Friam

FW: Meat

Classic

List

Threaded

45 messages Options

123

gepr

Re: FW: Meat

On 11/02/2015 08:44 AM, glen wrote:
> On 11/02/2015 01:55 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>>
>>
>> It seems to highlight the state vs. behavior duality.
>>
> [NST==>Do I know that duality? I am guessing that I think of them in terms of levels of organization. Can you say more? <==nst]

So, in the 20 or so minutes I've spent thinking about virtue argumentation (obviously enough to make me an expert), shifting judgements of "good" arguing from the argument to the arguers is enlightening. It reminds me of considering things like "white space" in a document or a GUI, or "negative space" in an image. In math (or computation, or both), there's a duality between things and activity, objects vs processes, state vs. behavior, nodes vs. edges. I suppose we see it in physics as well, with mass vs. energy. Most consideration of argumentation focuses on the arguments. Switching to think more about the arguers is interesting in that same sense as particle vs. wave flip-flopping is interesting.

> [NST==>Glen, how familiar are with Peirce’s weird form of [idealistic] realism. And how it leads both to tough scientism and blousy postmodernism, in different hands. <==nst]

I'm not at all familiar! So, now I have something else to learn about.

>> You tend to spend quite a bit of time trashing relativist positions (including the more extreme postmodernism), yet argue in favor of face 2 face teaching, apparently on the grounds that social context is at least somewhat powerful. Do you admit a full spectrum of power: realism <-> constructivism? Or is the rant against MOOCs just a "get off my lawn" and, deep down, you stick with hard-line realism?
>>
> [NST==>I am sure there is a contradiction in here somewhere, but I don’t yet see it. Couldn’t I believe that conversation with other well-informed people is the best way to arrive at the real? Or, at least, one of several methods, all of which make a contribution? Could you say a bit more? <==nst]

Well, you could argue "parallax", the idea that none of us have (or can have) perfectly accurate opinions, but that collections of us have more accurate opinions than individuals. To me, though, this gives weight to things like postmodernism (at least in my own almost private understanding of what "postmodernism" means). Here is the reasoning:

One important aspect of postmodernism is that guiding towards a vanishing point (reality) by navigating opinions is only as effective as the abstraction layers between the target and the opinions. The further removed you are from the banal, the crazier the navigation gets. This is why we see so much symbol reuse ... so much so that the symbols take on and lose entire (distinct) meanings along the way. I.e. postmodernism is a reduction to absurdity, which can be used to argue _for_ (or against) realism.

So, by allowing all the myriad symbols, the rich interconnections between 2 face 2 face arguers, you're allowing for a large number of abstraction layers. E.g. something said with a giggle is different from that very same thing said with disgust. Something said with vocal fry can be very different than something said valley girl style. ... #whatever

Therefore, if you're arguing for _more_ abstraction layers (physical presence in classrooms), then you're arguing for the same layered abstraction used to make the Postmodernism Point(TM).

I would think a hard-core (naive) realist would be all for eliminating, for example, the physical characteristics of a professor, facial ticks, gesticulating arms, etc. and getting straight at the argument, focusing less and less on the arguers. So, realists should LOVE the idea of a MOOC and dislike "virtue argumentation".

> [NST==>Again, I have not very coherent feelings about this domain. I recently read THE BIG FAT SURPRISE and decided to believe it hook line and sinker. I think there is an awful lot “food witness” going on, where people express their individuality by not eating this and that. More of the narcissism of the IMac and the You-tube generation. As the family cook, I find it’s just a pain in the ass. But just about the time I get on my high horse about “people like that”, I encounter somebody with Crohn’s Syndrome, and such like, and am completely humiliated. Not much of philosophical interest in all of that. <==nst]

Yes, but there is a boon to such "narcissism". I'm beginning to think differently about that. All this selfie-taking, facebook-obsessed, soundbite culture, may well be the opposite of narcissism. It may be a visible/measurable stage of the hive mind required for an earth with 15 billion people on it. Perhaps we're evolving from herds to biofilms ... from cells to tissue?

--
⇔ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Rich Murray-2

Re: FW: Meat

I enjoyed Friam for a few years -- glad to see a few others have ventured into expanded awareness explorations, like Zen -- shared paranormal experience is core to conveying mysticism -- this is becoming more prominent in recent years with the proliferation of free video teaching, crafted to induce expanded states in the viewers -- just Google "nonduality" ... the style is to deepen the real-time process of intimate communication about moment by moment raw experience, while agreeing on shared positive goals -- this leads to viewpoints and vistas that completely shift and expand human experience beyond the usual limits...

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 2:48 PM, glen <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 11/02/2015 08:44 AM, glen wrote:

On 11/02/2015 01:55 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

It seems to highlight the state vs. behavior duality.

[NST==>Do I know that duality? I am guessing that I think of them in terms of levels of organization. Can you say more? <==nst]

So, in the 20 or so minutes I've spent thinking about virtue argumentation (obviously enough to make me an expert), shifting judgements of "good" arguing from the argument to the arguers is enlightening. It reminds me of considering things like "white space" in a document or a GUI, or "negative space" in an image. In math (or computation, or both), there's a duality between things and activity, objects vs processes, state vs. behavior, nodes vs. edges. I suppose we see it in physics as well, with mass vs. energy. Most consideration of argumentation focuses on the arguments. Switching to think more about the arguers is interesting in that same sense as particle vs. wave flip-flopping is interesting.

[NST==>Glen, how familiar are with Peirce’s weird form of [idealistic] realism. And how it leads both to tough scientism and blousy postmodernism, in different hands. <==nst]

I'm not at all familiar! So, now I have something else to learn about.

You tend to spend quite a bit of time trashing relativist positions (including the more extreme postmodernism), yet argue in favor of face 2 face teaching, apparently on the grounds that social context is at least somewhat powerful. Do you admit a full spectrum of power: realism <-> constructivism? Or is the rant against MOOCs just a "get off my lawn" and, deep down, you stick with hard-line realism?

[NST==>I am sure there is a contradiction in here somewhere, but I don’t yet see it. Couldn’t I believe that conversation with other well-informed people is the best way to arrive at the real? Or, at least, one of several methods, all of which make a contribution? Could you say a bit more? <==nst]

Well, you could argue "parallax", the idea that none of us have (or can have) perfectly accurate opinions, but that collections of us have more accurate opinions than individuals. To me, though, this gives weight to things like postmodernism (at least in my own almost private understanding of what "postmodernism" means). Here is the reasoning:

One important aspect of postmodernism is that guiding towards a vanishing point (reality) by navigating opinions is only as effective as the abstraction layers between the target and the opinions. The further removed you are from the banal, the crazier the navigation gets. This is why we see so much symbol reuse ... so much so that the symbols take on and lose entire (distinct) meanings along the way. I.e. postmodernism is a reduction to absurdity, which can be used to argue _for_ (or against) realism.

So, by allowing all the myriad symbols, the rich interconnections between 2 face 2 face arguers, you're allowing for a large number of abstraction layers. E.g. something said with a giggle is different from that very same thing said with disgust. Something said with vocal fry can be very different than something said valley girl style. ... #whatever

Therefore, if you're arguing for _more_ abstraction layers (physical presence in classrooms), then you're arguing for the same layered abstraction used to make the Postmodernism Point(TM).

I would think a hard-core (naive) realist would be all for eliminating, for example, the physical characteristics of a professor, facial ticks, gesticulating arms, etc. and getting straight at the argument, focusing less and less on the arguers. So, realists should LOVE the idea of a MOOC and dislike "virtue argumentation".

[NST==>Again, I have not very coherent feelings about this domain. I recently read THE BIG FAT SURPRISE and decided to believe it hook line and sinker. I think there is an awful lot “food witness” going on, where people express their individuality by not eating this and that. More of the narcissism of the IMac and the You-tube generation. As the family cook, I find it’s just a pain in the ass. But just about the time I get on my high horse about “people like that”, I encounter somebody with Crohn’s Syndrome, and such like, and am completely humiliated. Not much of philosophical interest in all of that. <==nst]

Yes, but there is a boon to such "narcissism". I'm beginning to think differently about that. All this selfie-taking, facebook-obsessed, soundbite culture, may well be the opposite of narcissism. It may be a visible/measurable stage of the hive mind required for an earth with 15 billion people on it. Perhaps we're evolving from herds to biofilms ... from cells to tissue?

--
⇔ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

gepr

Re: FW: Meat

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

At first, I struggled to find something to argue with. But I finally found it!

On 11/02/2015 02:33 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
> Even though I was trained as a Scientist (especially though?) I find it impossible to do enough research on any "popular" topic to even pretend to understand the issue and data well enough to make a "scientific decision". I think those who "pretend" to do so are rarely being honest. As those here who have actually *done* science, know, it is far from trivial to really track down all the data and reproduce all of the experiments, etc. to begin to "prove anything" to oneself.

But one can't actually *do* science. Science is a collective thing, perhaps even an entraining thing. While there are plenty who admit that it's mostly a behavior, the requirements for repetition and prediction preclude any individual from *doing* science. At best, we can only *participate*. We can't _do_ it. We can only _be_ it.

So, while I agree with your arching conclusion (that one -- you -- does not make "scientific decisions"), I disagree that it's because one hasn't done enough research. I can do so _without_ agreeing with the reasoning by which you reached your conclusion. It's because "scientific decisions" is a contradiction in terms. Decisions are intra-individual, cognitive things, whereas science is an inter-individual collective thing.

This bears directly on Nick's topic, I think ... the ability to disagree with reasoning but agree with conclusions.

