Substance/System/Structure

[cantdog]

Cantdog said and I quote, precisely: "That is exactly what any attempt--any attempt at all-- to develop a rational absolute for anything--for morality, for ethics, for literally anything human-- is doing. It is building a structure of reason and then shoehorning the human into the box. That's why Kant's esthetics fail. That's why Rand fails. That's why any derived morality from a rational premise will fail..."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now you may grant Cant, the ability to fully critique Immanuel Kant and Ayn Rand to a point of saying their systems, 'fail', but I do not.

Secondly, it would take one hell of an intellectual to back up a statement such as, "any derived morality from a rational premise will fail..." I don't think Cantdog has the right stuff for such an endeavor.

But best of all, making the absolute statement: ""That is exactly what any attempt--any attempt at all-- to develop a rational absolute for anything--..." making that absolute statement, while all the time decrying that there are no absolute statements of any kind....is really hillarious....


U dun bin hoisted by ur own Petard, Cant...retire...

amicus....

You have quoted precisely, sir, because you use cut and paste. But as we see, you have understood imprecisely, and you are commenting on something no one said.

Try again.

 

[amicus]

Cant, you are pedalling snake oil, I don't expect you to admit it. These posts are not for you but for any gullible enough to fork over a buck for a pint.

amicus....

 

[cantdog]

Whatever, amicus. Speak to the point or lay off, please.

 

[cantdog]

~~~~~~~~~~~

That is worth quoting and posting again as it exemplifies the fuzzy headed thinking that many have fallen heir to.

heir to? Is my thinking a legacy from something?

KUMBAYAAAA!

Absolute and utter bullshit, Cantdog.

Let's skip this part. It's just crap.

There is not and never was a mind/body dichotomy, wherein man is pulled by different forces.

Godd for you. No one mentioned an mind/body dichotomy. No one. You can be most obscure, kid, when you argue against these imaginary opponents.

A healthy human mind, given normative stimulation and normative nurturing, learns and matures in one way and one way only. The gathering of information by sensory input, the collection and collation of that information in an epistemologically identical way by each human being; the creation of concepts and wider concepts forming a non contradictory basis of knowledge.

Emotions, feelings, exist as a result of past experiences and are automatic responses to earlier made decisions. Although you may not recognize the path, any emotion you feel was rationally and logically predetermined by the events of your life and how you dealt with that information.

Oh dear. Now this is an ignorant set of taradiddles.

"...start talking to other human beings about why they make their choices, and how..."

That is the worst and silliest advice you could ever give anyone! Go ask everyone else how you should feel about the events of your life and what you think? Christ on a freakin crutch...the lame leading the blind....


gads....


amicus..

Well, kid, your ivory tower ideas that all emotions derive from reason have no basis in the real. How do I know this? By asking people. By paying attention to the workings of my own mind and those with whom I have contact. Not one of them derives all their emotons from reason.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Well, Past_perfect, I like your topic, but it's not going to resolve the chair-throwing that goes on among these gentlemen
I do wish I read German, however!

 

[cantdog]

Well, Past_perfect, I like your topic, but it's not going to resolve the chair-throwing that goes on among these gentlemen
I do wish I read German, however!

The chair throwing is a perfect refutation of amicus's position. He hollers at us in the name of Reason. He claims to be rational, but he talks sheer emotion. It's unintended irony.

 

[past_perfect]

Suffice it to say, I thought I smelled a teleological discussion and lo and behold, it is just that.

Please note the bold and underlined portions...they provide, I think, an insight to the real intent of those who wish to deny that reason is the defining characteristic of homo sapiens, man, the rational animal.

Now I don't know the quoted poster, past_perfect, from Adam, as I have also sought no personal knowledge of the coterie of 'usual suspects', as I have named all the non absolute relativists that portend they are, 'absolutely right' in their pronouncements that nothing is absolute...

It is not a 'personal' response that I always offer, rather a content oriented one, that of always defending reason and logic against those who so lightly dismiss it out of hand.

There also is, and has been, througout my experience, a buzzing around the ears of the young hotheads, rebelling against established order, rather as an universal imperative of the young man against the father...

There is also the pathos of the German situation, because logic and reason absent universal morality, provided the most efficient method of disposing of undesireable racial and ethnic traits in quite the same way good ole Joe Stalin did in Siberia and the Gulags. And because that 'logic', minus humanity, created such chaos and inhumanity, German apoligists in all fields are lined up to reject reason and rationality in favor of....oh, yes...the human condition....the socialization or pastuerization or the homogenation through homogeneity, of mankind to the lowest common denominator.

Those of you who read and lurk here, might share the amusement with me as from one week to the next, we have an obscure mathematician held up as a beacon of understanding, and now, an even more obscure German philosopher who is not even widely translated into English.

These brilliant young minds and some not so young...sighs...would they only apply that intellect to 5,000 years of human history that struggled to provide a rational basic for thought instead of trying to disprove that the earth is round, would be so much nicer.


amicus...

I am not quite sure where you are coming from but I can see that perhaps it is inefficient to allude to a geneology of philosphers, rather than elaborate of who was influencing whom. In European philosphy you cannot provide original work without acknowledging your predecessors, integrating, extemporating and building on what has already been thought through. It is a logical progression, and if you attempt to provide a new angle or addition, you'd first have to prove beyond doubt that that is really necessary. I find it rather amusing that most rational apologetics base their defenses on Kant, who was very aware of the limitations of his own models - as well as Bertrand Russell who did provide the first coherent model of logic which is still widely in use.

It is not about rejecting reason - especially not Rombach - it is about providing adequate tools to describe, analyse and approach phenomena that cannot accurately be encompassed by something like a closed system. If you can refute any of the defintions and conclusions provided here based on rational thought rather than inappropriate generalisations and putting people into little boxes, please do. All I can gather from your musings so far, is that you are afraid of not being able to do that - but that is just my impression and I might be wrong.

Btw the Spanish wikipedia entry leaves lots to be desired - as well as the German for that matter.

The interesting development seems to be that other disciplines of science are converging on the same conclusions from entirely different angles. But that has been exemplified by others here already.

