On the contrary, I read the entire list and don’t feel that I know you any better. — praxis

I think that just shows a lack of imagination, vision, on your part. Seeing people as they are is a skill not everyone has.

On the contrary, I read the entire list and don’t feel that I know you any better. — praxis

I came back to make a response which was a bit less snotty.

In my experience, knowing someone, seeing them as they really are, is more poetry than prose. Pictures rather than words. People show us how they are, who they are. What they tell us they are often does not match that.

This response tells me much more about you than all those details. Some details are more significant than others, I think you might agree.

Love your list. Shame we're so geographically remote, it makes me want to meet you. (re 23 - my mnemonic for the colors spectrum was 'rotten old yacs go better in velvet'. I used to have one for the TCP stack but now I've forgotten it. 24 - never been admitted to hospital ; also remember my childhood phone-number, which, quaintly, in my neck of the woods, was alpha-numeric in the early 60's and began with 'JF'. this is my favourite song. Hands up who knows the bass player.)

**

Being a 'spiritual if not religious' type I have to put in a plug here for one of my favourite Alan Watts' books, which I think is germane to the theme of meta-narratives, that book being The Supreme Identity:

One of the most influential of Alan Watts's early works, The Supreme Identity examines the reality of civilization's deteriorated spiritual state and offers solutions through a rigorous theological dialectic between Eastern metaphysic and Christian theology. By interpreting neglected or overlooked aspects of key issues in philosophical theology, Watts challenges readers to reassess the gist of religions that before seemed so familiar, and to perceive Vedantic "oneness" (or union) as 'the ground of all things'. In addressing how religious institutions have failed to provide the wisdom or power necessary to cope with the condition of modernity, Watts instead seeks the truth of the human existence and its relationship to the divine continuum in terms taken from the perennial traditions of Platonist Christianity, Hindu Vedanta, and Mahayana Buddhism.

In an eye-opening account of "metaphysical blindness" in the West, Watts accents this dense exploration of religious philosophy with wry wit that will engage inquiring minds in search of spiritual power and wisdom.

Love your list. Shame we're so geographically remote, it makes me want to meet you. (re 23 - my mnemonic for the colors spectrum was 'rotten old yacs go better in velvet'. I used to have one for the TCP stack but now I've forgotten it. 24 - never been admitted to hospital ; also remember my childhood phone-number, which, quaintly, in my neck of the woods, was alpha-numeric in the early 60's and began with 'JF'. this is my favourite song. Hands up who knows the bass player.) — Wayfarer

Thank you. I'd be happy to meet also. I've enjoyed our conversations on the forum. I think your response underlines a point I was trying to make when I put in the list. To me, it represents me as I am much better than any narrative. I read it and it feels like me. Of course it's not comprehensive or complete, but there is no lie or misrepresentation in it.

I've been talking to my son about philosophical issues recently. He and I were talking about Watts earlier this week. Years ago I gave him "The Wisdom of Insecurity," which is one of my favorite of his books. I have not read anything by him in years. Decades. I'm thinking it is time for me to go back and read and re-read.

For a time, I was severely disillusioned by the Monica Furlong bio of Watts, and by his alcoholism, but over time I reconciled myself with it. That book, along with Beyond Theology and Way of Zen are still all-time favourites (and some of his books remain on my to-read list). The thing is, Watts never did really commit to the practices that he wrote so marvellously about, and he drank too much. But he was a gifted communicated, excellent writer and possessed of great insights. Marvellous speaking voice, too.

To the contrary, I think what I've provided gives a much better understanding of who I am and what my life means to me than any narrative could. I guess that's the point. Narratives round off corners and putty over holes. Sand rough spots. — T Clark

To the contrary, I think what I've provided gives a much better understanding of who I am and what my life means to me than any narrative could. I guess that's the point. Narratives round off corners and putty over holes. Sand rough spots. — T Clark

It's a charming list, but does your childhood phone number really give us a better understanding of you? I remember my childhood phone-number, too. It has a certain magic for me. But it's just random numbers for others.

I think that just shows a lack of imagination, vision, on your part. Seeing people as they are is a skill not everyone has. — T Clark

This response tells me much more about you than all those details. Some details are more significant than others, I think you might agree. — praxis

I have to agree with praxis here, T Clark. In your response you seem to divide humanity into those with the skill of seeing people and those without. For me it's pretty natural to assume the purveyor of invidious distinctions find himself or herself on the bright side of that distinction. For what it's worth, I value seeing others. I count it as a virtue, so I'm definitely not attacking your distinction. I'm just defending my thesis.

Do you at all agree with the following?

Probably the most important part of our worldview is our categorization of others. Who are the good guys? Who are the bad guys? If the environment is understood as the most pressing issue, then environmental activists are central good guys. If the world has become a spiritual flatland, then resuscitators or keepers of the holy flame are central. If superstition is the problem, then defenders of science and rigor are the good guys. A diagnosis tends to come with a doctor. Even a cynic wants to cure at least himself of bothersome illusions. Other self-concerned philosophers of their own worry or fear or pettiness. (And I'm playing at being a knight of self-consciousness, one might say.)

If the world has become a spiritual flatland, then resuscitators or keepers of the holy flame are central. If superstition is the problem, then defenders of science and rigor are the good guys — syntax

Only if the conflict thesis is fundamentally true.

Only if the conflict thesis is fundamentally true. — Wayfarer

Sure. I agree that the worldviews/identities I sketched above depend on or embody that thesis. Of course I wasn't putting forward that thesis myself. So we can say that the knight of spirituality and the knight of positivism need the conflict thesis in order to cast their vision of the social drama. What they have in common is a sense that the truth in their possession is something to impose on the community, for that community's own good. They depend on one another.

It's another issue, but I think we take deep pleasure in ideological conflict. While we like to feel that we are winning or on the right side, a complete victory would condemn our current identity to obsolescence. If we run out of bad guys, we start a new war in a new uniform. For instance: I start as the one-sided spiritualist or positivist, but eventually learn to doubt the conflict thesis. But who am I now? What treasure (or sword) can I bring? Ah ha! I wage war against the conflict thesis itself. I invent a third way that sees these the first two ways as the two sides of the same counterfeit coin. But the story doesn't end there. It continues at least to this very narrative of evolving narratives.

But who am I now? What treasure (or sword) can I bring? — syntax

The tension between idealism and materialism is a dialectic. As you say, each side needs the Other in terms of which, or against which, it defines itself. The ‘third way’ might be the Hegelian synthesis. But - evolving towards what? Is it simply a perpetual motion machine? Is there an end-point?

Actually there is a sense of looming catastrophe at this time. The ‘meta-narrative’ is one of possible global destruction or at the very least degradation with its many attendant miseries. We have to adapt very quickly to vastly changed circumstances. I would have thought that one of the fundamental priorities of our particular time in history is, therefore, adapting to an economic model that is no longer based on constant growth and plenty for all. So a philosophy which equips people to live in the light of that - to define flourishing in some terms other than endless growth - might be a suitable synthesis to seek. And that would indeed seem to suggest a balance between scientific capitalism and a philosophy that emphasises the ‘fruits of contemplation’.

Probably the most important part of our worldview is our categorization of others. Who are the good guys? Who are the bad guys? If the environment is understood as the most pressing issue, then environmental activists are central good guys. If the world has become a spiritual flatland, then resuscitators or keepers of the holy flame are central. If superstition is the problem, then defenders of science and rigor are the good guys. A diagnosis tends to come with a doctor. Even a cynic wants to cure at least himself of bothersome illusions. Other self-concerned philosophers of their own worry or fear or pettiness. (And I'm playing at being a knight of self-consciousness, one might say.) — syntax

A central feature of a worldview is: who is in charge, and why should we accept their authority? As long as that issue is happy, the world is relatively happy, whatever the current diagnosis might be. Mother and Father are at the helm, so we'll be fine. We'll figure it out (or Mom and Dad will if they don't leave us any part to play).

When the issue of legitimacy is fraught, there is underlying instability. Life thins out into a veneer over the possibility of revolution, and so the whole world is sick, but the bad guy is untouchable.

What do you think of the government-type you live under? Do you see in any beauty in its foundation?

It's a charming list, but does your childhood phone number really give us a better understanding of you? I remember my childhood phone-number, too. It has a certain magic for me. But it's just random numbers for others. — syntax

It's not the number, it's the fact that I remembered it. That I thought it was worth putting on the list. That I thought to write the list in the first place. That I think the list and the things on it show something fundamental about me.

If nothing else, I think we have established I am charming.

Sort of.

I have to agree with praxis here, T Clark. In your response you seem to divide humanity into those with the skill of seeing people and those without. For me it's pretty natural to assume the purveyor of invidious distinctions find himself or herself on the bright side of that distinction. For what it's worth, I value seeing others. I count it as a virtue, so I'm definitely not attacking your distinction. I'm just defending my thesis. — syntax

I acknowledged my initial response to @praxis was unnecessarily snotty. That's why I followed up with the other one. I wonder, what would constitute necessary snottiness? On the other hand, I think the primary tools in understanding people and their ideas are empathy and compassion. Intellectual empathy is indispensable for philosophy.

Probably the most important part of our worldview is our categorization of others. Who are the good guys? Who are the bad guys? — syntax

Keeping in mind you and I don't seem to agree on exactly what a worldview is, no, I don't think categorizing people is an important part of a world view, certainly not mine. I work hard, with some, intermittent, success, not to characterize people at all.

A central feature of a worldview is: who is in charge, and why should we accept their authority? — frank

Indeed. If I had to pick a center, that would be it. And this is an old issue: http://www.iep.utm.edu/thrasymachus/.

One possible narrative is that Thrasymachus is right, and that lots of traditional philosophy is a defense formation against that terrible possibility. Of course humans are more powerful in groups, and groups come with rules, but then an intellectual can play by the rules publicly and be a private sophist.

Modern mass cynics lose their individual sting and refrain from the risk of letting themselves be put on display. They have long since ceased to expose themselves as eccentrics to the attention and mockery of others. The person with the clear, "evil gaze" has disappeared into the crowd; anonymity now becomes the domain for cynical deviation. Modern cynics are integrated, asocial characters who, on the score of subliminal illusionlessness, are a match for any hippie. They do not see their clear, evil gaze as a personal defect or an amoral quirk that needs to be privately justified. Instinctively, they no longer understand their way of existing as something that has to do with being evil, but as participation in a collective, realistically attuned way of seeing things. — Sloterdijk

Life thins out into a veneer over the possibility of revolution, and so the whole world is sick, but the bad guy is untouchable.

What do you think of the government-type you live under? Do you see in any beauty in its foundation? — frank

I think the 'untouchable bad guy' is a good theme. Some thinkers make Nature itself the bad guy. Along the same lines, they see human existence as essentially fractured. Man is a futile passion or just of bundle of passions with no center. The disaster is universalized. The gods themselves are evil, or at least amoral. This kind of thinking is seductively monolithic. The good guy and the bad guy are the same guy. The good guy is the bad guy who has stopped thinking he is the good guy. (The distinction breaks down, in others words. The position has something melancholy about it. It may occasionally thirst for a kind of lost innocence, without really being willing to pay for it.)

I live in the US, and I do see beauty in its foundation. Individualism is the siren song that still rings in my ears. I understand opponents of individualism. They are right that there's something profoundly lonely and sterile involved. On the other hand, there's something cloying and stagnant in the other direction. Die of thirst alone in some open desolate space or rot in the crowded nursery. A thinking that creates distance from the law and a thinking that wants to become law --something like that.

It's not the number, it's the fact that I remembered it. That I thought it was worth putting on the list. That I thought to write the list in the first place. That I think the list and the things on it show something fundamental about me.

If nothing else, I think we have established I am charming. — T Clark

Fair enough! And you are indeed charming.

Keeping in mind you and I don't seem to agree on exactly what a worldview is, no, I don't think categorizing people is an important part of a world view, certainly not mine. I work hard, with some, intermittent, success, not to characterize people at all. — T Clark

What I have in mind is something very simple. Take this forum, for example. Of course we are all individuals, but I find hard not to see general types. To be sure, we lose detail when we think in types, but I find it happening quite naturally. In a quote above, there's a comparison of cynics and hippies. I think 'belief system' talk is going to come from cynics seeking distance and 'forgotten spiritual tradition' talk is going to come from hippies, more or less by definition or association. Or there is the blue versus red of U.S. politics. Of course I do see the value of trying to look around our projected categories. By calling attention to them, we remind ourselves of stereotyping tendencies that might otherwise lead us into trouble.

Whatever my metanarratively-woven identity is, it definitely includes joy at seeing Sloterdijk brought into the convo. Best (living) thinker out there, in my opinion [what am I signalling?]

What I want to say, cribbing Sloterdijk's terminology, is that there are a plurality of spheres in which we live. In the public sphere ( our job etc) - our particular identity and metanarrative is less important. Like you've said, we kinda all agree on this neutral background that lets us function. Our particular sense of self is present, but muted. On forums like this (or in real-world friendships) they become much more pronounced. In our private lives - if we write, or journal, or even just think - these things became super-present.

But there's another sphere, intimacy, where all this kind of breaks down. (Intimacy comes in all sorts of varieties, I'm not just talking relationships).

I say this, and I think its mostly right, but I think its also not quite right. I'm paving over something

Sloterdijk — syntax

The cynic still has hope. That's what the angst is really about. Abandon all hope and there's nothing to be cynical about. The world doesn't need to be saved.

I live in the US, and I do see beauty in its foundation. — syntax

Me too.

Sure, those are reasonable goals. They are so reasonable that I can't imagine them being controversial. Can they be achieved ? If so, how? To some degree I think we want the world to burn. That WWII happened as it did is theoretically amazing, and yet it makes a sick kind of sense. There's something empty about the respectable, rational approach to life. I understand the goal of wanting to re-spiritualize the corrosive Western knowledge-is-power paradigm, but I'm anything but sure that this can be done. I tempted to see this as an impossible longing for a somewhat fictional past. (Was there ever really a general agreement that wasn't sustained by the threat of violence?)

What if our spirituality has been reduced to the photos on a glossy college brochure? As far as I can tell, the more powerful motives in the West are the desires for material comfort and status. A 'true' passion for culture is associated in my mind with a skepticism toward the money-glamour system that is likely enough to lead to relative poverty and low status, the exception being someone like the critic who becomes an internet sensation. (There's an episode of Black Mirror that really nails this: it's the guy whose trademark is the shard of glass from his wall-screen he puts to his neck.) To be sure, in a sufficiently affluent society these half-rebels might live especially beautiful lives.

Whatever my metanarratively-woven identity is, it definitely includes joy at seeing Sloterdijk brought into the convo. Best thinker out there, in my opinion [what am I signalling?] — csalisbury

I love the guy too, though I'm just really getting around to him. I recognize immediately, though, the kind of intellectual I like. This dude is present, relevant. So many thinkers are just snore-worthy, ignoring the forest for this or that tree.

What I want to say, cribbing Sloterdijk's terminology, is that there are a plurality of spheres in which we live. In the public sphere ( our job etc) - our particular identity and metanarrative is less important. Like you've said, we kinda all agree on this neutral background that lets us function. Our particular sense of self is present, but muted. On forums like this (or in real-world friendships) they become much more pronounced. In our private lives - if we write, or journal, or even just think - these things became super-present.

But there's another sphere, intimacy, where all this kind of breaks down. (Intimacy comes in all sorts of varieties, I'm not just talking relationships).

I say this, and I think its mostly right, but I think its also not quite right. I'm paving over something — csalisbury

For me it's pretty much dead-on. I was hoping to drag you in to some conversation, because your posts are one of the reasons I joined.

For me there's a certain melancholy in the uselessness of one's particular identity for the work world.
I agree also that the theory breaks down around intimate relationships. For instance, how many men who read the famous thinkers for pleasure can nevertheless find themselves entangled with women who don't really have a comparable appetite for abstraction? Or for cynicism or demystification? It may be that these women do our believing for us. And we do their doubting for them.

I understand the goal of wanting to re-spiritualize the corrosive Western knowledge-is-power paradigm, but I'm anything but sure that this can be done. — syntax

It's not a political programme - it's a philosophical question.

I think philosophy was originally about the realisation of a higher identity - hence the reference to Watts' book. But this is now bracketed out, for sounding too much like religion. The culture has been more or less inoculated against any such understanding, at least in part by what it conceives of as religion. And I agree - culture has indeed become entirely focussed on money, glamour, technological power, pursuit of pleasure. But it's the job of philosophy to criticize that, or at least be aware of it.

Some identifications are so lightly held that it doesn't hurt to reverse them completely. Others are so deep and 'natural' that they are invisible. They are too close to the 'eye.' As I see it, one way to be a great philosopher or exciting thinker is to become aware of these deep/'natural'/invisible parts of a worldview and simultaneously make them both explicit and optional. — syntax

Agree. Being aware of your pre-suppositions is a difficult thing to do. But that's one of Kant's great strengths, IMO.

The cynic still has hope. That's what the angst is really about. Abandon all hope and there's nothing to be cynical about. The world doesn't need to be saved. — frank

Well we can define 'cynic' however you want in this context. But for me the cynic is not someone who thinks the world needs to be saved. The cynic for me is the type of thinker who is willing to hypothesize that humans are fundamentally split or divided. The truth is not some saving angel trapped inside us, oppressed by confusion or greed. The truth is a raging ambivalence. It's perhaps a volcano and not an angel. Again, think of WWII. It happened. Men jumped at the chance to tear one another to bits with what I presume was an incomparable sense of community. We have in war the maximum of both sentimentality and brutality. There is the terrible ecstasy of life lived without restraint along with an end put to that same fulfilled life.

Zizek writes somewhere about reality being a flight from dreaming and not the reverse. For me this is a cynical thing to say. The worldly father who still fundamentally believes in barbecues and breeding might criticize the unruly son for hiding away from life in his books. The son can accuse his father of hiding away from his own nullity in swelling of bellies and bankaccounts. Who, if anyone, is right? They all go in to the dark. They die believing or doubting, amused or annoyed.


EDIT:

I do think the cynic has a tender heart, an affection for truth. Yeah, the cynic is an idealist turned inside out, or something along those lines. If that's what you mean, I more or less agree. The cynic is disappointed that the theologians aren't believable.

It's not a political programme - it's a philosophical question.

I think philosophy was originally about the realisation of a higher identity - hence the reference to Watts' book. But this is now bracketed out, for sounding too much like religion. The culture has been more or less inoculated against any such understanding, at least in part by what it conceives of as religion. And I agree - culture has indeed become entirely focussed on money, glamour, technological power, pursuit of pleasure. But it's the job of philosophy to criticize that, or at least be aware of it. — Wayfarer

Sure, that's a reasonable job for philosophy, but I don't see anything fresh there. The only difference that I can personally see in your view from a standard liberal critique is that you want the religious element to be more explicit. That's fine. But I think the 'magic' of the name Plato, for instance, is dying with a certain image of the university. Sitting in the classroom of a pompous teacher who controls the conversation with grades pops the illusion pretty quickly. That structure of conversation with its quantified 'learning outcomes' might as well be emptying its bowels on the life of the mind. The professor is a mechanic adjusting the brains of his customers, installing a culture module, sneaking in sensitivity training. Of course there are great professors out there, but they have to play along. On the bright side, those who give a damn will find the books on their own --which is not to say that these books will make them happy.
But the books will probably make them less boring.

I guess what it comes down to is I like people. I like hanging around with them and talking with them. There aren't many who aren't interesting if you can get them talking about something they care about. Sometimes I've found grace with someone I never would have expected it from. I'm always starting up conversations in checkout lines or restaurants.

Looking back over my life, I have been treated unkindly by very few people. It usually catches me by surprise when it happens. I worked my entire professional career for one company with people I knew well and respected and who treated me with tolerance, which is a prerequisite if you're going to spend much time with me. I feel really fortunate.

I have found that, when I do put people into boxes, it's a mistake. I regret it later. It doesn't work. It makes me make bad decisions and act like an asshole. This is not a statement of principle, it's what I've learned from experience or maybe always knew.

You will see that all my discussions end up with a quote from Lao Tzu eventually. This time I'll go with a paraphrase - The person who can be characterized is not the eternal person.

Agree. Being aware of your pre-suppositions is a difficult thing to do. But that's one of Kant's great strengths, IMO. — Wayfarer

I guess. But Kant is a dinosaur. That's not to say that people in general have assimilated all they could from such dinosaurs, but I think it's worth mentioning that the famous college-brochure thinkers lived in very different times. And I think there's just a bias that accumulates, too. If everyone talks about Kant long enough, then everyone feels the need to know about Kant. So everyone reads Kant. Then everyone has to talk about Kant.

This is the kind of attitude I have toward the famous intellectuals: http://home.ku.edu.tr/~mbaker/CSHS503/DerridaSuccess.pdf

Of course it's 'arrogant' of me to doubt the canon, but this arrogance seems inseparable from real philosophy for me.

I love the guy too, though I'm just really getting around to him. I recognize immediately, though, the kind of intellectual I like. This dude is present, relevant. So many thinkers are just snore-worthy, ignoring the forest for this or that tree.

yeah yeah, agreed. he's a real person, and he philosophizes from out of that. His whole person is always involved, and so the results are fascinating.

For instance, how many men who read the famous thinkers for pleasure can nevertheless find themselves entangled with women who don't really have a comparable appetite for abstraction? Or for cynicism or demystification? It may be that these women do our believing for us. And we do their doubting for them. — syntax

This feels true to life to me (at least true to life, sometimes). But I'm not making the connection between this and intimacy [qua dissolver (maybe) of metanarratives]

this arrogance seems inseparable from real philosophy for me. — syntax

I am interested in understanding these questions through Western philosophy among other things. And sure, Kant is olde worlde, but his insights into the nature of knowledge are still highly relevant.

You see, the prevailing meta-narrative for a lot of people is that one, we're the outcome of chance, and two, we're animals. And that has philosophical consequences. There's a lot of nihilism in the atmosphere - it might not be dramatic or highly visible, but it's in the air we breathe.

What I want to say is that intimacy has to do somehow with letting your identity and metanarrative go. To keep it, hang it up on the coatrack - but to take it off for just a while. Pure authenticity is a myth, you still need the identity. But, still: to take it off for a second.

There can arise a temptation to cultivate a certain perception and then discard that identity when something uncomfortable comes to light, and muddles the perception you're seeking. ('if they know this about me, theyre not seeing what I want them to see') So then: Avoid the people who saw that identity. And then start afresh. & repeat:

To the white men in the waterside business and to the captains of ships he was just Jim—nothing more. He had, of course, another name, but he was anxious that it should not be pronounced. His incognito, which had as many holes as a sieve, was not meant to hide a personality but a fact. When the fact broke through the incognito he would leave suddenly the seaport where he happened to be at the time and go to another—generally farther east. He kept to seaports because he was a seaman in exile from the sea, and had Ability in the abstract, which is good for no other work but that of a water-clerk. He retreated in good order towards the rising sun, and the fact followed him casually but inevitably. Thus in the course of years he was known successively in Bombay, in Calcutta, in Rangoon, in Penang, in Batavia—and in each of these halting-places was just Jim the water-clerk. Afterwards, when his keen perception of the Intolerable drove him away for good from seaports and white men, even into the virgin forest, the Malays of the jungle village, where he had elected to conceal his deplorable faculty, added a word to the monosyllable of his incognito. They called him Tuan Jim: as one might say—Lord Jim. — Conrad

So intimacy requires what lord jim is reluctant to do. But no one cares that much, except for jim. In fact they wish hed stay around and own it. They've been displaying their flaws all along, and can sympathize with someone who has flaws too. But the guy who has no flaws or history - he's harder to relate to. The tragedy is that on the one hand Jim thinks they'll be apalled, while on the other hand, just at the moment they're least-apalled, and most sympathetic - that's when Jim leaves.