Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Einherjar86]

I was just reading an article today talking about how poor we are at future predictions. However, it is possible to be a visionary and recognize potential, even if we cannot nail down all the details. But I think there is a difference between unicorns and unobtanium. I know that still isn't the best example.

I'm not talking about unicorns, though.

But don't we define it to correlate? Languages aren't always logical but language is. Or should I say rational.

Why is language logical?

Well that is a different claim altogether. The Cathedral isn't Land's idea, so it is possible he doesn't have a clear conception of it.
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2008/05/ol4-dr-johnsons-hypothesis.html

How come the only explanation for Harvard's alliance with Yale is that they're co-conspirators in a massive, supra-cultural politi-fest that explains the decadent progressiveness of the West?

 

[Dak]

I'm not talking about unicorns, though.

Like I said not the best example. However, abstractions can be complete within themselves but not correspond to anything.

You could thoroughly diagram a unicorn, but that doesn't make it either tangible or useful if it were.

Why is language logical?

There is no logic of necessity to communication?

How come the only explanation for Harvard's alliance with Yale is that they're co-conspirators in a massive, supra-cultural politi-fest that explains the decadent progressiveness of the West?

I thought the explanation for the alliance was power-sharing.

 

[Einherjar86]

Like I said not the best example. However, abstractions can be complete within themselves but not correspond to anything.

You could thoroughly diagram a unicorn, but that doesn't make it either tangible or useful if it were.

There's no such thing as an abstraction that doesn't correspond to anything material. References to unicorns date back to antiquity.

A unicorn is a bad example because we actually can find tangible use for studying it, and we actually can find how it correlates to something. Even though that "something" might be a cultural imaginary or symbolic function, the unicorn has played a material role in our history.

There is no logic of necessity to communication?

First: communication isn't language.

Second: if it's logical, then prove to me that communication is necessary.

I thought the explanation for the alliance was power-sharing.

Then why does that have to be the only conclusion?

My experience with this argument has been thus:

I say that Harvard and Yale are NOT gang thugs complicit in some broad cultural progressivism that is - all things considered - detrimental.

The retort I see is: "but they're progressive and toe the same ideology-line (more or less)!!!"

That retort assumes that the only logical explanation for their alliance is that they're power-sharing in some detrimental political scheme (conscious of it or not).

So, again I ask: why is this the only explanation? Why can't it be that both are institutions that provide an environment for fostering research and intellectual discussion and thus both happen to arrive at similar critical conclusions?

 

[Dak]

There's no such thing as an abstraction that doesn't correspond to anything material. References to unicorns date back to antiquity.

A unicorn is a bad example because we actually can find tangible use for studying it, and we actually can find how it correlates to something. Even though that "something" might be a cultural imaginary or symbolic function, the unicorn has played a material role in our history.

I meant a role as a flying beast of burden with a built in weapon. An "earthy" utility rather than symbolic. Reza has played a word game with survival: Cutting it free from its earthiness, and then presented it as something else. Well we can do that all day long with any number of concepts, but for what? "Survival is not life itself..... so we could say it is resistance to life - which is impossible". Why all the wordiness? Just state: "I want to redefine 'survival' to x". But that might invite questions of "For what purpose"?, an uncomfortable question.

First: communication isn't language.

Second: if it's logical, then prove to me that communication is necessary.

Can't communication be language? I guess that would require defining language. Obviously it is not in a strictly verbal/auditory or written sense.

Theoretically all things communicate all the time, in ways we consider "active" or "passive". In this understanding, to be is to communicate. (Yeah, I know this has traveled way off).

Then why does that have to be the only conclusion?

My experience with this argument has been thus:

I say that Harvard and Yale are NOT gang thugs complicit in some broad cultural progressivism that is - all things considered - detrimental.

The retort I see is: "but they're progressive and toe the same ideology-line (more or less)!!!"

That retort assumes that the only logical explanation for their alliance is that they're power-sharing in some detrimental political scheme (conscious of it or not).

So, again I ask: why is this the only explanation? Why can't it be that both are institutions that provide an environment for fostering research and intellectual discussion and thus both happen to arrive at similar critical conclusions?

Conclusions reached by particular question asking - question asking driven by power seeking. The Heritage Foundation (yes I know it isn't a college) isn't doing Equality in Outcomes of LGBT Communities through the prism of Climate Change studies (just trying to throw buzzwords together). THF is content to be a big(almost only) fish in a small pond. For Harvard or Yale to suddenly try to become the leading Conservative or Classically Liberal or Reactionary or some other non-progressive ideology driven educational institution - something that could be done basically just by press release/curriculum change - would presumably lead to a dramatic drop in funding, prestige, and power. Of course, the detrimental nature of this arrangement and progressivism itself is a completely different argument from whether or not this sort of incentive based behavior exists.

 

[Einherjar86]

I meant a role as a flying beast of burden with a built in weapon. An "earthy" utility rather than symbolic. Reza has played a word game with survival: Cutting it free from its earthiness, and then presented it as something else. Well we can do that all day long with any number of concepts, but for what? "Survival is not life itself..... so we could say it is resistance to life - which is impossible". Why all the wordiness? Just state: "I want to redefine 'survival' to x". But that might invite questions of "For what purpose"?, an uncomfortable question.

You're defining survival based on how it's perceived by humans and idealized in consciousness. That's fine, but it cannot be a definition of survival as is, or survival qua survival. The purposes, by the very nature of their pursuit, are scientific.

Your response will be that "isn't any human definition going to be an idealization of consciousness? Isn't the only way we can define it through our consciousness?"

Answering in the affirmative reduces the whole of the world to nothing more than an object that is there for us; but this isn't the case. You just want to preserve the sanctity of our precious consciousness in order to rationalize your reduction of all decision-making to a mixture of psychology and economics. Things before us survived (in your sense of the word), and it had nothing to do with psychology or economics.

Can't communication be language? I guess that would require defining language. Obviously it is not in a strictly verbal/auditory or written sense.

Systems of communication themselves aren't language. Communication can be a man sitting inside a box, receiving patterns of letters and/or symbols on sheets of paper, following rules according to those patterns, and sending reconfigured sheets back out of his box (i.e. Chinese room). No linguistic translation or interpretation is taking place, since the man in the box has no understanding of the messages he is reacting to; but communication is still taking place.

Language isn't constituted by the obeying of rules.

Theoretically all things communicate all the time, in ways we consider "active" or "passive". In this understanding, to be is to communicate. (Yeah, I know this has traveled way off).

Sure.

I think you're confusing what you're saying. If you mean that language is necessary now in order for humans to communicate, I would agree; but that doesn't make it logical, and definitely not necessary in the philosophical sense. It's entirely contingent, and it follows no logical rules.

Conclusions reached by particular question asking - question asking driven by power seeking. The Heritage Foundation (yes I know it isn't a college) isn't doing Equality in Outcomes of LGBT Communities through the prism of Climate Change studies (just trying to throw buzzwords together). THF is content to be a big(almost only) fish in a small pond. For Harvard or Yale to suddenly try to become the leading Conservative or Classically Liberal or Reactionary or some other non-progressive ideology driven educational institution - something that could be done basically just by press release/curriculum change - would presumably lead to a dramatic drop in funding, prestige, and power. Of course, the detrimental nature of this arrangement and progressivism itself is a completely different argument from whether or not this sort of incentive based behavior exists.

I hate to break it to you, but the people that fund Harvard, Yale, the University of Chicago, Boston U, etc... they aren't all Marxist radicals or liberal progressives. Many of them are businessmen, and many of them are conservative. Many of them donate to the schools previously mentioned because of their business programs, or medical programs, or law programs, but far less to the humanities and hard sciences. Those researchers and individuals working in the field, or pursuing specific interests, often aren't being swayed by the political leanings of their beneficiaries.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Tonight I came up with a brief manifesto on reason, spirituality, and "the meaning of life". Discuss.


1. Subjective meaning in human life resides within two fundamental domains of consciousness: understanding, and mystery. Any search for meaning in life must ultimately end with a partially or fully subjective conclusion, as objective meaning fundamentally breaks down at the origin of the universe.

2. Over time, these domains of consciousness have become a product of two competing social phenomena: reason (i.e. philosophy and science), and spirituality.

3. The basic function of reason is to expand the domain of understanding. This process enriches the corpus of subjective meaning by (a) alleviating the pressures of survival needs, and (b) facilitating individual expression. On the other hand, it often threatens subjective meaning by (c) collapsing the domain of mystery, and (d) eroding social structures with technology and individualism.

4. The basic function of spirituality is to preserve the domain of mystery. This requires spirituality to (a) regulate the domain of understanding for its adherents, and (b) propagate itself through shared experiences (i.e. rituals and ceremonies) that transcend or ignore the boundaries of reason. This leads to friction with adherents of reason.

5. Tension between adherents of reason and adherents of spirituality appears unavoidable at present, since (a) subjective meaning cannot be reliably translated between individuals, and (b) there is no known form of spirituality that universally appeals to the rational mindset. Nevertheless, spirituality is a vital source of meaning in many lives.

