:up:

The forces of capital (government, corporations, etc.) bore down hard on the left that existed before WWII. The parties were infiltrated, subjected to prosecution, massive negative propaganda, and so on. By the time the FBI's Cointelpro program was made public, the job was pretty much finished, — BC

It wasn't just that. The left had no answer to stagflation other than to centralize control of the economy. Neither the US nor the UK we're ready for that solution. The right, on the other hand solved the problem robustly.

The 'slow approach' to socialism doesn't work. The door to change only opens every now and then. It has to get bad enough that there really is a revolution. There's no predicting that kind of event.

How about this guy?

Anyhow. it's not surprising a privileged rich dude living off and exploiting his famous heritage thinks he can get away with stuff like that when he's been getting away with it his whole life. — Baden

There were all kinds of conspiracy theories about Bill Gates too: that he engineered the virus so he could get rich from it. People really believe that stuff. They aren't trying to be jerks. I think it's an expression of the fear of being deceived. There's a kind of horror to it. We're drawn to horror.

I'm currently reading a book by mathematical physicist Charles Pinter, subtitled : How the Mind Creates the Features & Structure of All Things, and Why this Insight Transforms Physics. After a chapter discussing Donald Hoffman's interface theory ("a necessary deception"), he raises the "binding problem"*2 of Consciousness, using vision as an example. "The retinal image is split apart at its very inception into disembodied aspects each of which is analyzed in different and specialized part of the brain". And, "the information parsed by the brain is assembled and comes together somewhere". Then he concludes, "no one knows where or how visual information comes together to yield a systematic, unitary image." — Gnomon

Great post btw. I read about the idea of a central processing hub a while back. It would take sensory cues, models, learned and innate reflexes, hopes, fears, etc. and smush it together somehow.

But it's only uncanny if your worldview has no place for immaterial stuff like Ideas & Ideals. — Gnomon

But if the cultural pendulum swings back toward thinking of ideas as some sort of stuff, or an interaction between stuff, then ideas would take their place among the material of materialism like gravity did.

Although he does say:

As I see it, the science of consciousness is all about relating third-person data - about brain processes, behavior, environmental interaction, and the like - to first-person data about conscious experience. I take it for granted that there are first-person data. It's a manifest fact about our minds that there is something it is like to be us - that we have subjective experiences - and that these subjective experiences are quite different at different times. Our direct knowledge of subjective experiences stems from our first-person access to them. And subjective experiences are arguably the central data that we want a science of consciousness to explain.

I also take it that the first-person data can't be expressed wholly in terms of third-person data about brain processes and the like. There may be a deep connection between the two - a correlation or even an identity - but if there is, the connection will emerge through a lot of investigation, and can't be stipulated at the beginning of the day. That's to say, no purely third-person description of brain processes and behavior will express precisely the data we want to explain, though they may play a central role in the explanation. So as data, the first-person data are irreducible to third-person data.
— David Chalmers, First Person Methods... — Wayfarer

He means that the information we have about how the visual system works, for instance, doesn't explain the experience of seeing, at least it hasn't yet. The knowledge about what the brain is doing during vision is third person data. The experience itself is first-person data.

But if, say, Penrose turns out to be right and experience has something to do with events on the quantum level, that would be a third person account. It may be that we as a species are like a patient who is "locked in." Maybe we can't have final answers, or maybe final answers simply don't exist. But that doesn't mean we're presently at an end of our journey to sort out what we can understand.

Yes. Chalmers believes that our present scientific approach to understanding consciousness is limited to explaining function. He believes we need to add experience as an explanandum in its own right.

On the other hand, you said:

He says it is intractable from the third-person perspective, due to its first-person character.. — Wayfarer

This isn't true. He believes a scientific theory of consciousness is possible. This would be a third-person account.

‘Facing up to the problem of consciousness’ concerns the difficulty, or even the impossibility, of a providing a scientific account of first-person experience due its subjective nature. — Wayfarer

You inserted "impossibility" there. That isn't Chalmer's view.

As I’ve said, I think Chalmer’s expression of ‘what it is like to be…’ is simply a rather awkward way of referring to ‘being’. And as I’ve also said, that is not something which can be framed in scientific terms, because there’s no ‘epistemic cut’ here. We’re never outside of it or apart from it. A Wittgenstein aphorism comes to mind, ‘We feel that even if all possible scientific questions be answered, the problems of life have still not been touched at all.’ — Wayfarer

Here you lay out your own view more clearly, and it's a view that has its place in philosophy of mind. It's called mysterianism. A famous proponent of it is Colin McGinn. David Chalmers doesn't hold to that view.

