Sentences (#73)

Bakker:

The problem, in a nut shell, is that we are shallow information consumers, evolved to generate as much gene-promoting behaviour out of as little environmental information as possible.

(Read the whole thing everything he’s ever written.)

September 13, 2016admin 60 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Realism

TAGGED WITH : , , ,

60 Responses to this entry

  • Garr Says:

    Has Plato really been proven wrong about the badness of writing/reading? When I try to explain something that I’ve read and thought I understood I almost always find that I haven’t understood it at all. So most of our reading might be a waste of time — we’d be better off spending our lives thinking about the first awesome stuff we read — Homer and Plato, maybe — than reading more stuff after that.
    Also, what’s the AI problem regarding big weird artificial environments that Bakker’s worried about? That we won’t know what the Machines are really up to until it’s too late?

    [Reply]

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    ▬ “When I try to explain something that I’ve read and thought I understood I almost always find that I haven’t understood it at all. So most of our reading might be a waste of time — we’d be better off spending our lives thinking about the first awesome stuff we read — Homer and Plato, maybe — than reading more stuff after that.”

    very interesting point. the reign of quantity, R. Guénon called it.

    i think people get an, as it were, neurological kick out of reading, like they do out of watching tv.

    normies read stuff every day as if just for the sake of reading it. useless news they forget minutes after.

    of course, the pseudo-enlightenment education institution is the extension of the collective psyche of the type of sub-normie (the “Teacher”) who wishes like the infra-level parody of an aryan roman priest that he is to create the collectivized mass mind that he sees as the ideal mind (which is an inversion of the alchemical process of individuation).

    [Reply]

    Garr Reply:

    Yes, I wish I could be an honest hermit instead of an unbelieving phony priest, although it would be nice to be a hermit with a girlfriend …

    [Reply]

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    i wasn´t entirely accurate when i said ‘normies read stuff every day as if just for the sake of reading it. useless news.‘ — because they do it as an extension of the popular mind formed by the mass education institution which they get metaphorically, but also biologically and psychologically plugged into when children. after ceasing school, so-called normie in-groups must receive mass news to be part of the mass mind. without the mass news they would soon become more localized minds instead of more universalized cathedral minds. this is a process that started with the original cathedral: the church and its convinced-of. ‘catholic’ means universal after all.

    by receiving & dispensing mass news the image of the world according to the PR-iestly tellurian inversion of an aryan caste is maintained and updated in the mind of the unindividuated human units which act as the bodies and the flow of the cathedral; according to the needs of the former.

    PRopaganda PRops for PRos
    PRaise the PRiests
    of Nigritude
    News

    [Reply]

    Dick Wagner Reply:

    PRancin’ PRaxisless
    PReachin’ to the choir
    PRayin’ for PRudery

    Alrenous Reply:

    There’s a trick to knowing whether you know something after reading about it. Imagine actually doing it with lots of concrete detail. Also, if it all possible, actually try it ASAP. After a few cycles you’ll get a hunch for when important details are missing.

    Unfortunately this makes virtue signalling agonizingly obvious due to the utter desolation of details.

    [Reply]

    Garr Reply:

    I try to understand philosophers by drawing mental cartoons that translate their semi-metaphorical words such as “substance” and “understanding” into literal images. I know I don’t understand Carlyle (since you mention him, Dick Wagner) because I can’t construct a coherent cartoon out of the images and implicit images he offers in his books. Maybe the impossibility of “actually doing [Carlyle] with lots of concrete detail” is due to the impossibility of constructing this coherent Carlyle-cartoon.

    [Reply]

    Alrenous Reply:

    The key to understanding Carlyle is knowing what he’s trying to say ahead of time, since he doesn’t bother to explain himself.

    For me Carlyle ends up being a bunch of short suggestions for further research buried in paragraphs of meandering.

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Give us a Carlyle on information space

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    ▬ “Caught up in mere words a child is cut off from all reality, [creating] … a ‘proletariat of graduates.'”
    — Maurice Barres, 1902

    [Reply]

    Dick Wagner Reply:

    Schope-on-a-rope contra Plato:

    “At bottom it is the same with traveling as with reading. How often do we complain that we cannot remember one thousandth part of what we read! In both cases, however, we may console ourselves with the reflection that the things we see and read make an impression on the mind before they are forgotten, and so contribute to its formation and nurture…”

    The “we may console ourselves” may betray that this conclusion requires a leap of faith but I’ll take it (in order to perpetuate my nerd-lifestyle). It’s the nerd vs. the herd – I’d rather be formed and nurtured by Carlyle than Netboogerflix. P. S. @Cryptogenic: *mob chant* P K D
    P K D
    P K D
    P K D
    P K D

    [Reply]

    Garr Reply:

    Portions of texts that we don’t understand can initiate thought-streams that seem (for awhile) to be flowing into interesting places …
    I love PKD … What a beautiful person he was.

    [Reply]

    Dick Wagner Reply:

    Counter-Histories scramble the Cathedral Weltanschauung:

    However, it was a fact; the Pacific had done nothing toward colonization of the planets. It was involved – bogged down, rather – in South America. While the Germans were busy bustling enormous robot construction systems across space, the Japs were still burning off the jungles in the interior of Brazil, erecting eightfloor clay apartment houses for ex-headhunters. By the time the Japs got their first spaceship off the ground the Germans would have the entire solar system sewed up tight. Back in the quaint old history-book days, the Germans had missed out while the rest of Europe put the final touches on their colonial empires. However, Frink reflected, they were not going to be last this time; they had learned.

    And then he thought about Africa, and the Nazi experiment there. And his blood stopped in his veins, hesitated, at last went on.

    That huge empty ruin.

    The radio said: ’… we must consider with pride however our emphasis on the fundamental physical needs of peoples of all place, their subspiritual aspirations which must be …’

    Frink shut the radio off. Then, calmer, he turned it back on.

    Christ on the crapper, he thought. Africa. For the ghosts of dead tribes. Wiped out to make a land of – what? Who knew? Maybe even the master architects in Berlin did not know. […]

    But Africa. They had simply let their enthusiasm get the better of them there, and you had to admire that, although more thoughtful advice would have cautioned them to perhaps let it wait a bit until, for instance, Project Farmland had been completed. Now there the Nazis had shown genius; the artist in them had truly emerged. The Mediterranean Sea bottled up, drained, made into tillable farmland, through the use of atomic power – what daring! How the sniggerers had been set back on their heels, for instance certain scoffing merchants along Montgomery Street. And as a matter of fact, Africa had almost been successful … but in a project of that sort, almost was an ominous word to begin to hear. Rosenberg’s well-known powerful pamphlet issued in 1958; the word had first shown up, then. As to the Final Solution of the African Problem, we have almost achieved our objectives. Unfortunately, however –

    Still, it had taken two hundred years to dispose of the American aborigines, and Germany had almost done it in Africa in fifteen years. So no criticism was legitimately in order. Childan had, in fact, argued it out recently while having lunch with certain of those other merchants. They expected miracles, evidently, as if the Nazis could remold the world by magic. No, it was science and technology and that fabulous talent for hard work; the Germans never stopped applying themselves. And when they did a task, they did it right.

    […]

    Herr J. Goebbels. Suffered polio in youth. Originally Catholic. Brilliant orator, writer, flexible and fanatic mind, witty, urbane, cosmopolitan. Much active with ladies. Elegant. Educated. Highly capable. Does much work; almost frenzied managerial drive. Is said never to rest. Muchrespected personage. Can be charming, but is said to have rabid streak unmatched by other Nazi’s. Ideological orientation suggesting medieval Jesuitic viewpoint exacerbated by post-Romantic Germanic nihilism. Considered sole authentic intellectual of the Partei. Had ambitions to be playwright in youth. Few friends. Not liked by subordinates, but nevertheless highly polished product of many best elements in European culture. Not self-gratification, is underlying ambition, but power for its use purely. Organizational attitude in classic Prussian State sense.

    […]

    Only the white races endowed with creativity, he reflected… These people are not exactly human. They don the dress but they’re like monkeys dolled up in the circus. They’re clever and can learn, but that is all.

