Having read this past the first paragraphs for the First Time, I was thinking, “Oh please, let me not have Already commented on it”, and See I have (more than once!) to the Sound of my giggles.
And Cindy has struck The Bell right where I was about to. So, No Need to flesh out her perfectly phrased Exacting point anymore. I will say I’m curious as to Why: Mike Brock didn’t Like It. Quite curious! It was the Only place I got ahead of the Essay when I blurted Out Loud “against the body” a sentence and 1/2 before seeing it. Was pleased with myself. And then Cindy…
The only bit I have to add, is my own remembrance of my First Impression of “Determinism” in Philosophy 101 at age 18: “What Bullshit!”, to myself, of course.
P.S. I was crying for some time over my Dead Friend “Edward Ian Allen” in the middle of this essay when his Image unexpectedly Popped Up while doing my usual looking some term or person up while reading Mike Brock. Ian’s personage is in my ReStacks. He’s sporting triple, if not quadruple, collars like S. Bannon. Ian had a proper excuse though. For Warmth. Having been Emaciated by organ extractions surgeries from recurring Cancers. Likely from radiation exposure of the “father sperm”.
And just NOW, a notification that Kim Gordon’s complete latest album “Play Me” has dropped on Spotify. Life Is also Good among the Horrors.
I like this, on the physics and democracy aspects especially, as well as on the rejection of Dennett, the block universe, and the horror of effective altruism. Yet, although I'm no Cartesian, tracing the story back to a supposed psychological trauma resulting in a defense structure reminds me of the numerous just-so stories popular in sociobiology. I've seen a lot of recent analyses attempting to base one aspect or another of our societal problems on PTSD. It's popular, for instance, in post-colonial discourse. It seems over argued and under evidenced.
Positing that Decartes' philosophical investigations trace back to PTSD looks as reductive as explaining Van Gogh's colors and forms on the possibility he had a eye disorder. It's reductive, too simple. Galen Strawson has written convincingly on how the received reading of Descartes went astray in translating "cognito" as "think," when there's good evidence that Descartes meant, by cognito, consciousness broadly, not just, say, talk in mind or rationality. In experiencing our consciousness we know we exist. That reading of Descartes may be fully compatible with your claim for a democratic epistemology. It can even motivate it.
Those arguments pull on an already deep manuscript that delves deeper into social psychology and social epistemology to defend their conclusions on empirical grounds. So stay tuned on that!
Whatever limitations trauma, and specifically in the form of PTSD, has toward painting a comprehensive understanding of the bases for the historical and current dysfunction, a recognition that Western (especially American) society has been and is dysfunctional - truly pathological, is critical.
Every culture has flaws. Metaphors of disease are both unavoidable and themselves flawed. Can you point to an Eastern or Southern Hemisphere society without major flaws?
Further, when a person catches a disease, sometimes you can fairly blame the person (e.g. if they follow Kennedy's anti-vax nonsense), but blaming the person at that point rarely is part of the cure; so if the West is diseased, blaming the West may not contribute to the cure either. Rather, it can distract from accurate and actionable analysis.
No, the West is pathological. No metaphor, no hyperbole, no under or over philosophizing about it. An honest and accurate assessment from someone who has experienced and observed multiple facets of it. The West’s pathology doesn’t preclude pathology elsewhere. Naming something is a first step in understanding it to then do something about it.
Covering ourselves in semantics and contorting what is real and true into grand ideas of preference is not only foolish but harmful, especially when the ideas maintain oppressive status quos and don’t translate into solving anything.
Part of the "pathology" is the lack of appreciation of the difference between metaphor and precise fact. Please study basic cognitive linguistics. Also, what the heck does "grand ideas of preference" mean?
I mean, for me, to cede ground here is to give oneself permission to do nothing. I grant no such permission to myself. I hold myself to a somewhat higher standard than that.
Some people seem to be more focused on establishing the moral score—who is to blame—than they are on establishing the conditions for moral progress—which would presuppose thinking oneself a good person, which I do, from a good tradition, which I do, from a country filled with fundamentally good people, which I do. So, I too pass in the night in this place, confused as to why we're passing. It seems so obvious the direction we should go. No?
This is very interesting but you haven’t touched on absurdism (I rather like the notion of absurdity it suits my sceptical disposition) and Camus. I also like Stephen Jay Gould’s rather pithy conclusion in ‘Life’s Grandeur’ this was the age of bacteria, this is the age of bacteria and this will be the age of bacteria. Does this mean that absurdism is the ONLY answer!!! But perhaps we shouldn’t overanalyse.
I think the impetus for the Cartesian cut is to not be embedded in a very vulnerable biological body, and that this is the same impetus that drives the techbros to frantically try to make machines human, and humans machines. I believe it also impetus for misogyny, resentment of being tied to biology. The annoying realness of human being.
As someone who suffered from Anorexia for a number of years, the defense you write about is real and it does create significant risk to the very body, the very soul, the very person it is intended to protect. 🤲
Will Galileo play a part in your discussions? Separating material from soul consciousness?
I would hope your writings lead to a Brockian Philosophy, which you will distill and compound from all your explorations, and that will be uniquely yours
Having read this past the first paragraphs for the First Time, I was thinking, “Oh please, let me not have Already commented on it”, and See I have (more than once!) to the Sound of my giggles.
And Cindy has struck The Bell right where I was about to. So, No Need to flesh out her perfectly phrased Exacting point anymore. I will say I’m curious as to Why: Mike Brock didn’t Like It. Quite curious! It was the Only place I got ahead of the Essay when I blurted Out Loud “against the body” a sentence and 1/2 before seeing it. Was pleased with myself. And then Cindy…
The only bit I have to add, is my own remembrance of my First Impression of “Determinism” in Philosophy 101 at age 18: “What Bullshit!”, to myself, of course.
P.S. I was crying for some time over my Dead Friend “Edward Ian Allen” in the middle of this essay when his Image unexpectedly Popped Up while doing my usual looking some term or person up while reading Mike Brock. Ian’s personage is in my ReStacks. He’s sporting triple, if not quadruple, collars like S. Bannon. Ian had a proper excuse though. For Warmth. Having been Emaciated by organ extractions surgeries from recurring Cancers. Likely from radiation exposure of the “father sperm”.
And just NOW, a notification that Kim Gordon’s complete latest album “Play Me” has dropped on Spotify. Life Is also Good among the Horrors.
Appreciate the Like. For Sure.
There’s this Girl by the name of Constance Interruptus of Greek Origin that I met when I was 18 and she Still won’t Go Away.
Nor has she Grown Up.
Oops. That bit above is Metaphorical. Didn’t mean to give the Impression I’m Schizoid.
I wondered if her name of Origin was more Roman-like. Didn’t get beyond Wondering.
I like this, on the physics and democracy aspects especially, as well as on the rejection of Dennett, the block universe, and the horror of effective altruism. Yet, although I'm no Cartesian, tracing the story back to a supposed psychological trauma resulting in a defense structure reminds me of the numerous just-so stories popular in sociobiology. I've seen a lot of recent analyses attempting to base one aspect or another of our societal problems on PTSD. It's popular, for instance, in post-colonial discourse. It seems over argued and under evidenced.
Positing that Decartes' philosophical investigations trace back to PTSD looks as reductive as explaining Van Gogh's colors and forms on the possibility he had a eye disorder. It's reductive, too simple. Galen Strawson has written convincingly on how the received reading of Descartes went astray in translating "cognito" as "think," when there's good evidence that Descartes meant, by cognito, consciousness broadly, not just, say, talk in mind or rationality. In experiencing our consciousness we know we exist. That reading of Descartes may be fully compatible with your claim for a democratic epistemology. It can even motivate it.
Those arguments pull on an already deep manuscript that delves deeper into social psychology and social epistemology to defend their conclusions on empirical grounds. So stay tuned on that!
Whatever limitations trauma, and specifically in the form of PTSD, has toward painting a comprehensive understanding of the bases for the historical and current dysfunction, a recognition that Western (especially American) society has been and is dysfunctional - truly pathological, is critical.
Every culture has flaws. Metaphors of disease are both unavoidable and themselves flawed. Can you point to an Eastern or Southern Hemisphere society without major flaws?
Further, when a person catches a disease, sometimes you can fairly blame the person (e.g. if they follow Kennedy's anti-vax nonsense), but blaming the person at that point rarely is part of the cure; so if the West is diseased, blaming the West may not contribute to the cure either. Rather, it can distract from accurate and actionable analysis.
No, the West is pathological. No metaphor, no hyperbole, no under or over philosophizing about it. An honest and accurate assessment from someone who has experienced and observed multiple facets of it. The West’s pathology doesn’t preclude pathology elsewhere. Naming something is a first step in understanding it to then do something about it.
Covering ourselves in semantics and contorting what is real and true into grand ideas of preference is not only foolish but harmful, especially when the ideas maintain oppressive status quos and don’t translate into solving anything.
Part of the "pathology" is the lack of appreciation of the difference between metaphor and precise fact. Please study basic cognitive linguistics. Also, what the heck does "grand ideas of preference" mean?
I mean, for me, to cede ground here is to give oneself permission to do nothing. I grant no such permission to myself. I hold myself to a somewhat higher standard than that.
Two ships passing in the night; one isn’t halfway submerged in the murkiness of others’ thoughts on her way to discovering the truth. 🤲
Some people seem to be more focused on establishing the moral score—who is to blame—than they are on establishing the conditions for moral progress—which would presuppose thinking oneself a good person, which I do, from a good tradition, which I do, from a country filled with fundamentally good people, which I do. So, I too pass in the night in this place, confused as to why we're passing. It seems so obvious the direction we should go. No?
This is very interesting but you haven’t touched on absurdism (I rather like the notion of absurdity it suits my sceptical disposition) and Camus. I also like Stephen Jay Gould’s rather pithy conclusion in ‘Life’s Grandeur’ this was the age of bacteria, this is the age of bacteria and this will be the age of bacteria. Does this mean that absurdism is the ONLY answer!!! But perhaps we shouldn’t overanalyse.
Point taken. But I have touched on it many times across my writings. Just not in this piece.
I think the impetus for the Cartesian cut is to not be embedded in a very vulnerable biological body, and that this is the same impetus that drives the techbros to frantically try to make machines human, and humans machines. I believe it also impetus for misogyny, resentment of being tied to biology. The annoying realness of human being.
My once toddler son pointing at me sitting on the toilet:
“What’s that?”
“That’s where you came from.”
“I’m never going back!”
And the annoying realness of not having the physical powers available to given human beings. 🤲
As someone who suffered from Anorexia for a number of years, the defense you write about is real and it does create significant risk to the very body, the very soul, the very person it is intended to protect. 🤲
The meaning of life is to live it as simply and easily as possible, wisely respecting the supremacy of nature.
Marlen Haushofer "The Wall"
Galileos Error - Philip Goff
Will Galileo play a part in your discussions? Separating material from soul consciousness?
I would hope your writings lead to a Brockian Philosophy, which you will distill and compound from all your explorations, and that will be uniquely yours