[Wittrs] Operation DuckRabbit (ongoing)
- From: kirby urner <kirby.urner@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 23:41:16 -0700
[ continuing from
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WittrsAMR/message/4220
(or one of its mirrors)
]
>> The latter ["freedom"] *has* meaning, but the former ["free-will"]
*needs*
>> meaning. I'm trying to salvage some bits from the wreckage, as the
>> old metaphysics (or whatever we call it) collapses under its own weight,
>> turning to dry powder.
>>
>> Free Will: Remember Having One?
>> (c) Americans for the Advancement of Philosophy
>>
>
> One what? A free will or writing a will that didn't cost me anything
(attorney
> service gratis)?
Hah yes, good illustration of "meaning as use".
This would be the caption for some poster art, maybe showing people
standing in line at some unemployment office.
Related philosophy blog:
http://unemploymentisgood.wordpress.com/2009/09/02/unemployment-is-not-a-disease-so-it-has-no-cure/
We have the word "political campaign" but does that
mean philosophies can't "campaign" also? (how would
it "mean" that?).
When a philosophy campaigns, is that when we call it
"ideological"? My friend Trevor is a student of
Systematic Ideology http://gwiep.net/wp/?p=127
We have the concept of "psychological warfare" and it's in
war that we have "campaigns" (as well as in politics), so
I'm thinking "psychological campaign" is a no-brainer
extension of the existing grammar (perhaps already widely
used).
Yes, Google tends to confirm. One of the search results:
http://www.relationshipmatters.com/index.php?/archives/3136-Smart-politics-is-a-psychological-campaign.html
But then don't we just sometimes say "media campaign" as an
umbrella term? I know I'm inclined in that direction.
http://mybizmo.blogspot.com/2010/07/marketing-campaigns.html
> As you know, I have some interest in AI questions, albeit not from a
technical
> perspective (how do we build them?) but from a conceptual perspective
(what
> would count as an AI, if we could build one, and how would that fit with
our
> ordinary concepts of intelligence, mind, and so forth)?
>
Yes, I think language will continue to morph, to change, and that
our "ordinary concepts" of intelligence will continue to evolve,
as they have been doing.
When the possibility arose that a box of gears could animate a
puppet well enough to play chess, and beat Napoleon, that put
the idea of "machine intelligence" on a whole new plateau in
people's heads, made it much easier for Ada Byron to haunt the
salons and yak up the creaky old Leibnizian idea of
"machine languages" or "logic on a machine".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdT4yG8wczQ
(doesn't reveal the way it worked)
Ada had the Babbage engine to talk about (which she studied
in some detail) and she had The Turk (historically), which turned
out to be a stage magicians trick (and a very brave little man
inside that box).
One wonders if civilization would have been as open to the
idea of machine intelligence, and therefore would it have
seen it come along so quickly, were people not at least
initially "taken in" by this clever automaton, this movie prop.
Science may *often* advance because you get these pockets
of "true believer" in "phenomena X, Y and Z" who are actually
being duped, hoodwinked and/or are self-deceiving (ala the
book 'Apocalypse Pretty Soon'), and yet because of these
memes, the science to actually back it up then arrives.
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/h/heard-apocalypse.html
<http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/h/heard-apocalypse.html>(note: Unarians
not to be confused with Urners, nor with
denizens of Uru for that matter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIc45xDmGy8
).
And in such a way do many prophesies prove self-fulfilling
(yet seem to have this rather hollow core for some reason...
because initially more fiction than science, and perhaps
the early avatars and zealots appear foolish with the benefit
of hindsight: Scientology, by now a church to be reckoned
with, despite humble scifi beginnings; Subgenius more my
cup of tea, and "gnu darling" of Hollywood).
>> Yes, as often happens in our threads, I tend to fork off into
>> various directions along axes of interest, bringing along the
>> rest of my readership, used to these themes.
>>
>> I think I'm still in the ballpark, even though I'm back to my
>> usual Cult of Athena stuff. I usually don't go on for more
>> than 20 paragraphs without getting in *some* kind of
>> commercial message for my school.
>>
>
>
> Yes. It often leaves me scratching my head.
>
Cultures are riddled with codes, I think you'll agree, and no one
has time to tap into all of them.
The DaVinci Code has its adherents and became a veritable
cottage industry there for awhile.
I think philosophy is in some degree the inertia of all these
"codes" continuing to negotiate for a place in the sun and,
indeed, this ongoing negotiation is what a calculus such
as ancient Greek mythology strives to model (mirror, give
access to).
When Mars is ascendant, I guess that means war (or was
that batman disguise? Dan Rather?). It's a way to talk
about the zeitgeist, noosphere and/or collective unconscious,
though these older ways of discussing these things get
branded "superstitious" (at best "archaic"). We're talking
about "atmospherics", "frequencies", "the mood of the
people" (cybernetics).
Anyway, the fact that my writing traffics in this or that code
I don't think exiles it from philosophy thereby. Nietzsche
had his Zarathustra and attendant animals (like Beastmaster
starring a certain governor of California -- no wait, that was
Marc Singer http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001743/ ).
I have my various puppets and clowns, cartoon characters.
Graphic novels, talk balloons.... Logicomix.
Philosophy should not be stripped of its Greek deities, its
funny/sad superheros. Athena her has a role in Logicomix
(which is also about Wittgenstein).
The Athena code (or Parthenon Code) stuff tends to get
studied at West Point (not sure which departments)
just look at the heraldry.
(In case you're wondering, yes, my tying to a military
academy here is a way of advancing this notion of a
"philosophical campaign").
http://www.west-point.org/parent/parent-forum/insignia.html (virtual
desktop)
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1083950.Athena_and_Kain_
http://www.usma.edu/dcomm/presskit/FactSheets/ColorGuard.htm
A sword, a universal symbol of war, and the helmet of Pallas Athena,
signifying wisdom and learning, constitute the emblem
http://worldgame.blogspot.com/2006/02/moral-relativism.html
(another military academy link)
I know, I know, you probably think this is all politics....
Re AI, you maybe watched Watson on Jeopardy. Have you used
Wolfram Alpha?
>> Now that's what I call a great invitation to a philosophical debate. We
>> should see a lot more questions along these lines, and points of
>> view related thereto. Bravo.
>>
>
> Seems political, not philosophical, to me. That is, it just looks like
something
> we might argue about based on 1) where we stand in the current
constellation of
> political perspectives and 2) how we interpret whatever ur texts (the
> Constitution?) we believe underlie our particular political perspectives.
>
Or maybe it's religious? The existing conscientious objector status
could conceivably lead to a vastly popular way of serving one's country,
including in alien lands and seas, with a budget double that of the
non-CO programs. We could use a few submarines, sure, like to spy
on fishing boats the break the rules. Electric ATVs. Disaster relief
buckets. Paramilitary training (martial arts etc.)
[Excerpt from Girl Scout Math campaign:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/17157315@N00/5623493342/in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/17157315@N00/5596484286/in/photostream
(< $100, supplies good for year, fits in 5 gallon bucket, feed 1 for
a month, 4 for a week).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/17157315@N00/5310766617/in/photostream/
(debris hut)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/17157315@N00/5320577069/in/photostream/
(girl scout)
]
Given the USG circuit board's secular design, it'd be too exclusive and
elitist
to process this budget debate through some parochial / esoteric shoptalk
such as that of the Quakers (not that Friends or their ilk should be
vigorously excluded either -- lots of Q-ism in the USG's founding matrix).
The latter were pushed from their privileged position of power in
W. Penn's sylvania (a magic forest, like Narnia) pretty early on in
the Republican Epic, per this Catholic analysis (link below),
wherein they simply refuse to pay "war taxes" to raise an army
against the Shawnee, Deleware etc. How was *that* gonna work?
http://worldgame.blogspot.com/2009/09/catholic-analysis.html
[ right see, cuz these were our allies back then, not inebriated low-life
dysfunctional Europeans pouring over the Atlantic in search of their
"manifest destiny" come hell or high water.... These silly Euros
now claim everyone else around here is "illegal" unless they play
by some new rules made by some of their rulemen. Not a new
situation, I agree. I see where Sontag was coming from, even
though I don't agree with her analysis.
http://www.mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=7430581&tstart=0
]
Anyway, there's a lot of fluidity, once you get into the ethnography
of it all, as to what's politics, what's a psychology, what's a military
maneuver. One generation's "ideology" (e.g. belief in "races" per
Coon), is another generation's "science" (eugenics research aimed
at finding the "race gene"), and is yet another generation's dangerous
quackery (e.g. no one believes in "races" anymore, unless still living
in the past -- see 'State of Fear' by Michael Crichton (appendix)).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carleton_S._Coon (re Coon)
(compare with Ashley Montagu, with more adherents in today's
anthropology by a long shot, hence the tension in Kansas to
some degree -- meaning the HTS's losing battle for hearts and
minds -- by their own admission).
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/synergeo/message/65344
>
>> >
>> >> That's kind of what I was talking about a few posts back, where this
>> >> PhD anthropologist was getting $100K a year to be lipstick on a pig,
>> >> and he quit for philosophical (ethical) reasons.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Must have missed that then!
>> >
<< snip >>
>
> I am completely confused by this now.
>
Can't win for losin' -- was just recycling that bit you might've missed,
in saying your weren't aware of Alpha Juliet's sojourn with HTS
c/o BAE etc. (old Indian Wars fort in Kansas, a place to stage,
before attacking Native Afghanis on North America Planet USA).
An anthropologist with blood ties to "Indians" and alliances with
various Afghanis he's done ethnography among, doesn't see a way
to lend his gravitas to this effort to "shift the center of gravity"
(how they talk about it) in favor of various philosophical campaigns
(well funded -- like some RAND-gone-wild) that are currently under
way.
Instead, he jumps ship, to another campaign, which is where my
story picks up, at Reed College (also well funded, and self aware).
[ I'm fairly polite with my camera by the way. I asked permission
before taking a picture of this ethnographer, who knew a lot about
national liberation movements among the Puerto Ricans and
Chicanos -- and the campaigns against them.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/17157315@N00/5604937845/in/set-72157626340859333
Paranoia runs pretty high at these events sometimes, and some
stranger with a camera needs a clear explanation of what he's
up to ("Flickr and blog" I said -- wasn't thinking about any
Wittgenstein study circles at the time, but that's just more
anthropology, so quite apropos). ]
>> I was thinking more how Norman O. Brown quotes Wittgenstein and
>> Nietzsche both, appreciatively, in 'Love's Body', and then points to
>> Bucky Fuller. Coxeter, to whom Fuller dedicated his magnum opus,
>> was Wittgenstein's student (donated his chambers even), while
>> Fuller's great aunt, Margaret, was a first editor of 'Dial' (later taken
>> up by one of the Seldes brothers). You get such communities as
>> Black Mountain College. Not mystics per se, but at the forefront of
>> the arts (Kenneth Snelson, Merce Cunningham, John Cage...).
>> A new philosophy of mathematics starts to emerge from this
>> matrix, characterized by "tensegrity" (among other hallmarks), a
>> term later taken up by Carlos Casteneda (not just coincidentally
>> -- there's a psychedelic fringe to the movement, especially once
>> you factor in Robert Anton Wilson and some of the popular
>> science fiction writers in this vein).
>>
>
> I was thinking more along the lines of how, in some sense, Wittgenstein's
work
> can be invoked as a way of justifying a viewpoint that is Idealist at its
core.
> While not explicity holding such a view, I used to see in Wittgenstein
warrant
> to do so. No longer, though.
>
I see Wittgenstein as a transcendentalist in the sense that he
was working to be liberating. He felt people were the prisoners of
their own language games, were basically "prisoners of war" one
might say, unable to get out of their fly bottles, having been
attracted into them (then trapped / bewitched) by whatever
alluring / sweet smells (the stench of certainty, or is this
what they breathed in Delphi?).
He expressed a desire to bring illumination, enlightenment, to
one brain or another, however unlikely the prospect. That
posture, or stance, is one hallmark of a transcendentalist
I'd say, in that one is pointing to some other way of thinking
outside of the mundane and/or taken-for-granted way.
I also think Edgar Allen Poe was a transcendentalist. Few
philosophy departments assign his 'Eureka' for any reason,
but that's just because of the sewn-in culture of our day, here
today gone tomorrow.
I expect a resurgence of interest in such literature, at least
regionally, as more people connect the dots between Whitman,
Swedenborg, and the American "new thought" movement
(somewhat different from New Age) and including such
movements as Unity. Esalen might be considered either
New Thought or New Age depending on which group was
renting the facilities, likewise Ghost Ranch in New Mexico.
I'm closer to New Thought myself, though with more of an
Asian spin. Wittgenstein's Tractatus became popular in
China and I know one of the leading students of
Taoism-meets-Wittgenstein (this guy Alex Aris in our
study circle). I mention Esalen in part because of the
Erhard connection and this talk 'The Hippies Who Saved
Physics' that's going around.
http://spoonless.livejournal.com/185259.html
>> We both seem to agree that philosophy is dead (moribund)
>> in some respects -- you think especially with regard to ethics.
>>
>
> No, I think philosophy is very much alive. I just think Wittgenstein's
mode of
> doing it is a better and more insightful way than the traditional
practice(s) of
> formulating and debating arguments about how things REALLY are.
>
But these traditional practice(s) live on... lots of inertia.
Philosophy-as-ethnography is still a relatively new concept.
I took Psychological Anthropology at Princeton with
Fernandez but the questions being raised were often
philosophical in nature. I was just beginning to study
Wittgenstein. Little did I realize just how relevant the
latter would continue to be to the former.
Imee Marcos was in that class, daughter of
Ferdinand and Imelda (there's a Sam Lanahan
connection here too -- Urners tie to the Philippines,
not just Libya, also Bhutan and RSA/Lesotho
area). Search on Flextegrity if curious.
>
>> Where we diverge is more in how we manage this death.
>> I'm into salvaging "free will" and sparking more serious
>> debates with it (lets talk about who gets the most freedom
>> to express her or his will, versus who has the least, as a
>> precursor to making some much needed changes).
>>
>
> Again freedom and free will are two different concepts. Let's consider
"free" in
> itself. As a word it has many applications as you've already alluded to.
There's
> this question of free stuff (free beer) as in not having to pay for
something we
> get or take. And there's the question of being free to do what we like (to
act
> without coercion or the fear of it) in various contexts (in public life,
in our
> private lives). And then there's the further question of being free by
virtue of
> not being encumbered by something, as in being free of the burden of aging
> parents (or raising a child) that may have or could have interfered with
our
> thought processes (peace of mind?) or our decision making faculty.
>
> Of course there is also this question of "free-will" as in having the
capacity
> to choose, unfettered by causal constraints outside the stream of
influences
> affecting our conscious deliberations, both unconscious factors of a
mental sort
> and physical factors of the sort that operate according to universal laws
of
> physics. It's this last, that is generally thought problematic, of course,
by
> the determinist. And here we run into the further problem that
unpredictability
> (needed to avoid determinism in its strictest sense) can be either the
result of
> incredibly deep complexity OR the absence of relevance of physical laws to
> mental phenomena.
>
Yeah, we're not free to perform miracles that break the unbreakable
laws of physics, such as we've appeared to discover them. But
how different is this in principle from breaking an easy-to-break rule,
such as "no jay walking"?
There are some similarities, and yet if there's "no free will" (whatever
that pretends to mean), then nothing one does or doesn't do has
any bearing on whether one has free will or not (as we've already
said that one doesn't -- a kind of Ouspenskian view).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/17157315@N00/5605521344/in/photostream
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/17157315@N00/5605521344/in/photostream>(@ Reed
College)
The determinist is basically saying there's no spectrum from
more-to-less free in his system, as we're all equally unfree,
all of the time (like fooling *all* of the people -- so who's doing
the fooling again?).
I'm saying the determinist is gutting language of its everyday
meanings and trying to hijack the discussion with some spurious
agenda similar to the skeptic's, wherein we're supposed to "doubt
everything" (even what it makes no sense to doubt).
We get lost in sophomoric discussions wherein the main point
is to show off one's fluency with some of the sciences, used as an
appeal to authority in some way.
I'm thinking these are philosophically immature positions
(radical skepticism, solipsism, idealism, determinism,
materialism, reductionism) and that allowing a concept as
important as "free will" to get bogged down in these
childish sandboxes is a disservice to real philosophy,
which cannot afford to be bedeviled by such grammatical
confusions -- it's an embarrassment for western philosophy
and pulls down the value of a PhD degree for all of us
(because "Doctor of Philosophy" becomes more like
"Doctor of Clowning Around").
The above is not a Logical Positivist position, which sought
to consign music and art to the realm of nonsense, saving only
logic and factual propositions for the realm of sense. This was
not, in fact, Wittgenstein's position as most of us know, i.e.
he was never a Logical Positivist, even though many in that
camp used the Tractatus as a kind of manifesto, at least when
it first came out.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/17157315@N00/5622909313/in/photostream
(a work on Taoist philosophy inspired by the Tractatus)
> And THIS last is where philosophy runs aground, I think, because nothing,
as
> Sean notes, really follows from such a claim in the real world -- though
> theoretically, at least, something might because the world could, at least
in
> principle, be discovered to be very different than we now understand it to
be.
> But the key here is the word "discovered" because, absent any new
information
> about how things work (is there evidence of disembodied minds, spirits,
ghosts,
> of continued consciousness after death?), nothing is changed by such
> speculations, whatever arguments may be deployed in favor of the
non-physicality
> of minds thesis.
>
I'm not clear that ghosts, continued consciousness after death etc. would
have any bearing whatsoever on the free will discussion. The ghosts would
be as determined as everything else. Those that believe in their own
freedom would have no choice but to do so (that whale I mentioned is
a ghost, but that just means we welcome him in spirit).
[ Missing from modern discourse is the realization that "atheism" has
often had room for ghosts and after lives, as natural phenomena. Many
philosophies have lives after deaths, but no "God" per se. ]
> Which is why, of course, I think Wittgenstein's insight about the puzzle
nature
> of philosophical concerns so important. If nothing is changed, absent the
> empirical information which demands a change to our understanding, then
> speculation about how things really are, insofar as it accords with all
the
> outcomes of what is already known to really be, is rather pointless, isn't
it?
