[Wittrs] Re: "free will" versus "willing to be free"
- From: kirby urner <kirby.urner@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 16:16:00 -0700
From: Kirby Urner (at work)
Date: Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 4:04 PM
Subject: Re: more wittrsamr
To: kirby urner (at home)
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 3:03 PM, kirby urner <kirby.urner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> --- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kirby urner <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
<< snip >>
> You show here how soft and fungible our usages are. But that doesn't mean that
> they can all simply glom onto one another without regard to intent or context
> or
> practice of the speaker(s). Meaning need not be fixed or walled off for it to
> be
> precise in context or for slipping contexts to produce unneeded ambiguity and,
> hence, confusion.
>
I completely agree. This is where I introduce the concept of namespaces,
not original with me, and well defined in Python, which I tend to use in my
philosophy of mathematics presentations (ala Martian Math).
http://wikieducator.org/Martian_Math
> Yep. But hardly relevant to a question of whether by "free-will" we mean the
> same as "freedom" in a polity.
>
I'll give you the point that they don't mean the same thing.
The latter *has* meaning, but the former *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
>> You should maybe think of me as a "mad man" (like from Madison Avenue,
>> HQS of Mad Magazine) crafting messages for TV. I have Wittgenstein
>> open on my desk, as here's a tool box from doing detective work,
>> investigating a campaign to see what makes it tick. "Wow, those guys
>> were pretty good at PR" I think, remembering what Artificial
>> Intelligence was in vogue (less so nowadays, though perhaps finding a
>> new niche in "smart house" and "smart grid" design).
>>
>
> Now you've lost me.
Sorry about the typos too.
In my blog post below I take on the lore around AI (artificial
intelligence), once respected and admired (back when people
still bragged about working for the RAND corporation), now
more of a backwater, a cult, bordering on fringe when you
get to that "singularity" stuff.
But I see some bright future possibilities, in the area of designing
dwellings / accommodations around notions of "learning buildings"
(AI applied to energy optimization, at both the micro and macro
levels). A growth industry. Complexity Studies feeds into it.
Here's that blog post:
http://mybizmo.blogspot.com/2008/04/philosophy-posting.html
> We've wandered far afield now from the original questions of "free-will", both
> whether we have it and whether the term is even meaningful.
>
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.
>> That's where all the boolean logic and propositional operators, such
>> as found in the Tractatus, finally found their real home. In the rear
>> view mirror, it's easy to see the lineage, through Turing, Babbage,
>> Ada, Godel, Escher, Bach, Martin Gardner... not that we call all of
>> these people philosophers, just that there's an arc, a storyline, and
>> philosophers do occur along it.
>>
>
> Okay . . .
>> University philosophers have tended to cut themselves off from
>> computer science, much to their disadvantage going forward.
>>
>
> Some do, some don't. Many on lists like these have a day job in programming
> and
> abiding interest in things philosophical though.
>
So I'm sure they know who Richard Stallman is then, and probably
agree he's one of our greatest living philosophers. Or at least
they understand why some people think so.
> I find the technical problems of philosophy of interest, mainly. How to live
> one's life not so much . . . at least as being a question of philosophy (as
> opposed to one's philosophy).
>
Yeah, that's fine, why not? People come to philosophy for different
reasons.
>> This is not really a new development of course, as you've always have
>> these bossy people in military uniform insisting on their rights to
>> recruit from the same student body.
>>
>
> Why shouldn't they? No one forces any student to sign up. Why shouldn't
> recruiters have the ability to offer the option?
>
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.
>
>> 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!
>
"""
The USA today actually has a vanishingly small citizenship by some
accounts, given the number who've sold out to the Unfree State that
has grown up in its midst. Anthropologists are moving this way with
their analysis thanks in part to the "freak out factor" associated with
such gulag programs as HTS (Human Terrain Systems), which has
recently sought to commandeer the university system as a source
of lipstick for its pig. British Aerospace and Engineering has a guiding
role in the background, as one might expect given the recent history
of Anglophone empires.
More in this blog for context:
http://zeroanthropology.net/all-posts/the-leavenworth-diary-double-agent-anthrop\
ologist-inside-the-human-terrain-system/
"""
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WittrsAMR/message/4181
>
> I'm inclined to think docrtines of secret power relations, class relations
> rather forced, actually, a kind of reification we'd all be better off without.
>
>> More generally, Wittgenstein's philosophy has a strongly
>> anthropological flavor
>
>
> Yes.
> I used to agree that Wittgenstein had a transcendentalist element but I don't
> think so anymore, at least nothing TRANSCENDENTAL, you might say. Maybe in
> lower
> case though.
>
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'm saying it's a nonsensical one, so lets stop beating on that very
>> dead horse and rescue "free will" from it's existence as a mere
>> carcass, crawling with flies and maggots.
>>
>
> The thread had to do with whether we have or don't have free-will, whether
> determinism is true or false. Claiming it's a nonsensical question is another
> sort of answer. But then supporting that by collapsing it into another concept
> doesn't do the necessary work. It just adds confusion to the issue by changing
> the subject without being explicit about it.
I don't know what you mean by "the thread". I was reading
Gmail and saw Sean's query to another list about what it would
mean if Free Will were announced to be proved (or disproved)
in some headline. I jumped in with an interpretation, which
I've recounted, having to do with measuring the Free Will of a
polity.
You've objected that there's an older dead horse meaning
of "free will" I should pay my respects to but I don't see our
views as all that inconsistent or irreconcilable.
We both seem to agree that philosophy is dead (moribund)
in some respects -- you think especially with regard to ethics.
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).
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.
"This thread" would have to be about something more
meaningful, for me to want to keep giving it energy.
That's probably why I seem to surge away from what
you consider the topic at hand (e.g. whether the dead
horse is really still alive).
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.
>> If "free will" is already down the drain, then I think it's ready for
>> recycling. Let's have it mean something again! <-- more an
>> exhortation than a command in battle
>>
>
> We already have the terms "freedom" and "liberty". Why take another term that
> means something different in ordinary discourse and assign it the same
> meaning?
>
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 opposite of freely expressing one's will might be "frustration". I'm into
a philosophy which examines the freedoms we have, as willing beings,
versus the frustrations that vex us. What imprisons us? What reflex-
conditioning keeps us straitjacketed? Why is the idiocracy so powerful?
Lots of interesting queries.
>>
>> Is Zen a philosophy or a religion by the way?
>>
>
> My view? A religion, albeit in the larger sense that embraces those well
> beyond
> the Western tradition. Walter, however, may tell you it's a philosophy as I
> think that's his view. But then he will have to speak for himself as he
> doesn't
> much cotton to others describing his positions.
>
>> 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.
> 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).
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. 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).
>> If the big one hits, mom and dad will be washed away or will starve
>> while junior is stuck holding a gun in some desert, a fool of the
>> Unfree State.
>>
>
> I'm not going to debate your political views. I acknowledge them, however.
>
Or are these philosophical views? Is it either/or?
>> > > I'm into bypassing the "court of appeals" and continuing with maneuvers,
>> > > consolidating, tipping scales, tilting odds in our favor.
>> >
>> >
>> > Sounds like a recipe for endless argument to me! How can a society hope to
> get anything done in that kind of environment?
>> >
>>
>> Seems to me it's the environment we're in.
>>
>
> 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.
>
> 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!
Lets counter-recruit against those who'd waste so brain power
spinning their wheels about nonsense in a non-productive manner.
>
> 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
Other related posts:
