Also rather interesting and Modal. The harmonies remind me of the Uilleann pipes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WkrTyrR-WQ

I was reminded of these the other day. Neither jazz nor classical, but the dreaded folk.

So sue me, poseurs. Watch on youtube.

But we don’t need the notion of experi­ence as a mediating tribunal. We can be content with an account of the world as exerting control on our inquiries in a merely causal way, rather than as exerting what McDowell calls “rational control”. — Rorty?

I'm not sure if I understand this, but if I do, then it goes something like this:— the cliff doesn't mind if you have a theory of gravity or a theory of under-cliff trolls that will suck you down and eat your soul, as long as the effect is that you don't fall off the cliff. But when it comes to Psyche, and more so when it comes to Sophia, then either rational, or irrational control is what it is all about and the causal effect cannot be predicted at all either way, other than by a rational or irrational calculation that is itself in the purview of those same goddesses.

or does all science operate on the basis of historically changing social constructions? — Joshs

The stretch from psychology to all science misses a rather important difference that is peculiar to the 'human' sciences. When one studies electrons, or planets, or plate tectonics, one can reasonably assume that right or wrong, one's hypothesis about phenomena will not materially affect the behaviour one is studying. But human behaviour is radically transformed by human understanding, so that as soon as a psychological theory has some measure of success, it alters human nature and the phenomena one is studying change. This explains why psychology appears more like the fashion industry than a science.

Ironically, young people now are having less sex than ever. — Tzeentch

That's not irony - that's policy!

The book, along with many others banned by the Nazis when they came to power, was publicly burnt in the Nazi book burnings. Reich realized he was in considerable danger and hurriedly left Germany; first going to Austria (to see his ex-wife and children) and then to 'exile' in Denmark, Sweden and subsequently Norway. Reich was also subsequently expelled from the International Psychoanalytical Association in 1934 for his political militancy and his views on sexuality.[a] This book – and all of Reich's published books – were later ordered to be burned on the request of the Food and Drug Administration by a judge in Maine, United States in 1954.[11]

So which book was banned and burned by both Nazi Germany and the US? "They" do not want "you" to read this!

the best resolutions are not found in medication, but in meaning. Hence the emphasis on the psychosocial. — Tom Storm

Yes, but always psychological reform, never social reform, because ... actually, the medical model still informs the social structure that is psychiatry - one goes to the doctor, not the politician/lawyer.

My take on psychiatry, in sum, is that while most doctors are akin to mechanics in the sense of dealing with the more-or-less, and mostly more, known, psychiatrists by comparison are more in the way of witch doctors. — tim wood

We agree thus far at least, so I might be able to convince you to consider that the medical model may be somewhat at fault. Witch doctors have a rather similar model, in which 'evil spirits' play the role of 'chemicals in the brain'. One of the difficulties of the medical model is the way pathologies change over time. Anorexia and self-harm, for instance are modern epidemics, and in the complete absence of any physical explanation for such novelties, social change should surely be considered as a possible explanation? At which point one can ask "how does your society fuck you up, and what are your coping strategies/self-medication?" to psychiatrists and their clients even handedly,

Rigid thinking, along the lines that if I do not have absolute control, I have no freedom at all, is mistaken.

To the contrary, operating a brain is like riding a bike, one learns to both steer and balance by the same manipulation of the handlebars. The inherent instability of thought - its propensity to veer off in unexpected directions is the very feature that allows control by awareness. Mathematical rigidity must be laboriously imposed by much practice and training along with constant vigilance and a blackboard and chalk.
As the old witch spells have it, one cannot not think about a black cat to order, but panic not, you will stop thinking about it soon enough.

Maybe my small European brain can't fathom the profundity of combatting racism by making people's skin color and race their defining features. — Tzeentch

Yes, I think that must be right; your small brain cannot fathom that to address racism is not racist. You are by no means alone.

I imagine you can follow through the implications of the question. It comes from a book about Heidegger's Being and Time. — tim wood

You don't seem willing to entertain a social analysis, and at the same time seem reluctant to actually say what you mean. *shrug*

I suppose my point is that social approaches to mental health need not be conspiracy theories. — Leontiskos

It's an example. What it illustrates is that one's social condition and thereby one's psychological condition can be - as David Smail puts it - strongly affected by events beyond the individual's event horizon. One tends to take things like job loss to be personal failings rather than socio-economic adjustments or as you choose to call them 'conspiracy theories.'

One might ask the medical modellers, for example, why there seems at the moment to be something of a plague of paranoia and conspiracy theories. It's hard to see how 'chemicals in the brain' can be infectious (apart from prions of course).

I invite consideration of that "between." — tim wood

I'm willing to consider, but where do you want me to consider redirecting?

a more nuanced take. — Leontiskos

It's a hypothetical example - nuance is to be avoided in making the distinction between the personal psychological analysis and the social relations analysis. One can of course make use of both in the real world.

presuppose that something is wrong, then attempts to find a fit in wrongness in the DSM-V. Finding it, then treats according to the finding and according to the theory-of-the-day about the finding. — tim wood

There is definitely something wrong, that's not in dispute. The medical model is that there is something wrong with the patient; the social model is that there is something wrong between the person and their environment.
An example, Mr X goes to the doctor suffering from depression. says he hasn't been depressed before but the last year he's feeling down unmotivated. He used to be a skilled steel worker but he got laid off two years ago and hasn't been able to find a job. He feels useless, the house is about to be repossessed, his wife has left him. The social diagnosis is that he is suffering from a worldwide recession engineered by financial interests he has zero knowledge of, and what he needs is a new government. The doctor gives him sympathy and some happy pills.

Spoken like a true kool-aid drinker. Question: as you've worked with psychiatrists, you must know what they do: what, exactly, do psychiatrists do? If I pay for the services of a psychiatrist, what, mainly, can I expect to get? — tim wood

You get, in most circumstances, "the medical model". This consists of a history, interpreted by the expert to form a diagnosis, followed by a recommendation of treatment.

The medical model is what this thread is questioning, and suggesting be replaced with a sociological model, such that mental distress arises from a person's relationships, to the environment and particularly to significant others and various 'authorities'. One of those relationships is that between the person and the psychiatrist. One can look at the power relations involved and consider what about the relationship might tend to confirm or disconfirm the person's feelings of distress - of, for random example, persecution.

Generally we tend to focus more on the negatives in fellow humans than on the positives. — I like sushi

Is this not the natural consequence of having a generally positive attitude? I assume everyone is amenable, cooperative and kind, and so it is remarkable when someone is unpleasant, and that is noteworthy, or newsworthy. I don't mention or even notice that every slice of bread is delicious and satisfying, but the odd mouldy crust gets my attention.

This is how I go on here; mostly i assume posters are friendly and want to arrive at the truth and a better understanding together, and when there are accusations and unpleasant comments, they stand out as something that has to be thought about in an entirely different way. What is this person trying to do, here? Have I upset them?

Failing to find any plausible contrast, we realize that the modifier 'directly' doesn't do any work here: it is meaningless. — SophistiCat

This sounds right to me, and reduces contrast theory to the principle of a Venn diagram. a word has meaning by making a distinction between what it refers to and everything else, with the distinction drawn as a line between them.

We can know what a unicorn is - a magical horse like creature with a single horn on its head - even though we know there are no unicorns. but when we want t make useful functional distinctions, between forms of seeing and such, there has to be something on each side of the line for the classification to function. To say all seeing is direct, or all seeing is indirect does not draw a line in the world of seeing at all. The distinction does not function in the world of seeing unless it divides seeing into contrasting segments:- I see directly what is in front of me, and indirectly via the rear view mirror or via a camera or other apparatus —. and then we can argue whether spectacles, rose tinted or not, are to count as an apparatus or not.

That you ask this question suggests that you think some sum of money can compensate for centuries of total exploitation.
— unenlightened

First off, no, I don't believe that, and second, should we not try to compensate people at all even if it isn't nearly enough? Do you think that no reparations is the same thing as some reparations? — ToothyMaw

No, we should not. It is offensive to suggest that it can be done. And can we maybe address the case of mixed race folk both paying and receiving reparations presumably in some amount proportional to their ethnic origins?

If this were true, then why are the majority of people of color in favor of reparations? — ToothyMaw

People tend to favour getting something for nothing. But a better remedy would be a proper education of the history of white racism, and white people taking the responsibility for that and behaving differently. That you ask this question suggests that you think some sum of money can compensate for centuries of total exploitation. There is not enough money in the world, even if every white person were bankrupted, and all their assets sold off.

The damage of the slave trade and colonisation is irreparable. Reparations are for white people's benefit, to assuage their guilt; they cannot conceivably compensate for or repair what has happened.

Consider Mrs un. Her father was an Afro-Caribbean descendant of slaves, her mother a white
woman from a slate-mining town whose ancestors were exploited by the local land-owning family who also had slaves working on a plantation in the Caribbean. Mrs un might have to pay reparations to herself. She might have to resent herself for noticing. It's maddening, literally maddening.

I am, but with my own articles of faith.

To herd or control apes you have to commit violence against them, or proceed with the threat thereof. — NOS4A2

Such articles of faith are what you use to control people. It doesn't work in every case, but it works on average, and not even a threat is required.

An authority must monopolize violence and use violence in order to institute “non-violence”. — NOS4A2

Yes. Pax Romana.

speech is not violence — NOS4A2

A sheepdog gone rogue can herd a flock of sheep over a cliff without touching them.

I guess, but it is the UK that is falling apart. Public services are on the brink of collapse. The gov is at the point where they are arresting people for social media posts, which is authoritarian, but also stupid because the prisons are too full. A shithole. — NOS4A2

Yes indeed, the UK is ahead of the pack as usual. That is one of the ways I can foretell your future. But I love authoritarianism in the service of peace and non-violence.

What does this have to do with the topic at hand? — Leontiskos

This is the topic at hand, and it is addressed to christians.

Suppose you came to believe that Jesus was just a man. How would you proceed? What would you do? Make a choice and explain why. — Art48

You seem to be obsessed with mormons for some reason; I haven't said anything about them. You seem to want to police who can address the topic, otherwise there is no reason to endlessly discuss the boundaries of what a christian is.

As a one time protestant who came to believe that Jesus was just a man, my answer has been that it made little or no difference to the truth of what Jesus taught about how to live. I do not generally call myself a christian because it would confuse people like you, who expect supernatural belief in all religion.

As to mormons, i think they consider themselves christian, and I can see that you do not, and I couldn't give a flying fuck either way.

You would agree that the less aid you receive and the more you manage to sustain yourself independently, the more self-sufficient you are, right? Even if you are not totally self-sufficient? — ToothyMaw

Sure. If you don't use the roads, or the shops, or the internet, or oil products, or imports, etc, you can come close to self-sufficiency (neglecting your total dependence on the environment).

If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. — Karl Sagan

Panic not chaps, your country is fucked whoever wins, because you are all insane. But go down smiling would be my preference.

human population has roughly been growing exponentially since the neolithic (as far as we can tell), but might peak in our time. — jorndoe

Sure it has. Exponential growth is what happens to populations until a constraint or limit halts it. As long as there were new worlds to conquer, new environments to exploit, new technologies to use, new resources of energy, new more intensive farming methods, human exponential growth has continued - give or take a few hiccups - plagues, famines and so on. But the human population on Earth has exceeded the ability of the environment to sustain it: 'might' is not the term; human population will start to crash this century, as cartoon idiot like, we destroy the environment we depend on.

But let's say I have a friend who is a sense-data proponent. He says that his terminology is perfectly meaningful. There are direct experiences (mental and physical sensations, feelings, thoughts) and indirect experiences of the outer world (sights, smells) that come to us through 'sense-data'. He says this contrast between direct and indirect makes those words perfectly valid and useful. I don't agree with him. But I still feel I'm losing the argument. — cherryorchard

Your friend, in claiming direct access to 'internal' events and only indirect access to 'external' events seems to me to fall into the abyss of solipsism. One cannot dispute with a solipsist, because one cannot access his world. The sense data of an argument are mere unpersuasive sensations. You cannot lose (or win) the argument because you cannot even have the argument. At best all, you can do is provoke sensations in the other. And these purely internal sensations are precisely those 'beetles in boxes' that drop out of the conversation, because they are irredeemably private; and language is shared.

I'm not sure what you mean, as you give no date or reference.

If you mean the invention of artificial fertiliser, then the 1900s seems very late date. Natural fertilisers were in use from Roman times and before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_fertilizer

But agricultural industrialisation began alongside the industrialisation of production with horse drawn machines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jethro_Tull_(agriculturist)

Still overvalued by about $19.50. Who buys these shit sandwiches?

I commend to you the writing of David Smail, and particularly his book "The Origins of Unhappiness".

Meanwhile, I will take issue with this.

Most people are quite sane and therefore very capable and totally self-sufficient. — Abdul

Most people are pretty fucked up and miserable, and no one at all is self sufficient. Just in order to communicate this message to you, for example, I require a whole army of assistants to nurse my infant self, teach me to read and write, put food on the table and a roof over my head and construct a communications network and this electronic device on which I am typing. None of this would I be remotely capable of doing on my own. Not to mention your own self that has been the provocation of my current thoughts.

Self-sufficiency is a dangerous fantasy, that is widely promoted, with false corollary that to fail to be (in the imagination) self sufficient is an illness and a loss of contact with reality.

Well, now time passed and now it seems
Everybody’s having them dreams
Everybody sees themselves
Walkin’ around with no one else
Half of the people can be part right all of the time
Some of the people can be all right part of the time
But all of the people can’t be all right all of the time
I think Abraham Lincoln said that
“I’ll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours”
I said that

Talkin’ World War III Blues
WRITTEN BY: BOB DYLAN

Guy's a poet, so what d'you expect. Me, I'm more realistic. I'm keeping stum because there's no one left to talk to. I might sing some of the old songs though, now and then.

And here is some bad news for Democrats: turns out refutal is a word.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/refutal

Everyone who holds things believes they are true, and if "Christianity" is to mean anything at all then it must exclude some stories. The level of inclusivity that many desire is simply not compatible with sensible speech. — Leontiskos

And I hold that Christianity purports to be an universal religion. What it excludes is hatred, Some folks have not heard the Good News, others have not Yet accepted it, but none are excluded.

That's an argument, but it's not a good one. — Leontiskos

Then don't make that argument, and don't accuse me of making it.

Your last sentence seems to represent a copyrighted interpretation, no? — Leontiskos

No I am reciting a creed, not The creed. We can discuss, as long as you do not have exclusive rights to the truth.

But isn't it the case that many people, even most, sacrifice every day for others - even some at crucifixion level intensity? — tim wood

That's a lovely thought, and I do not want to deny it. Then yes, as our current pope said to a small boy who was afraid that his unbelieving dead father was in hell, there are many Christians, and many of the best of them do not know it of themselves. But God sees our heart. Well he didn't say that, but he gave comfort to the child in that sort of vein.

We know a song about that.

Don't know why I never thought about it this way. Well put — flannel jesus

Thanks. I wouldn't call myself a Christian, but I appreciate the story, and hate it when people wilfully distort the meaning or claim the copyright on interpretation. We are surely all God's people, and none are excluded - that's the story.

But what exactly did Jesus do that makes him his own class of one - and membership so difficult? — tim wood

I'm so glad you asked me, because not many people know this. He didn't just carry his cross up the hill, when he got to the top, he was nailed there to it and left until dead. The difficulty for followers though is that he did it for others, whereas followers tend to do it for their own salvation, to the extent that they make any sacrifice at all.

This is not an argument. It is an emotional appeal for inclusivity. — Leontiskos

It's not an argument indeed. It is a piece of history; the plain fact of the matter is that the term "Christian" has always been disputed from its inception and such identity labels nearly always are disputed.
No true philosopher would be unaware of this, or claim to possess the truth of the matter. :wink: