Article: The Gospel According to Dixon #1: Let's Be Reasonable

My Fellow Waccobites,

I warmly welcome you all to my new monthly column here at WaccoBB.net!

So many of the discussions I've seen or participated in generate more heat than light. Much of our communication seems to be driving wedges more deeply between us rather than bringing us together. So when Barry invited me to write a column, I started thinking in terms of what I can say to improve understanding between folks who are coming from very different beliefs and assumptions. In this monthly series of essays, I will attempt to do several things:

1) I will lay out some basic assumptions about the nature of reality, evidence, and reason, and how we can best find truth rather than falling into illusion. After that, I will apply these principles to thought-provoking and entertaining essays on various topics of interest, including topics suggested by my readers.

2) I will attempt to convince you readers of my positions on these things, while being open to correction from you, as I may be wrong about anything at any time!

3) Regardless of what conclusions we arrive at, I expect that we'll better understand each other's positions, thus hopefully increasing empathy for one another and the cohesiveness of our community.

4) I intend also to entertain, making my pieces as concise, punchy and inspiring as possible, and occasionally including poetry, humor, or very personal memoirs as appropriate.

5) I expect my essays to trigger interesting dialogue, and that your ideas will somewhat shape my writings.

So relax, get comfortable, and join in the dialogue!

Let’s Be Reasonable
By Dixon Wragg
Published by www.WaccoBB.net
January, 2011

He that cannot reason is a fool.
He that will not is a bigot.
He that dare not is a slave.
~Andrew Carnegie

We live in, as they say euphemistically, interesting times. Not only are we faced with the usual vexing, often horrifying problems--war, bigotry, poverty, etc.--but in some ways our problems are unprecedented in human history, e.g., disastrous global environmental change and nuclear immolation.

Simplistic solutions, such as counting on a supernatural fix (prayer, the Age of Aquarius, the Harmonic Convergence, the advent of 2012, the coming—whether first or second--of the Messiah, etc.); or uncritically following some tradition, religious or secular; or just trying to love everybody more; or expecting someone to come up with a wonderful technological fix to save us from the consequences of our folly are all sucker bets. Mostly they’ve been fruitless or have even exacerbated our suffering.

I propose thinking as a necessary response to our problems. And not just the plain old sloppy thinking we do every day. I’m talking about a special kind of thinking: reasoning, which involves forming accurate judgments about reality through logical processes. All of us, even those of you who like to think you’re too enlightened for mere logic, are pretty good at reasoning or we wouldn’t be alive. The process by which we learn to refrain from walking into traffic or touching fire comes nearly automatically to all of us. Reasoning comes naturally.

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...ker_rodin2.jpg

But unreason comes naturally to us as well. There are many, many sources of fallacy in our reasoning: social programming, lazy habits of thought, misunderstanding of probabilities, wishful thinking, egocentric thinking, the whole litany of common logical fallacies--the list goes on and on. Every single one of us is more fallible than we think; that’s part of the human condition. As with any skill—dancing, cooking, lovemaking, driving—we can improve our reasoning through learning and practice. The art of “thinking about our thinking while we’re thinking to improve our thinking” is sometimes called Critical Thinking.

In some circles, including Sonoma County New Age culture, reason seems to have become a dirty word. Many see it as, at best, just one in a number of equal sources of knowledge, citing, for example, spiritual traditions or intuition as equal or even superior to reason. Some claim to see all worldviews, rational and nonrational, as inherently equal, recognizing no objective standards by which we may separate the wheat from the chaff. Many even scapegoat reason and science for the evils of patriarchy, war, and environmental degradation.

Some seem to feel that logical critique is for emotionless robots, that precise, correct reasoning will make us heartless or joyless or less sensitive in some way. Nothing could be further from the truth. Becoming a heartless automaton, coldly calculating all the time, would be unreasonable, as it would deaden the joy of life. Reason is a tool which, used properly, can increase the joy of life for the whole world. Love is, in most situations, profoundly reasonable! So is the Golden Rule. Often, so are joy, play, sexiness and silliness.

Conversely, theft, rape, murder, bigotry, war--indeed, most sources of needless human suffering, are fundamentally unreasonable, and they continue largely because we don’t value reason enough to cure them. If we demanded of ourselves, as individuals and as societies, to root out fallacious thinking, to resist appeals to emotion and prejudice, to engage in mutual respectful critique with those in disagreement, to eschew armoring in favor of openness, and to embrace reasonable standards for what we’re willing to call “truth”, we could achieve as close to paradise on earth as we’re likely ever to get.

Those of you who have demonized reason have created an imbalance within yourselves and, by extension, a disastrous imbalance in society. Some American Indian teachings map human personality upon a circular pattern called the Medicine Wheel, in which I see an ideal of well-roundedness, completeness. People who have free, smooth access to all parts of the Medicine Wheel, moving from one part to another, from hardness to softness, work to play, feeling to thought, as a situation requires, are functioning optimally, as is a society made up of such folks. People who have a blockage in some area—feelings, sexuality, sociality, action, reason—are unbalanced, out of tune with themselves and the world, and problems will ensue.

The unbalance I seem to see most often in my community is a blockage in the area of reason, a rejection of clear, precise thinking in favor of the false security of feel-good nostrums, faiths, fantasies, and whatever specious logic is required to bolster desired beliefs. Faith, intuition, love, duty, and good intentions aren’t enough; there will be no better world without better reasoning. We do not have the luxury of rejecting some argument, or rejecting reason itself, if it leads to conclusions we find uncomfortable. We must be willing to love truth above comfort and honesty above ego.

