[QUOTE=Dixon;135686]
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by anathstryx:
Yep. There are plenty of wackos in this wacky world. Wouldn't you agree? Perhaps you think I'm one? Perhaps if I knew you, I'd think you're one? Perhaps we'd both be right? Or neither?
Thanks for your obviously well thought out responses, Dixon. I will do my best to reply although, I confess, I would much rather hit the reset button and move on, preferrably to my garden where the plants are rejoicing to the appearance of the sun after such a rainy start to June.
No, I do not think you are a wacko at all. I think you're a very intelligent person with a passion for what you believe in. I find that to be an admirable trait. I would even go so far to say that I might even enjoy you as a friend but this is just based on seeing your video. I find a lot of contradictions between what I read in your posts and the impression I got from you in the video. But I digress.
Yes, you might find me to be a wacko. Based on what you have written about New Agers, it's highly probable.
Yes, I agree that there are plenty of wackos in the world. However, my point was that you said you have never called anyone on Wacco a wacko yet, by implication in the same sentence, you did. My intent was to show you the contradiction. Apparently, I did not suceed.
Quote:
Obviously not. Is there some reason you think I should have used a scientific term in that context? Or are you just being sarcastic?
Yes, I was being mildy sarcastic. I do not use emoticons very often. They annoy the hell out of me although I do understand that they can be somewhat useful in the faceless world of electronic communication.
Quote:
I'm not sure what trait you're referring to here. Please clarify. I'm open to any criticism, including the possibility that I may be passive-aggressive somehow, but you need to give me an example or two of my supposed passive-aggressive behavior. Without examples, calling me that is just slapping me around (passive-aggressively?).
Yes, all of that is part of the picture. I thought sharing my feelings would help folks understand where I'm coming from a little better, and maybe help me do some introspection. It seems your mention of it is sarcastic. Are you trying to be helpful in some way, or just slapping me around a bit?
I was doing both. I found this to be a case of the pot calling the kettle black. What I would hope from you, or anyone (myself included) is that when we find ourselves critisizing others for their behavior, we acknowledge that we also engage in that behavior and give others the same slack we ourselves would like to be given.
From my perspective, it seems that rationalists strive to curtail emotion so that it does not cloud logic. To use a popular icon, rather like Spock. I felt that, in the discussion, you were diverting the argument from the rational to the emotional...somewhat a slight of hand of misdirection. This muddies the waters of intellectual discourse. It causes one to get bogged down in subjective entanglements rather than stick to the logical argument. The passive-aggressive trait is to claim victimization rather than confront the fact that one is engaging in victimizing others.
I was not, however, being sarcastic here. My intent was to emphasize two primary points: 1) Welcome to the club. We all feel sad, scared, and defensive when our belief systems are attacked. You are painfully aware of it and thus should be more sensitive to others when critisizing their belief systems, and 2) by introducing your feelings into the discussion, it diverts it from the topic being debated as I mentioned above.
Quote:
Again, I can't assess whether there's any truth to this until you give me at least one or two examples of my hubris and my hypocrisy. I'm open to criticism, but you need to give me something more to work with than generalizations.
Clarify, please. By "posits of rationalism" do you mean my positing that I'm a rationalist, or posits I've made about the characteristics of rationalism, or...?
I think your quote that I posted speaks for itself and throughout the body of your post entire there are several examples of hubris. You are as capable of returning to the original post and re-examining it as anyone.
I'll be happy to clarify "posits of rationalism". You maintain that you are a rationalist and you clearly approach topics from that p.o.v., regardless of the context. To sum up my point, I am asking you to be a rationalist when you engage in discussion. Frankly, I would much rather dialog with a rationalist than with someone who lacks the intellectual tools to explore the grand philosophical questions. I would like to see you hone your skills as a rationalist and rise to the occiasions of challenge or inquiry with dignity. Perhaps it's a new path to you and, at times, you have stepped out into unfamiliar territory and what appears to me as failing around is you trying to get your bearings.
Quote:
This is manifestly untrue. Look back over this and my previous articles-with-comments and you'll see quite a bit of productive philosophical discourse, most of which seemed pretty satisfying for all participants. I must say, your exaggerated criticism is starting to sound more like emotional spew than constructive criticism, but I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you wish to reason with me rather than just slap me around...
I acknowledge there was quite a bit of emotion in my post but you should have seen what I edited out! I don't think my critism was exaggerated but I also acknowledge that I probably could have been more thoughtful in my approach. But I did not feel gentle, kind, or sweet at the time. Thank you for the benefit of the doubt. I would prefer to reason with you. I do feel emotional about certain things and I'm content that I do. I am as impassioned about my philosophy as you are about yours. I have no qualms about that nor do I make apologies for it.
Quote:
So here you assert not just that I engage in ridicule sometimes, but that every time I present my theories, I do it with ridicule. Surely you're intelligent enough to know that an absolutistic statement like that, allowing for no exceptions, is almost certain to be bullshit. Anyway, if it's even anywhere near true, it will surely take you at most a minute or two to find at least six or eight examples. I look forward to seeing them.
Yes, absolustic statements are bullshit. You busted me. I have not been present or witnessed every time you have presented your theories and can in no way prove that you always engage in ridicule. I did not mean to imply that you always do this. You'd done it enough times in my mind to bring it up.
This is an example of "nit-picking" (see below), however. I am reminded of the classic debate between William F. Buckley and John Kenneth Galbraith where, when hitting an impasse, they engaged in critisizing each others grammar. Of course, neither one of us compare to these intellectual giants, so I imagine such forms of muddling around in linguistic entanglements will be more common for us.
Quote:
Hmmm...now a list of three criticisms. Honestly, I'm not aware of these behaviors. I'm not even sure what "chest-thumping" means apart from gorilla behavior. One or two examples of each ("nit-picking", "chest-thumping", and "essentially throwing rationalism right out the window") are necessary here.
I don't know where you come up with three examples of this and six or eight examples of the other, Dixon. Is this in some sort of Rules of Engagement? Where do I get a copy of that? They seem arbitrary to me without defining your idea of said rules. Why should I be inclined to abide by them? Why wouldn't one example be sufficient or five rather than six or eight? This may seem facetious on my part but, truely, I'm curious.
Quote:
I've always affirmed that I'm far from perfect. If you mean something stronger than that...well, I'm open to that, too. How am I not abiding by my philosophy? Make your case.
See my hope for you to hone your skills above. I don't want to be pendantic.
Quote:
Note that you assumed I'm unconvincible of that prior to even trying! In fact, this statement from you showed me that my presentation of the Rationalistic versus New Age communities overemphasized the differences a bit, so I went back and added some clarification: "The differences between Rationalists and New Agers are not as cut-and-dried as these lists make them sound, and are mostly matters of degree, with plenty of fallacy among Rationalists and plenty of honest attempts at reasoning among New Agers. And on some issues, the New Agers will turn out right and the Rationalists wrong." That has been my position all along. Thank you for prodding me into clarifying it. Is that satisfactory, to your mind?
Completely! It allows us all to strive for some common ground and understanding.
Quote:
Anathstryx, how many beliefs do you hold about which you don't think you are right (and, by extension, that those who disagree with you are wrong)? To believe something is to assert that you're right about it (and this includes the implication that those who disagree are wrong). If you think I'm wrong about that, please provide an example or two of exceptions. The issue is whether we're open to the possibility that we're wrong and the other guy is right instead. While nobody's open-mindedness is perfect (partly for reasons I explicate in my upcoming column, "Truth Seeking and Faith Keeping"--get it at your local Wacco), I regard myself as more open-minded than most. I've said more than once here on Wacco that I've been profoundly wrong, sometimes about my basic beliefs, before, and assume I'm wrong about some of my beliefs now, and that will always be the case. Rather than comfortably surrounding myself with my fellow rationalists, I often engage with those I disagree with, such as you, partly because I want to be corrected in those areas where I'm wrong. How about you?
Oh, I try to be diligent about examining my beliefs and discarding those which I think are erroneous because it is through our beliefs that we filter reality and relate and respond to experience. I want to have an authentic life. In fact, I think that is the most important goal of a human being. For me to not discard erroneous beliefs would be a profound disservice to myself! As for others disaggreeing with my beliefs, I do not necessarly think they are wrong and I am right. I don't usually see things so distinctly black and white/right and wrong. When it comes to philosophy, there are no absolutes as you are surely aware. Nor do I hold to one philosophy being more right than another. I prefer to think that each contains useful information that may be applicable toward helping me achieve my own goal of living an authentic life and I'll gratefully apply useful information and discard what is not.
I like to use the analogy of going to a buffet. At that buffet I have several options of food to choose. If I just eat the chicken because I've become dogmatic about chicken, I'll miss out on the deliciousness and nutritious benefits of all the other options. I've stupidly put self-imposed limits on myself, denying myself a broadening of experience and the potential of enhancing experience. If I stay open to trying everything in the buffet I will, no doubt, encounter foods I will love, foods I will hate, foods that I can take or leave, and so on. Eventually, I'll have a plate of food that satisfies my hunger, and nourishes me. I know it's a simplistic analogy but it speaks on a very visceral level so many can relate.
In my own community, I have been disparaged by many of my fellows because I have this approach to belief. The term applied to a person that does this is "eclectic". It is frequently a condemnation. But I contend that following strictly a particular tradition in a dogmatic manner is like living in a cage...or being confined to just eating chicken.
I cannot ever say that my philosophy, which is constructed from parts of many philosophies, is right or wrong for anyone one else no more than I can say that these shoes I'm wearing will fit anyone else. There are far too many variables to take into consideration and, I'm afraid, it would take way too much time for me to elucidate further here.
When I engage in dialog with others who have a disagreement with my philosophy, my hope is to find some common ground and we can each have a better understanding of where we're coming from. I think it would be a pretty boring, stilted, and deformed world if we all believed the same thing. And I think it would be impossible for us all to believe the same thing anyway, which is a great relief to me.
However, I do not purposefully seek out the company of people who have radically opposing views to mine because I'm not a masochist. Nor do I wish to only be in the company of those who seem to have the same worldview as I do because that is insular and therefore limiting. I like to be in the company of people who are good-natured, intellectually stimulating, creative, and like cake. I love cake. Do you?
Quote:
My point about New Agers implicitly claiming infallibility (well, OK--near-infallibility) is this: Science and, more broadly, critical thinking are largely just systems designed to correct for our universal human fallacies--the confirmation bias, placebo effect, effort justification effect, self-centered thinking, wishful thinking, and a thousand other fallacies most of which, apparently, every human is subject to. By rejecting the canons of science and reason, which, as you know, many (I think most) New Agers do, they're rejecting mechanisms that could correct for their fallacies and replacing them with--nothing. Doesn't this imply that they feel no need for fallacy-correction because they think they're not subject to those fallacies? How many times have we heard people reject the findings of a zillion scientific studies, saying, for instance, "Science is wrong. I know astrology is true because I've experienced it!" Note the arrogant implication that their unsystematic judgment is superior to the work of thousands of trained scientists, and the apparent total ignorance or denial that they have any natural fallacies in their thinking that may require some careful measures to compensate for. Does this not imply a grandiose feeling of (near) infallibility? That's what I'm talking about. Fair enough?
You're painting with a broad brush here but you have acknowldged that there are some New Agers who are exceptions to this rule and, I think, I would fall into that category. I am completely comfortable with the scientific tests of critical thinking to correct universal human fallacies. Without belaboring it (or attempting to), I completely agree that science and critical thinking techniques are excellent tools for hacking away fallacies and I, like you, wish more of my fellow New Agers would use them as well as everyone else, and some of everyone else more than others. But, once again, to rely purely on science is limiting. Science is a dynamic mechanism ever evolving. Those things which it cannot yet measure will be measurable in the future. To say that because we cannot quantify something now means it doesn't exist is fallacious. At one time, it was commonly believed that the human sperm was a homunculus and the female womb was a sort of hothouse for this little human to incubate in. This was the accepted scientific position. Clearly, science was wrong. Oh, happy day when Leeuwenhoek was born! So, I say, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy". One needs to stay open to possibilities. Even science needs to be critically assessed at every turn.
I do not believe that astrology is an exact science and that it has degraded significantly as a type of tool since ancient times into a popular past time somewhat like watching soap operas. I do believe that physical bodies in motion have an effect on other physical bodies to a greater or lesser degree depending on distance and other factors and so I do not discount the possibility that Mars, which moves in a pretty predictable manner, might have some weak effect on me but that's no excuse for me to be careful about how I discuss washing the dishes with my lazy Ares daughter. I don't blame a Mercury retrograde because my car won't start. A Mercury retrograde is an optical illusion. I need a new battery. But if I'm going to cast a spell...and yes, I do from time to time cast spells...I will wait for a moon phase that is appropriate to the spell to enhance it because the moon does indeed have a strong effect on all things fluid and I need all the help I can get. So, I choose to use science as practically as possible in addition to those things which I intuit or seems reasonable to me but have no proofs other than the result.
Quote:
Why wouldn't it be? All it means is "What the fuck?" In other words, "This is totally incomprehensible to me; please explain." Do you have a problem with that for some reason? If you're inferring a more negative implication that really isn't there, you're just causing yourself needless distress.
WTF is not at all polite, Dixon. Saying "this is totally incomprehensible to me; please explain." is. Perhaps this is a generational thing, but I would never say WTF and consider it polite even if I was hanging out with skateboarders.
Quote:
I'm getting really tired of being harassed on the basis of people's willful negativization of my use of the term "delusion". I've dealt with this before and you should have read it, but you apparently didn't get the message, so here it is once again. I said: "Yeah, that's an experience we've all had. There's a term for it; it's called "delusion"." Note that the statement, while made to Gene, was not specific to Gene or anybody. It was a statement about universal human experience--that we all, including me, have been deluded (i.e., have had false beliefs). Do you see that it wasn't about Gene any more than it was about me (and everybody else)? If you want to interpret it as my somehow attacking Gene, then I must have been attacking the whole human race, including myself, because that's who I was explicitly talking about--me, you, everybody; we're all subject to delusion. It's part of the human experience. Now do you get that simple concept, or would you prefer to remain obtuse so you can have a bogus excuse to torment me a little more, Anathstryx?
I'm tired of it, too. Moving along.
Quote:
You mention that "delusion" is not a positive thing. So what? Neither are lots of things we've been talking about. Is it bad to point out some negative things? If so, how can you justify your screed directed at me? If you should harass me on the basis of your gross distortion of my obvious meaning about human delusiveness, how much more should you be harassed for the numerous bad attributions you direct at me in your ill-considered screed? "Hey folks, we've gotten tired of beating up on Dixon for our distorted interpretation of something he said. Let's beat up on Anathstryx for awhile; she said so many more nasty things than Dixon did." But of course, that won't happen; I'm the designated target in this dysfunctional family system.
This horse needs a decent burial.
Quote:
(Anathstryx then quotes this passage from me: "...pointing out flaws in other people's positions, and it won't be the last. If someone is open to being corrected when they're mistaken, they'll have no problem with me. They'll take my critique as intended--as a gift! If their agenda is to be unchanged by our discussion, maintaining their beliefs regardless of whether they're true, I could be very scary indeed. In most if not all cases, people's discomfort with me is a measure of their closed-mindedness--they're scared to death of being shown they're mistaken about something by a guy who can do it. That's a problem they have--not a problem with my behavior)
It's not clear to me that there's any sign of hubris in that passage. Please elucidate. You sound like you're assuming that some or all of what I'm saying there is unreasonable in some way. Make your case. And note that I'm not saying nor implying that I'm always right, or anything of that sort.."
I don't think your method of pointing out flaws is so flawless in itself that you can claim pointing out someone elses flaws is a gift. Therefore, hubris...excessive self-confidence.
And then I said: It could be just as easily said that your discomfort with we New Agers is a measure of your closed-mindedness.
Quote:
Once again, it's unclear to me that this is true. Please make your case or retract your accusation.
Just using your own argument. You are beating people with a an intellectual stick and then, when it's wrestled away from you and you're whacked with the same stick, you cry foul. Just pointing that out.
Quote:
A clever saying, and I think very wise. I'll try to keep it in mind. But it seems ironic that you're quoting it in the context of your screed against me, Anathstryx. Look back over your words. Can you honestly say they're "soft and sweet"? Would it be fair to say that your preaching "soft and sweet" to me is both ironic and hypocritical?
As I confessed way above, I was not feeling soft and sweet. Yes, it is a clever saying. We both seem to agree on that. Let's both work on it, okay?
Quote:
I always affirm that I, being human, am imperfectly rational. But your attack (it's fair to call it that, right?) asserts something much stronger. Even if we assume that I fall short of "walking the talk" occasionally, you seem to be dismissing my entire oeuvre in those terms. Have you read all of my interactions with those who disagree with me on the threads associated with my several essays, and elsewhere, in order to appropriately make this blanket dismissal of me? And if not, aren't you yourself giving an example of not walking the walk?
I don't claim to be a rationalist. We've already covered the fact that I have not perused your entire oeuvre.
Quote:
You accuse me of engaging in diatribe ("A forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something", according to my dictionary), not just sometimes, but every time in my interactions with those I disagree with. This is manifestly untrue, as an honest perusal of my posts will show you. It's another absolutistic zinger, an accusation allowing for no exceptions. In fact, few if any of my posts can be accurately termed diatribes, but I know of one that can--your screed against me. Think I'm wrong? Read it again, Anathstryx, with the definition of "diatribe" in mind.
I don't think I was ranting. I thought I was pretty concise.
Quote:
Anathstryx, your screed has been a blast of criticism delivered in general terms, often exaggerated, sometimes to the point of absolutism, with few if any examples to back up your negative characterizations of me. I hope you can appreciate that, rather than dismissing you as abrasive and huffy, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, responding from the assumption that your intention is constructive criticism rather than just self-righteous verbal abuse. Accordingly I've asked for examples in every case where your accusations aren't self-evidently true to me, so I can show you the respect of exploring them honestly and open-mindedly, to the purpose of becoming a better person. I await the examples I need from you in order to continue this exploration. Thank you for your time and effort. The ball is in your court.
I feel like I'm reading a red-penned note on my essay from my philosophy teacher in freshman philosophy class here, Dixon. I'm not looking for a grade. Yes, I vented on you yesterday. My words were harsh (but much, much softened by editing). I was angry.
You may characterize me as being abbrasive and huffy if you like because I was being abbrasive and huffy. I had a pretty full on huff going. I allowed emotion to get in the way of reasonable discourse. Mea culpa. I apologize for harshness and huffiness. In future, I will be far more circumspect when you push one of my buttons and I feel compelled to let you know about it. I would hope that in trade, you would also be more circumspect when your "woowoo" button gets pushed.
My intent was to point out to you that you can dish it out, but you can't take it, Dixon. I was hoping that, as a rational person you would see that and I, as a rational person, could help you see it. Hubris on my part then.
Perhaps we can both take way from this experience that there are better ways to phrase criticisms that make them constructive rather than destructive. People hold their beliefs passionately and there are no winners when beliefs are attacked. It's not a contest. We can all be guilty of using the same stick to beat each other up. What can we discern from each other's beliefs that are uniting rather than fractious? Is it possible for people with distinctly different belief systems to co-exist harmoniously by seeking common ground rather than berating each other for perceived flaws? I hope so. How can we all push away from the table feeling satisfied and nourished instead of getting into a food fight?
So, the challenge, I guess, is can you be a damn good rationalist and can I be a damn good New Ager (I'm a Pagan, actually), both of us continuing to hone our respective philosophical tools, and can we meet up and build something worthwhile together? Or should we just say, "WTF' and go have some cake?
Anathstryx