I wish I could elaborate a bit more, but I have to get ready for work - so I will continue later in the afternoon.

 

[Oblimo]

Excellent observations, everyone, but let us cultivate our porn.

It's unintended irony.

I can't believe it's unintentional. His posts are some of most illucid forum trollings I've ever read. One simply cannot be that obtuse and tangential by accident.

Entropy is the opposite of everything.

Nah. Entropy is the opposite of information.

 

[cantdog]

Oblimo, I used to think of him as a calculating troll of the board, too, but then I read in his, um, writings. He's that obtuse. I do wish people would stop talking to him altogether, you'd save yourselves some Sisyphean effort that way.

And his observations are almost never 'excellent.'

 

[past_perfect]

[/I]

Saul and Rombach, two idiots that make up their own words and terms and don't define them...

Can't speak for Saul, since I haven't read him yet, but Rombach is defining each and every term and word he introduces painstakingly. Did you actually read Kant? He did nothing else by the way. Making up his own methods, words and terms. I met Rombach only once at a Kant symposium of all places. I've seen, read and heard a lot of idiots during my lifetime, Rombach wasn't amongst them.

[/I]A healthy human mind, given normative stimulation and normative nurturing, learns and matures in one way and one way only. The gathering of information by sensory input, the collection and collation of that information in an epistemologically identical way by each human being; the creation of concepts and wider concepts forming a non contradictory basis of knowledge.

Emotions, feelings, exist as a result of past experiences and are automatic responses to earlier made decisions. Although you may not recognize the path, any emotion you feel was rationally and logically predetermined by the events of your life and how you dealt with that information....

This is priceless. If you haven't copied it from a psychology book of the fifties, where you can find similar gems of ageless wisdom, I'd suggest you submit it to "Psychology Today" - and please feel free to share their response with the community here.

 

[amicus]

"Don't it always seem to go...that you don't know what you've got til it's gone?"

Gotta love Joni Mitchell...those lyrics came to mind as I was considering a response to the latest trend on this thread.

Amusing, to me, to be called obtuse and trollish when the utmost obfuscation has been attempted by the usual suspects, (add Oblimo).

My philosophy and expression of it, is simple to the extreme, open, clear and easily understood by all.

Simply stated it is that reality exists, it is what it is and that the mind of man can perceive and conceive that reality in absolute terms.

As simple as that statement and that philosophy is, it has taken the entire history of mankind to arrive at, with many pitfalls and blind faith alleyways and side tracks along the way.

For the lurker, who reads but does not comment; and those who have me on ignore, but read anyway, recall if you will, those who attempt to obscure and obfuscate by introducing exotic examples of those in the past who have challenged the concepts of objective reality and the efficacy of the mind of man.

It is not I who brings in 'string theory' or Heisenberg' and a host of 'chaos' and 'uncertainty' principles and surely not I who introduced the latest obscure German Philosopher who sings praises to ignorance.

A frightened scurrying effort by a host of detractors who fear the stark reality of existence and wish to find subterfuge in obfuscation, as it that helps.

We have been through a century and more of that, with the Logical Positivists and the Existentialists, whose only home is a tenured classroom, for they have no other place to nest.

The existence long battle between good and evil has moved center stage to an area away from faith and belief and even doubt and without those props to give sustenance to debate, our hairy intellectuals still refuse to face reality with open eyes and minds.

It has become the quest of 'rational' man to seek to understand the origin of the natural universe, sans the tripe of religion and adulterated philosophy.

On the same hand, the quest of 'rational' man, is to seek the true nature, of homo sapiens, what are we really...what does, 'rational animal' really mean, from whence cameth and where doth it go?

All legitimate questions demanding, as does the physical universe, rational, logical answers with fact and reason as a base.

Thoughts and emotions, one need not fabricate new words or phrases to deal with the issues emmanating from the mind, the studies have been done for the better part of a century, all you need do is make yourself cognizant of them.

It is a sadness to me, personally, to see many worthy minds sink into the morass of hatred of mankind and the history of mankind and the nature of mankind, when indeed, that is our heritage. Instead of excoriating the violence of man, comprehend it, understand that it was only through that aggression and violence that man survived at all.

It is that quest for knowledge that drove mankind from Africa to populate the entire globe and reach into outer space. Cherish that violent and aggressive nature of man and try to build on it as we face the future.

And the key to all that is recognizing that the human mind is capable of many things, many of which we do not yet even suspect. Rather than dwell on the past, acknowledge the present, as it is, and plan for the future where the nature of more and more men can be set free to achieve and accomplish even greater things than have gone before.

Instead, those few bright minds that challenge and berate my efforts, are mired in a bog of doubt and uncertainty and can only whine and criticize.

amicus...

 

[amicus]

Past_Perfect said in part: "...This is priceless. If you haven't copied it from a psychology book of the fifties, where you can find similar gems of ageless wisdom, I'd suggest you submit it to "Psychology Today" - and please feel free to share their response with the community here..."

~~~~~~~~~~~

I suppose that was intended as an insult, implying that knowledge gained in the 50's was obsolete and irrelevant but then of course, you and others hold high examples of the 20's and 30's of excellence in thought. Although Rombach's work was actually somewhat later than that.

And no, it wasn't copied and no, I would not consider submitting anything to Psychology Today. That magazine and indeed the entire field of psychology and psychiatry, have done just what Rombach and Saul and you recommended, the DMV IV, I think, departed from reality in the early 70's and went out and asked what the nature of the human mind was from a variety of sources.

As if knowledge is gained from concensus. Well, they certainly are in 'equilibrium', the shrinks and the drug companies and the insurance companies and the pansy's in government all agree, the 'human condition' can only be dealt with by massive ingestion of mind altering drugs.

Guess you got what you want after all. An entire generation avoiding reality, singing Kumbaya around a video screen, high as hell on everything and not so anxiously waiting to die.

And confused and lonely as they have also questioned even their gender.

Congratulations!

amicus...

 

[gauchecritic]

And confused and lonely as they have also questioned even their gender.

amicus...

Oops. Is this the nitty gritty?

 

[past_perfect]

When you do that, you have a system like that of John Ralston Saul, and also, evidently, of Rombach. The two sound like images of one another, which is very much a confirmation of both. Saul describes a dynamic system of equilibrium much like Rombach's. He (Saul) has six factors, one of which reason, working dynamically in every condition. On Equilibrium is the book. Needless to say, I recommend it. So does Rob.

But Saul is going to be difficult, distasteful, to rationalists. For one thing, he refuses to define, in a close way, every last key term in the book. He tells you what he means, so that you can get it, but his definitions are useless for a starting point for close reasoned analysis. It is on purpose, of course, that he has done this, and the book is so wonderfully slippery! Great stuff.

I will read up on that, sounds fascinating. My little Voltaire blunder ( ) was due to fact that rather than following the link rgraham provided, I tried to recall whether anything I read by Voltaire was worth re-reading or expanding.... I am sure that won't be my last one.

Apart from that, I can see that it could work without precise definitions as well, because that would mean it is instrumental to induce the process they both seem to describe. Besides, speaking from my own personal experience, nothing is more tedious than working backwards and rolling out definitions once you intuited the validity of a concept.

 

[past_perfect]

"Don't it always seem to go...that you don't know what you've got til it's gone?"

Gotta love Joni Mitchell...those lyrics came to mind as I was considering a response to the latest trend on this thread.

Amusing, to me, to be called obtuse and trollish when the utmost obfuscation has been attempted by the usual suspects, (add Oblimo).

My philosophy and expression of it, is simple to the extreme, open, clear and easily understood by all.

Simply stated it is that reality exists, it is what it is and that the mind of man can perceive and conceive that reality in absolute terms.

As simple as that statement and that philosophy is, it has taken the entire history of mankind to arrive at, with many pitfalls and blind faith alleyways and side tracks along the way.

For the lurker, who reads but does not comment; and those who have me on ignore, but read anyway, recall if you will, those who attempt to obscure and obfuscate by introducing exotic examples of those in the past who have challenged the concepts of objective reality and the efficacy of the mind of man.

It is not I who brings in 'string theory' or Heisenberg' and a host of 'chaos' and 'uncertainty' principles and surely not I who introduced the latest obscure German Philosopher who sings praises to ignorance.

A frightened scurrying effort by a host of detractors who fear the stark reality of existence and wish to find subterfuge in obfuscation, as it that helps.

We have been through a century and more of that, with the Logical Positivists and the Existentialists, whose only home is a tenured classroom, for they have no other place to nest.

The existence long battle between good and evil has moved center stage to an area away from faith and belief and even doubt and without those props to give sustenance to debate, our hairy intellectuals still refuse to face reality with open eyes and minds.

It has become the quest of 'rational' man to seek to understand the origin of the natural universe, sans the tripe of religion and adulterated philosophy.

On the same hand, the quest of 'rational' man, is to seek the true nature, of homo sapiens, what are we really...what does, 'rational animal' really mean, from whence cameth and where doth it go?

All legitimate questions demanding, as does the physical universe, rational, logical answers with fact and reason as a base.

Thoughts and emotions, one need not fabricate new words or phrases to deal with the issues emmanating from the mind, the studies have been done for the better part of a century, all you need do is make yourself cognizant of them.

It is a sadness to me, personally, to see many worthy minds sink into the morass of hatred of mankind and the history of mankind and the nature of mankind, when indeed, that is our heritage. Instead of excoriating the violence of man, comprehend it, understand that it was only through that aggression and violence that man survived at all.

It is that quest for knowledge that drove mankind from Africa to populate the entire globe and reach into outer space. Cherish that violent and aggressive nature of man and try to build on it as we face the future.

And the key to all that is recognizing that the human mind is capable of many things, many of which we do not yet even suspect. Rather than dwell on the past, acknowledge the present, as it is, and plan for the future where the nature of more and more men can be set free to achieve and accomplish even greater things than have gone before.

Instead, those few bright minds that challenge and berate my efforts, are mired in a bog of doubt and uncertainty and can only whine and criticize.

amicus...

I am not trying to invalidate your concerns, which I think are valid to a certain extent - but do not confuse relativism and dynamics with nihilism.

It does not mean you have to reduce human nature to a theoretical construct you personally can live with, no matter whether all empirical data, all deductive reasoning and complex models of reality contradict it.

Astronomy was pretty happy with Kepler's models, until they had finer instruments to measure variances which couldn't be accounted for with his equations. It took a genius like Einstein to find a model to fit the new relevant data (and even that is being revised as we speak). That is called progress - older models of reality are perhaps easier to digest, because they work with certainties - but not even the most backward scientist would ever claim that he actually has the model of their particular field that will stand the test of time, they are cautious enough now to say: it fits the data available now - read Karl Popper.

 

[rgraham666]

Saul often hearkens back to the Enlightenment. And as he points out, the philosophers of that time spent a great deal of time in defining words.

But not in pursuit of 'truth', but to be in tune with reality. They weren't concerned with being right but with being good.

This is an important distinction, one that many people miss.

 

[past_perfect]

Saul often hearkens back to the Enlightenment. And as he points out, the philosophers of that time spent a great deal of time in defining words.

But not in pursuit of 'truth', but to be in tune with reality. They weren't concerned with being right but with being good.

This is an important distinction, one that many people miss.

That's why I assumed it would work without the definitions - since that is the approach of Zen and other loftier philosophies of the East. Rombach for instance was in constant fruitful dialogue with Suzuki.

 

[NoJo]

This is the part of philosophy that I did really bad at university, because it reminded me of the sort of conversations you have when you've smoked too much dope, where you have all these profound insights which are neither profound nor insightful.

 

[amicus]

Past_Perfect....I accept your last post as an olive branch of sorts and will attempt to reply in like manner.

I too, accept the necessity of questioning the continuing validity of any concept, however well esconsced in history and science. Poor Pluto is an example of that, having just recently lost it's planetary significance.

You said, in part: "It does not mean you have to reduce human nature to a theoretical construct you personally can live with, no matter whether all empirical data, all deductive reasoning and complex models of reality contradict it..."

First of all, it is not my 'personal' ethos that determines truth and fact, and secondly, 'non contradictory' is a key element in any construct that any rational mind should endeavor to encompass.

On the wider aspect, I think it is intellectually necessary, for man in general, to reduce all queries of existence into a non contradictory theory that can be conceptualized and abstracted and stored in a proper place in the mind.

(Just a lay approach at presenting epistemology) In other words, before the human mind can rest at ease and use information gained as a stepping stone to a wider concept, the previous concept must be tucked away, nice and secure in a cognitive way that permits that information to be used without internal errors.

So, by definition, it becomes an intellectual, an epistemological necessity, to reduce and define what we have learned about the workings of the human mind.

Scientists and other thinkers have been studying that emotive side of humanity for quite a few centuries now and will continue to do so for all the time ahead of us.

On earlier threads, emotions and feelings were thought to come from God, by some, innate, by others and by some thought to be totally random with no connection to anything.

Ayn Rand postulated and I agree, that emotions can be understood; that they have an origin and a cause and effect, quite like any other phenomenon in both nature and man.

Thanks for the reply...perhaps we will have more fruitful discussions in the future...


amicus...

 

[past_perfect]

On the wider aspect, I think it is intellectually necessary, for man in general, to reduce all queries of existence into a non contradictory theory that can be conceptualized and abstracted and stored in a proper place in the mind.

(Just a lay approach at presenting epistemology) In other words, before the human mind can rest at ease and use information gained as a stepping stone to a wider concept, the previous concept must be tucked away, nice and secure in a cognitive way that permits that information to be used without internal errors.

So, by definition, it becomes an intellectual, an epistemological necessity, to reduce and define what we have learned about the workings of the human mind.

Scientists and other thinkers have been studying that emotive side of humanity for quite a few centuries now and will continue to do so for all the time ahead of us.

On earlier threads, emotions and feelings were thought to come from God, by some, innate, by others and by some thought to be totally random with no connection to anything.

Ayn Rand postulated and I agree, that emotions can be understood; that they have an origin and a cause and effect, quite like any other phenomenon in both nature and man.

Thanks for the reply...perhaps we will have more fruitful discussions in the future...


amicus...

Well, I have no problem accepting that you try to grasp reality with the best of all intentions and the models and methods you deem fit for that task. That, after all, is what we all do. However, I hope I made clear that and why I think that the models you are using are inadequate for this undertaking.

So this is where we will diverge. Rombach's model is something which can (and has been) tested for it's applicability - if it contradicts knowledge we have accumulated thus far, if it has logical flaws, if there are areas where it is simply insufficient, it will be discovered, I have no doubt of that.

However, for the time being it looks like it can accomodate a lot more than earlier models could. To assume that it is the final step in the evolution of philosophy would be preposterous though - he is providing tools and methods, that do seem to work very well for a lot of complex problems.

I myself come from a slightly different angle, but that doesn't matter, as it doesn't contradict his views.

So far, I have only introduced the basis for his model - and applied it to one concrete problem at hand. He himself has come up with much more than that, and many of his ideas may become much clearer if I provide more examples. I just wanted to make sure that the distinction between substance/system/structure is understood before I progress from here. In other words - I was just trying to ease you in, because the more fascinating aspects of his progressions all rest on this underlying model but take it way further into the loftier heights of ponderability and experience.

So basically I will have to translate, approximate and exemplify a bit more - thus far, this was the easy bit. So I hope you will all bear with me and appreciate that the accuracy I am trying to achieve in lieu of having something I can simply copy and paste or type from a written template will take a fair amount of time - in other words I will attempt to feed you small, digestible morsels of his theories and findings.

 

[cantdog]

I haven't done any reading in German for almost twenty years, but I am taking steps to find Rombach. Thanks for the heads up.

 

[cantdog]

"...start talking to other human beings about why they make their choices, and how..."

That is the worst and silliest advice you could ever give anyone! Go ask everyone else how you should feel about the events of your life and what you think? Christ on a freakin crutch...the lame leading the blind....


gads....


amicus..

Your argument will not convince him, past_perfect, because he clearly has no respect for the empirical. His ideas must come from the mind in isolation from any empirical check. To check them against reality is the worst advice anyone could give.

 

[past_perfect]

Your argument will not convince him, past_perfect, because he clearly has no respect for the empirical. His ideas must come from the mind in isolation from any empirical check. To check them against reality is the worst advice anyone could give.

I was pretty sure that we would be on the same wavelength though, when I read the thread Roxanne linked to at the pope discussion. I will do some shopping tomorrow, as I am really curious about Saul and his approach.

I see your point though, I have had these discussions in many different forms before.

If I had the time (and I think this is interesting enough to allot some to that) I wouldn't mind translating salient passages out of Rombach's main works - a good starting point is "Substanz, System, Struktur" - copyright issues aside - my personal ethics wouldn't hinder me there, especially not since it would appear that a porn board provides relative safety here...

 

[CharleyH]

Sighs....another tangential and ill disguised attack upon reason and rationality and the concept of 'absolutes' or axiomatics in epistemology.

I rather suspect Germanic philosophy for several reasons, it is, in my experience and reading, dark and gloomy and I suspect like other Northern European ethnic endeavors is heavily tainted by the environment of the far north.

I do not have time this morning to give this piece proper due, but did not want to leave it hanging without comment.

I might suggest that when one admits up front that his philosophy begins by 'making up words', that it is a suspect philosophy to begin with as a study of the roots of human language is key in comprehending the evolution of human thought.

amicus...

It may be a bit static and well ... I could point out some argumentative problems from many POVs (semiotics, philosophy, etc), but there are many interesting thoughts in his post, Amicus - it caught your attention, afterall I see there are more posts, so I am interested in reading before commenting.

 

[CharleyH]

Extremely interesting and well put Past.

Being one of the 'usual suspects' I'm expecting to be completely ignored on the topic, however:

I was just reading an article this morning about Lorenz, modelling, the weather and chaos. Mathematical modelling it seems is mostly approximation due to the complexity of processes. And because of the number of complex interactive processes required to model 'the weather' it turns out that (as we always knew) weather is unpredictable.

An aside: Too funny. I was just telling someone or reading this morning about Lorenz and about agression as unpredictable. LOL. Cool - Reading more now. Don't want to comment, yet.