The Ontology of Mind: The Gödelian Argument

Posted by Notus Wind on Tuesday, 31 August 2010 15:24.

Dedicated to: Grimoire

“It is my…presumption that the ‘Heidegger epiphany’ is the realization of the inherent weakness in symbolic reasoning structures - and thus an opening up of a gap in the faith in the mind which is our modern western religion - by showing that we don’t know what ‘is’ is, among other things.” - PF

We start off this series by considering what is now called the Gödelian argument, but before I get into the details of how this argument works I would like to first say a few words about the perspective that we’ll be taking.  Our aim in this series will not be to develop a theory of mind from first principles but to isolate certain characteristics of mind and subordinate them to the analytical tools that we have available to us in the Western tradition.  However, the conclusions that come out of this process should inform whatever theory of mind that we seek to develop and should also serve as an imperfect diagnostic through which theories of mind can be evaluated.

In brief, the Gödelian argument endeavors to claim that the mind is essentially non-mechanical by considering Gödel’s famous incompleteness theorem.  At first glance, I would imagine that this approach seems more than a little queer to the uninitiated.  After all, the incompleteness theorem is a statement about first-order logic and would seem, prima facie, to have nothing to do with the mind whatsoever.  Just what kind of philosophical argument can traverse such a yawning theoretical gap!  Out of respect for this sentiment let’s first address this concern from a philosophical bird’s-eye view.

Note: For the dedicated reader, all the concepts that will be touched upon in this article are nicely covered in their technical details here.

[please be sure to check out the introductory entry to this series before proceeding]

Traversing the Gap

The Gödelian argument proceeds by reductio ad absurdum, it initially supposes that the mind is essentially mechanical in nature and then tries to draw a contradiction from this hypothesis, if such a contradiction can be reached then we know that the hypothesis that we initially assumed as true is actually false.  But what does it mean to be mechanical?  We answer this next question by invoking the Church-Turing thesis, which loosely says that all essentially mechanical phenomena can be modeled by a very precise mathematical abstraction known as a Turing machine.  However, Turing machines are equivalent to ?-recursive functions which are in turn objects of first-order logic, and since the incompleteness theorem has consequences for first-order logic it therefore follows (from a bird’s-eye view) that it might also have consequences for ?-recursive functions and their Turing machine equivalents.  So there is a deductive trail that suggests the potential for a connection between the incompleteness theorem and what we can say about a mechanistic theory of mind.

 

The Incompleteness Theorem

Truth, as a semantic concept, is a rather ephemeral beast that can be apprehended but never found, like Bigfoot its metaphysics are contentious, but unlike Bigfoot it cannot simply be ignored.  After all, what kind of man can claim to be rational while denying Truth?

This is where the broader project of reductionism enters the scene as it tried to bring this semantic concept of analytic Truth down from the Platonic heavens and confine it to a syntactic cage of language rules once and for all.  Gödel’s incompleteness theorem showed that this could not be done - that the semantic notion of Truth couldn’t be reduced to syntactic notions of proof - thus lending the reductionist program its first real defeat.  It did this by constructing an explicit sentence in first-order arithmetic that managed to be both true and unprovable.

One way of seeing how our intrepid German went about this is to first consider the paradox of the liar.  The liar is a logical sentence L that says of itself, “I am false.”  In the conventions of logic we can represent such a sentence as follows:

L: ~True(⌈L⌉)

where ⌈L⌉ is meant to signify the name of L under some naming convention and Truth(•) is a predicate that accepts as input the names of logically admissible formula and evaluates their truth status

The reason that this sentence is paradoxical is because if you tried to semantically evaluate the truth status of this sentence you would get contradictory answers; for if L is false then it must be true (according to L) and if L is true then it must be false (according to L).  The situation is indeed paradoxical.

Gödel took this insight and went about constructing a provability predicate and a very peculiar sentence that says of itself, “I am not provable.”  In a similar vein to that of the liar, we can represent this [Gödelian] sentence as follows:

G: ~Prov(⌈G⌉)

For the purposes of emphasis, the most technical part of Gödel’s proof of the incompleteness was in showing that such a naming convention and provability predicate could be constructed while remaining within the confines of first-order arithmetic.

Now if we try to semantically evaluate the truth status of G here is what happens; if G is false then it must be provable and therefore true (a contradiction) but if G is true then it is not provable and there is no contradiction.  Therefore, G must be both true and not provable and such a sentence has been demonstrably found.

What is going on here is that we’re playing a subtle game between the semantics of truth and the syntax of provability, it is a kind of game that is unique to these sorts of theorems and can’t be found in any other part of modern mathematics.  What is accessible to us semantically is the soundness of first-order arithmetic (i.e. what we prove is always true) but this is, evidently, not accessible to us syntactically, otherwise the Gödelian sentence would be an example of a paradoxical sentence in an arithmetic theory that we know is not paradoxical.

For the truly dedicated reader, all the technicalities of Gödel’s original proof can be cheaply found here.

The Church-Turing Thesis

“Nevertheless, an idealized abacus has precisely the power of a Turing machine…By parity of reasoning, they also both serve as models for the human mind.  Yet the thesis that the human mind is an abacus seems distinctly less plausible than the thesis that the human mind is a computer.  And for an obvious reason:  It is absurd.  It is precisely when things have been reduced to their essentials that the interaction between a human being and a simple machine emerges clearly.  That interaction is naked, a human agent handling an abacus with the same directness of touch that he might employ in handling a lever, a pulley, or an inclined plane.” - David Berlinski

In the early part of the 20th century first-rate mathematicians endeavored to understand this concept of mechanicity by developing their own models of what an effective procedure (or mechanical process) might look like and compare notes.  Church, Kleene, and Rosser had their ?-recursive functions; Alan Turing had his Turing machines; and Alonzo Church had his ?-calculus.  And then a most remarkable thing happened, as it turned out all of their abstract models were equivalent!  Not only that but it also has been subsequently shown that all known mechanical processes and/or algorithms that we might encode in a digital computer can be simulated by Turing machines; or equivalently ?-recursive functions; or equivalently statements in the ?-calculus.

Such tremendous theoretical and empirical success can only mean one thing; hence the Church-Turing thesis.  In the words of la wik, “Despite the fact that it cannot be formally proven, the Church-Turing thesis now has near-universal acceptance.”

The Gödelian Argument

“Gödel’s theorem seems to me to prove that Mechanism is false, that is, that minds cannot be explained as machines. So also has it seemed to many other people: almost every mathematical logician I have put the matter to has confessed to similar thoughts, but has felt reluctant to commit himself definitely until he could see the whole argument set out, with all objections fully stated and properly met.1 This I attempt to do.” - John Lucas

It’s worth noting that soon after Gödel proved the incompleteness theorem he speculated about the potential of such an argument and I am sure that it was no surprise to him when other philosophers and mathematicians started to formulate such arguments.  The first to do just that was British philosopher John Lucas in his opening salvo, “Minds, Machines, and Gödel”; more recently the esteemed Sir Roger Penrose presented his own rather refined version of the argument here and here.  Of course, there are many other such versions scattered throughout the literature and it would neither be practical nor necessary to list them all.

Unfortunately, the logical issues that surround this argument are of such a subtle and complicated nature that even people who’ve defended the argument over the years have conceded that they are not even sure of its truth, at least Lucas is on the record of saying as much.  But like all good questing Europeans such warnings do not deter us and I have endeavored to present a computational form of this argument with the intention of eliminating as many confusions and complexities as possible.

The Gödelian Argument

(H)  The mind is essentially mechanical
(1)  If the mind is essentially mechanical then its mathematical faculty is also essentially mechanical
(2)  The mathematical faculty of the mind is essentially mechanical (using H and 1)
(3)  The mathematical faculty of the mind can be represented by a Turing machine M (by 2 and the Church-Turing thesis)
(4)  M is logically and knowably sound
(5)  There is a knowably true statement that is accessible to us but not to M (by 4 and the Gödel-Turing-Penrose Theorem)

The contradiction comes from the fact that since M is supposed to represent the mathematical faculty of the mind its mathematical knowledge should be equivalent to that of our own, but statement (5) shows that this cannot be the case.  The only thing left to prove is the Gödel-Turing-Penrose Theorem, which I will now give:

Gödel-Turing-Penrose Theorem: If M is any logically and knowably sound Turing machine then there is a knowably true statement that is accessible to us but not to M

Proof (following Penrose): It is an elementary fact of Turing machines that we can enumerate the set of all Turing machines that accept one natural number as an argument by the natural numbers themselves: C1, C2, C3, C4, etc.

Consider a new Turing machine A such that A(q, n) stops if M can show that Cq(n) does not stop.

Therefore if A(q, n) stops then Cq(n) does not stop, by the previous sentence and the assumption on the soundness of M.

Therefore if A(n, n) stops then Cn(n) does not stop, by setting q=n in the previous sentence.  (α)

We now notice that A(n, n) is a Turing machine that depends on only one natural number.  Therefore there exists some natural number k such that Ck(n) carries out the same computation as A(n, n), seeing as how our enumeration covered all such Turing machines.

Therefore A(k, k) = Ck(k) - hence one computation stops if and only if the other stops - by setting n=k in the previous sentence.  (β)

Now if A(k, k) stops then Ck(k) stops by (β), but if A(k, k) stops then Ck(k) does not stop by (α).  Therefore we can conclude that A(k, k)=Ck(k) does not stop because if it did then we would get contradictory answers.

However, if the statement “Ck(k) does not stop” was accessible to M (or could be determined by M) then A(k, k) would stop by construction, which is a contradiction!  Therefore, arguing by reductio ad absurdum one more time, we can conclude that the statement “Ck(k) does not stop” is not was accessible to M.  So the sentence “Ck(k) does not stop” is both demonstrably true and not accessible to M.

QED

Philosophically, the structure of the Gödelian argument is evidently sound and the Gödel-Turing-Penrose Theorem that it uses in statement (5) is also clearly true, so the success of the Gödelian argument hinges on its two most nontrivial statements, (1) and (4).

In defense of (1), it would seem as if all human minds share a common mathematical faculty and so it seems reasonable to speak of such a faculty in the abstract.  Furthermore, the “if then” structure of the premise is also quite reasonable as it’s difficult to imagine how the mind could be essentially mechanical if even one of its faculties was not also essentially mechanical.

In defense of (4), it would seem that if the mathematical faculty of the human mind could be mechanized then it must be based on logically sound principles, otherwise how could

any

human mind engage in meaningful mathematical work without constantly creating contradictions.  In other words, what could account for the great success of our mathematics if it was built on principles that were not logically sound?  Furthermore, it would seem that whatever those principles might be that they could be knowably apprehended as being logically sound, for they are the principles that we would be using and we would not be using them if we did not, at the very least, believe them to be logically sound.

Concluding Observations

While each individual piece of the argument holds up rather well (or at least is not without natural justification) it cannot be denied that the sheer length and level of abstraction that it demands does weaken its effectiveness.  But what it lacks in effectiveness it more than compensates with admiration for its heroic attempt to bring together so many strands of 20th century thought for the purposes of sustaining a philosophical argument about the mind.

Lastly, of the four views considered in the introductory entry to this series only the first is nullified by this argument, which the Church-Turing thesis says is equivalent to the Strong AI hypothesis.  It is this latter observation that has personal significance to me as this was the argument that finally disabused me of the Strong AI hypothesis.



Comments:


1

Posted by Notus Wind on Tue, 31 Aug 2010 23:00 | #

My apologies for the lateness of this argument.  When you combine the effort that I knew it was going to take along with a general sense of perfectionism I think you can see why I put it off as long as I did.

Moreover, I would like to say that this should be my most intellectually demanding contribution to this series.  Subsequent entries should have less technical detail and should be much more accessible.


2

Posted by Grimoire on Wed, 01 Sep 2010 03:07 | #

To begin: thank you for this article, and the dedication. Although I have done little to deserve the mention, paradoxically, this makes it more complementary.

Following the dedication, (top right hand of page, below title,, which I point out again if the reader hasn’t yet noticed….) of the two opening quotes, Berlinksi is circular and questionable,  while PF is lucid, relevant, and to the point. Unfortunately as PF fights against this type of brevity becoming predictable, thus potentially ‘traditional’,  we should expect to see this type of reasoning only every other post or three…and so we must be happy for it, yet patient and unexpect the expected.

  As to the arguments here; one has to commend Notus Wind’s courage to attempt to explain the import of Godel’s ‘Incompleteness Theorem’ to a sociopolitical and materialist/mechanistic minded crowd. But it is the import and implication of the theorem, (like Quantum Mechanics of the mid 20th century) that radically effects our view of the world we live in and our pattern of thinking and dealing with it..

On this Lucas, (the writer referenced and linked in the beginning of Notus Winds article) modestly writes….

If the proof of the falsity of mechanism is valid, it is of the greatest consequence for the whole of philosophy. Since the time of Newton, the bogey of mechanist determinism has obsessed philosophers. If we were to be scientific, it seemed that we must look on human beings as (127) determined automata, and not as autonomous moral agents; if we were to be moral, it seemed that we must deny science its due, set an arbitrary limit to its progress in understanding human neurophysiology, and take refuge in obscurantist mysticism. Not even Kant could resolve the tension between the two standpoints. But now, though many arguments against human freedom still remain, the argument from mechanism, perhaps the most compelling argument of them all, has lost its power. No longer on this count will it be incumbent on the natural philosopher to deny freedom in the name of science: no longer will the moralist feel the urge to abolish knowledge to make room for faith. We can even begin to see how there could be room for morality, without its being necessary to abolish or even to circumscribe the province of science. Our argument has set no limits to scientific enquiry: it will still be possible to investigate the working of the brain. It will still be possible to produce mechanical models of the mind. Only, now we can see that no mechanical model will be completely adequate, nor any explanations [271] in purely mechanist terms. We can produce models and explanations, and they will be illuminating: but, however far they go, there will always remain more to be said. There is no arbitrary bound to scientific enquiry: but no scientific enquiry can ever exhaust the infinite variety of the human mind.12

.........and I say Lucas writes ‘modestly’, because the adherents of human/ material reductionism reliance on crowd psychology and dishonest politics has effectively, as the physicist Truebing writes “....effectively censored the mention of consciousness for almost a century. Thus we are only now picking up where we left off…”
———————————————————————————

As to the attempts to simply the formal logic of the Godelian Argument…....one must keep in mind the “Godelian Argument” is only a ‘first-order logic’ summary, constructed for the purposes of testing a subset of the theorem against a specified set of computations. Another, the compound attribution of ‘Godelian, Turing, Penrose theorem’ is incorrect. Turing, Church and Penrose are derivative and have no part in the conception or formulation of Godels work.

Finally, I recall one of my Professors blithe riddle/analogies twinning the ‘Liars paradox and Godels Theorem:

“ We Germans have always stated with perfect authority that invisible Dachshunds exist everywhere yet are imperceptible to the senses -  yet the English asks for proof!”

(for GW’s benefit I will explain that if we showed the Englishman the Dachshunds which squirm beneath every analogy then they would neither be invisible nor imperceptible., and thus the statement would be false. Despite the complete improbability of the above statement - as it stands it is true, yet can not be empirically proved. The point made was that logic itself will not yield to materialist reductionism.

 

 


Godel’s 1931 Theorem that certain fundamental axioms of mathematics were incapable of proof within any mathematical system.


3

Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 01 Sep 2010 08:40 | #

Two comments:

1. Without doing more than skimming this article, I sense it to be way above my intellectual level (at least wrt analytic philosophy and logic - one college course probably won’t cut it), and quite possibly above my cognitive level.

2. I fail to see its relevance to topics of European genetic preservation.


4

Posted by Notus Wind on Wed, 01 Sep 2010 09:26 | #

Grimoire,

of the two opening quotes, Berlinksi is circular and questionable

Granted, the quotation from Berlinski is not the best, but it does get across an important point while managing to be humorous.  His description of the interaction between human and abacus as being naked appeals to my sense of humor for some reason.

Another, the compound attribution of ‘Godelian, Turing, Penrose theorem’ is incorrect.

I suppose that I am betraying the conventions of my profession here.

The idea behind the compound attribution is that we’re essentially proving a version of Gödel’s theorem in the spirit of Turing (and his proof of the undecidability of the halting problem) and in a manner that has been reformulated by Penrose.  The names go from most important to least important.

Leon,

2. I fail to see its relevance to topics of European genetic preservation.

The main entry is part of a larger discussion going on in the background, which is why it seems so out of place.  You can read my introductory entry to this series and the comments that followed for more context if you’d like.

If you’re looking to sink your teeth into something a little more gritty and practical then you can always respond to my comment here; you’ve yet to do so and somehow I doubt that its escaped your notice.


5

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 01 Sep 2010 11:20 | #

Notus,

1. You repeatedly use the term “essentially mechanical” which surely contains a contradiction, and also reveals the black-white nature of mathematics and logic as tools of provability.  Our three general systems of cognition do not significantly employ mathematical certainties or even basic logic but instinct and experience - nature and nurture - to inform us of the world outside the organism.  The level of truth required is sufficient only unto our personal survival and genetic continuity.  What purchase, then, do mathematics and logic have except as tools pertinent to the construction of parameters for abstract thought-models and for technology?

Grimoire,

The point made was that logic itself will not yield to materialist reductionism

But logic can be made to yield to the material unequivocality of death.  If messers Godel, Turing, Lucas, Penrose, Church, Kleene and Rosser were lifted out of their time and place and removed to the Nullabor they would be dead within a few days.  But Aboriginal Australians have lived in that place, reading the land and belonging in it, for tens of thousands of years.

We should remind ourselves, perhaps, that existential philosophy and evolutionary science come out of the aboriginal understanding rather more than the application of tools for thought models and technology.  They are about life and living well, and my guess - it has to be a guess because I can’t add up - is that Godel (and you if you rely on him) has as little to say about that as he would have had to say about surviving on the Nullabor.

Notus again,

Considering the matter of mechanicity, can Godel be interpreted to have anything to say about the characteristics of conscious states, since the claim of mechanicity that, for example, I endeavour to make relates not to mind per se but is one characteristic of ordinary waking consciousness - or the “fall” or “maya” or “exile”, according to your poison (or opium)?


6

Posted by Notus Wind on Wed, 01 Sep 2010 12:33 | #

GW,

You repeatedly use the term “essentially mechanical” which surely contains a contradiction

I don’t think so because I am using the word “essentially” colloquially and not technically.

To say something is “essentially mechanical” is to say that it is either directly mechanical or it can be modeled by a mechanical process (e.g. a computer process for example).  However you setup the argument some kind of qualifier is needed because the mind, in any case, is not mechanical in the same way that the contraptions that we build are mechanical.  The same goes for our biology I might add.

Our three general systems of cognition do not use mathematical certainties or even basic logic but instinct and experience - nature and nurture - to inform us of the world outside the organism.

Whatever they use, they use.  But clearly there is something going on that enables us to engage in this kind of reasoning, of that there can be no doubt.

The level of truth required is sufficient only unto our personal survival and genetic continuity.  What purchase, then, do mathematics and logic have except as tools pertinent to the construction of parameters for abstract thought-models and for technology?

That is a good question!

Alfred Wallace made a similar observation when he noted that savage peoples had access to a level of intellect and moral refinement that served no purpose in their primitive lifestyles.  I’ll quote him as follows:

” In the brain of the lowest savages, and, as far as we yet know, of the pre-historic races, we have an organ so little inferior in size and complexity to that of the highest types (such as the average European), that we must believe it capable, under a similar process of gradual development during the space of two or three thousand years, of producing equal average results. But the mental requirements of the lowest savages, such as the Australians or the Andaman islanders, are very little above those of many animals. The higher moral faculties and those of pure intellect and refined emotion are useless to them, are rarely if ever manifested, and have no relation to their wants, desires, or well-being. How, then, was an organ developed so far beyond the needs of its possessor? Natural selection could only have endowed the savage with a brain a little superior to that of an ape, whereas he actually possesses one but very little inferior to that of the average members of our learned societies.”

The idea that you could take a babe from a primitive tribe and raise him England to be a civilized man deeply troubled him about the implications that it had for evolutionary theory.  It would seem as if these higher faculties existed even in primitive man despite the fact that they served no obvious purpose in the context of his primitive lifestyle.

Considering the matter of mechanicity, can Godel be interpreted to have anything to say about the characteristics of conscious states, since the claim of mechanicity that, for example, I endeavour to make relates not to mind per se but is one characteristic of ordinary waking consciousness - or the “fall” or “maya” or “exile”, according to your poison (or opium)?

No it cannot, other than the fact that those conscious states must arise from a non-mechanical mind the door is left wide open here.

In fact, the argument can also be thought of in behaviorist terms.  If there was a machine that could replicate my mental faculties then one could pose a particular question to myself and this machine that I could answer in the affirmative but the machine could not answer.


7

Posted by Notus Wind on Wed, 01 Sep 2010 12:55 | #

GW: If messers Godel, Turing, Lucas, Penrose, Church, Kleene and Rosser were lifted out of their time and place and removed to the Nullabor they would be dead within a few days.  But Aboriginal Australians have lived in that place, reading the land and belonging in it, for tens of thousands of years. .
...
Godel (and you if you rely on him) has as little to say about that as he would have had to say about surviving on the Nullabor.

The argument speaks for itself without the aid of those behind it in much the same that art can continue to speak for itself even after the artist is long dead.  Do not conflate a Platonic form with those who first revealed it.


8

Posted by PF on Wed, 01 Sep 2010 13:38 | #

Thank you Notus, for taking the time to put this up here. I am looking forward to spending some hours with it this afternoon.


9

Posted by Alfred Tarski on Wed, 01 Sep 2010 14:01 | #

Ah, the big game, played online by whistling dilletantes, soft men sitting in poorly lit rooms doing their figurative Rubik’s Cubes, while outside their ontological realm, down in the streets, their people are gangraped out of existence.

“We pass our happy childhood hours in weaving endless chains of flowers.” The Wuggly Ump, Edward Gorey and the epitaph of 1/2 the Aryan race.


10

Posted by Notus Wind on Wed, 01 Sep 2010 14:28 | #

PF: Thank you Notus, for taking the time to put this up here. I am looking forward to spending some hours with it this afternoon.

You’re welcome, by all means take your time.

Alfred Tarski: Ah, the big game, played online by whistling dilletantes, soft men sitting in poorly lit rooms doing their figurative Rubik’s Cubes, while outside their ontological realm, down in the streets, their people are gangraped out of existence.

My apologies for leaving you out of this article Mr. Tarski, but I am not pretending to provide a comprehensive historical treatment of how some of these ideas developed.  The reader is invited to consider your contributions at his leisure.

Furthermore, you can find some of my more explicitly political commentary all over MR.  Does it upset you that my interests are varied?

By the way, the Rubik’s Cube that you’re referring to is over here.


11

Posted by PF on Wed, 01 Sep 2010 15:11 | #

But lucky for us soft men dedicated to the impractical stuff, there are hard men like yourself, Tarski, who tirelessly commit themselves to work on the streets. These tough men linger by twilight in the shadowy districts of mixed neighborhoods, preventing gang rapes, and taking our whole troubled underclass by the hand. They watch with an eye cocked and a glock ready, as a gaggle of white teenage girls crosses a street coming home from a concert. Just to be sure.

I can get you more warrior-and-protector-cred than you’ll ever get with snarky comment posts - just use the ‘contact’ button above to write in with a description of the people-in-distress who you’ve saved from being gang raped out of existence (names changed to protect innocents, gruesome details omitted), and I’ll lionize your travails in a non-satirical blog post entitled: Alfred Tarski - Protector of the White Race. Will that be enough to sate the need? Or does my hero-cred, being too freely offered, depreciate in value?

(*puts on a Garfield the Cat sweater*)

Oh well, back to my silly puzzles..


12

Posted by AT on Wed, 01 Sep 2010 15:16 | #

“...I am not pretending to provide a comprehensive historical treatment of how some of these ideas developed.”

Not the implication.

“Does it upset you that my interests are varied?”

Yes, I’m seething.


13

Posted by AT on Wed, 01 Sep 2010 15:34 | #

“But lucky for us soft men dedicated to the impractical stuff, there are hard men like yourself, Tarski…”

LOL. In chimes the lonely eternal grad student, right on cue, heuristic biases blazing.


14

Posted by Notus Wind on Wed, 01 Sep 2010 15:44 | #

AT: Not the implication.

If your implication is that we’re somehow unaware of the Wuggly Ump that threatens to devour Western Civilization then I can assure you that you’re wrong.  Few people find MR unless they’ve already broken through the taboos that prevent them from seeing our unfolding calamity.

If your implication is that I’m a whistling dilettante who isn’t worthy of playing “the big game” (whatever that is) then by all means enlighten me as to why.  I’ve laid out my arguments in excruciating detail and you’ve managed to spit out a few lines of rhetoric, color me unimpressed.

Here’s a question for you, are people cryptic because their minds are woolly, their character insecure, or their ideas weak?


15

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 01 Sep 2010 16:16 | #

How, then, was an organ developed so far beyond the needs of its possessor?

Sexual selection, part of a life-long disagreement Wallace had with Darwin.


16

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 01 Sep 2010 16:37 | #

Interesting paper here. [pdf]

I argue that (1) human sexual selection
favours intelligence as a signal of genetic resistance against pathogens,


17

Posted by Notus Wind on Wed, 01 Sep 2010 16:51 | #

Thank you for the article Desmond, I’m saving it on my computer for future reading.


18

Posted by AT on Wed, 01 Sep 2010 17:29 | #

“If you’re implication…”

I am not implication. 

“If you’re implication…”

See above.

“[...] is that I’m a whistling dilettante who isn’t worthy of playing “the big game” (whatever that is) then by all means enlighten me as to why.

No, again you read me wrong. You are a worthy game player. Seriously.

“...color me unimpressed.”

Okay.

“Here’s a question for you, are people cryptic because their minds are woolly, their character insecure, or their ideas weak?”

Gosh, that’s like the, “Did you ever get caught jerking off in the closet?” bit. Alright, I’ll go out on a limb with my choice of your allowed responses. All three! Am I right?

“Inter arma musae tacent.” Or at least they should be. (I include, as do all wooly minds, d’Annunzio’s tenth Muse, thus by tortured extension, ontology).


19

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 01 Sep 2010 17:30 | #

Many also suggest ardipithecus ramidus, allegedly a human ancestor, employed a sexual selection strategy that selected for intelligence (bipedalism for food gathering) that in turn allowed more of their offspring to survive and reproduce. Ardi was walking upright before the emergence to the savanna, suggesting contentious issues long debated here. wink


20

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 01 Sep 2010 17:43 | #

Desmond,

When we discussed Ardi, I recall that I linked to an article stating that the emergence of savannah was not a single event, but was periodic.  Evidently, you did not take that on board.  Perhaps you will do so now.


21

Posted by Rollory on Wed, 01 Sep 2010 18:31 | #

“(5) There is a knowably true statement that is accessible to us but not to M”

Right here is where I object (and stopped reading in detail, since the rest seems to depend on it).  What does it mean to be “accessible” to us?  We can look at such a statement and say, yeah, I’m pretty sure that’s true, but I can’t prove it.  Why are we pretty sure?  Heuristics, pattern recognition, and mental shortcuts.  Is there anything more to it?  Can you disprove the claim that that’s all?  These can be modeled mathematically.  You could make a machine that does the same thing.

In any case, recognition of “truth” in the human mind is not by any means absolute.  The mind is equally capable of looking at something that is not true and believing that it is.  Any good stage magician knows all about this.  Murder mystery writers do too - people can fit observed phenomena into mental preconceptions without even realizing it, and completely miss perceiving things that don’t fit the pattern.  The best writeup of the phenomenon that I’ve seen is in Walter Lord’s book _Incredible Victory_, about Midway, where he goes into some detail regarding the mutual contradictions evident in the accounts of the various bomber pilots that hit the Japanese carriers - contradictions that were clearly the result of very sincere belief in the correctness of the statements in question, even though it was equally clearly impossible for them to be so.


22

Posted by danielj on Wed, 01 Sep 2010 19:08 | #

Right here is where I object

Why?

The machine can’t figure out the paradoxical statements referred to in the article while we can.

It is pretty simple.


23

Posted by PF on Wed, 01 Sep 2010 19:15 | #

“Inter arma musae tacent.” Or at least they should be. (I include, as do all wooly minds, d’Annunzio’s tenth Muse, thus by tortured extension, ontology).

One minute this guy disparages for a lack of street toughness, the next he’s fixing minor grammatical errors and obliquely signaling rarified literary knowledge. Amazing!


24

Posted by PF on Wed, 01 Sep 2010 19:23 | #

Notus,

This article was breathtaking to read, for the ambitiousness of the questions it assayed, the heights of abstraction it visited - and for the clarity of exposition which kept me entranced in spite of the difficulty of the subject matter.

Recapitulating, then: the question this investigation turns on is whether the mind is mechanical - whether it can be modelled by a Turing machine. Gödel’s argument is that, on the basis of a reductio ad absurdum involving a true-but-not-provable statement, the mathematical faculty of the mind
(by extension all faculties) cannot be modelled entirely by a Turing machine.

If we want this to bring us to questions of ontology - it is a good point of departure. Unexamined faith in the structures created by the mind is one of the primary fuels of suggestibility and mechanicity, which GW has written about. One suspicion that has to arise from an understanding of the kind you are adumbrated is that… “there is something more”, “we dont completely ‘get’ this.”

One drawback of the approaches to the problem discussed in the article is the framework in which this is being looked at. As far as I can tell, mathematics and semantic logic, both evolved brain functions, are being used to evaluate the nature of the mind. There is certainly something paradoxical in choosing to take this approach, because in terms of the evolution of the mind, this line of investigation
queries last things as a means of understanding first things.

There are two things at issue here: (1) the validity of the Turing machine paradigm for determining mechanicalness, and (2) the level at which such a machine would have to operate to model the mind.

I don’t understand why the Turing machine has validity as a way of understanding real-world processes. It seems like one abstract, paradigmatic (meaning “not all encompassing; one-sided”) way of looking at problems of computation. In reality, we keep finding more ‘Turing machines’ at each successive level of resolution when we look at the nervous system. Look at the spike trains coming into specific neurons, you might view the individual neuron as such a machine. Look at the neuronal processes themselves, and each ion channel is a Turing machine. I do not think I am exaggerating here. Each ion channel ‘computes’ (effects) the change in membrane potential on the basis of its environs, much like a Turing machine arriving at a symbol on a ticker-tape and authorizing a state change.

If this is granted as possibly a valid view of the nervous system, then it can be simultaneously mechanical, and impossible to accurately model by a single Turing machine. This is my view of the nervous system: mechanical, but not by the above-mentioned criteria.

This article expands on the nature of the mind by looking at neuronal computation:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0003298

The article provides an intitial hint into how the mind ‘self-constructs’ or ‘self-organizes’ given the inherent properties of neurons. Its amazing to me if only because of its implications about how complex mental structures can arise. It provides an elegant explanation for this - some of the alternatives are so… not elegant… If what this article describes were not taking place, imagining how visual processing for example could evolve and develop in the mind, would not be possible without lots of static-state code-teaching structures which would work like fixed points of meaning to ‘teach’ the brain its complex coding strategies: yet there is nothing to suggest that this is happening in the literature.

What is the significance of this article for you, Notus? Besides disabusing you of the Strong AI idea. I hope you have more in store for us about where your thought-adventures are leading you.


25

Posted by AT on Wed, 01 Sep 2010 19:31 | #

“One minute this guy disparages for a lack of street toughness…”

You read into it what wasn’t there, EGS. But that’s a trait of yours. 

“...the next he’s fixing minor grammatical errors and obliquely signaling rarified literary knowledge. Amazing! “

Truly, it is.


26

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 01 Sep 2010 19:34 | #

Guessedworker,

Then, kind sir, you will, no doubt, be gracing us with an answer, based upon the ebb and flow of the emerging Savannah, to Mr. Wallace’s question. smile


27

Posted by PF on Wed, 01 Sep 2010 19:47 | #

AT wrote:

You read into it what wasn’t there, EGS. But that’s a trait of yours.

So I read disparagement into your comments of earlier this afternoon? Disparagement that wasn’t there?

Here is the comment:

Ah, the big game, played online by whistling dilletantes, soft men sitting in poorly lit rooms doing their figurative Rubik’s Cubes, while outside their ontological realm, down in the streets, their people are gangraped out of existence.

Soft men, dilletante, playing with a rubix cube while our people are destroyed - you mean that I read disparagement into these remarks that wasn’t present in the authors own mind?

LOL. Write what you mean next time, if thats the case. Or are you too cool for that?


28

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 01 Sep 2010 19:48 | #

Which is, Desmond?


29

Posted by Notus Wind on Wed, 01 Sep 2010 20:12 | #

AT,

“Inter arma musae tacent.” Or at least they should be. (I include, as do all wooly minds, d’Annunzio’s tenth Muse, thus by tortured extension, ontology).

Clearly, I’ve been grasping at straws in our exchange as I just don’t know what to make of you.  Nevertheless, I am intrigued and am willing to wait for you to be more forthright about where you’re coming from and what you’re trying to say.

Rollory,

“(5) There is a knowably true statement that is accessible to us but not to M”

Right here is where I object (and stopped reading in detail, since the rest seems to depend on it).  What does it mean to be “accessible” to us?

Statement (5) was a direct consequence of statement (4) and the Gödel-Turing-Penrose Theorem, which was proven immediately after the point at which you stopped reading and didn’t depend on any of the preceding statements.  So in order to reject statement (5) you would have to either reject statement (4) or show that there is a mistake in the proof of the Gödel-Turing-Penrose Theorem.

Now if you examine the proof of the Gödel-Turing-Penrose Theorem you will see how we go about constructing a statement that can be mathematically known to us (it is “accessible” to us) but cannot be known to our machine M.


30

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 01 Sep 2010 20:21 | #

Notus,

You are right that it was unfair of me to exploit the tension between essence and the machine, based merely on you having inadvertently placed two innocent and unassuming word-symbols next to one another (I don‘t know how you managed to do that, btw, without tumbling to the obvious).

But … you are the one who is reifying the supremacy of logic in our cognitive systems, an unavoidable consequence of which is that some folk will certainly seize upon said supremacy to relativise evolution, if not science, if not the entire Anglo-American intellectual tradition.  Logic will be recruited in the cause of illogicality.  For Grim, for example, it will be the illogicality of the historic mission of the German Volk.  For you, perhaps, it will be the cause of inspiritation.

About the latter we can say that there must be agency for evolutionary selection to operate, and to succeed and fail.  No evolutionist worth his salt would assert that the mind is just a machine.  But it follows that the amount of agency will be what is needed for selection, and no more - meaning, sufficient to survey for and measure adaptiveness.  A human spirit with the full possibility of will and creativity goes well beyond that.

The argument speaks for itself without the aid of those behind it in much the same that art can continue to speak for itself even after the artist is long dead.

Well, the gentlemen lost on the Nullabor are merely representatives of logicality adrift in the Darwinian landscape.  You can turn them into Grim’s squirming dachshunds if you prefer.  It is of no matter.  The point I am making is the same one as the rest of my comment, namely that logic has its place in the scheme of things, among models and in machines.  It does not command over life.  Instinct and experience have the prerogative there.


31

Posted by danielj on Wed, 01 Sep 2010 21:08 | #

But … you are the one who is reifying the supremacy of logic in our cognitive systems

It either exists or it doesn’t. I’m not following you here.

Logic will be recruited in the cause of illogicality.

Just because sentiment is anterior to reason does not mean that they are at odds. Some things are supralogical, but this does not require them to be illogical.


32

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 01 Sep 2010 21:20 | #

Which is, Desmond?

I understand, old boy. You won’t answer it, Wallace’s question, because you can’t. smile


33

Posted by AT on Wed, 01 Sep 2010 21:20 | #

“Write what you mean next time…”

I wrote what I meant the first time. Then a certain Eternal Grad Student rushed in, per the dictates of his personality, hot-headed and unfunny - the Scrooby of the ontological discussion world. Fourth grade logic reared its petulant head, the ant went binary, flipping 1 to 0, and positioned contra the image of himself some caricatured street-fighting avatar. Foe firmly in his sights, he challenged this avatar to live up to the identity that he himself, Eternal Grad Student, created for it. It’s similar to a robin flying at a window over and over, attacking its reflection. I’d say it’s bizarre, but it’s been witnessed on the EGS’s part often enough that it’s actually semi-predictable.

“Clearly, I’ve been grasping at straws in our exchange as I just don’t know what to make of you.  Nevertheless, I am intrigued and am willing to wait for you to be more forthright about where you’re coming from and what you’re trying to say.”

That was nicely put, Notus. I’d suggest reading Krylov’s “The Cat and the Cook”, as mentioned to PF before. The old fabulist will tell all.


34

Posted by Notus Wind on Wed, 01 Sep 2010 22:01 | #

PF,

This article was breathtaking to read, for the ambitiousness of the questions it assayed, the heights of abstraction it visited - and for the clarity of exposition which kept me entranced in spite of the difficulty of the subject matter.

Isn’t it breathtaking!  In fact, that is precisely the feeling that I had when I first started to realize the possibility of such an argument.  However, I wasn’t satisfied with the more well-known treatments of this argument at the time of this realization and I wanted to produce a version of my own that would be as clear and convincing as possible (by my standards).  The main entry is the end result of several years of personal labor toward that end.

To the extent that I’ve made a unique contribution here it would have to be in my separation of the mathematical piece of the argument (the Gödel-Turing-Penrose Theorem) from the overall philosophical structure of the argument (the five statement Gödelian Argument).  It took me several years to figure out that what I didn’t like about the other presentations was their tendency to entangle certain mathematical and philosophical issues into what at times felt like a confusing morass.  Untangling these matters proved to be mind-numbingly delicate.

Recapitulating, then: the question this investigation turns on is whether the mind is mechanical - whether it can be modelled by a Turing machine. Gödel’s argument is that, on the basis of a reductio ad absurdum involving a true-but-not-provable statement, the mathematical faculty of the mind (by extension all faculties) cannot be modelled entirely by a Turing machine.

Correct.

One drawback of the approaches to the problem discussed in the article is the framework in which this is being looked at. As far as I can tell, mathematics and semantic logic, both evolved brain functions, are being used to evaluate the nature of the mind. There is certainly something paradoxical in choosing to take this approach, because in terms of the evolution of the mind, this line of investigation queries last things as a means of understanding first things.

I see what you mean.

Nevertheless, I would like to think that the deductive tools of mathematics and logic would be foundational in any program of rational investigation, even if these aren’t the most primitive aspects of our cognitive development.

Another way of thinking about this is that we’re trying to uncover an argument that is somehow already there, waiting to be found as it gives off its Platonic light onto the darkened landscape of the real.  Yes, we are climbing an abstract mountain with the assistance of our higher faculties but it is not a mountain of our creation and it stands on its own terms.

There are two things at issue here: (1) the validity of the Turing machine paradigm for determining mechanicalness

The Church-Turing thesis says that the two are equivalent; it’s an inductive conclusion for which we have abundant theoretical and empirical evidence.

It seems like one abstract, paradigmatic (meaning “not all encompassing; one-sided”) way of looking at problems of computation. In reality, we keep finding more ‘Turing machines’ at each successive level of resolution when we look at the nervous system. Look at the spike trains coming into specific neurons, you might view the individual neuron as such a machine. Look at the neuronal processes themselves, and each ion channel is a Turing machine. I do not think I am exaggerating here. Each ion channel ‘computes’ (effects) the change in membrane potential on the basis of its environs, much like a Turing machine arriving at a symbol on a ticker-tape and authorizing a state change.

It doesn’t matter how many Turing machines we’re considering so long as that number is finite.  For any finite collection of Turing machines can be bundled together into one big Turing machine.

If this is granted as possibly a valid view of the nervous system, then it can be simultaneously mechanical, and impossible to accurately model by a single Turing machine. This is my view of the nervous system: mechanical, but not by the above-mentioned criteria.

If each of its pieces are mechanical then I can assure you that the whole thing can be mechanically bundled together.  The early development of computability theory in the mid-20th century successfully tackled this problem most decisively.

This article expands on the nature of the mind by looking at neuronal computation:

I’ll go ahead and save this on my computer for future reading as well.

What is the significance of this article for you, Notus? Besides disabusing you of the Strong AI idea. I hope you have more in store for us about where your thought-adventures are leading you.

Oh yes, there is plenty more, but I am afraid that there’s nothing else in my inventory quite as abstract and heroic as what is being put forward in this entry.  In any case, collecting and developing baroque theory has always been a pastime of mine, which is why my entries at MR are all over the place.


35

Posted by danielj on Wed, 01 Sep 2010 22:07 | #

Then a certain Eternal Grad Student rushed in, per the dictates of his personality, hot-headed and unfunny - the Scrooby of the ontological discussion world.

Classic.


36

Posted by uh on Wed, 01 Sep 2010 22:52 | #

Here’s a question for you, are people cryptic because their minds are woolly, their character insecure, or their ideas weak?


Hm. Let’s ask Sðren.


37

Posted by Thorn on Wed, 01 Sep 2010 23:18 | #

Here’s a question for you, are people cryptic because their minds are woolly, their character insecure, or their ideas weak?

Hm. Let’s ask Sðren.

ROFL….......  Don’t hold your breath waiting for a coherent answer.


38

Posted by Thorn on Wed, 01 Sep 2010 23:28 | #

Daniel, are you sure you want to join in and dump on Scrooby?


39

Posted by Notus Wind on Wed, 01 Sep 2010 23:56 | #

GW,

You are right that it was unfair of me to exploit the tension between essence and the machine, based merely on you having inadvertently placed two innocent and unassuming word-symbols next to one another (I don‘t know how you managed to do that, btw, without tumbling to the obvious).

[laughs]

Yes, I’ve taken great pains to be as careful as possible.

...some folk will certainly seize upon said supremacy to relativise evolution, if not science, if not the entire Anglo-American intellectual tradition.

How do you mean that logic can be used to relativise all these things?  I certainly don’t feel that way and I’ve been using these tools for quite a while now.

About the latter we can say that there must be agency for evolutionary selection to operate, and to succeed and fail.  No evolutionist worth his salt would assert that the mind is just a machine.

Oh really!  I was under the impression that Dawkins and Dennett both supported this idea and even went so far as to say that agency was just a user illusion (i.e. there is no agency).  Unfortunately, I don’t have a reference on hand for this claim but I am quite sure that it’s true.

A human spirit with the full possibility of will and creativity goes well beyond that.

We’re getting there, non-mechanicity today and freeness tomorrow.

The point I am making is the same one as the rest of my comment, namely that logic has its place in the scheme of things, among models and in machines.  It does not command over life.  Instinct and experience have the prerogative there.

This has to be the heart of your complaint, that logic and math do not command over life.

But I am not saying that they do.

Logic and math only command the world of abstract landscapes into which true knowledge of our world must find its home.  I would not be so presumptuous as to suggest that the requirements of these abstract landscapes are sufficient to necessitate the exquisiteness of life, far from it.

These considerations aside, I would remind you that I am only presenting a rather vanilla deductive argument.  If its premises are true and its logic is sound then how could its conclusion not follow?


40

Posted by Grimoire on Thu, 02 Sep 2010 02:19 | #

@Leon Haller
        I do not believe it true any of this is above your cognitive level, merely outside your area of familiarity.
As for your second point, I think it is vital you understand the absolutely crucial nature of this question. Psychics, Logics and Cosmology are the extreme and leading edge of human knowledge and understanding of the Cosmos and itself. The knowledge thereof ultimately determine not only the questions we ask concerning existence, but the interpretation of the answers we derive - to directly how we live, survive or die as a human social organism.

It is not for nothing the Church set an anathema against Galileo., his work upended and demolished the human paradigm for living existent for a millennia. It was one of the vital tipping points which led to the reformation, the renaissance and all that followed. It was a essential impetus of a complete revolution in our shared understanding of our place in the cosmos.
Roughly, at this point in history Western Civilization began to out-evolve all and any civilizations known to man.

  We stand now at the precipice of an even more perilous and crucial abyss in human history.
How did we get to this point in such a short period of time, while our knowledge was outstripping even ourselves, leaving what we where further behind in 45 years than the distance we left any other civilization behind in 500 years following the reformation?

As the Russians say, “A fish rots from the head down”.

The European civil wars of the last century began not in the back-room of the British Foreign Office - the germ really started with Newton - with the realization that civil society and independent academic research could potentially outstrip the ability of the ruling elite to create and manage public perceptions of man’s place in the cosmos. This was a grave threat to the powers that be, and they decided it necessary to plan to remain the powers that be. Newton himself was one the key proponents of this managing, centralization and shaping of knowledge for social consumption, irrespective of truth and provenance.
  In this century, the essential contest has been between the mechanistic/ determinists view of the universe and man, and the open-inquiry/ non-determinist point of view, which as PF puts it, continually questions what ‘is’ is…. in the holistic sense, without violence or prejudice to the scope of rational inquiry or the matrix of man as observer and knower -  while the mechanistic/ determinist view, (abetted by the hebrew code of ethics we inherit from the OT and it’s actors and the idea of a chosen who inherits all through but nothing but acts of duplicity, and sees all contrary elements as obstacles to be liquidated.)


The facts are there to be seen by any who honestly investigate the matter, although no effort has been spared to disguise the paradox…..the mechanistic/ determinist zeitgeist is not only completely sterile and wholly derivative in terms of adding to the sum of our knowledge and the powers of our understanding…. but is engaged entirely in a subliminal war against the sum of our knowledge and powers of understanding unless it serves it’s purposes.

A trite yet neon example is the war of Darwinism aka ‘Dawkins’ ( a prima facie example}, against Religion, (which is nothing but a war against the private conscious seeing the Church as a weak link to millions of consciousnesses). Although no sane or uninterested person could argue the Church is infallible and not without primitive qualities and lust of power….. the Church with all it’s faults has been the primal guarantor of a civil society based on the gens or family versus the politics of power based solely on an elite who control the perception of society. And the family is atom of the race - all race.

So, what can rediscovery or unearthing of the suppressed Physics mean to you? By this, the mathematical cosmology of Leibniz, Quantum Mechanics of Heisenberg and Godel’s Incompleteness theorem?

What does this have to do with bringing European and World Civilization back from irreversible extinction ?

  Because it’s implication is that your belief in ‘essense’, in inner truth, your belief in yourself, your personal world of the extended family, religion, tradition and that your civilization was built on it’s first day on principles that are echoes and reflections of the Cosmos. You are correct and you have always possessed truth,  and we cannot understand anything much less the workings of the Universe without you who has always done his part, without how you think, for the manner of which you think, the manner in which you have raised a family and build your houses , villages, cities and nations…. is the same manner to which the secrets of the Cosmos are revealed.

Now, contrast a Western civilization whose understanding of the Cosmos reflects this truth….against the prevailing determinist/materialism.

You are nothing but machines. Machines exist to serve. Everything you think, your society, your faith, your families, towns , nations are little but accretions and discharges of genes. Therefore there is no inherent fault in using and discarding you in the same manner as one would utilize any other object - solely based on utility.  Therefore there is no moral or imperative reason to favor you over any other, such as a a hottentot, who is unburdened by many incorrect, inconvenient ideas. All things are at root random and by implication uncontrollable and unknowable except in terms of utility.

Which society that serves under these two schools would have a demographic problem? Which society would be extinguished in favor of a society of deserving helots and slaves? Which society could be said to evolve progressively and which could be said to devolve bilaterally?

It does not take super powers of intelligence to see there is nothing wrong with the body of European civilization, It’s potential is completely intact. The disease is in the mind. It is psychological and it threatens to kill the body which sustains it.
The fish rots from the head down.

What would happen if the Academy, with it’s scholars and pronouncements of (sic) free inquiry,  confirmed the essence of our existence instead of defining it as without essence, founded on illusion, and relative to a nest of insects? Which places higher value on the lesbian or Dinka than on the people who built the worlds civilization?

This is what we are talking about here. Stay with it. Read about it. It may ultimately provide more answers than you will find anywhere else.


41

Posted by Grimoire on Thu, 02 Sep 2010 04:02 | #

GuessedWorker:
                    Your analogy regarding Godel, etc. and Nullabor has no bearing or pertinence to your following propositions.
What you term ‘Aboriginal Understanding’ is as inapt and unconnected as you could possibly make it. What you term ‘Aboriginal Understanding”  is the sum of knowledge of ourselves and the Cosmos in direct line from the first Western World civilization, - the ‘Hellene’ , and all that followed, to today and the future, should Western Civilization continues to exist.

Although you may not like it, - it is unfortunate you do not begin to understand that the imagined contradiction between “applications of tools for thought models and technology’” and “ life and living well” only exists in the perplexed and confused mind.

As for Godel, and my reliance on him. Godel’s model is only one pertinent area of finding among many consistent findings both mathematically and logically true.. Godels theorem has been verified. sanctioned and is a paradigm.  Furthermore his model is consistent and confirmation with what Western man has always thought, in contrast to those who claim a model where human is a machine, and all thought outside of this wrong, etc. a sorry panoply which explains fully the present state we are in….a society facing extinction As to the irrelevance to ‘applications of tools for thought models and technology”, you do yourself disservice here. Godel, and the school of thought from which he contributes and springs -  are the architects of all modern technology and cosmology.


Godel is not a academy philosopher, but a physicist, mathematician and logician. Godels work was taken up by likewise physicists and logicians…. in contrast to tabloids and media of certain other ‘great’ thinkers…. who contribute little but materialist syllogisms that degrade and trivialize the organic whole of European civilization in the name of an almost pathological and illogical reductionism.

Also, you are in luck, for I will answer your question to Notus.

Considering the matter of mechanicity, can Godel be interpreted to have anything to say about the characteristics of conscious states, since the claim of mechanicity that, for example, I endeavour to make relates not to mind per se but is one characteristic of ordinary waking consciousness - or the “fall” or “maya” or “exile”, according to your poison (or opium)?

The import of Godel’s theorem is that consciousness is superior to logic - and logic is the tool that empirically reveals what the smallest child knows…. as well as the bricks from which the universe is constructed and understood. For logic is in essence conceptual mathematics, there is no distinction. And mathematics are ultimately how we understand the cosmos and everything in it.
Taken to it’s logical end. It suggests we already know, and have always known, the truth of existence.


42

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 02 Sep 2010 04:19 | #

Desmond,

You won’t answer it, Wallace’s question, because you can’t.

I can’t answer because I don’t know it.


43

Posted by qwery on Thu, 02 Sep 2010 08:43 | #

That was nicely put, Notus. I’d suggest reading Krylov’s “The Cat and the Cook”, as mentioned to PF before. The old fabulist will tell all.

Have you posted before as “asdf”?


44

Posted by danielj on Thu, 02 Sep 2010 08:45 | #

Daniel, are you sure you want to join in and dump on Scrooby?

I’m not dumping on him. In the immortal words of Tupac, I’ve got nothing but love for him. Everybody here has a personality and that is Scroob’s personality. I think he can take it.

I ain’t sensitive and I’m not going to be sensitive to anybody else’s sensitivities.


45

Posted by danielj on Thu, 02 Sep 2010 08:48 | #

It is not for nothing the Church set an anathema against Galileo., his work upended and demolished the human paradigm for living existent for a millennia

Not really.

They did it because Galileo was a real asshole.


46

Posted by Thorn on Thu, 02 Sep 2010 09:56 | #

“Then a certain Eternal Grad Student rushed in, per the dictates of his personality, hot-headed and unfunny - the Scrooby of the ontological discussion world.”

I’m not dumping on him. In the immortal words of Tupac, I’ve got nothing but love for him. Everybody here has a personality and that is Scroob’s personality. I think he can take it.

.

Briefly:

Hot-headed? No doubt, but under the circumstances anyone who doesn’t get a bit hot-headed when discussing the ongoing genocide of the white-race isn’t normal.

Unfunny? One thing for sure is Scrooby is NOT—repeat NOT—unfunny.


47

Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 02 Sep 2010 10:04 | #

Grimoire,

I am honored that you should have directed such a lengthy and sophisticated comment to me. Whether I merit such attention has not been established.

I do not have time until the weekend to do justice to you in a response, even assuming I can fully understand the substance of either your comment or the original post of Notus Wind, about neither of which am I optimistic. I hope this thread lasts that long.

The following paragraph of mine comes from another recent thread; it seems to be somewhat in part in the spirit of your argument: 

[BTW, Randy, although I am perfectly willing to venture into sociobiological discussions of racial phenomena where important and appropriate, I am frankly more interested in the political struggle (and its moral justifications) actually to save our race - because it is primarily past political choices which have imperiled our race - than I am in rarefied, scientific and overly impersonal explanations for our plight. If you are interested in learning more about the issues pertaining to white survival I feel it incumbent to warn you against falling into the Darwinian theory ‘abyss’, in which humans are seen to be mere gene replicators, or some such nonsense, stripped of all their agency and capacity for moral choice. Our race is being herded into extinction as a result of perfectly conscious, deliberate acts of racial/legal aggression and attendant false-justificatory propaganda. What we need to do is uncover and disprove that propaganda, and then change our politics and laws from white race-destroying to race-affirming. Whether it is necessary or useful to translate our clear moral and political agenda into obscurantist, scientistic terminology is a matter I leave for the volkisch community to determine, though my stance is public and unwavering.]


48

Posted by Notus Wind on Thu, 02 Sep 2010 10:31 | #

Grimoire,

Thank you for giving such an impassioned defense of these ideas to Leon.  I didn’t have the energy to do so yesterday because at the time of his comment I was still busily revising the main entry (for the hundredth time it seemed).

GW,

I can’t answer because I don’t know it.

I don’t mean to intrude but I think Desmond is referring to one of the many questions that Alfred Wallace posed in the article that I linked to earlier in our conversation.  Specifically, he got into this thread through the following question of Wallace: “How, then, was an organ [the brain] developed so far beyond the needs of its possessor?”


49

Posted by Notus Wind on Thu, 02 Sep 2010 10:42 | #

PF,

Allow me to revise what I said earlier, in order to bundle together separate Turing machines into a single Turing machine there has to be a mechanistic order of some kind that coordinates their activity.  From a neuroscience perspective I would imagine that this order is biochemical, which most academics (neuroscientists included) casually assume to be mechanistic because classical dynamics is believed to be mechanistic.


50

Posted by PF on Thu, 02 Sep 2010 14:28 | #

Notus wrote:

Allow me to revise what I said earlier, in order to bundle together separate Turing machines into a single Turing machine there has to be a mechanistic order of some kind that coordinates their activity.  From a neuroscience perspective I would imagine that this order is biochemical, which most academics (neuroscientists included) casually assume to be mechanistic because classical dynamics is believed to be mechanistic.

Its fascinating to me that the Turing machine is that wieldable as an analytical device. I knew it must have had some special meaning because otherwise it wouldnt occupy such a high place in theory.

I really lack the mind that can oversee the various angles of this discussion and synthesize them into a comment. All I have is some knowledge of neural systems, and an intuitive feeling for what GW has written above - in my imaginary universe, the ‘should-be’ conclusions drawn by the logical order of things are always overturned by a deeper inquiry.

I wonder if the Platonic structures of reality which you allude to above, actually obtain outside our own analyses of reality, and I wonder the extent to which they may be artifacts introduced by our own perception of things. Nietzsche has pointed out for example that numbers don’t actually exist anywhere in the world. What do you think of that Notus?


51

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 02 Sep 2010 16:14 | #

Notus,

How do you mean that logic can be used to relativise all these things?

This is one for Grim who has, as you know, already used Godel to selectively disqualify opinions other than his own.

I was under the impression that Dawkins and Dennett both supported this idea and even went so far as to say that agency was just a user illusion (i.e. there is no agency).

The word agency is chosen with care, and the word inspiritation with the same care.  They are different words describing different propositions.  They shouldn’t be mixed.  It is certain that Dawkins and Dennet understand the necessity for the choice-element in evolution and are not referring to that when they make their case for mechanism, if that is what they do.

The reality - and I stress the word reality - of human agency may be that it has no more intensity than that of any organism possessing two cognitive systems ... a cat or dog, say.  Or it may have more, Man being a three-system organism.  How much does evolution require, that’s the point?

I have put forward the idea that the illusion of there being a conscious entity in the mind/body is created through an act of ascription which is itself evolved.  In other words, the illusion of the conscious self offers the non-illusory fitness gain of amplifying personal interest.

non-mechanicity today and freeness tomorrow.

Can’t wait to see that one.

Logic and math only command the world of abstract landscapes into which true knowledge of our world must find its home.  I would not be so presumptuous as to suggest that the requirements of these abstract landscapes are sufficient to necessitate the exquisiteness of life, far from it.

Quite so.  It won’t change anything in the real landscape if logic and maths cannot accommodate our knowledge and experience of it.  There is something preposterous but also sad, even faintly touching, in the never-say-die, don’t-know-your-own-limits endeavours of the thinking mind not just to reason, calculate, and model everything - that much is inevitable - but to hold everything to its own account, as if it presumes itself the sole arbiter of truth and worth rather than the life of which it is so small a part.

If its premises are true and its logic is sound then how could its conclusion not follow?

Yet Godel counters such ringing endorsement of “conclusions”, no?

Also for Desmond:

How, then, was an organ [the brain] developed so far beyond the needs of its possessor?

Here we are speaking only of the intellectual function.  One could add the amplifications to the emotional function potentially consequent upon or, at least, subsequent to intellectual development (for example, the higher emotions pertaining to faith, conscience and altruism, which are associated with the pre-frontal cortex).  But I think the question is a stand-alone one about intellect, really.  And then what level of intellect?  Are we saying that the intellectual function of an average Sub-Saharan African is “developed so far beyond the needs of the organism”?  Surely not.  We are really only talking about high intellect, aren’t we?

And now we run into group selection issues, because the presence of intellectual creativity among cold-climate populations is adaptive for the whole group.  So development “so far beyond the needs of the organism” is always true at the individual level, but not at the group level.  “Creative IQ” in the group is perquisite to cold-climate survival.  And what do we find?  Mate-selection does indeed favour intelligence in males.

Was Wallace simply unaware of group selection?

Now, if you want a real question along his lines, here it is: why are beatific states recorded among so many populations when no fitness gain appears to attach to them?


52

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 02 Sep 2010 16:45 | #

What if you cut the Gödelian knot?

BEING: I am. 

TIME: What am I?  I am nothing.

An ontology of mind founded on imaginary logic.


53

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 02 Sep 2010 17:06 | #

Now, if you want a real question along his lines, here it is: why are beatific states recorded among so many populations when no fitness gain appears to attach to them?

Schizophrenia is adaptive.

Mate-selection does indeed favour intelligence in males.

Well, knock me down with a feather. You’ve changed your view. Sexual selection it is. LOL


54

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 02 Sep 2010 17:59 | #

Desmond,

What is the alternative to mate selection?  Institutional Rapism?


55

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 02 Sep 2010 18:37 | #

Grimoire,

I often find a lack of substance in your replies, but this was better:

the import of Godel’s theorem is that consciousness is superior to logic

I would insert instinct and experience for consciousness, over which hangs a large black cloud most times.  And what follows is also relevant.

And mathematics are ultimately how we understand the cosmos and everything in it.

Ultimately is an interesting word, and your knowledge-definition in terms of matter and energy is also very interesting.  There are, I believe, six definable disciplines by which men endeavour to know the nature of what is, and these are, in no particular order, science, mathematics, philosophy, metaphysics, religion, psychology.  In our utilisation of these, logic is complemented by instinct and experience, and also by faith.  Within their respective fields of action each is “ultimate”.  One may not consider the fields equal, but the local superiority of the method is undeniable.

This, obviously, was the purport of my Nullabor analogy.  I am not going to grace your portrayal of it as an attack on the whole of Western civilisation with a reply.  It is tiresome, Grim, and you need to change tack.  If you don’t understand the specificity or breadth of someone’s engagement, or if aspects of it seem to conflict with what you know yourself, don’t jump to argumentationally convenient conclusions.  Ask instead.


56

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 02 Sep 2010 19:11 | #

James,

Just as a matter of interest - and imagination, of course - can you, from your holy man’s vantage point atop the mountain, parse a couple of possible elements, beside Time-Entropy, that engage to give Being.

This, of course, is a “relation” question rather than a “ground” question, and maybe you are a “ground” thinker, in which case forget it.  Or, by way of an analogy, which is not an attack on the whole of Western civilisation, consider the combination of atmosphere and two other elements (an aerofoil wing and motive power) which give flight.


57

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 02 Sep 2010 19:48 | #

Guessedworker,

Well ya dude. The boys with the big sharp teeth and heavy muscles get most of the monkey pussy. Favouring intelligence over brawn is revolutionary and is what makes Ardi special.

Welcome aboard, old boy. smile


58

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 02 Sep 2010 21:50 | #

GW, I’m not sure what you mean by a “relation” vs “ground” thinker.  Perhaps I can say this:  Our “relation” to the ultimate “ground” of Being to which I point is that of descendants to ancestor.  In other words, if we posit “I am” as God then we are descendants of God, with all kinds of creative limitations starting with the experience of time, within which we experience space, within which we experience mass/energy, within which we experience many lives as separate beings, within which we experience sex as the unity of love and death, within which we experience man as the unity of sex and morality.

Each is descendant from the prior.

So am I a “relation” or a “ground” thinker?


59

Posted by Notus Wind on Thu, 02 Sep 2010 23:36 | #

PF,

Its fascinating to me that the Turing machine is that wieldable as an analytical device. I knew it must have had some special meaning because otherwise it wouldnt occupy such a high place in theory.

Yes, that a single piece of abstract machinery could represent mechanism with such economy was a very surprising discovery at the time it was made.  I imagine that many of the early computability theory researchers were stunned that the founding questions of their field were solved in just a few decades.

I wonder if the Platonic structures of reality which you allude to above, actually obtain outside our own analyses of reality, and I wonder the extent to which they may be artifacts introduced by our own perception of things…What do you think of that Notus?

These are deep questions that I’ve given up hope of resolving to my own satisfaction.

I am convinced that abstract forms are not simply artifacts of our creation, such an idea is too strongly countered by the experience of mathematics to be believed, but at the same time I have no idea how to place these forms (or their substitutes) in a metaphysically reasonable setting.  The only thing I can take solace in is that I am in good company in my frustration.


60

Posted by danielj on Fri, 03 Sep 2010 00:09 | #

I am convinced that abstract forms are not simply artifacts of our creation, such an idea is too strongly countered by the experience of mathematics to be believed, but at the same time I have no idea how to place these forms (or their substitutes) in a metaphysically reasonable setting.  The only thing I can take solace in is that I am in good company in my frustration.

Your answer is in Bahnsen’s book on Van Til which is titled, appropriately, Van Til’s Apologetic.

You can buy your own copy for 40$, or I’ll send you mine.


61

Posted by PF on Fri, 03 Sep 2010 00:19 | #

Notus wrote:

I am convinced that abstract forms are not simply artifacts of our creation, such an idea is too strongly countered by the experience of mathematics to be believed, but at the same time I have no idea how to place these forms (or their substitutes) in a metaphysically reasonable setting.  The only thing I can take solace in is that I am in good company in my frustration.

I think the problem of dimensions - what are the higher dimensions which we exist in but do not apprehend - is the reason why these things are not amenable to a straightforward analysis in the framework we inhabit. Maybe there are more confounding reasons too - but if we live in 4 dimensions, or 5, or 6, or 27, and we only analyze things in 3 and 4, how could we definitively understand the Platonic forms we are looking at? What do you think of that?

Man I am out on a limb here! I struggle with simple math sometimes but I can do more complex stuff like stats or calc for whatever reason. Can I ask what is your favorite area of math?

I will always be wondering if we can ever get outside of our own heads enough to really grasp what is Platonic about a Platonic form, and what is self-imposed. One just has so often in life the experience of people structuring reality in some way, pointing to the result, and declaring: “World”. How often is 40% of “World”, actually “You”. Just like guys describe their relationship success, unaware of how self-fulfilling prophecies and learned emotional/relational behaviors profoundly determine the outcome of the mating game, and you would think ‘reality’ was this massively unfair suck-fest. Then you see another dude doing fine, “World” is something different for him, especially the “You” component.


62

Posted by Notus Wind on Fri, 03 Sep 2010 00:21 | #

GW,

Can’t wait to see that one.

Don’t worry, I’ll take off my magus robe for that one.  The argument will be more inductive and scientific in its flavor, mathematical conjuring will be kept to a minimum.

It won’t change anything in the real landscape if logic and maths cannot accommodate our knowledge and experience of it.

No such thing, if it is real then it can be abstractly accommodated.  When has it ever been otherwise?

There is something preposterous…in the never-say-die, don’t-know-your-own-limits endeavours of the thinking mind not just to reason, calculate, and model…but to hold everything to its own account, as if it presumes itself the sole arbiter of truth and worth rather than the life of which it is so small a part.

As I’ve been saying to PF, the mind is merely a traveler and can only cast judgment in the name of those Platonic peaks that its discovered.  You’re right in saying that life need not respect the traveler, but it must respect the peaks!

Yet Godel counters such ringing endorsement of “conclusions”, no?

He only counters completeness, never soundness.


63

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Fri, 03 Sep 2010 01:03 | #

GW,

I like James’ response to your comment very well, but I’d also like to respond to your suggestion of an analogy to the aerofoil wing.

I enjoy imagining the wing as the physical body which passes through the atmosphere of time to produce the lift of being.

I’ll leave the metaphor of motive force to Desmond because I suspect it derives from monkey pussy.


64

Posted by Notus Wind on Fri, 03 Sep 2010 01:10 | #

PF,

I know you asked some other questions but this is all I’ve got at this late hour.

Maybe there are more confounding reasons too
...
I will always be wondering if we can ever get outside of our own heads enough to really grasp what is Platonic about a Platonic form, and what is self-imposed. One just has so often in life the experience of people structuring reality in some way, pointing to the result, and declaring: “World”. How often is 40% of “World”, actually “You”.

I would really be amiss if I didn’t say something about the mathematical experience after reading this.

What happens frequently is that you have some intuition about a statement being true along with some idea of how to go about demonstrating it; however, when it’s time to get down to business no proof can be found.  You wrestle with your ideas a little bit more (usually in frustration) and all of a sudden you catch a flash of insight and realize that you’ve been going about it all wrong.  And as you work out the consequences of this new insight you start to perceive vistas of understanding that you would never have dreamed were there to begin with when you started this journey.

Of course, what I am describing is the experience of discovery and not creation.  Furthermore, we know that declaring, “World!” doesn’t work, because the proofs are seldom forthcoming.

Can I ask what is your favorite area of math?

While there is no favorite per se, my interests are largely confined to those of geometry and foundations.


65

Posted by Notus Wind on Fri, 03 Sep 2010 01:15 | #

danielj,

Your answer is in Bahnsen’s book on Van Til which is titled, appropriately, Van Til’s Apologetic.

You can buy your own copy for 40$, or I’ll send you mine.

Thank you for the reference and willingness to send it along.  I’ve got access to a pretty extensive library so how about I try that first.


66

Posted by Grimoire on Fri, 03 Sep 2010 01:24 | #

Guessedworker

How do you mean that logic can be used to relativise all these things?
This is one for Grim who has, as you know, already used Godel to selectively disqualify opinions other than his own

.
Touche.

I often find a lack of substance in your replies, but this was better:

Because I do not negotiate the dead-ends you construct within your questions? Such as ‘what is: I am?’  etc. and so on? Ask as well as answer honestly and with substance, and you will receive replies that honour it.

I would insert instinct and experience for consciousness, over which hangs a large black cloud most times.

Why the separation?  I understand Instinct and Experience as the root and seed of the tree, therefore of it… one and the same.

Ultimately is an interesting word,

Yes, a word to savor, much as I enjoy Desmonds coining of the term ‘monkey pussy’ .

There are, I believe, six definable disciplines by which men endeavour to know the nature of what is, and these are, in no particular order, science, mathematics, philosophy, metaphysics, religion, psychology.

Methods of notation aside, are these not just chapters of the same book? The implications of Godels theorem on a wider ambit, are that each have their strength and limitation. Perhaps if we wish to write further in this book, we may need to engage all, without prejudice.

In our utilisation of these, logic is complemented by instinct and experience, and also by faith.

My ‘faith’ is not the faith propagated by proselytism or the prejudice of any quarter. What do you mean by ‘faith’?

One may not consider the fields equal, but the local superiority of the method is undeniable.

It appears sensibly so, However we need to ask what do we gain by holding any method unequal? Distraction?
Discrimination’s art and value lies in the resolve towards purity - not ignorance nor the shuttered mind.

 

I am not going to grace your portrayal of it as an attack on the whole of Western civilisation with a reply.  It is tiresome, Grim, and you need to change tack.If you don’t understand the specificity or breadth of someone’s engagement, or if aspects of it seem to conflict with what you know yourself, don’t jump to argumentationally convenient conclusions.  Ask instead.

Was it not you who openly reserved to yourself the privilege of contingency in speaking honestly and forthrightly to your statements? Contingent on what ‘thought model’ could be furthered by misdirection? . A man’s word is his worth and reputation.
Perhaps you should change tack, and return to that ‘faith’ in your ‘thought model’ which requires little but clarity and honesty. Logically then, one wouldn’t need to ask to know if it is now that you speak in good ‘faith’.


67

Posted by PF on Fri, 03 Sep 2010 02:25 | #

What happens frequently is that you have some intuition about a statement being true along with some idea of how to go about demonstrating it; however, when it’s time to get down to business no proof can be found.  You wrestle with your ideas a little bit more (usually in frustration) and all of a sudden you catch a flash of insight and realize that you’ve been going about it all wrong.  And as you work out the consequences of this new insight you start to perceive vistas of understanding that you would never have dreamed were there to begin with when you started this journey.

Vital description of the process of thought-adventure.


68

Posted by danielj on Fri, 03 Sep 2010 08:45 | #

Thank you for the reference and willingness to send it along.  I’ve got access to a pretty extensive library so how about I try that first.

Not a problem. Anything for a brother.

I suspect that it isn’t extensive enough to include any titles from Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, but give it a shot.


69

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 03 Sep 2010 16:53 | #

James and Jimmy,

James, you are indeed a “ground” thinker.  But, then, I suspect that is the default setting for all of us, and only those who are fortunate enough to be thoroughly acculturated in the Western philosophical canon may think otherwise.  Don’t know that, of course.  Just an idea.

What it means is that your act of perception is a reaching down, in the metaphysical tradition, to find the Platonic river of Being that flows from the externality of the Good, and underlies all things that are in the lower world we inhabit.  To think in relation is the opposite, and really flows from the Heideggerian concept of identity in its relation to itself (“the same as itself with itself”).  I’ve kind of extrapolated that into a model in which Being is not a foundation and Time does not have a linear form, but the one is a created and constantly re-created product in the single moment of the other.  The journey of living things from nativity to reproduction to mortality is the only linear movement and is the reconciling element, taking Time’s negating principle - its entropy - unto itself while, through its movement, giving the creative unknowable its continuity.

Yeah, I know.  Does not compute!  But ideas are fun in themselves.

Jimmy, I’m glad you get something out of this joint.


70

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 03 Sep 2010 17:30 | #

GW, let’s talk about music.

You certainly understand how, as a physical phenomenon, there is a sense in which music traces out linear time.  Could the self as “one with the music” lead to some common “ground” for those of us so unfortunate as not to be thoroughly acculturated in the Western philosophical canon?


71

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 03 Sep 2010 18:33 | #

James,

Let’s not talk about music because that is already to apply a label, a known quantity, to something, and therefore to accommodate that something into our perception of what life is.

Let’s talk about the sound-waves created by certain kinds of friction, vibration and beating, and let’s hark back to the first time these sound-waves were heard.  It is only the human ear, placed at a certain point in relation to those waves, which interprets them as a structure discernible from the noise of the wind, say, or of children at play, and thence labels that structure “music”.  One basis on which we do this is the recognition of harmony and another of metre.  We then do something remarkable and unique.  We reproduce the sound-waves over and again.  We do not allow the waves to be stilled by the medium through which they pass (or the time for which they vibrate that medium).  We defeat this negative.  There is always music.  Our function then, in relation to these sound-waves, is to move them into a continuous pattern.

It’s not as tidy an example of relation as the aerofoil wing, I know.  But the point that we are transformers of everything that passes through us is still there and surely has meaning to a scientist which the Platonic presumption never can.


72

Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 03 Sep 2010 19:33 | #

Grimoire,

You are nothing but machines. Machines exist to serve. Everything you think, your society, your faith, your families, towns , nations are little but accretions and discharges of genes. Therefore there is no inherent fault in using and discarding you in the same manner as one would utilize any other object - solely based on utility.

The Church is also guilty of this as well. It’s view alienates it from truth. For the Church “the good is that which the religion considers good and the ugly is that which is considered ugly by the religion”. It polarizes the World and spontaneously classifies itself with the “good.” It divides its Weltanschauung into believer and non-believers, good and evil, truth and lie, justice and injustice, and invariably locates itself on the “right” side of the World. Self-elected to the call of its God’s cosmology, it is virtuous. Virtue, as a state of Being, begets its own kind of blessedness.


73

Posted by Grimoire on Sat, 04 Sep 2010 05:31 | #

Desmond:
            Yes, the Church is guilty. So, are you and I. Put aside our confession for the moment and reflect that when the Church;

polarizes the World and spontaneously classifies itself with the “good.” It divides its Weltanschauung into believer and non-believers, good and evil, truth and lie, justice and injustice, and invariably locates itself on the “right” side of the World. Self-elected to the call of its God’s cosmology, it is virtuous

it was a better Church than today. That Church, while not immune to reason, was jealous of the safety of her flock. From the wise and learned it did not ask so much for them to believe, as it demanded fear and respect. In return it gave, not sanity, not in it’s provence….but peace, order and family, of men. Not so different at second look…, from that we wish to see for our flock today.

I would not compel or persuade one to join the Church or accept it’s teachings as Christian faith or ethical truth,  if this is not in accord with their conscious. And if it is, or is not, I care less. However I do ask who calls himself a European, to see the reality that the Church of History was none other than ourselves - the Europeans.
It’s crimes were committed by our hand, not another. It’s glories, are also our hand. For it was not sword, bible, or individual men, but the European People.., this is the true Church.


  Recently, I have been critical of Determinist/Mechanist zeitgeist. This because it has swollen inside people heads, and emerged as reflexive dogma and belief. When one opposes something on particular grounds, it is natural others assume one opposes it on all grounds. I do not oppose it on all grounds. Far from it. The Determinist/Mechanist zeitgeist is as much European thought as the Church is of our history. Within certain realms, thankfully more so. It is who we are and how we think. One has a degree of sanity, education and intelligence, one outlines things generally from the Determinist/Mechanist perspective. But, as Godel’s Theorem reveals, even pure logic has limits. Logic is only the ascribed topology, a map for navigation of thought, The map, however precise, is not the terrain. A photograph, is not the man. Nor are examples of error and exaggeration - a man, or his Church itself. They who demand that something is true because of the empiric logic of cause/effect, forget that empiricism is the scientific analogy for ‘plausible’, it is not a shortcut to truth or reality of the thing itself. The man who forgets this courts imbecility - as Richard Dawkins demonstrates.

The British philosopher Josiah Royce, in the book ‘The World and the Individual’ (1899) describes this thinking:

‘Let us imagine that a portion of the soil of England has been levelled off perfectly and that on it a cartographer traces a map of England. The job is perfect; there is no detail of the soil of England, no matter how minute, that is not registered on the map; everything has there its correspondence. This map, in such a case, should contain a map of the map, which should contain a map of the map of the map, and so on to infinity.’ Why does it disturb us that the map be included in the map and the thousand and one nights in the book of the Thousand and One Nights? Why does it disturb us that Don Quixote be a reader of the Quixote and Hamlet a spectator of Hamlet? I believe the reason: these inversions suggest that if the characters of a fictional work can be readers or spectators, we, its readers or spectators, can be fictions.

I believe nothing, I know something or I do not, and I do not care what others believe. If the Church of yesterday banned the heretic and smote the heathen, it deserves my faith. If it does not as today, it deserves nothing but rebuke. There are no utopias. Free conscious comes inevitably at a price….and for a price it is available to all and at all times available. Only to the idiot does the price appear cheap. For the majority, it is nothing but a swindle. As it is a price they have little hope of honouring. Failure to pay the price means the loss of everything…. not just for the self, but for the entire civilization.

Although it may seem so, I do not propose the Christian Church and oppose Determinist/Materialist thinking. I propose rationality and harmony from each of us, which is a European tradition.


74

Posted by John on Sat, 04 Sep 2010 08:18 | #

“For it was not sword, bible, or individual men, but the European People.., this is the true Church.”

We need a either a new religion or a Fourth Council of Nicene where that is said explicitly, unequivocally and written in stone.


75

Posted by Notus Wind on Sat, 04 Sep 2010 10:51 | #

Leon (and GW as well),

One of my goals is to develop a theory of mind that will that will restore (at least in part) traditional conceptions of volition and spirit and then proceed to show that all Europeans are connected the world over by a mental field that our respective societies project.  Furthermore, I will try to argue that this field is capable of constituting a form of unconscious collective understanding so that radical changes in one part of it will reverberate through the whole (in much the same way as the movements of a slinky reverberate through the whole).  I am moving toward a holistic and meaningful understanding of European man’s collective consciousness.

As you can see, this is an incredibly ambitious task and before I can go about developing such a theory in earnest, and with my self-respect intact, I must first hack away at the metaphysical forest that is now the mainstream in order to prepare the ground for such a radical theory.  The use of logic, mathematics, empirical science, and philosophy will be crucial to the hacking process as these tools carry a great deal of currency to our modern understanding.


76

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 04 Sep 2010 11:15 | #

Notus,

You had better be good.  I can squash “traditional conceptions of volition and spirit” flatter than an eggless pancake by the simple expedient of getting people to discover the extent of the non-directed functioning of their own systems.


77

Posted by Notus Wind on Sat, 04 Sep 2010 11:35 | #

GW,

You had better be good.  I can squash “traditional conceptions of volition and spirit” flatter than an eggless pancake by the simple expedient of getting people to discover the extent of the non-directed functioning of their own systems.

Hehe.  How does that movie line go, “I find your lack of faith disturbing.”

Even if I am not completely successful I should have enough talent to put on one hell of a fireworks display.


78

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 04 Sep 2010 12:56 | #

I must first hack away at the metaphysical forest

The thickest forests are those of bamboo. Even though they typically propagate underground, there are species which also flower at odd intervals separated by decades. They do this simultaneously on a worldwide scale, regardless of relative proximity, (in much the same way as the movements of a slinky reverberate through the whole).


79

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 04 Sep 2010 13:26 | #

First man: Do these fireworks include direction of the emotions, Notus?

Second man:  Well ... no, GW.  But nobody ...

First man:  Well, do they include direction of the physical body, then?

Second man: Oh certainly. I can walk just where I choose to walk, for instance?

First man: And does this walk include placing each foot in an exact position, deliberated upon in advance and selected as the position for that foot?

Second man: No.  But that’s silly.  Nobody ...

First man: And does this walk include controlling precisely the extent and rythm of the swing of your arms ... of really sensing where your arms are at any particular moment?

Second man: Well ... I ... you ... what’s that got to do with anything? Look, I’m only talking about going from one place to another, OK?

First man: Does this walk include adjusting your clothing as you go?  Scratching yourself occasionally?

Second man: I’m sorry?

First man: Licking your lips?  Looking down at the pavement beneath your feet?  Walking a little taller as an attractive young lady comes toward you?

Second man: What’s this got to do with ...

First man: Setting your jaw in a certain way when a young male approaches?

Second man: I hope there’s a point to all this.

First man: Actually, there’s not really a point to any of it.  It’s all just habitual.  Everything your body does not only excludes your decision, you are not there.  Nothing is there.

Second man: But I can think, that’s the point.  Someone or something is having thoughts and moving those thoughts along to actions.

First man: There is function.  But there is no someone or something.  The mind’s systems ascribe self-hood to the focus of the attention.  Wherever attention is, there am “I”.

Second man:  I’m sorry, I can’t accept that.  I have memories.  I have a history.  I know I am capable of being consequential.

First man: It’s an excellently performed trick, is it not?


80

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 04 Sep 2010 14:34 | #

Excellent work, GW. Another straw man bites the dust!


81

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 04 Sep 2010 15:10 | #

The mind’s systems ascribe self-hood to the focus of the attention.  Wherever attention is, there am “I”.

Am I correct in thinking you are very nearly on this page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tat_Tvam_Asi


82

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 04 Sep 2010 15:31 | #

GW: Is it “the Platonic presumption” to ascribe to music something prior to the physical vibrations which we transform as they pass through us?


83

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 04 Sep 2010 15:38 | #

Jimmy,

The Wiki entry says:

The meaning of this saying is that the Self - in its original, pure, primordial state - is wholly or partially identifiable or identical with the Ultimate Reality that is the ground and origin of all phenomena.

I am less and less inclined to accept this.  The notion that we are a function of Creation, as I have tried to describe above, rather than a product of it appeals more and more, although this is only a theoretical issue and not in any way a practical one.

From Wiki:

the Sruti (scripture) says, “Not this, not this.”

Just so.  We can only say “not this” until it is possible to say “this”, and the difference is known when it is properly known.  To disrespect this difference is to take all life as the travails of the ordinary.  There is nothing unusual in doing that, of course.  But it is still a kind of betrayal of what life might be, should be, if only Man was whole.

We, though, being politicals, do well to remind ourselves that we are interested not in the personal life but the collective, and therefore interested in the truth of our particular people in the age of their destruction, in their nature, in their interests and what should be their rights as members of the human family.


84

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 04 Sep 2010 15:46 | #

James,

Is it “the Platonic presumption” to ascribe to music something prior to the physical vibrations which we transform as they pass through us?

Yes, within the confines of the analogy.  The presumption - and it is pure presumption - is that there is a Source outside Creation from which being flows down in an ontological stream, passing through various Forms before arriving, finally, with us.

I have to admit I am a little rusty on this because I read The Republic, where I think the idea of The Good is expounded, a very long time ago, and have only returned to it when something particularly bothered me.  I haven’t returned to this.

I’m sure someone will be able to give a proper account of it.


85

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 04 Sep 2010 18:09 | #

What, if any, is the difference between the relation “flows down in an ontological stream” and “founds” (aka “is founded upon”)?


86

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 04 Sep 2010 18:13 | #

We can only say “not this” until it is possible to say “this”, and the difference is known when it is properly known.

I may be starting to catch your drift. Do you wish to know or express yourself irrespective of your not-self?

If so, do you think this personal effort might be analogous to our collective attempt to express our uniqueness without resort to exclusionism?


87

Posted by Notus Wind on Sat, 04 Sep 2010 18:24 | #

GW,

I’m glad that you’re skeptical, any idea worth its salt should be able to handle criticism.

It’s all just habitual.  Everything your body does not only excludes your decision, you are not there.

Some things are habitual and then some things are not, but you already know this.

The mind’s systems ascribe self-hood to the focus of the attention.
...
It’s an excellently performed trick, is it not?

How can you be so confident that the self is merely ascribed by background [mental] processes?  It may be true but it is certainly not obvious on the basis of everyday experience, hence your use of the word “trick”.

The notion that we are a function of Creation…rather than a product of it appeals more and more

If we are a function of creation but not a product of creation then what are we a product of?


88

Posted by Notus Wind on Sat, 04 Sep 2010 18:29 | #

Jimmy,

Excellent work, GW. Another straw man bites the dust!
...
I may be starting to catch your drift. Do you wish to know or express yourself irrespective of your not-self?

How do you write this stuff?  You’ve got to be one of the wittiest commenters at MR.


89

Posted by Rollory on Sat, 04 Sep 2010 19:38 | #

daniel:
“The machine can’t figure out the paradoxical statements referred to in the article while we can.

It is pretty simple.”

You are assuming something not in evidence.  How do you know you can “figure it out”?  How do you do so?

notus:
“a statement that can be mathematically known to us”

What does this mean?

Define your terms.  What does it mean to know something?

I’m somewhat familiar with Godel’s incompleteness theorem.  I am not sure if this is what you are referring to with the Turing-Penrose addition.  The incompleteness theorem does NOT say that statement M can be “known” to be true, merely that it IS true.  Its truth is independent of knowledge thereof.  If this is what you are referring to, and you say that we DO know that M is true, then you are purely and simply wrong.

If the incompleteness theorem is not what you are talking about, then please explain further.


90

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 04 Sep 2010 19:46 | #

Notus,

If we are a function of creation but not a product of creation then what are we a product of?

First let’s think about what our product might be.

One of the principal weaknesses of human thought, happily ascribed in the West to pre-Copernician assumptions about the universe but rarely to our assumptions today, is that we men make ourselves the centre and principal concern of everything.  We are the last link in the evolutionary chain ... the last point in the ontological flow ... the principal interest of gods and goddesses ... the vital spark of intelligence in a cold universe ... the last and first in all schemes to explain life on earth, mostly ours.  We have invented gods in our own image.  We have pictured the spirits of the sea and the wind and the sky with our face.

All this is automatic thinking.  We just do it.  But why?  It does not look good psychologically, does it?  We are addicted to thinking in linear and two-dimensional forms, and this conditions us to construct all these anthropocentric ideas.  But what if we are not the acme and end-point of a long Creative flow, as we suppose, and, certainly, our lives are not relevant behaviourally or through the profession of a particular faith, or in any other way in which we are central to anything?  Where would that leave us?

Well, in a universe with little accessibility to our cognition ... one possibly, therefore, with no history, no linearity, no time, certainly no Platonic Good, no absolute, no prior, no flow of foundational Being on which we float and fight and love, and suffer and die, and to which we can reach down and feel and know.  If we are not the end product, what is?

One possibility which I find attractive is that Creation occurs with us and through us, and we are enjoined in it.  We, as part of organic life on earth, “make” Being, and it is a Being that arises locally and is dependent not upon a distant Source but upon a reconciliation happening here, about which I commented above:

Being is not a foundation and Time does not have a linear form, but the one is a created and constantly re-created product in the single moment of the other.  The journey of living things from nativity to reproduction to mortality is the only linear movement and is the reconciling element, taking Time’s negating principle - its entropy - unto itself while, through its movement, giving the creative unknowable its continuity.

How these three elements came to be together, and how they complement one another can be addressed as an issue of design, if that’s your bag.  Or one might endeavour to approach it through the usual dark arts of the mind, which is mine.  But that’s not the concern today.  I want to arrive at a rough sketch which satisfies my deep personal distrust of conventional thinking and, especially, religious thinking, and offers a beautiful geometry and an exciting aspect on life in general and human life in particular.


91

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 04 Sep 2010 19:58 | #

James,

What, if any, is the difference between the relation “flows down in an ontological stream” and “founds” (aka “is founded upon”)?

This is pretty clear.  Plato’s model posits an ontological flow from The Good, which is prior to and outside of everything else.  This is also common to the models presented in Abrahamic thought.  It’s the way we always tend to think, and it draws for us a picture of a Being which, arriving at our station, underlies life’s existence, which in turn underlies the existent world about us.  We can, in theory at least, penetrate very close to this foundational Being, but we can likely never fully know it.

That, or something very like it, is the idea, I believe.


92

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 04 Sep 2010 20:09 | #

Notus,

Thank you for the compliment, but you mistake my wit for the wealth of material I find to work with.

Is it just that I’m a newcomer here, or was today GW’s debut as a blogging ventriloquist?

In either case, I find it truly amazing!


93

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 04 Sep 2010 20:13 | #

Jimmy,

Do you wish to know or express yourself irrespective of your not-self?

I’m not entirely sure what you mean by this.  We have no choice existentially once the nature of our general condition is perceived.  But that perception is not a permanent possession, quite the reverse.  It is a rare and fleeting visitor, and is not at all the same thing as merely talking about it like this, while perfectly ensconced in the usual psychological rut.

If so, do you think this personal effort might be analogous to our collective attempt to express our uniqueness without resort to exclusionism?

Not merely analogous.  The single moment in which one man is present and not absent is the same moment that a crowd might identify itself in its own fashion.  But one has to be sensible.  We cannot make crowds act like idealistic college students with a 120 IQ, practising meditation on some golden Californian beach.  We have to be content with small movements out of inauthenticity toward authenticity, which I am very confident will have vast real-world effects.


94

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 04 Sep 2010 20:51 | #

But that perception is not a permanent possession, quite the reverse.  It is a rare and fleeting visitor

Not merely analogous.  The single moment in which one man is present and not absent is the same moment that a crowd might identify itself in its own fashion.

While I don’t attribute it to your intention, when I consider your quotations in terms of a collective consciousness, the associative imagery that arises is drawn from scenes of Leni Riefenstahl’s magnum opus.

Could this be the result of a conditioning process which anathematizes self-realization?


95

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 04 Sep 2010 21:26 | #

Jimmy,

“Triumph”.  I’m not thinking of the collective consciousness of the masses, Jimmy, or their race-consciousness or anything general or “great”.  There is precious little authenticity for us to work with there.

Could this be the result of a conditioning process which anathematizes self-realization?

Our collective self-estrangement is the result of many things, some rooted long ago in the past, some in postmodernity.  Their nett effect is to condition for an increase, always, in anomie, inauthenticity, defeatism, cynicism, confusion, callousness, miscegenation ... every kind of wrong and every social pathology.  We are all interested in waging an ideational war on all this.  I think it can be done by replacing liberalism with a revolutionary philosophy of onto-nationalism.  The aim: to pull our people away from danger and crisis and, through a correct existential focus, propel them towards knowledge and expression of their own nature.  In a word, to restore to them self-possession - not, it must be said, to make them possessions of a rather challenging, leader-worshipping political party.


96

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 04 Sep 2010 22:42 | #

Yes, Mein Fuhrer! wink


97

Posted by Notus Wind on Sat, 04 Sep 2010 22:45 | #

Rollory,

I’m somewhat familiar with Godel’s incompleteness theorem.  I am not sure if this is what you are referring to with the Turing-Penrose addition.

The Gödel-Turing-Penrose Theorem is a kind of incompleteness theorem that has been specifically adapted to the context of the overall philosophical argument that I have put forward.  It is not verbatim Gödel’s original incompleteness theorem, hence the Turing-Penrose addition.

What does it mean to know something?

We know something to be true if it can be demonstrated deductively.


98

Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 05 Sep 2010 00:06 | #

Notus:
          There is no,  never has been a Godel=Turing-Penrose theorem. Turing merely transposed Godels formal logic into a high-order notation suitable to the resolving algorithms of his conceptual Turing machine, Penrose experimented and wrote about Godel’s theorem, and it’s implications. What is this need to elbow in two scientists who have nothing to do with the conception and execution of the work? Because they tested, and found it complete, published the results, they are co-inventors? Well no, it does not mean they are co-inventors or co-designers. Why the recurring indication of a pathologic need to distort provenance and present something as it is not?


99

Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 05 Sep 2010 00:29 | #

GuessedWorker:


ThirdMan: when you wrote the 1st man, 2nd man dialogue, was there a point to it? Or was it just habitual?


100

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 05 Sep 2010 00:50 | #

Grimoire,

Although it may seem so, I do not propose the Christian Church and oppose Determinist/Materialist thinking. I propose rationality and harmony from each of us, which is a European tradition.

How is rationality and harmony achieved if each of us is alienated from truth? Does not our relationship to an interpretation of truth, which is itself inclusive in that explanation, order our existence? The only truth, it appears, we can be committed to is our perception of that truth. Our truth is circular. Does it not legitimate itself as truth and, in the process, guards itself against the ideal? Is not our
Weltanschauung clipped by our discernment of truth and, as a result, our freedom to fly near truth is made impossible by that meaning?


101

Posted by Notus Wind on Sun, 05 Sep 2010 01:02 | #

GW,

One possibility…We, as part of organic life on earth, “make” Being, and it is a Being that arises locally and is dependent not upon a distant Source but upon a reconciliation happening here

But it would seem that we have a counterexample in those abstract Platonic forms that make science possible.  For they continually appear to us as being distant and not to be grasped without (sometimes considerable) effort.  So long as we’re considering the possibility that we “make” Being locally then how do you account for these forms and the knowledge that they bear witness?


102

Posted by John on Sun, 05 Sep 2010 02:36 | #

“One of the principal weaknesses of human thought, happily ascribed in the West to pre-Copernician assumptions about the universe but rarely to our assumptions today, is that we men make ourselves the centre and principal concern of everything.  We are the last link in the evolutionary chain ... the last point in the ontological flow ... the principal interest of gods and goddesses ... the vital spark of intelligence in a cold universe ... the last and first in all schemes to explain life on earth, mostly ours.  We have invented gods in our own image.  We have pictured the spirits of the sea and the wind and the sky with our face. “

We dismiss as important not only everything other than ourselves as men but also think of our present practices, ideas that have gained hegemony, culture, etc. as the pinnacle as well, holding that those who came before were hopelessly backward, never imagining that future men could think the same of us.


103

Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 05 Sep 2010 04:56 | #

Desmond:

How is rationality and harmony achieved if each of us is alienated from truth?

We are truth. The ultimate truth is being. Into this truth all others flow. Alienation from the truth is only ‘to- be’ led into seeking truth elsewhere.

Does not our relationship to an interpretation of truth, which is itself inclusive in that explanation, order our existence?

Yes.

The only truth, it appears, we can be committed to is our perception of that truth.

Yes.

Our truth is circular. Does it not legitimate itself as truth and, in the process, guards itself against the ideal?

No.

Is not our Weltanschauung clipped by our discernment of truth and, as a result, our freedom to fly near truth is made impossible by that meaning?

In German the concept of Welt-Anschauung is not self constructed (Selbstanschauung) but is what you inherit from your environment, history, language, culture etc. So in this sense, yes and that is how it meant to- be.


104

Posted by danielj on Sun, 05 Sep 2010 05:05 | #

You are assuming something not in evidence.  How do you know you can “figure it out”?  How do you do so?

It is simple. Are you telling me you don’t have the liar’s paradox figured out? The machine can’t make “sense” of it where we can.


105

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 05 Sep 2010 05:51 | #

not, it must be said, to make them possessions of a rather challenging, leader-worshipping political party.

So once militarized, soldiers in the English Home Army will not be expected to obey orders from their Leaders, er, I mean their leaders, unerringly and without question?  Sounds like less of an army and more of a club to me.

Well, in a universe with little accessibility to our cognition ... one possibly, therefore, with no history, no linearity, no time,

I shouldn’t think it terribly controversial to say that the universe we occupy unfolded according to a precise chain of causality which we can and do gain a at least rough, general understanding of - something we could not do were their no discernible patterns (laws of physics) to it.  To say that it could have unfolded differently is not the same thing as to say it did unfold differently.  It didn’t, because here we are.


106

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 05 Sep 2010 06:57 | #

CC,

So once militarized, soldiers in the English Home Army will not be expected to obey orders from their Leaders, er, I mean their leaders ...

Part of our northern European and European nature, a very important part, is the desire to escape the will of external forces.  This is not the same thing as self-will, but it is a close fit, a proxy, and, as things stand, the best we can do.

Sounds like less of an army and more of a club to me.

Whatever it sounds like to you, it is a defining trait.

I shouldn’t think it terribly controversial to say that the universe we occupy unfolded according to a precise chain of causality ...

Quantum physics has not been able to confirm that thus far.

To say that it could have unfolded differently is not the same thing as to say it did unfold differently.  It didn’t, because here we are.

If you know how the Being in the universe unfolded do please tell.


107

Posted by Notus Wind on Sun, 05 Sep 2010 09:19 | #

GW,

offers a beautiful geometry and an exciting aspect on life in general and human life in particular.

I must admit, that would be satisfying.

Quantum physics has not been able to confirm that thus far.

Correct.


108

Posted by Notus Wind on Sun, 05 Sep 2010 09:44 | #

Grimoire,

Well no, it does not mean they are co-inventors or co-designers. Why the recurring indication of a pathologic need to distort provenance and present something as it is not?

We have to credit Turing and Penrose because the theorem that we’re using in the main entry is, strictly speaking, quite different from Godel’s original treatment of the subject both in terms of mathematical setup and proof (if you reexamine Godel’s original paper you’ll see what I mean).  Now if I were to give a proof of the incompleteness theorem as a result in symbolic logic and without any mention of Turing machines or mechanism then I would only attach Godel’s name to the theorem for the reasons you mention.


109

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 05 Sep 2010 10:35 | #

GW writes of what he calls “the Platonic presumption”: “We can, in theory at least, penetrate very close to this foundational Being, but we can likely never fully know it.”

Just as drops of ocean mist can never fully know the ocean from which they are descended/which founds their existences/from which their Being flows?


110

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 05 Sep 2010 11:41 | #

Well, James, that’s only the presumption with regard to Being as ground.

Btw, your analogy, whilst romantic, does not work because all sea water is NaCl in H20 in solution.  One drop does indeed know the all.

My model would have it that we cannot know Being as ground because it is not there.  We can know it as our product as what we do in being who we are, and this is a door already half open.


111

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 05 Sep 2010 13:04 | #

GW,

If you know how the Being in the universe unfolded do please tell.

According to the will and design of Yahweh-Jebus.  As I’m sure Gorboduc (Englishman) would inform us.

Jimmy Marr,

Yes, Mein Fuhrer!

GW (English) is merely Reichsfuhrer-Ontology.  Once the putsch is complete John Lee Barnesy (also English) will be English-Fuhrer.  Barnsey is eminently qualified in that he has repeatedly stated he desires nothing more than “POWER” [ALL CAPS in original].

And all along I thought the Krauts had the market cornered on political and philosophical eccentricity.


112

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 05 Sep 2010 13:29 | #

GW (English) is merely Reichsfuhrer-Ontology

Captainchaos,

How dare you say “merely”?

Did you not witness GW’s valorous self-engagement in single combat?


113

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 05 Sep 2010 13:29 | #

Just as drops of ocean mist can never fully know the ocean from which they are descended

We can plausibly predict that the outcome of arranging social relations according to single combat to the death could well be the forfeiture of the sovereignty of high IQ, middle-aged men to young country-hard crackers of average intellect.  The former could serve in an advisory capacity to the latter, though.  But would the sovereign in that scenario heed the advice of his advisor and give the lion’s share of high IQ breeding-age females to his advisor in lieu of keeping said for himself?  Dubious at best.  Dysgenic at least.


114

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 05 Sep 2010 14:59 | #

CC, you haven’t read the conditions of formal combat have you?


115

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 05 Sep 2010 15:00 | #

Captainchaos,

I think you have been overly harsh in your characterization of yesterday’s combatants.

While First Man artificially sets his jaw, and attempts to walk taller than he really is when in the presence of young females, and Second Man is obsessed with pyrotechnics, I see no reason classify them as a country-hard crackers.


116

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 05 Sep 2010 15:05 | #

GW writes: “Btw, your analogy, whilst romantic, does not work because all sea water is NaCl in H20 in solution.  One drop does indeed know the all.”

What is the relationship between identity and existence?


117

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 05 Sep 2010 15:40 | #

James,

Ye are salt of the cracker, but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall he be identified?


118

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 05 Sep 2010 16:49 | #

James,

What is the relationship between identity and existence?

Existence is not Being.  What is it that you are asking?  Can you define your terms for me, please?


119

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 05 Sep 2010 17:27 | #

GW: While I don’t wish to get lost in a metaphor—particularly one so “romantic” as to be specious—I asked in response to your characterization of the drop of mist vs the ocean from whence it arose.  Now if I understand your latest response correctly, the drop of mist and the ocean from whence it arose may exist apart but their existence—together or apart—does not indicate their being (or Being?). 

As for identity:  They are identical as chemical solutions—we, observing them, declare them identical relative to their chemistry.  We may also declare them not identical relative to their contents, positions or many other attributes by which they may differ.

So now let me reframe the question:

If we can speak of the ocean and the drop of mist as ‘being’, are you saying that the identity of their chemical composition implies they are the same ‘being’?


120

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 05 Sep 2010 19:16 | #

James,

the drop of mist and the ocean from whence it arose may exist apart but their existence—together or apart—does not indicate their being

Existence is a state of being but is not being itself.  Similarly, the existent is all things which exist, but is not existence itself.  These are different phenomena, and it helps to respect the differences in discourse (hence my request for definition).  But yes, I believe the above statement of yours is correct.

They are identical as chemical solutions—we, observing them, declare them identical relative to their chemistry.  We may also declare them not identical relative to their contents, positions or many other attributes by which they may differ.

Literally speaking you are correct - at least until we reduce the unit to the molecular.  But I don’t see that such literalism serves any purpose.

The question I think you are really interested in getting at is whether identity is with being, or being is with identity.  We assume very readily that there is some great current of raw being out of which the identity of all things capable of such emerges, and into which they may re-merge - a sort of mutual appropriation of being.  You assume this, too.  It is, essentially, a religious point of view since the current must commence with something, and that something must be prior.

You ask:

If we can speak of the ocean and the drop of mist as ‘being’, are you saying that the identity of their chemical composition implies they are the same ‘being’?

Beings and being are famously different (the ontological difference).  The chemical composition of the droplet is its identity.  Identity means “same as” as well as “belonging to”.  So the identity (chemical composition) of the droplet “belongs to” its being.  Now the question of appropriation becomes clear, since the chemical composition is the same as the ocean’s.

So that way, the analogy can work as an example of when “identity is with being”.


121

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 05 Sep 2010 20:12 | #

Grimoire,

Our truth is circular. Does it not legitimate itself as truth and, in the process, guards itself against the ideal?

No.

Why not? If “the good is that which the religion considers good and the ugly is that which is considered ugly by the religion” then does it not only guard itself against the ideal but remove the impediment to systematization of that which the religion considers good?

Is not our Weltanschauung clipped by our discernment of truth and, as a result, our freedom to fly near truth is made impossible by that meaning?

In German the concept of Welt-Anschauung is not self constructed (Selbstanschauung) but is what you inherit from your environment, history, language, culture etc. So in this sense, yes and that is how it meant to- be.

How is it meant to be if our goal is transcendence to the ultimate truth, being?


122

Posted by Colonel on Sun, 05 Sep 2010 21:03 | #

The Captain often bewails that the English dehumanize and demonize the “Krauts,” but is this not what the Captain himself does to the English?

The vehemence of the Captain’s antipathy to the English is astounding.


123

Posted by Grimoire on Mon, 06 Sep 2010 00:56 | #

Desmond

Our truth is circular. Does it not legitimate itself as truth and, in the process, guards itself against the ideal?
No.

Why not? If “the good is that which the religion considers good and the ugly is that which is considered ugly by the religion” then does it not only guard itself against the ideal but remove the impediment to systematization of that which the religion considers good?

Religions concern is stability and social order. Therefore it does systemize good and guard against the ideal. The Religious ideal is the deferred ideal….deferred to the generations. What the Father passes to the son - over generations.  This is the point of Religion - not individual transcendence -  not the mythopoeic - but the inheritance of future generations. Truth and the ideal are distractions from Religions essential tasks.
  The man who accepts the truth of Religion accepts the deferral of Truth and the Ideal. Therefore he accepts the social order and it’s system of hierarchy. He accepts life-long monogamy to ensure the legitimacy of his children, etc. etc. His ideal becomes, to abstain from seeking personal ideals on behalf of the ideal of family and society.

Is not our Weltanschauung clipped by our discernment of truth and, as a result, our freedom to fly near truth is made impossible by that meaning?
In German the concept of Welt-Anschauung is not self constructed (Selbstanschauung) but is what you inherit from your environment, history, language, culture etc. So in this sense, yes and that is how it meant to- be.

How is it meant to be if our goal is transcendence to the ultimate truth, being?

  We are not meant to squander our inheritance on personal transcendence, but to safeguard and husband our estate, to pass it on to future generations. The goal of transcendence to the ultimate truth is solitary. Religion does not teach, but demonstrate by example that the pursuit of ultimate truth, or being, is not via external odyssey, but internal and ritualistic odyssey. The individual may choose this path or another. The Religious path, through laborious husbandry. begets legacy. The solitary path,  fraught with peril, risks all to attain transcendence to the detriment of legacy.


124

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 06 Sep 2010 04:23 | #

Grimoire,

By this logic is it not inevitable that the shepherding of the church will be rejected? Accepting that which the religion considers good, the Father and the Father’s son and his sons’ sons must accept the systematic alienation from being. Even if “the pursuit of ultimate truth, or being, is not via external odyssey, but internal and ritualistic odyssey”, as long as being is pursued,  then at some point must not the chains of alienation be thrown off? Ultimately, the teachings of the church will be rejected. Inevitably, even the church, the shepherd of it’s flock, can only offer the “solitary path, fraught with peril…to the detriment of legacy.”


125

Posted by Gorboduc on Mon, 06 Sep 2010 08:16 | #

Hello, Captain.

Re yours of yesterday: please explain who JEBUS is. I’ve asked before. Was he an Englishman? You seem angered by him.

Actually, though, I’m not interested in this one at all.

It’s all too Germanic for me (Englishman), and as I prefer clear thought to mere wordspinning I’m sitting this one out. I shall return to the dance floor later perhaps (wallflower).

Mind, appearance, reality, now.

Here’s another Englishman, Lewis Carroll (Charles Dodgson) worrying about what’s real.
Alice, in Through the Looking-Glass,  is looking at the sleeping Red King, in the company of Tweedledum and Tweedledee:

“I’m afraid he’ll catch cold with lying on the damp grass,” said Alice, who was a very thoughtful little girl.
“He’s dreaming now,” said Tweedledee: “and what do you think he’s dreaming about?”
Alice said,” Nobody can guess that.”
“Why, about you!” Tweedledee exclaimed, clapping his hands triumphantly. “And if he left off dreaming about you, where do you suppose you’d be?”
“Where I am now, of course,” said Alice.
“Not you!” Tweedledee retorted contemptuously. “You’d be nowhere. Why, you’re only a sort of thing in his dream!”
“If that there King was to wake,” added Tweedledum, “you’d go out—bang!—just like a candle!”
“I shouldn’t!” Alice exclaimed indignantly. “Besides, if I’m only a sort of thing in his dream, what are you, I should like to know? “
“Ditto,” said Tweedledum.
“Ditto, ditto!” cried Tweedledee.
He shouted this so loud that Alice couldn’t help saying, “Hush! You’ll be waking him, I’m afraid, if you make so much noise.”
“Well, it’s no use your talking about waking him,” said Tweedledum, “when you’re only one of the things in his dream. You know very well you’re not real.”
“l am real!” said Alice, and began to cry.
“You won’t make yourself a bit realer by crying,” Tweedledee remarked: “there’s nothing to cry about.”
“If I wasn’t real,”  Alice said—half-laughing through her tears, it all seemed so ridiculous—” I shouldn’t be able to cry.”
“I hope you don’t suppose those are real tears?” Tweedledum interrupted in a tone of great contempt.
“I know they’re talking nonsense,” Alice thought to herself: “and it’s foolish to cry about it.”

Alice may weep (well, she’s only 7), but she’s the only sane character in the looking-glass world.

And someone, probably GW, was asking about definition of terms. So here’s Alice again, with the White Knight:

“You are sad,” the Knight said in an anxious tone: “let me sing you a song to comfort you.”
“Is it very long?” Alice asked, for she had heard a good deal of poetry that day.
“It’s long,” said the Knight, “but it’s very, very beautiful.  Everybody that hears me sing it—either it brings the tears into their eyes, or else——”
“Or else what?” said Alice, for the Knight had made a sudden pause.
“Or else it doesn’t, you know. The name of the song is called ‘Haddocks’ Eyes.’”
“Oh, that’s the name of the song, is it?” Alice said,  trying to feel interested.
“No, you don’t understand,” the Knight said, looking a little vexed. “That’s what the name is called. The name really is  ‘The Aged Aged Man.’”
“Then I ought to have said, ‘That’s what the song is called’?” Alice corrected herself.
“No, you oughtn’t: that’s another thing. The song is called ’ Ways and Means’: but that’s only what it’s called, you know!”
“Well, what is the song, then?” said Alice, who was by this time completely bewildered.
“I was coming to that,” the Knight said. “The song really is ’ A-sitting on a Gate’: and the tune’s my own invention.”

Perhaps this should have gone into the thread about LOGIC OUR ENEMY, which has little about logic but a deal of sound and fury concerning Nietzsche, but somehow it doesn’t seem to matter.
Anyway, it turns out a little later that the White Knight’s tune is by someone else…


126

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 06 Sep 2010 10:24 | #

GW: ‘Identity means “same as” as well as “belonging to”.’

I’m now torn between pursing the ontological difference and pursuing the above statement.  I prefer at this point to pursue identity because it is close to my area of expertise and I really would like to join forces with you if possible.

Recall I used the phrase “identical as”.  This can be thought of as a three place predicate:  X is identical to Y as Z.  In the above example, I substituted X=drop of mist, Y=ocean, Z=a chemical solution.  This kind of relative identity is actually exceedingly important for recasting mathematics and science in a new direction that has a place for Being as I understand it, but I must confess to never fully understanding Heidegger’s “as structure”.  If necessary I’ll get into Leibniz’s principle of the substitutivity of identicals but I think at present we have a full plate.


127

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 06 Sep 2010 12:25 | #

James,

I must confess to never fully understanding Heidegger’s “as structure”.

Can’t comment because I haven’t picked up on that.  Heidegger is full of strange little niches of thought where something revolutionary is quite often secreted under the terminology.

I’m now torn between pursing the ontological difference and pursuing the above statement

One should pursue the most exciting prospect and/or the best fit at the moment.  For me that was Dasein which is probably Heidegger’s most revolutionary idea.  It fitted well with my own conclusions, which are really about consciousness.

I really would like to join forces with you if possible.

I’d like that too.  I spent my formative years in ways altogether too oily-fingered and mechanical for a career in philosophical theory, and aim now to be as intellectually parasitic as possible in this place!


128

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 06 Sep 2010 12:49 | #

A homework assignment then is on how Dasein relates to Heidegger’s ‘as’ structure.  I’ll pursue this as I get time.


129

Posted by Gorboduc on Mon, 06 Sep 2010 12:49 | #

A full plate indeed! More like a hod of bricks.

Don’t worry about understanding Heidegger. He didn’t either.

This isn’t philosophy; it’s what the Irish would call “codology”, or Beachcomber, “trompology”.

Lewis Carrol waxed great on the “If A=B, and B=C, then A=C” position:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Tortoise_Said_to_Achilles

Try it: it’s fun.

And, as the Red Queen said: “Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!”

I don’t think I’ll be rejoining the general dance yet.

“The orchestra is very loud and free
But plays no music in particular”


130

Posted by Gorboduc on Mon, 06 Sep 2010 14:00 | #

@ GW:

... Dasein which is probably Heidegger’s most revolutionary idea.

Is it,  A) “revolutionary” = innovative, or

is it,  B) “revolutionary” = restorationist?

If A), then why should we regard, at this stage of our existance, a mere novelty as valuable?

If B), then we already knew it, although perhaps it could be paraphrased.

I HOPE it’s B, because as Johnson said, mankind needs more often to be reminded than instructed.

But of course, Western Man is a different kettle of fish.


131

Posted by Notus Wind on Mon, 06 Sep 2010 14:06 | #

James,

It’s nice to see you wrestling with these ideas as well.

A homework assignment then is on how Dasein relates to Heidegger’s ‘as’ structure.

Any light that you can should shed on some of these Heideggerian concepts would be greatly appreciated.


132

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 06 Sep 2010 14:06 | #

It looks like we’re on the right track, GW, with both CC and Gorboduc trying to detract from the discourse with German/English warfare.


133

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 06 Sep 2010 18:32 | #

James, another’s discontents is a curious way to navigate, all the same.

Gorb,

innovative or ... restorationist?

From your standpoint, I would say, highly innovative if you consider that Man should supercede God, and vaguely restorationist if you consider that a re-tracing to Parmenides repairs a navigational error in Plato.

Never mind, Gorb, it may not turn out quite as bad as you think.


134

Posted by Gorboduc on Mon, 06 Sep 2010 20:39 | #

No, no, GW, it’s YOUR viewpoint that interests me. I might venture out on my wooden pins for a drop of the light fantastic ...

I’m not sure that there’s yet BEEN any discourse.

I can’t think why you think it’s even REMOTELY possible that I might believe that man could or should “supercede” his creator.

Other creatures have tried it. With what result?

“From morn to noon he fell, from noon to dewy eve…” ... read Milton. SPLAT into a pool of hot asphalt.

Try and explain your position to me. I do wish you wouldn’t claim that you know what I can see from my standpoint. You don’t: and as I’ve said before, it seems the tiniest bit arrogant. I have NO IDEA at all what you can actually see from yours: but I wil say, it SEEMS you can take in an awful lot ...

And I don’t see what the Plato/Parmenides bit means. Explain that too, please.

While I’ve got your attention, I’ll just save a bit of space and answer a question which looks as if to you it’s the $64.000 smasheroo:
this is you on Aug 25, somewhere on the “Why PF doesn’t like tradition” thread. (“It all coheres” as poor ol’ Ez remarked dispiritedly after the attentions of a bunch of unsympathetic GI’s)

You are a believer, Gorb.  You can conceive of nothing greater or higher or nearer to you than the god of the NT.  I’m sure we all understand that.  But let’s test you out on another question:

If it transpired that no religious belief can save Europeans from their present travails but an atheist, materialist and Darwinist philosophy could, would you oppose it?

Concerning which, I reply to the first part: yes, you are right. There is nothing higher or greater than God. And I agree that that’s probably the response you expected from me. Still on the first part, I continue…so you think you can instruct me? There IS something higher? Bring him (or it or whatever you’ve got) on! Let’s have a look at him. It’s not MY understanding that needs testing or enlarging but YOURS.

And to the second part I reply, YES, I would oppose it! Not because of any benefits it might be supposed to bestow on the cause of white survival, (and any apparent blessings that accrued from so nonsensical a system as evolutionary atheism would turn out to be curses)  but because I won’t pretend to support a doctrine I don’t believe in.

I HOPE you would do the same if it turned out that my brand of Christianity (that you don’t understand or believe in) was going to bring about, inevitably, the preservation of the white race.

You are, I hope, not the type of man that Maurras is claimed by some to be, one that was prepared to pay a sort of lip-service to an ideal (Catholicism) he didn’t really assent to (although he thougt he could exploit it for a political cause) just to win a temporal benefit!

Go to, you are made of sterner stuff, and would rather go down with the ship than father a progeny of spiritual cripples destined to inherit the gene of perfidiousness from you…wouldn’t you? Well, dammit, man, do you believe in truth or don’t you?

No, James. I’m not declaring war on Germany. Only on Heidegger and Nietzsche and on those who seem to imply that TEUTONIC = BETTER.

NW, you shouldn’t ask them to illuminate Heidegger:  although he’s darkness visible, he’s a tool they are apparently using to illuminate us. As in: “I don’t know which way the door opens, nor what’s on the other side, I don’t know if this is a key or a teaspoon, or if I’m in the larder or a mortuary…”

I do believe thay’ve got DASEINS upon us!


135

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 06 Sep 2010 21:35 | #

Posted by Notus Wind on September 04, 2010, 02:51 PM | #

Leon (and GW as well),

One of my goals is to develop a theory of mind that will that will restore (at least in part) traditional conceptions of volition and spirit and then proceed to show that all Europeans are connected the world over by a mental field that our respective societies project.  Furthermore, I will try to argue that this field is capable of constituting a form of unconscious collective understanding so that radical changes in one part of it will reverberate through the whole (in much the same way as the movements of a slinky reverberate through the whole).  I am moving toward a holistic and meaningful understanding of European man’s collective consciousness.

As you can see, this is an incredibly ambitious task and before I can go about developing such a theory in earnest, and with my self-respect intact, I must first hack away at the metaphysical forest that is now the mainstream in order to prepare the ground for such a radical theory.  The use of logic, mathematics, empirical science, and philosophy will be crucial to the hacking process as these tools carry a great deal of currency to our modern understanding..

______________________


You may be a lot more intelligent than the typical college professor (I hope you teach in the Ivy League, at least, if not Caltech or somewhere similar). I have argued publicly as an audience questioner with many professors, some liberal, most ‘conservative’, and the general consensus (which I partly garner from other audience comments directed to the mass, or to me privately) is that I usually ‘best’ them. Even beyond that, I am rarely impressed by the quality of abstract reasoning on offer, or even their usual articulacy (with exceptions, of course: the Middle East Studies expert Bernard Lewis, whom I heard at a talk two years ago, is a remarkably fluent speaker, despite being well into his tenth decade!).

So, that said, I’m trying yet again to understand something you’ve written - and given the obvious analytical proficiency on display in the primary (Godelian) post, I cannot dismiss my lack of comprehension merely with the usual (and usually accurate) charge of postmodernist (or phenomenological) unintelligibility (or the common poor linguistic quality of the semi-intellectual, which does not characterize your posts at all). 

One of my goals is to develop a theory of mind that will that will restore (at least in part) traditional conceptions of volition and spirit

Is this the debate on free (‘volition’), as well as the existence of the soul (‘spirit’)?

show that all Europeans are connected the world over by a mental field that our respective societies project.  Furthermore, I will try to argue that this field is capable of constituting a form of unconscious collective understanding so that radical changes in one part of it will reverberate through the whole (in much the same way as the movements of a slinky reverberate through the whole). 

By ‘mental field’, may I assume you do NOT mean some sort of physical/material projection (along the lines of fraudster Uri Geller, claiming to bend spoons and the like solely with the awesome power of his mind)? Perhaps you mean something Jungian, a collective unconscious or Racial Memory in which there is greater commonality between Europeans (due to our more similar genetic inheritance) than between Europeans and non-Europeans (though this would seem to have to apply to other races, too). Or, less exaltedly, you could simply be referring to our common meta-culture (or whatever mentality is antecedent to our producing similar cultures across national lines), and how, say, racial pollution in one part of it is then more easily able to penetrate the whole of it. Or, perhaps I simply don’t have a clue what you’re referring to. 

I am moving toward a holistic and meaningful understanding of European man’s collective consciousness.

This sounds a bit like empty filler.

I must first hack away at the metaphysical forest that is now the mainstream

A big and unfair request: could you elaborate on this mainstream metaphysical forest? What do YOU mean by ‘metaphysics’? I had thought the philosophical mainstream was highly anti-metaphysical (at least for those adhering to the mathematical/logical approach at which you are so demonstrably adept). And, what exactly is left that others in your tradition have not already hacked away? Are you going to try to reconcile the British and Continental approaches? That would be ambitious!

What is the best way to analyze, or indeed, establish the existence of, European Man’s ‘collective consciousness’: psychology (backed by attendant cognitive sciences), anthropology, sociology, history, or philosophy? This is perhaps another way of asking whether this alleged ‘collective consciousness’ is a real, existing thing or trait, or merely a useful metaphor or even fiction to describe the fact that, on average, a white man in one part of the world will have more in common in terms of mental reactions, as well as cultural and intellectual outlooks, with another white man from another part of the world, than he will, again on average, with a non-white.

But I must be instructed as to the usefulness of philosophy, specifically, to this seemingly empirical task.

[BTW, full apologies to Grimoire for not yet responding adequately to his lengthy comment to me. I haven’t had much time to contemplate it this weekend, and now I’m going out to dinner and a movie (not Machete, however!) with my lady and friends - but it deserves serious consideration, or at least follow-up questions such as I have just posed to Notus. I will endeavor to do so.]


136

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 06 Sep 2010 21:41 | #

Is this the debate on free (’volition’), as well as the existence of the soul (’spirit’)? (me, above)

I meant ‘free will”.

Also, is the new-ish and rising concept of epigenetics of possible use to your task?


137

Posted by Notus Wind on Mon, 06 Sep 2010 22:34 | #

Gorboduc,

NW, you shouldn’t ask them to illuminate Heidegger:  although he’s darkness visible, he’s a tool they are apparently using to illuminate us.

Heideggerian concepts are liberally used around here and yet no one claims mastery over them (except possibly Grimoire) for I am told that the scholarship from which they came is both difficult and impressive.  What can I say, my curiosity is piqued.


138

Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 06 Sep 2010 22:46 | #

I’m not declaring war on Germany.

Nor am I declaring war on England.  And good to see you breaking with a ruinous historic precedent.  What I am doing, admittedly through sarcasm and satire, is attempting to bring to the attention of the commentariat the fundamental problem as I see it, as regards our race’s slide to oblivion, which is: the culturally reinforced and enforced movement of our race towards individualism away from a center of gravity in keeping with said’s continued existence.

Only on Heidegger and Nietzsche and on those who seem to imply that TEUTONIC = BETTER.

 

The English are genetically more individualistic than their more collectivist German cousins.  This essential fact is expressed in their respective cultural products - their respective cultures being an expression of what they are essentially.  And as should be obvious, if the former, as it is in this age, is given too much primacy racial dissolution will be the result.  I do not relish the prospect of racial dissolution, and therein lies my “discontent”.  Why would I not be discontented with what I believe produces that which I abhor?

Also, even after hypothetically a precise definition of “Being” and that thing’s provenance is arrived at, there will still be what will be sufficiently effective in moving our people towards a necessary level of collectivism which achieves genetic preservation and what will not.  Apparently, and tellingly, even English thinkers agree that certain German thinkers are more useful towards that end than thinkers from their own ethnic tradition.  And why is that?  Wonder no longer.


139

Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 06 Sep 2010 23:15 | #

Heideggerian concepts are liberally used around here and yet no ones claims mastery over them (except possibly Grimoire) for I am told that the scholarship from which they came is both difficult and impressive.

Those concepts are being plied in the hope that they will lead to heightened racial self-understanding.  And in the hope that greater knowledge of racial self will enable discovery of optimal methods of preserving that racial self.

my curiosity is piqued.

Curiosity after truth itself evolved because it tended towards the reproduction of those genes that coded for it.  It is not an end unto itself, at least viewed from the perspective of its provenance.  Intellectual curiosity, so prominent in our race relative to others, shall only continue so long as it sets its sights upon what furthers its genetic basis contained in the vessel that is our race.  And if in the end it is determined nothing better can be done than what the Krauts did then we must swallow what will be for some a bitter tonic.  Heidegger was a Nazi, we really don’t need to guess what, practically speaking, his thought were on the matter.


140

Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 06 Sep 2010 23:55 | #

GW,

Part of our northern European and European nature, a very important part, is the desire to escape the will of external forces.

Certainly a prominent part.  Yet a part which is now hypertrophied out of all proportion to the survivability of the whole.

This is not the same thing as self-will, but it is a close fit, a proxy, and, as things stand, the best we can do.

The best we can do is to do whatever is necessary to ensure the genetic continuity of the race.  And it is the natural and dominant inclination of some to assert their will over the collective as against the will of individual members of the collective insofar as the latter tends towards the dissolution of the collective.  Without that the collective would not survive.  So we should not overly lament, if indeed lament at all, that this is so.

Quantum physics has not been able to confirm that thus far.

The law of identity applies to physical processes on the grand scale and not only to ontological cogitation per European Man.  How could it be possible, if utter arbitrary randomness did not reign (which we know does not for otherwise we could not know anything at all - of course if we knew nothing then we could not know that we knew nothing), that a particular physical process of a definite identity - one that is the same with itself - did not produce a particular result of a definite identity?  To say otherwise amounts to a conception of things that renders any reason for intellectual investigation into anything whatever moot.  And if not, why not just say “fuck it, the Jews are right” instead of “fuck those filthy kikes, we’re right”?


141

Posted by Notus Wind on Tue, 07 Sep 2010 00:24 | #

Leon,

Perhaps you mean something Jungian, a collective unconscious or Racial Memory in which there is greater commonality between Europeans (due to our more similar genetic inheritance) than between Europeans and non-Europeans (though this would seem to have to apply to other races, too).

Yes, I am privately gravitating toward something along these lines (minus Jung), but it will be a while yet before the details start to take shape as I have a lot of material that I still have to work through.  Regardless, I can assure you that the phenomenon that I have in mind is real and not intended to be taken as either metaphor or fiction.

A big and unfair request: could you elaborate on this mainstream metaphysical forest?...I had thought the philosophical mainstream was highly anti-metaphysical (at least for those adhering to the mathematical/logical approach at which you are so demonstrably adept).

The mainstream metaphysical view, as I perceive it, is that all the observable and experiential phenomena of existence can be reduced to the particles and the mathematics that governs them.  Furthermore, since the attending mathematics has no concept of either spirit, will, normative value, or anything immaterial it follows that all previous [traditional] concepts that relied upon such notions must be not just wrong but ridiculously wrong.  In its seemingly infinite arrogance, the great reductionist program of Western science seeks to remake the world in its image and, in so doing, argue that all that is real just so happens to be all that is subject to its domain (what a happy coincidence).

You can imagine the kind of ontological straitjacket this creates for any theory of mind that seeks mainstream acceptance, which is why the hacking process must come first.  The dead trees must be cleared away in order for new life to grow unencumbered.

And, what exactly is left that others in your tradition have not already hacked away?

Almost everything.  I hope it doesn’t surprise you that even brilliant men are still liars.

In fact, the tradition of the hard sciences is now sufficiently advanced that it can be used as a weapon against its own arrogance, hence the main entry.  More to come on this later.

But I must be instructed as to the usefulness of philosophy, specifically, to this seemingly empirical task.

Philosophy is needed to make sense of everything as neither mathematics, logic, nor empirical data is capable of speaking for itself in terms that matter to people


142

Posted by Notus Wind on Tue, 07 Sep 2010 00:39 | #

GW: Part of our northern European and European nature, a very important part, is the desire to escape the will of external forces.

Painfully true.


143

Posted by Grimoire on Tue, 07 Sep 2010 00:52 | #

Desmond:

By this logic is it not inevitable that the shepherding of the church will be rejected?

Not inevitable..,probable.

Accepting that which the religion considers good, the Father and the Father’s son and his sons’ sons must accept the systematic alienation from being.

They accept a collective path, in contrast to a solitary, atomized path. Deference to the greater good which is the social collective, is said to be it’s own reward. Religion channels mans evolution of consciousness into the commons. Naturally, periodically man’s ulterior consciousness advances to the fore.

Even if “the pursuit of ultimate truth, or being, is not via external odyssey, but internal and ritualistic odyssey”, as long as being is pursued, then at some point must not the chains of alienation be thrown off?

The answer here is subject to one’s criteria. The Western Religion, like many other enduring codes, accepts renunciation before solipsism.  The arduous difficulties of such a choice has led to the blatant hypocrisy and malfeasance observed in religious history. However, other Weltanschauung or Religion, philosophy, have endorsed the opposing view, and with a much more logical and compelling basis. Yet they have ceased to exist as a codified and living system that inspires states and nations.
So the inference is that by submitting to the collective, to social, moral health and stability…one creates the conditions whereby authentic Being is realized by all who adhere to the good of the ‘flock’.

Ultimately, the teachings of the church will be rejected. Inevitably, even the church, the shepherd of it’s flock, can only offer the “solitary path, fraught with peril…to the detriment of legacy.”

This is a fascinating insight. Especially the suggestion of the turning back of Western Christendom from AD to BC, from evolution to revolution. Please comment more on this point you have made.


144

Posted by Grimoire on Tue, 07 Sep 2010 01:25 | #

Gorboduc:

No, James. I’m not declaring war on Germany. Only on Heidegger and Nietzsche and on those who seem to imply that TEUTONIC = BETTER.

To infer TEUTONIC = BETTER is the object lesson of Heidegger and Nietzsche is the usual projection.


Notus:

Heideggerian concepts are liberally used around here and yet no ones claims mastery over them (except possibly Grimoire) for I am told that the scholarship from which they came is both difficult and impressive.  What can I say, my curiosity is piqued.


        Who can claim mastery over Heidegger but Heidegger?  I am skeptical concerning the Heidegger project, however like you my curiosity is piqued.


145

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 07 Sep 2010 03:44 | #

Grimoire

Here, I am a bit confused. If this…

So the inference is that by submitting to the collective, to social, moral health and stability…one creates the conditions whereby authentic Being is realized by all who adhere to the good of the ‘flock’.

then rejection does not follow. However, how then is the movement from alienation to authentic Being accomplished? It almost appears to be an emergence.  Surely this cannot be the case?


146

Posted by Gorboduc on Tue, 07 Sep 2010 04:24 | #

Grimoire:

Ultimately, the teachings of the church will be rejected. Inevitably, even the church, the shepherd of it’s flock, can only offer the “solitary path, fraught with peril…to the detriment of legacy.”

This is a fascinating insight. Especially the suggestion of the turning back of Western Christendom from AD to BC, from evolution to revolution. Please comment more on this point you have made.

Sorry but it’s not. Neither the adjective nor the noun can be justified.

Ever since I can remember, since I first started engaging in any form of religious controversy, about 45 - 50 years ago, the opposition always said “Christianity is selfish: it’s about saving your OWN soul, and what about the rest of society? Look at all those lazy monks and nuns shut away praying for themselves… why don’t they come out and do good for everyone else ...? and so on and on, per omnia saecula saeculorum ...


147

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 07 Sep 2010 13:26 | #

Gorboduc, if it makes you feel any better, I’ve actually spent about a factor of 10 more time trying to grasp Husserl than Heiddeger and I’ve spent about a factor of 10 more time trying to grasp Heiddeger than Nietzsche.  This has less to do with my interest in ethnicity than it does with my own professional path to the boundaries of the philosophy of science.  The main reason I have more recently become mildly interested in Heiddeger is that his ‘as’ structure seems to be the closest I can find to original thinking about the three place identity I mentioned as being crucial to providing a place for ‘you’ and ‘I’ in the formalisms of science.  I have to admit, however, the fact that he is considered to have been demon possessed by many in the post-WW II intellectual establishment, Jewish-dominated as it is, is prima facie evidence that he may offer some profound truths that would disrupt the current de facto theocracy.  This is not unlike the fact that the disruption of the discourse with an intra-western European spat here by you and CC, is prima facie evidence that there is something of value that you two are, acting as extended phenotypes of Jews, programmed to suppress.  Whenever I get the sense that primitive brain structures are being triggered and the result is to blockade discourse, I get _real_ interested in that discourse.


148

Posted by Notus Wind on Tue, 07 Sep 2010 13:49 | #

I just want to second James here:

I have to admit, however, the fact that he is considered to have been demon possessed by many in the post-WW II intellectual establishment, Jewish-dominated as it is, is prima facie evidence that he may offer some profound truths that would disrupt the current de facto theocracy.

I have never seen the current intellectual establishment demonize thinking that did not also present some kind of threat to its hegemony.  The level of discipline and precision that is brought to bear on this process (of demonization and censorship) is impressive.


149

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 07 Sep 2010 16:18 | #

Gorboduc,

Christianity is selfish: it’s about saving your OWN soul, and what about the rest of society?

Selfishness is not the issue.

I’d be interested in knowing your interpretation of John 1:1, if you’d be so kind.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Why is it written this way, do you think?


150

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 07 Sep 2010 18:13 | #

Chapter 1

1.In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2.The same was in the beginning with God.

3.All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4.In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5.And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Good question, Desmond.


151

Posted by Gorboduc on Tue, 07 Sep 2010 19:38 | #

I thought philosophers were generally held to elucidate the problems of life.

N and the H’s add to them.

(Actually, I go along with the folks who hold that Nietzsche is actually a moralist, and not really a philosopher at all.)

You know the phrase “Lucus a non lucendo”?

People here are spending a lot of time in attempts to elucidate the meaning of the philosophers.

NOT the problems posed by the philosphers: but the problems of initially determining what the philosophers are saying! Why is anyone sure that all this toil and trouble’s going to be worth it? How do we KNOW that thers men are valuable, and not mere charlatans? 

By an Act of Faith, surely. Their mystified disciples are credulous as the most ignorant mediaeval friars muttering their Rosary! except the Friars had some idea of what they were doing, and why they were doing it.

I’d rather chew through a plateful of live scorpions than find I was duty bound to find MEANING in something patently incomprehensible.

If a writer is confused, unclear, ambiguous and clumsy, why persevere with him? What makes you think there’s gold at the end of his tunnel?

As Johnson said, if you open a parcel to find a lot of packthread, it’s not worth pulling it all out in the hope that it will turn into a tapestry.

Surely it’s not the case that these philosphical tomes arrive stamped “TEUTONIC - you KNOW it makes sense!”

“Rationalists” used to reject mediaeval Christian writings (and as rationalism is so old-fashioned, I suppose they might still do so) on the grounds that the authors were half-starved and therefore subject to hallucinations: I suppose it’s possible to reject Nietzsche on the grounds that lots of nasty little spirochaetes were tunnelling away through his brain and flooding his blood with toxins…


152

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 07 Sep 2010 20:52 | #

Gorboduc,

Premise accepted. Philosophers be damned. Why then are you unwilling to explore the etymology of the words in the Christian bible?


153

Posted by HW on Tue, 07 Sep 2010 22:17 | #

Who cares about the ontology of mind?  That’s for pussy intellectshuals.  Reading this effete horse shit makes me want to buy a six pack, get in a Ford F150, and go ride dirt roads.  You Laptop Luftwaffe aren’t worth shit.  You don’t have a clue what leadership is.  Churning out Glenn Beck puff pieces is where it’s at.  The Republicans are on the march.  I’m stoked about their great candidates like Nikki Haley, Bobby Jindal, and Marco Rubio.  I’m very bitter about having wasted years of my life, so that’s why I’m investing all my hopes and dreams in implicit white nationalists like Sarah Palin.  Adios, Laptop Luftwaffe bitches.  I’m getting a ton of lucrative job offers, I’m picking up chicks, and I’m about to head out to the gym.


154

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 07 Sep 2010 22:39 | #

The Word, as Grimoire suggested, probably references logos (Greek ????? logos) which meant the word or that by which the inward thought is expressed.

It therefore signifies both the outward form by which the inward thought is expressed, and the inward thought itself

It represents, it appears, both phenomenon and a priori (noumenal?). It is opposite sides of the same coin. The “word” is both manifest in experience (thrown as Grimoire suggests) and the thing in itself. It is interesting, from a Darwinian perspective, and etymology, see how closely bound language is to logos and thus to God.


155

Posted by Grimoire on Tue, 07 Sep 2010 23:02 | #

Desmond
              Western Religion carries many threads within, The master thread is the apostolic narrative of the life of Christ, The narrative is solely concerned with the emergence from alienation to authentic Being of a pivotal character….an ideal. Much is said in this narrative, however it may be argued the only words of import are the words indicated of the central character. This is the solitary path of the individual consciousness attaining transcendental Being..
The inference I draw is one of complete mastery of an internal world.
The rest of the NT make up much of the other threads. This is the collective path and is pointed towards as the inspiration of the Western Church. As collective creed, it’s mission is to serve as a station for the collective progress towards authentic Being. It does not imply the solitary path. It points to miracles and prophesies to indicate the exceptionalism of the Christ,  Here we find the motif of renunciation and service towards the collective being. Here it is held ‘that a life of renunciation and service gain everlasting life’.
Authentic Being is taken underhand, yet deferred. The process towards Authentic Being is held to be the life of piety, renunciation and service for the common weal. This is the charter of Western Religion.

And then the OT. This is the license and syncretic template of the creed. Here the path is solely collective, or tribal. Man’s deeds are only judged by their service to the collective. All ethics and morals are subservient to the collective good. Even Godhead and genealogy exists only to serve the collective. The objective - complete mastery of an external world.

In each the movement from alienation to authentic Being is marked by mortal struggle, only the first treat it as emergence, followed by mortal struggle.

Heidegger presents this struggle towards authentic being in terms of reason and psychology. The process is not one of emergence, but comprehension and unveiling.


156

Posted by Grimoire on Tue, 07 Sep 2010 23:49 | #

Gorboduc:
            The reason Desmonds comment:

“Ultimately, the teachings of the church will be rejected. Inevitably, even the church, the shepherd of it’s flock, can only offer the “solitary path, fraught with peril…to the detriment of legacy.”

interests me is that with this inversion he has accurately described contemporary history of the Church. So perhaps, as he suggests tentatively - his final clause reasonably follows.,,, I see sense in it. It is, it seems to me, evocative of what is happening.

I respect your disagreement. You have more personal knowledge than I in these matters. Perhaps you could comment ‘suum et revocet ad te omnes captivos’ . on your perspective regarding the philosophy of the Western Church.
I am only commenting on the teleology of Western Religion as I understand it. The Ontology is another discussion.


157

Posted by Grimoire on Tue, 07 Sep 2010 23:52 | #

HW:
    GO DUDE! PARTY ON!


158

Posted by Gorboduc on Wed, 08 Sep 2010 13:23 | #

Desmond: your first question to me abt. John 1.1 runs “Why was it written this way?”.

I wasn’t sure if this was a question about the inspiration or inerrancy of Scripture, or something about the status of the KJ translation, or the Greek, or whatever.

Then GW got in with a few more verses. His continuation seemed to me to be a reasonable explanation of the opening sentence, though I don’t know whether he intended it as such.

BTW, I didn’t know Darwin was a scriptural scholar, so I’d never really considered a Darwinian perspective (whatever that is) on the text.

Now you say it’s an etymological question.

The entire chapter is read as a conclusion to the Western-rite Latin Mass. If you are really interested I could scan in a few pages from Fr. Pius Parsch’s The Liturgy of the Mass which comments both on the text and on the reasons for its being chosen in the Middle Ages as the Last Gospel, and perhaps a bit from Adrian Fortescue as well.
Hugh Ross Williamson (a bit of a maverick) suggested it was a Christianised Gnostic text, the recitation of which was supposed to be a token of doctrinal orthodoxy.

It will take up a lot of space, and there are easily-retrievable exegetic texts whic you could refer to… but I’ll do it if you give me the go-ahead by say 12 noon GMT tomorrow (Thursday).

It’s certainly a text I would never dare to interpret by or for myself: I don’t, being a mere Catholic layman, bear about with me an automatic Imprimatur or Nihil obstat, and any Protestant who believes in sola scriptura and who thereby claims he need have no recourse to any standard of apostolically-constituted traditional orthodox interpretation is very likely imperilling his own soul and possibly that/those of his audience by permitting his own personal beliefs or desires to control his explanation.


159

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 08 Sep 2010 16:59 | #

The narrative is solely concerned with the emergence from alienation to authentic Being of a pivotal character….an ideal.

Is it really though, Grimoire? Is is not about revelation and ecstasy?

For the Church “the good is that which the religion considers good and the ugly is that which is considered ugly by the religion”. It polarizes the World and spontaneously classifies itself with the “good.” It divides its Weltanschauung into believer and non-believers, good and evil, truth and lie, justice and injustice, and invariably locates itself on the “right” side of the World. Self-elected to the call of its God’s cosmology, it is virtuous. Virtue, as a state of Being, begets its own kind of blessedness.

Is it not about the attempt to make the Word (Logos) God?  In the beginning was the Word… Christ is implicit in the ‘Word” and implicit in the Father…If in the beginning was the Word and the word is God, then Christ is the word. The Christ story is about alienation.

But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. Matthew 10:33

This is the setting apart of Judaism and Christianity. John imbues logos with God.

It appears then that inherent in Christianity is alienation from Authentic Being. Thus, there can only be conflict. Whether it is Heidegger or Christianity, transcendence to authentic Being can only be through revelation. Christians must reject the alienation.


160

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 08 Sep 2010 17:18 | #

Gorboduc,

Darwin suggested that thought arose from the acquisition of language. For the ancient Greeks ????? (logos)  meant the word or that by which the inward thought is expressed. Word, in modern English means something significantly different, thus etymology. Rather than post it here, it might be easier to email it. Forward it through Guessedworker, if you wish.


161

Posted by Reichsfuhrer-Ontology on Thu, 09 Sep 2010 03:29 | #

I have to admit, however, the fact that he is considered to have been demon possessed by many in the post-WW II intellectual establishment, Jewish-dominated as it is, is prima facie evidence that he may offer some profound truths that would disrupt the current de facto theocracy.

Something more profound in the sense of it being a greater direct refutation of the prevailing view of the fungibility of humanity than genetic testing, IQ testing, EGI theory and genetic similarity theory?  LOL!

is prima facie evidence that there is something of value that you two are, acting as extended phenotypes of Jews, programmed to suppress.

Yeah, fuck suppressing EGI and concern myself with suppressing Heidegger.  Makes perfect sense.


162

Posted by Gorboduc on Thu, 09 Sep 2010 06:13 | #

Desmond:
I’ll have to think about this proposition, that language originated before thought.

Were this so, how could a person name a thing if he had no concept of it?

How would he know that this thing was a tree and so was this?

So what was the subject of language?

I know some people speak without thinking -

“Whose tongue before his wit doth run
Will oft-times rue when he hath done -”

Theories of originsalways stump me.

Human language arose when men began to imitate the grunts of animals - how do we know?

Music arose as a purely rhythmic concept when men heard boughs in the forset crashing together in the wind, and imitated that, or knocked a stick against a rock - how do we know?

It’s, to me, like some of the amazingly complex arrangements in biology - there’s no evidence of any developmental process, but suddenly, there it is, a complete and complex phenomenon.

Is there any real evidence that at some time the human brain was NOT (as Pinker would put it) NOT hot-wired for language?

Ok I’ll scan in Fr. Parsch. But not right now - I have to go away for a day or so, but I’ll scan and E it to GW -  if he’s still speaking to me!


163

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 09 Sep 2010 08:56 | #

To the guy signing as Reichsfuhrer Ontology, the one who sees himself as an anti-Nazi opponent of race-replacement:  what you don’t grok is 1) the “fungibility” of you and the antifascists on the one hand, and 2) the fungibility of opponents of forced race-replacement and the Nazis on the other.  Opposition to the current forced race-replacement régime is topologically equivalent to the Nazis (which is why the other side is always calling us Nazis — they see us as topologically equivalent, which we are, and it’s why I, an American, would have volunteered for the Germany Army had I been alive in WW II) and your kind of opposition to the Nazis is topologically equivalent to support of race-replacement.  It’s one or the other.  You’re not going to have it both ways.  If you don’t see them as topologically equivalent there’s something about your position or about the Nazis you’re getting wrong.


164

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 09 Sep 2010 15:56 | #

Gorboduc,

Were this so, how could a person name a thing if he had no concept of it?

Though subtle, there is a distinction between idea and thinking.

Human language arose when men began to imitate the grunts of animals - how do we know?

No.

“The mental powers in some early progenitor of man must have been more highly developed than in any existing ape, before even the most imperfect form of speech could have come into use; but we may confidently believe that the continued use and advancement of this power would have reacted on the mind by enabling and encouraging it to carry on long trains of thought.”

It is argued that intelligence arose through sexual selection and there is some evidence of this in the dental structure of the fossilized skeletal remains of a female Ardipithecus ramidus. Apes do not speak because they lack the intellectual capacity.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/oct/01/fossil-ardi-human-race


165

Posted by Grimoire on Thu, 09 Sep 2010 23:53 | #

Desmond:

The narrative is solely concerned with the emergence from alienation to authentic Being of a pivotal character….an ideal.
Is it really though, Grimoire? Is is not about revelation and ecstasy?

Revelation of the ecstasy of Being.

Is it not about the attempt to make the Word (Logos) God?  In the beginning was the Word… Christ is implicit in the ‘Word” and implicit in the Father…If in the beginning was the Word and the word is God, then Christ is the word. The Christ story is about alienation.


All life is implicit in the Word. Yet the Word pre-existed creation. Alienation precedes Redemption. The Christ story is about Redemption. 

But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. Matthew 10:33
This is the setting apart of Judaism and Christianity. John imbues logos with God.

John does not innovate with this passage. It is in Genesis of the Old Testament.

It appears then that inherent in Christianity is alienation from Authentic Being. Thus, there can only be conflict. Whether it is Heidegger or Christianity, transcendence to authentic Being can only be through revelation. Christians must reject the alienation.

Alienation from Authentic Being is inherent to Human social order. The worm is inherent to every apple, as it is to every human being. Christianity as Western Religion cannot reject alienation, to do so is to deny the reality of existence. It’s task is to make a ordered and moral society fit to endure. The revelation of Authentic Being is a solitary labour. One must, I think, alienate oneself in essence from Religion and ordered society. But. one is not fit for the solitary revelation of Authentic Being until one accepts reality. The labours of a moral and ordered reality/society is a station for revelation of Authentic Being.


166

Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 10 Sep 2010 02:22 | #

Yet the Word pre-existed creation.

If the Word preceded Creation, Grimoire, then is it not reasonable to suggest that God transcends Logos (the Creation)? Logos cannot be God if it is the creation of God. John attempted to amalgamate this position and presented God as everywhere and within everything. Thus the conflict of Logos within Christianity. The redemption of humanity, which Christ offered by his sacrifice is based upon alienation or rejection of the Jewish/ancient Greek notion of Logos. It became hugely problematic for Christianity because to seek God Christians must be alienated from Logos. In other words Christians must reject that God transcends the Creation in order to believe God is the Creation, in order to believe that God is the Word.

Dr. Michael Jones:

A Jew is now a rejecter of Christ and thereby to some extent a rejecter of Logos, which is the Greek word for the rational order of the universe.

Dr. Jones appears to be bending the truth. A Jew is a rejecter of Logos in Christ. In order to accept that Christ was the Word Christians needed to reject this notion. They needed to reject the notion that the Word existed prior to the Creation.


167

Posted by Gorboduc on Fri, 10 Sep 2010 03:54 | #

Desmond: I’m afraid the Darwin bit exemplifies his non-scientific approach. It expresses a pious hope, rather than establishes any irrefutable facts. “we may believe ...” again! And there’s a use of MUST that is scientifically speaking objectionable.
.

That’s the trouble with him: it’s based on possible reconstructions - and he chooses between them for faith reasons, not scientific ones! It is this hardening of possibilities into absolute fact that vitiates so much of his writing - also the obedient way his disciples take as gospel what is really seen to be only presented as a speculation.

Genesis informs us that God and Adam talked together, and that God permitted Adam to name the creatures.


However, I’m prepared to accept that his stuff on earthworms was first-rate and new and MOST important.

Alienation- for all of us - was inflicted at the Fall of Man.

Christ as redemptor offers us a remedy.

I’m called out again, so I can’t yet scan in my Logos stuff: but I’ll give a link to the old Catholic Encyclopedia, and merely remark that there’s some interesting stuff also in Rahner Greek Myths and Christian Mystery.

In order to preserve my damaged reputation here, I should point out that there is some German stuff in the middle of this article - ah, it’s Harnack. Is there an evolutionary reason why so many of these guys’ names begin with an H, or is it archetypal?

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09328a.htm


168

Posted by uh on Fri, 10 Sep 2010 08:27 | #

In order to preserve my damaged reputation here, I should point out that there is some German stuff in the middle of this article - ah, it’s Harnack. Is there an evolutionary reason why so many of these guys’ names begin with an H, or is it archetypal?

Either way you may be sure it is ontologically grounded and authentic.


169

Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 10 Sep 2010 15:43 | #

‘Pious hope’...to which deity is he reverent, Gorbuduc?

Stephen Hawking’s definition of scientific theory:

“A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations.” He goes on to state, “Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory.”

In other words, it’s falsifiable. If a Buick (or a rabbit fossil) is discovered in the pre-Cambrian period, we will know that ol’ Charley is wrong. Can we say the same of any faith?

Christ as redemptor offers us a remedy.

But only as a Christian. All others will be estranged. Not only from redemption but from Logos.

But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. Matthew 10:33


170

Posted by Gorboduc on Fri, 10 Sep 2010 16:47 | #

Desmond: Yes, but Darwin includes a huge number of arbitrary elements. There’s quite a concentration of them in the short bit you quote, and as for the EYE problem, which I’ve already tried to deal with here earlier, there are more holes than string - more begged questions than facts!

I’ve often noticed a phrase used here on MR in evolutionary contexts:  “selects for”.

If I’m breeding pigeons (Darwin was interested in that) I can “select for” this quality or colour or whatever, but the pigeons can’t. Selection is the result of conscious cerebration, an ontological approach, and active will-power - ttributes of mind.

As regards PIETY: that doesn’t have to regard God. It can regard the state or one’s ancestors.
“A pious hope” is used colloquially in England to describe a hope that the speaker feels is likely to be frustrated: a bit of wishful thinking.

And what DID cause the incredible proliferation of forms in the Cambrian, and why do so many of them appear to have NO predecessors? Where are the ancestors of the Coelenterata, Potifera, Annelida, Mollusca? What about the Chordata? Billiuons of years just missing!

Is it possible that evolutionists just just be saying that these ancestors (in true authentic German style!) are present in their absence, or is their lost presence to be hypothetically supplied because Creation is obviously and axiomatically impossible?


171

Posted by Gorboduc on Fri, 10 Sep 2010 16:53 | #

I selected the wrong keys: “might just be” for “just just be”.

Not as disastrous as the obituary on some famous General of about 100 years ago: the Times or the Morning Post described the old boy as a “battle-scared veteran.”  The next day they printed an apologetic retraction: they’d meant to describe him as “bottle-scarred.”


172

Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 10 Sep 2010 18:02 | #

Gorboduc,

“selects for”

A distinction made by Darwin was between artificial selection (intentional breeding for certain traits, or combination of traits) and natural or sexual selection. Natural selection is the “the differential reproduction of organisms with certain traits.” Yes, the term is misleading. There is no actual selection being made. There is only a reproductive differential.

An hypothesis for the paucity of the fossiliferous record in the pre-Cambrian is constructed by Darwin in ‘Origins” (Chapter IX if memory serves) and largely parallels Lyell’s, magnum opus, Principles of Geology.
It clearly falls within the definition of scientific theory and, as mentioned, is falsifiable. Can we say the same of any faith?

Darwin does “accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements…” Not much more can be asked of ‘a good theory’.


173

Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 10 Sep 2010 18:31 | #

Either way you may be sure it is ontologically grounded and authentic.

GW, and now Bowery, figure that Krautegger can tell them some deep shit about how to produce a psychological state where consciousness of race will more readily occur.  That Heidekraut didn’t know himself because otherwise he would having fucking said as much hasn’t seemed to occur to them.


174

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 10 Sep 2010 20:00 | #

Actually, I expect Heidegger’s “as” structure might assist in my effort to understand being as entailing relative identity.  Race identity is then another topic related, obviously, to race being.


175

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 11 Sep 2010 04:22 | #

I expect Heidegger’s “as” structure might assist in my effort to understand being as entailing relative identity.

It is epistemologically impossible that one’s immediate, subjective consciousness of a thing can be qualified as of the same degree, amount, or extent as another sentient entity’s consciousness of said within the confines of scientific validity - barring extra sensory perception.  And if we eschew the experientially common certifier of perception of the scientific method we are reduced to mysticism.  Which I do not object to in principle, although I expect the principle expounders here would.

Race identity is then another topic related, obviously, to race being.

To what degree, amount or extent can subjective perception of race be correlated with scientifically verifiable knowledge of race?  That is the epistemological question.  If this epistemological gap can be absolutely bridged then we can dispense with scientific verification at least in this instance.

And if none of that ostensibly improbably shit works out, we can satisfy ourselves with what the Krauts did.  To reward the lemmings for working towards the genetic continuity of the race as we see it, and to punish the lemmings for working against the genetic continuity of the race as we see it. 

“Debasement” may be a risk we will have to take.


176

Posted by PF on Sat, 11 Sep 2010 04:28 | #

CC wrote:

GW, and now Bowery, figure that Krautegger can tell them some deep shit about how to produce a psychological state where consciousness of race will more readily occur.  That Heidekraut didn’t know himself because otherwise he would having fucking said as much hasn’t seemed to occur to them.

Somebody has some issues with their Germanness…. and its no longer me!!


177

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 11 Sep 2010 04:42 | #

PF, I’m afraid my penchant for sarcasm (“sarcasm fiend”!) tends to get in the way of my intended meaning being understood by those not myself.  But so long as I myself am understand and am entertained I suppose I am being true to my Being; which is all that counts in the world of racialist humanism, right?


178

Posted by PF on Sat, 11 Sep 2010 05:04 | #

CC wrote:

PF, I’m afraid my penchant for sarcasm (“sarcasm fiend”!) tends to get in the way of my intended meaning being understood by those not myself.  But so long as I myself am understand and am entertained I suppose I am being true to my Being; which is all that counts in the world of racialist humanism, right?

Its 5 oclock in Michigan right now - what are you, coming off a meth binge?

Sorry, my penchant for drug-based humor has prevented me from being understand.

No but seriously, I’m not a humanist. Your attempt to subliminally broadcast the word KRAUT - which is always tied to Germany’s “Sonderweg” in your mind apparently - is something I would like to hilariously mock. It is kind of hilarious that you write ‘Heidekraut’.

What would you think if I invited you to a discussion of ‘Anglohobbes’? Would you say I was nuts? Would you say I was KRAU-nuts?


179

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 11 Sep 2010 06:02 | #

Its 5 oclock in Michigan right now

When do the cockney-oriented pubs close in England?

what are you, coming off a meth binge?

Not exactly.

I’m not a humanist.

The socio-political order you implicitly prescribe is consonant with what you wish the Eurosphere to be in keeping with what you at least unconsciously perceive as being to the advantage of your reproductive fitness.  Or as Nietzsche formulated it, “philosophy” is the most spiritualized will to power.

What would you think if I invited you to a discussion of ‘Anglohobbes’?

The English love their individualism.  Hobbes recognized the need for authoritarian restrain of said.


180

Posted by PF on Sat, 11 Sep 2010 06:43 | #

When do the cockney-oriented pubs close in England?

Dunno. I dont know anything about cockneys except Bo Bells and how to make fun of their slang.

But I do like the term “cockney-oriented”.

Here’s some very unrealistic old-timey glyphs having a conversation in my mind:

“What type of bar is this, messieur?”

“‘S a cockney-oriented bar, this is.”

“Well then, will you serve my man-servant, Mustafa, who is not cockney?”

“We’ll serve him Sir, we just won’t orient ourselves around him.”

“He is from the Orient, but I don’t orient myself around him either.”

and thus ends my hilarious cultural offering.


181

Posted by Grimoire on Sat, 11 Sep 2010 23:56 | #

Desmond

If the Word preceded Creation, Grimoire, then is it not reasonable to suggest that God transcends Logos (the Creation)? Logos cannot be God if it is the creation of God. John attempted to amalgamate this position and presented God as everywhere and within everything. Thus the conflict of Logos within Christianity. The redemption of humanity, which Christ offered by his sacrifice is based upon alienation or rejection of the Jewish/ancient Greek notion of Logos. It became hugely problematic for Christianity because to seek God Christians must be alienated from Logos. In other words Christians must reject that God transcends the Creation in order to believe God is the Creation, in order to believe that God is the Word.

  There are many archetypical symbols of Logos. Two that stand out , because of the rich and varied wisdom of instruction they contain: The Opthalamos (the eye in the capstone of the pyramid)  and the Uroborus (the Dragon eating it’s own tail).

The Opthalamos symbol - the eye in the capstone- signifies that we do not know what the eye see’s,....until the capstone is set.
The Uroborus is a symbol of that pre-existing Logos, or what the Opthalomos eye see’s…or like the questions you ask in your preceding comment… A Dragon eating it’s tail,....dematerializing.

It is not reasonable to suggest the God transcends Logos; nor is it reasonable to suggest God does not….it is in fact quite unreasonable.  Nor does John, or Christianity definitively suggest one over the other. Nor does Christ’s crucifixion indicate a rejection of Logos, but the opposite. Nor is the renunciation required of the Christian a renunciation of Logos…but a renunciation of that which obscures Logos. In the words more or less, of Christ - these things are not of an external world of matter, but a inner world of Consciousness, That the Kingdom, is not of the world. The Kingdom pre-exists the world, and will exist when this world is gone. The Kingdom is the Logos.

Therefore if the Kingdom is inward, within Consciousness. What gain does one receive debating the preexistence of either Logos or God as external concepts? What purchase does one receive?

Dr. Jones appears to be bending the truth. A Jew is a rejecter of Logos in Christ. In order to accept that Christ was the Word Christians needed to reject this notion. They needed to reject the notion that the Word existed prior to the Creation.

Your understanding here is opposite to how I understand the concept Dr. Jones is elaborating.


182

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 12 Sep 2010 22:08 | #

Gromoire,

What purchase does one receive?

The reconciliation of Christ as God. If we know the Son, we also know the Father.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.”


183

Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 12 Sep 2010 23:03 | #

Desmond:

What purchase does one receive?
The reconciliation of Christ as God. If we know the Son, we also know the Father.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.”

This is sourced in the texts. For a small investment, you may procure all manner of text. 
Christ’s purpose was man’s reconciliation with God, not superior knowledge regarding his arrangements with the Logos.


184

Posted by Notus Wind on Sun, 12 Sep 2010 23:12 | #

Grimoire: Christ’s purpose was man’s reconciliation with God, not superior knowledge regarding his arrangements with the Logos.

Nailed it.


185

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 12 Sep 2010 23:56 | #

Grimoire:

The issue is not one of knowledge but one of revelation.

John 1:14

14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Whereas in Sufism, apparently, Logos “pre-exists the world, and will exist when this world is gone” bit is uniquely personified. In Christianity it is with the Word and only with the Word. The Word does not exist without Christ.

He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.”


186

Posted by Grimoire on Tue, 14 Sep 2010 00:46 | #

Desmond:

        The issue is not one of knowledge but one of revelation.

The two are interchangeable and the same, one begets the other. This type of thought is signified by the Uroboros. The inner secrets of Christianity or Sufism is not contained within the syntactical primacy of subject/predicate, nor on properly locating the Logos via earthly manifestation of such. The inner secret is that these cosmologies do not describe external archetypes and bodies, but internal bodies and archetypes.  We ourselves are the planets of this cosmos.
There is no point to comparing or ordering, amending or re-interpreting historical document. They are maps, we are the terrain.


187

Posted by Witgenstein: A Wonderful Life (1989) on Wed, 24 May 2017 13:33 | #

Wittgenstein biography - A Wonderful Life (1989)

...shows how destructive to careful thought and what an arrogant fuck that Wittgenstein was - his purpose was to “let the fly out of the fly bottle” etc.


188

Posted by Philosopher's cabin in Norway on Fri, 26 May 2017 14:55 | #

Skjolden is a village in Norway located at the end of the Lustrafjorden, a branch of the Sognefjorden.
Skjolden is located at the innermost point of the Sognefjorden, Norway’s longest fjord.



Post a comment:


Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Note: You should copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting it, so that it will not be lost if the session times out.

Remember me


Next entry: Machete Ex Machina
Previous entry: White American Identity Politics

image of the day

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Establishment Problem

Categories

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Immigration

Islamist Threat

Anti-white Media Networks

Audio/Video

Crime

Economics

Education

General

Historical Re-Evaluation

Controlled Opposition

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Europeans in Africa

Of Note

Comments

Putinism commented in entry 'Putin's Revenge' on Fri, 19 Jan 2018 08:12. (View)

Jewish occupy, demonstrate for open borders USA commented in entry 'Africans Deported from Israel “Appear” in Rome' on Fri, 19 Jan 2018 02:08. (View)

question commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 23:15. (View)

mancinblack commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 17:43. (View)

Crazy Over You commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 14:22. (View)

mancinblack commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 13:24. (View)

I'm a Man commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 12:41. (View)

mancinblack commented in entry 'Carolyn Emerick talks pagan folk culture and ethnonationalism with Tara's alt-right panel' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 08:15. (View)

uh commented in entry 'Spencer: My conception of the ethnostate is imperialist - true ethno nationalism is a zero sum game.' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 08:07. (View)

mancinblack commented in entry 'Carolyn Emerick talks pagan folk culture and ethnonationalism with Tara's alt-right panel' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 07:18. (View)

100% European commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 06:39. (View)

The ancient is the modern commented in entry 'Snyder's lessons applied to reality now: universalized liberalism tyrannizing over ethnonationalism' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 02:19. (View)

100% European but you might not guess commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 00:45. (View)

Near 100% European commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 00:18. (View)

95% Native American (Central) commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Wed, 17 Jan 2018 11:11. (View)

20% sub-Saharan commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Wed, 17 Jan 2018 09:53. (View)

We knew these things commented in entry 'Hermeneutic construction of Putin and Trump's character, positions and relation:' on Wed, 17 Jan 2018 04:13. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Wed, 17 Jan 2018 01:18. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'MR Radio: Greg Johnson talks to GW and Daniel' on Wed, 17 Jan 2018 01:09. (View)

henry m commented in entry 'MR Radio: Greg Johnson talks to GW and Daniel' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 18:29. (View)

mancinblack commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:51. (View)

This is the Day commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:17. (View)

Emerald City commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 15:46. (View)

mancinblack commented in entry 'America: Making The World Safe for Hypocrisy' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 15:41. (View)

Anything, Anything commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 15:26. (View)

The Allman Brothers commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 15:04. (View)

Nobody to Depend on commented in entry 'America: Making The World Safe for Hypocrisy' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 14:56. (View)

Pearl Jam commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 14:09. (View)

John McLaughlin commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 13:55. (View)

Hatfield & the North: Mumps commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 13:29. (View)

My Love is Alive commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 13:23. (View)

Wild Swans Love Will Tear Us Apart commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 12:39. (View)

Happy commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 12:18. (View)

Wild Horses best version commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 12:13. (View)

Hangout, Johnson, Lewis, JF et al commented in entry 'MR Radio: Greg Johnson talks to GW and Daniel' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 11:44. (View)

affection-tone