European Tribune - Community, Politics & Progress.

break through vs break down

by emilmoller
Sat Nov 8th, 2008 at 10:40:37 AM EST

inspiration can also be found on the darker side

In previous postings efforts have been made to invite readers to make next steps, beyond the rational.

Reason is that a required system change in the chaotic environment we find ourselves in invites us to do this. Or put differently: demands this from us, to the extend that we seek effective inroads into relieving suffering beyond what we can enact in our own personal lives.

Emphasis has been on evoking curiosity, finding inspiration for situating the rational / academic perspective and finding inroads to enacting a system change.

This turns out be rather ineffective.

Perhaps a focus on the perspective how societies who did't live up to the challenges at hand fared, sets some wheels in motion, as indicated above.

See Jared Daimond on TED:

Some indicators regarding what JD points out:

. Home
. About
. Contact
. New User Guide
. FAQ
. ET Editorial Guidelines
. Search
. Search (Google)

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

break through vs break down | 21 comments (21 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: break through vs break down (none / 1)

In previous postings efforts have been made to invite readers to make next steps, beyond the rational.

This turns out be rather ineffective.

That would be because the first sentence has no meaning I can think of without wandering off into religion. What does "beyond the rational" mean? In what frame are you working that "rational" is a place you can go "beyond"?

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Sun Nov 9th, 2008 at 09:53:11 AM EST

Re: break through vs break down (none / 0)

Jared Diamond is, as always, good value. All the stuff Diamond talks about is covered in Collapse, though, so those who have that book can re-read the chapters on Greenland and Easter Island and the final chapter.

I like Naomi Klein's book, and her talk is not half bad either. But never quite realised her accent was quite that... grating on the ears.

The third clip is a bit over-the-top in some places, but for all that it's not bad.

The last two didn't do much for me.

- Jake

"Terraforming your own planet to make it uninhabitable hardly counts as epic win." - ThatBritGuy

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Nov 9th, 2008 at 02:27:00 PM EST

Re: break through vs break down (4.00 / 2)

Reason is a mental tool. Combined with critical observation and the formulation of testable hypotheses it has enabled us to partially free ourselves from arbitrary, unhelpful beliefs and practices and to understand our world based on positive knowledge gained through the application of scientific methods which have reason at their core. Given that, few are willing to repudiate reason or abandon reason.

However, methods must suit the subject at hand. The success of a method in one application or even in a whole range of applications does not mean that that method is applicable to all areas of inquiry. But that does not mean we have to abandon reason, only that we might have to apply it differently. Nor does it mean that reason has to be or can be our only guide.

Reason is instrumental in nature. It is the instrument for the satisfaction of our perceived needs and for the gratification of our desires. The importance of these purposes to individual and group survival over the last half billion years has somehow led to the self conscious awareness in which we revel. However it is not clear that this reasoning, self conscious awareness confers long term survival benefits as compared to, for instance, ants and cockroaches, which, given the manner in which humans organize and direct our energies through societies, are likely to outlast us. That could well make us and our vaunted intellect and reason the worst joke evolution ever produced.

I do not know that reason alone can save us from such an end. I suspect that it cannot. We must much more carefully examine the role of emotion and desire in the operation of reason and better learn to control how we organize and direct the activities of our societies. This involves judgment, foresight and greater awareness of the impact of our activities on the whole earth.

We are aware of these problems, especially on ET. The challenge is to find better ways to control and organize our activities. Abandoning reason is unlikely to help, but transcending limitations of the current ways in which reason is applied may well be a significant part of our salvation as a species. Our secular salvation may depend on developing and generalizing an improved consciousness that better employs reason in conjunction with our other faculties.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer at eurotrib.com) on Mon Nov 10th, 2008 at 12:42:24 AM EST

Re: break through vs break down (none / 1)

I suspect that many here would be more receptive to these ideas if they were displayed with a little more... sense of perspective, I guess is the best way to phrase it.

A good example is the statement that science and reason have limitations... well, duh, that's only been generally accepted in the scientific community since before I was born.

For that reason, making such a statement raises a couple of red flags in the minds of some people - myself included:

First, it simply reads very much like a straw man designed to insinuate that critics subscribe to a ridiculous caricature of science that belongs more with Francis Bacon than with any scientist alive today.
Second, making trivial statements as if they were new insights usually has the effect of exaggerating their importance.
Third, statements to such effect is probably the most popular opening gambit and fallback position of quacks, frauds and fruitcakes of various persuasions.

Yes, there are things science cannot tell us - who to love, how to govern, and so on and so forth. But this should not be construed as a license to dismiss science and replace it with various vague superstitions in the cases where it does have something to tell us - medicine, physics, biology, (arguably) economics and so on and so forth.

Further, even though science cannot directly speak to something like ethics, most ethical systems are based on assumptions and narratives that are open to scientific scrutiny.

I guess my point is that I think that this kind of discussion would benefit less from a greater awareness of the (by and large well appreciated) limitations of science and reason, and benefit rather more from a greater appreciation of the limitations of the limitations of science and reason...

- Jake

"Terraforming your own planet to make it uninhabitable hardly counts as epic win." - ThatBritGuy

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Nov 10th, 2008 at 04:06:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: break through vs break down (none / 1)

Though I'm sure I'm not the first to point out that the RHS of thefourth identity is clearly

|heart 0|
|0 heart|

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Nov 10th, 2008 at 04:14:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: break through vs break down (none / 1)

It occurred to me last night while my immune system released entertaining chemicals into my body in the fight against a throat infection, is that the references to needing to reach a higher place, the need for spirituality etc, are basically the idea that you need religion to be ethical dressed up in yoga pants*. It's a pretty annoying idea to start with and hanging a few crystals** on it doesn't make it any better.

* Is there such a thing as yoga pants? There should be.

** Yes, I'm being dismissive of religion/spirituality here. I'm a hard-core non-believer. What do you expect? No one worries about being dismissive of us.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Nov 10th, 2008 at 04:20:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: break through vs break down (none / 1)

While it often is, I'm not sure that it always is. I think that in some cases, "spirituality" can be code not for needing religion in order to be ethical, so much as for needing political awareness in order to be ethical.

In an age where concepts like solidarity and compassion have been vilified and ridiculed - but where religious mumbo-jumbo is given a free pass - dressing up solidarity and compassion in quasi-religious terms may not be such a bad idea. Like many such political shortcuts it comes at a cost; in this case the cost of opening the door for gurus, quacks and a variety of other kinds of shady characters that can couch much less savoury pursuits in much the same language.

- Jake

"Terraforming your own planet to make it uninhabitable hardly counts as epic win." - ThatBritGuy

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Nov 10th, 2008 at 05:01:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: break through vs break down (none / 1)

Actually, sociology and anthropology are quite insightful as to how, why and between whom couples and marriage form. They don't tell us who to love, but show love clearly isn't random. Moreover, some social classes are quite adept in designing socialisation around a quite rational desire for homogamy.

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Mon Nov 10th, 2008 at 04:49:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: break through vs break down (none / 0)

I, for one, would be interested in reading more about this statement - care to diary??

Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes

by Izzy (izzy at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Nov 10th, 2008 at 05:05:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: break through vs break down (none / 1)

Which one ?

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Mon Nov 10th, 2008 at 05:12:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: break through vs break down (4.00 / 2)

Well, both. But I'm particularly interested in this:

Actually, sociology and anthropology are quite insightful as to how, why and between whom couples and marriage form. They don't tell us who to love, but show love clearly isn't random.

I'm always on the lookout for rationalizations that my husbands weren't my fault.

Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes

by Izzy (izzy at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Nov 10th, 2008 at 03:58:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: break through vs break down (none / 0)

Well, I'm not so sure sociology is insightful currently about that aspect of wedding - I don't know if there's an actual sociology of divorce.

Rather, the idea is that we socialise very strongly among our own social class, and most weddings are among similar or close by on the social ladder - despite claims, and conscious feelings, that encounters are random.

Now, there is something to look for in the way men and women are socialised towards different ideals of marriage - which could lead to their break up. And how mores of personal accomplishment mean that an unhappy marriage has to be broken, yet social pressures towards marriage are still quite intense...

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Mon Nov 10th, 2008 at 07:42:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: break through vs break down (none / 1)

Well, I'm not so sure sociology is insightful currently about that aspect of wedding - I don't know if there's an actual sociology of divorce.

That's ok - I take full credit for the divorces.

Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes

by Izzy (izzy at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Nov 11th, 2008 at 03:12:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: break through vs break down (4.00 / 2)

Actually, science increasingly does tell us how to govern. Science cannot measure or calculate whether an act is "good" or "evil". But science can tell us something about the consequences of our acts.

A case in point is the climate change debate. The calculated consequences of our CO2 emissions are such that everybody agrees that these consequences are bad (unless you are actively working to bring about the end of the world). Even climate change deniers don't argue that these consequences are OK. Instead they have to argue that the scientific estimates of the consequences are wrong. If you accept the scientific findings we must do something to combat GHG emissions, and that is science telling us how to govern.

More generally, I think there is a very broad consensus about many moral questions when posed clearly a such. If you ask: "Is it OK that poor children die because they cannot afford medical care?", even right-wing politicians will not publicly agree. They will argue that their policies help poor children rather than harm them. It is then up to (sociological/medical) science to demonstrate when they are wrong. What is needed for this is more thinking and more science ("reason"), not less!

Real capricorns don't believe in astrology.

by tomhuld (thomas punkt huld at jrc punkt it) on Mon Nov 10th, 2008 at 06:33:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: break through vs break down (4.00 / 2)

Welcome to ET tomhuld, if it's your first post..

I love your tag line

tomhuld:

Real capricorns don't believe in astrology.

...in view of the fact that even a mention of astrology on this site is sure to bring the world down around you...

...there's only smoking that's worse....

<hides>

Modern conservatives engage in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.Galbraith

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Mon Nov 10th, 2008 at 07:17:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: break through vs break down (4.00 / 2)

<puff>Say what?</puff>

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Mon Nov 10th, 2008 at 07:51:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: break through vs break down (none / 1)

What you smokin', Sven?

I love the smell of roast chicken in the morning!

by THE Twank (yatta blah blah @ blah.com) on Mon Nov 10th, 2008 at 08:00:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: break through vs break down (none / 1)

To quote superspiv Arthur English "Play the music! Open the cage!"

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Mon Nov 10th, 2008 at 10:39:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: break through vs break down (4.00 / 3)

Thanks for the welcome! I've been a longtime lurker with a few scattered posts, though seemingly not long enough to know that there was something controversial about astrology.

What about homeopathy, can you make fun of that?

Real capricorns don't believe in astrology.

by tomhuld (thomas punkt huld at jrc punkt it) on Mon Nov 10th, 2008 at 03:05:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: break through vs break down (none / 0)

I agree completely that we need a greater focus on reason, empirical results and predictive power (science, if you will) in our political life. But that does not obviate the need for political decisions.

I also agree that there is a very broad consensus that letting poor people starve in the gutter is wrong, even if it is in the short-term interest of the oligarchy. However, even when backed by a massive (if not quite unanimous - Uncle Miltie and his Chicago Boyz would disagree) consensus, it remains a political position, and there is no point pretending that it's scientifically supported.

In fact, I think it can be downright harmful to present what is inherently a political decision as a technical matter than can be unambiguously resolved through the scientific method. After all, Uncle Miltie and Maggie Thatcher got a lot of traction out of obfuscating the political decisions that underlie much of the economic science (and pseudoscience) that they used.

- Jake

"Terraforming your own planet to make it uninhabitable hardly counts as epic win." - ThatBritGuy

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Nov 10th, 2008 at 08:17:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: break through vs break down (none / 1)

The points that I was trying to make up thread were:

What ever changes we may need to make in our approach to the organization and direction of society and/or to our understanding of ourselves, and whatever is meant by "beyond reason," remedies cannot involve abandoning or repudiating reason.
That our minds and our mental abilities, including reason and self conscious awareness, are products of evolution, that reason is only one component, albeit a very important component, of our capabilities and that perhaps we need to do a better job of supplementing our powers of reason with our other mental tools.
That we need more focus on the nature of our inner functioning, (brain science), and our interpersonal functioning, (anthropology, sociology and political economy), unless we are satisfied with our existing institutions.
That this likely will involve an increase in several aspects of our awareness and a refinement of our consciousness. We are aware of these problems, for instance the "externalization" of environmental and human costs in our economics, but we have thus far largely been unable to remedy them.
That over-valuation of reason may be almost as damaging as devaluation of reason.

As to perspective or context, that was what I was attempting to provide in the first several paragraphs of my comment above.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer at eurotrib.com) on Mon Nov 10th, 2008 at 11:55:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

break through vs break down | 21 comments (21 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]