Barbelith Underground > Laboratory > Dimensional perception, a need for duality?

quote:Lurid Archive writes:
I don't mean to be offensive here Will but most of your statements are completely meaningless.

Which I don’t think is a fair assessment of the situation as obviously at least one other person understands him, i.e. me. So perhaps, Lurid Archive, you’d be better to say:

quote:I’m afraid that your statements are meaningless from my perspective,

or something to that effect. And perhaps Will is making the best effort he can to communicate what he feels. As you yourself say elsewhere (more or less), LA, “have you ever considered that some people can’t even string a comprehensible sentence together?” Will has told you several times that science is not his strong suit. Stop picking on him because he doesn’t have the same level of knowledge that you do.

And it is not that you are “…too closed minded or indoctrinated by authoritarian dogma to see the light,” but that you are coming at this from somewhere different than, say, Will or I are. I was trying to find some links to Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty because she discusses exactly what is going on in this thread right now wrt the different points of view that are being discussed. In her book Dreams, Illussions, and Other Realities she talks about the difference between “Cat” and “Monkey” philosophies (which stems from her work in Hinduism). Now it seems to me that you, LA, are approaching this from the Monkey School perspective. This is why you have trouble understanding the soundness of what we are doing here: you interpret the science of this thread from the standard model, the day-to-day Western Reality of science and scientific practice. O’Flaherty would say that you adopt the typical Western Science attitude of thinking we get closer to the truth by eliminating error, and of course, the elimination of error must occur within the Western Scientific accepted ways of tests and verification; i.e. you accept the “guru status” of science as it stands now. However, this is merely a circularity in your beliefs about the scientific authority structure: "the authority who validates the solutions is a man whose authority is validated by the fact that he has produced solutions, the validity of which have been established by authorities whose authority is validated by….” (W.D.O’F) Ya’ see?

Moreover, throughout your contributions to this thread I am picking up that you probably feel that science and religion (synecdoche) are in mutually exclusive compartments. Maybe you read a lot of Stephen Jay Gould, I don’t know, but you seem to adopt a view of Independence (please see Ian Barbour’s When Science Meets Religion) when it comes to the domains of science and religion. This is fine because that is your perspective and it is your choice to make. However, when you say that we are endorsing an anti-scientific position then you are merely getting your back up.

What we are doing, from a Cat School perspective, is trying to form a Synthesis (again, see Barbour) between science and religion. So it’s not that we are trying “…to take some abstract concept and try to find a trendy area of science which uses that word.” Rather, we are allowing ourselves the opportunity to see if and how the domains which you feel are separate might actually overlap, or Science forbid!, be co-extensive. After all, (as O’Flaherty reminds us) when pushed, scientific theorists like Karl Popper admit that science is largely practical and that an understanding of reality is beyond the scientific method. And we are after an understanding of reality!

Now neither of the Cat or Monkey Schools is better than the other, they are simply different. For the Monkeys, truth comes incrementally, and for the Cats truth comes suddenly in a leap—like Gnosis. Both schools (or philosophies) are a function of the human pursuit of knowledge and both are required if we are to make any progress whatsoever. However, I get the feeling that you don’t see this and that to you, LA, it’s Monkey School or No School, and personally, I find that offensive. Give us room to do our thing and if you want to slag our effort without trying to at least appreciate where we are coming from then slag off (although I do admit that I’m not sure what Will was talking about with “atomic decay rates outside of time” but I’m not about to get all riled up at him, remember, he is not well versed in science)!

As far as Bell’s Theorem goes, I’ve made it my business to try and understand the theorem and the experiments so please correct me if I’m wrong. BT says that if a unit of energy/mass is produced by a single source and then is later split into two units, those two units stay in contact. This contact is empirically validated by scientists when they measure the spin of the two units. The “spookiness” arises because the observer (the scientist) can measure spin along three different axes, but the Uncertainty Principle says that the observer can only know the value of one of the axes at any given time, and the other two must remain unknown. Thus, as the energy/mass unit is moving through time the value of all three spins are in an uncertain state until a measurement is made, and when the measurement is made, then we know the complementary value of the other unit of energy/mass: we are guaranteed that if, say, unit 1 is spin up, then unit 2 is spin down. This holds regardless of the distance of separation of the particles; i.e. they seem to interact beyond the confines of the limiting speed of light; i.e. they are interconnected.

Big deal, you say, what does this tell us about morality or the interconnectedness of all things? Well, if we assume the Monkey School idea of a Big Bang, then all the stuff of the universe was produced by a single source at the same time, and thus, the whole unit of energy/mass that is the singularity of the Big Bang became all the particles that are in the universe today. Therefore, all the particles are connected by virtue of stemming from a single source at a single time. It’s not too big a step to think that, since we ourselves are made up of particles (from the scientific perspective), that we are all interconnected. From here it is merely a matter of establishing a coherent moral theory that takes this into account. Agreed that this has not been done here, but it does not seem that such a theory is impossible. However, LA, you seem to want to write off such a possible solution to moral problems a priori - a sort of "I don’t care what you say to me, tell me etc. I will never believe…"

And ya’ know, I’m really gettin’ sick of people who have difficulties seeing my point(s) or groking the cut of my jib going all argumentum ad hominem on me. Such a tactic only displays the cowardice and ignorance of those that employ it. If you want fallacious argument, LA, then simply read what you’ve posted in your last post! Because ya’ know what else, LA, if I was trying to bully people with intimidating terminology that they were unfamiliar with, and trying to browbeat them with things they don’t understand, then why the hell would I waste my time providing links to resources so that they could gain their own understanding of these things? Don’t ya’ think I would try to keep them as far as I could from resources that might let them think for themselves, you schmuck? What you don’t get, sittin’ at your desk in the Monkey School, is that I’m using these terms and concepts to compliment a discussion that you have trouble participating in because you are unfamiliar with the subject matter. I tell ya’ what Lurid, you go out and study some magic(k) and some shamanic traditions (and maybe read the authors I mention in this post and in the “Thought For the Day” thread in the Conversation) and then come back and {play}, OK, because I may not be an expert in the sciences but I’m not a layman either; in other words, I’ve sat in Monkey School and I’ve sat in Cat School and I’m willing to put value in both and you are clearly not able to do this.

So I apologize for the tone of this post, but I merely thought I’d make it clear where myself and others stand, if we hadn’t already.

(111 / 37) + (222 / 74) + (444 / 148) = 0 (mod 3)

—| x |—

09:38 / 06.03.02

“Please, let’s bear in mind that I am not persuading you of anything, I’m not making propaganda. God forbid! Because to make propaganda is to lie; if someone is trying to convince you of something, don’t be convinced. We are dealing with something much more serious than being convinced, or with offering opinions and judgments. We are dealing with realities, with facts. And facts, which you observe, don’t need an opinion. You haven’t got to be told what the fact is, it is there, if you are capable of observing it.”

J. Krishnamurti

quote:Mordant Carnival writes:
Sorry, but this is not sharing knowledge.

To which I’ll say that, aside from the links, this thread, to me anyway, seemed to be about creating knowledge, which might then later be shared. And Mordant, I find that if you’ve got all the background that you claim you have (and I don’t doubt that you do) , then it is a might bit strange that your first post to this thread is to bitch and moan about something you haven’t contributed to at all. You could have lent us your intelligence and creativity, but instead you contribute what exactly? You write:

quote: I have to say that some of the assumptions here are fundamentally flawed. For example, do quantum entanglements translate into morality as you move up the scale? I don't know the answer (although I'd have to plump for "No" if I'm being strictly honest with myself); why should I just accept yours?

And I don’t think it was ever my intention to say, “YES, MORALITY AND QUANTUM ENTAGLEMENTS ARE RELATED.” Rather, it seems that I’ve suggested that perhaps they could be related and maybe that is something we could consider: let’s not dismiss the idea a priori. And you also post:

quote: What I mean is that we've got a dialogue here…

which is exactly what it is. In other words, I don’t think any of this was meant to be a conclusive argument or even an argument of any sort. So I find myself a little confused by how some people arrived at the idea that I was arguing something or trying to prove something. Don’t you people get it yet? I merely (and mostly) like to point and go, “Well, what about this. Why don’t you think about this for awhile and see what goes on (or off) for you.”

I mean, Key—rist, I don’t want to be your guru or anyone’s guru! What I want is for each person to be able to be his or her own guru because {teacher} = {student} right? Besides, my strong anarchist principles (and I mean more like NegativLand’s A B Cs of Anarchy type anarchy; i.e. self-rule; i.e. take responsibility for yourself; i.e. come to your own conclusions, please and thank-you) prevent me from desiring that anyone follow me but myself. And if you did try to follow me, then I’d have to send you off with the classic Mr. Natural mantra:

quotehwha tajer kiam.

You also post:

quote: I take issue with "Ah, well, if you did magick you'd unnerstaaand" type comments, particularly when they sit so ill with cries of "But you can't query my usage of that scientific term, I'm not a scientist!" Surely we should try and find some common frame of reference and work from there, rather than airily dismissing one person's viewpoint because it's different?

Which I take issue with ‘cause, goddamn it, did you really read my post (or any others) or merely glance them over? But in case I was unclear let me try again. It seemed to me that Lurid Archive did not have any appreciation for what might be involved with some of the esoteric ideas being woven into the math as metaphor. Thus, it was not a whiny self-serving, “if you did magick blah-d-blah” like you say it was, but rather a, “perhaps you should familiarize yourself with some of these concepts before you dismiss an attempt at a synthesis between the two sets that you are dividing religion and science into,” type comment (and also, I think that everyone does magick, it is only a question of whether or not you are aware of it and to what degree). And as you may have noticed I outlined why I thought Bell’s Theorem might point us to interconnectedness (again, not a “proof” but a pointing to—besides, you can see by the Wendy Doniger quote that I use that I feel that, ultimately, any proof in any system is going to hinge on a circularity in logic. I mean, this is all coming from me, right?, the guy that brought you the horror/heaven show diZzy—the manifestation of the circularity, our good old friend orobouros). So I’m not against queries into my use of terms; rather, I feel that I’ve tried to explain why I use the ones that I do. No, I’m not a scientist but I’m not a layman either. Of course, I already stated that but maybe you missed it or sumthin’ in your haste to *contribute* to this thread?

And as far as the links go, yes some of them are over my head too, but that shouldn’t prevent anyone from poking around to get a sense of awe and wonder at the vast amount of information that is available to hir: when in deep water, yadda-yadda (become a diver). Moreover, not all the links are tough. I mean, for Christ, Flatland can be read and understood by freakin’ gradeschoolars! All the initial links (from my first post) are pretty comprehensible, IMO. And *that* (my first post) was intended to be the common frame of reference for this discussion, but alas, it is no where near that mark anymore.

And lastly, you write:

quote:…people are responding to what they think a poster is saying based on thier [sic] perception of "that sort of person", rather than responding to the points that person has actually made.

and that, if I’m not mistaken, is exactly what argumentum ad hominem is.

So, in short, for shame, Mordant, for shame.

One down two to go…

Lurid Archive: Your post that immediately follows my last post makes me think that you are a much better bloke than I thought you were: I apologize and feel awful for my misconceptions of you. I did not ever intend to imply that you’ve accepted what you accept without any thought (I mean, if you are some sort of scientist, then you participate in the race to prove yourself wrong all the time and I’m quite sure this involves “…questioning yourself constantly.” ), only that you are operating from that specific paradigm, and as such, I can see why you might be having troubles and concerns with the way we are using the terms from your field of expertise. And also, I was saying that I think that your view and our views are essentially talking through one and other (which is unfortunate but sometimes hard to avoid). So, since you are so agreeable in that post to my assessment of where I thought you were coming from, and since it was not my intent to offend you either, I’d be more than happy to raz (phonetic spelling of ‘raise’ and ‘raze’ ) a “pint of view” with you.

Last but certainly not least…

[monkeys..] no need to apologize, really, much of your post is, like Frosted Flakes, “grrREAT.” However, I do have a few simple concerns. You say:

quote: There are too many unrecognized premises in the initial argument, as well as the development. It is ironic that there is a continued voice questioning the "validity" of "Science"…

and, as I said above, this was never an argument. Only an attempt at seeking out a synthesis of sorts; i.e. this is all merely some {play}. Also, I find no reason to question the validity of science and I don’t think anything I’ve said implies that. I don’t know what you are referring to here wrt what I’ve put forth in this thread. In fact, my own interest in magick (besides the magic of my preteen years, then stamped out in my teenage years by the machine control conformity system, much like Lothar Tuppan says of himself elsewhere) and science arose together and at once, and have never been separate or exclusive from one and other (which also goes back to the days of youth when I played with my chemistry set in the “alchemist’s lair” which was the basement of my parents house—this makes me wonder, as an aside, what is it about those years in junior/senior high that turn people into stifled zombies?).

Much of what you say about duality I totality agree with. If you’ve read diZzy, then you realize that I am so fascinated with exploring {duality} = {unity}, whatever that strange structure might be! As for this:

quote: I am particularly amused by the deployment of Wendy Doniger - no longer O'Flaherty - who is one of my instructors, especially given the irony of the authoritative canonization of her piece that critiques canonization. The Cat/Monkey distinction, transported to the current context, has been loaded with valuative judgements...essentially, unity good, division bad. The entire linguistic presentation of the idea reeks of it. I again point out that re-contextualized to Doniger's work in Hindu textuality, the Monkey/Cat seperation is not viewed as an Aristotelian dichotomy.

I gotta’ say, “HUH?” or as that rascally rabbit might say, “he don’t know me very well now, do he?”

I used her stuff merely to say that Lurid is coming from Monkey School, but the thread is more of a Cat School type affair. I don’t think I used her work in anyway to elevate our position to a “canonical” view and I wonder where the hell you got such an interpretation from?!? Moreover, I don’t think I’ve ever, ever said “unity good, division bad.” In fact, earlier in this thread I write:

quote: And I’d like to take a moment to say that I don’t think duality [i.e. division] is bad or something to be gotten rid of. Rather, I see dualities as the only way for the world to exist, but they are not really dualities, more like manifestations of a single alternating current.

So perhaps if you’d read a little more carefully, then you would of picked up that my general position about dualities is very close to what you say in your post (for Chrisakes)! I mean, around the very analytic philosophy department that I am studying in I am the champion of a Hegelian synthesis POV (but not his politics—no thanks, see “anarchy” above) and people around the department have a difficult time understanding my views because I endorse a paraconsistent logic that centers around the abolishment of Aristotelian dichotomies through an understanding of (a, b) = s. I suggest that you read diZzy for insight into my position on such matters. And I also wrote (in my last post):

quote: Now neither of the Cat or Monkey Schools is better than the other, they are simply different. For the Monkeys, truth comes incrementally, and for the Cats truth comes suddenly in a leap—like Gnosis. Both schools (or philosophies) are a function of the human pursuit of knowledge and both are required if we are to make any progress whatsoever.

but maybe you missed that part too, eh?, and people wonder why I think that people don’t really read but only glance!

Anyway, I think that takes care of your misapprehension of my use of Doniger’s work. After all, anyone that knows me would tell you that I’d likely say (much to their chagrin):

{{monkey} = {cat}} = {{good} = {bad}}

but again, you might have to read diZzy in order to parse that…

So [monkeys…] I hope that answers your concerns (stemming from not reading?) with what I’ve been getting’ at and how I was using Doniger’s stuff (and I’m really excited that you had the pleasure of being her student!) I hope that we can still get along elsewhere.

All: Anyway, I’m really tired of this thread and all its bullshit issues and such and I am never posting to it again (sorry Will). Thanks to those of you that helped in gettin’ us pretty much nowhere (beyond a “HEY! You can’t possibly do that!” sorta’ perspective, but of course, I do what I will, ya?).

And if any of you *actually* read all of this, then I think I will fall on my head and die (which I know Ierne would really love: says a lot about hir, don’t it?).

Over and Out
11 + 12 + 13 = 0 (mod 3)

PS: {ascension} = {the fall}, ya? It’s a two way Mobius street.

[ 06-03-2002: Message edited by: modthree ]