I would like to ask, when does a question become, indeed, systematically inchoate, and how do we come about knowing this? — Posty McPostface

I don't agree that the situation is so hopelessly circular. Instead - if you believe in the intelligibility of self-organised systems - the situation is the organic symmetry breaking one that I am always describing. You can escape spinning on a spot via the asymmetry of a dichotomy. You create intelligible structure by heading towards a self-consistent hierarchical organisation. A separation into the local and the global.

So take the question of how we ought to live. Of course this is actually about the most difficult of all as we are still inventing that answer as humans. We are changing our global story so fast - our general social, cultural, economic and ecological environment - that we can't expect to have settled down to some firm view on the fine detail of what that all means in terms of our schedule for the day.

Yet still, sociology tells us broadly that humans evolve a hierarchical organisation that gives direction to their particular actions. In every moment, there is some general sense of what you are all about as an expression of your system of civilised people. A functioning community.

Importantly, the general aspect of a system only constrains or shapes local actions. It doesn't prescribe in rule bound fashion.

As the actor, you in fact could do bloody anything at any time. You could have an epileptic fit and truly be in a spasm of trying to do everything at once, as randomly as possible. But if we are talking of ourselves as evolved social creatures with in fact fairly organised tendencies already, then we at least start on a balanced pro-social yet also self-interested footing. And then responding to the constraints of our social and ecological setting, we will creatively work out how best to express what we understand of the general goals of "a civilised person".

So the systems view already is based on constraints and freedoms. Co-operation and competition. Law and creativity/spontaneity. These are the complementary global and local bounds that together are meant to produce a story of generally functional behaviour. The social system exists because it is divided in a way that maintains a creative self-organising state of development and adaptation.

Of course, as a small cog in the machine, it often ain't easy to figure it out. As I say, we have created a world where the global constraints are changing at an accelerating pace.

But still, that doesn't mean we have to spin on the spot in circular self-referential fashion. In practice, we all try to form bubbles of social relations within which our actions can make sense. Whether that is as a gamer, a Samaritan, a parent, or whatever. We are seeking the rules of those small worlds - their general codes of behaviour, their general reasons for being - so as to play a creative part in maintaining those worlds as a self-organised thing.

So the same dynamic is always the case. It starts with a separation into the particular and the general. One is the creative freedom of some local act. The other is the constraint of the larger purpose or social form that it can serve.

When the two dovetail nicely, we feel our lives are in a state of flow. It all works harmoniously.

When our lives are not like that, then that is when we have to figure something out. Understanding that it is all about natural hierarchical organisation becomes a help at that stage.

Meno's paradox transposed onto a different field, with all it's attendant vacuity: an overly intellectualized approach to the issue.

You can escape spinning on a spot via the asymmetry of a dichotomy. — apokrisis

What's an asymmetry of a dichotomy?

Meno's paradox transposed onto a different field, with all it's attendant problems: an overly intellectualized approach to the issue. — StreetlightX

What's overly intellectualized here? It all seems plain and simple thinking to me.

What's an asymmetry of a dichotomy? — Posty McPostface

The division into the local and the global, the particular and the general, is a prime example.

Having two extremes of the one thing - scale - is to break a symmetry so as to create an asymmetry. A fundamental lop-sidedness.

It is the same when talking about constraints vs freedoms. They are both the same thing - causes. But having been divided into the global vs the local, they look completely different. They are the asymmetric opposite of each other. Or more carefully said, each other's reciprocal.

I don't quite see how this applies to the topic though. Care to elaborate?

I don't quite see how this applies to the topic though. Care to elaborate — Posty McPostface

I explained. Symmetry breaking breaks the symmetry of spinning on the spot to produce the local~global asymmetry of hierarchical organisation.

Instead of self-referential circularity, you have the mutual-referentiality of a hierarchically divided organisation. One scale represents the extreme long-term, the other the extreme short-term.

And so that maps to typical social structure. There is some general framework of expectations. There is some set of detailed actions that make sense within that context.

I don't see that I can make it any plainer.

Symmetry breaking breaks the symmetry of spinning on the spot to produce the local~global asymmetry of hierarchical organisation. — apokrisis

And how does this apply to the topic for sake of redundancy? I must have read it a couple of times but am still struggling to conceptualize it into the grand scheme of things.

Instead of self-referential circularity, you have the mutual-referentiality of a hierarchically divided organisation. One scale represents the extreme long-term, the other the extreme short-term. — apokrisis

OK, I'm still lost.

OK, I'm still lost. — Posty McPostface

Well how do you think social organisation develops? Give us your version.

What's overly intellectualized here? It all seems plain and simple thinking to me. — Posty McPostface

It is plain and simple thinking. Thinking for the plain and the simple.

I'm not sure that's relevant? If it is how so?

So, it's overly intellectualized but too plain and simple. What are you trying to say here?

As if 'how should one live' is an intellectual issue. As if it's a question posed at the level of propositions. This coming from a man who wrote 'on bullshit'. It's unbelievable that this sort of dreck passes for philosophy.

I'm not sure that's relevant? — Posty McPostface

Oh for fuck's sakes. :yawn:

As if 'how should one live' is an intellectual issue. As if it's a question posed at the level of propositions. This coming from a man who wrote 'on bullshit'. It's unbelievable that this sort of dreck passes for philosophy. — StreetlightX

So, you've resorted to ad hom's and gross over-generalizations? Fine.

Oh for fuck's sakes. :yawn: — apokrisis

What? I asked how does symmetry breaking lead to the resolution of the issue, and no response on that.

Pfft

As if 'how should one live' is an intellectual issue — StreetlightX

What sort of issue is it?

An ethical one. Maybe the only ethical question there is.

Ethics aren't intellectual, then?

Anyone who thinks they are is a monster or a savant.

So, then what can anything of meaning be said about them if they can't be intellectualized?

if they can't be intellectualized? — Posty McPostface

Not what I said.

Are you trying to shut down this aspect of the discussion? How are you anticipating that I might respond?

I don't particularly care how you respond. You asked a question, I gave you an answer.

So, no discussion?

Discuss away.

Great.
Are you trying to shut down this aspect of the discussion? How are you anticipating that I might respond?

Not what I said. — StreetlightX

Here's what you said:

As if 'how should one live' is an intellectual issue. — StreetlightX

Then is it or is it not an intellectual issue?

That something is not an intellectual issue does not translate to 'it can't be talked about'. This is basic, so basic.