Observation, logic, folklore and presuppositions

[findingblanks]

Help me out. I'll benefit from hearing people's basic reaction to if somebody (whose intelligence they respected very much) said something like,

"Okay, so we all know that a slug dies when you pour salt on it that comes from a blue container. I've studied this very seriously and I can explain why the blue kills the slug. You see...."

And imagine we live in a culture in which there is a tradition of believing slugs die because of the color blue and there even used to be ritual 'games' where people used blue containers to pour salt on slugs.

If you have seen that slugs die equally well with salt poured on them from any color container, and if you know of a fairly good explanation as to why the salt kills the slug, and if you also have a fairly good understanding of why the color has nothing to do with why the slug dies, how do you relate to the opening words, "Okay, so we all know that..."

Is it possible for you to still respect the intelligence of your friend even as you have a fairly clear understanding of what the truth in this context is? For me it isn't a problem to still see all the ways my friend is 100 times smarter than I am. But I think some people struggle with this.

Would you be surprised that your friend said this if they typically didn't simply take folklore for granted?

This relates to Kastrup only in the sense that I think he is a master at pointing out exactly where logical and observational errors take place.

[findingblanks]

And, yes, my belief is that we have good explanations for what caused the folklore that

1) The red flag is what causes the bulls to go wild

2) Why waving any color flag can cause a bull to go wild.

3) What could cause a person to assume the folklore is real and then try to explain why red makes bulls go wild in a scientific fashion.

[AshvinP]

If you have seen that slugs die equally well with salt poured on them from any color container, and if you know of a fairly good explanation as to why the salt kills the slug, and if you also have a fairly good understanding of why the color has nothing to do with why the slug dies, how do you relate to the opening words, "Okay, so we all know that..."

Is it possible for you to still respect the intelligence of your friend even as you have a fairly clear understanding of what the truth in this context is? For me it isn't a problem to still see all the ways my friend is 100 times smarter than I am. But I think some people struggle with this.

Would you be surprised that your friend said this if they typically didn't simply take folklore for granted?

This relates to Kastrup only in the sense that I think he is a master at pointing out exactly where logical and observational errors take place.

What is really needed in these matters is humility. As Socrates remarked, "the only true Wisdom in knowing you know nothing". He was speaking to us today just as much as anyone 2500 years ago. The fact is that, since the advent of modern science in the last 500 years or so, nearly all of it has been studying what Donald Hoffman calls our perceptual 'interface'. The underlying reality is actually not spatially structured in any way similar to our interface. The abstract dimensions of 3-dimensional space really unfolded fully through what Gebser calls the 'mental' and 'perspectival' mutation of consciousness. He refers to Petrarch (14th century) as the first person to really capture this new perpsectival perceptual interface in his writings. So the first step on the path to Wisdom is to know most of modern science, especially from the time of Kant forward, has been dealing with abstract quantities from which all concrete qualities of experience have been stripped.

What does this mean? For one thing, it means the modern scientific mind has no idea "why salt kills slugs". This will come as a shock to most people. But one can see the truth of that reflected in the fact we don't even know what that assertion means. What is salt, in its essence? What is life (and therefore killing of life), in its essence? What are slugs, in their essence? All of these involve meaningful qualities of experience, so any proposed explanation which claims to understand this phenomena at its core must account for those meaningful qualities of salt, slugs, and life. When we start to seriously reflect on these things, most will discover they cannot even begin to think of what meaningful reality gives rise to those qualities. So can we be so certain that the meaning of colors, sounds, smells, etc., all fundamental and interwoven qualities of experience, are not intimately related to the behavior of living organisms we don't understand in the slightest? Of course not.

That is why great humility and curiosity is required - a recognition that humanity is only now beginning to take the smallest of baby steps towards a genuine understanding of the non-spatial dynamics of Reality, and the biggest and the only obstacle in our way is our own prideful conviction that we already understand it.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Would you be surprised that your friend said this if they typically didn't simply take folklore for granted?

If I were to hypothetically know such a friend, who after a clear demonstration that pink Himalayan salt in a pink bag has the same effect on slugs as any other salt, still insisted that only salt in blue boxes works, that would be the end of that particular discussion for me. Nonetheless, I could still be open to a discussion about one of the topics about which they were supposedly 100 times more knowledgeable, assuming they have better evidence than what they have regarding the effect of salt on slugs. Otherwise, maybe we could find a good fantasy movie to watch.

[Lou Gold]

Help me out. I'll benefit from hearing people's basic reaction to if somebody (whose intelligence they respected very much) said something like,

"Okay, so we all know that a slug dies when you pour salt on it that comes from a blue container. I've studied this very seriously and I can explain why the blue kills the slug. You see...."

And imagine we live in a culture in which there is a tradition of believing slugs die because of the color blue and there even used to be ritual 'games' where people used blue containers to pour salt on slugs.

If you have seen that slugs die equally well with salt poured on them from any color container, and if you know of a fairly good explanation as to why the salt kills the slug, and if you also have a fairly good understanding of why the color has nothing to do with why the slug dies, how do you relate to the opening words, "Okay, so we all know that..."

Is it possible for you to still respect the intelligence of your friend even as you have a fairly clear understanding of what the truth in this context is? For me it isn't a problem to still see all the ways my friend is 100 times smarter than I am. But I think some people struggle with this.

Would you be surprised that your friend said this if they typically didn't simply take folklore for granted?

This relates to Kastrup only in the sense that I think he is a master at pointing out exactly where logical and observational errors take place.

WOW! Thank you, PF, for this great thought experiment. Since I'm not a philosopher, let me approach it as the storyteller I am.

I would tell your friend that his/her association of slug-killing salt with blue containers is historically correct and go on to explain why with the story of the famous meme of the Morton Salt Company: "WHEN IT RAINS IT POURS.

Morton Salt was founded in 1848, originally selling salt, but it morphed into a salt manufacturer in 1910. Its logo and slogan, developed shortly thereafter, are a little strange for a salt company, though. The slogan, “when it rains, it pours,” seems like a bad thing — rain isn’t the most pleasant of weather and a downpour is even worse. The logo doesn’t help: it depicts a girl in yellow, holding an umbrella which is shielding her from the rain — but she’s spilling the salt she is carrying under her left arm. Why would a company want to be affiliated with a wet mess? Well, it didn’t. Morton Salt wanted to be known for a scientific breakthrough that we now take for granted: a salt shaker which works when it’s rainy out.

Let’s start with the problem. Take some salt, get it just a little wet (really, a drop will do), and you’ll see that it cakes together. That’s bad if you’re in the table salt business, as clumpy salt doesn’t pour very easily. The obvious solution is to keep the salt dry, but that’s harder than you’d think. Regular old table salt, as the New York Times notes, it’s hygroscopic; “because of the net positive charge of its chemical components, or ions, it can attract atmospheric water, which has a net negative charge.” In other words, when it’s humid out, salt clumps. And when the weather is rainy, it’s humid. Or, as salt users the world over used to observe, when it rained outside, the salt inside wouldn’t pour — it had clumped together too much.

In 1910 or 1911, Morton came up with a solution: adding magnesium carbonate, a compound which absorbed the water molecules, kept the salt grains from caking. This gave Morton a competitive advantage, and they wanted to let the world know. As Morton’s corporate website explains, they took out ads in Good Housekeeping magazine touting their superior salt. The original copy for the ad read “even in rainy weather, it [the salt] flows freely,” and once some wordsmiths got involved, it became “when it rains, it pours.” The girl under the umbrella told the story visually — any other brand of salt, positioned similarly during a rain storm, would hardly have flown out of the container. The logo and slogan are showing a breakthrough in salt science — one hailed by consumers. Even a century later, Morton Salt is North America’s most popular salt brand. Story source

I would continue to explain that since slugs and snails emerge mostly on rainy moist days, it's good to choose the one in the blue container, as other salts, perhaps more "natural ones" without additives such as Himalayan Pink might be harder to pour.

[Soul_of_Shu]

I would continue to explain that since slugs and snails emerge mostly on rainy moist days, it's good to choose the one in the blue container, as other salts, perhaps more "natural ones" without additives such as Himalayan Pink might be harder to pour.

Oh well, guess us Canuck slug slayers are gonna have to make the cross-border shopping trip since this won't work

[Lou Gold]

I would continue to explain that since slugs and snails emerge mostly on rainy moist days, it's good to choose the one in the blue container, as other salts, perhaps more "natural ones" without additives such as Himalayan Pink might be harder to pour.

Oh well, guess us Canuck slug slayers are gonna have to make the cross-border shopping trip since this won't work

A Canuck Chuckle to you, Shu. Happy shopping.

I agree with Ashvin above in that a new modern objective science humility is required in that "enlightened" Cartesian separation of spirit and matter is only now beginning to recognize subjective experiential realities, which may have been previously "mapped" or represented through the modality of folkloric storytelling. In this sense, the required humility of modern reductionist science must include a new respect for so-called, "folklore", which may include profound insights into what moderns consider as actual-factual reality. For those interested in a new respect for "folklore" I highly recommend Robin Wall Kimmerer: "Braiding Sweetgrass" as a best-selling mix of modern science and indigenous storied insights. Bottom line for me is that I do not buy into the colonial notion that modern science is a higher more evolved step beyond indigenous "mappings." Different, YES! But "more evolved" seems arrogant to me.

[Lou Gold]

If you have seen that slugs die equally well with salt poured on them from any color container, and if you know of a fairly good explanation as to why the salt kills the slug, and if you also have a fairly good understanding of why the color has nothing to do with why the slug dies, how do you relate to the opening words, "Okay, so we all know that..."

Is it possible for you to still respect the intelligence of your friend even as you have a fairly clear understanding of what the truth in this context is? For me it isn't a problem to still see all the ways my friend is 100 times smarter than I am. But I think some people struggle with this.

Would you be surprised that your friend said this if they typically didn't simply take folklore for granted?

This relates to Kastrup only in the sense that I think he is a master at pointing out exactly where logical and observational errors take place.

What is really needed in these matters is humility. As Socrates remarked, "the only true Wisdom in knowing you know nothing". He was speaking to us today just as much as anyone 2500 years ago. The fact is that, since the advent of modern science in the last 500 years or so, nearly all of it has been studying what Donald Hoffman calls our perceptual 'interface'. The underlying reality is actually not spatially structured in any way similar to our interface. The abstract dimensions of 3-dimensional space really unfolded fully through what Gebser calls the 'mental' and 'perspectival' mutation of consciousness. He refers to Petrarch (14th century) as the first person to really capture this new perpsectival perceptual interface in his writings. So the first step on the path to Wisdom is to know most of modern science, especially from the time of Kant forward, has been dealing with abstract quantities from which all concrete qualities of experience have been stripped.

What does this mean? For one thing, it means the modern scientific mind has no idea "why salt kills slugs". This will come as a shock to most people. But one can see the truth of that reflected in the fact we don't even know what that assertion means. What is salt, in its essence? What is life (and therefore killing of life), in its essence? What are slugs, in their essence? All of these involve meaningful qualities of experience, so any proposed explanation which claims to understand this phenomena at its core must account for those meaningful qualities of salt, slugs, and life. When we start to seriously reflect on these things, most will discover they cannot even begin to think of what meaningful reality gives rise to those qualities. So can we be so certain that the meaning of colors, sounds, smells, etc., all fundamental and interwoven qualities of experience, are not intimately related to the behavior of living organisms we don't understand in the slightest? Of course not.

That is why great humility and curiosity is required - a recognition that humanity is only now beginning to take the smallest of baby steps towards a genuine understanding of the non-spatial dynamics of Reality, and the biggest and the only obstacle in our way is our own prideful conviction that we already understand it.

Ashvin, I should have placed my comment to Shu here first but it "intuitively popped" for me there. Let me repeat it here for your consideration:

I agree with Ashvin above in that a new modern objective science humility is required in that "enlightened" Cartesian separation of spirit and matter is only now beginning to recognize subjective experiential realities, which may have been previously "mapped" or represented through the modality of folkloric storytelling. In this sense, the required humility of modern reductionist science must include a new respect for so-called, "folklore", which may include profound insights into what moderns consider as actual-factual reality. For those interested in a new respect for "folklore" I highly recommend Robin Wall Kimmerer: "Braiding Sweetgrass" as a best-selling mix of modern science and indigenous storied insights. Bottom line for me is that I do not buy into the colonial notion that modern science is a higher more evolved step beyond indigenous "mappings." Different, YES! But "more evolved" seems arrogant to me.

[AshvinP]

I agree with Ashvin above in that a new modern objective science humility is required in that "enlightened" Cartesian separation of spirit and matter is only now beginning to recognize subjective experiential realities, which may have been previously "mapped" or represented through the modality of folkloric storytelling. In this sense, the required humility of modern reductionist science must include a new respect for so-called, "folklore", which may include profound insights into what moderns consider as actual-factual reality. For those interested in a new respect for "folklore" I highly recommend Robin Wall Kimmerer: "Braiding Sweetgrass" as a best-selling mix of modern science and indigenous storied insights. Bottom line for me is that I do not buy into the colonial notion that modern science is a higher more evolved step beyond indigenous "mappings." Different, YES! But "more evolved" seems arrogant to me.

Thanks, Lou. I think you are exactly right - folklore must find its place in a healthy 21st century science, rather than be discarded as mere superstition or "metaphor" added on top of the actual world content. It really amazes me now that the latter could even be considered a possibility for anyone who has deeply considered the matter.

I am actually finishing up an essay on dualism now, taking a different approach than the Kant essay, and I think you will appreciate it. Stay tuned!

[Lou Gold]

Thanks, Lou. I think you are exactly right - folklore must find its place in a healthy 21st century science, rather than be discarded as mere superstition or "metaphor" added on top of the actual world content. It really amazes me now that the latter could even be considered a possibility for anyone who has deeply considered the matter.

I am actually finishing up an essay on dualism now, taking a different approach than the Kant essay, and I think you will appreciate it. Stay tuned!

Thanks, Ashvin. Yes, I will read your new post.

Meanwhile, I urge folks to watch this new Netflix documentary: "The Last Forest", which way beyond "folklore" presents the real deal.