So I would not consider reading a book social interaction, or painting in your home, etc. — Agustino

My point was that when you do such solitary things it is experienced as an interaction with others. We also interact with others when dreaming. I'm not claiming that this is the same as bodily interacting; but I'm emphasizing that these are not solitary activities in the 'lived' sense, but only in the ostensible sense.

I have a feeling you consider things like reading and writing poetry to be social engagement, even if you do them entirely alone, without input from others. Why is that? — Agustino

When you read you are partaking of input from others. When you write poetry you are addressing the reader. They are thus forms of social engagement. It is not an 'all or nothing' matter.

My point was that when you do such solitary things it is experienced as an interaction with others. We also interact with others when dreaming. I'm not claiming that this is the same as bodily interacting; but I'm emphasizing that these are not solitary activities in the 'lived' sense, but only in the ostensible sense. — Janus

Well... if you push the definition so far, then anything is interacting with things that are not you - even your body, to a certain extent, is not you, since you don't control everything that happens by sheer will. But how do dreams count as interacting with another PERSON as opposed to thing?

To me, bodily interacting, or interacting by forum, or by voice, or by playing a game (chess, etc.) are all quite similar. I do count those as social in nature.

But how do dreams count as interacting with another PERSON as opposed to thing? — Agustino

I would say yes; your imagination and memories of a person or thing are part of that person or thing. That is part of the point of the Manzotti article.

It is more a matter of degrees on a continuum, than a polarity.

people regularly work through it. — praxis

No, they evade it. Much of modern philosophy is a grand evasion of the abyssal horror of a godless, mechanistic universe. For ordinary people, the business of everyday living and the juicy qualities of interpersonal relationships (family, friends, work) prevent them from thinking these things through, of course; but intellectuals tend to turn to shiny toys like idealism, relativism, social justice, social constructionism, analytic philosophy, postmodernism, etc., etc. - little fantasy worlds that have the dual purpose of distracting them from nihilism and serving as affordances for purity spiraling in social-status-seeking games.

There are other methods and perspectives. — praxis

Are you sure?

Assuming you're referring to cultural conditioning rather than intelligent design or something, I would hesitate to claim 'design' as that implies conscious intent. — praxis

The quotation marks signify the use of the concept of design as a metaphor. "Constructed by natural processes so as to ..." would be a slightly more neutral way of saying it. What I'm referring to is religion as a natural outgrowth of biology (as all culture is) - for example, traditional rules around gender roles, as enforced by a religion, might serve to ensure a certain reproductive rate for a group, relative to the environmental pressures on the group that would tend to diminish its numbers.

Of course there is, the ONLY difference is that we are free, or freer, to find/construct our own narratives because there is no longer a reliance on an external authority. — praxis

There's a certain amount of freedom yes, but it's analogous to a tether - the goat has a fair amount of room to move around, but there are limits. Similarly, the biological base forms a "tether" for the cultural superstructure; there's some leeway, but there's no untrammeled freedom to explore all possible cultural space (for example, at one type of extreme, the social rule "kill everyone you meet" would obviously be unworkable).

I should add that I don't know the answer to any of this, I'm just posing the problem in a stark form. Whether God exists or not, the "death" of God (as something believed in) and the concomitant vision of a mechanistic universe, resolves to a future in which the traditional social mores (which support reproduction) will gradually dwindle, resulting in a kind of drawn-out species suicide, and our replacement by artificial intelligence. Some possible forms of this future are cheerier than others (e.g. a few humans cherished and preserved as sort of the "parents" of our artificial children, i.e. humans as a "protected species"), but most possibilities seem pretty dire. The only possible ways to escape this fate, so far as I can see, are: 1) God exists and things sort themselves out in a way we can't foresee, or 2) God doesn't exist, but there is a way of discovering meaning in the universe that we just haven't been smart enough to figure out yet, that will eventually raise our spirits and give us a foundation for morality that enables us to sustain it through time, going forward.

people regularly work through it.
— praxis

No, they evade it [nihilism]. — gurugeorge

Sure, and similarly we evade hunger. That doesn’t mean there’s no food to eat, only that our desire is naturally incessant. In a rapidly changing world no one static source of meaning will last for long.

There are other methods and perspectives.
— praxis

Are you sure? — gurugeorge

Aesthetic, to name one.

Of course there is, the ONLY difference is that we are free, or freer, to find/construct our own narratives because there is no longer a reliance on an external authority.
— praxis

There's a certain amount of freedom yes, but it's analogous to a tether - the goat has a fair amount of room to move around, but there are limits. Similarly, the biological base forms a "tether" for the cultural superstructure; there's some leeway, but there's no untrammeled freedom to explore all possible cultural space (for example, at one type of extreme, the social rule "kill everyone you meet" would obviously be unworkable). — gurugeorge

We are entirely free to develop an overarching narrative that includes the practice of killing everyone we meet. But by its very nature it’s unlikely to catch on. Memes require living hosts.

there is a way of discovering meaning in the universe that we just haven't been smart enough to figure out yet, that will eventually raise our spirits and give us a foundation for morality that enables us to sustain it through time, going forward. — gurugeorge

Couple of things about this. For one, you appear to be implying that no religion to date has met your criteria, yet you seem to promote religion as the only possible solution. Secondly, as I meantioned, in an ever changing world there cannot be one static form of meaning. Conditions and values change. Fringe elements in society take advantage of the cooperative body for selfish gain. Corruption leads to reform, and the evolution goes on.

There is no one solution to figure out.

In a rapidly changing world no one static source of meaning will last for long. — praxis

That depends on what you mean by "rapidly" human nature and the nature of the world change over time, sure, but rapidly? That's an attempt at persuasive redefinition. Rapidly relative to the timescale of stars and the formation of galaxies, glacially relative to the life of a human being, a family or the formation and dissolution of human cultures.

Aesthetic, to name one. — praxis

Is the aesthetic way of looking at the world a way of "examining" the world? And is it a "method"? It's a way of looking at the world, but it's not a way of looking at the world in which true and false enter into the discussion, it's not an alternative way of being right or wrong about things.

Memes require living hosts. — praxis

Right, and that's a form of limit, an example of the "tethering" I'm talking about, an example of biology limiting what's possible culturally. It wouldn't apply to invulnerable creature for example (because then "kill everyone you meet" would be logically impossible), or creatures that can regenerate from a few remaining cells (because then "kill everyone you meet" would be a trivial bump in the road for such creatures, therefore a possible social rule).

There is no one solution to figure out. — praxis

That's partly true. I'd rather say that there is a basket of closely related solutions (the "tether" idea again). IOW, I think you're opening up the space of possibility (possible social rules) to make it infinite, but that's arbitrary and doesn't conform with observable fact (the facts of biology, the fact that human cultures do in fact broadly share many norms, despite occasional outliers, etc.)

I don't think religion is the only possible solution - I've already given a possible non-religious solution! All I'm saying is that it's harder than rationalists/naturalists/materialists tend to think. A certain kind of cheesy, self-serving mythology has developed around naturalism over the past few hundred years; but the confidence is a) premature, and b) not as clever as it thinks it is, because it's suffering from cognitive dissonance (not usually following its own premises through to their logical - nihilistic - conclusion).

In a rapidly changing world no one static source of meaning will last for long.
— praxis

That depends on what you mean by "rapidly" human nature and the nature of the world change over time, sure, but rapidly? That's an attempt at persuasive redefinition. Rapidly relative to the timescale of stars and the formation of galaxies, glacially relative to the life of a human being, a family or the formation and dissolution of human cultures. — gurugeorge

Rapidly in relation to the enlightenment, naturally.

Prior to the enlightenment cultures like ancient Egypt were, by our standard, almost inconceivably stagnant. Of course it wasn't perceived as stagnant to them. Imagine visiting a modern art gallery, and then going back to the same gallery a century later and seeing the same style of art on the walls, and it is still considered a modern art gallery. Practically inconceivable to me.

Is the aesthetic way of looking at the world a way of "examining" the world? — gurugeorge

Of course it is. I imagine you did not do well in art class.

And is it a "method"? It's a way of looking at the world, but it's not a way of looking at the world in which true and false enter into the discussion, it's not an alternative way of being right or wrong about things. — gurugeorge

Of course it is, something can be 'wrong' but beautiful (good). We can choose beauty, spontaneity, and meaningfulness, over efficiency, predictability, and fucking profit.

Imagine visiting a modern art gallery, and then going back to the same gallery a century later and seeing the same style of art on the walls, and it is still considered a modern art gallery. Practically inconceivable to me. — praxis

If you went to an art exhibit in 1817, 1917, and 2017, you would have seen huge changes in artistic production between 1817 and 1917; between 1917 and 2017, it's quite possible (depending on the selections, that you would think things hadn't changed very much at all in the previous century.

Besides, is constant change inherent to art? Is there something wrong with art if doesn't change faster than women's wear fashion? What makes art change rapidly? It could be that it is driven, or pulled along, by a very strong demand by art buyers for novelty. Should we hand out awards to cultures that maintain a style for a long time, or only reward cultures that are always changing?

Personally, Praxis, I'd probably find Egyptian stability stultifying, but there is something to say for less hectic change.

Prior to the enlightenment cultures like ancient Egypt were, by our standard, almost inconceivably stagnant. Of course it wasn't perceived as stagnant to them. Imagine visiting a modern art gallery, and then going back to the same gallery a century later and seeing the same style of art on the walls, and it is still considered a modern art gallery. Practically inconceivable to me. — praxis

Art is quite stagnant now, it's the been the same stuff on the walls now for 100 years or so, ever since Duchamp told us that art is something to piss on. ;)

Of course it is, something can be 'wrong' but beautiful (good). We can choose beauty, spontaneity, and meaningfulness, over efficiency, predictability, and fucking profit. — praxis

Yes, as I said, the aesthetic way of looking at the world isn't one in which right or wrong enter into the picture, it's not an alternative way of parsing right and wrong, true and false, etc.

If you went to an art exhibit in 1817, 1917, and 2017, you would have seen huge changes in artistic production between 1817 and 1917; between 1917 and 2017, it's quite possible (depending on the selections, that you would think things hadn't changed very much at all in the previous century. — Bitter Crank

Clearly there's a huge difference between the art world of 1917 and the art world today. Judging by your disclaimer of "depending on the selections," I'm inclined to think you wouldn't hesitate to agree.

Besides, is constant change inherent to art? Is there something wrong with art if doesn't change faster than women's wear fashion? What makes art change rapidly? It could be that it is driven, or pulled along, by a very strong demand by art buyers for novelty. Should we hand out awards to cultures that maintain a style for a long time, or only reward cultures that are always changing?

Personally, Praxis, I'd probably find Egyptian stability stultifying, but there is something to say for less hectic change. — Bitter Crank

Interesting points but it's all beside the point I was attempting to make, which is simply that in a rapidly changing society a source of meaning (religion, ideology, movement, or maybe even a brand) will not last for long because conditions and values change. I'm not suggesting that rapid (as compared to ancient Egypt, for example) change is good or bad. I'm suggesting that rapid change may make a society more prone to nihilism, or rather that what allows this rapid change can lead to nihilism.

So yes, there is indeed something to say for less hectic change, and I believe conservatives are generally saying it.

Yes, as I said, the aesthetic way of looking at the world isn't one in which right or wrong enter into the picture, it's not an alternative way of parsing right and wrong, true and false, etc. — gurugeorge

Right and wrong are based on values, and so is aesthetics.

For instance, we can buy a work of art as an investment (rational) or we can buy a piece of art because we find it beautiful or meaningful (aesthetic). A communities resources could be pooled to design and build an aesthetically beautiful bridge, or one could be built from a pre-existing template and built cheaply and efficiently. In the former case, some people in the community may say it's a crime to waste their money on aesthetics. In the latter, some may say it's a crime to use their money to build such a stark bridge that is devoid of any meaning beyond its utility.

You are more informed than I am about art, clearly. It just seems to me that the velocity of change in the last third of 19th century was so much higher than in previous centuries, and the velocity has stayed fast. But then, the velocity of change across the board sped up in the 19th century, and has continued. So, what shall we attribute this to? Science, technology, industrialism, capitalism (its ability to mobilize and deploy resources very rapidly), population growth, two world wars (which also led to a fast mobilization and deployment of resources), empires (like the B.E.) which concentrate resources, and so on? All those things are disruptors of equanimity and settled belief.

On the other hand, nihilism seems to have gotten an early start in Russia which in the 19th century was not on the cutting edge of progress. And that, could it be, is because the absolute (and sometimes stupid) despotism of the Romanovs, and the social system in Russia, left little room for philosophical dissidents to maneuver? The church, the state (in the person of the Tsar), and the landowning class were a smothering layer?

Or was nihilism a broader, earlier development throughout Europe? I guess I'll have to turn to the Internet to get some background. Unless you happen to have a nice capsule history...

You are more informed than I am about art, clearly. It just seems to me that the velocity of change in the last third of 19th century was so much higher than in previous centuries, and the velocity has stayed fast. But then, the velocity of change across the board sped up in the 19th century, and has continued. So, what shall we attribute this to? Science, technology, industrialism, capitalism (its ability to mobilize and deploy resources very rapidly), population growth, two world wars (which also led to a fast mobilization and deployment of resources), empires (like the B.E.) which concentrate resources, and so on? All those things are disruptors of equanimity and settled belief. — Bitter Crank

@Wayfarer recently opened my eyes to the compelling ideas of Max Weber and his work in understanding the processes of rationalisation, secularisation, and "disenchantment" that he associated with the rise of capitalism and modernity. It may help to explain how the shift in values came about.

Much of modern philosophy is a grand evasion of the abyssal horror of a godless, mechanistic universe. For ordinary people, the business of everyday living and the juicy qualities of interpersonal relationships (family, friends, work) prevent them from thinking these things through, of course; but intellectuals tend to turn to shiny toys like idealism, relativism, social justice, social constructionism, analytic philosophy, postmodernism, etc., etc. - little fantasy worlds that have the dual purpose of distracting them from nihilism and serving as affordances for purity spiraling in social-status-seeking games. — gurugeorge

Dark, man. I like it. I think that way too. There's a dark ecstasy in it, but it's a rough ride at times. The spiritual dream comes in at least 50 flavors, some of them more academic than others. This or that finally gives the world substance and the individual a purpose beyond hunger, lust, and status-seeking. Call this dog a cynic, but I see status-seeking blended in with these grand evasions. On the other hand, even the metaphor 'evasion' is plugged in (arguably) to the nuclear option of the status seeking olympics. A grim version of the real is still being offered. I 'believe' in the abyss, but I suspect that I am only capable of doing so because even here the game functions at a self-questioning or self-recognizing extreme.

If I say that we are all sinners and fools in some sense (dogs on the prowl), then I am arrogant and humble in the same breath. This dark view reminds me of the ace of spades. Our romantic hero faces the void.

https://youtu.be/1iwC2QljLn4

On the other hand, nihilism seems to have gotten an early start in Russia which in the 19th century was not on the cutting edge of progress. — Bitter Crank

If memory serves, those guys were politically religious. As I understand it, there was basically a secularization of Christianity. Heaven would be built here down here. The poet Shelley got in trouble as a wee lad by spreading atheism via hot air balloons. If everyone could just get rid of God, we'd have utopia. In short, it was just a revolution within religion, not the death of a sense of mission.

Yes, beautiful and meaningful have nothing to do with right and wrong or true and false, I'm not sure why you seem to think you're still disagreeing with me. The world objectively either is or isn't the way science describes it; but with beauty and meaning there's no such binary possibility or question of objectivity (though there may be factual or statistical facts about what people find beautiful, that could be traced to things like shared psychological or cultural traits, etc.)

Hehe, fun non-philosophical fact. The band I was in back in the 80s was rehearsing in the same studios as Motorhead, we befriended them in the cafe, they invited us back to their rehearsal room and we had the privilege of having our ears pinned back listening to Motorhead rehearse in a small enclosed space :)

Yes, beautiful and meaningful have nothing to do with right and wrong or true and false, I'm not sure why you seem to think you're still disagreeing with me. — gurugeorge

What is meaningful has nothing to do with right and wrong?

What does it mean to say that the world is the way science describes it? I'll point out the fact that science is not able to describe it all. It's not even a simple question of how much it's able to describe.

This article gets it: https://politics.theonion.com/paul-ryan-confident-american-people-will-warm-up-to-tax-1821509050

Awesome. What did you do in the band? Since you're a thinker, I'd guess vocals. I've done some music myself, but unfortunately have no comparable anecdotes.

I went to a Motorhead concert once. My ears are still ringing.

I generally side with Peterson here.

What is meaningful has nothing to do with right and wrong? — praxis

No. You can have linguistic meaning in a material world, and science can be based on that, but you can't have meaning (with a capital 'M' as it were) in the sense of a kind of meaning that could counter nihilism - that is, the meaning of something's having a place in an over-arching narrative, or a telos, a purpose.

Science leave out all questions of telos by design - that was the whole point of the Baconian revolution, you bracket questions of meaning, telos, purpose, place in the universe, "what's it all about?", etc., etc., and you see what can be said about the world purely in terms of material and efficient causes, clickety-clack, one damn thing after another.

(I should note that there's another important sense of Meaning, which is more related to mysticism - a sort of aesthetic arrest, suspension in the moment, nonduality, silence, "peace that passeth understanding" - although it can occur even in the midst of stress and action - etc., and that's a very important "thing" in this world, but it's non-conceptual.)

I was the keyboard player. Keyboard player tend to be the nerds, vocalists are the chick magnets :)

It's interesting, the process of songwriting: it happens in all sorts of ways, but I'd say 6 or 7 times out of 10, how it happens is that someone has a kernel idea, a sort of nugget that's a fusion of a snippet of lyric conjoined with a snippet of melody, rhythm and harmony, even a tone sometimes, and the song sort of "unfolds" from that nugget - you follow the internal logic of the thing wherever it leads from that initial nugget. Usually, with this method, the lyrics start off as open syllables and vowels that work well with the melody, but you're playing around with them with the background meaning of the song in mind, and with the "nugget" as the thing you're eventually going to "land on" (as it were), and precise words, and other sections of the song, gradually coalesce out of that. And you generally tend to have (for pop music at least) 2 or 3 "main" sections (verse and chorus, or verse, bridge and chorus) that get repeated a lot, and one extra section ("middle 8") that provides a break, and a little excursion away from the main themes for a while.

Damn, giving away the secrets here :)

I forgot about keyboards. In my little scene that was an underplayed instrument. I was the vocalist and managed to steer the concept via the lyrics (and by doing the recording and artwork.) I always wanted to play the keys or the piano. Great instrument. I love McCoy Tyner. Also always wanted to play Satie's pieces. In another life perhaps.

McCoy Tyner (L)

I did a Satie piece for my entrance exam to music college (many decades ago).

Also always wanted to play Satie's pieces. In another life perhaps. — dog

Those are very doable in this life.

Which Satie piece? I like Satie. Gymnopédies

[replied when the question was for someone else]