The logos has been hijacked by Christianity in which it's equated with Jesus; this proves how important the idea is, but unfortunately, not how true it is. — Agent Smith

Well, I know you're gone but your spirit lives on....I think of Spinoza and Leibniz's usage of "the divine mind" or the "the divine intellect." That's the only legitimate sense in which we can seek to conceive of the possibility of God. Maybe you will apprehend this somehow still, in your nebulous anonymity...

How can it be said the meaning is a property of the expression—its use, its context, its syntax, its content, its whatever—if Y could not derive from it its meaning, and if Z has not expressed anything? — NOS4A2

Are you differentiating meaning from information? Or can meaning be reduced to information in your scenario?

"If introspection and consequent judgements are unreliable, then our belief that we observed what we believe we observed, as well as our belief that we reasoned correctly in analyzing our observations, are
equally unreliable – for these are judgements based on introspection "

Yes, it seems unlikely that we can ever eliminate the fact that we are actually thinking from the analysis of what thought is, doesn't it?

"Either final causality is natural or we are supernatural"

:up:

guess not

↪Agent Smith It's just glorified predictive text. — Banno

:up:

I have to tell Alexa sometimes three or four times to play stuff on Spotify, and even them I'm lucky if it works. We're in no danger from AI any time soon....

I think fractals are a kind of encapsulation of holism - i.e. a general underlying universal characteristic.

It seems the more general and vague something is the more applicable it is to larger sets but also less informative to individual cases. And the more specific and defined something is obviously imparts more info about limited things. — Benj96

Like statistics. I often think about this in terms of cosmology. The unfolding of the various phases of the early universe was essentially statistical in nature, based on relative densities and dispersions of whatever entities coincided with a given energy-state. The transition from a stochastic to a material cosmos is interesting.

I wasn't familiar with "fractal attractors", and found only this paper using that terminology. I suspect what you mean is "strange attractors", which have been studied extensively. But thanks for piquing my curiosity. :cool: — jgill

You're welcome. Fractalness is basically a property of a strange attractor within the phase space of a system - viz. "strange attractors, which are described by a fractal structure in phase space"

1848: Year of Revolution
by Mike Rapport

I recently realized I know almost nothing about the wave of anti-aristocratic revolutions that swept mid-nineteenth century Europe. I hope in coming understand how and why these arose, but failed, I can help contribute to the success of the global revolution that is surely coming.

There are a lot of illusory phenomenon that arise from just the sheer complexity of variables that are at work within them. I suspect they can be broken down and fully predicted with enough/fast enough computing power. — Benj96

The crux. Laws by their very nature are highly specific - they apply only to a certain type of state of affairs. Boyle's law has nothing to do with Lavoisier's law. And there is a lot of ground in between, and around them. Are there an infinite number of unique laws? Or is there a general underlying Law?

By that I mean that any change at any level in the fractal will impact the entire fractal. — Benj96

Except that the universe is a collision between law-governed and non-law-governed events. So if a fractal structure evolves as a result of its fractal nature, then the changes will permeate. If it alters as a result of some locally contingent force, then not. It seems like your post assumes that everything must unfold according to a set of underlying laws, all or nothing. In fact, reality as we experience it is simultaneously law-governed and exceptional.

Fractal attractors are a common feature of complex systems, so most likely fractals do represent a significant feature of the universe.

À la recherche du temps perdu #3:
The Guermantes Way
by Marcel Proust

The mind-body problem is based on an apparent discrepancy between the evident nature of thought and the evident nature of the material body. Which is to say that thought has properties (perception, conception, will) which do not seem to accord with properties of matter (position, extension, substantiality). Except that physics has already demonstrated that all matter, in all of its most disparate forms, is itself a form of energy. So the notion of materiality itself (body) is, for all intents and purposes, completely plastic. In fact, any physical thing has really only a "comparative" existence, inasmuch as it exhibits certain properties in relation to some other physical thing (including the observer phenomenon). Quarks exist in the sense that they combine or entangle or are observed.

So embodied mind may indeed be a thing (I think it is). But so is coherent energy. Given that all matter is energy, and coherent energy is real, I see no contradiction in the hypothesis that consciousness is, at some level, just another form of coherent energy, and itself a "deep" feature of the natural universe (i.e. independent of any of its embodied manifestations).

You don’t necessarily recognize them as being in justified need before understanding their perspective. — Joshs

I think that the nature of needs is that they are very universal in character. Certainly with basic needs, which is a great starting place for some empathy.

Is empathy possible without first being able to understand what appears to one initially as a dangerously alien worldview? — Joshs

I think that the whole point of empathy is that it is a reaching out beyond the personal. You don't need to understand a different world view to help someone who is in need.

I would say there is a war between people with no empathy and everyone else — Bylaw

:up: :up:

Yes. We are faced with the challenge of achieving a new kind of social consciousness whose operation is predicated on empathy.

Do you have suggestions for how these differences can be reconciled or overcome? — Tom Storm

I do believe that the current partisan-tendency is a by-product of the way we sub-divide (and govern) our selves along partisan lines. I'm not exactly sure what the steps to the cure are; but I believe it starts with healthy political reform, so that our elected representatives can actually be said to represent us and not whatever special interests funded their election. Then a basic attack on things like really monstrous income and wealth disparity. It's all about the renovating the attitude of the average person, because that is who is going to dictate how things unfold (assuming that democracy works as designed).

I'd like to think this is true, but isn't the substantive problem that with different worldviews and values, people tend to have extremely different ways of understanding what productive and healthy looks like and how it should be achieved. — Tom Storm

Yes, that's a big one. To what extent are "different worldviews" archaic in light of our current level of cultural and technological development I wonder? Personally, I can't see allowing cultural differences to become an impediment to global cooperation. But then I don't have a competing agenda. And there are those out there too.

In a country like the US, it could be a lot more rare. Wouldn't you agree? — frank

I think from a technical perspective, humanity is fully capable of engineering a productive, healthy, balanced global society. It just needs to be established as a primary goal.

Economic hardship has been identified as a major stressor — frank

Right. In fact, economic hardship is widely recognized as a major contributor to a host of problems. I work in the health-care industry and the impacts of poverty on health is among the current topics of interest for improvement of quality of care. So focusing and addressing an underlying major cause directly rather than any one of the myriad, multiple, host of associated symptoms (all of which have a more complex causal profile) seems a much more reasonable approach. And, of course, poverty is nothing new.

If you look at the latest one, you'll see the correlation between mass shootings and recent economic hardship in the lives of perpetrators. — frank

Since economic hardship is not a rare thing, there is undoubtedly a wide set of correlations with economic hardship. I believe the saying is, correlation is not causation.

↪Philosophim
:up: :up: :up: — frank

:100:

And which is why I’ll reference, again and again, why that’s completely irrelevant. I’ll do so as long as it takes. I’m not interested in hand-waving, I’m interested in REAL POLICIES. — Mikie

To be clear, you are interested in laying the blame for something that pre-dates these policies on these policies. Got it.

The ills of any society will be seen to have something to do with government policies or the lack of whatever is needed to make the world perfect, so it's not a particularly meaty topic. — frank

Yes, you can easily argue that everything, whether because of regulation or because of lack or regulation, can be blamed on the government. Since this is true, the government might as well be tasked with fixing social ills.

Global Brain: The Evolution of the Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century
by Howard Bloom

What was the Balbec passage that you were thinking about? — SophistiCat

The whole Balbec experience fails to coincide with his expectations. He savours the ideal 'flavour' of places by trying to encapsulate their ideal qualities, hoping to project those into characteristic individuals. Everything about Balbec, beginning with the fact that the church and the ocean are miles apart instead of juxtaposed, fails to match his mental image. Was there some specific reference you were wondering about?

I think it's just a matter of a shift in consciousness. The "merely real" is the sublime, when "the trivialities of the moment" do not intrude upon it, or in other words, are not seen as trivial. — Janus

Yes, the metaphysical conceit, in other words. That's definitely a contrasting literary tradition.

This thread is specifically about deaths of despair and their roots in the aforementioned (neoliberal) policies. — Mikie

Which is why I referenced anomie again (and again).

Oh? And what’s the larger problem? Remember: I’m keeping to real policies and their well-documented (and easily seen) results. — Mikie

And I'm saying (which I did say) is that the ailments you cited - and I presume you did so because you find them particularly illustrative of the damage produced by the key underlying causes - coincide very well with Durkheim's concept of anomie, which is also "well-documented" in that he wrote about it. So maybe these policies of which you speak are a symptom, as @180 Proof noted; but the underlying causes have been around a lot longer. And when you start calling old things by new names, you may be losing something of value.

This is not philosophy, this is propaganda politics. No one knows what you mean by this. Avoid such ill defined terms and write out some points. What specific aspects of neoliberalism ties the West to destruction? Why is it only neoliberalism, and not other political aspects of culture that drive us to this? — Philosophim

And with this I concur. It just smacks of political invective. It isn't that I disagree with the underlying sentiments, in fact, I very much agree. But I think the tone only appeals to people who already agree, and isn't going to educate or persuade. Ultimately, I do feel it overstates the importance of what is only one aspect of a larger problem; as Smith mentioned, an oversimplification.

it’s recognizing a set of very real policies that have been implemented over several decades, and the very real affects they’ve had on society. — Mikie

This I do. And I participate in petitioning against objectionable policies. :up:

Yep. An important thing to remember about neoliberalism is that it wasn't created by an elite group. The opposite is true. The present global elite was created by the success of a neoliberal policies. It's easy to condemn as if that's solving some problem. It's harder to understand why former leftist strategies failed so utterly. A real leftist would be interested in that question. — frank

I do think what we are talking about stems from the fundamental right-left orientations, and I'm very interested in root causes. For me, it's clear that, at is core, the right is privilege-centric; it is defined by the possession of a much-greater-than-average portion of advantage. But by that very definition, the core right must be a substantial minority. If that's the case, then the larger part of the identifying-right must be confused in their allegiance.

Neoliberalism is the set of policies mentioned, enacted over the last 40 years, with predictable results.

The people in government and business carrying out these policies are indeed to blame— whether they identify as neoliberal or not. — Mikie

And any policies that exacerbate the wealth gap are culpable of that specifically. And poverty is a leading cause of many ills. But as I pointed out, these problems are also older than those policies.

As you say, the people who are responsible may not be neoliberals.

My problem with your post is, if your thesis is true, then what? What happens if I pass the test? The people who create and implement those policies are only a small subset of the people who empowered them, and those people are one step further removed from policy formation.

If you are attempting to blame a specific set of people for a broad range of social ills then I would say the validity of your characterization speaks for itself. Let me guess, you are not a neo-liberal?

edit: the more likely common denominator for the problems you cite is the cause of poverty, which is the mal-distribution of resources.

No, it's not only an ideology. It's a set of real policies enacted by real people — Mikie

No doubt there are policies that could be described as neo-liberal in character. That doesn't mean they are being controlled by some underlying neo-liberal agenda. Rather people in various roles with various leanings are making certain types of decisions. One doesn't sign up to be a neo-liberal. It's a bucket term being used by people who aren't neo-liberals as a target for invective.

Both issues are a direct result of neoliberalism. — Mikie

Neoliberalism is, at best, an ideology. Ideologies in and of themselves do nothing. Even if some people claim to embrace an ideology, that does not mean that the things they do are caused by that ideology. In fact, ideologies often are nothing more than attempts to rationalize or legitimize what people want to do for altogether different reasons or motivations.

The same can be said even of much more concrete entities, like for example, a conservative party. A specific conservative party has an actual concrete extension. But that doesn't mean that the members of that party are extensions of the conservative ideology. So even if I claim, the phenomenon of anomie (which is what you are describing and which was studied extensively by Durkheim at the turn of the last century), even if I claim that is actually a product of the ever-increasing class and wealth gap caused by the ongoing controlling influences exerted by conservative governance, this likewise is a vast oversimplification of the true causes of social conditions.

A minor addendum from my currently reading. Engels take on Hegel's famous observation "All that is real is rational and all that is rational is real." Engels interprets: "not everything that exists is without exception, real. The attribute of reality belongs only to that which is at the same time necessary."

So while this moves in the other direction from my OP, it does offer the rather intriguing prospect of separating the concepts of existence and reality. Maybe I should have said, "the merely extant"? :chin:

↪RogueAI Bartricks was, in practice, a 'solipsist' and I'm getting 'solipsist' vibes from Zettel. — 180 Proof

I'm wondering if solipsism is a choice or an inevitability for some people....

We cannot know everything, so at some point in our quest for knowledge we will reach a point in which we will have to use that which we know to talk about that which we don't, and to talk about ways to explore that which we don't know. In my opinion, that's metaphysics; a tool formed from verified knowledge to probe the unknown. — Daniel

This coincides perfectly with my position. :)

It's one thing to state an unsupported sentiment as "I believe...", but quite another thing to state an unsupported sentiment as "we know...". The former may be a truth, the latter is a falsity. — Metaphysician Undercover

:clap:
My pet peeve. Consolation, that proclamations of authority generally belie the opposite.