|
U-Know! Forum » Lying for Columbine |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Dog 3000 4611 posts |
Oct 08, 2003, 20:52
|
||
|
The issue is not about "the perfect model" it's about "the most practical and useful model." The model that is self-correcting over time and can be used to "do things" (rational) vs. the static model that produces few results (magic.) When I express a preference for rationality over magic, I'm not saying rationality is perfect or can answer every question. Just that it's more USEFUL than magical explanations. Call me Mr. Rational-Practical.
|
|||
stray 2057 posts |
Oct 08, 2003, 21:08
|
||
|
aha! got you. What I'm saying is the magical model isn't static either. But then our definitions of the term differ. Sure, religions change their rules (or dogma) in order to cope with changes in understanding outside of their accepted terms of reference. Observing these changes can be worthwhile. Religion, I think is what you mean by a magical model. yeah ? To me a magical model is a union with the 'other' and a communication with it of sorts. I know, from your own experiences and the way you've explained yourself you'll right off what I'm saying now as total bollocks, and probably a form of madness. Thats fine, I used to be the same in that regard, till I achieved this kind of union. So now, as well as using scientific and philosophical methods to understand things I also check it out with the 'other' (god, HGA, spirit, whatever, insert noun of choice) through what I call discernement. The annoying thing is 99 times out of a 100 the message I get back from the other is 'whats the fucking point working that out ?' So, my commune is static in function, but not in message, obviously, it couldnt be. So it's not Static, its a learning process in that its like having a mentor. And, of course, it gives me purpose and mission also. And purpose and mission that cannot be expressed with any form of language at all, unfortunately.
|
|||
|
Dog 3000 4611 posts |
Oct 08, 2003, 21:12
|
||
|
"Agreed. As I was saying, relating this to the guys article, his map is as flawed as any other. I also dont believe applying many maps gets you closer to anything. But thats just me." Back to the article again, I think his problem is he seems to be mixing his argument for HOW TO BUILD A BETTER MAP with arguments about his own personal map as it relates to politics. You kind of have to use examples when making an argument about "how to build a better map", but he could have chosen ones that would be more convincing. And I certainly do think the map makes a difference -- some maps will get you through the forest, others will get you lost and running in circles. You judge the map by what it can do for you. "It FLOWS FROM OBSERVATION, not the other way around. -- Same with magical models I'm afraid, they're based on experiences. They didn't come out of a vaccum." Yes but magical models don't have a buil-in self-correcting mechanism. The Judeo-Xtian explanation for where humans come from hasn't changed a bit in 3000 years. It never will change (unless Christ comes back and writes new chapters to the bible.) I said: "Understanding" . . . that's very philosophical. The point is "rationality" makes the Internet work and airplanes fly. All magic ever does is make you "feel better about things you don't understand." You said: "This makes no sense in regard to anything I said. I dont care about defining a difference between magical or rational in terms of thought. Or in terms of anything else for that matter. I was saying it's irrelevant, and a futile way of looking at thought, for the reasons I detailed earlier." I thought we were talking about "heuristics -- analysis -- methods for building models." Seems obvious to me there are different ways to do these things, and that they produce different outcomes. What makes the Internet run? Is it God or Magick? Or is it Rationality and Science? I think it still goes back to the basic idea of "drawing conclusions from data" aka "rationality" vs. "explaining data using pre-determined assumptions" aka "magic." "I fail to see the difference between model and mechanism personally. I've built plenty of models in my career, could be my own personal perceptually problem here. God is a model too u know ? not one that can be quantised, but heck there are shitloads of things that can't be quantised, which is my point." By "mechanism" I meant the idea that "God made something happen." You would never say "probability made something happen." Probability is a human model to predict the odds of a certain outcome, it says WHAT ARE THE CHANCES? and nothing about WHO, WHY or HOW. I sort of agree with you about God being a model -- the point being, it's not a very good model. We've passed beyond the stage where magical models are useful. And finally the fact that there are lots of things that can't be quantified is beside the point. It's not a question of perfection, it's a question of "which works best?" "Look. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong working with approximations. What I am saying is it is wrong to say 'its right, it's the truth' simply because its self fulfilling. No sensible scientist or philosopher would talk that way." Now who's getting all semantic? ;-) If you want to be technical, it's that something is rationaly 'true' to the extent that the rational explanation is the one that best fits observed data and best predicts things (such as "this airplane I have designed will actually fly.") It's not "absolutely true" because what is "absolutely" anything? On the other hand, something is "magically true" if you believe in the underlying magical assumptions. But chances are that broomstick won't actually fly.
|
|||
|
stray 2057 posts |
Oct 08, 2003, 21:18
|
||
|
Sorry have to be a bit pedantic on this point "The Judeo-Xtian explanation for where humans come from hasn't changed a bit in 3000 years. It never will change (unless Christ comes back and writes new chapters to the bible.)2 wholly untrue. The point as christ laid down was to receive the holy spirit and then listen to it. Therefore, it can adapt. Just because the gospels finish at a set point in time doesnt mean that the system itself does. check some of the gospels missing from the bible where he makes an attempt to explain this, particularly the Gospel of Thomas. Its about you and god, not dogma, and not rules apart from the 'love one another' rule.
|
|||
|
stray 2057 posts |
Oct 08, 2003, 21:18
|
||
Yeah. Ignore Paul, he was just a power hungry loony who used the spirit per se to make his power base.
|
|||
morfe 2992 posts |
Oct 08, 2003, 21:24
|
||
|
"God is a model too u know " Think he'd let me photograph his huge and omnipresent nob, in black and white, ala Mapplethorpe?? hoo!
|
|||
|
Dog 3000 4611 posts |
Oct 08, 2003, 21:26
|
||
|
I wouldn't say it's "mad" but it is "irrational." ;-) Methinks there's two levels of human existence: the "earthly" (what to eat, where to shit, who to fuck or vote for, etc.) and the "spiritual" (wondering "why am I here? Where did I come from?" and so on.) Rationality and science really can't answer the spiritual concerns. You can't prove or disprove the idea that "the Goddess has a plan for me" (or however you want to phrase the big question whose answer we already know to be "42"). You can simply BELIEVE it or not, which is not a rational mode of thought. I never said rationality was the answer to everything. My larger point is that "magical analysis" (and I'd call religion a subset of that) isn't very useful for earthly concerns, like politics and economics and that sort of thing. A certain policy will lift people out of poverty or it will throw more people into poverty. You can measure the results and adjust the policy accordingly. Magic won't feed the starving, though it might make them feel better about starving (or make you feel better about the fact that others are starving.) As for me personally, I bet you wouldn't be surprised to know that I'm a "philosophical agnostic, practicing atheist." By which I mean I don't really care "why we're here" (rationally, I don't think the question is answerable -- spiritually, I don't see what difference it would make in how I'd live my life) -- so I don't waste my time with any of that magical stuff. I do believe in "practices" like Tai-Chi and Yoga though . . . for rational, non-spiritual reasons, of course. ;-)
|
|||
|
stray 2057 posts |
Oct 08, 2003, 21:28
|
||
|
heheheh.. u see, you're instincts are telling you theres something else going on you weirdo body bending person you ;P The intellect only gets you so far, theres a helluva lot further, but you know this anyhow.
|
|||
|
stray 2057 posts |
Oct 08, 2003, 21:29
|
||
And there is nothing irrational about experience. My own was colossal, and impossible to intellectualise out of existance.
|
|||
|
stray 2057 posts |
Oct 08, 2003, 21:30
|
||
it would if he had a knob, or a gender. But I think its cool to make him one, but only as long as it's a temporary thing.
|
| Pages: 10 – [ Previous | 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