6. The political implication of this argument is that freedom of religious orientation should be observed in every humanist society, no matter how theist or atheist its majority.

 

[Dak]

So meaning is only or primarily available in mystery?

 

[Einherjar86]

This conversation is bound to spiral into madness very quickly.

Grant, I like your theses; I consider them well adaptable to those put forth by respected scholars. My questions and concerns don't arise from your reasoning per se, but from my already-established skepticism of the assumptions from which you're proceeding.

Maybe it's best start with part one:

1. Subjective meaning in human life resides within two fundamental domains of consciousness: understanding, and mystery. Any search for meaning in life must ultimately end with a partially or fully subjective conclusion, as objective meaning fundamentally breaks down at the origin of the universe.

The first reaction I have to this statement concerns the division between understanding and mystery, or reason and spirituality; essentially, in the binary between the subject that knows and the objects of knowledge.

Some objects are known and understood, while others remain unknown (or partially known) and mysterious. We prefer to maintain the aforementioned structure when thinking of the world in this way: i.e. that of a singular observing subject and the observed world (phenomena).

However, this binary troubles me, mainly because nothing in the world substantiates that a subject is actually observing except for the subject's awareness of itself (ye olde Cartesian cogito). This is the dead end of solipsism, which Wittgenstein helps us to understand with the metaphor of the eye and the field of vision:

5.632 The subject does not belong to the world but it is a limit of the world.

5.633 Where in the world is a metaphysical subject to be noted?

You say that this case is altogether like that of the eye and the field of sight. But you do not really see the eye.

And from nothing in the field of sight can it be concluded that it is seen from an eye.

You're correct in illuminating the difficulty this presents for a transmission of knowledge, which in turn leads to the adversarial relationship between not only proponents of spirituality versus those of reason, but also between those of different reasonings, or differing spiritual faiths.

However, the ultimate shadow of mystery appears once we also conclude that the subjective experience is itself substantiated by nothing in the "field of vision." It is the one thing we cannot turn our sight upon, so to speak. Consciousness can only consider itself from within its conscious processes; an infinitely reflexive process, the paradox of recurrence.

The knowing subject is thus defined not only by its engagement with a (purportedly) knowable world, but also by its infinite engagement with itself as an unknowable object - as the unknowable object par excellence. The observing subject is the gap in the reality it attempts to know in its totality.

So my initial response to #1 is that the subjective conclusion being reached by the knowing subject is inseparable from the mysterious objectivity of the external world, since its formation occurs within that mystery itself (i.e. the material/biological process of consciousness).

To extend just a bit to your final ethico-political concern: I think in order to arrive at a proper notion of ethics we need to redefine subjectivity as something other than merely consciousness. Relying upon consciousness (i.e. consciousness qua human consciousness) precludes any ethics of animals aside from the anthropocentric argument that it is our responsibility to take care of them.

I already feel as though I've spun us off the mark, but I don't think I can proceed without addressing the parameters of the argument.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Thanks, Pat. I see how my first point can use a revision of terminology, though I was hoping to brush the subject-object problem aside to delve into a subjectivist assessment of reason and spirituality as they pertain to meaning in life.

I also acknowledge the animal ethics gap that I leave by discussing subjectivity as consciousness. For now I'd ask for some leeway here, as I find it confusing to try to resolve that aspect of the argument. Consciousness seems like a very useful context for discussing the understanding-mystery and reason-spirituality dynamics.

In case I'm misusing "understanding", I should clarify that I might use it to refer to a wide variety of frameworks of belief (from science to metaphysics to religion) that for my purposes can remain disconnected from objective reality.

So meaning is only or primarily available in mystery?

I see meaning as available through both understanding and mystery. The degree to which an individual draws from either is their own decision.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

It sounds fairly similar to Schopenhauer's Will and Idea (or representation or presentation depending on the translator).

 

[Einherjar86]

Thanks, Pat. I see how my first point can use a revision of terminology, though I was hoping to brush the subject-object problem aside to delve into a subjectivist assessment of reason and spirituality as they pertain to meaning in life.

I also acknowledge the animal ethics gap that I leave by discussing subjectivity as consciousness. For now I'd ask for some leeway here, as I find it confusing to try to resolve that aspect of the argument. Consciousness seems like a very useful context for discussing the understanding-mystery and reason-spirituality dynamics.

That all sounds good. And I was hesitating on commenting partly because I was waiting for your response to Dak; and it was exactly what I thought it would be:

I see meaning as available through both understanding and mystery. The degree to which an individual draws from either is their own decision.

It looks to me like you're describing meaning as a dialectical process; i.e. meaning cannot be discerned from merely understanding or merely mystery, but from a synthesis between the two in which concerns over both spheres contribute to the broader narrative we call "meaning."

This is, in fact, the way that several literary theorists (including Fredric Jameson) understand "meaning."

To a degree, what you're describing reminds me of Hegel's dialectic of Faith and Enlightenment:

Enlightenment shows itself to faith to be pure insight by the fact that, in a specific moment, it sees the whole, brings forward the other moment which is opposed to it, and, converting one into the other, brings to notice the negative essence of both thoughts, the Notion. To faith, it seems to be a perversion and a lie because it points out the otherness of its moments; in doing so, it seems directly to make something else out of them than they are in their separateness; but this 'other' is equally essential and, in truth, is present in the believing consciousness itself, only this does not think about it, but puts it away somewhere. Consequently, it is neither alien to faith, nor can faith disavow it.

Dialectical thought is still privileged today in some circles of continental thought (not as much in American and British philosophy); Žižek and Badiou both pursue dialectical methods. If you're suggesting that understanding and mystery both lend to some production of meaning, then I think you have to address this as an issue of dialectics.

One further distinction that I think is important: on one side is reason/understanding, and on the other is mystery/spirituality. Reason and understanding (which I would associate closely with science) are both concerned with the expanse of material knowledge derived from tactile experimentation and observation; basically, observing what occurs most often and inducing that it will continue to occur. Mystery and spirituality also work to expand material knowledge, but do so through the creation of unverifiable explanations, which many of would likely classify as "supernatural."

Neither of these processes are logical; not even the scientific processes. Logic entails deduction and yields results that are irrefutable because of their relationship to the whole proposition; that is, logical conclusions are necessary within the context of the logical proposition. One side must equal the other; so, to put it another way, "The propositions of logic are tautologies" (Wittgenstein again).

Science is not comprised of logical deductions. It is comprised of educated inductions based on prior observation. Mystery/spirituality is also highly inductive; it observes the material world and crafts explanations based on what it sees.

Meaning, however (and this is my most important point), resides somewhere distinct from either reason or spirituality. Meaning is not reason or understanding, but neither is it (in the sense we're discussing it) spirituality.

Where is meaning, then? I'm not going to offer any concrete conclusions or descriptions, but I do have a few hypotheses:

1. Meaning is closer to logic than either Understanding or Spirituality; if Meaning derives from a dialectic of Understanding and Spirituality, then there is some form of internal logic to Meaning.

2. Meaning, although at some point subjective, need not always be reduced to the thinking subject; it can be classified as an emergent phenomenon because it eventually achieves a highly evolved complex systematization that allows for atomic individuals to pick up on non-verbal cues in everyday communication. Meaning takes root in culture, and perhaps (in some cases) even globally. This is the only way for language to work. If every person's meaning was entirely subjective and private, then we would have no means of verifying what we were saying to each other.

3. Meaning, although dialectical, is not teleological. It may be produced by an internal logic governed by the conditions of Understanding and Spirituality; but these conditions are contingent. Even down to the very biology of human consciousness, we cannot claim a static, unchanging form that tends toward particular models of meaning (e.g. conscious models of meaning have changed drastically since technological innovations such as the internet, and it's probable that such innovations have actually altered the biological organization of how the brain works).

 

[Dak]

I am lacking time to get involved much ATM, but I think we need to be clear on meaning, and I am understanding Pat to be explicating meaning as translated definition while Grant is referring to purpose, at least loosely.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't mean anything like translated definition; if anything I'm trying to hit on something closer to "purpose," at least understood subjectively.

Meaning does take on a broader applicability, at least once culture gets involved; but this also doesn't mean translatability.

When I say that Meaning allows us to converse, I am not saying that we successfully translate each other's words. I'm suggesting that Meaning is on a larger plane entirely and grounds the possibility of translation in the first place. In other words, Meaning consists of an entire set of historical conditions that, when combined with subjective perception, blossom into complex networks of (mostly unconscious) values and assumptions which thereby reinforce successful communication. I won't say they guarantee it (because nothing guarantees successful communication), but they strengthen it.

In the sense that purpose is some uniform responsibility carved into the world, I believe that Meaning gives the effect of purpose.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I see the distinction between meaning and purpose has been raised, and I acknowledge that I may be conflating some terms by referring to meaning alone. I don't suppose there's a single English word that really hits the mark here -- maybe we should consider "significance" as well? I've came across the term "psychological significance and value in life" online, which is another useful construction. I'll need some help tackling that challenge.

It looks to me like you're describing meaning as a dialectical process; i.e. meaning cannot be discerned from merely understanding or merely mystery, but from a synthesis between the two in which concerns over both spheres contribute to the broader narrative we call "meaning."

Speaking from my own search for "meaning" in my life, I'd agree that it has been a dialectical process. Since the search began, I've experienced a constant tension between understanding and mystery, where mystery has acted as a sort of vacuum to draw my will ever forward in search of further understanding. This seems to be the general trend among philosophers, scientists, and other thinkers, and is probably also the case among people of faith (I'm just hesitant to speak for a group I still don't understand well).

One further distinction that I think is important: on one side is reason/understanding, and on the other is mystery/spirituality. Reason and understanding (which I would associate closely with science) are both concerned with the expanse of material knowledge derived from tactile experimentation and observation; basically, observing what occurs most often and inducing that it will continue to occur. Mystery and spirituality also work to expand material knowledge, but do so through the creation of unverifiable explanations, which many of would likely classify as "supernatural."

That's a good point -- I was probably overly generous in attributing the expansion of understanding solely to reason and science, and the expansion of understanding that takes place through spirituality is in its way also a form of reasoning. Still, spirituality tends to place much stronger boundaries on the exercise of reason than philosophy and science do.

Perhaps the basic formula I was laying out is better expressed by looking at reason as a spectrum or series of gradations, where spirituality gave birth to philosophy, which in turn gave birth to science -- all chapters of humanity's history in processing the understanding/mystery dialectic.

 

[Dak]

I don't mean to derail this excellent discussion, but just wanted to throw out there that I have been noticing a trending increase in the mention of Foucault as a contributor to the thinking of libertarian/anarcho-capitalist commentators. In your estimation Pat, is this due to a misunderstanding of Foucault?

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't mean to derail this excellent discussion, but just wanted to throw out there that I have been noticing a trending increase in the mention of Foucault as a contributor to the thinking of libertarian/anarcho-capitalist commentators. In your estimation Pat, is this due to a misunderstanding of Foucault?

Short answer: no.

Foucault has some very influential and cogent critiques of the state and authoritarian government organization, as well as institutions of power (education, medicine, government, etc.) and I assume that lots of libertarians pick up on this. I can't criticize them appropriating the parts that work for them; I deploy arguments from Marx even though (politically) I don't believe that communism works.

I would make two points in opposition to such appropriations of his work, however:

1. Foucault would categorize private ownership as an institution of power as well, and one that inevitably leads to coercive behavior.

2. Foucault's definition of the subject doesn't correspond to the definition that libertarians deploy; and this latter definition is a basic premise for libertarian philosophy.

 

[Einherjar86]

Most recent piece on Aeon was written by a member of the Department of Neurology at Boston University:

Was Freud right after all; i.e. are we all sex-crazed maniacs?

Lots of data here, so I'll just include the link to the piece:

http://aeon.co/magazine/altered-states/was-freud-right-about-dreams-all-along/

Long story short, McNamara is the leader of a research team whose findings support the theory that sexual motivation is an important factor in dream content.

 

[Dak]

I read that the other evening. There wasn't really enough information given in the article to interrogate the validities of the research. Of course, I would imagine that particularly for a younger population, sexual concerns are a significant part of both the conscious and the subconscious, and that would bleed over frequently into dreams. Going further than that (cause of dreams, reason for evolving the ability to dream, etc) is "fraught" with problems.

Evolutionary psychology as a field is rather lackluster in its research productivity (productivity limited to non-null hypothesis acceptance), at least as far as I know. I think it is a means-ends issue.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well, the article certainly presents its findings as prescription; but I still find it interesting that the evidence points in that direction. Personally, I believe that sex has a lot to do with dreams and psychology; more than we give it credit for, anyway.

Back to the topic started by Grant:

I was doing some reading today and it struck me that Jacques Derrida provides some illuminating commentary on the issue of meaning. Although he's specifically interested in language, he claims that meaning emerges from an unending "play" between presence and absence. In other words, meaning arises from a kind of feedback loop between presence and absence, knowing and unknowing, we might even say understanding and mystery.

I would still classify this as a dialectic, even though Derrida resists calling it that.

 

[Dak]

I have been doing (not enough) thinking recently on a sort of dawning understanding that it appears we actually cannot approach most things directly. To achieve X, we must instead pursue W,Y,Z, and X is achieved or occurs as a byproduct. Of course, then to pursue W,Y,Z may mean not quite achieving any particular one of those, but instead X. I don't know where that might tie into the topic started by Grant, but I think that it would.