> Beyond that, I try to operate on as "fundamental" of principles as possible. Since you used the topic of diet and the eating of meat as an example, I will admit to having chosen to be a vegetarian from age 15-32 when I was essentially "boycotting" the meat *industry* which I saw as an exploitative and abusive industry. I currently follow the general guidelines of "paleo" living... entrusting my genetic heritage to define "what is best for me". With that in mind, I suspect that not only is meat important to my diet, it is probably also important for it to come to me infrequently and in somewhat binging quantities... a good eating strategy *might* be a big juicy steak or three once every couple of weeks and a LOT of green and tuberous vegetables. I *do* respond to the more complex and well researched ideas that are based in the indigenous diets of various cultures (some eat a LOT Of animal protein/fat while others eat almost none).

This likely means you responded to Owen's and Nick's form follows function arguments, too, right? Or do you allow for layers of removal between form and function?

> To balance this, however, I believe that even if/as we crash and burn in our own greenhouse gas-heating, we will almost surely survive the consequences, albeit after a huge period of adjustment.

I find this belief the most interesting. Apophenically, it seems techies tend to think this way. They're also the most likely to think we can invent our way out of various calamaties. They tend to be more tolerant of the ill-effects of any given technology (or technique). Etc. But I see a similar aspect with non-techie yet methodical people... people who can cook, for example, seem to be able to come up with good meals despite bare cabinets and fridge contents. People who can paint (or have other visual imagination) seem to see things others don't. Etc.

So, from that, I infer that one's generalized ability to solve problems (generalized from one or more domains in which they are plastic/resourceful) gives them the optimism that they will find solutions, even in the face of uncertainty and a lack of reliable data.

--
⇔ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Roger Critchlow-2

Re: FW: Meat

speaking of crash and burn, you all caught the PNAS early release today, http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/10/28/1512482112.abstract?sid=6a257104-4e5a-45e0-ad64-03d3b03c8f43, anticipating 3m sea rise in the next 60 years, and no sign of anything to be done at this point?

-- rec --

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 5:24 PM, glen <[hidden email]> wrote:

At first, I struggled to find something to argue with. But I finally found it!

On 11/02/2015 02:33 PM, Steve Smith wrote:

Even though I was trained as a Scientist (especially though?) I find it impossible to do enough research on any "popular" topic to even pretend to understand the issue and data well enough to make a "scientific decision". I think those who "pretend" to do so are rarely being honest. As those here who have actually *done* science, know, it is far from trivial to really track down all the data and reproduce all of the experiments, etc. to begin to "prove anything" to oneself.

But one can't actually *do* science. Science is a collective thing, perhaps even an entraining thing. While there are plenty who admit that it's mostly a behavior, the requirements for repetition and prediction preclude any individual from *doing* science. At best, we can only *participate*. We can't _do_ it. We can only _be_ it.

So, while I agree with your arching conclusion (that one -- you -- does not make "scientific decisions"), I disagree that it's because one hasn't done enough research. I can do so _without_ agreeing with the reasoning by which you reached your conclusion. It's because "scientific decisions" is a contradiction in terms. Decisions are intra-individual, cognitive things, whereas science is an inter-individual collective thing.

This bears directly on Nick's topic, I think ... the ability to disagree with reasoning but agree with conclusions.

Beyond that, I try to operate on as "fundamental" of principles as possible. Since you used the topic of diet and the eating of meat as an example, I will admit to having chosen to be a vegetarian from age 15-32 when I was essentially "boycotting" the meat *industry* which I saw as an exploitative and abusive industry. I currently follow the general guidelines of "paleo" living... entrusting my genetic heritage to define "what is best for me". With that in mind, I suspect that not only is meat important to my diet, it is probably also important for it to come to me infrequently and in somewhat binging quantities... a good eating strategy *might* be a big juicy steak or three once every couple of weeks and a LOT of green and tuberous vegetables. I *do* respond to the more complex and well researched ideas that are based in the indigenous diets of various cultures (some eat a LOT Of animal protein/fat while others eat almost none).

This likely means you responded to Owen's and Nick's form follows function arguments, too, right? Or do you allow for layers of removal between form and function?

To balance this, however, I believe that even if/as we crash and burn in our own greenhouse gas-heating, we will almost surely survive the consequences, albeit after a huge period of adjustment.

I find this belief the most interesting. Apophenically, it seems techies tend to think this way. They're also the most likely to think we can invent our way out of various calamaties. They tend to be more tolerant of the ill-effects of any given technology (or technique). Etc. But I see a similar aspect with non-techie yet methodical people... people who can cook, for example, seem to be able to come up with good meals despite bare cabinets and fridge contents. People who can paint (or have other visual imagination) seem to see things others don't. Etc.

So, from that, I infer that one's generalized ability to solve problems (generalized from one or more domains in which they are plastic/resourceful) gives them the optimism that they will find solutions, even in the face of uncertainty and a lack of reliable data.

--
⇔ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Roger Critchlow-2

Re: FW: Meat

Sorry, misquoted the abstract in a particularly alarming way by paraphrasing journalistic sources: 60 years of continuing destabilization of the Amundsen Basin, as is currently being observed, leads to a subsequent collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and an eventual 3m sea rise.

-- rec --

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]> wrote:

speaking of crash and burn, you all caught the PNAS early release today, http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/10/28/1512482112.abstract?sid=6a257104-4e5a-45e0-ad64-03d3b03c8f43, anticipating 3m sea rise in the next 60 years, and no sign of anything to be done at this point?

-- rec --

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 5:24 PM, glen <[hidden email]> wrote:

At first, I struggled to find something to argue with. But I finally found it!

On 11/02/2015 02:33 PM, Steve Smith wrote:

Even though I was trained as a Scientist (especially though?) I find it impossible to do enough research on any "popular" topic to even pretend to understand the issue and data well enough to make a "scientific decision". I think those who "pretend" to do so are rarely being honest. As those here who have actually *done* science, know, it is far from trivial to really track down all the data and reproduce all of the experiments, etc. to begin to "prove anything" to oneself.

But one can't actually *do* science. Science is a collective thing, perhaps even an entraining thing. While there are plenty who admit that it's mostly a behavior, the requirements for repetition and prediction preclude any individual from *doing* science. At best, we can only *participate*. We can't _do_ it. We can only _be_ it.

So, while I agree with your arching conclusion (that one -- you -- does not make "scientific decisions"), I disagree that it's because one hasn't done enough research. I can do so _without_ agreeing with the reasoning by which you reached your conclusion. It's because "scientific decisions" is a contradiction in terms. Decisions are intra-individual, cognitive things, whereas science is an inter-individual collective thing.

This bears directly on Nick's topic, I think ... the ability to disagree with reasoning but agree with conclusions.

Beyond that, I try to operate on as "fundamental" of principles as possible. Since you used the topic of diet and the eating of meat as an example, I will admit to having chosen to be a vegetarian from age 15-32 when I was essentially "boycotting" the meat *industry* which I saw as an exploitative and abusive industry. I currently follow the general guidelines of "paleo" living... entrusting my genetic heritage to define "what is best for me". With that in mind, I suspect that not only is meat important to my diet, it is probably also important for it to come to me infrequently and in somewhat binging quantities... a good eating strategy *might* be a big juicy steak or three once every couple of weeks and a LOT of green and tuberous vegetables. I *do* respond to the more complex and well researched ideas that are based in the indigenous diets of various cultures (some eat a LOT Of animal protein/fat while others eat almost none).

This likely means you responded to Owen's and Nick's form follows function arguments, too, right? Or do you allow for layers of removal between form and function?

To balance this, however, I believe that even if/as we crash and burn in our own greenhouse gas-heating, we will almost surely survive the consequences, albeit after a huge period of adjustment.

I find this belief the most interesting. Apophenically, it seems techies tend to think this way. They're also the most likely to think we can invent our way out of various calamaties. They tend to be more tolerant of the ill-effects of any given technology (or technique). Etc. But I see a similar aspect with non-techie yet methodical people... people who can cook, for example, seem to be able to come up with good meals despite bare cabinets and fridge contents. People who can paint (or have other visual imagination) seem to see things others don't. Etc.

So, from that, I infer that one's generalized ability to solve problems (generalized from one or more domains in which they are plastic/resourceful) gives them the optimism that they will find solutions, even in the face of uncertainty and a lack of reliable data.

--
⇔ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Steve Smith

Re: FW: Meat

In reply to this post by gepr

Glen -

> >At first, I struggled to find something to argue with. But I finally
> found it!
Well struggled, well found!
> >> As those here who have actually *done* science, know, it is far
> from trivial to really track down all the data and reproduce all of
> the >>experiments, etc. to begin to "prove anything" to oneself.
>
> >But one can't actually *do* science. Science is a collective thing,
> perhaps even an entraining thing. While there are plenty who admit
> that it's >mostly a behavior, the requirements for repetition and
> prediction preclude any individual from *doing* science. At best, we
> can only >*participate*. We can't _do_ it. We can only _be_ it.
Excellent point! And I suppose by analogy or extension, (which is the
extension of which), Nick's original concept of "being rational" suffers
the same issue.
>
> So, while I agree with your arching conclusion (that one -- you --
> does not make "scientific decisions"), I disagree that it's because
> one hasn't done enough research. I can do so _without_ agreeing with
> the reasoning by which you reached your conclusion. It's because
> "scientific decisions" is a contradiction in terms. Decisions are
> intra-individual, cognitive things, whereas science is an
> inter-individual collective thing.
Also well pointed-out. I think it might be obvious that my point was
that in anything but the most dedicated circumstances can one even
credibly *pretend* to have done enough research to make a "scientific
decision". And if I understand your point, even then, it is at best,
"in the limit" good enough to make a tentative/interim conclusion. So
to contradict your analysis of my description, I would say that we are
not in disagreement, that in fact what you describe as "the reasoning by
which I reached my conclusion" was a mis-statement. Your own
description is more appropriate to what I meant, rather than what I said.
>
> This bears directly on Nick's topic, I think ... the ability to
> disagree with reasoning but agree with conclusions.
And even within oneself. I believe that we often use "surrogate
reasoning"... we tell stories that are either easier to articulate or
perhaps just easier to agree with. Perhaps in the vein of the Red
Queen, I find myself in this mode of analysis/description believing a
continuous stream of (logically?) impossible things... or more to the
point, articulating them in place of a deeper, more intuitive, possibly
unstate-able understanding?
>
>> I *do* respond to the more complex and well researched ideas that
>> are based in the indigenous diets of various cultures (some eat a LOT
>> Of animal protein/fat while others eat almost none).
>
> This likely means you responded to Owen's and Nick's form follows
> function arguments, too, right? Or do you allow for layers of removal
> between form and function?
Well, when put that way, I do admit multiple levels of indirection....
but still ascribe to the basic concept of Form=>Function... though
often through multiple layers: e.g. high-fiber diets keep the colon more
clear and therefore magically prevent or reduce colon cancer.
>> To balance this, however, I believe that even if/as we crash and burn
>> in our own greenhouse gas-heating, we will almost surely survive the
>> consequences, albeit after a huge period of adjustment.
>
> I find this belief the most interesting. Apophenically, it seems
> techies tend to think this way. They're also the most likely to think
> we can invent our way out of various calamaties.
I'd say "innovate" and I don't necessarily mean "technologically". I
think my "confidence" pivots around the diverstiy of our natures... our
ability to adapt physically (as warm blooded mammals) as well as
socially (as complex social creatures with an existing significant
diversity in modes of living in groups) and personally (put 50 bozos on
50 deserted islands and *some* of them will survive in spite of being
bozos).

> They tend to be more tolerant of the ill-effects of any given
> technology (or technique). Etc. But I see a similar aspect with
> non-techie yet methodical people... people who can cook, for example,
> seem to be able to come up with good meals despite bare cabinets and
> fridge contents. People who can paint (or have other visual
> imagination) seem to see things others don't. Etc.
>
> So, from that, I infer that one's generalized ability to solve
> problems (generalized from one or more domains in which they are
> plastic/resourceful) gives them the optimism that they will find
> solutions, even in the face of uncertainty and a lack of reliable data.

You may misunderstand that *I* imagine that *I* (or my progeny) will
survive (well)... I imagine that we (humans, first-worlders,
caucasians, etc) will NOT be as successful at surviving our own mistakes
as, say, cockroaches, but we may well do better than say, whales or
gorillas. I'm not sure that first-world technologists will generally
do better than say natives currently living in semi-harsh, subsistence
circumstances.

This is an interesting tangent (as many that you trigger as a
"diffraction" from the original topic)...

- Steve
PS... thanks for introducing me to "Apophenically"

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: FW: Meat

In reply to this post by Roger Critchlow-2

Surely someone has collected the digital elevation models (DEM) to find potential growth areas near areas that would be impacted by such a water rise? You know, as investment opportunities. (Or to systematically short-sell them.) New Orleans lost half their population after Katrina..

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, November 2, 2015 6:12 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

-- rec --

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]> wrote:

speaking of crash and burn, you all caught the PNAS early release today, http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/10/28/1512482112.abstract?sid=6a257104-4e5a-45e0-ad64-03d3b03c8f43, anticipating 3m sea rise in the next 60 years, and no sign of anything to be done at this point?

-- rec --

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 5:24 PM, glen <[hidden email]> wrote:

At first, I struggled to find something to argue with. But I finally found it!

On 11/02/2015 02:33 PM, Steve Smith wrote:

Even though I was trained as a Scientist (especially though?) I find it impossible to do enough research on any "popular" topic to even pretend to understand the issue and data well enough to make a "scientific decision". I think those who "pretend" to do so are rarely being honest. As those here who have actually *done* science, know, it is far from trivial to really track down all the data and reproduce all of the experiments, etc. to begin to "prove anything" to oneself.

But one can't actually *do* science. Science is a collective thing, perhaps even an entraining thing. While there are plenty who admit that it's mostly a behavior, the requirements for repetition and prediction preclude any individual from *doing* science. At best, we can only *participate*. We can't _do_ it. We can only _be_ it.

So, while I agree with your arching conclusion (that one -- you -- does not make "scientific decisions"), I disagree that it's because one hasn't done enough research. I can do so _without_ agreeing with the reasoning by which you reached your conclusion. It's because "scientific decisions" is a contradiction in terms. Decisions are intra-individual, cognitive things, whereas science is an inter-individual collective thing.

This bears directly on Nick's topic, I think ... the ability to disagree with reasoning but agree with conclusions.

Beyond that, I try to operate on as "fundamental" of principles as possible. Since you used the topic of diet and the eating of meat as an example, I will admit to having chosen to be a vegetarian from age 15-32 when I was essentially "boycotting" the meat *industry* which I saw as an exploitative and abusive industry. I currently follow the general guidelines of "paleo" living... entrusting my genetic heritage to define "what is best for me". With that in mind, I suspect that not only is meat important to my diet, it is probably also important for it to come to me infrequently and in somewhat binging quantities... a good eating strategy *might* be a big juicy steak or three once every couple of weeks and a LOT of green and tuberous vegetables. I *do* respond to the more complex and well researched ideas that are based in the indigenous diets of various cultures (some eat a LOT Of animal protein/fat while others eat almost none).

This likely means you responded to Owen's and Nick's form follows function arguments, too, right? Or do you allow for layers of removal between form and function?

To balance this, however, I believe that even if/as we crash and burn in our own greenhouse gas-heating, we will almost surely survive the consequences, albeit after a huge period of adjustment.

I find this belief the most interesting. Apophenically, it seems techies tend to think this way. They're also the most likely to think we can invent our way out of various calamaties. They tend to be more tolerant of the ill-effects of any given technology (or technique). Etc. But I see a similar aspect with non-techie yet methodical people... people who can cook, for example, seem to be able to come up with good meals despite bare cabinets and fridge contents. People who can paint (or have other visual imagination) seem to see things others don't. Etc.

So, from that, I infer that one's generalized ability to solve problems (generalized from one or more domains in which they are plastic/resourceful) gives them the optimism that they will find solutions, even in the face of uncertainty and a lack of reliable data.

--
⇔ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Carl Tollander

Re: FW: Meat

In reply to this post by Roger Critchlow-2

Well, one eventually gets 3m from the West Antarctica collapse alone, if that happens. However there are other possibly-soon-to-be-not-so-frozen bits on the planet (Greenland, the Arctic, other parts of Antarctica, etc) which are outside that particular study. So one could imagine 3m to be conservative. Even one foot would certainly command a certain quality of attention. And with most of these kinds of predictions, the consequences seem to be back-loaded. Warmer oceans of greater surface area will have other effects one could be concerned about if so inclined.

Nature bats last, as least far as the South China Sea is concerned.

So, there ya go. I read science articles to get a greater sense of interconnectedness, unexpected interactions between events, rather than some clear policy decisions. This leads me to a more "what kinds of principled studies could you do that would lead to more coherent models", or "what is the space of coherent models" rather than just adding to the mass of data.

Carl

On 11/2/15 6:12 PM, Roger Critchlow wrote:

Sorry, misquoted the abstract in a particularly alarming way by paraphrasing journalistic sources: 60 years of continuing destabilization of the Amundsen Basin, as is currently being observed, leads to a subsequent collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and an eventual 3m sea rise.

-- rec --

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]> wrote:

speaking of crash and burn, you all caught the PNAS early release today, http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/10/28/1512482112.abstract?sid=6a257104-4e5a-45e0-ad64-03d3b03c8f43, anticipating 3m sea rise in the next 60 years, and no sign of anything to be done at this point?

-- rec --

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 5:24 PM, glen <[hidden email]> wrote:

At first, I struggled to find something to argue with. But I finally found it!

On 11/02/2015 02:33 PM, Steve Smith wrote:

Even though I was trained as a Scientist (especially though?) I find it impossible to do enough research on any "popular" topic to even pretend to understand the issue and data well enough to make a "scientific decision". I think those who "pretend" to do so are rarely being honest. As those here who have actually *done* science, know, it is far from trivial to really track down all the data and reproduce all of the experiments, etc. to begin to "prove anything" to oneself.

But one can't actually *do* science. Science is a collective thing, perhaps even an entraining thing. While there are plenty who admit that it's mostly a behavior, the requirements for repetition and prediction preclude any individual from *doing* science. At best, we can only *participate*. We can't _do_ it. We can only _be_ it.

So, while I agree with your arching conclusion (that one -- you -- does not make "scientific decisions"), I disagree that it's because one hasn't done enough research. I can do so _without_ agreeing with the reasoning by which you reached your conclusion. It's because "scientific decisions" is a contradiction in terms. Decisions are intra-individual, cognitive things, whereas science is an inter-individual collective thing.

This bears directly on Nick's topic, I think ... the ability to disagree with reasoning but agree with conclusions.

Beyond that, I try to operate on as "fundamental" of principles as possible. Since you used the topic of diet and the eating of meat as an example, I will admit to having chosen to be a vegetarian from age 15-32 when I was essentially "boycotting" the meat *industry* which I saw as an exploitative and abusive industry. I currently follow the general guidelines of "paleo" living... entrusting my genetic heritage to define "what is best for me". With that in mind, I suspect that not only is meat important to my diet, it is probably also important for it to come to me infrequently and in somewhat binging quantities... a good eating strategy *might* be a big juicy steak or three once every couple of weeks and a LOT of green and tuberous vegetables. I *do* respond to the more complex and well researched ideas that are based in the indigenous diets of various cultures (some eat a LOT Of animal protein/fat while others eat almost none).

This likely means you responded to Owen's and Nick's form follows function arguments, too, right? Or do you allow for layers of removal between form and function?

To balance this, however, I believe that even if/as we crash and burn in our own greenhouse gas-heating, we will almost surely survive the consequences, albeit after a huge period of adjustment.

I find this belief the most interesting. Apophenically, it seems techies tend to think this way. They're also the most likely to think we can invent our way out of various calamaties. They tend to be more tolerant of the ill-effects of any given technology (or technique). Etc. But I see a similar aspect with non-techie yet methodical people... people who can cook, for example, seem to be able to come up with good meals despite bare cabinets and fridge contents. People who can paint (or have other visual imagination) seem to see things others don't. Etc.

So, from that, I infer that one's generalized ability to solve problems (generalized from one or more domains in which they are plastic/resourceful) gives them the optimism that they will find solutions, even in the face of uncertainty and a lack of reliable data.

--
⇔ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Carl Tollander

Re: FW: Meat

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

Speaking as a mammal, who has gone to some efforts to be well preserved,
it now appears that I am carcinogenic if consumed. I am unsure as to
whether to be disappointed or elated. Certainly a caution to those of
cannibalistic bent.

This does raise the issue that if I am indeed carcinogenic, why am I
less so to myself in the similar way that I might be to others?

Ticks carry other nasty things, even without the Lyme problem. I know
people who have Lyme, it is unpleasant for them. I like beets, and
curry, irrespective of their supposed benefits, so am predisposed to
hear nice things about their benefits. I believe most diagnoses of
arthritis are bogus because I don't wish to believe I am of an age
susceptible to such and because I can with some attention to detail fix
it most of the time. Smoking is an obnoxious habit, perpetrated by
those who have little regard for themselves or others. I'm sorry if it
causes them cancer. I believed animal fats caused cardiovascular
issues since some hyperlipidemia runs in my family and have seen first
hand the devastation cardiovascular diseases can cause. However, I
have become convinced that (a) I feel noticeably better with some meat
in my diet and (b) my social group thinks that cholesterol is perhaps
not as strong a factor in heart disease as other things and (c) as I
read up on these things I see that the disease (like cancer) is not a
single thing with unique causes per individual. I live next to pigs
and goats and chickens and am likely under no illusions about what "farm
fresh" in the grocery store means. I am trying to make an organic
garden at my hut and am increasingly impressed with the difficulty of
defining the term. Generally, I try to follow a fish and rice and
veggies Japanese diet; it feels "cleaner", which is an mental model
brought on by my very long standing Japanophilia as much as anything else.

There. I see statements to the effect of "statistically, meat causes
cancer" and I laugh. Thanks for playing. Two Martian potatoes out of
a possible five.

C

On 10/27/15 11:06 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

> Dear Friam members,
>
> As those of you in the mother church are already aware, I have been trying
> to foment a conversation about what rationality consists of and how does it
> relate to a purported scientific consensus. I assume that you are all, more
> or less, rational people. How exactly, then, did each of you come to the
> conclusion that, say, animal fats do or do not cause heart disease, smoking
> does or does not cause cancer, human activity does or does not cause global
> warming, that tick bites do (or do not) cause a syndrome called chronic Lyme
> disease, that, say, beet powder improves metabolism (?), or that turmeric
> does or does not alleviate arthritis. Or, perhaps more important, how did
> you decide to act on these beliefs? Or not?
>
> A friend of mine is always trying to change my eating habits and now
> assaults me with evidence that red meat, particularly if processed, is
> increasing my risk of cancer. She includes in her email several links that
> are designed to convince me. I include those below.
>
> The question I would like us to consider is not really the substance of the
> matter. I am effing 77 years old, with a dozen things wrong with me that
> are likely to kill me long before tomorrow's hotdog will. I am more
> interested in the process by which each of you will decide whether or not to
> change your habits on the basis of this new evidence, or try to change the
> habits of your children or grandchildren. In what sense will that process
> be "reasonable?"
>
> Discuss.
>
> Nick
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: EMAIL
> Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 8:31 PM
> To: Nick Thompson <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: Meat
>
> Here's a thoughtful look at what the WHO had to say about meat and cancer:
>
> http://examine.com/blog/scientists-just-found-that-red-meat-causes-cancer--o
> r-did-they/?utm_source=Examine.com+Insiders&utm_campaign=34d0d95b1b-Red_mead
> 10_27_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e4d662cb1b-34d0d95b1b-70203945&ct=t(R
> ed_mead10_27_2015)&goal=0_e4d662cb1b-34d0d95b1b-70203945&mc_cid=34d0d95b1b&m
> c_eid=3edf56d922
>
> Apparently the WHO looked at 800 different studies. That's a lot of
> studies. Is it a meta study?
>
> R
>
>
> On Oct 27, 2015, at 4:40 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>
>> R
>>
>> I always wait for the metastudy.
>>
>> n
>>
>> Nicholas S. Thompson
>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: EMAIL
>> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 3:35 PM
>> To: Nick Thompson <[hidden email]>
>> Subject: Meat
>>
>> Nick,
>>
>> Are you freaking out about the meat/cancer news? Here's an article
>> that puts it in perspective:
>>
>> http://www.theguardian.com/science/sifting-the-evidence/2015/oct/26/me
>> at-and
>> -tobacco-the-difference-between-risk-and-strength-of-evidence?CMP=fb_a
>> -scien ce_b-gdnscience?CMP=fb_a-science_b-gdnscience
>>
>>
> .
>>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
>

Nick Thompson

Re: FW: Meat

Hi Carl,

I like Steve's idea (Was it Steve's? I am having a hard time following!)
that as scientists we live in a network of other scientists, and our own
behavior is not so important as the constraints enforced on us as part of
the network. So, my wonder at the fact that we make decisions in our
personal lives so unscientifically is really based on what Ryle would call a
category error ... an expectation that the behavior of an entity at once
level of organization (the scientist) should mirror the behavior of the
entity at the next level up (the science). So, we shouldn't expect our
decision making processes with respect to hot dogs to be any more scientific
than the ordinary Joe's.

But then I get back to where I got started on this quest -- our Friday
morning discussions on global warming, or some of these other tricky issues
on which there is a scientific consensus, and yet there is a public debate.
Why do we not ALL -- as scientists -- agree that there exists a scientific
consensus on this matter and that that is the end of the discussion, until
further notice. Not only do we not think scientifically with respect to
these issues, but we fail to accept the authority of the network of which we
are part.

Isn't that odd?

By the way, I think the heart disease thing is caused by sugar, not fat.
See, now I am doing it.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Carl
Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 10:07 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

Speaking as a mammal, who has gone to some efforts to be well preserved,
it now appears that I am carcinogenic if consumed. I am unsure as to
whether to be disappointed or elated. Certainly a caution to those of
cannibalistic bent.

This does raise the issue that if I am indeed carcinogenic, why am I less so
to myself in the similar way that I might be to others?

Ticks carry other nasty things, even without the Lyme problem. I know
people who have Lyme, it is unpleasant for them. I like beets, and
curry, irrespective of their supposed benefits, so am predisposed to
hear nice things about their benefits. I believe most diagnoses of
arthritis are bogus because I don't wish to believe I am of an age
susceptible to such and because I can with some attention to detail fix
it most of the time. Smoking is an obnoxious habit, perpetrated by
those who have little regard for themselves or others. I'm sorry if it
causes them cancer. I believed animal fats caused cardiovascular
issues since some hyperlipidemia runs in my family and have seen first
hand the devastation cardiovascular diseases can cause. However, I
have become convinced that (a) I feel noticeably better with some meat in my
diet and (b) my social group thinks that cholesterol is perhaps not as
strong a factor in heart disease as other things and (c) as I read up on
these things I see that the disease (like cancer) is not a
single thing with unique causes per individual. I live next to pigs
and goats and chickens and am likely under no illusions about what "farm
fresh" in the grocery store means. I am trying to make an organic
garden at my hut and am increasingly impressed with the difficulty of
defining the term. Generally, I try to follow a fish and rice and
veggies Japanese diet; it feels "cleaner", which is an mental model brought
on by my very long standing Japanophilia as much as anything else.

There. I see statements to the effect of "statistically, meat causes
cancer" and I laugh. Thanks for playing. Two Martian potatoes out of
a possible five.

C

On 10/27/15 11:06 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

> Dear Friam members,
>
> As those of you in the mother church are already aware, I have been
> trying to foment a conversation about what rationality consists of and
> how does it relate to a purported scientific consensus. I assume that
> you are all, more or less, rational people. How exactly, then, did
> each of you come to the conclusion that, say, animal fats do or do not
> cause heart disease, smoking does or does not cause cancer, human
> activity does or does not cause global warming, that tick bites do (or
> do not) cause a syndrome called chronic Lyme disease, that, say, beet
> powder improves metabolism (?), or that turmeric does or does not
> alleviate arthritis. Or, perhaps more important, how did you decide to

act on these beliefs? Or not?

>
> A friend of mine is always trying to change my eating habits and now
> assaults me with evidence that red meat, particularly if processed, is
> increasing my risk of cancer. She includes in her email several links
> that are designed to convince me. I include those below.
>
> The question I would like us to consider is not really the substance
> of the matter. I am effing 77 years old, with a dozen things wrong
> with me that are likely to kill me long before tomorrow's hotdog will.
> I am more interested in the process by which each of you will decide
> whether or not to change your habits on the basis of this new
> evidence, or try to change the habits of your children or
> grandchildren. In what sense will that process be "reasonable?"
>
> Discuss.
>
> Nick
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: EMAIL
> Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 8:31 PM
> To: Nick Thompson <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: Meat
>
> Here's a thoughtful look at what the WHO had to say about meat and cancer:
>
> http://examine.com/blog/scientists-just-found-that-red-meat-causes-can
> cer--o
> r-did-they/?utm_source=Examine.com+Insiders&utm_campaign=34d0d95b1b-Re
> d_mead
> 10_27_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e4d662cb1b-34d0d95b1b-70203945&
> ct=t(R
> ed_mead10_27_2015)&goal=0_e4d662cb1b-34d0d95b1b-70203945&mc_cid=34d0d9
> 5b1b&m
> c_eid=3edf56d922
>
> Apparently the WHO looked at 800 different studies. That's a lot of
> studies. Is it a meta study?
>
> R
>
>
> On Oct 27, 2015, at 4:40 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>
>> R
>>
>> I always wait for the metastudy.
>>
>> n
>>
>> Nicholas S. Thompson
>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: EMAIL
>> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 3:35 PM
>> To: Nick Thompson <[hidden email]>
>> Subject: Meat
>>
>> Nick,
>>
>> Are you freaking out about the meat/cancer news? Here's an article
>> that puts it in perspective:
>>
>> http://www.theguardian.com/science/sifting-the-evidence/2015/oct/26/m
>> e
>> at-and
>> -tobacco-the-difference-between-risk-and-strength-of-evidence?CMP=fb_
>> a -scien ce_b-gdnscience?CMP=fb_a-science_b-gdnscience
>>
>>
> .
>>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe
> at St. John's College to unsubscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
>

John Kennison

Re: FW: Meat

I'm having trouble keeping up with this thread, but how does it relate to severely autistic people with almost zero social skills who, nonetheless, can prove deep mathematical theorems?
________________________________________
From: Friam [[hidden email]] on behalf of Nick Thompson [[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 2:33 AM
To: [hidden email]; 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

Hi Carl,

I like Steve's idea (Was it Steve's? I am having a hard time following!)
that as scientists we live in a network of other scientists, and our own
behavior is not so important as the constraints enforced on us as part of
the network. So, my wonder at the fact that we make decisions in our
personal lives so unscientifically is really based on what Ryle would call a
category error ... an expectation that the behavior of an entity at once
level of organization (the scientist) should mirror the behavior of the
entity at the next level up (the science). So, we shouldn't expect our
decision making processes with respect to hot dogs to be any more scientific
than the ordinary Joe's.

But then I get back to where I got started on this quest -- our Friday
morning discussions on global warming, or some of these other tricky issues
on which there is a scientific consensus, and yet there is a public debate.
Why do we not ALL -- as scientists -- agree that there exists a scientific
consensus on this matter and that that is the end of the discussion, until
further notice. Not only do we not think scientifically with respect to
these issues, but we fail to accept the authority of the network of which we
are part.

Isn't that odd?

By the way, I think the heart disease thing is caused by sugar, not fat.
See, now I am doing it.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Carl
Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 10:07 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

Speaking as a mammal, who has gone to some efforts to be well preserved,
it now appears that I am carcinogenic if consumed. I am unsure as to
whether to be disappointed or elated. Certainly a caution to those of
cannibalistic bent.

This does raise the issue that if I am indeed carcinogenic, why am I less so
to myself in the similar way that I might be to others?

Ticks carry other nasty things, even without the Lyme problem. I know
people who have Lyme, it is unpleasant for them. I like beets, and
curry, irrespective of their supposed benefits, so am predisposed to
hear nice things about their benefits. I believe most diagnoses of
arthritis are bogus because I don't wish to believe I am of an age
susceptible to such and because I can with some attention to detail fix
it most of the time. Smoking is an obnoxious habit, perpetrated by
those who have little regard for themselves or others. I'm sorry if it
causes them cancer. I believed animal fats caused cardiovascular
issues since some hyperlipidemia runs in my family and have seen first
hand the devastation cardiovascular diseases can cause. However, I
have become convinced that (a) I feel noticeably better with some meat in my
diet and (b) my social group thinks that cholesterol is perhaps not as
strong a factor in heart disease as other things and (c) as I read up on
these things I see that the disease (like cancer) is not a
single thing with unique causes per individual. I live next to pigs
and goats and chickens and am likely under no illusions about what "farm
fresh" in the grocery store means. I am trying to make an organic
garden at my hut and am increasingly impressed with the difficulty of
defining the term. Generally, I try to follow a fish and rice and
veggies Japanese diet; it feels "cleaner", which is an mental model brought
on by my very long standing Japanophilia as much as anything else.

There. I see statements to the effect of "statistically, meat causes
cancer" and I laugh. Thanks for playing. Two Martian potatoes out of
a possible five.

C

On 10/27/15 11:06 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

act on these beliefs? Or not?

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

gepr

Re: FW: Meat

On 11/03/2015 05:08 AM, John Kennison wrote:
> I'm having trouble keeping up with this thread, but how does it relate to severely autistic people with almost zero social skills who, nonetheless, can prove deep mathematical theorems?

Great point! I think Lee treated this nicely, here:

http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/2015-March/045634.html

> With usage histories in place, my proof of claim (E), that “The
> prevailing informal logic in the domain of mathematical practice
> is, in fact, eisegesis of the exoteric”, is simple.

I don't entirely agree with Lee's reasoning or conclusion. But it provides a sophisticated model of the private vs. social elements of math practice. And that model may well be analogous (at least) with scientific practice.

--
⊥ glen ⊥

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

gepr

Re: FW: Meat

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

On 11/02/2015 06:34 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
>
> Excellent point! And I suppose by analogy or extension, (which is the extension of which), Nick's original concept of "being rational" suffers the same issue.

Yes, mosdef.

> I think it might be obvious that my point was that in anything but the most dedicated circumstances can one even credibly *pretend* to have done enough research to make a "scientific decision". And if I understand your point, even then, it is at best, "in the limit" good enough to make a tentative/interim conclusion. So to contradict your analysis of my description, I would say that we are not in disagreement, that in fact what you describe as "the reasoning by which I reached my conclusion" was a mis-statement. Your own description is more appropriate to what I meant, rather than what I said.

Nice! Now we're meta-arguing, arguing about whether we're arguing. 8^) You're right. But we can extend it further. It is the false belief in the existence of "scientific decisions" that is the delusion. It _enables_ ordinarily rational people to believe/justify some wacky things. So even if it's obvious to _some_, it's unwise to rely on it being obvious to anyone. You, I, one simply cannot make "scientific decisions" because such things don't exist. I don't see a benefit to hemming and hawing about it, confusing victims of celebrities who want to hawk colon cleanses, skin lotions, and delusional spiritual principles http://www.celebrityloa.com/

> And even within oneself. I believe that we often use "surrogate reasoning"... we tell stories that are either easier to articulate or perhaps just easier to agree with. Perhaps in the vein of the Red Queen, I find myself in this mode of analysis/description believing a continuous stream of (logically?) impossible things... or more to the point, articulating them in place of a deeper, more intuitive, possibly unstate-able understanding?

Well, again, if we keep in mind that thoughts are really just physiological states, then it's easier to imagine the triggers for some stories over others. Rich's posts about nonduality are a great example. I haven't forrmulated a response yet because his post is "out of context" for me. I have no physiological states from/to which I can make a continuous transition to talking about nonduality. If you find yourself engaging in surrogate reasoning, then the best thing to do is examine what you ate that morning, where you are, what air you're breathing, whether you've got some alpha wolf huffing in your face, or whatever.

> I'd say "innovate" and I don't necessarily mean "technologically". I think my "confidence" pivots around the diverstiy of our natures... our ability to adapt physically (as warm blooded mammals) as well as socially (as complex social creatures with an existing significant diversity in modes of living in groups) and personally (put 50 bozos on 50 deserted islands and *some* of them will survive in spite of being bozos).

Yeah, I probably agree with you about 1/2 the time. But when I see the inextricability of our youngsters from their social fabric, I fall out of agreement. Hell, most of them can't even drink regular tap water. It has to be bottled by Nestle or they won't drink it. (yes, I have the data! ... ok, not really ... get off my lawn!)

> You may misunderstand that *I* imagine that *I* (or my progeny) will survive (well)... I imagine that we (humans, first-worlders, caucasians, etc) will NOT be as successful at surviving our own mistakes as, say, cockroaches, but we may well do better than say, whales or gorillas. I'm not sure that first-world technologists will generally do better than say natives currently living in semi-harsh, subsistence circumstances.

Yep. You use "we" in the same way I use it, I think.

--
--
⊥ glen ⊥

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

glen ropella

Nondualism

In reply to this post by Rich Murray-2

OK. I've had some chance to read a bit about this spiritualist concept of nondualism. It's much too spiritual for me, since I don't believe in spirits or anything of the sort. >8^)

But one question came to the front everytime I tried to read about it: Why do all these New Thought religions insist that their religious experiences always be _good_ or pleasant? They always talk about being at peace or "at one with the universe" or whatnot. I'm not a big fan of Christianity. But at least, there, when you encounter an angel, it can be very frightening, almost Lovecraftian... and there's all this lore surrounding not being able to look God in the face and such. I've had what I could easily call religious experiences (like the way time slowed to a crawl right before a car crash when I was in high school ... or the near catatonic state induced by Catholic Mass as a kid) and I'd say that maybe 2/3 of them were good or pleasant. The rest were frightening or anxious, especially the "gestalt-busting" ones that caused me to rethink my whole world view.

This is why the New Thought religions, including nondualism, seem like advertisements for multi-level marketing schemes... like Amway. Become one of us and you, too, can own 3 mansions and a yaht! They're only one or a few steps more interesting than things like the "prosperity gospel" (http://www.ourladyofperpetualexemption.com/).

Why would religious experience necessarily be pleasant or good? (Especially as a former libertarian, the thought of becoming one with he universe is horrifying... It's socialist propoganda! It's heat death! Run! Run towards your perverted individuality!)

On 11/02/2015 04:17 PM, Rich Murray wrote:
> I enjoyed Friam for a few years -- glad to see a few others have ventured
> into expanded awareness explorations, like Zen -- shared paranormal
> experience is core to conveying mysticism -- this is becoming more
> prominent in recent years with the proliferation of free video teaching,
> crafted to induce expanded states in the viewers -- just Google
> "nonduality" ... the style is to deepen the real-time process of intimate
> communication about moment by moment raw experience, while agreeing on
> shared positive goals -- this leads to viewpoints and vistas that
> completely shift and expand human experience beyond the usual limits...

--
⇔ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Nick Thompson

Re: Nondualism

Glen,

There are a couple of people in the Local Congregation who taunt me constantly from a position which I identify as "eastern" . I love them like brothers -- really, I do, and they know it -- but between you and me, the position seems a bit gah-gah. Or, as a non dualist, I guess I would just have to say, "Gah!". Not that I don't love a good experience of wonder, every so often. But wonder, like doubt, is for me an unstable state, leading to inquiry. I can't see wallowing in it.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 2:03 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: [FRIAM] Nondualism

OK. I've had some chance to read a bit about this spiritualist concept of nondualism. It's much too spiritual for me, since I don't believe in spirits or anything of the sort. >8^)

But one question came to the front everytime I tried to read about it: Why do all these New Thought religions insist that their religious experiences always be _good_ or pleasant? They always talk about being at peace or "at one with the universe" or whatnot. I'm not a big fan of Christianity. But at least, there, when you encounter an angel, it can be very frightening, almost Lovecraftian... and there's all this lore surrounding not being able to look God in the face and such. I've had what I could easily call religious experiences (like the way time slowed to a crawl right before a car crash when I was in high school ... or the near catatonic state induced by Catholic Mass as a kid) and I'd say that maybe 2/3 of them were good or pleasant. The rest were frightening or anxious, especially the "gestalt-busting" ones that caused me to rethink my whole world view.

This is why the New Thought religions, including nondualism, seem like advertisements for multi-level marketing schemes... like Amway. Become one of us and you, too, can own 3 mansions and a yaht! They're only one or a few steps more interesting than things like the "prosperity gospel" (http://www.ourladyofperpetualexemption.com/).

Why would religious experience necessarily be pleasant or good? (Especially as a former libertarian, the thought of becoming one with he universe is horrifying... It's socialist propoganda! It's heat death! Run! Run towards your perverted individuality!)

On 11/02/2015 04:17 PM, Rich Murray wrote:
> I enjoyed Friam for a few years -- glad to see a few others have
> ventured into expanded awareness explorations, like Zen -- shared
> paranormal experience is core to conveying mysticism -- this is
> becoming more prominent in recent years with the proliferation of free
> video teaching, crafted to induce expanded states in the viewers --
> just Google "nonduality" ... the style is to deepen the real-time
> process of intimate communication about moment by moment raw
> experience, while agreeing on shared positive goals -- this leads to
> viewpoints and vistas that completely shift and expand human experience beyond the usual limits...

--
⇔ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Steve Smith

Re: Nondualism

In reply to this post by glen ropella

Glen -

You are being uncharacteristically imprecise (I think).

If you are attributing (non)dualism to the province of Spiritualists, then I point you to the many uses of Dualism in:

Science: Subject-Object observation or multiple conflicting models (e.g. wave/particle duality)
Moral: Good V. Evil
Theological: Creator/Creation
Ontological: Yin/Yang
Cartesian:Materialism/Consciousness
Wiccan: god/goddess
Cognitive: Mind/Brain

...etc

Are you arguing *against* monism, against the idea that everything is part of a single thing (e.g. the Universe, the Multiverse)?

I think I hear that your task is with what you call "New Thought" religions and in particular their alleged idea that dualism is the source of suffering and the related assumption that suffering is bad?   As a good Calvanist (I'm guessing a good New Englander like Nick has his own dose of this) I tend to embrace suffering when it comes my way (and feel it is inevitable that it will) if not outright seek it (nope, no Penitentes in my family tree that I know of!).

I find that many "New Thought" philosophies/religions seem to adopt (adapt/corrupt?) the Buddhist notions of suffering (Dukkha) which arises from various sources: Aging/Illness/Death; Clinging to the illusion of no-change; Clinging to the illusions of identity/existence.

Without being a proselyte of any particular form New Thought , I would suggest that what they are saying (the core message, not what the fringe and the wannabes are saying) is that a great deal of what we experience as suffering (fear, anxiety, anger, loathing, etc.) is rooted in the illusion of a strong self-other duality.   I believe this is roughly the dichotomy (speaking of dualism) between those in "the West" who are trying to respond to the increased scope and magnitude of Islamic State (and similar) violence with angry violence in return and those who are trying to understand how these people and their violence are part of a bigger pattern that includes us.

In your terminology, the Dualist sees IS, etc. only as a threat to be hammered back into the ground (think Whack-a-Mole) while the NonDualist perhaps sees IS, etc. as a "natural" response to the conditions the participants have been put under.    The Dualist, despite suffering acute fear-of-other may well be more-happy than the NonDualist who does not have the benefit of a "simple answer" who must suffer *some of* the same fear as the Dualist as well as the angst of guilt (perhaps) for recognizing one's part in the larger pattern yielding the acute symptoms underway.

That said, I've been irritated by "New Age" thinkers from my earliest awareness of them for their propensity to co-opt the language of science for their purposes, as well as replacing (IMO) healthy optimism with polyanna wishful thinking.

My own personal philosophy (despite my own Libertarian roots) includes the belief that if I can relax into non-dualism, "I" will not only be "infinitely happy", "I" will cease to exist.   There is a bit of a paradox in this, as as much as "I" would like to exchange my various modes of anxiety and distress for the calmness and "just so" ness of the nondualistic perspective, such an exchange would ultimately mean the elimination of the "I" who is contemplating/willing that change.

I hope I have done something more than just stir the cauldron bubbling in your head.

- Steve

OK. I've had some chance to read a bit about this spiritualist concept of nondualism. It's much too spiritual for me, since I don't believe in spirits or anything of the sort. >8^)

But one question came to the front everytime I tried to read about it: Why do all these New Thought religions insist that their religious experiences always be _good_ or pleasant? They always talk about being at peace or "at one with the universe" or whatnot. I'm not a big fan of Christianity. But at least, there, when you encounter an angel, it can be very frightening, almost Lovecraftian... and there's all this lore surrounding not being able to look God in the face and such. I've had what I could easily call religious experiences (like the way time slowed to a crawl right before a car crash when I was in high school ... or the near catatonic state induced by Catholic Mass as a kid) and I'd say that maybe 2/3 of them were good or pleasant. The rest were frightening or anxious, especially the "gestalt-busting" ones that caused me to rethink my whole world view.

This is why the New Thought religions, including nondualism, seem like advertisements for multi-level marketing schemes... like Amway. Become one of us and you, too, can own 3 mansions and a yaht! They're only one or a few steps more interesting than things like the "prosperity gospel" (http://www.ourladyofperpetualexemption.com/).

Why would religious experience necessarily be pleasant or good? (Especially as a former libertarian, the thought of becoming one with he universe is horrifying... It's socialist propoganda! It's heat death! Run! Run towards your perverted individuality!)

On 11/02/2015 04:17 PM, Rich Murray wrote:

I enjoyed Friam for a few years -- glad to see a few others have ventured
into expanded awareness explorations, like Zen -- shared paranormal
experience is core to conveying mysticism -- this is becoming more
prominent in recent years with the proliferation of free video teaching,
crafted to induce expanded states in the viewers -- just Google
"nonduality" ... the style is to deepen the real-time process of intimate
communication about moment by moment raw experience, while agreeing on
shared positive goals -- this leads to viewpoints and vistas that
completely shift and expand human experience beyond the usual limits...

Nick Thompson

Re: Nondualism

Steve, Glen,

I think that dualism is just the believe that everything-that-is is of one kind, only. There is only one kind of “stuff” in the world. Decartes was a mind-body dualist. Peirce was an experience-monist.

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 3:52 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Nondualism

Glen -

You are being uncharacteristically imprecise (I think).

