LIKE. I like Dave's comments but I reply to make sure that Nick sees them.
----------------------------------- Frank Wimberly My memoir: https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly My scientific publications: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2 Phone (505) 670-9918 On Wed, Dec 11, 2019, 2:59 AM Prof David West <profw...@fastmail.fm> wrote: > > Last summer I spoke with God. The effects were profound and obvious to > all. Many of the effects, measured with MRI and encephalographic devices, > were quantifiable. I spoke of my experience, as best as I could, > recognizing that whatever words I used told but part of the story. Other's > experience of me changed as well - they uniformly and consistently > experience me, not as the fun loving drunken whoring party guy, but only as > the pious jackass that was the inevitable and most profound effect of my > experience. > > God is therefore real and extant? > > But wait ... > > I did not really speak with God. That word and all the other words, and > the framing of the effects, piety replacing ribaldry, came after the fact, > a post hoc rationalization/interpretation/articulation of "something." And, > of course, the form of all those words and effects is but an artifact of > the culture (and maybe the Jungian collective unconscious) within which I > was raised. > > There was "An Experience;" but even that label, those two words, is > false-to-fact. What "Was" had no bounds, in time or space and, in fact > continues (and predated) the implied bounded context inherent in the > meaning of 'an experience'. There is an implied relation between the > "Experience" and an ego, an "I:" 1) the "Experience" was apart from "I," 2) > "I" was part of the "Experience," 3) "I" perceived/sensed the > "Experience." None of these implied relations are accurate or complete, or > even differentiable from each other. > > There was a Real, Existing, Thing. "It" was effectual; in that patterns of > brain waves and detectable activity in different parts of the brain before > and after "It" are measurable and comparable. Behavior and experience — > from the "inside" — was altered dramatically, in the sense of the "color," > the filtering lens, the 'fit" of interpretations of individual experiences > is dramatically altered. Experience — of others on the "outside" — is > altered as well, although often not expressible beyond, "there's something > different about you, can't put my finger on it, but ... " > > Not only was the "Thing" effectual, it is, within statistical limits, > possible to predict the nature and degree of the effects that ensue from > "Thing-Occurrence." Moreover, it is possible to establish an "experimental > context" whereby others can "experience" the "Thing" and thereby confirm > the prediction of effects. > > "Thing-Occurrence" ---> partially predictable, measurable (sometimes > quantifiable) effects ---> "Thing is Real/Existing? > > Despite being, in every way ineffable — in that no words capture its > totality and any words used, in any naturally occurring human language, are > false-to-fact. > > ???? > > dave west > > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2019, at 6:10 AM, Eric Charles wrote: > > Ok.... I'm going to try to do a better take on the "ineffable" issue. I > want to start by admitting that there is some sense in which ANYTHING I > want to describe is never fully described by the words I use, in some > reasonable use of the word "fully." If I see a turtle, and I tell you that > I saw a turtle, I haven't provided you with a full description of exactly > what the experience was like. So, I'm willing to admit that... but I'm not > convinced there is anything deeper than that about Nick's inability to > express his "feelings" to his granddaughter... and with that out of the way > I will return to what I think is the broader issue. > > Real / existing things have effects. That is what it is to be real / to > exist. If someone wants to talk about something that exists but have no > effects, they are wandering down an rabbit hole with no bottom, and might > as well be talking about noiseless sounds or blue-less blue. > > The pragmatic maxim tells us: " Consider what effects... we conceive the > object of our conception to have. Then, our conception of these effects is > the whole of our conception of the object." So anything we conceive of > is, in some sense, a cluster of effects, and so everything "real" is *in > principle* conceivable. And to the extent anything can be expressed > adequately - whether by words or any other means of expression - concepts > can be expressed, and so anything real can be expressed. > > However, i'm not sure the effability is really the important part. The > bigger question was about epistemology and ontology. But the pragmatic > maxim covers that as well. Things that have effects are *in principle* we > may presume there are many, many effects that we don't yet have the means > to detect, but anything that has effects could, under some circumstances, > be detectable. So the limits of what *is* are the same as the limits of > what can in principle be known. Postulation of things that are existing but > which can't, under any circumstances, be known is internally contradictory. > > Was that a better reply? It felt more thorough at least... > > > > > > > ----------- > Eric P. Charles, Ph.D. > Department of Justice - Personnel Psychologist > American University - Adjunct Instructor > > <echar...@american.edu> > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 7:36 PM uǝlƃ ☣ <geprope...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I intend to respond to both Nick's and EricC's comments about "faith in > convergence" at some point. But I've been caught up in other things. So, in > the meantime, ... > > "Irony and Outrage," part 2: Why Colbert got serious — and why Donald > Trump isn't funny > > https://www.salon.com/2019/12/08/irony-and-outrage-part-2-why-colbert-got-serious-and-why-donald-trump-isnt-funny/ > > There are 2 interesting tangents touching this thread: > > 1) Re: ineffability -- "But also that the mere logic of the humorous > juxtaposition eludes him — the notion that you do not issue the argument, > you create a juxtaposition that invites the audience to issue an argument." > > I'll argue that the content of a (good) joke is *ineffable*. The whole > purpose of the joke teller is to communicate something without actually > *saying* it. If you explain a joke, it breaks the joke. > > And 2) Re: limits to epistemology limiting ontology -- "That, to me, is > illustrative of that broader point I try to make about how when a threat is > salient to you, it becomes hard to enter the state of play, ..." > > I *would* argue that pluralists will be more able to enter the "state of > play" Goldthwaite describes (and I've described on this list a number of > times as variations of "suspension of disbelief", "empathetic listening", > and being willing to play games others set up) than monists. I think > monists should TEND to be more committed to their way of thinking than > pluralists ... more willing to believe their own or others' brain farts. At > least in my case, being a pluralist means, in part, that I refuse to > *commit* to ontological assertions of any kind. I'll play with various > types of monism just as readily as I'll play with 3-tupleisms ... or > 17-tupleisms. I think that's what makes me a simulant of passing > competence. You just need to tell me *what* -ism you want to simulate. > > As such, it seems that maybe Dave's got the cart before the horse. It's > the failure of ontology that's mandating voids in epistemology. We should > work toward robust *ways of knowing* and loosen up a bit on whatever it is > we think we know. I say "would argue" of course because, being totally > ignorant of philosophy, I'm probably just confused about everything. > > On 12/10/19 12:43 PM, Prof David West wrote: > > Both your anecdotes support, my assertion that lots of things and lots > of experiences are ineffable. This does not mean they are not "expressible" > nor "communicable, merely that they cannot be expressed with words nor > communicated using words. > > > > Words fail! Indeed! > > > > Entire languages fail. Entire epistemological philosophies fail. > > > > You "rendered" the ineffable to your grand-daughter, but you did NOT > render them to me with words. You you words to circumscribe and speak about > an experience of a kind that you believe I might have first hand, equally > ineffable, experience of and that your indirect words would move me to make > a connection. At best, your words, your language, worked like a game of > Charades or Pictionary as a means of limning the space wherein I might find > my own experience of like kind. > > > > A "mystic" engages an experience that is ineffable, and then utters > thousands, book volumes worth, of words attempting to limn a space wherein > you too might engage the same experience — or, if an optimist, might awaken > in you a recognition of what you have already experienced. More Charades > and Pictionary — spewing forth words ABOUT the experience; never > expressing, in words or language, the experience itself. > > > > At least some ineffable experiences can be expressed directly using a > language of voltages and wave forms, (Neurotheology), but not words or > mathematical symbols or such-based languages. > > > > The question remains: why does a failure of epistemology mandate voids > in ontology? > > > > I love your etymological daffiness, I share it. > > > > The definitions cited reflect an arrogance of the "enlightened" in the > notion "too great for words." A lot of mystics make this, what I believe to > be, error, attempting to grant an ontological status of REAL that does not > follow from the simple fact that it cannot be expressed in words. > > > > And another sidenote — something might be "ineffable" simply because you > are not allowed to use a word, ala Carlin's seven dirty words, or the > "N-Word" or the "C-Word." > > -- > ☣ uǝlƃ > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC> > http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove