From: Brett Paatsch (bpaatsch@bigpond.net.au)
Date: Wed Jul 23 2003 - 09:12:43 MDT
Paul Grant writes:
> [Brett]
> > > It seems a great pity that amongst the first things
> > > intelligent people often seem to get good at is
> > > sarcasm
> >
> > It is a useful ability whether u admit it or not.
>
> You:
> > I definately *do* admit that it is a useful ability.
> > I think I am a perhaps a bit like Harvey in that I
> > have an emotional predispisiton towards people
> > playing nice. I see it as efficient as well as pleasant.
> > But given that people don't always play nice I am
> > certainly willing to fall back on the alternatives.
>
> Me:
> Agreed :) Thats generally how I play it ;P
>
> You:
> > I'm a rationalist humanist. I like to cooperate. But
> > I am also a reasonable bush lawyer and former
> > state karate champion I don't need to learn that
> > sometimes the opportunity to play nice is taken
> > off the table by others. Then, if truth be told I
> > probably find the honesty and directness of a real
> > knock down take no prisoners fight preferable to
> > the namby pamby half hearted exchanges of petty
> > spites. I don't *like* the *ambiguity* of the middle
> > ground of minor petttiness. I like it to be *clear*
> > whether cooperation or competition is the optimal
> > mode as then *I* can commit more fully to either
> > and not waste my time.
>
> Me:
> Hahahahaha :) I doubt things are resolved to ur
> satisfaction on a regular basis, insofar as people who
> would feel the need to reach for the "ambiguity of
> the middle ground" are rarely capable (emotionally)
> to offer such a clear statement of intent.
>
> Or perhaps I'm coloring I'm simply painting it through
> the lense of my experiences.
[Brett] You've got me pegged pretty right. But peoples
*actions* are often less ambiguous than their words.
In the absence of a clear statement of intent I can deem
one to have been made on their behalf.
Eg. A drunk driver is no less dangerous for meaning
no harm and from me would probably get little mercy
despite quite a lot of understanding. I'd understand that
with a reduce capacity to think clearly they drove
worse and dangerously but I'd also read into the
action that they were not drunk when they decided
to drink and their culpability and my validation for regarding
them with extreme prejudice follows from their earlier
decision.
>
> <shrugs>
>
> But in essence (at least theoretically), I agree.
> RL tends to be less direct.
Sorry you lost me with RL?
> > >... and the great fear that stops a lesser mind from
> > becoming a greater mind is the fear of looking stupid.
> >
> > Oh I'd agree with that statement insofar as it is a
> > limiting factor for attempting new directions;
>
> You:
> Hell, more than that its a limiting factor in learning.
> Most of us live lives surrounded by sources of good
> information and people who will as happily help us
> and return one good turn for another as not. Once
> one builds up some credibility and a stock of skills
> contacts and a knowledge base to trade even the
> trade gets to be informal and people with win/win
> attitudes to mutual empowerment tend to seek
> each other out.
>
> Me:
> Thats also limited though by ur access to such
> people, and what they have to offer in trade (versus
> what you are offering and their needs).
As I've gotten older (I'm now 36) I've found that getting
access to what some would regard as influential people
is often surprisingly easy. But then I rarely approach
them without a good reason and I'm not likely to be
after their autograph.
> For instance,
> I have run {acting as one of those people who is very
> skilled in several areas within my extended family}
> into several roadblocks; the largest being the difference
> in experience levels between my own level, and that of
> several cousins and other associated ilk, despite being
> of similar chronological age. The reality of the situation
> is that without a bloodline (regardless of time in shared
> common experiences), I would probably not have
> bothered, since they have nothing notable of trade.
Yep. I get what your saying. Sometimes perhaps for family
or perhaps because ones sees someone be generous to
others or perhaps just because the simple humanity of the
other is enough to build a bridge between you - you give
them trade credit. Latter maybe they repay you.
> Even
> the most sophisticated of them required (practically
> speaking), approx 3 years to even begin to develop
> an outlook that will eventually lead to a good set of
> offerings.
I think everyone has something to trade, the exchanges
are not always equal ones, and when the other tries to
bullshit you the trade should be terminated with extreme
prejudice. And sometimes you just have to say sorry
can't help today or this time.
>
> > >The fear of *looking* stupid might very well
> > > cost people their lives in coming decades.
> > > Ignorance and stupidity are not the same thing.
> > > We all start ignorant.
> >
> > I'd like to think we all remain ignorant [given the
> > sheer volume of information and possibilities];
> > some of us just manage to migrate to (slightly)
> > lesser degrees of ignorance.
>
> You:
> I see in this what I consider to be a socrates fallacy, ie,
> the notion that as nothing can really be known the
> person who thinks they know nothing is actually wisest.
>
> Me:
> Oh I wouldn't go so far; I am merely pointing
> out to pin down any particular statement as a fact,
> you generally have to limit the domain in which u are
> discussing; and that given true mastery of this
> environment {which is at least, my goal} cannot be
> had given the limitation just expressed, ergo we will
> never be able to completely remove from ourselves
> a state of ignorance {given the expansion of the domain}
> :)
>
> Or as David Bowie said in one of his songs,
> that @ a certain point in development {of say, a
> technology), I don't prefer knowledge, just certainty :)
Seems I misunderstood you. Sorry. Am I right to infer
that you'd agree that even within even a complex
domain where certainty is not possible that you'd
still prefer and persue means to reduce the extent
of the uncertainty, to reduce your ignorance as much
as possible. I could be off on a tangent here.
> You:
> <snip>
>
> We are social to an extent, (it is not sensible or useful
> or healthy for us to personally doubt this), we are
> reasonable to an extent ( again let socrates or the
> neo-socratics take a shot at that as a fallacy). Once
> we know we are social and we are ration[al] we know
> some things that are useful to us, to our happiness
> and our development. We learn that we have freedoms
> but that we remain free within bounds. We cannot
> violate the contingent nature of the universe.
>
> Me:
>
> Yes, but that leaves in a continual state of ignorance,
> does it not? There *is* no final point of enlightment
> where we mystically shed our ignorance and reach
> an enlightended state :)
Ignorance about some things yes. But not ignorance
all things. The subjective individual sits in the centre
of their own universe and reaches outward with their
mind for patterns to integrate or learn. The subjective
centre is solid. There is no basis for ignoring or being
ignorant that we each construct our own worldviews
from a subjective centre. And this subjective centre
is *above* and outside scientific truth. Reason,
science, language, proof these are words to us that
only make sense to us because others like us have
taught us their meaning. But our capacity to reason
our propensity to be social these are the birthright of
the "self" these we can take as certainties even without
using the words.
> Ergo my previous statement
> of simply being able to reach lesser degrees of
> ignorance.
Wow. Perhaps we have come in a circle or were at
cross purposes because now I am agreeing with you.
Ignorance is a matter of degree. (But there are some
certainties).
I wonder if you are agreeing with me that there are some
elemental truths (some certainties) more fundamental than
science and less social than proof of which we are not
ignorant. Indeed they form the foundation of what we
build on top of them. Or rather we build outward from
our subjective centre.
> You:
> My point, ignorance is a natural starting postion and
> it is not something to be *ashamed* of, but nor is it
> in itself a positive virtue. Socrates was wrong. The
> wisest man is not the man who knows he knows
> nothing. Imo :-) A wiser man knows that he is
> rational and social and that he will find health and
> satisfaction and good relations at least potentially
> with other men (or women) if he proceeds on the
> basis of these truths that present themselves to him
> on a level even more fundamental than scientific
> truths.
>
> Me:
> I wouldn't go so far as to agree with you
> regarding ur point on Socrates; I think we simply
> differ in our intrepratations :) You seem to imply that
> Socrates was saying ignorance is a blessed state;
That was not my intent. I think Socrates was trying
to disclose hypocrosy and false knowledge and his
method works well to a point. But it works in dialectic.
The monologue of the subjective and some truths
are untouchable by Socrates.
> whereas I think that Socrates
> was stating a simple truth; that no matter how much
> knowledge you accumulate, there is still so much
> more to learn, and past that, too many probabilities
> to deal with. He wasn't explicitly giving a
> comparison function; merely observing that anyone
> with half a brain will also have hit a similar
> conclusion.... which of course, implies a test of sorts....
> Of course, the game can get deeper from there :)
I am I think only partly getting your meaning now.
Let me try another take. 1 and 1 make 2. This is
a truth open to any inquiring rational mind. The
words may be changed but the referents don't.
A person may not be a mathematical genius but
still be sure that one and one make two. The rest
of the mathematical domain can be built on top
of that (not by all of us and not completely) so to
some extent all of remain ignorant of mathematics
if we make ignorance or non ignorance of all
mathematics the issue. If we have to answer truthfully
to ourselves do I understand all mathematics yes or
no or am I ignorant of the domain as an entirety (but
not elements of it) them yes, one can be ignorant.
But in practical terms we take on the subject matter
in complex domains in increments. We model reality
we don't perceive the whole shebang in one hit. One
can reduce ones ignorance of the whole shebang
by degrees. But not remove ignorance of all entirely.
> and BTW - just because you achieve a lesser state
> of ignorance does not mean u neccesarily are more
> competent that someone else in the grand scheme of
> things; I, for instance, though quite skilled in several
> areas, would not care to go head to head with a peasant
> in the area concerning growing things.
True. There are different domains of knowledge that each
or us can pursue. But importantly imo there are some
domains of knowledge that all of us MUST persue or
be in a state of bad faith with ourselves. And this is that
we must each perceive the world from the centre of
a subjective universe and that we start doing so with
a propensity for sociability and a capacity for rationality
and these two together gives us language which enable
us to approach to varing degrees the subjective
universe of the other.
> In other words,
> knowledge is not an instant path to success :) The fitness
> of ur function depends heavily on the environment in which
> you are competing.
Agreed. A nuclear physicist that can't swim across out
of a river when his boat sinks has in a way wasted some
of his time learning excess knowledge in one domain and
not enough in another - swimming.
But I come back to my central point. All of have some
domains in common. We all start from the subjective
centre, we all are social, we all are rational, and we all
value our lives. Our lives are the first value to us.
And perhaps we can use these universals in domain
to good effect. Perhaps we can ground a more rational
ethics. But I digress as well as rant :-)
Regards,
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 23 2003 - 10:19:23 MDT