    […]

    ‘I would like to know,’ Robert said, ‘what he supposes it would be like in world where Germany and Japan lost the war.’
    Neither Paul nor Betty answered for a time. Then Paul said at last, ‘Very complicated differences. Better to read the book. It would spoil it for you, possibly, to hear.’
    ‘I have strong convictions on the subject,’ Robert said. ‘I have frequently thought it over. The world would be much worse.’ He heard his voice sound out firm, virtually harsh. ‘Much worse.’
    They seemed taken by surprise. Perhaps it was his tone.
    ‘Communism would rule everywhere,’ Robert continued.
    Paul nodded. ‘The author, Mr. H. Abendsen, considers that point, as to unchecked spread of Soviet Russia. But same as in First World War, even on winning side, second-rate mostly peasant Russia naturally takes pratfall. Big Laughingstock, recalling Japan War with them, when – ’
    ‘We have had to suffer, to pay the cost,’ Robert said. ‘But we did it for a good cause. To stop Slavic world inundation.’

    And all under the mask of “the writer”.

    Posted on September 13th, 2016 at 11:04 am Reply | Quote
  • Henk Says:

    Thanks for that link, best in months.

    Gigerenzer nailed what heuristic thinking is about. Heuristics are fast and frugal. You only need (or want) expensive and slow general intelligence if your environment is changing faster than you can evolve your heuristics.

    Now let’s look at techno-capital’s host species, humans. They’re not changing too fast. Human evolution is slow as molasses compared to the speed of techno-capital’s OODA loop.

    Which means that techno-capital’s cognition can plausibly remain shallow and heuristic, too. It can probably live off humans forever without ever venturing into singularity and intelligence explosion. Cheaper and faster tends to be better – for everything that competes, not just monkeys.

    [Reply]

    frank Reply:

    Heuristics are unavoidable. It’s common sense computational resource economy.

    Heuristics, btw, are why humans are natural platonists. We find extremely pithy and powerful heuristics and eventually mistake them for reality. This affliction is most acute in mathematicians. They think infinities and continua exist in reality.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 13th, 2016 at 11:19 am Reply | Quote
  • Paul Ennis Says:

    The Bakker-Land convergence. Finally.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 13th, 2016 at 11:19 am Reply | Quote
  • michael Says:

    Ive often thought the apparent intellectual decline [yeah i know it is explained] but it sure seems real [compare dickens to rowling] is because we have lost our memory ability. The cathedral seems able to exist because bright brahmins only feel the need to know one talking point more than the prole.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 13th, 2016 at 11:34 am Reply | Quote
  • Mark Warburton Says:

    Does anyone know if (Bakker) his fiction is any good?

    [Reply]

    Cryptogenic Reply:

    I’ve only read “Neuropath.” It is very good as twisted genre fiction, superb as a primer for hardcore neuro topics, but poor as literature — most genre fiction is pretty bad as far as prose quality. Not everyone is PKD.

    [Reply]

    rxferret Reply:

    I’ve been reading the Prince of Nothing. It’s pretty damn good. Not a single hero in it; just people with their own goals and means of getting there. Kellhus is the closest thing the series has to an honest-to-god villain, but he’s the one who’s actually usually right and successful. Also, he appears to be the protagonist, though perspective does shift from him to the mage, to the barbarian. There is a coming apocalypse and only these three, whom hate each other, seem to know that it is even coming, let alone have the ability to stop it. Kellhus wins by understanding why people do what they do and manipulating them. It makes some hate him and other (who think it’s magic) worship him as a messiah, which, btw, he allows to continue, because it suits his goals.

    Sorry, I nerded out there.

    [Reply]

    Cryptogenic Reply:

    Excellent, I’ll read it soon. If you haven’t read “Neuropath” you definitely should. It’s also quite hardcore.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 13th, 2016 at 11:40 am Reply | Quote
  • kevembuangga Says:

    That’s darn idiotic, even a stone axe is a “competitive artifact”, if you lose it you are just as disabled as before.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 13th, 2016 at 11:45 am Reply | Quote
  • AD Says:

    not to derail, probably best ignored, but Nerds gonna nerd – Kelhus vs Valerie – death match (equal access to prep, magical training and tech) ? The F1 hybrid? who has time preference? virus laden black swans and mutations unseen by the gods?- possibilities abound.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 13th, 2016 at 12:16 pm Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    Shallow information consumption is the right response to most situations in nature; civilization is a different task, and one that requires more advanced thinkers to be our leaders.

    The problem with the quoted material is that it assumes equality, where the fact is that most people were never fit to make any decisions larger than “what’s for lunch.”