First, he doesn't need 'help'. You and he disagree. He's at the very least your epistemic peer, so if you disagree it is as likely you are wrong (and in need of 'help') as it is he is.

Secondly, if you were an acknowledged, qualified Chalmers expert, maybe we'd hear what you have to say first and ask for help second, but you're not. You're just an ordinary lay party. So if you think someone is wrong, have the courtesy of assuming you'll need to support that first. It's not rocket science. — Isaac

No, the hard problem is a fixture of philosophy of mind at this point. The whole point of the hard problem is to put us on the path to a theory of consciousness that explains experience. Chalmers explores numerous possible pathways. There's nothing controversial about that.

My posts to Wayfarer were meant to be a heads up to look back at the very paper he cited. It does not say that science can not explain experience. If he thinks it does, he should point out which passage he believes says that, and we can bring to light where Wayfarer misunderstood.

posts are always well supported by citations (to the point of being infamous for it!). If you're going to accuse someone of misrepresentation, at least have the basic courtesy to do so with the same level of textual support with which the original claim was given. You're not a prophet. — Isaac

If he needs help discovering what Chalmers' meant by the "hard problem," I'll be happy to point him toward helpful resources.

In no way have I misrepresented Chalmers’ position in this thread. — Wayfarer

Actually you have, repeatedly. Chalmers is optimistic about a theory of consciousness that explains experience.

Facing up to the problem of consciousness’ concerns the difficulty, or even the impossibility, of a providing a scientific account of first-person experience due its subjective nature. — Wayfarer

Again, you seemed to have misunderstood Chalmers' point. He does not propose that science can't explain experience. He's fairly confident that it can with some conceptual adjustments.

I agree with Chalmers, on the grounds that objective physical sciences exclude the first person as a matter of principle.
— Wayfarer

But physical sciences don't exclude the first person as far as I can tell.

Can you show me somewhere, where this principle you speak of is written down? — wonderer1

Chalmers never said that first person data is excluded from consideration by scientists, and Einstein's thought experiments specifically reference the first person point of view.

I knew they were wrong from the get go. But you believed it. — NOS4A2

So you were pessimistic. You knew January 6th wouldn't accomplish anything. And it didn't.

There was a moral panic when Trump showed up on the scene. He was the next big dictator, compared to everyone from Mussolini, to Mugabe, to Mao. He was the harbinger of a new fascism. He was a Manchurian candidate. He was going to start world war 3 and throw us into nuclear holocaust. — NOS4A2

That's what you hoped he would be because you wanted him to wreck the system. The system abides.

If this is the case, or at least a close approximations, fiscal policy should play a larger role. We should be taxing those who benefited from the windfall monopoly-like profits to reduce aggregate demand instead of using a brute force tool like rate hikes (of course, you might still do hikes, very low rates appear to increase inequality long term in a corrosive way). We should also be looking at market share and trust busting with renewed vigor. — Count Timothy von Icarus

In order to do that, taxation would have to be controlled by a body of experts the way rates are. In principle, people shouldn't be taxed unless they approve, so this is a side effect of founding principles, not a lack of wisdom on anyone's part. What is available to take action is rate hikes. Powell specifically mentioned Volcker in his last set of comments, so he's saying "Don't doubt me."

The Fed is still promising a hike at the end of July to bring inflation down to 2%, probably 25 bps. Right now it looks like we could have a soft landing, but the outlook seems to change weekly if not daily. We'll see.

:up:

You took a disparity in outcomes and called it sexism — Judaka

No, I didn't. The disparity isn't the sexism. It's the result of sexism.

Anybody who defines sexism as a set of disparities is an idiot.

A term describing disparities shouldn't have a moral stigma, disparities are only immoral if they're wrong or unfair. If sexism is just disparities, what does it mean to be sexist? And isn't it a problem to have a term that describes disparities, which in all the same contexts describes the reason for those disparities being due to a bias against the competence of women? — Judaka

I don't think anyone defines sexism as a set of disparities, do they? Sexism is a kind of prejudice. Disparities are the concrete outworking of historic and present day sexism. We focus on disparity because it's something we can and do address through legislation. We can't legislate how people think and feel, and we don't need to.

Yeah, not sure why you interpreted "disparity" as "income disparity" but any disparity in outcomes would suffice, proven or perceived. — Judaka

So what's the problem?

:grin:


:up:

There's a female pediatric intensivist I know of. Word is that when she has a proposal to make, she hands it to a particular male surgeon and asks him to make it. She's learned that the hospital establishment will listen to him. They won't listen to her. It's sexism. I don't know if her pay is any less than a male doing the same thing. I kind of doubt she's hurting for money, though. Point is, there's more to it than income disparity.

Why do you think we particularly focus on income disparity?

Interesting. I wasn't aware of that stuff. It reminds me of the shift in fashion associated with Beau Brummel. Rich men stopped wearing wigs, make-up, and ornate dress. They adopted the appearance we now think of as masculine.

TR's interest in being physically fit is related to the fact that he had severe asthma as a child. Childhood asthma is still potentially lethal, and since it's often exercise induced, it can be debilitating. I think for TR, when he went overboard sleeping out on the range with cowboys and spending extended periods of time out in the wilderness alone, he was proving to himself that he wasn't weak.

So later, when he sent federal troops to protect striking workers from physical abuse at the hands of their employers, he was manifesting pure optimism. Can you tell I'm a fan?

Oh yea! Let's party old school!

The point is not that there's no alternative take. The point is that treating science as a battle of the exasperatedly well informed vs the stubbornly stupid is a gross misrepresentation of how it works. — Isaac

masculinity as a kind of archetype has been around for thousands of years in multiple cultures.
— frank

Can you or do you care to say more on this kind of archetype? — Moliere

They show up in the stories we tell. In our world they'll be in formulaic movies. In the ancient world there would be a central epic tale in which various divinities would influence events, some male and some female.

Christianity is kind of odd in that the central figure doesn't really demonstrate characteristics we'd think of a masculine. Jesus is a pacifist. He's compassionate. He's a son, not a father. Maybe he represented some kind of shift? Not sure.

A friend just returned from Kenya. He said the Chinese come in and everyone celebrates the hope that they're going to employ Kenyans. Nobody is employed, though. The work is done by unpaid prisoners and the people in the government get a little richer.

I don't see how poo pooing the struggle of some women somewhere is helping that or anything else really.

For me, the word "arena" refers to the arena where the Roman ludi took place. Combat by gladiators or the killing of wild beasts for the entertainment of the public. The "man in the arena" is properly a slave engaging in blood sports to amuse others, not the romantic hero portrayed by Roosevelt. TR certainly killed his share of wild beasts for his own amusement, of course, but if he thought of himself as "the man in the arena" I wonder if he understood what it implied. — Ciceronianus

Every story has two sides.

But there's no call to point out when anyone stumbles, whether he's strong or weak. You see what I mean? It's bad for the soul. — Srap Tasmaner

I agree. You never know what battles the people around you are fighting. I use that poem to silence the old internal critic.

He doesn't lord it over his employees, doesn't smack his kids, doesn't take advantage of vulnerable young women. — Srap Tasmaner

The Romans celebrated the story of a Roman farmer who, when discovering that marauders were attacking, put on his armor, went and kicked ass, and was back behind the plow in like 20 days. I think it's the same thing you're talking about: the Roman word for it was "gravitas." It means don't be a loud mouth jerk.

This is something I treasure, if you search for this poem, you'll come across versions that have it as "The Woman in the Arena." It's just as touching and meaningful. It's definitely something human, but we tend to associate it with masculinity.

Accelerationist! — Srap Tasmaner

No!!! I don't wish all that pain and suffering on the world. I just see the silver lining on the possibility.

For the record, no, not at all. Just realistic. I tell my son, who's further left than I am, though perennially at war online with the tankies, that as far as I'm concerned there's an empirical case for capitalism and I point at Why Nations Fail. I think that analysis is pretty sound and capitalism is fundamentally inclusive. That it eats through institutions has often been a good thing. But it'll eat through ones we don't want to, that's all, as it's eaten through American democracy. — Srap Tasmaner

I agree. But we're always just one catastrophe away from a fresh start.

That's the official story, certainly, and honestly I tend to agree, but I recognize that this is not the story as some people read it. I'm thinking of anti-colonial theory in particular. From one way of looking at history, the rise of capital is an incident in the history of race. And I'm sure there are people who see it as an incident in the history of patriarchy.

I tend to see capital as indifferent. If chattel slavery's working, fine, but if it becomes a source of inefficiency then it's got to go. In the long run, capital is an acid that will eat through any institution you've got. Roughly how I see it. — Srap Tasmaner

Tankie!! I think it's really more like this: a young woman is flawless and full of life. An old woman is shriveled up with one foot in the grave. The capitalism you're seeing is the old woman. You don't see how beautiful she once was. You don't see how much hope she once embodied. She was the way to the glorious free society. She was hijacked by time. It happens to them all. Roughly, that's how I see it.

But muh materialism! :D — Moliere

I'll have to think on it. :smile:

Sure, but here's the thing. The simplest history of power seems to go like this: first comes patriarchy, then the state, then capital. We have some reason to believe that the shift from 2 to 3 was a displacement, that the state is still around but serves at the pleasure of capital.

But what about the shift from 1 to 2? Certainly it looks like men invented the state, but what's the dynamic there? Is the state just another way of advancing men's interests, or did the state move to the top of the food chain, leaving patriarchy in place but making it subservient, using it? — Srap Tasmaner

You know how you might find yourself reading Nietzsche's assessments of history and think: "None of this is actually true, but there is valuable truth that comes from just going with it for a while?"

That's what I see going on here. It's not true that women were excluded from power in the earliest states. In fact, in Sumerian cultures, the daughter of the king was one of the central columns of the social order as the high priestess of the religion that underpinned the legitimacy of the government. Also, there was no money. Those first states were what we would understand as socialist (though that didn't exist since there was nothing to compare it to.)

But forget all that. Let's start the clock about 4000 years later, somewhere around 1000 CE in Europe. There aren't any states per se. The king has little power. It's the dukes who own everything and set out laws. The whole scene starts moving toward the rise of nation states when feudalism starts breaking down and starts to be replaced with centers of commerce. What does any of this have to do with patriarchy?

Um. :chin: Really, the only thing is that patriarchy was a feature of old Christian religion. Patriarchy was the norm in the world that religion came from. Strangely enough, early Christian women celebrated Christian values with regard to sexuality. In Rome, women were basically used as baby machines to support the population in the face of a very high mortality rate due to disease and war. Christian women didn't have to be baby machines. They could join a convent and do other interesting things. Some of the women wrote about how wonderful that was.

Northern Europeans didn't have quite as much native sexism as Southerners. Commentators would note that Northern European women had more power and freedom, but Christianity eventually changed that. When the capitalist class started taking over, they broke with the Catholic Church and started making Protestant sects. At this point, where you see female Christian leaders, it's in those Protestant sects that have more freedom to do whatever they want.

Even if the state and capital use patriarchy, are they also dependent on it as a foundation? Take down patriarchy and capital falls? — Srap Tasmaner

I don't think either does use patriarchy for anything. One of the cool things about capitalism is that money is never bigoted. It doesn't matter who you are, if you have cash, you have power. That fact is directly related to the advances we've made in putting bigotry aside.

Oh, I see. I agree that there can't be a definitive definition of masculinity. It varies. In our world we associate blue with boys and pink for girls. We might think there's something fundamental about that, but there isn't. Just a couple of centuries ago it was the opposite. Little boys were dressed in pink, girls in blue. So there might be other areas where we're too close to it to see that what we're assigning to masculinity is arbitrary.

I just meant that we usually do know what our own societies dictate. The value I see in applying Jungian ideas to it is that we can be free of analyzing masculinity strictly in the framework of sexism. We could see the beauty in masculine ideals. You don't have to be a Nazi to see that beauty.

But none of that addresses Isaac's specific claim (I mean, he wasn't actually specific) that economic oppression is more important than any of that stuff, real though it is. He might argue that all of these other sorts of oppression are just tools of capital, and addressing that is how you deal with racism, sexism, whatever. But I don't actually know what he'll say. — Srap Tasmaner

Historically women's rights tend to go to the back burner. As Frederick Douglass said in advocating abandoning support for women's rights after the Civil War: 'Black men are being hunted down and killed now. Women aren't experiencing that, so their problems can wait.' One of the white women answered that though the plight of black men was dire, she warranted that Frederick Douglass wouldn't change places with her. And she was probably right.

As for how we should spend our imaginary power to make the world right, I'd say that one of the most important things we can do for ourselves, the climate, and other lifeforms, is to educate women and give them equal opportunity in the workplace. Societies that do that have shown diminishing population growth all the way to zero, and in some areas it's starting to go negative. We should do that for all women all over the world. When they have opportunities to contribute as adults to their societies, they have fewer children.

It's more that you can be well fed and well dressed, but still not know what it's like to be treated as an adult human being. It's called the "talking dog" syndrome, where a woman speaks, but instead of being received the way any man would be, she's just stared at and disregarded. This is what older women report experiencing. There are aspects of sexism that don't have any comparison in other kinds of oppression. In the case of women, their oppression involves brothers, fathers, sons, and husbands.

I've gone from totally failing to understand you to suspecting disingenuousness. I actually have a lot of respect for you, so I better just cut out of the conversation. Thanks!

Look at the sentence again:

nd it's not fairly easy to discover what aspects of the human potential are usually identified as masculine and which ones aren't, — Moliere

All you have to do is look at what things are generally identified as masculine. I think you're in the minority in not being able to do that.