They're all made up.So, imagine how thrilled I was after reading "Erisology" is not a real word -- or even a common one -- but rather a recently made up term for a made up field of study!
I'm not familiar with The Fixx, gonna check them out!Is this the value of our existence
Should we proclaim with such persistence
Our destiny relies on conscience
Red or blue, what's the difference
Stand or fall, state your peace tonight
Point-by-point response:My off-the-cuff observations:
- Bias and heuristics: I think many of us don't consciously recognize the terms or mechanisms, but can admit they are there. I think this is a case of not knowing what we don't know. I don't know if I totally agree with the textbook notion of bias because "perception is reality." What one can call a bias or "wrong" could be perfectly right and justifiable to another. My perception is reality and YOUR perception is bias; it is all relative.
- I think some of the above does a great, though nerdy, job in explaining why we disagree. While it can rationalize our thoughts, our thoughts are ours. I hate to use the tautologies here, but "mine is mine" you know?
- The articles reminded me why I don't go down these rabbit holes and love what I can conceptualize, concrete matters for me to process. Theory is great, but beyond me. Talk about bias, when a person bogs down on the subject of being rational, they will move on. Now they are part of the problem because they can't/ won't grasp some esoteric* theory? I have to reject that notion.
While the self-licking metaphor is one of my favorites too, this is a hard disagree. Sure, lots of people talking about philosophy do fall into the trap of masturbatory navel-gazing, and playing the /r/Iamverysmart game. But that's philosophy done poorly, or it's sophistry.Philosophy (erisology/rationality/whatever) tends to be a self licking ice cream cone.
You end up spending lots of time talking about things like ‘How SHOULD we discuss this issue? Is it right to discuss the issue like this?’ And you end up spending no time just having a conversation about the issue because there’s no good enough answer. It’s a masturbatory endeavor.
It sounds like you're saying that focusing too much on comparative experience isn't helpful. That sounds fine to me. But my take away from that article isn't really about that. It's that people often have radically different experiences of the world at a basic, perceptual level. And we all fall prey to the Typical Mind fallacy - expecting that other people basically think/feel/experience like we do. For me, the linked article shows just how deeply wrong (as in factually incorrect) that is. There are accounts in the comments there, of people without a sense of smell not even realizing it until their late teens!Agree.
Love the subject matter but my own interpretations tend to include Physics (or is it metaphysics?).
I tend to experience things in a vacuum. The things I like tend to be considered "fine." Even without knowing it.
Example: My first taste of caviar was at 16. It was the good stuff. Didn't know squat except that I loved it. So this article (what-r-u-missing) isn't so much educational as "Dismissed on the grounds of those who are too aware of the world are not experiencing life as the Buddha."
I had to give you some love on that. Not to say that Dame was bulverizing, but that I enjoyed your use of the word! Awesome.You're bulverizing as usual.
It sounds like you're saying that focusing too much on comparative experience isn't helpful. That sounds fine to me. But my take away from that article isn't really about that. It's that people often have radically different experiences of the world at a basic, perceptual level. And we all fall prey to the Typical Mind fallacy - expecting that other people basically think/feel/experience like we do. For me, the linked article shows just how deeply wrong (as in factually incorrect) that is. There are accounts in the comments there, of people without a sense of smell not even realizing it until their late teens!
In any case, I'm not confidant that I fully understand; the Buddha objection kind of t-boned my "T" box. I'd love to read more about you (meta)physical considerations.
Thanks for clarifying!
Somewhat related to my response to @Dame above, is the hundu/Buddhist idea of Maya or from a more Western perspective, Plato's Cave. Also, though less accessible, Wittgenstein's Ladder. The upshot of these diverse worldviews (taken together) is that what we experience isn't necessarily reality - the world as it actually is.One of the problems I have in overthinking life and existence is the false reality of life and existence in the material world that takes most of my attention and time. Dealing with all this false-reality shit.
Thanks for clarifying!
The general point of 'seeing like a child' is a fantastic one; it's a skill that the rationalist community intentionally cultivates. See this post on 'original seeing', which is basically a copy-paste from Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.
As to the general point/observation of the seeming congruencies between quantum mechanics/particle physics and eastern mythology/(some schools of) Buddhism, I've been a fan for quite a while! There are some traps in the field such a Chopra using quantum/emergence either as a Mysterious Answer to a Mysterious Question or as a Semantic Stopsign. It's all too easy to use these words as a find-replace for "magic" - especially as we, the laity, don't really know what the hell we're talking about.
That said, it's a really fascinating area to read/speculate about. My favorite book on the subject is The Dancing Wu Li Masters, which came out of a conference as Esalen in the late 70's. One of my favorite classes in college was Comparative Cosmology. It's interesting to notice how similar many cosmologies (stories of how the world/universe/everything got started in the first place) echo or rhyme with one another, and at least metaphorically line up with what our best physics currently tell us of the beginning. You get a formless void, and then an explosion of light, leading to the creation/coalescence of various properties/deities and so on.
Perhaps we do have some sensing faculty beyond the purview of strictly empirical examination that has allowed people since waaay back to get the gist of physical reality without the benefit of particle accelerators.
I'm not familiar with it, but from the wikipedia description, it sounds as though there are some similarities.Is it anything like Richard Bach's Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah?