Posts tagged ‘philosophy’
It’s not complete. I burned out. At least I have remembered that one of my major discrepancies with Dooyeveert’s version of Modal Reality was quite simple: he assumed God. I assumed something began the whole process. Yeah, the Vietnam war really wasn’t the best part of my life, especially since I had access to TS without need-to-know and couldn’t resist (of course). Sort of like the people who go to horror flicks.
Of all things, an “insert date” option on my word processor, its one major lacking. The other is its dislike for single quotes, which it shares with all other word processors I’m aware of. That’s probably because it’s used–‘, that is–for data separation, just like the comma is in a “csv” file. [Comma Separated Values]
A visit with Mom today. She’s in Medford while Shirley and her husband are in Hawaii celebrating their 25th wedding anniversary. My actual sole point of connection with Shirley is a hot date while I was still in the Navy, latter part of 1974. She’s Mom’s surrogate child. Some notes on Mom. She married Jay Eatherton when I was 5 or 6. I was formally adopted while I was 7, a few days before I turned 8, by her sister. Hell with it, I’m going to first names or this will be too complicated for me. Marie is Barbara’s sister. Was. Barbara is ‘Mom’–she took care of me for about six years. Rather than divorce Jay she got rid of me. She’d tried to have me aborted, but it was too late, and she had every other pregnancy aborted. She’s presumably intelligent enough to know about birth control. I can picture her with some weird supposedly Christian argument to support her in that, but I frankly keep turning down the picture in my little mind.
Barbara, after Marie adopted me, had no idea that I was being mistreated. At the time she had no idea what to do how to help me (she was a teacher who didn’t know about Children Services Division). Had no idea that Jay was a child abuser. She was just having me stay with her sister for the summer. The adoption was my idea. (Before Marie brought it up, oddly enough, I’d never heard of adoption. I do actually have a photographic memory.)
The report cards that indicated I was a troublemaker because I was too intelligent. She couldn’t do anything about it. That means there was no program for gifted children. She was a teacher in that school. I have the report cards. Even bearing in mind that that was the age of the worshipped average, the whole thing seems a bit strange. I’m very, very high on language and logic and low to normal in everything else (retention is generally scored as is the highest score, if I have to explain why the explanation would likely be a trifle cloudy). Actually, I guess I have come up in math skills.
She was seeking someone to take me and wouldn’t admit it afterward. Family friends had refused. She wouldn’t tell me what her motives were. Mine were simply that I didn’t think I could survive in that environment. I needed information and didn’t know where/how to find it.
Marie did indeed take me to “straighten me out”.
And presumably the “average”/usual person can’t think without words. So the unconscious=the nonlingual. Which pretty much works, and also would go a long way toward having a logic that could include what I’m experiencing. It also fits much more neatly into a lot of holes than did alternative explanations. Bear in mind that there has to have been a nonlingual person, so to speak, at least something that ate and whatnot. As far as evidence toward the nonlingual person ceasing to exist, I don’t actually know of any.
Lingual consciousness is socialized consciousness (not, however, with the political connotations generally ascribed to it).
Lingual consciousness is generally the product of behaviorally-oriented training. There are numerous indications that this is necessary in most cases.
“Intelligence” can be in terms of a lingual system, or it can be in terms of problem-solving. The “or” used here is generally not inclusive.
Values based on an unsubstantiated “average” are part of the attempt to maintain stability that actually is central to a social system that attempts to confine awareness to the lingual and “proper”.
A lingual personality would quite definitely depend upon the stability of definition.
The introduction of the Hebrew singular God into the world of gods produced a real uproar, particularly once Christ was produced, who would waive the requirement that the saved all be of one certain race. It’s interesting that even the one-god group has to allow for the powers of evil.
One god also introduces the possibility of a whole host of other things. Before this, you’re not assured of any constant theme; now, you just place your tithe and leave. As matters would have it, it even laid the foundations for social development in what was regarded as the “civilized world”.
[Minor side note. Anyone who might happen to read this might start believing that I actually did study a lot of areas of human knowledge. I didn’t study physics. I have studied everything I know of that can be categorized under “soft” science. It was on the way to this, or rather the thing this is the notes for. I’m basically in disagreement with everyone from Socrates on.]
Formal communication is going to be necessary, basically, when the group becomes big enough that not every face is known. That means that considerations outside of hunting and warfare suddenly have to become more formal, or they don’t work. It also means that the establishment of a language, then, wouldn’t be the dramatic thing we sometimes envision. At first, “language” is pretty efficient: a certain kind of grunt for a water bucket and another for a frying pan. Might not want the grain instead of a knife, either. It started in hunting, most likely; yells to coordinate movement.
As knowledge develops, language develops. The growth of a plant is known and recorded, then of another. Colors are named. All this means that a child I never see may guess at what I’ve seen.
As language develops, society develops. That is why “body language” and intonation and so forth are quintessential to the meaning of any sentence, let alone a dialogue. Bear in mind explicit knowledge is seldom an active component of any relationship. Names are a way of avoiding language, not seeking it. There are some interesting implications about the formalization of religion in that. Power as value.
So lingualization is socialization. Lingualization is the establishment of a language-based personality. This gives rather a different view on autism. Established psychological theory treats lingualization not only as a norm, but an assumption. Language is viewed as integral (and innate) as an arm or a leg. There have even been discussions whether or not usage of language is genetically transmitted.
Language is expression of protocols in various formats with respect to action.
The protocols must vary with respect to function/identity within given society (again, position within [sequential] ordered set, which is more accurate with the number within sequence–images, however you’d say it–and duration involved, which is why calling time as we know it a “dimension” is experientially false). So we have the matter of assigned identity.
Also picture all this from nonverbal aspect. Just as illiteracy doesn’t mean stupidity, lack of language doesn’t mean complete inability to comprehend. The statistics such as they exist tend to indicate most people find it hard to think without language, so they start doing it with its acquisition.
That’s of course one of the first tests for this hypothesis, or series of hypotheses.
Lots of additions, by hand. (I was playing chess on the computer, and it’s a jealous program.)
Communication without shared representational system means intrinsic, implicit logic. Note that this is a great deal more of an absolute statement than it first appears to be. Interestingly enough that statement also seems to be intrinsic to our social system [note I–accidentally, must have been–said nothing about that statement being true, accurate or anything of the sort]. This is also a resurrection of the “nature vs. nurture” theorems. In my experience there is no inherited knowledge. I am remembering much more, and most of all I remember frustration. I wasn’t especially quick. After all, my parents were quick to assure me of that. (There are more twists and convolutions to the tale than I can happily imagine beginning to portray today. The one survivor–my mother–seems to vary between shrugging it off (”I couldn’t have done things any differently”) and aimless statements, unless they’re attempts at recrimination of all and sundry. Now. For what’s happening. Whatever that is.
The background to that is that where she is now was her heart’s desire according to what she said. She’d promised Shirley she’d spend her last years with her. I’m not a Christian because God failed the test, doesn’t exist, or doesn’t speak English (basically).
Anyway. Back to the implicit statements concerning our social system. So de facto decisions can be made in advance (example being anything that weakens our [current] social system is wrong and first line of defense is the obvious, its dependants and dependencies.
Single god system, New World, expansion factor and dehumanizing definition of the new and different. (Black men as not human. And Indians, Asians, Amish, whatnot.) The single god thing has with one sudden flash given you the power to draw the line. So it’s as important as the Justinian code. Empiricism is innately weak as a system of faith because it starts out by being complicated and most people just aren’t up to it. They need something simple. There’s a set of circumscribed rules and (at least mostly) no nasty surprises. By all rumors the Israelites for a while there were unbeatable in war. They did allow women in, which took care of the in-breeding problem potential.
Note that in Hebraic system god and king are directly related. Varies somewhat in the Med. It looks like some cultures were hated so much they were literally wiped out.
Lack of advancement in certain areas seems almost by agreement. At that point knowledge on some subject could be wiped out by killing an entire tribe, or even keeping the one alive in order to obtain the knowledge.
So definition of the “proper”–preservation of the “Norm”–ensuring stability is all ensuring lack of adaptation with first concern preserving the classes. There’s a heavy suggestion here that problem solving is done in a specific class or classes, set used to work on it has few members. There are a number of suggestions throughout history that a man or a group of a few men (or women, but power mostly in hands of men) not only had unusual intelligence in the sense of information, but also was able to reason about subjects nearly impossible to express in an ordinary language. I certainly wouldn’t swear to it, but it is recurrent.
This (first and foremost concern preserving social structure) in turns means a few things. Physical adaptation is by means of society not the environment. In humans, for instance, the standards of attractiveness change–the change is very widespread and was even before the advent of “mass media” although the method of transmission of data was necessarily quite different. By “widespread” I mean of course that the change in these standards spreads very rapidly. If the experiment could be made I would predict that mass media are peripheral to the information exchange. Being “cool” [yeah, I’m positive that one’s dated, but so am I] isn’t a pose that’s oriented to making money from viewers. Standards of beauty and handsomeness change, and if we’re honest we don’t know how. It wasn’t taught in school, and it wasn’t the subject of a television program. The adaptation being influenced by society accounts for our quick adaptability. Note: the more crowded the life, the less “natural” it is. This means society has had a lot less time to produce and test these protocols. Note too that the typical gang structure is merely a miniature society except in one respect. There’s a cementing force that provides an identity they can recognize and value. Being in the gang is also of and by itself a reward as far as the gang member goes. [Contrast this with the average honest person who hates their job and their identity and most of all their powerlessness to change it. They know they can’t count on their neighbor for support; their fellow-worker nearly without exception is a set of habitual responses. Personal relationships are usually someone’s attempt to take advantage of you. To have anything you really value is a liability. The basic difference is in themes. Oh. And one other thing; the average gang member enjoys what he does.]
Okay. I’ve got to finish this off. I’m not going to follow natural instincts and embellish.
So what we’ve got on the initial growth of language seems to go with some other things, like the non-seasonal mating which allows much faster progenation. A lot of “magpie” like traits, a learner. The closes modern thing should be the intelligent monkeys in Asia that are such a threat.
Originally it seems species was formed by niche. Intelligence beyond certain level doesn’t seem to be good for survival but then we’re talking about very short term.
The process by which you indicate and create, by which you judge and to which you refer truth, as truth is crucial. The gap between that and the temporary definition of reality with which you make do surely indicates something. Something meaningful, even. It’s just that you can only guess toward a means of determination. Pursuing a thing quite assuredly does not lend it truth or even existence. Certainly presuming to set the boundaries in terms of the moment’s perspective is absurd.
Bear in mind too that Christ wasn’t respectful and he wasn’t a conservative. It’s doubtful too he was a Christian. The very last time I skimmed through portions of the New Testament there seemed to be evidence of more than one author, with the true one being political expediency.
The moment you define truth in terms of a sociopolitical construction you’ve abandoned hope. You might as well expect a blueprint from a poem. It seems current languages are pretty well in terms of sociopolitical systems.
[crap. still more than a page. at least i’m sticking to not adding to what was originally written]
The primary assumption of empiricism (more accurately, the empirical paradigm) is consistency. You could call that constancy. That is, “reality” isn’t going to vary significantly. What exists now is basically at least what did exist and what will exist.
A “for instance” appears to be that the Earth has always orbited the Sun at about the same distance. I’m not sacred in that field, I’m not a scientist, so I don’t know.
Unstated assumptions should be assumed to be operatively false–hypotheses–until tested. [There’s an actual logic behind what I just described. Historically it’s worked quite well. So according to the empirical hypotheses it’s as “true” as things get.)
Interesting to actually be scribbling this volume of thoughts out. Interesting too that I apparently made the correct decision to on the whole avoid schools and the educated because their version of reality was on the whole so very different from mine. Same data, shatteringly different conclusions.