Philosophical Speculations

Lou Gold wrote: ↑Tue Dec 14, 2021 9:55 pm OK, there seem to be lots this-or-that options... ontology-or-no-ontology, physicalism-or-idealism, different kinds of science, reality-or-imagination, read-the-book-or-not, know-the-author-or-not, etc. How would folks apply their favorite option (and with what consequences) to this recent reading of the book? Please keep it simple: what difference would your preferred model make?

Yet another NYT article I can't access. Suffice to say the 'Author' is 'Writing' an urgent message ... an 'Author' that at the very least a nuanced soul-deep understanding of the primacy and sovereignty of its Living Awareness, beyond just abstractions, allows some profound appreciation for Its 'Book' of Nature, far beyond what has been reduced under the prevailing predominant paradigm to a merely material resource to be plundered. And so you feel that there is no role for philosophia to shift that paradigm, without such a shift the mindful praxis you call for has little chance of superseding the status quo? What do you suggest one should be offering instead, besides flowers to the Queen of the Sea?

Lou, you're speaking my language. I can't read the article due to not having subscription but I might find a way around it. As you know, I tend to push against notions that the model will lead the way. I also distrust its corollary when people blame a model too easily for a given problem, as when Bernardo claims 'physicalism' is driving the massive ego-driven economy of our times.

So despite not reading the article, I'd say we have to bring together the most committee, loving, intelligent and brave people to both find the solutions and inspire the change. This requires a profound flexibility in how we treat our preferred maps and schemas. And of course we won't be surprised when our heroes turn out to be religious people, atheists', youth, communists, capitalists, Anthroposophists, and even a few Scientologists might be finding ways to help But we draw the line at Bubba Free John and his ilk.

Hi Soul,

Yeah, I take your point. Either way, what a beautiful metaphor. I think there is a direct participation in true reading and especially when it comes to reading the book of Nature.

FOR THOSE WITHOUT A NY TIMES SUBSCRIPTION

My strategy is to have 4 browsers on my laptop. Many sites give about 4 "freebies" monthly. With 4 browsers, that gives me 16 articles.

Lou Gold wrote: ↑Tue Dec 14, 2021 11:15 pm FOR THOSE WITHOUT A NY TIMES SUBSCRIPTION

My strategy is to have 4 browsers on my laptop. Many sites give about 4 "freebies" monthly. With 4 browsers, that gives me 16 articles.

The significant other has a subscription to the Globe and Mail, which turns out no shortage of articles pointing out the same dire situations, not to mention other online sources of the same. What it invokes here is ever more urgency for the need to shift, evolve, metamorphose what passes for thinking at the root of the current predominant paradigm. I'm still not sure what else you're proposing one should do here in this forum toward that end? Share more such articles?

Lou, my hunch is that you are simply wanting to evoke another kind of response from all of these fine minds. I don't get the impression you are scolding or saying we are doing things wrong, merely that you appreciate when this kind of conversation touches a bit more in the kinds of richer narratives that have less focus on abstractions and, instead, grab our hearts and souls in the narrative thrust of the matter. Maybe I'm wrong, but your approach typically is to find images and narratives that can work behind and underneath a lot of the heady mumbo jumbo. Thanks for the browser tip. I immediately found the article and look forward to reading.

Soul_of_Shu wrote: ↑Tue Dec 14, 2021 11:32 pm

Lou Gold wrote: ↑Tue Dec 14, 2021 11:15 pm FOR THOSE WITHOUT A NY TIMES SUBSCRIPTION

My strategy is to have 4 browsers on my laptop. Many sites give about 4 "freebies" monthly. With 4 browsers, that gives me 16 articles.

The significant other has a subscription to the Globe and Mail, which turns out no shortage of articles pointing out the same dire situations, not to mention other online sources of the same. What it invokes here is ever more urgency for the need to shift, evolve, metamorphose what passes for thinking at the root of the current predominant paradigm. I'm still not sure what else you're proposing one should do here in this forum toward that end? Share more such articles?

FYI, my response is here in case it was missed (I think you were posting at the same time) - viewtopic.php?p=15042#p15042

Soul_of_Shu wrote: ↑Tue Dec 14, 2021 10:37 pm

Lou Gold wrote: ↑Tue Dec 14, 2021 9:55 pm OK, there seem to be lots this-or-that options... ontology-or-no-ontology, physicalism-or-idealism, different kinds of science, reality-or-imagination, read-the-book-or-not, know-the-author-or-not, etc. How would folks apply their favorite option (and with what consequences) to this recent reading of the book? Please keep it simple: what difference would your preferred model make?

Yet another NYT article I can't access. Suffice to say the 'Author' is 'Writing' an urgent message ... an 'Author' that at the very least a nuanced soul-deep understanding of the primacy and sovereignty of its Living Awareness, beyond just abstractions, allows some profound appreciation for Its 'Book' of Nature, far beyond what has been reduced under the prevailing predominant paradigm to a merely material resource to be plundered. And so you feel that there is no role for philosophia to shift that paradigm, without such a shift the mindful praxis you call for has little chance of superseding the status quo? What do you suggest one should be offering instead, besides flowers to the Queen of the Sea?

Yikes, Dana, I don't want this simple question to go weird. Do you really mean...

And so you feel that there is no role for philosophia to shift that paradigm, without such a shift the mindful praxis you call for has little chance of superseding the status quo? What do you suggest one should be offering instead, besides flowers to the Queen of the Sea?

I just asked folks to describe how they would apply their personal preferred option to a practical problem. I'm not suggesting or criticizing or proselytizing toward others. Me? I'm a storyteller always searching for a compelling story. Part of that search is to contemplate how others are applying their preferred story.

Lou said:

"I just asked folks to describe how they would apply their personal preferred option to a practical problem. I'm not suggesting or criticizing or proselytizing toward others."

Ugh. There is such an intense reactivity in this group. I don't understand why everything has to be taken in the worst possible way. Anyway, I imagine people who have read your comments before realize you weren't being harsh in simply making a specific request that is in line with your particular way of going about these things. Okay, I'll let it go but....I hope..........anyway. I'll get back to you once I read the article. Thanks again.

By the way, for those who watched the debate and have seen Oppy apply his method before, I wonder if you found his line of questioning interesting. I was happy to see that Bernardo quickly realized that Oppy wasn't 'going at him' in the usual manner but, rather, trying to see the general structure of Bernardo's model. They did not have enough time at all, so I hope they chat again and can dive into

1) Bernardo's objections to the 'identification' approach.

and

2) Really explore the aspects of 'parsimony' that they were just starting to touch on at the end.