> Best to get on with clearing up the puzzles and attend to the stuff of
real
> life, to making a living, building houses, constructing artificial
intelligences
> and so forth. But philosophy doesn't, because of this, cease to be
interesting.
> The ongoing work of clearing up how we understand things is not done in a
day.
>
You mention "constructing houses" and I think AI will probably have
some role here. The next generation of dwelling / environment control
will be more disaster resistant and smarter about energy than
todays "stupid houses" (look for good Japanese designs, make
investments now if you feel called).
http://grunch.net/category/explorations-in-the-geometry-of-thinking/page/2
(some background materials, exhibits from Grunch archives)
With Wittgenstein's methods and tools in hand (in mind) we wade
into a real community (perhaps our own) and start to map out how
people use these various concepts, of freedom, of will. So yes, I'm
sympathetic to your notion that we must distinguish and clarify, as
a precursor to clearing up any confusions.
You see me as muddying the waters by coming in with this media
campaign aimed at suggesting to people that they're straitjacketed
prisoners of their own reflexes (including habits of thought -- e.g.
"squaring"/"cubing" for 2nd / 3rd powering sounds so "smart" to
most Earthlings), perhaps because of some Faustian bargain
made in hopes of climbing some worldly ladder towards fame
and glory, a ladder that's turning out to be stairway to nowhere
and/or a marching toward hell (alluding to Scheuer's tome by
that title).
I'm representing a different tribe or ethnic group with a different
philosophy, so the media campaign is philosophical in representing
the viewpoints of this other-worldly "race" (said with a bit of a sneer,
I admit it). The Martians have landed, is the marketing spin (I taught
Martian Math at Reed College this summer).
I call this "doing philosophy" because I'm accepting Wittgenstein's
vista, of rules and rule following, of seeing according to an
interpretation, of aspect shifts (philosophies without aspect
shifts (gestalt switches) are usually of no interest to me --
partly why I count Zen as a philosophy, to keep myself from
going to sleep when reading too much Quine).
The idea with this campaign (to free the will) is to create a kind
of nostalgia for more freedom, or a yearning, based on appealing
visions of possible futures (in stark contrast with imagery from
the more recent imprisoning past).
I don't think that's extra-philosophical, even if it's not so much
"discourse" or "discussion" as it is "advertising" or "recruiting",
as I'm thinking of philosophy as a source of aspect shifts, of
seeing in new ways (not just that, but including that). That's
what advertising may help us do, or military propaganda
(e.g. Dr. Seuss versus Hitler):
http://theomahaproject.org/module_display.php?mod_id=63&review=yes
(scroll down to America First Party for some Dr. Seuss cartoons)
"Stuff that makes you think" can be like that.
It's a kind of knowledge and ("philo", "sophy") means really
luvin' the stuff (as in "diggin' it").
Mathematical puzzles and games may require "new ways
of looking" in order to solve them -- often do.
>
>> You're into protecting what you think of as technical
>> conversations that shouldn't be muddied.
>>
>> I'm sure those conversations will go on, but obviously
>> if I assess they're rotten to the core, I'm not going to
>> want to waste much time in them.
>>
>
> I think we may have very different perspectives about the point and
relative
> value of philosophy.
>
I see it as something rather practical that might be applied.
Wittgenstein gives me tools for effecting change, in concert
with others.
>> We have no signed contract about what "this thread"
>> is about. It has something to do with freedom (or the
>> lack thereof). That's about all I can say about it.
>> It's not owned by either of us. We're just more voices
>> in the memepool.
>>
>
> True enough. But still one has to adhere to the issues at hand to some
degree or
> else the conversation tilts toward monologue -- or worse.
>
It'd be more like two monologues in parallel, somewhat intertwined.
Some exchange of ideas might happen. Having the two voices
is instructive to readers and reminds us of the origin of "dia",
as in "dialectic" and "dialog" ("diadem"...).
Too bad we can't write in parallel columns vs. only interleaving
horizontally.
>> I don't want to lose my connection with "will" either. Fromm's 'Escape
from
>> Freedom' is important. The concept of "authenticity" in Existentialism.
>> The movies 'Jarhead'... 'Hurt Locker'. These pose questions of choice
and
>> freedom.
>>
>> I feel there's a lot to investigate when it comes to "will" and, as a
>> philosopher-anthropologist (with an interest in marketing and
communications),
>> it would be foolish of me to divorce "freedom to do as I please" from
"freedom
>> to exercise my will freely".
>>
>
> The two look like they are saying the same thing to me except that, in the
> second case, you have used "free" twice, implying a possible different
meaning
> for one of the uses (or else why bother to use the term twice?).
>
Just saying I don't want to split "freedom" from "will" and deny myself a
meaning for "free will" (concatenating those strings).
The notion of constraints is important, and of options (therefore choice).
We might go with more geometric imagery, when it comes to both
freedoms and choices. Our emerging literature on "free will" might
mention chess (the board game) a lot more often than is currently
fashionable among old schoolers (unless they're old Russia desk
vets or something -- lots of chess metaphors in Cold Warrior lingo).
Example re "free will" (taken from an actual transcendentalist text):
"""
537.51 I think I tend to avoid using the word will because I
spontaneously associate it with the term "free will" and all the
controversies regarding the history of such human beliefs. I have felt
that all such controversies lack adequate knowledge of science's
generalized laws. To me it is obvious that no amount of individual
will can nullify any cosmic law. It is also obvious to me that few
know of and comprehend the significance of nature's having six
positive and six negative equieconomical alternative moves to make
with each turn to play in cosmic events.
537.52 It is clear to me that most humans tend to think in a
linear, Go-or No-go, greenlight-redlight manner. To me, will is an
optionally exercisable control by mind over brain -- by wisdom over
conditioned reflex-that becomes realizable when mind is adequately
convinced regarding which of the 12 alternatives will produce the most
comprehensively considerate vital advantage for all.
"""
[ http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s05/p3700.html ]
-- obviously some esoteric namespace that would require more unpacking,
as some of the nomenclature is unfamiliar. It's on our syllabus though,
so helps to have Wittgenstein handy, with his operationalist approach to
mathematics (versus nominalist).
> Imprisonment may be understood in different ways. What imprisons us in a
penal
> institution may be the law or the government or the walls and bars or the
staff
> that guards. What imprisons us may also be what hampers the fullest
expression
> of our beliefs and desires (psychological constraints). What imprisons us
in
> another sense may well be the reality of our existence (being the
necessity of
> existing in THIS body, the laws of physics that govern this body and world
and
> so forth), though this begins to sound metaphoric now. Can we ever really
say we
> are imprisoned by what we are (except insofar as we imagine that we are
somehow
> more, or at least different, than what we seem to be)?
>
Then we have "habits of thought", which I think gets at the kind of
imprisonment
Wittgenstein was talking about, in wanting to show the fly the way out of
the
fly bottle.
By seeing in new ways (per PI Part 2), new freedoms might be revealed,
such that old constraints cease to be the problem they once were. New
problems replace previous problems.
http://coffeeshopsnet.blogspot.com/2010/08/operation-duckrabbit.html
> So again, meanings are fungible and making sure we each know what the
other has
> in mind by a usage critical.
>
> <snip>
>
>> >> Can a philosophy have a business as a part of its self expression?
>> >> I'd think opportunities to walk one's talk, to show what one means,
>> >> would be integral, so yes, of course.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Of course what?
>>
>> Yes, of course one may have businesses expressing a philosophy.
>> You can have "philosophical business" just as religions get to have
>> their temples and churches. Should these be "tax exempt"?
>> Many corporations (a kind of superman) seem to think so.
>>
>
>
> "Philosophy", like "imprisonment" and "free" allows for multiple meanings.
> There's the philosophy of life we have, akin to a business' philosophy
(meaning
> how it approaches the world in its operations). And there's philosophy as
world
> view, see Hamlet's exhortation to Horatio ("there are more things in
heaven and
> earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophies"). And there is
> philosophy as the work of certain academics who concern themselves with
thinking
> and disputing about various questions (this being subject to many
different
> definitions/descriptions, as well -- from being seen as the parent of all
other
> knowledge-seeking enterprises, read science, to being the underlaborer or
> handmaiden of the sciences, assigned the task of picking up the pieces,
sweeping
> the floors of our minds).
>
In the philosophy I'm thinking about, you go to a coffee shop or smart
bar or some hybrid. Lots of global data on the LCDs, as well as reveries.
You order a drink and sit down to start playing these various games
that result in funds going out to various causes. You get to take credit
for your play in your profile, though you may also exercise control over
who sees your profile.
Bars are already close to this, in that you can play video poker to
have your money go the the state (at least on Oregon you can).
These newer games are both more directed and may have a much
stronger didactic component in some cases.
The money also tends to come from the vendors, who expense
this as "profit sharing" (with customers) and developing "good will"
(an economic asset). One dollar on your drink goes to the
dolphin protectors in the Pacific, while a dollar on your curried
vegetables with tofu goes to the orphanage in Cambodia. That's
because you play well. Others only win about 10 cents for their
causes. Charitable giving is a competitive sport in some ways.
OK, there I go again, diving into my Cult of Athena talk and its
Coffee Shops Network (CSN) business model. Has it been 20
paragraphs? I'm the CSN CMO. CTO is in Paris. CEO is
named Bob.
>
>
>> > Fighting wars isn't what's usually meant by murder. Moreover, if "young
>> > idealists" volunteer for something oughtn't they to be allowed to take
>> > responsibility for what they've done?
>> >
>>
>> Back to your questions above about recruiters and recruiting.
>> Was there any misrepresentation?
>>
>> There's a fine line between war, mayhem, murder and havoc.
>> The murderous Nazis, the murderous Huns... it's typical in
>> wartime to say the enemy is engaged in murder. This is
>> all part of the grammar (less about facts than about roles in
>> the theater).
>>
>
> Wars seem likely to continue for a while. Certainly they have long been an
> established part of our history as human beings. Is there any reason to
think
> they are soon to dissappear? If not, is there a reason to absent ourselves
from
> all aspects of their practice in general or only to oppose this or that
war or
> this or that maker of wars?
>
Lots of ethnography attaches here. What is meant by "war" is
so varied, so extensible.
Soldiers in rows and columns on a battlefield is one way to
look at war. Then there's Edwin Black's 'War Against the Weak'
and what that's all about.
http://www.waragainsttheweak.com/
(relates to that appendix in 'State of Fear' -- ostensibly about
global warming).
And yes, lots of reasons to join a war, on this side, and not that.
This is almost the job of rationality itself, to keep ourselves from
becoming prisoners of this or that circumstance (= battle), or
from fighting ineffectively once we get into one.
Life is a battlefield, yes indeedy. But then what?
>
>> That anthropology blog (above) is interesting for how it all
>> ties back to the Indian Wars. I see that as a big part of what
>> drives the belligerence.
>
>
> Is it belligerent in every case? Think of the current Libyan affair. If
the
> president had remained aloof from it, wouldn't he have been condemned for
not
> supporting people seeking freedom like we have (note, not "free-will"
which you
> can't seek and secure for yourself)? More, since Qadhafi has been a very
bad
> actor, particularly with regard to acts of terrorism against Americans,
could
> the president have withstood the argument that his aloofness allowed an
enemy of
> this country of longstanding to survive at the expense of the lives of
many
> innocents among his own people? On the other hand, by acting, isn't the
> president subject to criticism for interfering where there is no immediate
> threat to America's interests or survival (any long term threat being too
long
> term and speculative at this stage to be counted)? And isn't that
criticism
> exacerbated by the realization that our acting hardly seems to have been
> sufficient to bring about the desired outcome and may only have intro
> duced a prolonged stalemate?
>
I'll put this on a shelf for now. My family (Urner / Swiss) has some
history
with Libya. Too much to get into here. I often don't find historical
narratives
in terms of "nations" to be the most illuminating. I look for actual movers
and shakers as dramatis personae, not bloodless creatures of the
imperial imagination (nations tend to be the creations of imperial
administrators for the most part -- Libya an outgrowth of the colonial
period, likewise Ethiopia -- really coming into focus with the "satellite
view" (also their undoing in some ways)).
Obama has much in common with Ethiopian kings, which is why I think
America's youth voted for the guy, thinking of Haile Selassie (unconsciously
for the most part). The Repeal Prohibition vote is the key to many future
power struggles, be these mediated by trusted voting infrastructure, or
the kind we've got now. It's not an easy politics, with so many war lords
involved, as well as international cartels. The Anglo-Puritan wish to
criminalize and treat with imprisonment, that which ails us, is contra to
medical science on so many fronts, with engineering on the fence. But
the people will have to rise up themselves, versus offering up some kind
of scapegoat or tilter at windmills. Some projects aren't meant to be
undertaken by loners and Obama is only as good as the representatives
he's been elected to preside over, though he delegates a lot of that
through
Bidon (the veep gets to preside, tune in to all the yammer in the lower
house, or is it the upper, or what's the difference -- ask Sean?).
> Is the president's choice, in light of these issues, "belligerence"? If
not, is
> all war thus driven by "belligerent" as you seem to imply? And shouldn't
we be
> "belligerent" in some cases as when we fought against the Nazis in World
War II?
>
I see a lot of pronouns flying around, "we" and "they" and whatever. I know
people like to say "we" when they had no hand in something, simply to
register they're being "on the team" so to speak. People say "we have
more nuclear weapons than they do" while, from another point of view,
this "we" has no nuclear weapons, and even if it did, would have no idea
how to use them (a good thing in my book -- less power to 'em!).
The existentialists were especially into this, taking issue with people
saying "we've invented the jet engine". Unless you personally had a
hand in the jet engine's invention, this "we" as in "we humans" is
somewhat spurious, used to hide behind. Just recounting what I
remember from an old philosophy class, not saying I'm against such
uses of pronouns.
We get to say "we" as a species. Sometimes my "we" is even
non-human flavored, as at least one of our "science club" members
(Pauling House group) is a whale.
Nationalism is a grammar around pronouns. We learn to say "we"
and mean "we of this particular nation". We've recently been through
an age of intense nationalism, which Einstein thought was really
crazy (I tend to agree with him on a lot of points).
>> A lot of it's unconscious, as people
>> are not schooled in either philosophy OR anthropology
>> by and large, and are left to fall back on their reflex
>> conditioning (which may be quite inappropriate).
>>
>
> So you would think that sometimes it wouldn't be "inappropriate"? How do
we tell
> the difference if and when there is one?
>
I've lost track of what "it" means. One what?
>
> <snip>
>
>>>
>> >
>> > Your proposal would make it a hell of a lot worse.
>> >
>>
>> I don't know that I'm proposing anything here. I'm just talking about
>> what I see going on.
>>
>
> You asked for open source code on voting programs used across the country
and
> for access to those programs.
>
Oh that, yes of course. Have you followed that debate? You maybe think
"open source" means everyone would be in there changing the code even
as an election was in progress or something? Vital bug fixes maybe.
It happens sometimes. Linux is open source (for the most part), as is
gcc and emacs (mentioned earlier, although Stallman would call those
"free" (as in "freedom")).
There's not all this chaos or anything (or if there is, it's pretty
self-organizing).
We're talking about one of the most collaborative efforts ever, even bigger
that the Apollo Program by some accounts.
Where we are now is people deeply distrust their voting infrastructure
because it's too hidden, too behind closed doors. Making voting systems
transparent and not subject to tampering by unseen influences is what
this is about. Having students learn, in civics class, in math class, how
the machinery works, seems like a really wise investment in their
future and ours, presuming electronic voting has any future, and I think
it probably does.
We might have to teach more about RSA using Python, like they do
at Phillips / Andover with 'Mathematics for the Digital Age and
Programming in Python' (a feeder school for West Point isn't it?).
Most computer scientists probably agree with me that voting machine
source should not be kept secret. You maybe think source that's public
is easier to tamper with but the exact opposite is true. When
experienced eyes are watching every part of the process, it's much
harder to get away with "back doors" and such (such as are embedded
in some of the financial packages -- ways to make documents vanish
without a trace if need be, in violation of Oxley-Sarbanes).
http://mybizmo.blogspot.com/2010/10/2020-hindsight-movie-review.html
>
>> >
>> > Many human interactions of all types have a coercive element.
>> >
>>
>> Exactly. Anthropology and philosophy should both focus on that, if
>> they want these concepts of "freedom" and "will" to mean anything
>> concrete. There's work to be done!
>>
>
> Only to clarify. If the outcome is the opposite, then it's work better not
done.
>
I think more ethnography is better in this case.
>> > So now we know one another better than we did I guess, eh?
>> >
>> > SWM
>> >
>>
>> Yeah probably. Aside from that aspect, I'm also getting work done.
>> I can link to these posts from anywhere. Anthropologists, meet
>> the philosophers. Where shall we go from here? Doesn't have to
>> be on this list.
>>
>> Kirby
>>
>
> This list is as good as any for now, no? Since Sean made his changes, I
have
> lost registry through Yahoo but am not highly motivated to learn and
register on
> some other platform and, since I can still respond on Yahoo, that's been
enough.
> Who says I have to initiate posts, ehd? (I actually tried early on to
register
> on some of the other sites Sean routed us to but found it a pain to bother
with
> so I decided to stick with Yahoo, which was working fine for me until
Sean's
> changes!)
>
> SWM
>
Just to clarify: what I mean was I'm free to link in to the Yahoo discussion
by URL, or to the Google Group mirror, in the context of some other
thread on some other list, perhaps more devoted to anthropology,
or the future of mathematics teaching (mathfuture, math-teach).
I might get some anthropologist replying, and making reference to
stuff stashed here, on Sean's list, but I can't coerce him/her to
register with us. In this way, what I cache on this Wittgenstein list
may well lead to ramified threads on other lists, not because I'm
trying hard to move it elsewhere, but because the Internet is such
a place.
These roads criss-cross in every direction. I might post a synopsis
back here though, or someone else might.
Kirby
Other related posts:
