Scientific Materialism and the Sound of Spirituality

[bluetoebeing]

I can hear

[sar1906]

Fantastic. I have one issue: How does one transition from an intellectual understanding of this position to one that has been internalized and then actualized?

I think the problem for some is that they hear these words, and sympathize with them, but they don't feel them.

How can they be made to feel them?

[DanLackey]

In connection with Gary's epistemological concern with the pain of others: Elaine Scarry in The Body in Pain makes I think a very interesting distinction between the essence of certainty and the essence of doubt, the former epitomized the toothache you are experiencing, the latter, by tooth ache you hear about from another experiencing that pain.

[jogayot]

individuals and collective have no voice... i think it fits with my "mumble jumble" of universe as a result of an "original" point's failure to communicate with itself. there is also a way of looking at it as "moving" (the part/message sent "in time") and moved - that original point. because if communication and exchange of information, observation, consciousness is the most important part reality it makes one wonder why it absofuckosurdly often fails to work... press 'any' key.

[cuntsound]

Fantastic video.the only problem I picked up, for me, came up at the very end.

How did language,speech come into the world-history,when and how did they first appear (funny how "appear" is visual in its root)? What came first,our being-a-social-being or our vocal chords & other pre-requisites for speech?To me it seems (again visual) as if speech was invented,or better it emerged,when we had the potential for speaking.This does not work well with the claim that we have always been social-beings.

[Gesmehod]

Ah, now I remember why I subscribed.

[aaronhemeon]

Regarding the question of the place of epistemology within philosophy -- which is what a lot of disagreements on youtube blindly concern -- see Charles Taylor's essay (google it) "overcoming epistemology." Whether you agree or not, everyone should have an adequate understanding of epistemology's standing over the last 100 years for the philosophy profession. A lot of the misunderstanding is from students coming out of self-so-called "analytic" departments without knowing they have.

[PMathematica]

First problem, scientific materialism denotes a family of ontologies -- you have to define what you mean when you say "scientific materialism."

Second problem, scientists don't rely on vision to any large extent. In fact, the first principle of scientific research is never trust your senses -- every scientist knows the world is different from the way we perceive; hence the need for science.

[aaronhemeon]

2 Plato also didn't trust the senses, but the warning in the lab is different than the Athenian one. Setting that aside, the point about vision has to do with the use of ocular metaphors in giving an account of experience; then forgetting you did so. Do you "see" what I mean? The idea here is that you get a plan of action by checking experimental feedback in life, which is gained through interaction. This situates the mind in the middle of things, not on the sidelines.

[PMathematica]

Deep science doesn't make use of metaphor, which is why it couches its ideas in mathematics.

[PMathematica]

The purpose of deep science is to transcend experience -- not give an account of experience. The object is to acquire (partially) objective knowledge about the world.

[aaronhemeon]

/watch?v=VaR4HXDyVfo

[Yony42]

@PMathematica That makes sense to me.

[aaronhemeon]

My problem with epistemology is my problem with Christianity. I have no problem with either, until the point where they make it necessary that everyone join, and those who don't are wrong. But isn't this built into epistemology? Does it not want an ahistorical subject? That is, can one make epistemology central to philosophy and still be a pluralist? I don't think so. I think that's why Romanticism gets a lot of grip here. Authenticity and epistemology may prove incompatible.

[Professoranton]

This is astute and useful. Thanks so much. I do think that there is a kind of "one-eyed mania" in those who want to reduce the diversity of human's relations to knowledge-relations.

[aaronhemeon]

To be after something, to be on the hunt, is a way of being. To assume that everyone studies (ologizes) in the same way, or even in a detached way, is built into epistemology as first philosophy. Again, I see no meta-argument anyone could assert that would require acquiescence from everyone, such that we all have to worry about justified true belief BEFORE experimenting. In fact, cf. Heidegger, are we not thrown into the world? It's just too 17th century armchair to make epistemology #1.

[aaronhemeon]

Cornel West's book "A Genealogy of Pragmatism" is subtitled "The American Evasion of Epistemology." Dewey, a pragmatist, criticized "the spectator theory of knowledge" and substituted a more scientific, interactive, experimental model of experience. In his book "Human Nature and Conduct" he makes the point that "each individual begins life completely dependent on others." Basically, you are bang on. And, you are in step with the pragmatists. You brought up Illich, have you read Ranciere?

[RighthereonEarth]

"I think I will do nothing for a long time but listen, And accrue what I hear into myself....and let sounds contribute toward me." Whitman, Leaves of Grass

I would have to say you're onto something. Cheers.

[2bsirius]

I'm going to make a video response to this when I can find the time...

[dronanh1]

Some interesting thoughts. A quote on music. [m]usic is prophecy. Its styles and economic organization are ahead of the rest of society because it explores, much faster than material reality can, the entire range of possibilities in a given code. It makes audible the new world that will gradually become visible, that will impose itself and regulate the order of things; it is not only the image of things, but the transcending of the everyday, the herald of the future. -Jacques Attali

[1PostPoMoMaN1]

That sounds like a telepathic alien told that. :)

[Bozeman42]

The differences in our perception of sight sound and touch can be related to the medium in which we developed, and the properties of the stimuli of light and vibration.

[Bozeman42]

There are animals for whom touch in their experience is analogous to vision in ours. Same with sound.

[Bozeman42]

Even visual light can penetrate depending on the materials involved. Your cube was not made of glass.

Sound, likewise, has many of the properties you assigned to light. Sound can be muted with a vacuum.

What you seemed to be getting at is less that SOUND is spirit, but rather that concept is spirit. Your point about people saying the same word even with different pitch etc. people understanding the meaning, is not special to sound. Visual representations work the same way.

[Bozeman42]

I watched your words are spirit video in conjunction with this and I suggest that your understanding of light and sound is lacking or at least extremely human centric.

You make statements about sound being all around and sight being a quality of surfaces. Sound penetrates, light not so much.

You are neglecting the large amount of light that does in fact penetrate you and your walls. Radio much? You can't see it, but that is a limitation of your eyes. (cont)

[2bsirius]

OMG...It was totally SCARY to click on your video and find my own voice shouting out at me!

[FeelFreeToArgue]

I tend toward scientific materialism, if only because of the comforting solidity offered by the observable. But I understand what you're saying about ambiguity here, the Steiner example is very illuminating. The seeing/hearing metaphor is a good one, though you will of course run afoul of those people who, for whatever reason, just don't get metaphors.

Esp. here in the USA, we are constantly concerned about our rights, about preserving our choices. No obligation to the whole is bad, though...

[FeelFreeToArgue]

...because it starves the soul, I think. You're right in that we're essentially social animals (though programmed for & more effective in small groups - tribal) and also right about a lot of modern society, esp/ the cult of the individual, hammering at our social glue and consequently our emotional health.

BTW - I think the primary problem w/ calling voice a sense is how we conceive of senses, namely as means of inputting information. Voice is hearing because that is its input channel.

[aaronhemeon]

The trouble isn't science, it's bad philosophers who think they are being scientific. The senses are active. Look up John Dewey's article "The Reflex Arc Concept in Psychology."

[Hockeyjason]

watch?v=DzANUBXD3dA

[KosmicCitizen]

Hyper-individualism is poisonous and misery making. It's the conjoined twin of egoic fantasy. Thank-you for your words about that which hides in "plain sight." :-)

[trick0171]

Epistemology is just as important as ontology for this discussion you had with Gary. In fact, it needs to precede an ontological discussion. If two people have entirely different epistemological standards such as you and Gary, chances are your ontology will be different. It makes no sense to debate ontology with Gary (or a materialist such as myself) without debating epistemology first. This is part of the problem with the debate you had so far.

Thanks,

Trick

[Professoranton]

I would be include to suggest that ontology comes before epistemology and that many epistemological hang ups come because people have not adequately addressed ontology.

[trick0171]

I understand why one might think that, but it really is other way around. :)

You cannot conclude knowledge of any study of being, reality, or existence; without having an epistemological standard in which that knowledge is applied. Epistemology sort of precedes most philosophical discussions.

(MORE)

[trick0171]

There is some overlap between the two at times, but epistemology is required for ontology, where as ontology is not necessarily required for epistemology (but can be combined with it). At the very least one would need to bring up epistemology to have an ontological discussion with someone who does not agree with their epistemological standards.

[Professoranton]

I would disagree, especially where continental philosophy is concerned.

Ontology is prior to epistemology.

This is not a knowledge claim but a poetic statement about much that we feel and experience prior to making claim to knowing about it.

[trick0171]

Disagreed. Continental philosophy already rejects certain epistemological stances for its own (many suggesting that phenomenology can provide a firm basis for human knowledge for example). In essence, if you are working in continental philosophy, you are already applying an epistemology for it. One that a materialist such as myself would reject (a non-analytical one) - and one that would be very important to discuss prior to ontology.

[Professoranton]

I look forward to your video response to my next video:

Begin with Ontology.

This would be a wonderful thing for us to discuss and talk about. Please do consider either making a video response to this or the "Begin with Ontology, please" video.

My guess is that many people are interested in this issue.

[trick0171]

Thanks for the upcoming video response. I look forward to watching it. I am not a video maker as of yet (I express better in writing than I do off the cuff verbally, something I need to work on).

Obviously debating in comments is unproductive. It was really more of a suggestion I had for when you are discussing with people like Gary or others. Maybe in the future I will get the guts to camera myself, but for now I'll just throw a comment here and there if you don't mind. :)

[Professoranton]

I find them engaging. But I do beg you to think about the following question:

If I suggest that I am before I know that I am, someone can easily ask how I'd know and then accuse me of not really knowing that I am until I know I am, but can they accuse me of not being until I know that I am?

Who is playing the verbal game and who is trying to be serious?

[trick0171]

No, they are not accusing them of not being until they know you are. They are saying that you cannot know you are being (without applying a knowledge system), but that you could be being or not regardless. There is a difference there.

I seriously am not attempting to play verbal games. Watching you new vid now. :)

[aaronhemeon]

To say that epistemology must be prior to ontology is just to claim a preferential attitude. In adopting this attitude, you then interact with the world in terms of it. Your penchant for epistemology centered philosophy is a kind of ontology -- it is a stance, it affects the way you interact with things. In sum, by assuming this position you fix the conditions in order to get confirmation. But there is no meta-argument for this behavior.

[trick0171]

@aaronhemeon

Not "must be", but rather "should be if one wants to derive a logically consistent Ontology".

No, my penchant for the importance of epistemology is not a kind of ontology. Ontology is the STUDY of a certain subject (existence, being, etc). It is not what "is", but rather what we can conclude, learn, discover, KNOW, about what "is". I pointed this out is some of the professors newer vids on the topic.

[aaronhemeon]

Isn't "study" a way of being -- to study, to dance, to read, to sing, etc? Do we not get varied results -- feedback -- from the way we "do" these things?

[trick0171]

@aaronhemeon

IF "study" was a way of being, it could be SUBJECT MATERIAL to be addressed in ontological philosophy, and would not take away from the fact that ontology is the study of being, existence, etc. In other words, you are now having an ontological discussion with your last comment, and it does not disregard what I stated about Ontology or Epistemology.

[a2tis]

interesting video.

i'd like to comment on language being one of the senses point: I don't object language being treated as another sense idea, but language is fundamentally different from other senses - all senses deal with raw data, language deals with information (data that has been interpreted). language also is a tool of interpreting data. you can't work with raw data without language, but you can't absorb data with language only...

[a2tis]

so for example, you won't achieve same results using hearing + sight as using language + sight. language has unique characteristics and probably shouldn't be pushed into the category of senses. but it maybe useful to explore language as a sense and science should pay at least as much attention to language as it does to senses.

Perception is not a movement of thought. ;)

[jedimasterbooboo]

Wow, really good. This is what I was thinking and could never say like this. I know you've done videos on the individual versus collective, but I recommend you expound on that , or even repeat. And for selfish reasons, I would love the info to be tailored to Gary's camp (the 'reality bites' camp) try to make it relevant to them. And you can never talk enough about language. imho. Okay, Go.

[seigneurvoland666]

can you define spirit for my professor anton

[Professoranton]

watch?v=1uJYVK_1WDA

[seigneurvoland666]

thank u

[zarkoff45]

We are the collective. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.