What is a belief, other than a memory? — Metaphysician Undercover

If I believe I am writing this now, how is that a memory? It may become a memory, but only because it was first a belief.

Without specifically answering your questions, I would elaborate further that the actual coherence of one's thought is the measure and the projection of one's fundamental beliefs. And the willingness to explore and publicize one's fundamental beliefs is central to theories of social rationality and communicative action (and deliberative democracy) such as of Jurgen Habermas. Credibility, in other words. I think what you are asking is, do most people fear to take responsibility for their own fundamental beliefs? I'd argue yes.

Think about how people seek out information. You don't read Wikipedia in order to engender belief, only to collect bits of information which potentially can figure in belief. If you want to engender belief, you actually read the source books, because only those are in any way an adequate representation of the totality of underlying absolute presuppositions. As Collingwood says, "the only way to find out if a book is worth reading is to read it."

Our culture has become superficial, and superficiality does not lend itself to producing actual beliefs, only "hypothetical" ones.

Maslow also uses the term genius frequently and equates it with what is most idiographic or unique to the individual. Since we are each completely unique, complete self-actualization is the realization of the unique genius which is you.

The Antiquary by Sir Walter Scott
Essay on Metaphysics by R.G. Collingwood

What struck me most was the notion that the manifestations of our higher motivations, our higher selves, can only emerge from a milieu in which the lower "deficiency" motivations are adequately met. It just fits so well with the concept and practice of stoicism. People can be more or less well-adjusted and, accordingly, they can be more or less trapped by the relative satisfaction of their deficiency needs. That is, based on the relative "healthfulness" of their environment, people will to a certain extent develop (micro)pathologies which keep them in a cycle of deficiency-motivation (catering to lower needs). I think this describes one of the pitfalls of modern culture well - it caters to these lower needs in a cycle of neverending non-satisfaction.

But the whole idea of stoicism is that one consciously trains oneself to learn to master and control exactly what constitutes satisfaction of these lower motivations. So an accomplished stoic can lower the threshold of Being-motivations, overcoming the effects of psychopathologies (whatever they are, the key point is, it is the dominance of d-motivations that constitute the driving problem of the pathologies) and open the door to the maximization of Being-motivations, to self-actualization. It is a practical model. It answers the needs for which we otherwise look to religion.

I've just been reading some Maslow and he presents a really nice theory of the need for the idea of God. Maslow distinguishes between D-motivations and B-motivations, that is, motivations that are powered by deficiencies (hunger, insecurity) and those that are higher and constructive, "being-motivations," growth, creativity, love. B-motivations in turn tie in with his theory of peak experiences, in which cognition of reality is achieved in its most fundamental sense. Everything is perceived "idiographically" as the most perfect exemplar of its own class. Maslow suggests that we have a fundamental desire to be perceived in this way, in our own inherent perfection. And that God is a projection of this need, the being which is able to perceive us as we most truly and perfectly are.

:up:

I think that there are people who are involved with corporate pollution who coincidentally happen to espouse climate-change denial. Look at the saga of leaded gasoline. Environmental lead levels skyrocketed for decades until something was finally done. Corporations are inherently dangerous to the health of humanity and need to be kept on a short leash.

Perhaps, like many, you have dedicated yourself to saving the planet and find my observation not to your liking, but there's not much I can about that. — synthesis

Exactly. I wouldn't mind if you were saying we can't have any effect, and still doing all the things to remediate pollution, etc.

The arrogance of man, thinking that he can be a threat to the planet. — synthesis

Is this your qualified, scientific opinion? Final answer? Sounds like an excuse to piss in the pool to me.

I am sort with George Carlin on this one whereas I don't really believe that man can cause much harm to the planet. Where the climate is no doubt changing, nobody really knows the extent to which we are contributing to such. — synthesis

The current reputable scientific consensus is that it is "Human-caused."

Given the revelation of the complexity and functionality of natural systems (systems theory), one wonders why we do not simply pursue an eco-friendly strategy as a matter of common prudence.

Toward a Psychology of Being by Abraham Maslow

What do you mean by energy spilling back into the biosphere? — synthesis

All of the energy that we currently consume on earth has been stored up on earth almost entirely from the sun. Every time we burn fossil fuels, we release back into the biosphere massive amounts of concentrated, stored solar energy. Every time you utilize energy, it dissipates throughout the system, mostly as heat. That's entropy,

If we suddenly have a new source of energy, like cheap fusion, and our energy utilization rises by, say 1000%, that is ten times more heat being dissipated back into the biosphere. That's going to be a problem. Given that some corporate criminals are still trying to perpetrate the lie that climate change isn't happening, the same would certainly happen in such a case. It would surely lead to an environmental catastrophe.

This entire idea of "free" is one of the greatest ruses of all-time. There is no such thing as "free." Is the air free? No, it just is. Anything that has economic value must be paid for by somebody. — synthesis

With this I definitely agree. Lots of people believe that, if we could only solve the problem of limitless free energy, all the world's problems would be solved. Nothing could be further from the truth. All of that freely-consumed energy would end up spilling back into the biosphere, with devastating consequences.

Ok, from a strictly "energic" standpoint and if you adhere to a labour theory of value. However, you premised the post on the fact that people can and do steal other people's labour. If that's the case, other people can and do give it away.

What is your opinion of a person who takes this idea, if I may call it that, and flips it on its head and is interested in obtaining nothing for something? Altruism is still a thing right?
— TheMadFool

Nothing for something no more exists than does something for nothing. — synthesis

That's not true. People have brought computers to me for such minor fixes I didn't charge them anything. If I can be a big help to someone with almost no effort on my part I'll do it every time. In fact, if everyone operated on this principle, it could easily be a second golden rule. Treat each person the way you would if you could be the answer their problem.

In that case I'm not able to really grasp what it is you are suggesting.

If you are suggesting that there is some kind of holistic-transcendental consciousness from which conceptual consciousness has differentiated itself, no I think you are not wrong. Whether conceptual consciousness is working towards re-integrating itself with holistic consciousness is another question.

The Intellectuals and the Masses by John Carey
An overlooked item from my own library. Elitist orthodox intelligentsia as a contributing factor to the Holocaust.

Yes. Classifying Properties is difficult. The philosopher David Hume defined some of those problems in his writings. Generally, properties is defined as a piece of land - but that's not what we are defining here. — Don Wade

Maybe it is? The notion that something can "be" property only emerges with the subjective viewpoint. One object cannot "own" another object. So maybe the notion that an object can have a property is an anthropomophism. Is the property an aspect of the object, or is the object an instantiation of the property?

In the context Mannheim uses it, "reality transcending" is everything which goes against the current "objectively construed" state of affairs as historically determined and works towards something better (specifically the Utopian ideal). Aspiration to a higher purpose, as I've construed it to apply to this discussion.

:ok:

Something I'm just reading. Mannheim talks about the "utopian" faculty as that in mankind which transcends the mere factuality of historical determinism in order to create a better reality, essentially the meaning-giving function we are discussing:

But the complete elimination of reality-transcending elements from our world would lead us to a “ matter-of-factness ” which ultimately would mean the decay of the human will...The disappearance of Utopia brings about a static state of affairs in which man himself becomes no more than a thing. We would be faced then with the greatest paradox imaginable, namely, that man, who has achieved the highest degree of rational mastery of existence, left without any ideals, becomes a mere creature of impulses. Thus, after a long tortuous, but heroic development, just at the highest stage of awareness, when history is ceasing to be blind fate, and is becoming more and more man's own creation, with the relinquishment of utopias, man would lose his will to shape history and therewith his ability to understand it. (Karl Mannheim, Ideology and Utopia, p. 236)

Make of it what you will....

It's an option to create purpose, but it's not a "purpose" in itself. But yes you can create a purpose, I think you should, but that's a lot different from saying "what is my purpose in life?" or "what's the meaning of life?" both of which are non-starters for me. — GLEN willows

A purpose is a reason for which something is done. If it is possible NOT to have a purpose, that implies that what is done without purpose happens because of no reason, i.e. it just happens. So having a purpose is the same as "conferring meaning". If something is capable of conferring meaning, then that thing has a purpose, viz., to confer meaning. So if something which is capable of conferring meaning does not confer meaning, then it simply does not fulfill its purpose.

The only purpose we have is that evolution shackled us with. Or else a purpose we have created for ourselves which is not saying that we "have a purpose" but that we created a purpose. — GLEN willows

If we are capable of creating a purpose, doesn't that imply that we have a purpose? To create purpose?

Contentment is being ok with whatever presents in life, and I would agree that this realization should come with maturity, but Western culture does not seem to be advocating such, instead, it offers the idea that attaining a state of happiness should be one's raison d'entre (and of course, nobody can maintain such a state, so it's the perfect lure). — synthesis

Aha, so it is really a cultural issue then.

I'm of a stoical disposition - IMO, stoicism is the route and recipe to true happiness.

Your position essentially revolves around the question of definitions. Happy, content, satisified, satiated. Depending on how you choose to spin the word "happiness" you can promulgate almost any argument.

What you call contentment I think is a mature understanding of happiness.

Granted that, as human beings we are subject to an astounding variety of cognitive biases that can skew our interpretation of facts. Beyond even that, do you think that there is such a thing as a "fundamental openness" to information that might perturb either our world-view or our self-view? A presumption of undertaking the exercise of self-correction in good-faith, an attitude or disposition which necessarily precedes and founds any logical, methodical efforts?

Scientific faith: Belief in science increases in the face of stress and existential anxiety

"That modern secular individuals are prone to cling on to beliefs about science, in the same way that their ancestors turned to the gods, carries no judgment on the value of science as a method but simply highlights the human motivation to believe."

I think you are missing information from your fundamentals. Information gives energy and matter form. Once something has form, it becomes integrated information :nerd: so consciousness. Human consciousness, in the moment, is a very complicated instance of integrated information. It has enormous complexity, but it is still an instance of integrated information, enabled by energy, and embedded in matter. — Pop

I'd take this even further. In Ideology and Utopia, Mannheim repeats ad nauseum how scientific and theoretical knowledge is, by its very nature, abstracted and insulated from the world of practical human concerns; conversely, political knowledge is explicitly a creature of this world, the Weltanschauung

But it is clear that scientific and theoretical knowledge do play a part in the commerce of thought. So, if you expand the concept of the Weltanschauung beyond that of mere pragmatics, you can think of the entire world, the entire universe, as essentially a medium and a mechanism for the propagation of consciousness. Which reaches its most precise formulation in the concept of information theory, the transmission of a message. But includes and encompasses all modalities of knowledge (transmissible thought).

I think you are missing information from your fundamentals. Information gives energy and matter form. Once something has form, it becomes integrated information :nerd: so consciousness. Human consciousness, in the moment, is a very complicated instance of integrated information. It has enormous complexity, but it is still an instance of integrated information, enabled by energy, and embedded in matter. — Pop

:up:

Popper gave me my most profound redirection in thirty years. I was a staunch existentialist, then an idealist (are these really different?) then a pragmatist. Popper just showed me everything through a new lens.

But the problem is that they are catastrophically unstable. They fail to sustain residue of their original form in the long run — simeonz

I don't see that this is necessarily so. Pragmatics can be more or less self-aware, like anything. On the other hand, instability is not necessarily a bad thing. Systems frequently evolve because of inherent instabilities, or meta-stabilities.

The truth becomes value-based and not rooted in empirical reality and any mechanical explanations are consequently disrupted. — simeonz

Exactly. And that...is...life. Not the portion we intellectually amputate, the whole thing. It's why social scientists like to use the term "irrational" when what they are really talking about is "supra-rational" in my opinion. Everything that isn't reducible to causal descriptions, art, ethics, teleology.

Physics is actually a prime example of the intention dependence of the cause and effect relationship. As you said, holistically speaking, the task to define laws that determine whether an event is admissible presently in our universe with respect to the complete knowledge of its full historical state isn't ill posed, at least probabilistically. But we can never infer such colossal cause dependence, operate with it, and we would never find occasion to reproduce it. But given only the precursor events that have been witnessed locally in the recent past, various laws define constraints on the possible near future outcome. — simeonz

Yes, Popper's refutation of the possibility of a "causally complete" omniscience (Laplace's demon) is based on such laws and the "event-horizon" of the light-cone you mentioned earlier.

So that leads me to wonder whether life can be viewed as an experiment. Do you think this is a fair approach to life? — Jack Cummins

I think life is exactly of the nature of an experiment in the way that conscious volition formulates choices that result in real consequences. I call it Experimental Consciousness. I think it perfectly augments Popper's brand of Scientific Realism.

What I meant was that there are definitely two distinct questions, when it comes to the causes of an event. One is about the ordinary causes and another about the particular causes. I tried to define probabilistically what a particular cause would look like. — simeonz

Yes, I followed that. My contention is that there is always a why somewhere. And that the notion of a purely objective how is always an abstraction from the holistic natural context.

I can't say that I know that much about animal communities because I don't come into much contact with animals but the aspect of communication which is beyond language is non verbal communication.

In daily interaction, this is central. Of course, we don't use it when we write but in actual conversation it can say so much. The smile, the frown and even the pauses can say more than words in many ways. Even on the telephone, we can hear emotions, such as the raised voice of anger or laughter with humour. So, I would say that understanding languages is about being able to go beyond words into the realm of the non verbal. — Jack Cummins

I would go even further, and suggest that, in intellectualizing communication, we have actually introduced barriers to communication, wherein our sometimes faulty logic can lead us astray, sometimes we can end up in bad faith with ourselves. I think, at least within a species, animals cannot lie.

I would imagine that consciousness does exist before birth and that is not just a state of nothing, but just of a different nature to the one we are familiar with. — Jack Cummins

:up: :up:

One of the most remarkable traits of consciousness is that it actively self-perpetuates, creating artefacts housing information, which information transcends the limits of its medium of storage and transmission. Even at a purely mechanical level DNA does this. If this transcendence of physical media is manifest to us after a few paltry million years of evolution, who is to say what are the limits of the evolution of consciousness in the context of billions of years? Perhaps billions of iterations of universe-lifetimes?

Philosophers have too long concerned themselves with their own thinking. When they wrote of thought, they had in mind primarily their own history, the history of philosophy, or quite
special fields of knowledge such as mathematics or physics. This type of thinking is applicable only under quite special circumstances, and what can be learned by analysing it is not directly transferable to other spheres of life. Even when it is applicable, it refers only to a specific dimension of existence
which does not suffice for living human beings who are seeking to comprehend and to mould their world.

Mannheim, Ideology and Utopia, Ch1, part 1