if they can support their questioning by solid arguments." "I think we ought always to entertain our opinions with some measure of doubt. I shouldn't wish people dogmatically to believe any philosophy, not even mine" (Bertrand Russell). ------------- Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I have observed before. It can be much like that with music for me. |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: March 21 2019 at 14:25
|
I noticed a disparaging comment about liberals in another topic, but didn't want to side-track that one. The term liberal has different connotations depending on the discipline, the region, the context and the time. It can mean different things and have different shades of meaning. I know people who identify as conservatives who also stand up for liberal democracy and call themselves classic liberals. I know self-professed liberals who despise many so-called progressives (call them regressives), and I know progressives who despise some sorts of liberals. I think you can be a liberal who identifies more with the so-called right, left, or centre of political discourse. On some issues I'd be considered by some on the left, and on others some would claim that I'm on the right, and I don't like to put myself on the spectrum (and I don't belong to any political party or religious group). I don't think labeling is helpful in many cases (far too often it is used to insult and shut down conversation rather than in the interests of an honest, intellectual pursuit, and too often its an oversimplification -- people and systems have complexity). All too often it lacks nuance, generates more misunderstanding and bad feelings, can get in the way of truth-seeking (or what seems most valid and rational), and can get in the way of productive conversation (and often goes against one of the principles of some formal argumentation, the principle of charity). It's important to define our terms well, and understand other perspectives and psychologies and where one disagrees. I like dialectic which leads to some synthesis. Tribalism and absolutism can be dangerous. It's important to define well when it comes to what can be quite nebulous terms that incorporate a wide spectrum of people under its umbrella. I like to think that I'm liberal in being a fairly free-thinker, a non-absolutist, and open to new evidence, reason, and perspectives. To adopt a saying, as a liberal, I like to think I have an open-mind, just not so open that my brains fall out. Some who call themselves liberal I find very illiberal (close-minded, hyper-opinionated, very intolerant), and don't seem to subscribe to enlightenment values. In some ways I am quite conservative (or preservative) as I wish to conserve that which I think worthwhile, that which I value (be it the environment, culture, art...). Anyway, so what does being a liberal or being a liberal-thinker or having a liberal mindset mean to people here? I am hoping to hear from some who use the term "liberal" as a pejorative, or see it negatively, and understand those people better, as well as those who subscribe to liberal values/ a liberal mindset. It might help to start with defining the term in the way that you use it as otherwise it might lead to misunderstanding and talking at cross-purposes. ------------- Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I have observed before. It can be much like that with music for me. |
Posted By: Snicolette
Date Posted: March 21 2019 at 15:59
I pretty much define myself as a liberal and hope that in so doing, I am defining myself in the terms such as you describe above (not the negative, I do try to listen to all sides and see other's points of view), and also agree on your definition of conservative/preservative, and think that I espouse that as well, in being a "liberal." I strongly believe that we must all have respectful discourse on all sides, even though we may not be swayed by another's explanation for a particular stance, nor they to mine, we at least have been exposed to ideas that are not our own in an effort to understand one another, and hopefully end up with at least peaceful tolerance on both sides...and also thereby have a chance to find what we have in common through such discourse. This is something that I think is one of the great beauties embodied in music, it can speak to all, even when we don't share a common language otherwise. ------------- "Into every rain, a little life must fall." ~Tom Rapp |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: March 22 2019 at 02:44
Thanks, Nickie. Agreed. I'll just lamely add (it's late and I'm not thinking very clearly so prepare for some mega rambling) that while we ultimately should not necessarily tolerate the intolerant, even when speaking to intolerant people I think some dialogue can be useful to better understand their intolerance -- that is provided they are tolerant enough of us to engage in some dialogue, but at the least some listening can help. Not only is acting in a respectful manner nice, but when one one is mocking, patronising, arrogant or generally demeaning, it causes people to go on the defensive and be more offensive themselves. I don't think that it's a good strategy for changing opinions if that is one's aim (doubt that usually is the aim when being denigrating), and is likely to only appeal to those witnesses of the spectacle who agree with you. I think that acting respectfully is important, but at the same time I don't think we need to respect other opinions or people. I like to at least try to understand someone's perspective even if I find it morally repugnant or very misguided. Peaceful tolerance at the least, or politely "agreeing to disagree" isn't a bad outcome. I should probably stop looking at Twitter, where I find far too many people who resort to ad hominems, misinformed people who take others out of context, and terrible tribalism and trolling, as well as really irritating to me gifs (ugh, I should try be more tolerant of those, but they seem so inane, and I know a thing or two, or both, about being inane). While I have researched why "liberal" is considered by so many "Conservatives", particularly in the US, to be a dirty word and liberals as being worthy of mocking, when I've engaged with such people (mostly in political forums before I joined this site), none of them were willing to define what they meant by liberal to me or even expatiate on why they despise liberal values (or the history of liberal democracies?). I thought it was mostly an American thing, but I have met Canadians who also use it in the same disparaging way. Being flexible in one's thinking, and being open to re-evaluating one's opinions when presented with new evidence is not a bad thing in my books. While I see the logic of moral relativism, I wouldn't even consider myself to be a moral relativist. Ethics that promote the minimum amount of suffering and the most amount of satisfaction without the need for certain supernatural assumptions seem best to me. And secularism seems preferable to sectarianism to me. I guess many conservatives, or alt-right, people these days think that liberals have a death wish for their traditions, or think that all white Liberals are living with "white guilt". Or they think that are too affirmative action. And of course there's the idea that "liberals", who do tend to favour social safety nets, give a free pass for laziness, and some claim are not interested enough in the prosperity of the individual. Personally, I do want want to see things become fairer (and by that I don't mean more white, or less white for that matter). I'd like to see more equality of opportunity, but I still believe in merit. That said, I think some people need more help than others to realise their potential and I do think that a level of systemic change is needed to make things more equitable which might require some affirmative action to get things going. I also think those who put more effort into things should benefit, and those who are smarter I would expect to generally do better (ideally, I'd want smart, honest and "good"/ kind people in positions of power). Ideally, I would like a society where everyone has the opportunity to have a deeply fulfilling, satisfying, and rich life (by rich I don't mean money) and can be given opportunities to reach their potential (be it as a gigolo, a gynecologist, a physicist, a dog walker, a mechanic, a mathematician, a chef, a pet food taster, a teacher, a writer, an artist, a deodorant tester or as a vacuum cleaner, which would kind of suck). While I'd like to see improvements, I don't believe in changing things for the sake of changing things. There are many things that have come from my civilisational history, as well as others, that I would like to see preserved. The conservation of many things is important to me. I value much of my cultural heritage, and when I travel, I appreciate other cultures. I care deeply about environmental issues, and so deeply value the preservation/ conservation of "nature". I value science, and the scientific method, but I don't think that all technological innovation would be good thing (like if we could all 3D print nuclear weapons, or create bio-weapons with our home technology). I'd like to think that humanity will exist, improve and prosper long after I am gone -- that may mean some unpopular decisions such as limiting the number of offspring allowed and advances in robotics to help with a workforce, and possibly genetic enhancements, but that could lead to a Gattaca-like brave new world. ------------- Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I have observed before. It can be much like that with music for me. |