|
|
|
|
|
| Omni or Meta???
Posted: 5/17/2008 6:54:45 AM | | If you'd like to know more about this Meridian read Heidegger's "The Question Concerning Technology". I have a commentary on it in The Institute for Human Science's Journal which is available online as well. Just google Mahon O' Brien(me) and commentary on "The Question Concerning Technology" (Heidegger's essay) and you can download it for free...it might be of use... | |
|
| Omni or Meta???
Posted: 5/17/2008 7:00:59 AM | "The context of that analogy, is not blame only observation of a result. Reference to East and West is not geographical it is idealogical. The prevailing idealology, that influenced the 20th century technology, that created the nightmare scenarios mentioned is Western... regardless of who embraces it (China has the bomb too and is currently one of the greatest producers of pollution).
Man is mass producing real paradoxes faster than the theoretical ones. Perhaps, Eastern thought should be revisited... "Meta" anyone? "
I am sorry, I still disagree. Western technology was fuelled to swell by the needs of society, wich need grew out of overpopulation and how to not let ourselves starve in great numbers. This was not the product of a philosophy. It was the product of a necessity that helped our survival. I believe those people who follow the teachings of eastern thought contribute to the population explosion just the same, and they do have just the same needs as those who subscribe to western thoughts. That is, they like clean food brought to their table, they like clothing, shelter, entertainment, children and sex. If the population of people in which everyone thinks in an eastern way reaches a number which cannot be supported by their resources, they need to apply resource-bending that leads to the development of technology.
Another way of looking at this problem is that, in effect, in geographical areas that were populated purely by people who were dominated by western thought and other areas that were populated by people dominated by eastern thought, that is, before the interchange of philosophies started, in those times even, just as much as today, philosophy and morality and such like have always been the toys of an intellectual few. People in China before Marco Polo and people in Europe before 1100 a.d. both went on doing their own business, worrying about making a living, how to cheat on taxes, getting their children the best education available such as it were, and gossipping about the neighbours. The Categorical Imperative, Plato's ideals and Li Peng-Ti's poetry was not a daily topic of conversation around the dinner table. No philosopher made anyone ever change his daily routine, or change how much he loved his wife and children and vice versa.
So I reject that western thought, however dispersed geographically, has been a major contributor to global warming, and that eastern, however dispersed geographically, has been a measurably lesser contributor than western thought. | |
|
| Omni or Meta???
Posted: 5/17/2008 7:35:04 AM | Heidegger's account of Western productionist metaphysics
So... the allusion takes him out of context. Please elaborate. | |
|
| Omni or Meta???
Posted: 5/17/2008 8:33:52 AM | just as much as today, philosophy and morality and such like have always been the toys of an intellectual few.
Sometimes the Genie is a Jinn as far as progress goes. The technological context I suggested, is directed more at the recent history of the 20th century not antiquity, which was not threatened with extinction. Your point is correct regarding the few. However, there is a caveat. Sometimes they are taken seriously. As Von Clausewitz and even Machiavelli in the preceding generations postulated policy is king. Policy influences technology, ideaology influences policy, philosophy and religion influence ideaology. Influence is not the only reason for the problem but it is a big factor.
The 20th century was dominated by "why not?" instead of "why?". The downside of that, is the "paradox of extinction" (I say this metaphorically). So, although paradoxes like the "Omnipotent paradox" invoke relativist (historically eastern) constructs, those constructs might not provide a solution but perhaps an alternative trend. | |
|
| Omni or Meta???
Posted: 5/17/2008 9:33:57 AM | "Sometimes the Genie is a Jinn as far as progress goes. The technological context I suggested, is directed more at the recent history of the 20th century not antiquity, which was not threatened with extinction."
Hm. So the seeds of our technological self-destruction, meaning the global warming, was created in the twentieth century. By western thought.
Western thought by philosophy, not western thought by geography.
Purely western thought started to cease to exist after Marco Polo.
So how did Western thought survive in its pure form to influence 20th century values? What is in the Bible, in the Roman texts, in Aristotle, in Plato, in Church decrees, in the Crusades that made us think in ways that led to the paradox of technological suicide, to global warming?
I, personally, don't see any connection there. I see, however, a definite connection of more people, more fire to keep them warm, more cows to eat who spew more methane, more woods cut down to make arable fields, and more oil burning engines built to bring food to the table. These are what I hear are the cause of global warming. I see these are caused by simply having more and more people on the globe. These I cannot see at all as a product of western thought, whatever that may be.
Please explain how the things in the previous paragraph are not global phenomenon, resulting from normal and universal human behaviour, and please explain how they are caused or created by western thought, as opposed to eastern thought. | |
|
| Omni or Meta???
Posted: 5/17/2008 10:20:17 AM | Please explain how the things in the previous paragraph are not global phenomenon, resulting from normal and universal human behaviour, and please explain how they are caused or created by western thought, as opposed to eastern thought.
A thermo nuclear warhead quite is comforting unless the other guy has one. Sure there is nothing wrong with being comfortable. The policy makers however, have decided comfort, also includes patronizing idealogically hostile states, to get it (so we can build more inefficient vechicles, which are the major cause of the problem) instead of finding alternate means and the technology for it, which is already available. The problem is dominance of Western thought, not its purity but rather its downside.
A trend towards Eastern thought could offer an alternative to unrestrained technological hedonisim. Relativist paradoxes like the "Omnipotence paradox" may not provide answers but could provide clues. | |
|
| Omni or Meta???
Posted: 5/17/2008 1:28:05 PM | Sorry, Meridian Blue, but I have to puff-puff again. Thermonuclear warheads are not contributing to global warming, and we've started off saying how western thought created global warming, which I still think is the issue. Bringing in totally unrelated issues, such as atomic bombs, makes the argument a different one. But we talked about western thought creating global warming, which I say is not happening, but you say it is.
Our more inefficient vehicles are truly contributing to global warming. You're right about that. But they are contributing in a material way, because there are so many of them. If there was one minivan in the entire world, it would not be a problem. So in effect, the less and much less efficient methods of transportation back a hundred, two hundred years ago, would be even more deadly to our environment. We blame our engines, but really, we should blame the number of people who use them. And the number of people who use them are a product of sex and love for children and good medicare and accessible education and equal rights, not anything else. I don't see anyone ever arguing against these. People, much like yourself, are arguing about waste and western thought. In my opinion no matter where man is, he'll procreate and procreate. It has been going on for quite a while, and the reason we are in trouble now is because there are more people in the world than ever at any given time.
It's not technological hedonism that drives us into our graves, but the number of people who use them. The people in China and the people in Africa are or would like to use them too. But it's not a geographical or geographically denoted trend in thought that drives the number of people up. It's people who drive the number of people up. Whether they think the eastern or the western way.
And if indeed the West is reluctant to change its energy needs to alternative resources, how is that the product of western thought? Are we observing some philosophies when we say "we won't use wind power, we'll stick to gasoline?" I hardly think so. If that were true, then China and India would already be using wind power. Or you say that China and India are now thinking in the western mode? Then who thinks in the eastern mode? Nobody? There is no eastern mode of thinking? Then how can it be a saviour if it does not exist?
Maybe we could shift the discussion onto what constitutes eastern and western thinking. If you want to talk about that, fine, I won't carry on, because I don't have enough historical or geographical knowledge to contribute to that argument.
But I still maintain that global warming is caused by the population explosion, which is due to human nature; and it does not matter whether the population is thinking predominantly in easter or western type of philosophies. | |
|
| Omni or Meta???
Posted: 5/17/2008 3:01:14 PM | Thermonuclear warheads are not contributing to global warming
In the one of the inital statements (read the earlier post you reponded to so as not to quote me out of context) I mentioned both global warming and nuclear proliferation being problems. There are likely quite a few more I didn't mention.
It's not technological hedonism that drives us into our graves, but the number of people who use them.
The consumption is driven by technological marketing that did not exist in antiquity. Selling the sizzle sold cigarettes, Hummers and aerosol deodorant (pre-1989 Chlorofluorocarbons) and so on.
But I still maintain that global warming is caused by the population explosion
Global warming, nuclear proliferation and a host of other problems is caused by failed policy (the predominant ideaology...aka "why not?"), regardless of how many people exist. The product is the problem and the policy that supports it not the consumer. Eastern construct is green (we should conform to nature not the other way around) and offers an holistic alternative to the status quo.
That noted... and how does this relate to the original topic? The answer is simple... paradox (relativism) can be a useful reminder of the downside of convention. It challenges our consensus. | |
|
| Omni or Meta???
Posted: 5/17/2008 3:43:58 PM |
Interesting! Can this application be used in string theory? I don't see why not. From a Western view, we start out by defining things very rigorously, and work out results from there. If the results will apply more generally, we will relax the definitions that we don't need for the results to be true.
From this view, we start out by defining things very loosely, and then work out results from there. If the results don't tell us anything, we add restrictions on our definitions as needed, until we find out what we want.
Think of it like diagnosing an illness. The Western view is to first diagnose the illness, then if it isn't right, to move onto another possible diagnosis. From this view, we start out by looking at the whole body, and we slowly determine more and more facts about the type of illness, until it exactly matches a particular diagnosis. If the illness is something that we know extremely well, and can easily spot with great accuracy, or is something that we intuitively get right, then the Western view is quicker, because we found it before the investigation. If the illness is something that we don't spot immediately, and have no specific hunches, or that our hunches are wrong, so we need a methodical approach, then this view is far quicker, because we are not starting with any assumptions or pre-conceptions, that are taking us down a false road, or are encouraging us to keep using the same assumptions as last time, when we already found they don't work for us.
We need to consider that we tend to keep thinking along the same lines as previously, even if we know it was false. So it is more efficient to use a method that starts out with as few assumptions as possible, and then only add those assumptions that are completely necessary for us to continue.
We would collect all the known observations of the universe, take the most consistent observation, and slowly add more and more, making conclusions. We would avoid making any theories, as theories would require assumptions. We might use allegories to describe our conclusions, but the allegories are merely a way for us to understand the observations better. They do not constitiute a theory. We would only try and increase our conclusions slowly. Where we discover we made an assumption that is not directly required by our current set of observations, we go back, and find the observation that led us to the assumption, and we re-examine it until we find the conclusion, without the assumption, and work from there.
It's a very slow process. But it has much more chance of us not jumping to conclusions.
RE msg 23 by funtomofthenight:
Global warming was not brought on by a philsophical direction. It was brought on, if indeed it has been instigated by man, by overpopulation. Global warming came from pollution. But the vast majority of that pollution was a direct result of the Industrial Revolution. You can see this in Victorian London, because prior to the Industrial Revolution, London was smelly, but not much fog. During the height of the Industrial Revolution, during the Victorian Age, London was awash with so many factories outputting pollution, and so many houses burning coal, that London had the first real case of "smog".
Philosophies are not powerful enough to change man's basic behaviour. Ghandi's policy of non-violent revolution changed India.
You cannot put the blame for a global effect that supposedly was brought on by man only on part of humanity, and if you can, then the division must not be placed on philosophical views. Why not? Pollution was a result of mass progress, of scientific inventions, that had no accompanying philosophical expectation to consider the consequences for the long term. That was a result of much of the philosophy of the time, which proposed that scientific discoveries would solve all of our problems, and so scientific progress had so much more benefits, that the consequences would be negligible, and that if they would become significant, that by the time they became significant, that enough scientific discoveries would have been made, that they could easily be resolved with little or no cost.
RE msg 27 by funtomofthenight:
Western technology was fuelled to swell by the needs of society, wich need grew out of overpopulation and how to not let ourselves starve in great numbers. This was not the product of a philosophy. It was the product of a necessity that helped our survival. Western civilisation was overflowing with greater and greater needs, even in Roman times. All it led was to conquering other races. However, what is true, is that scientific discoveries were promulgated in greater and greater numbers with larger populations. Consider the computer. Has the computer solved any problems due to overpopulation? No. All that happened was that as populations grew, more and more people wanted access to computers, and that became less and less possible by mainframes, and pushed for the invention of the Personal Computer. The computer itself was originally introduced to deal with the problems of a large society. But it was quickly taken over to be used for increased profits, by replacing many workers with computers, by getting one clerk with a computer to do the work of 10 clerks. It was also quickly taken over for leisure. In the 80s, experts predicted the Paperless Office. In reality, we use far more paper now than we did back then.
Western technology is INTENDED to solve the needs of overpopulation. What happens in reality, is that it is taken over to satisfy our selfish desires. So it backfires more often than not. If technology actually devoted itself to the needs of overpopulation, then houses would contain a single security-minded mini-mainframe, that would be connected to the internet, and every person would have a cheap security-minded thin client, which I'll call a miniputer, that could link up to the mainframe from almost anywhere in the house, so that you could take your miniputer anywhere, and link up to the data on your computer in all safety. If you didn't have a mainframe at home, you could go to your friends and use their machine in all safety. If no friends would let you use their mainframe, you could go to an internet cafe, and use their mini-mainframe, not their computer, which would ensure the security of your data through your thin client. TVs would double up as screens. VCRs, and DVD players, would all be designed in a component basis, that would allow you to use the minimum of components, and the minimum of energy. All devices would run off the mainframe in cables that would double up with power and information, like Firewire cables and ports, so that you wouldn't need to have transformers for every device, because transformers use a vast amount of energy. You would design all components of all household devices in such a way as to allow compatible controllers to be added, so that when it came to automating them, you wouldn't need to replace them, wasting precious resources. All plastics, metals and other materials found in household and office components would be designed in such a way that they would be easily separable into their separate materials, and each material would be designed with an efficient method that would allow the materials to be recycled and re-manufactured into a new product, with a minimal amount of new energy introduced that would make products made from recycled materials just as strong as products made from newly manufactured materials. All factories and cars would have their manufacturing processes redesigned, so that would allow them to capture and make use of the by-products that are normally emitted as greenhouse gases, thus increasing profits while keeping the environment safe. All charitable organisations that help those from starvation and death, would be restructured so that each person helped is able to make him more productive to make an excess of products that could then be re-marketed to increase the money of the charity, thus allowing it to help even more people, or so that each person so helped is trained that he will have the skill and freedom to spend a small part of his time helping others in the same way, thus making each person helped helping someone else. All this and much, much more is possible. Why, then don't we design our methods of production to include such long-term considerations? Because we aren't that interested in solving our problems. We're far, far, far more interested in satisfying our selfish desires, particularly those that won't benefit us in the long run.
Read Stephen R. Covey's "Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, if you're interested.
RE msg 30 by funtomofthenight:
Purely western thought started to cease to exist after Marco Polo. After Marco Polo, Europe came into contact with China. But we didn't learn much from them. All we tried to do was enslave them. Check out why Britain had a 100-year lease for Hong Kong from China. It was in return for the British to close down the opium dens that the British had opened up all along the tributaries of China, and were turning Chinese into Opium addicts, much to the concern of the Chinese authorities. Us Brits turned loads of Chinese into Opium junkies, and the Chinese gave us Hong Kong, in return for stopping destroying their country.
Something similar happened in India. Indian culture only came back to England, from the large numbers of English children born and raised in India by English colonists. Cliff Richard was born in India. Felicity Kendal was educated in 6 convents in India. Even then, the culture of India, such as curries, came back to England, but the theology did not.
The introduction of Eastern thought and literature into Western thought, was only in the last 50 years. Once we had cheap transatlantic flights, we could go to the East, quickly and cheaply. So lots of people did, learned about the culture, and came back. Conversely, this made it easy for Easterners to come here too. Before cheap transatlantic flights, the only way to get anywhere far away was by boat. Boat travel took a long time. My mother made the journey to Israel by sea in 1960. It took 3 weeks. It takes 4 hours by plane. So you needed to have a cabine to sleep, to keep clothes for 3 weeks, and to store enough food for 3 weeks. So it was incredibly expensive. Because you were afloat for 126 times as much as a plane, and water is prone to far more storms than air, it was a quite dangerous too. This was just to get from Britain to Israel, which is a tiny fraction of the time it would take to cross from America to China. So people didn't often travel by boat, and even then it was only people with enough money for the trip. So people didn't travel abroad very often. So cultures hardly met.
So how did Western thought survive in its pure form to influence 20th century values? What is in the Bible, in the Roman texts, in Aristotle, in Plato, in Church decrees, in the Crusades that made us think in ways that led to the paradox of technological suicide, to global warming? Actually, the influences are quite simple: primitive values. If you think very simplistically about the world, you imagine that if you do something wrong, you'll be punished immediately, and that if you aren't punished right away, then you must be doing what is right. This came to be known in England as "Might is Right". This was later extended into the tradition of settling a dispute between knights in combat, that whoever was in the right, would have G-d on his side, and with G-d on your side, you could not fail to win. So the winning warrior was the Mightiest warrior was the warrior who won, and the warrior that G-d agreed with. The same went for 2 sides in a war. Whichever side won, had to be the one with G-d on his side, so that they were the side who were in the right. This concept was something that I was taught even in school, that was common thinking in England for many years. It went so far as people believed that those who were born to nobility, somehow deserved it, and that those who were born in servitude, somehow deserved it, because G-d would not be so unjust as to make a good man suffer and a wicked man happy and successful.
Now, we all know that just because you're late to work one day, doesn't mean your boss will sack you on the spot. He might wait quite a while before he even gives you a written warning. But that wasn't the type of thinking that was applied to G-d by Europeans, in Roman and post-Roman ethics. We also know that there have been a lot of very evil people who got away with a lot of very evil things for a very long time. So whether you believe in G-d or not, "Might is Right" doesn't add up. But it was an ethos of British thought.
It probably started out as primitive thinking, and then evolved into a combination of sources, such as the Greeks, the Romans, the Divine Right of Kings, the Rule of Precedent, Protestantism, and Calvinism, which all later combined to form our present view.
The Greeks and the Romans often saw their gods as capricious. So you were more likely to be the "flavour of the month", that you were on the right side of the gods, in that the most favoured of people stood on the right side of the king.
The Divine Right of Kings basically meant that a king could do no wrong, because if he was a bad king, G-d would never have allowed him to be king in the first place. So whatever he decided must be a good and just decision. This principle was extended to the officials appointed by the king, including the judges, who were appointed by the king in England. So any decisions made by a judge who was appointed by the king could never be wrong. So any judge appointed by the Chief Justice, who was appointed by the king, and any judge appointed by them, must always be right, and all of their decisions must always be right, even if they make no sense whatsoever. So if you were in a court case, and a judge ruled on a similar issue in a previous court case, that judge's decision must have been right in the previous case, and as the cases were similar, the right ruling must be the same as the previous ruling. So England developed the rule of Precedent, and Precedent was adopted in the USA and Canada, as they were originally colonies of the Crown.
According to one historian in a documentary on the subject, Protestants discarded the notion that a Priest told you what the Bible meant, and the notion that salvation required absolution by a Priest. But this left them with a few problems. One was how to get closer to G-d, and the other was how to get to heaven.
It appears that many Protestants, many of whom were Puritans, Non-Conformists and Calvinists, decided that G-d's glory was found in the world, and so the better you understood the world, the better you understood G-d. So the pursuit of understanding the world, in the form of Science, was many Protestant's way of getting close to G-d.
It occurred to many Protestants that those who were more successful in their endeavours were obviously favoured by G-d, and would therefore be more likely to get into heaven. So the more successful you were in the real world, the more you knew you were on the right road. So many worked as hard as possible, and as long as possible, until they were very successful, so they knew they would get to heaven. So the harder you worked, the more likely you would get to heaven, and this was manifested as the Protestant Work Ethic. In the beginning, these Protestants took the view that you could only judge this success in the good works that you did, to help others. But it wasn't long, before some extended this philosophy to how well you were doing in life in general. So Capitalism, the accumulation of capital, money, became a sign that you were successful, and so that G-d favoured you, and that you would get into heaven. So the accumulation of wealth started to become a goal in itself.
So Western thought is steeped in the idea that if anything would go wrong, it would go wrong in the short term.
It's probably because Europeans had a long history of short dynasties, that were full of injustice, violence and disease. They had so many things happening in the short-term, that no-one spent much time worrying about the long term.
It could also be because of the lack of stress on education. People like the Chinese, the Indians and the Jews had a great belief in education and in learning about the world, that we call Science, and in philosophy, for thousands of years. European traditions in education, Science and philosophy only go back a few hundred years. Relatively speaking, Europe is a "young man", compared to the rest of the world. So it may be that Europe's "youth" is reflected in its immaturity.
Of course, this leads us to the obvious question of how Europe got ahead of the rest of the world. It may be because of the first flush of youth. By the time Christian Europe appeared on the scene, Asians and Middle Eastern peoples had been using swords, arrows and javelins for thousands of years. So these older peoples might have got complacent with their level of progress and technological development. Europeans, on the other hand, being new to the fore, could have taken on new technologies such as gunpowder, with much more speed, in the same way as kids pick up new inventions much quicker and become much more adept at them, than their older counterparts.
RE msg 32 by funtomofthenight:
Our more inefficient vehicles are truly contributing to global warming. You're right about that. But they are contributing in a material way, because there are so many of them. If there was one minivan in the entire world, it would not be a problem. So in effect, the less and much less efficient methods of transportation back a hundred, two hundred years ago, would be even more deadly to our environment. We blame our engines, but really, we should blame the number of people who use them. And the number of people who use them are a product of sex and love for children and good medicare and accessible education and equal rights, not anything else. I remember when we got our first car in 1980. It was 10 years old, and it ran for another 10 before we sold it. Back then, there were far less cars on the road, but the population was between 55.6 and 57.6 million. In 2006, it was 60.6 million. So the population has grown only by 9%. Yet there are probably 3 times as many cars on the road. That's an increase of 200%. That is an increase of 20 cars for each new person. But hardly anyone has 20 cars. So that doesn't add up.
What has happened, is a change in how cars have been viewed. In earlier times, a car was a luxury, and there would be only one car for a family of 5. Now, each adult has his or her own car. In the past, it was common to see cars full of people, and if several people were going out together, you'd only take enough cars to ensure that each car was full. Now, each person will take their own car, and it is common to see cars with a driver, or at most one passenger. Cars used to be a shared method of transportation, like a bus. Now, they are a private method of transportation, and are seen as a status symbol of your wealth.
It is probably due to the fact that we approach life differently now. Wealth used to be a sign that you were one of the wealthy few. If you weren't incredibly rich, there was little point in showing off. If you did show off your wealth, you were called ostentatious, and a show-off, that you had nothing to offer other than your wealth.
We now live in a society, where everyone shows off their wealth, and where you have to "sell yourself". Showing off is extremely common, so common, that if you don't show off your wealth, people think you don't have any. There are many religious families living in poor areas in London, who are multi-millionaires, who live in an ordinary house, because they don't value wealth, and they use their money to pay for their children and grandchildren to study for years, rather than spend money on themselves. Many people would assume these people are extremely poor by where they live, their car, their clothes, and how much they live on. But they give more to charity in a year, than most lawyers make. I know of one company that makes religious books in Israel, whose owner makes a million a year, and gives 90% of it to charity, and lives on the rest, which is still a fortune in Israel. But he still gives 90% of his money to charity.
We've also become a society that is very fearful of being attacked by strangers, despite that the majority of crimes are by people we know. So we ride alone, because we don't trust others to ride with us or to ride with them.
If you wanted to cut 50% of the traffic, all you would need to do would be to place a heavy charge on anyone driving a vehicle with no passengers, and sentence anyone who attacks anyone in a car, whether it be a hitch-hiker being attacked, or any hitch-hiker who attacks you, to 25 years minimum. It wouldn't be worth it to attack anyone in a car. So hitch-hiking and giving lifts to hitch-hikers would become safe and profitable. | |
|
| Omni or Meta???
Posted: 5/17/2008 4:56:51 PM |
allegories are merely a way for us to understand the observations better.
Well said... So could it be said metaphor (relativism/paradox) is not the finger only the direction it's pointing to and if so, if not the answer, at least possibly an argument for transendence? | |
|
| Omni or Meta???
Posted: 5/17/2008 6:10:31 PM | You're right, Meridian Blue. You did qoute nuclear proliferation as well. Your quote was,
Eastern thought is based on relativist metaphor (construct). Western thought is based on dogmatic consensus (definition). The former sees us as a product of nature . The latter sees nature as a product of us. The latter view of nature, brought us global warming and nuclear proliferation. Eastern thought asks "why?" and Western thought asks ''why not?"...
My mistake was to assume that you meant to say that eastern thought would never have brought us global warming and nuclear proliferation. But you did not say that at all. Your statement perfectly allowed that eastern thought also would have brought us that. Which is in line with my statement that it's actually overpopulation and a resulting deficit in recycling resources that is burying humankind.
My mistake. The way you worded this quote does imply a contrast, but it's not spelled out at all, and therefore it's denyable. It's a trap I fall into over and over again.
Sorry. Carry on. | |
|
| Omni or Meta???
Posted: 5/17/2008 6:34:25 PM | Your statement perfectly allowed that eastern thought also would have brought us that.
The statement perfectly allowed that eastern thought also 'could' have brought us that. That possibility has not manifested.
Which is in line with my statement that it's actually overpopulation and a resulting deficit in recycling resources that is burying humankind.
Actually, it is in line with my statement that it's actually arrogance and ignoring recycling resources that is burying humankind and also the possibility that Eastern perspective may offer a 'green' alternative.
That noted... What is your position on relativist paradox? | |
|
| Omni or Meta???
Posted: 5/17/2008 6:59:17 PM | Dear ScorpioMover,
Indeed, pollution has been brought on by the proliferation of devices made in the Industrial revolution, and of their derivatives. Fine. But if the industrial revolution never occurred, then mankind would have faced much worse woes, in terms of resource depletion; such as lack of food, lack of clothing, lack of housing avaliable to all in Europe. Wars of attrition and ethnic cleansing would have been more rampant and widespread. Not because we're western or because Europeans are evil, but because there would not be enough to go around, and the industrial revolution and its derivatives in science, social order and technology have made it possible for more people to be supported by the same area of land.
Fine, pollution is threatening us; but four hundred years ago we had arrived at a point which was worse than the problems we face today, and the problems of 400 years past have made it possible for man to enjoy relatively prosperous, carefree times. I know, there were social inequities, wars, torture, genocide, but they were carried out for reasons of greed, but not for reasons of survival necessity.
So I maintain that if any time before the industrial revolution mankind would have stopped increasing in numbers, then we would be well off with no pollution and no resource depletion threatening us. In other words, mankind will always grow in numbers until it reaches a size of population that presents it with problems. So far we found solutions to those problems every time. The future? Who knows. Anything is possible.
II. Ghandi's revolution changed India, but not the basic nature of Indians, as far as needing and wanting food and sex, loving their children and enjoying it all. The social structure started to change, yes, but it's a far cry from changing the basic nature of people, which is resulting in overpopulation. You cannot say "India changed, so Indians changed in their basic human behaviour."
III. Your postulate that the lack of foresight, expressed in philosophical views, kept creating more and more pollution because the philosophy assured us that science will keep ahead of the possible destructive nature of our new inventions. That is true. But the message of that philosophy is measured by empirical methods, and those empirical measurements had not proved that philosophy false yet. Whether it will or not, is a question of the future -- near future, far future, we'll see.
But I maintain that that philosophy would not have created problems for mankind, like the present problem of pollution / global warming, if our numbers did not increase at such a large rate. Like I said, if there was one minivan on the globe right now, then no matter how inefficient its motor would be in terms of today's worst-efficient minivan, that would not create a pollution problem. More minivans, more pollution. Fewer minivans, less pollution. More people, more pollution. Fewer people, less pollution.
Of course one could argue that more people do not necessarily have to pollute more. But nobody can say that fewer people would pollute more by driving the same inefficient minivans as we drive today.
IV. You put some blame on technology for not preventing problems that are results of overpopulation. This has not been attempted, because it's impossible to sustain as a philosophy for ever. If we made more and more efficient minivans, buildings, etc., using less and less energy per person, then the total consumption would be described by the equation (energy/resource consumption per person) times (number of persons using the energy /resources available). Whether we could keep up with doubling efficiency for each doubling of the size of population is a mystery. Undeterminable. But we could sure use less and less energy, even if our machines and our per-person usage is constant, if we keep reducing the size of population. Either way would work, but one is for sure attainable (reducing the population numbers) the other is not guaranteed.
V. When Marco Polo reached China, true, we did not learn from them. However, I had to handle the eastern / western thought difference somehow. Midnight Blue untied it from geographical location. That gave me the liberty to declare the START of the blending of the two philosophies to the time of the first contact. We did not learn much, but before Marco Polo, they were for sure separate; after Marco Polo it was not guaranteed to be separate. So I made this event the time before which we could talk about thoughts of westerners and westerners only, and thoughts of easterners and easterners only. That's why I referred to pre-Marco Polo philosophies. In other words, I accepted my Midnight Blue's determination of losing geographical boundaries for the two sides (east v. west) and treating all thought after Marco Polo as not guaranteed western or eastern though. I had to do this in order to give examples of western thought that were not influenced by eastern thought, and I showed these philosophies to Midnight Blue and asked him: What's in these philosophies that encourages pollution creation?
VII. When you quoted me and gave an answer to what is the heritage of purely western thought, you did not tie it to the general argument. You summarized it that swift justice by god or by man is the western way of thinking. It's a very small area of western thought, and it in no way supports that we should go and pollute. Also, you did not contrast it to how easterners handle this. The essay you wrote was good, but not inclusive, and not at all conducive to the discussion here, as you tied nothing to the discussion. If anything, by not tying it to the discussion, in a way you admitted you could not tie it to the discussion (as seen by the casual observer), and therefore you supported the view that western thought indeed did not contribute towards increasing pollution.
VIII. Your arguement with the cars, in reply to my "fewer minivans". Please get your statistics straight, otherwise they're meaningless. Which population grew from 55 million to 60 million? Are you in England?
What do you mean by taking your statement seriously into account when you guessed "Yet there are probably 3 times as many cars on the road." Is that the way to use statistics in your country, wherever it is?
Sorry. I apologize for my outburst. But the same old equation applies: If there were thirty thousand people in the area where you counted the population of 60 million, then even if there were twenty minivans per person, there would be much fewer minivans than today. Aside from the fact that a person can drive only one minivan at a time, so in effect for 30 thousand persons the maximum number of driven vehicles as at any time is 30 thousand; for a million people, it's a million; for six billion, it's six billion. | |
|
| Omni or Meta???
Posted: 5/17/2008 7:07:57 PM | "Actually, it is in line with my statement that it's actually arrogance and ignoring recycling resources that is burying humankind and also the possibility that Eastern perspective may offer a 'green' alternative. "
Sure. I won't deny that. Anything is in line with a statement that makes no claims.
As for what eastern philosophies could have achieved... well, we don't know. There is no evidence, otherwise it would have achieved it. Again, a hint, an isninuation which makes no claims, and shows no evidence. But you're right: Western though would have shown that it led us down a path which ended in pollution. However, since eastern and western thought have no distinction, as per the mixing of the thinkers going as far back as Marco Polo, we cannot say for sure that the only observed phenomena is a direct result of purely western thought: a result of western thought before it started to mix with the eastern. I see no direct results of the Bible, of the Roman system, of Plato, of Aristotle, and of pre-Christioan European mythology that encouraged us to go down that path.
In other words, the path we went down to polluting our world was paved, if we accept your argument, with philosophies of both east and west. | |
|
| Omni or Meta???
Posted: 5/17/2008 7:21:30 PM | Fine, pollution is threatening us; but four hundred years ago we had arrived at a point which was worse than the problems we face today
You suggest there are worse things than nuclear winter or submerged coastal cities?
philosophy would not have created problems for mankind, like the present problem of pollution / global warming
Again Von Clausewitz and Machiavelli established policy is king and the masses (no matter how large) are subordinate to it's will.
we cannot say for sure that the only observed phenomena is a direct result of purely western thought
We can say for sure that the only observed phenomena is a direct result of 'dominant' western thought.
As for what eastern philosophies could have achieved... well, we don't know.
Does this suggest it cannot be a future alternative?
That noted... Again, what is your position on the value of relativist paradox? Not for nothing that was the original thread. | |
|
| Omni or Meta???
Posted: 5/17/2008 8:14:19 PM | Nuclear winter and submerged coastal cities are threats, but they haven't happened.
Worse things happened then in Europe, including unchecked decimation or halving of populations by diseases. A year of draught would bring general famine in the scale of that in Ethiopia in the 1980s. But there was no international aid. Wars were rampant. All this started to change for the better after the industrial revolution, until we arrived to life in Europe today: no famine, no epidemics, no slavery, no wars in the last 60 years, except for Yugoslavia of course. A very major war between nations occurred since the 1790's only once every 50-60 years. In the middle ages, they were a daily phenomenon.
Machiavelli and von Clausewitz I suspect did not dictate that policy is king; they observed it. King's words had been policy for hundreds of years of European history by then, and the masses were subordinate to those. Same as in China and India. Aside from that, I don't know how policy, as king, is a directive to create pollution, as you seem to indicate by juxtaposing this to that statement of mine.
Dominant western thought? China was never dominated. They do things (but do not do only those things) and have done exactly what was going on in some parts of the areas of European domination. China has had 1/4 of the world population. If they did the same as the Europeans, then they either were dominated by their thought, or they created the same ideals themselves. I don't know which way it was for sure. I shan't argue about that.
Whether eastern philosophy can be and alternative... I am not qualified to answer that question. Potentially everything can be an alternative. Whether that would result in a better system, is questionable. I don't know. I don't think it's a fair question.
My position on the value of relativist paradox? The original question concerned itself about omnipotence, to which I gave my answer (and you liked it, thank you very much.) I have never studied philosophy formally, other than two half-year courses in community colleges. Therefore I am not familiar with what relativist paradox means. I know paradox, in its early meaning, meant a nominative sentence which could not be assigned a truth value. An examply is the statement, "I always lie". Relativist, I don't know what that means. Relativist paradox is a term that is mysterious and foreboding to me. Much like "Complex Flux of Nanoconfined Polymers". This was the title of a free lecture at the local university here that a girlfriend wanted to drag me to. I only learned the title of the speech at the entrance, and I got so scared of these ugly words that I turned around and went home. I remember, I put a subway ticket in the garbage by mistake together with my empty coffee cup, not far from the lecture hall, and dove into the garbage bin to find it. I also wrote later an essay on brainy women that was inspired by a placard inside the physics building that I saw that day. The women were leading physicists of their times through the ages. Did you know it was a woman who postulated first that the earth's core is liquid, and it was a woman who discovered radio-activity or nuclear fission (not Madam Curie)? Hepatia was on the picture, a greek beauty with her arms broken off, she was a leading physicist in Classical Greece. | |
|
| Omni or Meta???
Posted: 5/17/2008 9:51:22 PM | Nuclear winter and submerged coastal cities are threats, but they haven't happened.
About 5 decades ago Russia almost pressed the button and India, Pakistan, North Korea and the fundamentalists want a excuse to now. Right now the polar caps are melting and there is less than a generation to solve this. So you suggest the current threat is not more grave than the one that was solved?
Machiavelli and von Clausewitz I suspect did not dictate that policy is king; they observed it.
Both Von Clausewitz during the Napoleonic wars (total war and its justification, which modern military adheres to) and Machiavelli under the Medici oligarchy (intrigue and its justification, which modern diplomacy adheres to) 'established' in their respective magnum opus that policy (government) is 'king' (not 'King').
I don't know how policy, as king, is a directive to create pollution, as you seem to indicate by juxtaposing this to that statement of mine.
What was indicated in that post and earlier ones was, failed 'policy' has a consequence not a directive.
The original question concerned itself about omnipotence, to which I gave my answer (and you liked it, thank you very much.)
Indeed... However, please note that the context was framed using a paradox (which can be viewed as relativist/eastern construct). The broader question here is there value in challenging perception by skewering it? And if so, what is its application? | |
|
| Omni or Meta???
Posted: 5/17/2008 11:37:40 PM | I was in Communist Hungary five decades ago and we were all convinced and deathly scared that the Americans will press the button. Not entirely out of intention only, but also because we also knew that the Americans built better buttons. When they pressed it, it did its job. Russian buttons were unreliable. See under "clock radio".
Oh. I read your repeat occurance of "policy" with its current meaning -- that it's a directive, a decreed course of pre-described action to be taken when a certain set of circumstances are present. I had no clue you used the word as "government". We cannot define every word, true, but it's an honest mistake -- that's what the word means now, and I recall no indication that you used it in the same sense as Machiavelli or von Clausewitz. And if you did, it wouldn't have helped me understand it as "governement" because I read neither of the authors.
King. Yes, I got your drift, and yes, I meant to say that "policy" (modern meaning) was king (it ruled - modern meaning) under the kings as well, the feudal kings. They made a decree, "this is how it is", and that's what everyone obeyed.
Is there value in challenging perception by skewering it? And if so, what is its application? To be entirely honest, this question is beyond my range of comprehension. Either I am too unfamiliar with the jargon or else you're a much more conceptual thinker than I, and you can decide on issues that are several layers away from the concrete and into the realm of the symbolic. Sorry, I cannot do that. Be it said, though, that symbolic is easier to understand when uttered, than when heard. It is apparent from the speakers point of view what he means, whereas it could be incomprehensible to the listener, for the sheer fact that with each layering, away from the direction of the contcrete, the symbolism introduces new conceptual elements and takes away from the original ones. Indeed, it's been established that the relationship between a concrete event and a symbolic, which is more than four symbolic layers away, is hazy enough so only people of Einsteinean IQs or higher can relate back (or reverse engineer) from the symbolic as stated, back to the concrete. More trouble if the symbolic layering has errors introduced. It's like solving a MasterMind game when the clue giver gives wrong clues. With each row of guesses that have wrong clues given, it is harder and harder to solve the puzzle, even if the guesser knows that the clue giver made mistakes. If the guesser trusts the clue giver that there are no mistakes, then the mistakes can render the problem in a MasterMind game unsolveable even after the second row, sometimes even after the first row, depending on the severity of the mistakes. This sort of error propagates and destroys the interpretability of a symbolic layering if there are errors introduced between any two steps of the layers.
I am not saying at all that you're making mistakes at all. This was just a little excursion to amuse you and myself. | |
|
| Omni or Meta???
Posted: 5/18/2008 2:52:36 AM | "So... the allusion takes him out of context. Please elaborate."
I did...I put the search info above...
here's a link to the journal's' website if the above info didn't work:
www.iwm.at/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=146&Itemid=276 - 51k -
scroll down until you hit Mahon O'' Brien's commentary | |
|
| Omni or Meta???
Posted: 5/18/2008 2:58:40 AM | | BTW Meridian...which of Machiavelli's texts are you calling Machiavelli's magnum opus? The Prince? You know that he was tortured and exiled under the Medici's' as well right? | |
|
| Omni or Meta???
Posted: 5/18/2008 5:42:10 AM |
www.iwm.at/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=146&Itemid=276 - 51k -
Cheers... Thanks. I found it but I had difficulty downloading. I'll try again. | |
|
| Omni or Meta???
Posted: 5/18/2008 6:29:34 AM | If they did the same as the Europeans, then they either were dominated by their thought, or they created the same ideals themselves.
The domination of Western thought is not geographical it is as universal as "I Love Lucy". The fundamentalists think the greatest threat to them is imperialism. It's actually this show and Baywatch. Syndication and satellite cable is Western thought's ultimate weapon. It is more powerful that a Trident surface to air missile with multiple high yeild thermonuclear hydrogen warheads.
we also knew that the Americans built better buttons.
The real truth is we just had better Madison Avenue PR consultants and better Hollywood producers to sell the sizzle (please forgive the pun). We learned that trick from MI5.
King. Yes, I got your drift, and yes, I meant to say that "policy" (modern meaning) was king (it ruled - modern meaning) under the kings as well, the feudal kings. They made a decree, "this is how it is", and that's what everyone obeyed.
I don't think you got the drift because the context was used regarding the two noted authors. Therefore, even 'Kings' are subject to to policy. Look at what Cromwell did to Charles I as one example. Policy is 'government' (and statesmenship) not governing by despots, tyrants or dictators. Even Kings have to negotiate.
It is apparent from the speakers point of view what he means, whereas it could be incomprehensible to the listener, for the sheer fact that with each layering, away from the direction of the contcrete, the symbolism introduces new conceptual elements and takes away from the original ones.
Well said... | |
|
| Omni or Meta???
Posted: 5/18/2008 7:32:07 AM | which of Machiavelli's texts are you calling Machiavelli's magnum opus?
"The Prince"... At least this seems popular opinion. His administrative work (that was his day job... intrigues a hobby by comparison) was more definative.
You know that he was tortured and exiled under the Medici's' as well right?
Indeed... Unfortunately, for him (but not as tragically) like Robespierre and 4th Earl of Morton he became the victim of his own enthusiasim. | |
|
| Omni or Meta???
Posted: 5/18/2008 8:22:45 AM | | You should have a look at The Discourses! | |
|
| Omni or Meta???
Posted: 5/18/2008 10:00:23 AM | You should have a look at The Discourses!
He had more than a few. If "Il Principe" indentifies Cesare Borgia's influnence on him then "Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio" (Book 1) defines his father Bernardo's influence. After all, he was descended from a long line of jurists. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
