tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post5347254207695283751..comments2024-03-18T21:33:35.309-07:00Comments on One Cʘsmos: Mind and Mater (10.10.11)Gagdad Bobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-21754328781381117722008-10-17T20:58:00.000-07:002008-10-17T20:58:00.000-07:00Ray said "...if it's not expressed in your vocabul...Ray said "...if it's not expressed in your vocabulary, it's automatically wrong. You're using British units and I'm using metric..."<BR/><BR/>While you may soothe yourself over mere differences in vocabulary and appearances, I'm looking at the meaning of what you said, and use whatever words you'd like to there, the meaning would be the same... and it sure don't smell like roses.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-67049413952290326762008-10-17T20:10:00.000-07:002008-10-17T20:10:00.000-07:00Van - As usual, we're in violent agreement about m...Van - As usual, we're in violent agreement about most things. But if it's not expressed in your vocabulary, it's automatically wrong. You're using British units and I'm using metric. Oh, well.Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-21036444476952248972008-10-17T08:06:00.000-07:002008-10-17T08:06:00.000-07:00Ray said "...But 'doubt' is not equal in all cases...Ray said "...But 'doubt' is not equal in all cases..."<BR/> <BR/>Doubt, in its proper context, is only a handmaiden to Questioning. Its purpose is to alert you that things don't jibe somewhere, that something doesn't add up, it is a result of perceived discrepancies in the 'things as you know them', and serves to advise you that you should look closer at something.<BR/><BR/>Attempting to use Doubt as if it were a primary, is putting the cart before the horse, or the advisor in the executives chair, or the child in place of the Man.<BR/><BR/>Doubt, when put in a primary role, doubts all, it disintegrates all that is integrated, both that which is properly integrated and what is misintegrated, it serves no knowledge, because it admits none, recognizes none, has none.<BR/><BR/>It masquerades as its better, Questioning, but doesn't measure up. Questioning examines, exposes error while seeking to unite and integrate for the purpose of creating or enhancing knowledge.<BR/><BR/>There's a reason why leftists are whiners, their philosophy descends from Cartesian Doubt, and at their core, they are little better than the most obnoxious of teenagers, posturing with their shallow cynicism, thinking themselves wise without a drop of wisdom in them.<BR/><BR/>To put it politely.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-81808627801142538852008-10-17T07:16:00.000-07:002008-10-17T07:16:00.000-07:00Van - BTW, I too have a promised post 'under const...Van - BTW, I too have a promised post 'under construction', but hopefully not <I>too</I> much longer.Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-45621733920314463222008-10-17T07:13:00.000-07:002008-10-17T07:13:00.000-07:00Van - But 'doubt' is not equal in all cases. You c...Van - But 'doubt' is not equal in all cases. You can never get anything in the real world down to zero degrees Kelvin - if nothing else, quantum mechanics will prevent it - but you can get close enough for any practical purpose. Similarly, you can't get to zero doubt about anything in the real world, but you can get 'close enough'.Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-80474018548439570552008-10-16T18:53:00.000-07:002008-10-16T18:53:00.000-07:00Anonymous said..."What is the basis of reason? Fai...Anonymous said..."What is the basis of reason? Faith."<BR/><BR/>Nope. <BR/><BR/>Reality is. And, IMHO, for faith to have any strength, it must respect and flow from Truth and Honesty, which can only have meaning in respect to reality - to what is true.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-50846969644878646672008-10-16T18:48:00.000-07:002008-10-16T18:48:00.000-07:00Nice try Ray.This is what I was acknowledging, "th...Nice try Ray.<BR/><BR/>This is what I was acknowledging, <BR/><BR/><I>"that those who advocate philosophical doubt as a general solvent of error and a cure for all fanaticism would desire to bring up children without any rational guidance or contemplate any other scheme of universal hebetation. I am only saying that this is what their principals demand. What they actually want is not expressed but concealed by their declared principals. "</I><BR/><BR/>Pretty much sums up why I continually have to say what you don't realize you meant.<BR/><BR/>"The whole notion of doubt automatically implying a lack of "any rational guidance" seems to be a glaring problem with Mitchell's apparent account of Polyani."<BR/><BR/>That is the part that is absolutely true and accurate. 'Doubt' as a centerpiece of intellectual activity, is juvenile, and ultimately destructive of reason and knowledge.<BR/><BR/>(sigh)<BR/><BR/>My post on that coming soon....Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-57786476640198492002008-10-16T14:46:00.000-07:002008-10-16T14:46:00.000-07:00What is the basis of reason? Faith.What is the basis of reason? Faith.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-50852889109571363842008-10-16T11:29:00.000-07:002008-10-16T11:29:00.000-07:00Van - By that definition, I'm neither an objectivi...Van - By that definition, I'm neither an objectivist <I>or</I> a subjectivist. Another <A HREF="http://catb.org/jargon/html/M/mu.html" REL="nofollow">mu</A>.<BR/><BR/>(The whole notion of doubt automatically implying a lack of "any rational guidance" seems to be a glaring problem with Mitchell's apparent account of Polyani.)Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-252263137491936702008-10-16T10:34:00.000-07:002008-10-16T10:34:00.000-07:00Science, on the other hand, begins with facts -- "...<I>Science, on the other hand, begins with facts -- "the book of nature" -- and attempts to reason from the periphery to the center (which is strictly impossible, as the very conduct of science presupposes the human center). Put another way, the "last stage" of God's involution is the material world, whereas the latter is the starting point of science.</I><BR/><BR/>Good stuff B'ob~<BR/><BR/>Religion starts from the center and only reaches the periphery through the (imperfect) conduit of humanity. Science -properly applied- can only move towards the center via the same human conductor. <BR/><BR/>This is where the scientistic mind is really quite devious. It cuts the human chord with the transcendent sender and thereby reduces man to a flat organ-ic endtity. Once the soul's lieds are out, a man can easily convince hymnself that there is no Higher Power. <BR/><BR/>Fortunately, even in a whirled of randumb noise, a soul that is in tune with the vertexal One will never lose it's Composer.<BR/><BR/>(sorry for getting carried away)Brazentidehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14185966349888770222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-22651065725227432952008-10-16T08:38:00.000-07:002008-10-16T08:38:00.000-07:00I think Polanyi's objection is mostly the idea tha...I think Polanyi's objection is mostly the idea that an objective world exists outside of the human subject that can be examined and classified and dissected. He argues that not only is the human subject a part of this reality, but it is through the human subject itself and its nature that we even able to know anything at all. It's even cooler how he extends the notion of subject into the tools which we use to know the world. He also makes much of the decisive intuition: where we conclude something suddenly that could not be deduced from the facts. Sometimes we're right, sometimes we're not. A fruitful and honorable imagination is the sparkplug to this engine :)Ephrem Antony Grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00032465992619034619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-44644644590377100092008-10-16T07:43:00.000-07:002008-10-16T07:43:00.000-07:00Ray said "Fezziwig - If he was trying to protect f...Ray said "Fezziwig - If he was trying to protect from my 'barrage', he built the fort in the wrong place. Van already noted that I'm not an objectivist."<BR/><BR/>I haven't read the book, so I can't say for sure, but my bet would be that Polyani was talking about general philosophical term of objectivism, as in subjectivism vs objectivism, rather than the 'Objectivist' movement, which only started rather late in Polyani's life, and which is quite different from Rand's ideas.<BR/><BR/>A quick search pops up <A HREF="http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/103/eoes.html" REL="nofollow">a paper on it </A>, I just made a quick scan, but seems to hit the basics.<BR/>And Ray is <I>so in need</I> of the basics. And links.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-91254341436658441442008-10-16T07:04:00.000-07:002008-10-16T07:04:00.000-07:00What? No link?What? No link?Captain Fezziwighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04448732925188766988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-91084342834565980592008-10-16T06:34:00.000-07:002008-10-16T06:34:00.000-07:00Ray's certainly not the objectivest here.Ho!Ray's certainly not the objectivest here.<BR/><BR/>Ho!Ephrem Antony Grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00032465992619034619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-85487501237266717962008-10-16T06:12:00.000-07:002008-10-16T06:12:00.000-07:00Fezziwig - If he was trying to protect from my 'ba...Fezziwig - If he was trying to protect from <I>my</I> 'barrage', he built the fort in the wrong place. Van already noted that I'm not an objectivist.Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-19408693192074343552008-10-16T05:40:00.000-07:002008-10-16T05:40:00.000-07:00He's got better quality stones, you could say.He's got better quality stones, you could say.Captain Fezziwighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04448732925188766988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-2950847171736401322008-10-16T05:34:00.000-07:002008-10-16T05:34:00.000-07:00Polanyi’s clever too. Funny how he was able to bui...Polanyi’s clever too. Funny how he was able to build his fortification well ahead of Ray’s linking barrage. And swift, I might add. So few bricks!Captain Fezziwighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04448732925188766988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-56703892970786655202008-10-16T05:28:00.000-07:002008-10-16T05:28:00.000-07:00Tanks, Van.Polanyi’s got a way of cutting through ...Tanks, Van.<BR/>Polanyi’s got a way of cutting through the fog, eh? ‘specially in the mornin'Captain Fezziwighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04448732925188766988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-59428254224799768362008-10-16T05:24:00.000-07:002008-10-16T05:24:00.000-07:00What’s your point?What’s your point?Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10589423819039764711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-52981816972889554132008-10-16T05:22:00.000-07:002008-10-16T05:22:00.000-07:00Boss, it was a slip, and he actually said, “Senato...Boss, it was a slip, and he actually said, “Senator Government”.Fidohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02642704557546153909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-54140147974261310742008-10-16T05:20:00.000-07:002008-10-16T05:20:00.000-07:00Way off topic…Nothing too shattering from last nig...Way off topic…<BR/>Nothing too shattering from last night’s debate. I did enjoy though when McCain said (paraphrase) “This is a hell of a time to be talking about taxing anybody.”<BR/><BR/>Also enjoyed listening to the precision of McCain’s hearing. Pointing out how OB would “look into” offshore drilling, and the wide open “health” of the mother "tell". Where ever you are on those issues, that’s some pretty good hearing.<BR/><BR/>BTW, if anyone, and I mean anyone, could follow either one’s complex explanation of their own health care plan, let that be an omen to you.<BR/><BR/>However, I thought the money quote was when he called OB “Captain Government”.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10589423819039764711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-69268032136203766412008-10-16T05:16:00.000-07:002008-10-16T05:16:00.000-07:00Excellent quote Capt'n.Excellent quote Capt'n.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-3827015059975916712008-10-16T05:07:00.000-07:002008-10-16T05:07:00.000-07:00Ray,Speeching of britches, we was just linking of ...Ray,<BR/><BR/>Speeching of britches, we was just linking of you this morning. In Mitchell’s “Polanyi” he writes…<BR/><BR/>“While it is true that the objectivist claims to admit nothing as knowledge that depends on belief, it is more accurate to say the objectivist ‘tolerates no open declaration of faith’. The contradiction in logic manifests itself in practice:<BR/><BR/>‘I do not suggest, of course, that those who advocate philosophical doubt as a general solvent of error and a cure for all fanaticism would desire to bring up children without any rational guidance or contemplate any other scheme of universal hebetation. I am only saying that this is what their principals demand. What they actually want is not expressed but concealed by their declared principals. They want their own beliefs to be taught to children and accepted by everyone, for they are convinced that this would save the world from error and strife.’<BR/><BR/>In short, objectivism is fraught with contradictions. For these reasons, Polanyi rejects it.”Captain Fezziwighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04448732925188766988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-45490770033000696052008-10-15T22:58:00.000-07:002008-10-15T22:58:00.000-07:00"Mysticism is the science of "spiritual touch," an..."Mysticism is the science of "spiritual touch," and it must be at the heart of all religion."<BR/><BR/>Num 8:10 And thou shalt bring the Levites before the LORD: and the children of Israel shall put their hands upon the Levites:Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-9272196996989569242008-10-15T21:37:00.000-07:002008-10-15T21:37:00.000-07:00Ah, but there's the rub, Nomo. If our jester were ...Ah, but there's the rub, Nomo. If our jester were to truly coontemplate, he would no longer be our jester.juliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15975754287030568726noreply@blogger.com