    Does that sound bigoted? Elitist, certainly. But accurate. As I watch the clown down the road building himself a 5,000 square foot home for himself and his wife, almost all of which is debt-financed, I have to shrug and reflect on how the Bell Curve rules us all, every day, and we win when the far-right section dominates the rest.

    [Reply]

    dmf Reply:

    that’s the thing we long ago created machines that have impacts far beyond our capacities to grasp and they are already wrecking havoc with the environment (as well as stock markets and such) so the collapse isn’t coming but rather we have been living in it (and feeding into it) for many many years.
    https://sms.cam.ac.uk/media/2314456

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 13th, 2016 at 12:31 pm Reply | Quote
  • Jefferson Says:

    This is consistent with the five books of Moses. There is nothing new under the sun.

    [Reply]

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Yeah. ‘New’ is just a concept. Everything has already happened.

    But I´m still curious about the elaboration of the books.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 13th, 2016 at 1:39 pm Reply | Quote
  • ossipago Says:

    Ruinous competition.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 13th, 2016 at 2:29 pm Reply | Quote
  • John Says:

    This is a rather dim view of existence. Weak!

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 13th, 2016 at 2:40 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kwisatz Haderach Says:

    I read the first two books of The Prince of Nothing series. Kellhus is an interesting idea for a character: a true ubermensch, bred for self-mastery and then brutally trained from an early age in the aristocratic arts. I wish he could tighten up his prose, though.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 13th, 2016 at 3:05 pm Reply | Quote
  • Aeroguy Says:

    His short story “crash space”, what a rush! Admin, you seriously need to do a post talking about your take on crash space, feels like I stumbled across another rabbit hole to explore.
    https://www.academia.edu/19469409/Crash_Space

    [Reply]

    Kwisatz Haderach Reply:

    Great short story!

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 13th, 2016 at 8:32 pm Reply | Quote
  • Dark Reformation Says:

    @dick Wagner.

    Did you write that, or is that from a book?

    [Reply]

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    That´s PKD.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 13th, 2016 at 8:44 pm Reply | Quote
  • Anon Says:

    >”As have been pointed out elsewhere in this blog, neural networks are no better than the data on which they are trained. The racial and gender bias built into the training data will be built into the networks and given a spurious veneer of objectivity. This suggests the new technologies will work to preserve the old injustices.”

    The injustice, the horror! [prog sweating intensifies]

    [Reply]

    Xoth Reply:

    Seems straightforward enough. We merely need socially just training sets on which to build our machine utopia.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 13th, 2016 at 9:32 pm Reply | Quote
  • Worm Says:

    @ Dark Reformation

    Dick Wagner’s comment before ended with P K D….P K D, so I’m assuming the long excerpt is from Philip K. Dick……

    Which reminds me….in Simulacra and Simulations, Baudrillard acknowledged that Philip K. Dick had not only already reflected on simulacra, but had also used that very same word in some of his novels.

    [Reply]

    Cryptogenic Reply:

    Anyone here reading Zebrapedia, the ongoing collation of the 8,000+ pages of PKD’s writings on VALIS/Zebra? http://zebrapedia.psu.edu/#!/

    Hypergraphic gone-ness abounds.

    [Reply]

    John Hannon Reply:

    Shallow information consumer that I am, all that I know of Zebrapedia so far has come from this Richard Doyle video clip –

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcrOQVTMqmo

    [Reply]

    John Hannon Reply:

    BTW, PKD’s encounter with VALIS recalls John Lilly’s encounter with what he called ECCO – Earth Coincidence Control Office. He talks about it here from around 7.20 –

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZ9cJ5wFqrk

    Dick Wagner Reply:

    @Hannon have you ever encountered a DMT “entity”? Do you have/know any theories or conspiracy theories about these critters?

    I tend to side with phenomenological givenness over physio-psychological reduction to “projection” on the matter… if that makes me schizophrenic I guess so be it.

