Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Running On Empty

Expand Messages
  • Trinidad Cruz
    Running On Empty (part 1) Let us consider pragmatism as the idea that whatever seems to work the best for a resolution of an issue or theory is most likely to
    Message 1 of 8 , Sep 20, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Running On Empty
      (part 1)

      Let us consider pragmatism as the idea that whatever seems to work the
      best for a resolution of an issue or theory is most likely to be a
      flag or harbinger of the future discovery of some kind of truth, thus
      making the most practically utilitarian theory the best present truth.
      Let us further consider that with pragmatism truth is whatever reality
      within a specific time frame compels humans to believe is true, and
      further consider that truth must be invented and re-invented with the
      passage of time. I do not think this is too far from James or Dewey
      who essentially fail to separate scientific endeavor from this
      assessment, and in fact involve ( now thanks in large part to Rorty
      and other literary philosophers) this assessment inextricably with
      science largely due to a misapprehension of the position of belief
      artefacts within scientific investigation and methodology. I think in
      this sense Pierce was less confused. I brought up the idea of
      synechism to make the point that it is not an act of faith or belief
      to EXPECT the universe to display continuities rather than
      discontinuities, and that discontinuities are simply continuities
      lacking key information - no not belief at all, but rather a fact of
      ordinary natural presentation. Pierce even further into the logic of
      abduction indicates an intellectual onus toward theory that posits
      continuities. I guess the bottom line is: science is the expectation
      that the universe and human beings are discoverable to any point of
      humanly recognizable truth. This hardly is definable as pragmatism,
      for though the path or timeline seems to reflect the same steps as
      pragmatism, the fundamental expectation rejects the idea that truth
      may or may not be available and must/needs be invented practically for
      progress. Chomsky in a rather infamous statement once indicated that
      the idea of science must be defined according to the specific
      empirical capacities of specific thinking organisms; an idea that has
      led to very unscientific ideas in semiotics and epistomology, an idea
      which could only evolve from a pragmatic view, an idea completely
      wrong in formulation. Whatever has arisen from the universe with any
      empirical capacity toward the universe will evolve the same science
      because that science is the process of recognizing that universe. If
      something silicon based thinks, in comparison with something carbon
      based that thinks, both of the same universe, the science that either
      evolves will be the same as the others. A human being is of the
      universe and because any capacity to assess that universe exists at
      all, that capacity is an expectation of ongoing assessment. The
      universe has produced a capacity for assessment. Assessment is then
      possible within that universe - period. Like Ryle we must conclude:
      only a person who can balance can lose his balance, only a person who
      can reason can commit fallacies. Consider that Chomsky posits that a
      thinking organism of specific biological composition could not, or at
      the least would have great difficulty formulating theory in a language
      of an organism of entirely different biological composition, if the
      original organism began its exposure to language in an immersion in
      the language of that other organism. Absolute crockola fantasy. Not
      even sound science fiction. Language is a result of the universe.
      Perhaps the language of a thinking organism from another universe
      would present problems, but in another universe there is no guarantee
      that we would even be thinking organisms. We know we are in this one,
      and that realization is a deeply founded folk-science view in all of
      us reinforced by death. Language is a result of the universe and as
      such is an adequately evolvable tool for understanding the universe
      for any thinking organism arisen from that universe that has generated
      a language, and regardless of biological makeup, "immersion" would
      produce fluency and display similar scientific theory because it is
      not possible to do otherwise. We have yet to discover another universe
      – arguably because we probably can't. We are as thinking organisms the
      result of an ending in this one, not some other. Our lack of awareness
      of another universe is not a solid argument that our universe is
      infinite, another ridiculous fallacy arisen of a misapprehension of
      pragmatism. What is more likely to be true is that we simply cannot
      ever be aware of another universe than the one that we were awakened
      in. Ours is big, but definitely finite, or we would not be able to be
      aware of it at all, as I have discussed before. Consider for once, and
      before pragmatism has brought us to ruin in this technological age; it
      has taken ten thousand years for literate humanity to invent the
      airplane. Consider how we could have been constrained to such
      faltering steps, in light of such an obvious natural presentation of
      truth as a bird.

      Consider pragmatism for what it is: the view that when the discovery
      of truth becomes too troubling, or too difficult a process, any
      proposition that provides comfortable peace of mind will do and should
      be taken as the best possibility for future development. Two things
      are lacking: the expectation of dignifying one's existence, and an
      ethical intellectual work ethic.

      Trinidad Cruz
    • George Walton
      Trinidad Cruz wrote: Consider pragmatism for what it is: the view that when the discovery of truth becomes too troubling, or too difficult
      Message 2 of 8 , Sep 20, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Trinidad Cruz <cruzprdb@...> wrote:

        Consider pragmatism for what it is: the view that when the discovery
        of truth becomes too troubling, or too difficult a process, any
        proposition that provides comfortable peace of mind will do and should be taken as the best possibility for future development. Two things are lacking: the expectation of dignifying one's existence, and an ethical intellectual work ethic.


        george:





        Also what is lacking in most folks rendition of pragmatism is the role that political economy plays: power. Philosophers like Pierce and James and Dewey [and Habermas and Rawls and Rorty] can only be understod more fully after you have read Marx and Engels. As Mr Jensen noted to Howard Beal in the film Network, "the world is a business....it has been since we first crawled up out of the slime".

        Philosophers tend to forget that part


        g.





        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
        http://mail.yahoo.com

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Robert Keyes
        Thinking out Load, Super Great Posts Both: Could it be that I am wrong. (Of course). Could it Be it is simply a matter if intellectual laziness and God Simply
        Message 3 of 8 , Sep 20, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Thinking out Load, Super Great Posts Both:
          Could it be that I am wrong. (Of course). Could it
          Be it is simply a matter if intellectual laziness and God Simply is not the
          default Notion due to a father figure complex of Humans etc, and it is just
          simple laziness and Logic Is Truly what it is all about and everybody knows
          it. Hmmm. But logic is difficult. (Understanding the General Case is easy
          compared to the details.i.e anybody can infer the obvious-speaking of
          evolution, Nature, Human Interaction- the game at hand) example, we are
          tribal, Louise being an example, But why are we tribal is a tougher
          question. (Side Note: I actually think the god /no god debate is simple)
          That is a good Question for sure. Possible Answers.
          1. For Sure Humans are to lazy to try to understand Science therefore they
          just say Hey, I will believe This (A , B or C or whatever).
          Analysis of Point 1. If this were true, it is the ultimate of free will. Do
          Humans Posses this Quality...To be able to choose. Ans. Yes ! Most... Face
          it George, you are not as free as they because you adhere to Rules and your
          brain just cannot do otherwise. I hope you enjoy the Path Chosen for you...
          2. Humans are Lazy and Stupid and there exist a significant correlation.
          (Stipulate with me here). Stupid People will pick the simplest Notion, and
          that is not trying to figure out the significance of quantum mechanics or
          Mathematics role in things. So it could be they are just stupid.
          Bob.....


          -----Original Message-----
          From: existlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
          Of George Walton
          Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 2:10 PM
          To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [existlist] Running On Empty



          Trinidad Cruz <cruzprdb@...> wrote:

          Consider pragmatism for what it is: the view that when the discovery
          of truth becomes too troubling, or too difficult a process, any
          proposition that provides comfortable peace of mind will do and should be
          taken as the best possibility for future development. Two things are
          lacking: the expectation of dignifying one's existence, and an ethical
          intellectual work ethic.


          george:





          Also what is lacking in most folks rendition of pragmatism is the role that
          political economy plays: power. Philosophers like Pierce and James and Dewey
          [and Habermas and Rawls and Rorty] can only be understod more fully after
          you have read Marx and Engels. As Mr Jensen noted to Howard Beal in the film
          Network, "the world is a business....it has been since we first crawled up
          out of the slime".

          Philosophers tend to forget that part


          g.





          __________________________________________________
          Do You Yahoo!?
          Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
          http://mail.yahoo.com

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




          Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

          Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
          Yahoo! Groups Links
        • louise
          nothing much to say today, will offer brief comment (below) ... wrote: ... science is the expectation that the universe and human beings are discoverable to
          Message 4 of 8 , Sep 21, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            nothing much to say today, will offer brief comment (below)

            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Trinidad Cruz" <cruzprdb@w...>
            wrote:
            ... science is the expectation that the universe and human beings
            are discoverable to any point of humanly recognizable truth.

            [Louise]
            By this definition, theology might be included within science.

            [TC]
            This hardly is definable as pragmatism, for though the path or
            timeline seems to reflect the same steps as pragmatism, the
            fundamental expectation rejects the idea that truth
            may or may not be available and must/needs be invented practically
            for progress. Chomsky in a rather infamous statement once indicated
            that the idea of science must be defined according to the specific
            empirical capacities of specific thinking organisms; an idea that has
            led to very unscientific ideas in semiotics and epistomology, an idea
            which could only evolve from a pragmatic view, an idea completely
            wrong in formulation. Whatever has arisen from the universe with any
            empirical capacity toward the universe will evolve the same science
            because that science is the process of recognizing that universe. If
            something silicon based thinks, in comparison with something carbon
            based that thinks, both of the same universe, the science that either
            evolves will be the same as the others. A human being is of the
            universe and because any capacity to assess that universe exists at
            all, that capacity is an expectation of ongoing assessment. The
            universe has produced a capacity for assessment. Assessment is then
            possible within that universe - period. Like Ryle we must conclude:
            only a person who can balance can lose his balance, only a person who
            can reason can commit fallacies. Consider that Chomsky posits that a
            thinking organism of specific biological composition could not, or at
            the least would have great difficulty formulating theory in a
            language of an organism of entirely different biological
            composition, if the original organism began its exposure to language
            in an immersion in the language of that other organism. Absolute
            crockola fantasy. Not even sound science fiction. Language is a
            result of the universe.

            [Louise]
            Not enough time to think about this just now, maybe another day.
          • Trinidad Cruz
            ... Also what is lacking in most folks rendition of pragmatism is the role that political economy plays: power. Philosophers like Pierce and James and Dewey
            Message 5 of 8 , Sep 21, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, George Walton <iambiguously@y...> wrote:

              "Also what is lacking in most folks rendition of pragmatism is the
              role that political economy plays: power. Philosophers like Pierce and
              James and Dewey [and Habermas and Rawls and Rorty] can only be
              understod more fully after you have read Marx and Engels. As Mr Jensen
              noted to Howard Beal in the film Network, "the world is a business....


              I'll be getting to this in the next post, but any input from you is
              welcome on this subject.


              "it has been since we first crawled up out of the slime"."


              this is exactly right.

              tc
            • louise
              still not much to say, and argument of the formal kind probably does not avail far in these discussions. i think science, like a good poem, can always
              Message 6 of 8 , Sep 23, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                still not much to say, and argument of the formal kind probably does
                not avail far in these discussions. i think science, like a good
                poem, can always survive, even be enhanced by, valid satire. in the
                passage below, TC comments that "the universe has produced a
                capacity for assessment". an astonishing quantity of data is
                omitted in this statement. i mean, the universe has also produced a
                capacity for puke. a silicon-based something, and a carbon-based
                someone, register (from an existential perspective, for instance) an
                absolute difference which philosophy may describe and explore.
                science can analyse anything within our known universe, if it cares
                to, and the results will be as good as the integrity,
                thoroughness ... and pertinence, of the endeavour.

                louise
                ... nooist worshipper, clinging to irony ...


                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@y...> wrote:
                > nothing much to say today, will offer brief comment (below)
                >
                > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Trinidad Cruz" <cruzprdb@w...>
                > wrote:
                > ... science is the expectation that the universe and human beings
                > are discoverable to any point of humanly recognizable truth.
                >
                > [Louise]
                > By this definition, theology might be included within science.
                >
                > [TC]
                > This hardly is definable as pragmatism, for though the path or
                > timeline seems to reflect the same steps as pragmatism, the
                > fundamental expectation rejects the idea that truth
                > may or may not be available and must/needs be invented practically
                > for progress. Chomsky in a rather infamous statement once
                indicated
                > that the idea of science must be defined according to the specific
                > empirical capacities of specific thinking organisms; an idea that
                has
                > led to very unscientific ideas in semiotics and epistomology, an
                idea
                > which could only evolve from a pragmatic view, an idea completely
                > wrong in formulation. Whatever has arisen from the universe with
                any
                > empirical capacity toward the universe will evolve the same science
                > because that science is the process of recognizing that universe.
                If
                > something silicon based thinks, in comparison with something carbon
                > based that thinks, both of the same universe, the science that
                either
                > evolves will be the same as the others. A human being is of the
                > universe and because any capacity to assess that universe exists at
                > all, that capacity is an expectation of ongoing assessment. The
                > universe has produced a capacity for assessment. Assessment is then
                > possible within that universe - period. Like Ryle we must conclude:
                > only a person who can balance can lose his balance, only a person
                who
                > can reason can commit fallacies. Consider that Chomsky posits that
                a
                > thinking organism of specific biological composition could not, or
                at
                > the least would have great difficulty formulating theory in a
                > language of an organism of entirely different biological
                > composition, if the original organism began its exposure to
                language
                > in an immersion in the language of that other organism. Absolute
                > crockola fantasy. Not even sound science fiction. Language is a
                > result of the universe.
                >
                > [Louise]
                > Not enough time to think about this just now, maybe another day.
              • bjunius30
                The method of intelligence as a tool in our representation in the here and now cites examples of problems with knowledge in the universe. For example, the
                Message 7 of 8 , Sep 23, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  The method of intelligence as a tool in our representation in the
                  here and now cites examples of problems with knowledge in the
                  universe. For example, the great debate, whether an intelligent being
                  actually exists in the universe, and that which is greater than us,
                  must be logically looked at. If God exists in the universe, then
                  necessity is the only closeset solution that will come of it. In my
                  opinion I believe there is some sort of greater being but also fully
                  understand...now, why it is not explainable by scientific means, and
                  I will tell you why. Let's look at the fundamental aspect of human
                  behaviour first in our society. The poetic justice that society as a
                  breeded intelligence has to offer; for one, everything that a person
                  is, is an informational context, a representation between subjugated
                  and obligated toward some moral dilemma which may not meet any
                  criteria for the greater cause. Begging this would only incite a
                  scrupulous debate over social philosophy and it's post modern aspect
                  today. Knowledge as the self contained force bridges our experience
                  between what-is and what-is-not. And once it is known, can not have a
                  greater meaning than what it is all by itself, so the meaning in some
                  context will be compromised for a greater material or intrinsic value
                  that is wholly set by the distintion of that what is now. Faith, if
                  it had material value would try to sell that distinction given the ab
                  straction of what it really represents: A moral collective
                  presentation that one can positively accept or ultimately reject. So
                  can knowledge buy faith; or is it the other way around? Truthfully,
                  if anything with abstract concepts could be purchased, made something
                  tangible by the intelligent faculty then all human society strives
                  for is really moral elitism; to reign supreme over all knowledge and
                  those that God may even Himself may own, though we will never be
                  privy to that information. Information in the universe is limited by
                  it's factor, so slowly, we progress in understanding, that
                  understanding which becomes a tangible value to our society like a
                  known economic commodity hitting the BLOG charts on the internet. I
                  mean can you imagine what it would be like if Jesus Christ came down
                  or the Son of Satan, perhaps even Buddha in human form to present
                  themselves in front of our own moral scruples. It is most likely we
                  would cannabalize their every being in order to understand why it had
                  to be them, or why it could not be someone else. The form of human
                  behaviour is the will of necessity as it struggles toward the locus
                  of power. What one has everyone must have it. Artistic creativity no
                  longer exists in the primordial void anymore where just one person
                  has access to, it can be made whole, and with that price, bought and
                  sold like anything else a society would intentionally do, the
                  existence of God, and the greatest knowledge to be known is that
                  there is nothing to know, He is impartial, and yet we strive to
                  understand this divinity in our lives when we have become corrupted
                  with self indulging scruples, that takes form in rage, rape, anger,
                  hatred, adultery, lying, killing, and ultimately destroying our own
                  progeny, our genes. Slap or kill your children then you can
                  understand why goodness persists or why innocence is the obligation
                  of God in the universe; that his credo above the ideas of good or
                  evil, those of absolution, we forsake in knowledge,a tool for rape
                  and not for harmonious thinking. Yes, this is all conjecture I must
                  admit because the cake is not here to eat it, but at least I can make
                  you wonder.


                  Bryan Junius



                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Keyes" <rlk@w...> wrote:
                  > Thinking out Load, Super Great Posts Both:
                  > Could it be that I am wrong. (Of course). Could it
                  > Be it is simply a matter if intellectual laziness and God Simply is
                  not the
                  > default Notion due to a father figure complex of Humans etc, and it
                  is just
                  > simple laziness and Logic Is Truly what it is all about and
                  everybody knows
                  > it. Hmmm. But logic is difficult. (Understanding the General Case
                  is easy
                  > compared to the details.i.e anybody can infer the obvious-speaking
                  of
                  > evolution, Nature, Human Interaction- the game at hand) example, we
                  are
                  > tribal, Louise being an example, But why are we tribal is a tougher
                  > question. (Side Note: I actually think the god /no god debate is
                  simple)
                  > That is a good Question for sure. Possible Answers.
                  > 1. For Sure Humans are to lazy to try to understand Science
                  therefore they
                  > just say Hey, I will believe This (A , B or C or whatever).
                  > Analysis of Point 1. If this were true, it is the ultimate of free
                  will. Do
                  > Humans Posses this Quality...To be able to choose. Ans. Yes !
                  Most... Face
                  > it George, you are not as free as they because you adhere to Rules
                  and your
                  > brain just cannot do otherwise. I hope you enjoy the Path Chosen
                  for you...
                  > 2. Humans are Lazy and Stupid and there exist a significant
                  correlation.
                  > (Stipulate with me here). Stupid People will pick the simplest
                  Notion, and
                  > that is not trying to figure out the significance of quantum
                  mechanics or
                  > Mathematics role in things. So it could be they are just stupid.
                  > Bob.....
                  >
                  >
                  > -----Original Message-----
                  > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com]
                  On Behalf
                  > Of George Walton
                  > Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 2:10 PM
                  > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                  > Subject: Re: [existlist] Running On Empty
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Trinidad Cruz <cruzprdb@w...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Consider pragmatism for what it is: the view that when the discovery
                  > of truth becomes too troubling, or too difficult a process, any
                  > proposition that provides comfortable peace of mind will do and
                  should be
                  > taken as the best possibility for future development. Two things are
                  > lacking: the expectation of dignifying one's existence, and an
                  ethical
                  > intellectual work ethic.
                  >
                  >
                  > george:
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Also what is lacking in most folks rendition of pragmatism is the
                  role that
                  > political economy plays: power. Philosophers like Pierce and James
                  and Dewey
                  > [and Habermas and Rawls and Rorty] can only be understod more fully
                  after
                  > you have read Marx and Engels. As Mr Jensen noted to Howard Beal in
                  the film
                  > Network, "the world is a business....it has been since we first
                  crawled up
                  > out of the slime".
                  >
                  > Philosophers tend to forget that part
                  >
                  >
                  > g.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > __________________________________________________
                  > Do You Yahoo!?
                  > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                  > http://mail.yahoo.com
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining
                  nothing!
                  >
                  > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                • Trinidad Cruz
                  ... Begging this would only incite a scrupulous debate over social philosophy and it s post modern aspect today. True. So what. Knowledge as the self
                  Message 8 of 8 , Sep 24, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "bjunius30" <bjunius30@n...> wrote:

                    "Begging this would only incite a scrupulous debate over social
                    philosophy and it's post modern aspect today."

                    True. So what.

                    "Knowledge as the self contained force bridges our experience
                    between what-is and what-is-not. And once it is known, can not have a
                    greater meaning than what it is all by itself,"

                    A scientifically existential view.

                    "so the meaning in some context will be compromised for a greater
                    material or intrinsic value that is wholly set by the distintion of
                    that what is now."

                    A truly pragmatic disposition, and the rest... - more of the same.

                    tc
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.