So the stick I used as a gun in my early youth was surpassed by a much more real and accurate version as I became of responsible hunting age. But, although the real hunting conquests were quite exciting and adventurous, they could not compare to the world I created, with my stick. Plus the rules were much less restrictive. Wow, do I feel for kids today with their screens. God Bless!!!
Thank you, I feel the same way. The worlds and adventures I created in my mind often made reality a disappointment, but was also a huge motivator, because I could envision something bigger, better and brighter. That's why it's important to never relinquish hope, because that beautiful glimmering world is eternal, and can still be brought back here through sweat, tears and sacrifice.
There are some who take the technical challenge of making the games more pliable to the imagination of the natural environment. They want your stick in that domain of the screen. But don’t worry the deranged money laundering and war mongering elite will be certain to channel them into gender ideology and relevant truth to crash them into a wall.
Great post, Theodore. Wisdom is gained through the synthesis of opposites. It also reminds me of the expression "the opposite of love is not hate but indifference."
Regarding monitoring one's gut instinct and pairing it with intellect -- this is so important, and I had mostly ignored my gut instinct (felt, in me, generally through unsettled jitteriness) until a couple of years ago. Listening to one's intuition -- even if one ultimately makes a different decision -- is critical.
Synthesizing these different layers of our minds and bodies is needed to become a better, wiser, more in-tune person.
Lastly, you're quite correct, doubting and questioning everything is the base of the scientific method. It's too bad society has forgotten it...
I also ignored my gut instincts in the past, which usually wasn't too disastrous but more unpleasant. However in the last few years, I'm pretty sure my gut instincts saved my life in spite of other deceptive thoughts. I'll never take my instincts for granted again.
When I think about people like Descartes, I immediate think I'm "standing on the shoulders of giants," but most of the giants have died off and what remains are closer to goblins.
That's one of the reasons why I like writing like this, because it puts a different spin on classic ideas that ends up pointing you in the same direction. And yeah, I only picked the phrase "malevolent God" because it sounded spookier, but Descartes even said his demon wouldn't be omnipresent, so that phrase is overkill but makes for a more stark image.
Since many people have lost touch with religion and family something has to take its place. Evil takes advantage of confused, groundless souls. Your essay as usual is beautifully written and sourced.
This is a really useful post for me. I have had such a hard time in the last few years mostly because I find it almost impossible to believe that someone would just stand up and lie to the whole country in public. I believe that the truth wins out in the end, and always comes out, so how can it be that someone would risk their reputation on a statement which one hundred percent will be proven eventually as a lie. But they do it, a lot, and nothing really bad necessarily happens.
I hear ya. I'm not sure how any reasonable person can look at the state of affairs and believe lying is ever worth the effort.
But those liars aren't reasonable people, if you can call them people after what they've done.
For whatever reason, things flip-flop back and forth in this world, and eventually lies do catch up, but probably the ones slurping down the lies will pay the price, like catching the hot potato. It's as if you can only get away with lying provided someone else accepts it, where the recipient is forced to pay the bill, but I'm sure there's other unseen bills as well. Nothing would function without the truth, so when it does win out in the end, it probably won't be pretty...
That does seem to be "the abandonment of philosophy". I have seen the creature as a variant of "Anubis, the Swallower of Millions"; but dressed as a porcupine, each quill having three barbs: Convenience, Probability, & Death.
I'm not familiar with "Borg". But "normal science" is quite a mouthful to pronounce on "space ship earth".
Nearly all of my experience with the history and philosophy of science centers on arguments around "creation" and "geocentrism".
I've mused much on what I call the "daemonic/technik interface" -- flying saucers have been suggested to be an illustration of that very problem: "the poor little demons need help, their spaceships break down, forcing them to land on earth" &c.
I regret that there is no other way to chat over the distance of a continent -- my "comments" have often waxed rudely long & I am pressed to consider posting them as articles.
Re: "normal science": I do recall Heidegger being paraphrased so: "that philosophy would be abandoned once it had found its fruit in technology".
And Fr. Seraphim Rose, of blessed memory observed, similarly, that every move of discovery in natural philosophy proves an inescapable ratcheting to a sort of slavery, the handmaiden of that tyranny to be found in "normal science". That last utterance was so free a paraphrase that, well, you may have "heard it here, first".
It sounds like Descartes was the founder of modern applied mathematics -- I declare this with appropriate vagueness, since I am competent only to eighth grade math.
I never liked philosophy because I thought it was replaced by science and math, and came off as nonsense word salad. Modern philosophy is pretty nonsensical, and its ideas can be boiled down into much simpler terms. Perhaps the over-complication is to minimize scrutiny through complexity.
I suspect real philosophy is the inner equivalent to our outer sciences and techniques; technology actually means the language of or study of technique. And so, the crude and heartless inner representation of the world is reflected outwards, which by that logic, the handmaiden of tyranny found in "normal science" is a reflection of some core set of tyrannical ideas, worshipped like a god. I suspect modern science is closer to alchemy than anything else, implying it's a pursuit for the philosopher's stone that promises absolute control in exchange for a forbidden sacrifice.
I've looked at a few minutes of the Borg, but don't readily discern its significance. It is much harder to debate than the giant mainframe in the original Star Trek -- that clip is for me, one of the high points of the old series.
The Borg is forced collectivism through technology, where individuality is erased and integrated into the goals of the collective. It's suppose to be an allegory for communism and technocracy, but also alludes to the future of The Federation and the end state of liberal ideals. The Black Cube is also an esoteric symbol for Saturn, which devours its young and imprisons souls.
I recall long ago seeing a "post" engraved on a college restroom wall, when graffiti was better: "Cogito ergo sumtimes".
Your reference to Descartes is refreshing -- I hadn't read any of his work outside of the above example. My own tour through the history of philosophy of science has been an inductive shot-peaning or lapidary tumble -- indispensable, but nothing of academic value.
Copernicus, no! Geocentrism. Couldn't help it, had to blurt it out. Sorry, helps me digest.
Michael Crichton, in his "Jurassic Park" takes some real jabs at "normal science", eventually arranging for his chief villain, a "normal scientist" to be disemboweled by one of his own GMO's. It's wonderful to have encountered this in the hugely popular page-turner.
But what now? "Normal science" promoting and cloaking its recklessness in the language of the same Star Trek, which had made NASA's science fictional leaps seem like glamping. I'm sure it was having seen the stars whizzing by "like-telephone-poles-on-the-highway" back home that made going for a hike in the woods seem more burdensome than it "really" was.
I think what's so crazy about Descartes is how pivotal his ideas were.
Take for example the Cartesian coordinate system. Without that as a basis we wouldn't have all the other fancy coordinate systems, or the tricks to create and decompose problems using coordinate systems. It's a literal foundation for modern mathematics.
Now take Descartes' Demon. Yes, that forms the scientific thought process of "its fallacious until proven otherwise," but it's also the inspiration for modal logic, which is heavily used in computer science and philosophy.
"Normal science" has taken a disturbing turn, as alluded to in films like Jurassic Park, and Star Trek where their recreation is playtending old cultures and fighting their inevitable future of becoming Borg. Real science should be about discovery, not control, because control is the temptation from a more biblical Demon.
But doesn’t “gaming” give the adult imagination that ‘jolt’ it needs to be free in imagining? Well, besides the algorithms that tunnel them into advertising dollars from degenerate attachments.
A mass media frenzy of manipulating imagination and childhood desires never freed. So you will have nothing and be happy, of course.
I was just talking to my friend on the phone about something similar (she randomly decided to read this post).
I think some forms of entertainment do give you that imaginative jolt, but there's usually a persuasive message hidden inside or it's meant to keep you focused on particular ideas. She brought up sports, and I thought that was a good example of how people become so focused on their entertainment that their attention becomes misdirected from more important issues to the point where now a significant portion of the population literally owns nothing but are happy.
So the stick I used as a gun in my early youth was surpassed by a much more real and accurate version as I became of responsible hunting age. But, although the real hunting conquests were quite exciting and adventurous, they could not compare to the world I created, with my stick. Plus the rules were much less restrictive. Wow, do I feel for kids today with their screens. God Bless!!!
Thank you, I feel the same way. The worlds and adventures I created in my mind often made reality a disappointment, but was also a huge motivator, because I could envision something bigger, better and brighter. That's why it's important to never relinquish hope, because that beautiful glimmering world is eternal, and can still be brought back here through sweat, tears and sacrifice.
There are some who take the technical challenge of making the games more pliable to the imagination of the natural environment. They want your stick in that domain of the screen. But don’t worry the deranged money laundering and war mongering elite will be certain to channel them into gender ideology and relevant truth to crash them into a wall.
Great post, Theodore. Wisdom is gained through the synthesis of opposites. It also reminds me of the expression "the opposite of love is not hate but indifference."
Regarding monitoring one's gut instinct and pairing it with intellect -- this is so important, and I had mostly ignored my gut instinct (felt, in me, generally through unsettled jitteriness) until a couple of years ago. Listening to one's intuition -- even if one ultimately makes a different decision -- is critical.
Synthesizing these different layers of our minds and bodies is needed to become a better, wiser, more in-tune person.
Lastly, you're quite correct, doubting and questioning everything is the base of the scientific method. It's too bad society has forgotten it...
I also ignored my gut instincts in the past, which usually wasn't too disastrous but more unpleasant. However in the last few years, I'm pretty sure my gut instincts saved my life in spite of other deceptive thoughts. I'll never take my instincts for granted again.
When I think about people like Descartes, I immediate think I'm "standing on the shoulders of giants," but most of the giants have died off and what remains are closer to goblins.
I wonder if you and Descartes realized how close you were to preaching Christianity.
The primary difference that I see is that the only God, (large G), that actually exists, is not malevolent, but benevolent.
There is a malevolent god, (small g), that also exist. Not really a God, but powerful. Dangerous.
He does live under the bed, and everywhere else too. Not because he is omnipresent, but because he has billions of proxies, yes, demons.
You had the right idea.
That's one of the reasons why I like writing like this, because it puts a different spin on classic ideas that ends up pointing you in the same direction. And yeah, I only picked the phrase "malevolent God" because it sounded spookier, but Descartes even said his demon wouldn't be omnipresent, so that phrase is overkill but makes for a more stark image.
Since many people have lost touch with religion and family something has to take its place. Evil takes advantage of confused, groundless souls. Your essay as usual is beautifully written and sourced.
I'm glad you liked it :) Yes, the soul is like a vessel that always must be full, and when it empties of grace an ugly thing takes its place.
This is a really useful post for me. I have had such a hard time in the last few years mostly because I find it almost impossible to believe that someone would just stand up and lie to the whole country in public. I believe that the truth wins out in the end, and always comes out, so how can it be that someone would risk their reputation on a statement which one hundred percent will be proven eventually as a lie. But they do it, a lot, and nothing really bad necessarily happens.
I hear ya. I'm not sure how any reasonable person can look at the state of affairs and believe lying is ever worth the effort.
But those liars aren't reasonable people, if you can call them people after what they've done.
For whatever reason, things flip-flop back and forth in this world, and eventually lies do catch up, but probably the ones slurping down the lies will pay the price, like catching the hot potato. It's as if you can only get away with lying provided someone else accepts it, where the recipient is forced to pay the bill, but I'm sure there's other unseen bills as well. Nothing would function without the truth, so when it does win out in the end, it probably won't be pretty...
Maybe that ugliness that comes in the end is what keeps people honest for awhile. Really enjoyable reading. Thank you.
the imaginary can bring good innovation but it can also bring great foolishness
It's a double edged sword that must be wielded with prudence.
That does seem to be "the abandonment of philosophy". I have seen the creature as a variant of "Anubis, the Swallower of Millions"; but dressed as a porcupine, each quill having three barbs: Convenience, Probability, & Death.
There's much more in your reply worthy of comment -- more later.
Thanks! I'll look into the Borg.
Alan Bloom's "The Closing of the American Mind" has been my survey course in modern philosophy.
Its title is commonly misunderstood, as his advocacy is rather against the open-mindedness taught in American education since the mid thirties.
I'm not familiar with "Borg". But "normal science" is quite a mouthful to pronounce on "space ship earth".
Nearly all of my experience with the history and philosophy of science centers on arguments around "creation" and "geocentrism".
I've mused much on what I call the "daemonic/technik interface" -- flying saucers have been suggested to be an illustration of that very problem: "the poor little demons need help, their spaceships break down, forcing them to land on earth" &c.
I regret that there is no other way to chat over the distance of a continent -- my "comments" have often waxed rudely long & I am pressed to consider posting them as articles.
Re: "normal science": I do recall Heidegger being paraphrased so: "that philosophy would be abandoned once it had found its fruit in technology".
And Fr. Seraphim Rose, of blessed memory observed, similarly, that every move of discovery in natural philosophy proves an inescapable ratcheting to a sort of slavery, the handmaiden of that tyranny to be found in "normal science". That last utterance was so free a paraphrase that, well, you may have "heard it here, first".
It sounds like Descartes was the founder of modern applied mathematics -- I declare this with appropriate vagueness, since I am competent only to eighth grade math.
You're missing out with the Borg.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8A-SIfD0IU
I never liked philosophy because I thought it was replaced by science and math, and came off as nonsense word salad. Modern philosophy is pretty nonsensical, and its ideas can be boiled down into much simpler terms. Perhaps the over-complication is to minimize scrutiny through complexity.
I suspect real philosophy is the inner equivalent to our outer sciences and techniques; technology actually means the language of or study of technique. And so, the crude and heartless inner representation of the world is reflected outwards, which by that logic, the handmaiden of tyranny found in "normal science" is a reflection of some core set of tyrannical ideas, worshipped like a god. I suspect modern science is closer to alchemy than anything else, implying it's a pursuit for the philosopher's stone that promises absolute control in exchange for a forbidden sacrifice.
I've looked at a few minutes of the Borg, but don't readily discern its significance. It is much harder to debate than the giant mainframe in the original Star Trek -- that clip is for me, one of the high points of the old series.
The Borg is forced collectivism through technology, where individuality is erased and integrated into the goals of the collective. It's suppose to be an allegory for communism and technocracy, but also alludes to the future of The Federation and the end state of liberal ideals. The Black Cube is also an esoteric symbol for Saturn, which devours its young and imprisons souls.
Another great read, thank you! (and I wish I could write like this)
Glad you enjoyed it :) And trust me, it's only readable because of the amount of editing I do.
Very thought provoking , I think therefore I am type stuff
I think therefore I type, and click - and sometimes scroll.
I recall long ago seeing a "post" engraved on a college restroom wall, when graffiti was better: "Cogito ergo sumtimes".
Your reference to Descartes is refreshing -- I hadn't read any of his work outside of the above example. My own tour through the history of philosophy of science has been an inductive shot-peaning or lapidary tumble -- indispensable, but nothing of academic value.
Copernicus, no! Geocentrism. Couldn't help it, had to blurt it out. Sorry, helps me digest.
Michael Crichton, in his "Jurassic Park" takes some real jabs at "normal science", eventually arranging for his chief villain, a "normal scientist" to be disemboweled by one of his own GMO's. It's wonderful to have encountered this in the hugely popular page-turner.
But what now? "Normal science" promoting and cloaking its recklessness in the language of the same Star Trek, which had made NASA's science fictional leaps seem like glamping. I'm sure it was having seen the stars whizzing by "like-telephone-poles-on-the-highway" back home that made going for a hike in the woods seem more burdensome than it "really" was.
I think what's so crazy about Descartes is how pivotal his ideas were.
Take for example the Cartesian coordinate system. Without that as a basis we wouldn't have all the other fancy coordinate systems, or the tricks to create and decompose problems using coordinate systems. It's a literal foundation for modern mathematics.
Now take Descartes' Demon. Yes, that forms the scientific thought process of "its fallacious until proven otherwise," but it's also the inspiration for modal logic, which is heavily used in computer science and philosophy.
"Normal science" has taken a disturbing turn, as alluded to in films like Jurassic Park, and Star Trek where their recreation is playtending old cultures and fighting their inevitable future of becoming Borg. Real science should be about discovery, not control, because control is the temptation from a more biblical Demon.
But doesn’t “gaming” give the adult imagination that ‘jolt’ it needs to be free in imagining? Well, besides the algorithms that tunnel them into advertising dollars from degenerate attachments.
A mass media frenzy of manipulating imagination and childhood desires never freed. So you will have nothing and be happy, of course.
I was just talking to my friend on the phone about something similar (she randomly decided to read this post).
I think some forms of entertainment do give you that imaginative jolt, but there's usually a persuasive message hidden inside or it's meant to keep you focused on particular ideas. She brought up sports, and I thought that was a good example of how people become so focused on their entertainment that their attention becomes misdirected from more important issues to the point where now a significant portion of the population literally owns nothing but are happy.