    John Hannon Reply:

    @Dick
    Yes – most memorably a cheery garden gnome, smoking a pipe and pushing a wheelbarrow.
    I have absolutely no idea what these things are, or what their ontological status might be, though Terence McKenna (who I met a few times in London) used to think they were trying to teach him their “visually beheld” language, and tended to regard them as existing independently of us.
    I’d say that before we can even begin to fathom what they are, we first need to decide what consciousness is (the hard problem). Any takers?
    “Conscious experience is what being a brain is like,” is about the best I can come up with at the moment, and I’m not even sure about that. As Peter Russell observes –

    “The so-called ‘easy problems’ are those concerned with brain function and its correlation with mental phenomena: how, for example, we discriminate, categorize, and react to stimuli; how incoming sensory data are integrated with past experience; how we focus our attention; and what distinguishes wakefulness from sleep.
    The really hard problem is consciousness itself. Why should the processing of information in the brain lead to an inner experience? Why doesn’t it all go on in the dark, without any subjective aspect? Why do we have any inner life at all?
    I now believe this is not so much a hard problem as an impossible problem – impossible, that is, within the current scientific worldview. Our inability to account for consciousness is the trigger that will, in time, push Western science into a paradigm shift.”

    I suspect that what’s really being asked here is something like the Question of Being.

    Dick Wagner Reply:

    This is about as strange as it gets. William James is certainly correct to emphasize the *ineffable* quality of such experiences. Correct beyond words. Bracketing that aspect–which is what I take to be the *real* hard problem–I feel eerily similar to Koko the Gorilla using sign language in trying to point to the point that I can’t even point at what it is I’m supposedly pointing at with this very sentence. After having, as it used to be called on McKenna’s wiki page under “Influences”, ‘direct mystical experience’ myself the Philosophy of Mind apparatus of categories is eye-glazingly profane. David Chalmers, now there’s a man who breaks through to the other side (sorry I had to). Traditionalists talk about going back to Victorian England, they talk about going back to Aquinas, to the Pre-Socratics, but what about going back to Animism? That is Ur-Traditionalism. Panpsychism is the modern fashioning of that. The consciousness of everything is taboo though. As Martin Buber put it, “In man’s ordinary commonplace attitude, he perceives things and events… an ordered and detached world… a reliable world…” No one gives a hoot that the laptop they’re typing on is Conscious…. Bataille was getting at this too in his incessant (Heideggerian) diatribes against the World of Function, *calculativeness*. It’s understandable that we are Fallen… we can only calculatively critique calculativeness.

    If everything is animate alive, conscious, “ensouled”, etc. that begs the simple question of – is consciousness itself conscious? Therefore there must be a “substratum” or “matter/ial” that is there so that consciousness can turn-on the light of consciousness…. unless grammar is itself, from God’s eye-view flawed, and is a brute law we must operate by as God’s children.

    Hannon, what’s funny about this is: the best answer you could get about the ontological status of the Gnome… would be to ask *him*.

    These are NUMINOUS BEINGS that we’re trying to understand as humans.

    What’s even stranger than a Gnome is meeting the anthropomorphized Godhead.

    It’s part of God’s plan to be unable to describe these kinds of things.

    Posted on September 13th, 2016 at 10:10 pm Reply | Quote
  • Cryptogenic Says:

    @Alrenous

    “There’s a trick to knowing whether you know something after reading about it. Imagine actually doing it with lots of concrete detail. Also, if it all possible, actually try it ASAP. After a few cycles you’ll get a hunch for when important details are missing.”

    I think it was when I first decided to read Kant that I realized I was a poor close reader, that merely “getting the gist” or “seeing the issues” wasn’t anywhere near enough to cope with something that required massive unpacking — and that is what I wanted to crack because that’s where all the worthwhile information is.

    Eventually I settled on a style of close reading that amounts to slow re-reading as many times as necessary and summing up every sentence/paragraph of a work, and more or less re-writing the entire book. I never take notes.

    Probably there are 140+ IQ commenters around here who can zip through new and complex subjects with ease, but for me, it’s just repeated exposure and, as Alrenous said, actually putting what you’ve read to work. If you can’t do it, you’re not understanding anything.

    A full night’s sleep is optimal but not always possible, so coffee should be your constant companion.

    [Reply]

    Alrenous Reply:

    With a good book I spend at least as long staring into space thinking about what it says as I spend staring at the print.

    I found it was fine to practice close reading on easy stuff like newspaper and magazine articles. The issues remain complex even when simply presented. Also error calls forth correction etc.

    [Reply]

    Anon Reply:

    There is a common social meme where people complain about the difficulties of soldiering through a book because they end up reading the same couple paragraphs over and over, usually attributed to technology messing with our attention spans, but I’ve wondered to myself whether this is an issue of horsepower or just making sure one completely runs away with what one is reading. Probably both.

    [Reply]

    Cryptogenic Reply:

    @Alrenous

    I know exactly what you’re talking about. After a sentence and/or graph I will look up from the page and sort out what I’ve read (this is the “doing” part). A blank white wall is good for this. Caffeinated silence is highly desirable.

    Eventually this reflecting is no longer necessary and you can read whatever difficult text you’re trying to crack as if it were ordinary language, because now it is for you.

    Re-reading IS reading. Even if you’re somehow able to understand everything in one go, plenty of books only become understandable hermeneutically: the parts inform the whole and vice versa.

    [Reply]

    Cryptogenic Reply:

    @Anon

    I think most people don’t really know what reading for understanding is. They read as quickly as possible to find out what happens next and that’s it.

    [Reply]

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    I find it fare more interesting to make the context of every sentence mine, rather than the author´s. To me the author is just a relayer. I don´t care if he´s alive or dead or if this is a fragment from a 7th century alien manuscript. I don´t care which school he belongs to, which century, or religion. I ‘care’ only about what I can mine out of the text.

    (Hyperbole.)

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 14th, 2016 at 1:52 am Reply | Quote
  • Apothecary Says:

    Looking forward to Admin’s forthcoming review of ‘The Unholy Consult’.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 14th, 2016 at 4:10 am Reply | Quote
  • Dark Reformation Says:

    Before I went to University, I wanted to brush up on some “key skills”.

    I came across a book: How To Read A Book. By Mortimer Adler and Charles Van Doren.

    I highly recommend it.

    I also recommend a book called Knowledge As Design. It provides, in my view, the best theory of understanding I have ever came across. Or, read J. Baron’s Thinking and Deciding.

    [Reply]

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    >the best theory of understanding

    Why is that, would you say?

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 14th, 2016 at 12:25 pm Reply | Quote
  • Worm Says:

    @ John Hannon

    Since you mentioned John C. Lilly, you might be interested in G. Spencer Brown’s The Laws of Form. Lilly was a great admirer of Spencer Brown, and said reading Laws of Form had influenced his own work.

    “We take as given the idea of distinction …”

    “In this book, G. Spencer Brown has succeeded in doing what, in mathematics, is very rare indeed, he has revealed a new calculus, of great power and simplicity …” -Bertrand Russell, author, with Alfred North Whitehead, of Principia Mathematica

    The following quotation, including the footnote, is taken from Appendix 1 to G. Spencer Brown’s The Laws of Form:

    “Discoveries of any great moment in mathematics and other disciplines, once they are discovered, are seen to be extremely simple and obvious, and make everybody, including their discoverer, appear foolish for not having discovered them before. It is all too often forgotten that the ancient symbol for the prenascence of the world* is a fool, and that foolishness, being a divine state, is not a condition to be either proud or ashamed of.

    Unfortunately, we find systems of education today which have departed so far from the plain truth, that they now teach us to be proud of what we know and ashamed of ignorance. This is doubly corrupt. It is corrupt not only because pride is in itself a mortal sin, but also because to teach pride in knowledge is to put up an effective barrier against any advance upon what is already known, since it makes one ashamed to look beyond the bonds imposed by one’s ignorance.

    To any person prepared to enter with respect into the realm of his great and universal ignorance, the secrets of being will eventually unfold, and they will do so in measure according to his freedom from natural and indoctrinated shame in his respect of their revelation.

    In the face of the strong, and indeed violent, social pressures against it, few people have been prepared to take this simple and satisfying course towards sanity. And in a society where a prominent psychiatrist can advertise that given the chance, he would have treated Newton to electric shock therapy, who can blame any person for being afraid to do so?

    To arrive at the simplest truth, as Newton knew and practiced, requires years of contemplation. Not activity. Not reasoning. Not calculating. Not busy behaviour of any kind. Not reading. Not talking. Not making an effort. Not thinking. Simply bearing in mind what it is one needs to know. And yet those with the courage to tread this path to real discovery are not only offered practically no guidance on how to do so, they are actively discouraged and have to set about it in secret, pretending meanwhile to be diligently engaged in the frantic diversions and to conform with the deadening personal opinions which are being continually thrust upon them.

    In these circumstances, the discoveries that any person is able to undertake represent the places where, in the face of induced psychosis, he has by his own faltering and unaided efforts, returned to sanity. Painfully, and even dangerously, maybe. But nonetheless returned, however furtively.”

    * wer = man, ald = age, old. The world may be taken to be the manifest properties of the all, its identity with the age of man being evident through the fact that man is a primary animal with a hand (‘manifest’ coming from manus = hand, festus = struck). Thus the world is considerably less than the all, which includes the unmanifest, but considerably greater than ‘the’ universe (more correctly than any universe), which is merely the formal appearance of one of the possible manifestations which make up the world

    [Reply]

    John Hannon Reply:

    Yes, and another really interesting character much admired by Lilly was Franklin Merrell-Wolff, author of “The Philosophy of Consciousness-Without-an-Object.” –

    http://merrell-wolff.org/philosophy

    A fascinating writer and thinker who deserves much wider recognition.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 14th, 2016 at 4:48 pm Reply | Quote
  • Dark Reformation Says:

    @Eriiksson

    I read a fair bit of epistemology at Uni. There is a difference between knowledge and understanding, I would claim. And that book, by David Perkins, provided me with a theory.

    It is very simple. It consists of three things. Purpose, structure and argument. (It assumes that theories and explanations are designed for a purpose.)

    Purpose: the goal of X
    Structure: the design which serves the purpose.
    Argument: 1: Internal argument or validity. (How each element of the structure is designed to achieve or serve the purpose.) 2: External argument (empirical) or soundness. That the design actually achieves the purpose.

    I first encountered the theory in the book Thinking and Deciding. However, in that book, it was really only applied to mathematics, but I started to apply it to my own interests, firstly to test the theory but then as a tool. I applied it to: utilitarianism, Darwinism, the U.S constitutions (political and social designs in general.)

    Then I read the actual book — by David Perkins. It is a powerful tool that helps me organise and structure information.

    Hope that helps.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 14th, 2016 at 7:29 pm Reply | Quote
  • Worm Says:

    “Let us consider, for a moment, the world as described by the physicist.

    It consists of a number of fundamental particles which, if shot through their own space, appear as waves, and are thus… of the same laminated structure as pearls or onions, and other wave forms called electromagnetic which it is convenient, by Occam’s razor, to consider as traveling through space with a standard velocity.

    All these appear bound by certain natural laws which indicate the form of their relationship.

    Now the physicist himself, who describes all this, is, in his own account, himself constructed of it. He is, in short, made of a conglomeration of the very particulars he describes, no more, no less, bound together by and obeying such general laws as he himself has managed to find and to record.

    Thus we cannot escape the fact that the world we know is constructed in order (and thus in such a way as to be able) to see itself.

    This is indeed amazing.

    Not so much in view of what it sees, although this may appear fantastic enough, but in respect of the fact that it can see at all.

    But in order to do so, evidently it must first cut itself up into at least one state which sees, and at least one other state which is seen. In this severed and mutilated condition, whatever it sees is only partially itself.

    We may take it that the world undoubtedly is itself (i.e. is indistinct from itself), but, in any attempt to see itself as an object, it must, equally undoubtedly, act so as to make itself distinct from, and therefore false to, itself. In this condition it will always partially elude itself.”

    In this sense, in respect to its own information, the universe must expand to escape the telescopes through which we, who are it, are trying to capture it, which is us.”

    ― G. Spencer Brown, Laws Of Form

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 14th, 2016 at 10:43 pm Reply | Quote
  • (N) G. Eiríksson Says:

    How about w´all throw up a bit of YaRPing?

    Speaking of nerdism, I always thought it strange how mundane the other kids were. I´ve since wondered how Homo Nerdicus would have evolved?

    [Reply]

    frank Reply:

    Hyper-focus bestows fitness in civilization. Barbarians call it autism.

    [Reply]

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Yeah, I was thinking recently that proper whites are the most autistic. The darkness of the northern hemisphere increases adaptivity of verbal intelligence, and even spatial (considering that you have to navigate areas of dim light).

    Shortly: Dim light increases Inner Light.

    Yet we worship the sun.

    As symbol of

    inner.

    nous ☼

    [Reply]

    Cryptogenic Reply:

    Hyper-focus is what you get after taking drugs designed to help autistics.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 15th, 2016 at 7:09 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment