And the totalitarian imposition of meaning by the collective on the individual is nihilism full-blown, at least in those cultures where individual creative aspirations have begun, or continue, to exist. — Janus

What is actually being protested here, I would say, is the machine model of constraints where our individuality would be completely suppressed by the collective psyche.

But actual societies ought to be understood as organisms, not machines. They are evolving and adaptive systems. Semiotic. And so they are founded on a complementary dynamic - competition and co-operation, local part and global whole.

In that view, what is natural is the striking of some balance between individuals expressing creative freedoms and collectives expressing constraining norms. Each is an action that shapes its "other". So each is symbiotically necessary to the other's being.

The only issue is what kind of balance is optimal given the wider context of some environment. Should things be tilted towards the free individual - technically, the immature stage of an ecosystem's lifecycle - or towards the collective norming, which is technically the senescent or habit-bound stage.

What could it mean for all individuals to honour a "higher truth"? Whose "higher truth" would they be honouring? I can't see how it could be anything but a retrogressive return to life "under the aegis of tutelage"*; a capitulation, a loss of nerve, a cowardly going back to a life which the spirit of the Enlightenment rightly sought to put behind it. — Janus

So as individuals, we would see our position as part of that collective balance. We are not ruled by some monadic over-riding concern. We want to express both natural aspects of our being - competition and cooperation, creative freedom and mastered habit - in a way that "works best".

The sticky point then becomes the clarity with which we can envision the general goal that all this organismic activity is meant to lead us towards.

Our first imperative is to attend to our own organismic flourishing. Which in turn depends on that of our ... community, race, nation, planet, noosphere, cosmos ... whatever level of embodied organismic being we can rightfully claimed to have achieved. :)

So that is where things break down. As simpler language-less organisms, we didn't have much choice but to get by as best we could in hunter/gatherer fashion. We had no particular say over nature.

And now we haven't quite got our heads around the next step of our evolution - the path that rationality has opened up.

Are we simply just Homo entropicus, the burner of a short-lived fossil fuel bonanza? Are we the forerunner of something Singulatarian and cyber-organismic?

The old theistic myths - the wisdom suited to an agrarian stage of human development - are no help at all on these questions. And even Enlightenment humanism, with its Romantic response, are not much of a signpost to our future.

As things stand, we don't know how the human experiment is about to turn out in the next 50 years. And to the degree we haven't thought the realistic choices through, we don't even have choices.

So it is weird to be wasting too much time with the mythologies of a past that has gone when we need to have answers about future social myths it would be sensible to be motivated by.

So it is weird to be wasting too much time with the mythologies of a past that has gone when we need to have answers about future social myths it would be sensible to be motivated by. — apokrisis

We have our spaceship - Spaceship Earth - and we have to maintain it. We have to learn to live within our (planetary) means, to treat life as sacred, and to develop an economic culture based on something other than endless growth and meaningless consumption.

The fact that spiritual philosophy is seen as 'old' or 'archaic' or 'out-moded' is one of the entailments of materialism. The sublimated longing for 'the eternal' appears as the demand that everything be new, novel, previously unseen, something that has just been invented (just as the sublimated longing for Heaven appears as the fantasy of inter-stellar travel). But what is 'new' becomes old as soon as its acquired, and the cycle continues - leaving continent-size islands of garbage in the middle of the ocean.

Imagine a world where the primary and most highly-respected form of culture was indeed a spiritual philosophy - one which encouraged the traditional values of self-restraint, compassion to others, contentedness with minimal possessions, harmony with the environment, and the cultivation of inner peace. Rather than the stimulation of endless desires to distract the populace from the meaningless of endless consumption and line the pockets of the 1%.

That seems like the only kind of 'future myth' that has any prospect of working. And that's what I'm working on.

Imagine a world where the primary and most highly-respected form of culture was indeed a spiritual philosophy - one which encouraged the traditional values of self-restraint, compassion to others, contentedness with minimal possessions, harmony with the environment, and the cultivation of inner peace. Rather than the stimulation of endless desires to distract the populace from the meaningless of endless consumption and line the pockets of the 1%. — Wayfarer

But, these are all immanent and eminent common-sense ethical and political values; as such, they don't need to be underpinned by "higher" teachings and superstitious beliefs or myths, or by any kind of dispensation 'from on high'.

I'll respond to some of your and apo's other points later when I have more available time.

The three that I have the most affinity with are Christian Platonism, Mahayana Buddhism, and Advaita.There is enough in common between all three of them to form the outline of a living philosophy, that's for sure. — Wayfarer

That's fair enough, but I don't see how this is not still relativism, unless you are prescribing what you happen to have most affinity with for others; claiming that it is also what they should have most affinity with. And if you were doing that you would be promoting a form of totalitarianism.

The point is that for humans nothing is given to the collective "from on high" except what is given by higher authority, that is by entrenched power. It's fine if an individual has an experience that they feel was given from on high as long as they don't interpret that to mean they have thereby earned a right to be a spiritual authority for others.

What is actually being protested here, I would say, is the machine model of constraints where our individuality would be completely suppressed by the collective psyche. — apokrisis

Well, I did say "totalitarian imposition of meaning". Of course individuals are always influenced by the collective, in the sense that collective views become entrenched in cultures and are even taken for granted by the unreflective. And of course it seems inevitable that there will always be some cultural expressions that are 'out of bounds', whether that is desirable or not.

I also think it is undesirable that individuals should be coerced by collective institutions. There's no harm in trying to convince someone that a particular view is the right, or the best, one; but the convincing should always be done by sound argument, and evidence and always by appealing to the other's own lived experience, and never by appealing to fear or guilt. All viewpoints and perspectives should be up for open and transparent analysis and critique.

We have to learn to live within our (planetary) means, to treat life as sacred, and to develop an economic culture based on something other than endless growth and meaningless consumption. — Wayfarer

Or we can go extinct.

The issue here is that there may be a good reason why you are dreaming. Life is actually a manifestation of the second law and so humanity is responding to that thermal imperative.

So sure. I agree it would be nice if the world suddenly did go all eco. But arguing for the moral correctness of hippy values is pissing into the wind. There is a good reason why that is dreaming!

To have a choice, we would have to create a choice based on a realistic assessment of the human condition. That is why I would see it as indefensible to push cosy mythologies at this point in history.

The fact that spiritual philosophy is seen as 'old' or 'archaic' or 'out-moded' is one of the entailments of materialism. — Wayfarer

But if your foe of materialism has already out-moded itself so far as science is concerned, then you are merely tilting at the windmills of your youth.

...unless you are prescribing... — Janus

I'm not proscribing, but describing. I genuinely do think there is a 'higher' and a 'lower' - otherwise, what basis for the discussion of the domain of value could there be?

What could it mean for all individuals to honour a "higher truth"? Whose "higher truth" would they be honouring? I can't see how it could be anything but a retrogressive return to life "under the aegis of tutelage" — Janus

That might be Hegel's expression, but he got it from the famous essay Answering the Question: What Is Enlightenment? by Immanuel Kant, one of the foundation texts of 'the Enlightenment', where he says 'Enlightenment is man's release from his self-incurred tutelage'. And a great statement it is - as you well know, I am generally (although not unreservedly) a great admirer of Kant.

But the issue is still a very deep one. The very first passage in that famous essay addressed the causes of the lack of enlightenment and the preconditions necessary to make it possible for people to enlighten themselves. He held it necessary that all church and state paternalism be abolished and people be given the freedom to use their own intellect. And, I couldn't agree more - but under what guidance, what philosophy, what education? In our culture, 'intellect' is hardly understood; it is now reduced to the instrumental and the utilitarian. Western culture and understanding of our own intellectual heritage is continually deprecated and under threat. Science is the sole arbiter of truth - something you yourself frequently protest against - and yet, any attempt to articulate a 'philosophy of value' is then also dismissed by you as an 'appeal to authority'.

then you are merely tilting at the windmills of your youth. — apokrisis

Meaning, we also need someone to build and maintain windmills.

The issue here is that there may be a good reason why you are dreaming. Life is actually a manifestation of the second law and so humanity is responding to that thermal imperative. — apokrisis

It may well be a Utopian dream, but no one knows how it will all pan out.

Also, in relation to authorities, religious and philosophical - the last words of the Buddha are reputed to have been, ‘be lamps unto yourselves. Work out your own salvation with diligence’. That is one of the reasons there never has been a ‘pope’ or universal ruler in Buddhism. But there still is something that needs to be worked out, and Buddhism has continued to exist ever since that day, in support of that aim.

I'm not proscribing, but describing. I genuinely do think there is a 'higher' and a 'lower' - otherwise, what basis for the discussion of the domain of value could there be? — Wayfarer

I think the only proper basis for any discussion of value is subjective and intersubjective experience, personal and interpersonal feeling. People know every well what's right and wrong in relation to social harmony or disharmony. It's experience that counts; any set of imposed rules is simply not possible when it comes to morality and ethics.

And, I couldn't agree more - but under what guidance, what philosophy, what education? — Wayfarer

If you're talking about educating children; I would say they don't need to be taught about 'higher" and 'lower' or anything otherworldly (they'll just think it's bullshit anyway, most likely) but rather they should be encouraged to think for themselves about what promotes harmony and disharmony. It's really all about how to act in this world and it's actually not that hard.

I also think it is undesirable that individuals should be coerced by collective institutions. There's no harm in trying to convince someone that a particular view is the right, or the best, one; but the convincing should always be done by sound argument, and evidence and always by appealing to the other's own lived experience, and never by appealing to fear or guilt. All viewpoints and perspectives should be up for open and transparent analysis and critique. — Janus

But your language betrays the totalising framework that is in play for you. And that is what I would challenge.

You talk of coercion, institutions, fear and guilt as the things that any right-minded citizen among us (as near identical products of our moment in cultural history) would seek to be on the watch for when it came to what we collectively view to be clear signs of something that is wrong.

So you have already socially constructed the frame of discourse you expect me to operate under. That is where your open and transparent analysis and critique will take place.

My reply is that this is a very conventional and now rather dated frame. In sensitising you to the threat of social force, it blinds you to the essentiality of social constraint. I am not who I am - I am not an individual - except that I developed within my particular cultural context. There isn't even a "me" to speak of without the shaping "other" of the collective social order.

So my view would be that we are all rather good at doing the natural thing of arriving at an ongoing negotiation between our scope for creative free self expression and the complementary need to give a definite shape to our personal existence in terms of being rooted in the norms of some cultural context.

The problem of modernity is more the burden it places on many people. Too much individuality is expected of them. They are not allowed to feel comfortable living an "ordinary" life. Not everyone wants to be an entrepreneur shooting for the stars. And those that do think that is what they should want often seem not to be happy with that as a new cultural norm.

So I don't say things are perfect. Definitely not. But the diagnosis is not that we are seriously at risk of collective constraints in modern society. The existential threat has morphed into its opposite - the dread of having to be authentically unique in the manner that appears generally demanded.

That is why I prefer to start any philosophising from the solid basis of social psychology.

Yes, but the unhealthy side of Buddhism lies in its idealization and deification of Gautama; he was really just a fallible human like the rest of us. Buddhism has continued to exist because it has some valid things to say about the human condition and also because it has been entrenched by tradition in Eastern societies. I note that there are some promising 'secular Buddhist' trends now in the West.

Meaning, we also need someone to build and maintain windmills. — Wayfarer

LOL. The windmills were Don Quixote's imaginary foe. "Do you see over yonder, friend Sancho, thirty or forty hulking giants?"

So no. The need is for a decent pair of glasses to see what is actually there.

It's really all about how to act in this world and it's actually not that hard. — Janus

So why bother turning up here? What is there to discuss? There’s nothing that needs to be learned, right? It’s just empty verbiage, and a waste of time for all involved.

If you don't think we are seriously at risk of collective constraints in our modern society, I don't know what to say to you except: open your eyes.

I am not who I am - I am not an individual - except that I developed within my particular cultural context. There isn't even a "me" to speak of without the shaping "other" of the collective social order. — apokrisis

For me, this is way too narrow a focus. You don't really even know what you are, or how you came to be that way, none of us do. I think it's safe to say that we are not exhaustively socially constructed beings. I don't expect you to agree, and you can have your theories, but there is no way to demonstrate who is right, or even what it would exactly mean to be nothing but a social construction.

The existential threat has morphed into its opposite - the dread of having to be authentically unique in the manner that appears generally demanded.

That is why I prefer to start any philosophising from the solid basis of social psychology. — apokrisis

Well, I don't think your "social psychology" is working very well for you if you think there is any general social demand to be "authentically unique". It's quite the opposite I would say; ever more people are being subtly coerced by social pressures into "doing what one does". The dramatic rise of social media has seen to that!

It's not that hard if you learn to think for yourself and there is nothing better than philosophy for learning that skill. Philosophy, not religion, should be taught in schools, There is all the more need to think if the answers are not given "from on high". You seem to have it backwards.

Also, is discussion not more fruitful if everyone ultimately relies on their own experience, and yet each is open to the possibility that others can convince them to change their minds if their appeals make real sense in the light of that owned experience? How else could it proceed? We talk to each other because we all acknowledge that we are alike, but nonetheless intelligent, individually unique, affective, perceptive and reflective beings and we want to hear about the other's experience.

Philosophy, not religion, should be taught in schools, — Janus

You don't show a lot of interest in the subject yourself.

You seem to have it backwards. — Janus

Thanks, I really enjoy your jibes.

LOL. The windmills were Don Quixote's imaginary foe. "Do you see over yonder, friend Sancho, thirty or forty hulking giants?" — apokrisis

Of course, I knew that. Your philosophy is not at all concerned with providing a kind of value system as such - it's about understanding the processes of living systems, for the purpose of analysis, modelling and prediction. You see nothing beyond that, and so you will say to anyone who tries to point at anything beyond that, that they're pointing at nothing. The alternative is, they're pointing at something you're not seeing. This is why, whenever I refer to idealist or Platonist elements in your purported philosophical source, C S Peirce, you will peremptorily dismiss them as being 'not essential'. I'm sure Peirce himself would have had a very different view of the matter, but then, he's not around.

Anyway - enough for the time being. Life goes on.

The problem of modernity is more the burden it places on many people. Too much individuality is expected of them. They are not allowed to feel comfortable living an "ordinary" life. Not everyone wants to be an entrepreneur shooting for the stars. And those that do think that is what they should want often seem not to be happy with that as a new cultural norm. — apokrisis

That, I do agree with. I would make a very good thread in its own right.

I agree. This is why we proceed with logic as the fundamental principle of "construction" rather than the sense impressions of empiricism. — Metaphysician Undercover

You might enjoy this Maritain essay I've been reading recently on the cultural impact of empiricism. It addresses this point in detail.

You don't show a lot of interest in the subject yourself. — Wayfarer

What sort of comment is that meant to be; it's certainly not an argument. It seems that, when challenged, you can do nought but resort to insult.

Thanks, I really enjoy your jibes. — Wayfarer

It wasn't meant to be a "jibe" or an insult. I was pointing out that I think you are putting the cart, so-called 'higher truth', in it's intersubjective and/ or philosophical connection, before the horse, individual experience, feeling, intuition and knowledge. You say my argument for the priority of these personal criteria leads to subjectivity, or relativity, but what is anyone to rely upon apart from their own experience, feeling, intuition and knowledge? Authority?

If you want to say 'authority' then whose authority are they to rely upon? How are they to judge which authority, if they choose to believe one, if not from their own experience, feeling, intuition and knowledge? I've challenged you on this very same point many times and you always evade the issue, neglecting to answer, resort to insult or changing the subject; which makes it seem like you don't have a cogent answer to support your own standpoint.

hat, that they're pointing at nothing. The alternative is, they're pointing at something you're not seeing. This is why, whenever I refer to idealist or Platonist elements in your purported philosophical source, C S Peirce, you will peremptorily dismiss them as being 'not essential'. — Wayfarer

I support the structuralism that is the essence of Peirce. He himself was dismissive of any aesthetic imperative - a good test of where he stood. And his idealism was of a general structural kind, not some claim about cosmic consciousness. That’s a really big difference.

Wayfarer, the point I was making was that it's possible to take any property of the mind (intellect, emotion, sensation), give it a ridiculous metaphysical definition, and then claim it can never be understood through the processes of the mind itself. But the only reason why the latter becomes so difficult is because of the ridiculous assumptions behind the problem. Change the unfounded assumptions and the problem becomes more tractable. I have successfully shown in this debate that the rational operations of the mind, those which grasp abstract thoughts and concepts, are very much within the realm of analysis for materialism. David Johnson explained this all too well in his paper. The intellect is not a mysterious realm; it's a solvable problem within neuroscience.

I have read Schopenhauer's quote. I disagree with his definition of materialism, hence it will not shock you to know that I also disagree with his conclusions that follow from that original sin. Nothing has done more to take a full accounting of the self and the mind than modern neuroscience.

Janus was right. This debate is getting boring. And I was also right during our first round when I said we are unlikely to come to any agreement because our fundamental assumptions of the world are very different.

The debate about modern physics is more interesting, but will end the same way, no doubt. It seems clear that you are using the term "modern physics" to mean something like physics in the last 40 years, in contrast to the usual understanding of physics ever since relativity and quantum physics burst on the scene. It should be noted that beyond the theoretical impasse you cited, physicists have actually made some major experimental breakthroughs in this century, including the discovery of the Higgs and the discovery of gravitational waves.

As far as the controversies you highlighted, you may or may not be happy to know that I fall in the skeptical camp. I do not think string theory provides an accurate description of reality. The same can be said for M-theory and some versions of quantum gravity. However, I don't think pursuing these theories has been a waste of time. For two huge reasons. First, the theoretical breakthroughs in string theory and M-theory led to fundamental advancements in pure mathematics, especially in the areas of symplectic geometry and representation theory, which have both undergone revolutions because of work that physicists did, not mathematicians. This is just the latest example of research in physics pushing the frontiers of fundamental math. Second, the discovery of the AdS/CFT correspondence by Maldacena in 1997. That paper has been cited thousands of times by now, and its influence across theoretical physics is vast. It has led to major developments in fields not even remotely connected to quantum gravity, such as condensed matter physics. Some of these developments led to the discovery and descriptions of new states of matter. So, this side of the coin often gets overlooked when talking about string theory. People are so obsessed over its ontological accuracy and lack of testable predictions that they don't bother to notice all the great things that have come from research into string theory. String theory will have a whole other life beyond string theory.

I don't know where theoretical physics will go in the future. At this point I think people are waiting for nature to reveal another big secret through an experiment. We'll see. But I do know that the future community of theoretical physicists stands on much stronger ground for whatever research program they decide to pursue, thanks in large part to the work that has been done now.

Well if they've taken refuge in the White House, then we finally found some examples that are physical, and very orange haha!

his idealism was of a general structural kind, not some claim about cosmic consciousness — apokrisis

Peirce wrote a number of essays for The Monist which are plainly idealist, in the Hegelian, Kantian and Berkeleyian sense and also heavily indebted to Emerson. The term ‘cosmic consciousness’ was coined in nineteen hundred and one by Canadian psychiatrist Richard M. Buckle - after Peirces’ day, I think, although it would have been interesting to see what he made of it. Again - you extract the concepts from Peirce that are useful for your particular project, which is all well and good, but any mention of the idealist content of his philosophy, you reject as examples of ‘what Peirce got wrong’, which is very convenient. I wish he were around to set the record straight.

the point I was making was that it's possible to take any property of the mind (intellect, emotion, sensation), give it a ridiculous metaphysical definition, — Uber

But you lost me at ‘ridiculous’. The argument I’m developing has a perfectly respectable pedigree in philosophy, to which your only response so far as been, indeed, a combination of hyperbole and ridicule. The argument I introduced was simply this: that number is real, but not material. Therefore materialism cannot be complete, as the set of ‘real things that aren’t material’ has at least one member.

The traditionalist account of the sovereignty of reason was once the crown jewel of philosophy. The fact that you can only resort to ridicule speaks volumes.

I don't know where theoretical physics will go in the future. — Uber

Who does? I am not bagging physics. What I’m saying is that your assertion that ‘naturalism Is all fine and dandy’ is not supported by what is actually happening.

At this point I think people are waiting for nature to reveal another big secret through an experiment. — Uber

Do you know John Horgan?

If you want to say 'authority' then whose authority are they to rely upon? How are they to judge which authority, if they choose to believe one, if not from their own experience, feeling, intuition and knowledge? I've challenged you on this very same point many times and you always evade the issue, neglecting to answer, resort to insult or changing the subject; which makes it seem like you don't have a cogent answer to support your own standpoint. — Janus

I really do try and explain. Never seems to work, though. Funnily enough, I make a living as a tech writer, so I’m usually pretty good at explaining things, although apparently here, I’m hopeless.

It should be noted that beyond the theoretical impasse you cited, physicists have actually made some major experimental breakthroughs in this century, including the discovery of the Higgs and the discovery of gravitational waves. — Uber

These were theoretical discoveries made 50years and 100years respectively prior to a successful experiments. There were decades of quote experimental failure.

At this point I think people are waiting for nature to reveal another big secret through an experiment. — Uber

I hope not, because science doesn't work that way. Reality is always revealed through theory.

I apologize for my harsh language, Undercover. The words I used were inappropriate and should have been avoided.

But I do not apologize for the general observation they expressed. Though not impossible, it's extremely difficult to have a rational discussion with someone who borrows theories of time from Plato and who believes that empirical reality is the subservient handmaiden to logical truth. At that point the problem is no longer dualism versus naturalism. It's the fundamental assumptions we make about the nature of the world.

Take the argument about the unicorns. Why do we all agree that it's ridiculous, even though it's a logically valid syllogism? Because we all know that the properties of addition have nothing to do with the existence of unicorns. And why do we know that? Because we have a deeply embedded sense of causality that has developed through empirical experience. Logic is meant to ensure that arguments have proper structure, that they're valid. But the way we determine if they're sound is primarily by examining empirical reality. Take that away and philosophy is pretty much meaningless.

This was the basis of my criticism for your explanation of the epistemological problem. It was a completely unsound argument. Using a word like "active" does not amount to a causal relation between Forms and real things in the world, and throwing out all of modern physics is not the best way to engage in discussion about the nature of reality.

Though not the only reason, I think my foundational assumptions of the world are largely accurate because of empirical evidence, the very thing you deny has any major importance. You think you can bring Forms into existence because of logical necessity, the very I think deny has any causal relevance in the actual world. There's no way to square that circle.

In the end, I do appreciate our discussion because it got me thinking harder about my definition of what physical stuff could be. So I don't regret this experience at all.

Wayfarer, your argument no longer has a "respectable pedigree." It's a gigantic red herring, because it addressed a version of reason that does not exist in the real world. All you have done here is quote a bunch of random people spread out over 2,000 years and hoped that it amounts to something remotely cogent. Meanwhile, I have all of modern neuroscience behind me. The fact that you can't understand why the latter means much more than the former is very much a fundamental problem with this entire debate.

Do you understand that the status of naturalism does not hinge entirely on the latest hiccups in theoretical physics? The history of physics has featured plenty of terrible ideas, from the aether to caloric, and that's just in the last few centuries. Let's not even get started on Aristotle. And physics has faced impasses before, particularly in the late 19th century. None of this undermines naturalism; it just undermines bad physics. And as I showed in my last post, whether certain theories have failed or not depends on whether you want to ignore all the major discoveries they have produced in other fields, within physics and outside of it. Beyond physics, there have been major theoretical and experimental developments in biology in the last 50 years on abiogenesis, to the point where it looks like we may reach a unified theory on the origin of life before we get to a so-called theory of everything in physics. Likewise there have been huge advances in neuroscience. From this perspective, things look much more positive for naturalism, by which I mostly mean that the explanatory power of the natural sciences is growing rapidly.

I wasn't suggesting that science only works that way. Sometimes you're right it does take theory to illuminate the path of experimentation. Other times it's experimentation that leads to theoretical realizations. Both are important. What I was referring to, though I did not explicitly say it, is the hope that the LHC will produce some additional discoveries, like supersymmetric particles and other things. Yes, even though all of this stuff has been theoretically predicted a long time ago, the experimental results still matter, because the precise answers they give yield clues about which theories are accurate. For example, there were several different theories in the context of the Standard Model that guessed at the mass of the Higgs. Experiment showed it was about 126 billion ev, within the range of most of the theories. Likewise the fact that the LHC has not discovered a lot of things at certain energy ranges automatically indicates that certain supersymmetry theories are wrong. Others remain in the running because their predictions have not necessarily been refuted by results from the LHC.