Sunshine
New member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2008
- Messages
- 1,040
- MBTI Type
- ABCD
- Enneagram
- 4
- Instinctual Variant
- sx/so
Precisely.
That is why we have no reason for fear.
Agreed.
Precisely.
That is why we have no reason for fear.
The problem is that with disciplines like game or chaos theory, one always comes up against the the asymptote of infinite variability. It becomes easier to resort to Dao De Jing-like apothegms which glibly pronounce on whole fields of inquiry with cutely-phrased aporias or insoluble dilemmas.
Nicely theorized.
Reason is not a singular intellectual tree - neither is emotion. Our brains cannot clinically divorce one from the other, as one would select an apple from a pear. Conscious efforts to magnify either for a sustained period are not without infection - emotion is but evolved instinct; logic but a mechanical description of falsifiable event. The fusion of these schools is what we commonly describe as one's psychological makeup and is impossibly linked the inherent sustainability of the individual to use both accurately and appropriately.
Laying values aside for the purpose of mutual gain presuposes that reason is inherently able to generate the best-fitting solution to any paradigm; that emotion will create summary failure.
This isn't the case.
Surely we can put emotions aside long enough to figure out what's truly going on...
Just because we can't permanently escape emotional reactions doesn't mean every logical architecture is to be ruined by the intrusion of emotion.
We can't escape gravity, but we can leave the earth.
How can that which undergrids all be based upon anything?I disagree, Bluewing... for the simple reason that in every logical argument there must be premises, axioms, which govern the inferential steps which ensue. These foundational statements of accepted truths and governing principles, the premises/axioms which undergird all logical thinking thereafter, must be based in some part on a value judgment.
How can that which undergrids all be based upon anything?
Okaaayyy.Because it's a primitive value.
Okaaayyy.
I think a problem here is that we're confusing monotonic and non-monotonic logics... the Feeling function is imperative in a non-monotonic logic, where one new proposition can overturn an entire system and affect the truth-values of the other propositions at hand... also, we're dealing with non-monotonic systems because we have to accept best-fit hypotheses and provisional conclusions in an attempt to further our knowledge. We don't have a monotonic, foundational progression into new knowledge.
Sure. Whatever rocks your boat, just don't ask me to have any part of it. Moving logic isn't my kind of thing.That should make my point clearer. Primitive values are the unmoved movers of logic.
There are many problems here and many causes of confusion. This is not one of them, or at least it wasn't until wrote a message about it.I think a problem here is that we're confusing monotonic and non-monotonic logics...
My biggest fear, Bluewing, is that the sort of dispassionate thinking you are forwarding is found only in the domain of a handful of people... higher academics, yogis, people with a deep understanding of themselves...
Meaning, imagine that I had great difficulty divorcing myself from many of the prejudices of my society until I developed deeper emotional understanding of myself.... this deeper emotional understanding of myself allowed me to more fully embrace and/or explore philosophies and thought-systems that thitherto would have been alien or downright noxious to my own. Contrariwise, most people are very grounded in their beliefs and haven't even the inclination to attempt such a revolution of understanding in themselves.
I mean, we have as much proof as one could possibly need for a landing on the moon, and there are disbelievers. There has been so much research done on animal emotion, and yet many people persist in believing that animals don't have feelings (they remind me of those Medieval 'scientists' who would lacerate and torture dogs and marvel at the mechanical complexity of the anatomy which produced sounds which resembled cries of pain with such verisimilitude...)
People believe what they want to believe?
I see Plato attempting to run a nation-state and quickly running for his life...