The Mental Disease of Liberalism
This is a chain of emails between Garrett Wilner and myself. Garrett began the chain with an email bearing the subject line, "The Mental Disease of Liberalism".
On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 8:26 AM Garrett Wilner wrote:
Lofty subject line, huh? Hehehe
So, one of my hobbies has been "trying to understand people." It always amazes me when I run into folks with cognitive dissonance, watching how they justify their points of view with an alarming paucity of logic, references, or facts.
In a moment, below, I will provide a link to a YouTube video that I watched twice. It's a conversation between two people whom I like and admire. I almost always find some gems, things I learn when these two get into conversation. And, I find major, glaring holes in their arguments. It's funny sometimes. I marvel at how a closely held belief can be so closely held!
Why would I watch a video (twice, no less) of two Liberals having an honest conversation?? Many reasons! Firstly, my own closely held beliefs are not valid if I have to hide from opposing points of view in order to keep my beliefs safe. So, let me put everything I believe on the table and let's hash it all out. I will be delighted to move when stronger arguments happen along. In fact, I will rejoice in that moment and give thanks to the person bringing me that gift.
Secondly, and more importantly, watching liberals being honest (yeah, I know... really leaving myself open on that one) is a window into the mental disease. It helps me understand the disease. It gets me back to the very foundation of their beliefs... the very first "fork in the road" as it were. If I wish to know, "where did they go wrong," for example, then I have to be willing to listen when they are being open, when they think it is safe for them to be real-and-honest.
Thirdly, this is when Liberals will bash other Liberals... and this is where I learn the most. Sam and Bill do their fair share of bashing their own. Keep in mind that as you watch this video, I have strong opposing beliefs to what they posit as their own simple truths that we all should adopt. I don't suggest this video because I endorse everything they say!! I do find some good wisdom in some of it, so points of strong agreement. And I marvel at how we diverge.
Enjoy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LV7eVvph69Y
Garrett
PS: Sam's reference to "Bat Man" in one of his comments is a bit of an inside joke, for it was on Bill's show that Sam was attacked without mercy (and without logic) by a far-left, flaming Liberal, Ben Afleck (actor who played Bat Man). That famous dust up went around the world and sparked an amazing conversation regarding Islam. You may enjoy finding that on YouTube. I think that was the last time Sam was on Bill's show... and it punctuates why Sam is meeting with Bill here *alone* on stage, rather than as part of a four- or five-person panel.
===================================================
Subject: Re: The Mental Disease of Liberalism
Local Time: February 5, 2017 9:43 AM
UTC Time: February 5, 2017 3:43 PM
From: jim@jimivy.com
To: Garrett Wilner
Categorical imperatives are a dead giveaway to problematic thought processes. Yet they are inherently bound to the human condition.
I probably "should" revise those two sentences and eliminate the four and five sylable words! What I am saying is: 1) It can be important to prick one's ears when someone uses the word "should". It is a dead giveaway that they are more than likely speaking from a moral position rather than a reasoned position. 2) All human beings ultimately come from a moral position. Reason is ultimately subject to morality.
A "moral position" is any position that conforms to the syllogism, "If everyone agreed with me, there would be no problem. Therefore everyone should agree with me".
The conversation in the video is a very reasoned conversation, yet listening carefully reveals explicit and implicit categorical imperatives. Those are the places to probe for flaws in the argument. They both seem to agree that a part of the solution is to convert Muslims to secular humanists.
HELLO!!! What are the odds on that!
It is very, very, very difficult to bring anyone to examine their moral positions. They become confused and defensive. Reason has little or nothing to do with moral beliefs. If you ask someone "Why do you believe that?", they will reply, "Because it is true!". That's it! End of conversation! Pick up your sword and have at it!
Jim
============================================================
Jim Ivy <jim@jimivy.com>
1:34 PM (2 hours ago)
to Garrett
"Maajid underwent a radical transformation" - This is what interests me most. Under what circumstances do we come to change our moral positions? We all have moral positions that are buried deep within our concept of self. How do these moral positions come to exist, and how do they change?
I do not think is safe to assume that Muslims are any different from Christians, or from secular humanists. Nor is it safe to assume that theists are any different from atheists (non-theists). True, they may have different moral positions, but I strongly suspect that the underlying mechanism is consistent across moral positions.
(I have a difficulty in writing about this. Words are slippery things that often change their meaning before the sentence ends. On top of that, I am held prisoner by my own concepts, so if you think these thoughts are twisted and disconnected, I assure you that they are! If you will forgive me, I will begin with a bit of self-discovery.)
Jim
=========================================
Garrett Wilner
2:46 PM (59 minutes ago)
to me
Allow me to interject while there is a pee-pause pending... follow the ###s below:
I would presume that no one can step into the same river twice.
###
Hmmm... allow my favorite Leftie to chime in here, please?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg84Bhtxg6M
Though, I see your point: we can "train" or "indoctrinate" Christians to be just as evil behaving as Jihadists. So, it's about what is underneath the training. I say sure. People are inherently beautiful, loving, caring, giving... across the board, underneath the bullshit. So, let's hate the indoctrination, not the person. Until we can rid ourselves of this mind cancer, we will have to settle on the next best thing: banning the people who embrace such evil filth. Just call it a quarantine and let's move on... next?
I like the word "contrast" rather than "opposite." What is the opposite of B-flat? It's all about contrasts, both subtle, nuanced... and it may even include an opposite or two. All opposites are contrasts... not all contrasts are opposites. See one as nested within the set of all others.
As for erroneous thinking, surely you are repeating yourself? (i.e. all thinking is erroneous. Look to the Tao again, just as no truth can be spoken, no truth can be thought. I added that second part. You may see that as erroneous thinking. Of course, you would be erroneous.)
Were you one of Oury's analyzers? ;)
Love you Bro!
======================================================
More: The Mental Disease of Liberalism
Jim Ivy <jim@jimivy.com>
4:46 PM (0 minutes ago)
to Garrett
Your interjection brings up a good point.
I have not been clear in expressing what I mean. This reminds me of the video you sent discussing Darwinian Truth. Let me define my words more clearly so we will not wander around forever in the darkness.
The word "negation" does not have the same meaning as the word "opposite". "Negation" is binary. It is not a description of a relationship. It is merely an indication of potential.
The word "opposite", on the other hand, does describe a relationship. "Opposite" is of a different order than the word "negation". "Opposite" signifies that the potential exists.
The word "contrast" is also a relational term. There can be no contrast unless there are two or more "facts".
The word "fact" is a symbol that stands for "That which cannot be spoken". However, I think you are in error to say that if it cannot be spoken, it also cannot be thought. That implies that all thought is verbal. We know from our own experiences that we can think non-verbally. For instance, musicians think in music with no need for words. I am certain that there are other ways of thinking that do not involve words. Can you honestly say that your musical thoughts do not approach "Truth"? Anyway...
A "fact" and it's negation do not exist simultaneously. However, two "facts" which are opposites, can exist simultaneously. As can two or more contrasting "facts".
Is that as clear as mud???
And I am still not back to Maajid's transformation!!!!
=====================================================
Garrett Wilner
5:44 PM (1 hour ago)
to me
I don't think I would intentionally say this ^^^. I certainly don't hold that belief.
I probably spoke inelegantly... and certainly nothing I said was truth. I hold that anything (except truth) can be spoken and anything (except truth) can be thought. Not all thoughts can be spoken or expressed. Not all thoughts are verbal. Verbal expressions are many layers removed from the perfect representation of the thought. And thought cannot be truth. Therefore, on many layers of magnitude, verbal expressions are quite removed from truth.
Many expressions occur, bypassing thought all together. (Not necessarily that these expressions are elevated to "truth" but rather, perhaps they *point* quite adroitly to truth, perhaps not)
Pretty much, you and I are on the same page (I would say) and have not stumbled upon any disagreements. If we have, it has not been clearly expressed thus far. Clearly, we are still defining our positions.
I hold that the only truth we experience is (basking) in the absence of thought. This is the closest we get to truth. (yeah, yeah, yeah, I know... I gotta define truth.) ((I define truth by eliminating all other things and leave that up to the listener/reader to experience the absence of all other things)) (((Again, no truth can be spoken)))
I would go on deeper, saying that pure awareness (a human condition of consciousness, centered squarely in the NOW) is not thought (and can never include thought), but rather can include truth, whereas "thought" cannot. So to recap that explosive statement, awareness is not thought. Awareness can include truth, but does not have to include truth. In fact, I would lean toward saying that in the set of all awareness, truth is a statistically insignificant subset and is a profoundly RARE experience in the life of a human. There are several nested realities here and it requires a much more careful expression than this off-the-cuff rambling of mine here. This subject (sub-subject) is going way off in a deep tangent pool, but we can go there one day, if we wish. I would urge us not to go there until major groundwork has been covered first. And, I will need to go back and clean this up substantially! At this point, we are getting way ahead of ourselves, but it may hold value to have a snapshot of the larger map before diving in, in a linear fashion.
Again from a week or three ago, I have zero experience of what the great masters of logic and philosophy have to say. I profess my ignorance here and will never pretend otherwise. At this point, I feel drawn to experience my own path... get clear on my musings... put it all in a nice box... and then go compare whatever in that box may coincide with ancient wisdom. I really don't want to be influenced. And I certainly don't wish to be led down a well trodden path. This is something I have to do for myself. At this point, what I have is "original thought" even if others may have written this stuff before. I have no knowledge of that. It may be that nothing coincides and that I am simply delusional. Hopefully, my path will reveal that to me before I seal my box!
Hugs Brother!
========================================
Re: More: The Mental Disease of Liberalism
Jim Ivy <jim@jimivy.com>
7:51 PM (0 minutes ago)
to Garrett
We don't disagree as much as we use the same words to speak of different things.
When I use the word "truth", I only mean a statement, the terms of which accurately describes the situation on the ground. I think perhaps you are ascribing a more metaphysical meaning. I read your words and want to capitalize the word "Truth".
I would bet dollars to donuts that if you want to make a cup of hot coffee, you will heat the water on a stove (or in the microwave) and not try to heat the water in your freezer. That is the sort of truth I mean. Just common, every day, get it done stuff. Nothing dramatic nor transcendental. Both of us make the everyday assumption that there is a universe of real things and that we can know enough about those things to get through our day. We do not expect our refrigerator to freeze ice cubes one day and, on the next, boil water for our coffee. We do not expect to drive into town and find that red lights mean go and green light mean stop. We expect reality to be consistent and learnable. We even allow for consistent inconsistency else we would have no interaction at all with the females of our species. So while we may not be able to speak of "Truth" with a capital "T", we certainly speak of "truth" with a small "t".
"Predictability" is the most important concept to humankind. We have been searching for it since we first realized that we were weaklings adrift in a frightening world. living a tenuous life without the tools to predict even our next meal. We turned to magic, religion, art, science --- all have their roots in our desire to know, predict, and control the next few moments of our life. Natural man does not stop to question reality. To do so would be to become reality's next meal! When the beast roared, he ran or he fought.
How far we have come. Now the beast roars and we invite them into our homes and beset them with platitudes lest we offend them. We delude ourselves!
... and I am still not back to Maajid's transformation!!!!
J
=============================================
Categorical imperatives are a dead giveaway to problematic thought processes. Yet they are inherently bound to the human condition.
I probably "should" revise those two sentences and eliminate the four and five sylable words! What I am saying is: 1) It can be important to prick one's ears when someone uses the word "should". It is a dead giveaway that they are more than likely speaking from a moral position rather than a reasoned position. 2) All human beings ultimately come from a moral position. Reason is ultimately subject to morality.
A "moral position" is any position that conforms to the syllogism, "If everyone agreed with me, there would be no problem. Therefore everyone should agree with me".
The conversation in the video is a very reasoned conversation, yet listening carefully reveals explicit and implicit categorical imperatives. Those are the places to probe for flaws in the argument. They both seem to agree that a part of the solution is to convert Muslims to secular humanists.
HELLO!!! What are the odds on that!
It is very, very, very difficult to bring anyone to examine their moral positions. They become confused and defensive. Reason has little or nothing to do with moral beliefs. If you ask someone "Why do you believe that?", they will reply, "Because it is true!". That's it! End of conversation! Pick up your sword and have at it!
Jim
============================================================
On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Garrett Wilner wrote:
Whoa!!! This is good, Jim... really good stuff! I will be re-reading your words here many more times...
Sam's belief that Muslims need to be converted to secular humanists (that's a bit of an over statement, really, but it is humorous!) has been reinforced greatly with his relationship with Maajid Nawaz. Sam wrote a book with Maajid.
https://www.amazon.com/Islam-Future-Tolerance-Sam-Harris/dp/0674088700/
Their collaboration started quite contentious and inauspicious and ultimately developed into a beautiful friendship, based on profound respect and deep love for one another. Maajid spent years suffering in an Egyptian prison for his extreme jihad-like activities. Maajid underwent a radical transformation in prison and understood that he needed to become a moderate, peace-loving Muslim that contributes to humanity in positive ways. He dropped his extremist views. He has taken on the role of Muslim reformer. (Oye... what a job!!)
I have really enjoyed listening to Maajid, and especially with his conversations with Sam on "The Waking Up Podcast." Maajid embodies the whole notion that Islam is the religion of peace (total bullshit, on the whole). Maajid, along with the 29 other moderate Muslims in the world are indeed a beautiful thing to behold in contrast to the 1.6 Billion followers locked in this 7th Century mind-control call for world domination and return to feudalism and theocratic rule.
Having said the above, I am NOT-AT-ALL sympathetic to the notion that Islam can be reformed and that we should engage in that social experiment. Sure, I love Maajid, but it is a fool's errand to mix disparate cultures and to not expect severe clashes. Oddly, Sam Harris makes the strongest arguments along these lines... yet, his final conclusion is that we need to do the work at reforming Islam and open the floodgates, letting 'em all in. I am okay with that work being done by others who feel drawn as such... but, I believe in containment and isolation. I do NOT want to turn the US into a huge madras, no matter how peace-loving it is, or how culturally uplifting it is. I suggest that 90-percent of what is behind those who advocate for such things is simple virtue signaling on their part.
g
========================================Whoa!!! This is good, Jim... really good stuff! I will be re-reading your words here many more times...
Sam's belief that Muslims need to be converted to secular humanists (that's a bit of an over statement, really, but it is humorous!) has been reinforced greatly with his relationship with Maajid Nawaz. Sam wrote a book with Maajid.
https://www.amazon.com/Islam-Future-Tolerance-Sam-Harris/dp/0674088700/
Their collaboration started quite contentious and inauspicious and ultimately developed into a beautiful friendship, based on profound respect and deep love for one another. Maajid spent years suffering in an Egyptian prison for his extreme jihad-like activities. Maajid underwent a radical transformation in prison and understood that he needed to become a moderate, peace-loving Muslim that contributes to humanity in positive ways. He dropped his extremist views. He has taken on the role of Muslim reformer. (Oye... what a job!!)
I have really enjoyed listening to Maajid, and especially with his conversations with Sam on "The Waking Up Podcast." Maajid embodies the whole notion that Islam is the religion of peace (total bullshit, on the whole). Maajid, along with the 29 other moderate Muslims in the world are indeed a beautiful thing to behold in contrast to the 1.6 Billion followers locked in this 7th Century mind-control call for world domination and return to feudalism and theocratic rule.
Having said the above, I am NOT-AT-ALL sympathetic to the notion that Islam can be reformed and that we should engage in that social experiment. Sure, I love Maajid, but it is a fool's errand to mix disparate cultures and to not expect severe clashes. Oddly, Sam Harris makes the strongest arguments along these lines... yet, his final conclusion is that we need to do the work at reforming Islam and open the floodgates, letting 'em all in. I am okay with that work being done by others who feel drawn as such... but, I believe in containment and isolation. I do NOT want to turn the US into a huge madras, no matter how peace-loving it is, or how culturally uplifting it is. I suggest that 90-percent of what is behind those who advocate for such things is simple virtue signaling on their part.
g
Jim Ivy <jim@jimivy.com>
1:34 PM (2 hours ago)
to Garrett
"Maajid underwent a radical transformation" - This is what interests me most. Under what circumstances do we come to change our moral positions? We all have moral positions that are buried deep within our concept of self. How do these moral positions come to exist, and how do they change?
I do not think is safe to assume that Muslims are any different from Christians, or from secular humanists. Nor is it safe to assume that theists are any different from atheists (non-theists). True, they may have different moral positions, but I strongly suspect that the underlying mechanism is consistent across moral positions.
(I have a difficulty in writing about this. Words are slippery things that often change their meaning before the sentence ends. On top of that, I am held prisoner by my own concepts, so if you think these thoughts are twisted and disconnected, I assure you that they are! If you will forgive me, I will begin with a bit of self-discovery.)
- A "concept" is nothing more than an idea. Whether concepts come from experience, as Aristotle believed, or universals, as Plato believed, can be debated, but I tend to side with Aristotle. It is important to note that, no matter where it comes from, as soon as a concept is posited (recognized) it's negation is simultaneously posited. I cannot have a concept of "light" without at the same time having a concept of "not-light". This can lead to all sorts of confusion and invalid conclusions.
As a child, I believed that the opposite of "salt" was "pepper". This gave me some difficulty when I over-salted my food and then tried to correct the problem by adding pepper! I am not alone in my confusion. Most recognize that two different people may use the same word but understand it's meaning or signification differently. A more subtle issue is that we not only equivocate the word, we become even more confused by assigning incorrect values to the words negation. We "over-salt" the universe then attempt to correct it by "over-peppering". "Not-salt" is not synonymous with "pepper".
- Quantification of value is an illusion. What I appreciate about football is that the field has white lines every five yards. When one of the teams gets the football over the last white line they earn "points". The team with the most points wins. That is the utility of quantification.
But quantification is totally inadequate for comparing values. How would you quantify the difference between Mile's Davis' solo on 'Someday My Prince Will Come' compared to Charlie Parker's solo on 'Donna Lee'? Would you count the number of notes and the one who played the most notes wins? Of course not! The point is that everyone understands quantification. But qualitative value is a difficult thing to wrap one's self about. Falsely quantifying value is another error that can lead to erroneous thinking, and yet it is something that we seem driven toward. We seem to innately believe that assigning a numeric value lends certainty to our conclusions.
Jim
=========================================
Garrett Wilner
2:46 PM (59 minutes ago)
to me
Allow me to interject while there is a pee-pause pending... follow the ###s below:
-------- Original Message --------
From: jim@jimivy.com
To: Garrett Wilner
"Maajid underwent a radical transformation" - This is what interests me most. Under what circumstances do we come to change our moral positions?###
I would presume that no one can step into the same river twice.
"I do not think is safe to assume that Muslims are any different from Christians, or from secular humanists. Nor is it safe to assume that theists are any different from atheists (non-theists). True, they may have different moral positions, but I strongly suspect that the underlying mechanism is consistent across moral positions."
###
Hmmm... allow my favorite Leftie to chime in here, please?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg84Bhtxg6M
Though, I see your point: we can "train" or "indoctrinate" Christians to be just as evil behaving as Jihadists. So, it's about what is underneath the training. I say sure. People are inherently beautiful, loving, caring, giving... across the board, underneath the bullshit. So, let's hate the indoctrination, not the person. Until we can rid ourselves of this mind cancer, we will have to settle on the next best thing: banning the people who embrace such evil filth. Just call it a quarantine and let's move on... next?
"as soon as a concept is posited (recognized) it's negation is simultaneously posited."
"Falsely quantifying value is another error that can lead to erroneous thinking"###
I like the word "contrast" rather than "opposite." What is the opposite of B-flat? It's all about contrasts, both subtle, nuanced... and it may even include an opposite or two. All opposites are contrasts... not all contrasts are opposites. See one as nested within the set of all others.
As for erroneous thinking, surely you are repeating yourself? (i.e. all thinking is erroneous. Look to the Tao again, just as no truth can be spoken, no truth can be thought. I added that second part. You may see that as erroneous thinking. Of course, you would be erroneous.)
Were you one of Oury's analyzers? ;)
Love you Bro!
======================================================
More: The Mental Disease of Liberalism
Jim Ivy <jim@jimivy.com>
4:46 PM (0 minutes ago)
to Garrett
Your interjection brings up a good point.
"I like the word "contrast" rather than "opposite." What is the opposite of B-flat? It's all about contrasts, both subtle, nuanced... and it may even include an opposite or two. All opposites are contrasts... not all contrasts are opposites. See one as nested within the set of all others."
I have not been clear in expressing what I mean. This reminds me of the video you sent discussing Darwinian Truth. Let me define my words more clearly so we will not wander around forever in the darkness.
The word "negation" does not have the same meaning as the word "opposite". "Negation" is binary. It is not a description of a relationship. It is merely an indication of potential.
The word "opposite", on the other hand, does describe a relationship. "Opposite" is of a different order than the word "negation". "Opposite" signifies that the potential exists.
The word "contrast" is also a relational term. There can be no contrast unless there are two or more "facts".
The word "fact" is a symbol that stands for "That which cannot be spoken". However, I think you are in error to say that if it cannot be spoken, it also cannot be thought. That implies that all thought is verbal. We know from our own experiences that we can think non-verbally. For instance, musicians think in music with no need for words. I am certain that there are other ways of thinking that do not involve words. Can you honestly say that your musical thoughts do not approach "Truth"? Anyway...
A "fact" and it's negation do not exist simultaneously. However, two "facts" which are opposites, can exist simultaneously. As can two or more contrasting "facts".
Is that as clear as mud???
And I am still not back to Maajid's transformation!!!!
=====================================================
Garrett Wilner
5:44 PM (1 hour ago)
to me
"-------- Original Message --------
From: jim@jimivy.com
To: Garrett Wilner
"However I think you are in error to say that if it cannot be spoken, it also cannot be thought . That implies that all thought is verbal.###
I don't think I would intentionally say this ^^^. I certainly don't hold that belief.
I probably spoke inelegantly... and certainly nothing I said was truth. I hold that anything (except truth) can be spoken and anything (except truth) can be thought. Not all thoughts can be spoken or expressed. Not all thoughts are verbal. Verbal expressions are many layers removed from the perfect representation of the thought. And thought cannot be truth. Therefore, on many layers of magnitude, verbal expressions are quite removed from truth.
Many expressions occur, bypassing thought all together. (Not necessarily that these expressions are elevated to "truth" but rather, perhaps they *point* quite adroitly to truth, perhaps not)
Pretty much, you and I are on the same page (I would say) and have not stumbled upon any disagreements. If we have, it has not been clearly expressed thus far. Clearly, we are still defining our positions.
I hold that the only truth we experience is (basking) in the absence of thought. This is the closest we get to truth. (yeah, yeah, yeah, I know... I gotta define truth.) ((I define truth by eliminating all other things and leave that up to the listener/reader to experience the absence of all other things)) (((Again, no truth can be spoken)))
I would go on deeper, saying that pure awareness (a human condition of consciousness, centered squarely in the NOW) is not thought (and can never include thought), but rather can include truth, whereas "thought" cannot. So to recap that explosive statement, awareness is not thought. Awareness can include truth, but does not have to include truth. In fact, I would lean toward saying that in the set of all awareness, truth is a statistically insignificant subset and is a profoundly RARE experience in the life of a human. There are several nested realities here and it requires a much more careful expression than this off-the-cuff rambling of mine here. This subject (sub-subject) is going way off in a deep tangent pool, but we can go there one day, if we wish. I would urge us not to go there until major groundwork has been covered first. And, I will need to go back and clean this up substantially! At this point, we are getting way ahead of ourselves, but it may hold value to have a snapshot of the larger map before diving in, in a linear fashion.
Again from a week or three ago, I have zero experience of what the great masters of logic and philosophy have to say. I profess my ignorance here and will never pretend otherwise. At this point, I feel drawn to experience my own path... get clear on my musings... put it all in a nice box... and then go compare whatever in that box may coincide with ancient wisdom. I really don't want to be influenced. And I certainly don't wish to be led down a well trodden path. This is something I have to do for myself. At this point, what I have is "original thought" even if others may have written this stuff before. I have no knowledge of that. It may be that nothing coincides and that I am simply delusional. Hopefully, my path will reveal that to me before I seal my box!
Hugs Brother!
========================================
Re: More: The Mental Disease of Liberalism
Jim Ivy <jim@jimivy.com>
7:51 PM (0 minutes ago)
to Garrett
We don't disagree as much as we use the same words to speak of different things.
When I use the word "truth", I only mean a statement, the terms of which accurately describes the situation on the ground. I think perhaps you are ascribing a more metaphysical meaning. I read your words and want to capitalize the word "Truth".
I would bet dollars to donuts that if you want to make a cup of hot coffee, you will heat the water on a stove (or in the microwave) and not try to heat the water in your freezer. That is the sort of truth I mean. Just common, every day, get it done stuff. Nothing dramatic nor transcendental. Both of us make the everyday assumption that there is a universe of real things and that we can know enough about those things to get through our day. We do not expect our refrigerator to freeze ice cubes one day and, on the next, boil water for our coffee. We do not expect to drive into town and find that red lights mean go and green light mean stop. We expect reality to be consistent and learnable. We even allow for consistent inconsistency else we would have no interaction at all with the females of our species. So while we may not be able to speak of "Truth" with a capital "T", we certainly speak of "truth" with a small "t".
"Predictability" is the most important concept to humankind. We have been searching for it since we first realized that we were weaklings adrift in a frightening world. living a tenuous life without the tools to predict even our next meal. We turned to magic, religion, art, science --- all have their roots in our desire to know, predict, and control the next few moments of our life. Natural man does not stop to question reality. To do so would be to become reality's next meal! When the beast roared, he ran or he fought.
How far we have come. Now the beast roars and we invite them into our homes and beset them with platitudes lest we offend them. We delude ourselves!
... and I am still not back to Maajid's transformation!!!!
J
=============================================
Comments
Post a Comment