If you are attributing (non)dualism to the province of Spiritualists, then I point you to the many uses of Dualism in:

Science: Subject-Object observation or multiple conflicting models (e.g. wave/particle duality)
Moral: Good V. Evil
Theological: Creator/Creation
Ontological: Yin/Yang
Cartesian:Materialism/Consciousness
Wiccan: god/goddess
Cognitive: Mind/Brain

...etc

OK. I've had some chance to read a bit about this spiritualist concept of nondualism. It's much too spiritual for me, since I don't believe in spirits or anything of the sort. >8^)

But one question came to the front everytime I tried to read about it: Why do all these New Thought religions insist that their religious experiences always be _good_ or pleasant? They always talk about being at peace or "at one with the universe" or whatnot. I'm not a big fan of Christianity. But at least, there, when you encounter an angel, it can be very frightening, almost Lovecraftian... and there's all this lore surrounding not being able to look God in the face and such. I've had what I could easily call religious experiences (like the way time slowed to a crawl right before a car crash when I was in high school ... or the near catatonic state induced by Catholic Mass as a kid) and I'd say that maybe 2/3 of them were good or pleasant. The rest were frightening or anxious, especially the "gestalt-busting" ones that caused me to rethink my whole world view.

This is why the New Thought religions, including nondualism, seem like advertisements for multi-level marketing schemes... like Amway. Become one of us and you, too, can own 3 mansions and a yaht! They're only one or a few steps more interesting than things like the "prosperity gospel" (http://www.ourladyofperpetualexemption.com/).

Why would religious experience necessarily be pleasant or good? (Especially as a former libertarian, the thought of becoming one with he universe is horrifying... It's socialist propoganda! It's heat death! Run! Run towards your perverted individuality!)

On 11/02/2015 04:17 PM, Rich Murray wrote:

I enjoyed Friam for a few years -- glad to see a few others have ventured
into expanded awareness explorations, like Zen -- shared paranormal
experience is core to conveying mysticism -- this is becoming more
prominent in recent years with the proliferation of free video teaching,
crafted to induce expanded states in the viewers -- just Google
"nonduality" ... the style is to deepen the real-time process of intimate
communication about moment by moment raw experience, while agreeing on
shared positive goals -- this leads to viewpoints and vistas that
completely shift and expand human experience beyond the usual limits...

Steve Smith

Re: Nondualism

Nick -

I do agree with your definition of the general concept of dualism (vs monism) but I think the specific subspecies in (apparent) question is most relevant.

I think what Glen is referencing (I missed Rich's quoted paragraph the first time) is the expression of non-duality that presumably keeps us from having immediate access to our direct perceptions/experiences. In my understanding, it is the insertion of the ego that causes this. The ego is ALL about dualism as far as I can see. Self-Other, ME-everything else...

More to the point, I think Glen is questioning the pervading idea that in the process of reducing this "distance" that we will naturally find more peace and happiness, or even that seeking peace and happiness is a worthy (or reasonable?) goal?

- Steve

Steve, Glen,

I think that dualism is just the believe that everything-that-is is of one kind, only. There is only one kind of “stuff” in the world. Decartes was a mind-body dualist. Peirce was an experience-monist.

N

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 3:52 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Nondualism

Glen -

You are being uncharacteristically imprecise (I think).

If you are attributing (non)dualism to the province of Spiritualists, then I point you to the many uses of Dualism in:

Science: Subject-Object observation or multiple conflicting models (e.g. wave/particle duality)
Moral: Good V. Evil
Theological: Creator/Creation
Ontological: Yin/Yang
Cartesian:Materialism/Consciousness
Wiccan: god/goddess
Cognitive: Mind/Brain

...etc

Are you arguing *against* monism, against the idea that everything is part of a single thing (e.g. the Universe, the Multiverse)?

I think I hear that your task is with what you call "New Thought" religions and in particular their alleged idea that dualism is the source of suffering and the related assumption that suffering is bad?   As a good Calvanist (I'm guessing a good New Englander like Nick has his own dose of this) I tend to embrace suffering when it comes my way (and feel it is inevitable that it will) if not outright seek it (nope, no Penitentes in my family tree that I know of!).

I find that many "New Thought" philosophies/religions seem to adopt (adapt/corrupt?) the Buddhist notions of suffering (Dukkha) which arises from various sources: Aging/Illness/Death; Clinging to the illusion of no-change; Clinging to the illusions of identity/existence.

Without being a proselyte of any particular form New Thought , I would suggest that what they are saying (the core message, not what the fringe and the wannabes are saying) is that a great deal of what we experience as suffering (fear, anxiety, anger, loathing, etc.) is rooted in the illusion of a strong self-other duality.   I believe this is roughly the dichotomy (speaking of dualism) between those in "the West" who are trying to respond to the increased scope and magnitude of Islamic State (and similar) violence with angry violence in return and those who are trying to understand how these people and their violence are part of a bigger pattern that includes us.

In your terminology, the Dualist sees IS, etc. only as a threat to be hammered back into the ground (think Whack-a-Mole) while the NonDualist perhaps sees IS, etc. as a "natural" response to the conditions the participants have been put under.    The Dualist, despite suffering acute fear-of-other may well be more-happy than the NonDualist who does not have the benefit of a "simple answer" who must suffer *some of* the same fear as the Dualist as well as the angst of guilt (perhaps) for recognizing one's part in the larger pattern yielding the acute symptoms underway.

That said, I've been irritated by "New Age" thinkers from my earliest awareness of them for their propensity to co-opt the language of science for their purposes, as well as replacing (IMO) healthy optimism with polyanna wishful thinking.

My own personal philosophy (despite my own Libertarian roots) includes the belief that if I can relax into non-dualism, "I" will not only be "infinitely happy", "I" will cease to exist.   There is a bit of a paradox in this, as as much as "I" would like to exchange my various modes of anxiety and distress for the calmness and "just so" ness of the nondualistic perspective, such an exchange would ultimately mean the elimination of the "I" who is contemplating/willing that change.

I hope I have done something more than just stir the cauldron bubbling in your head.

- Steve

OK. I've had some chance to read a bit about this spiritualist concept of nondualism. It's much too spiritual for me, since I don't believe in spirits or anything of the sort. >8^)

But one question came to the front everytime I tried to read about it: Why do all these New Thought religions insist that their religious experiences always be _good_ or pleasant? They always talk about being at peace or "at one with the universe" or whatnot. I'm not a big fan of Christianity. But at least, there, when you encounter an angel, it can be very frightening, almost Lovecraftian... and there's all this lore surrounding not being able to look God in the face and such. I've had what I could easily call religious experiences (like the way time slowed to a crawl right before a car crash when I was in high school ... or the near catatonic state induced by Catholic Mass as a kid) and I'd say that maybe 2/3 of them were good or pleasant. The rest were frightening or anxious, especially the "gestalt-busting" ones that caused me to rethink my whole world view.

This is why the New Thought religions, including nondualism, seem like advertisements for multi-level marketing schemes... like Amway. Become one of us and you, too, can own 3 mansions and a yaht! They're only one or a few steps more interesting than things like the "prosperity gospel" (http://www.ourladyofperpetualexemption.com/).

Why would religious experience necessarily be pleasant or good? (Especially as a former libertarian, the thought of becoming one with he universe is horrifying... It's socialist propoganda! It's heat death! Run! Run towards your perverted individuality!)

On 11/02/2015 04:17 PM, Rich Murray wrote:

I enjoyed Friam for a few years -- glad to see a few others have ventured
into expanded awareness explorations, like Zen -- shared paranormal
experience is core to conveying mysticism -- this is becoming more
prominent in recent years with the proliferation of free video teaching,
crafted to induce expanded states in the viewers -- just Google
"nonduality" ... the style is to deepen the real-time process of intimate
communication about moment by moment raw experience, while agreeing on
shared positive goals -- this leads to viewpoints and vistas that
completely shift and expand human experience beyond the usual limits...
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Carl Tollander

Re: Nondualism

I subscribe to a more pragmatic take - Peace and Happiness are reinforcing side-effects of praxis, the pursuit of clarity of one's process, in whatever realm. P&H are not goals in themselves, worthy or not. The pursuit of them can get in the way. Sort of like optimization ("Don't do it yet..") can.

"It" is not, as the soap people would have us perceive, "All One". Dualism, like politics, is local; there is a term in physics "emergent locality" that I find compelling. What if the only monism is dualism? A gene is only what you can do today with your genome, not a result of some global optimization.

C

On 11/17/15 6:25 PM, Steve Smith wrote:

Nick -

I do agree with your definition of the general concept of dualism (vs monism) but I think the specific subspecies in (apparent) question is most relevant.

I think what Glen is referencing (I missed Rich's quoted paragraph the first time) is the expression of non-duality that presumably keeps us from having immediate access to our direct perceptions/experiences. In my understanding, it is the insertion of the ego that causes this. The ego is ALL about dualism as far as I can see. Self-Other, ME-everything else...

More to the point, I think Glen is questioning the pervading idea that in the process of reducing this "distance" that we will naturally find more peace and happiness, or even that seeking peace and happiness is a worthy (or reasonable?) goal?

- Steve
Steve, Glen,

I think that dualism is just the believe that everything-that-is is of one kind, only. There is only one kind of “stuff” in the world. Decartes was a mind-body dualist. Peirce was an experience-monist.

N

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 3:52 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Nondualism

Glen -

You are being uncharacteristically imprecise (I think).

If you are attributing (non)dualism to the province of Spiritualists, then I point you to the many uses of Dualism in:

Science: Subject-Object observation or multiple conflicting models (e.g. wave/particle duality)
Moral: Good V. Evil
Theological: Creator/Creation
Ontological: Yin/Yang
Cartesian:Materialism/Consciousness
Wiccan: god/goddess
Cognitive: Mind/Brain

...etc

Are you arguing *against* monism, against the idea that everything is part of a single thing (e.g. the Universe, the Multiverse)?

I think I hear that your task is with what you call "New Thought" religions and in particular their alleged idea that dualism is the source of suffering and the related assumption that suffering is bad?   As a good Calvanist (I'm guessing a good New Englander like Nick has his own dose of this) I tend to embrace suffering when it comes my way (and feel it is inevitable that it will) if not outright seek it (nope, no Penitentes in my family tree that I know of!).

I find that many "New Thought" philosophies/religions seem to adopt (adapt/corrupt?) the Buddhist notions of suffering (Dukkha) which arises from various sources: Aging/Illness/Death; Clinging to the illusion of no-change; Clinging to the illusions of identity/existence.

Without being a proselyte of any particular form New Thought , I would suggest that what they are saying (the core message, not what the fringe and the wannabes are saying) is that a great deal of what we experience as suffering (fear, anxiety, anger, loathing, etc.) is rooted in the illusion of a strong self-other duality.   I believe this is roughly the dichotomy (speaking of dualism) between those in "the West" who are trying to respond to the increased scope and magnitude of Islamic State (and similar) violence with angry violence in return and those who are trying to understand how these people and their violence are part of a bigger pattern that includes us.

In your terminology, the Dualist sees IS, etc. only as a threat to be hammered back into the ground (think Whack-a-Mole) while the NonDualist perhaps sees IS, etc. as a "natural" response to the conditions the participants have been put under.    The Dualist, despite suffering acute fear-of-other may well be more-happy than the NonDualist who does not have the benefit of a "simple answer" who must suffer *some of* the same fear as the Dualist as well as the angst of guilt (perhaps) for recognizing one's part in the larger pattern yielding the acute symptoms underway.

That said, I've been irritated by "New Age" thinkers from my earliest awareness of them for their propensity to co-opt the language of science for their purposes, as well as replacing (IMO) healthy optimism with polyanna wishful thinking.

My own personal philosophy (despite my own Libertarian roots) includes the belief that if I can relax into non-dualism, "I" will not only be "infinitely happy", "I" will cease to exist.   There is a bit of a paradox in this, as as much as "I" would like to exchange my various modes of anxiety and distress for the calmness and "just so" ness of the nondualistic perspective, such an exchange would ultimately mean the elimination of the "I" who is contemplating/willing that change.

I hope I have done something more than just stir the cauldron bubbling in your head.

- Steve

OK. I've had some chance to read a bit about this spiritualist concept of nondualism. It's much too spiritual for me, since I don't believe in spirits or anything of the sort. >8^)

But one question came to the front everytime I tried to read about it: Why do all these New Thought religions insist that their religious experiences always be _good_ or pleasant? They always talk about being at peace or "at one with the universe" or whatnot. I'm not a big fan of Christianity. But at least, there, when you encounter an angel, it can be very frightening, almost Lovecraftian... and there's all this lore surrounding not being able to look God in the face and such. I've had what I could easily call religious experiences (like the way time slowed to a crawl right before a car crash when I was in high school ... or the near catatonic state induced by Catholic Mass as a kid) and I'd say that maybe 2/3 of them were good or pleasant. The rest were frightening or anxious, especially the "gestalt-busting" ones that caused me to rethink my whole world view.

This is why the New Thought religions, including nondualism, seem like advertisements for multi-level marketing schemes... like Amway. Become one of us and you, too, can own 3 mansions and a yaht! They're only one or a few steps more interesting than things like the "prosperity gospel" (http://www.ourladyofperpetualexemption.com/).

Why would religious experience necessarily be pleasant or good? (Especially as a former libertarian, the thought of becoming one with he universe is horrifying... It's socialist propoganda! It's heat death! Run! Run towards your perverted individuality!)

On 11/02/2015 04:17 PM, Rich Murray wrote:

I enjoyed Friam for a few years -- glad to see a few others have ventured
into expanded awareness explorations, like Zen -- shared paranormal
experience is core to conveying mysticism -- this is becoming more
prominent in recent years with the proliferation of free video teaching,
crafted to induce expanded states in the viewers -- just Google
"nonduality" ... the style is to deepen the real-time process of intimate
communication about moment by moment raw experience, while agreeing on
shared positive goals -- this leads to viewpoints and vistas that
completely shift and expand human experience beyond the usual limits...
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Nick Thompson

Re: Nondualism

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

Thanks, steve. Nice.

I think that idea of the “raw feels” (as Tolman used to call it) would have been denied by my man Peirce. All experience is constructed and all experience is raw. The idea that perceptions are built up from sensations has no basis in experience.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 6:26 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Nondualism

Steve, Glen,

I think that dualism is just the believe that everything-that-is is of one kind, only. There is only one kind of “stuff” in the world. Decartes was a mind-body dualist. Peirce was an experience-monist.

N

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 3:52 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Nondualism

Glen -

You are being uncharacteristically imprecise (I think).

If you are attributing (non)dualism to the province of Spiritualists, then I point you to the many uses of Dualism in:
Science: Subject-Object observation or multiple conflicting models (e.g. wave/particle duality)
Moral: Good V. Evil
Theological: Creator/Creation
Ontological: Yin/Yang
Cartesian:Materialism/Consciousness
Wiccan: god/goddess
Cognitive: Mind/Brain

...etc
Are you arguing *against* monism, against the idea that everything is part of a single thing (e.g. the Universe, the Multiverse)?

I think I hear that your task is with what you call "New Thought" religions and in particular their alleged idea that dualism is the source of suffering and the related assumption that suffering is bad?   As a good Calvanist (I'm guessing a good New Englander like Nick has his own dose of this) I tend to embrace suffering when it comes my way (and feel it is inevitable that it will) if not outright seek it (nope, no Penitentes in my family tree that I know of!).

I find that many "New Thought" philosophies/religions seem to adopt (adapt/corrupt?) the Buddhist notions of suffering (Dukkha) which arises from various sources: Aging/Illness/Death; Clinging to the illusion of no-change; Clinging to the illusions of identity/existence.

Without being a proselyte of any particular form New Thought , I would suggest that what they are saying (the core message, not what the fringe and the wannabes are saying) is that a great deal of what we experience as suffering (fear, anxiety, anger, loathing, etc.) is rooted in the illusion of a strong self-other duality.   I believe this is roughly the dichotomy (speaking of dualism) between those in "the West" who are trying to respond to the increased scope and magnitude of Islamic State (and similar) violence with angry violence in return and those who are trying to understand how these people and their violence are part of a bigger pattern that includes us.

In your terminology, the Dualist sees IS, etc. only as a threat to be hammered back into the ground (think Whack-a-Mole) while the NonDualist perhaps sees IS, etc. as a "natural" response to the conditions the participants have been put under.    The Dualist, despite suffering acute fear-of-other may well be more-happy than the NonDualist who does not have the benefit of a "simple answer" who must suffer *some of* the same fear as the Dualist as well as the angst of guilt (perhaps) for recognizing one's part in the larger pattern yielding the acute symptoms underway.

That said, I've been irritated by "New Age" thinkers from my earliest awareness of them for their propensity to co-opt the language of science for their purposes, as well as replacing (IMO) healthy optimism with polyanna wishful thinking.

My own personal philosophy (despite my own Libertarian roots) includes the belief that if I can relax into non-dualism, "I" will not only be "infinitely happy", "I" will cease to exist.   There is a bit of a paradox in this, as as much as "I" would like to exchange my various modes of anxiety and distress for the calmness and "just so" ness of the nondualistic perspective, such an exchange would ultimately mean the elimination of the "I" who is contemplating/willing that change.

I hope I have done something more than just stir the cauldron bubbling in your head.

- Steve

OK. I've had some chance to read a bit about this spiritualist concept of nondualism. It's much too spiritual for me, since I don't believe in spirits or anything of the sort. >8^)

But one question came to the front everytime I tried to read about it: Why do all these New Thought religions insist that their religious experiences always be _good_ or pleasant? They always talk about being at peace or "at one with the universe" or whatnot. I'm not a big fan of Christianity. But at least, there, when you encounter an angel, it can be very frightening, almost Lovecraftian... and there's all this lore surrounding not being able to look God in the face and such. I've had what I could easily call religious experiences (like the way time slowed to a crawl right before a car crash when I was in high school ... or the near catatonic state induced by Catholic Mass as a kid) and I'd say that maybe 2/3 of them were good or pleasant. The rest were frightening or anxious, especially the "gestalt-busting" ones that caused me to rethink my whole world view.

This is why the New Thought religions, including nondualism, seem like advertisements for multi-level marketing schemes... like Amway. Become one of us and you, too, can own 3 mansions and a yaht! They're only one or a few steps more interesting than things like the "prosperity gospel" (http://www.ourladyofperpetualexemption.com/).

Why would religious experience necessarily be pleasant or good? (Especially as a former libertarian, the thought of becoming one with he universe is horrifying... It's socialist propoganda! It's heat death! Run! Run towards your perverted individuality!)

On 11/02/2015 04:17 PM, Rich Murray wrote:

I enjoyed Friam for a few years -- glad to see a few others have ventured
into expanded awareness explorations, like Zen -- shared paranormal
experience is core to conveying mysticism -- this is becoming more
prominent in recent years with the proliferation of free video teaching,
crafted to induce expanded states in the viewers -- just Google
"nonduality" ... the style is to deepen the real-time process of intimate
communication about moment by moment raw experience, while agreeing on
shared positive goals -- this leads to viewpoints and vistas that
completely shift and expand human experience beyond the usual limits...
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

123