Those whom we view as archetypes of evil, such as the Nazis, are usually not psychotic, nor purposely evil. They’re normal people, fundamentally like you and me, who love and fear and struggle to survive. Their main flaw is their abandonment of reason in favor of fallacious emotional appeals to their greed, paranoia, self-righteousness, racism and nationalism. Out of ignorance, apathy and social pressure, they accept unreasonable precepts and fallacious arguments, which, piled one upon another, create bigoted belief systems and brutal, oppressive social institutions. Most of these folks think they’re defending themselves and making the world peaceful, just and free for their children, whom they love. But even good impulses such as love can be perverted by unreason, growing into some very dark, poisonous blooms indeed.

How many times have we heard or said “Be reasonable”, and what does “reasonable” mean as it’s commonly used? I think we all know the answer: “Be reasonable” nearly always means “Agree with me”, “Give me what I want”. It’s just another example of the old Critical Thinking bugaboo, egocentric thinking.

But my dictionary¹ defines “reasonable” as “…having sound judgment; fair and sensible…”. We can also derive some commonsense implications just from looking at the word. To me, the word “reasonable” implies that we can be reasoned into or out of a position by a compelling argument, that we can articulate reasons for our position, and that those reasons are good reasons which will stand up under critical scrutiny, since a bad reason is no reason at all. Note that all of this further implies open-minded dialogue among those in disagreement, guided by well thought out standards of reason.

In this series of essays, I’ll start by explicating various facets of reason, with suggestions as to how we can better incorporate it into our lives. We’ll be looking more deeply at just about every issue I’ve mentioned in this introduction, and much, much more. I encourage discussion, pro, con and otherwise. Please note that this is not just a dry, abstract intellectual exercise. I’m passionate about reason because without it we have zero chance of achieving a world of peace, justice, freedom, truth, tolerance and sustainability. So it is love of those ideals, along with love of our sisters and brothers the world over, that can motivate us to reason heroically. Love directed by reason is our best chance.

Notes:

1. The New Oxford American Dictionary, 2^nd edition, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005) 1411.

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...oppedSmall.jpg

About Dixon: I'm a hopeful monster, committed to laughter, love, and the Golden Rule. I see reason, applied with empathy, as the most important key to making a better world. I'm a lazy slob and a weirdo. I love cats, kids, quilts, fossils, tornadoes, comic books, unusual music, and too much else to mention. I’m a former conservative Christian, then New Ager, now a rationalist, skeptic and atheist. Lately I’m a Contributing Editor at the Omnificent English Dictionary In Limerick Form (That’s right!), and have been getting my humor published in the Washington Post and Fantasy and Science Fiction. I’m job-hunting too, mostly in the Human Services realm. Passions: Too many -- Reading, writing, critical thinking, public speaking, human rights and justice, sex and sensuality, most arts and sciences, nature. Oh, and ladies, I’m single ;^D

I appreciate this - and - it leaves me wanting a concrete example. Being a pragmatist, I want to know how reason has "saved the day" in some significant way.

Also, it seems to me that all the reasoning in the world will fail to come to desirable solutions, decisions or plans unless it is operating from awareness (a "knowledge base") that is as all-inclusive as possible. And this is where our own minds become our greatest liability or impediment, because the mind can strongly resist seeing the larger truth. When the mind goes into "survival mode" (and it can do so whether or not our survival is actually threatened), no amount of reasoning will get the mind to relax and allow access to off-limits (ego-threatening) information. Even (or especially) our own false beliefs must be kept well hidden. Ever try arguing with someone who's into a fundamentalist religion? If so, you've witnessed one example of how the mind clings to its arguments - rational or not, well-informed or not - with fierce determination to avoid the snake-pit of repressed needs, feelings and beliefs. (I don't mean to pick on fundamentalists; my sense is that all minds with significant unresolved experiences have their avoidance strategies - my own included!)

I'm open to learning more. Critical Thinking was one class I missed . . .

Clint

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by CSummer:

I appreciate this...

---

Thanks! Stay tuned for future columns.

Quote:

---

- and - it leaves me wanting a concrete example. Being a pragmatist, I want to know how reason has "saved the day" in some significant way.

---

Well, Clint, a lot of what I was getting at is that reason mostly isn't saving the day because we aren't using it much (as you cogently point out in your comments below). But it's a mixed bag. As I mentioned, both reason and unreason come naturally to us humans. Examples of reason "saving the day"? Consider: when enough people in a society become reasonable enough about some issue, a threshold is reached and things change. Thus, the institution of slavery was abolished in this country in the 1860s instead of a century later partly because enough people got reasonable about it sooner rather than later. Yes, there are always factors other than reason, but reason is one of them. Another example: Germany fell over the precipice into a nation-destroying level of fascism because the level of unreason reached a certain threshold, while other countries resist the fascist temptation partly because enough people are reasoning well enough to reject fascist fallacies. And of course, technological advances such as modern medicine are based on proper reasoning, so if you and I live much past 40, it's because reason has "saved the day" for us.

Quote:

---

Also, it seems to me that all the reasoning in the world will fail to come to desirable solutions, decisions or plans unless it is operating from awareness (a "knowledge base") that is as all-inclusive as possible. And this is where our own minds become our greatest liability or impediment, because the mind can strongly resist seeing the larger truth. When the mind goes into "survival mode" (and it can do so whether or not our survival is actually threatened), no amount of reasoning will get the mind to relax and allow access to off-limits (ego-threatening) information. Even (or especially) our own false beliefs must be kept well hidden. Ever try arguing with someone who's into a fundamentalist religion? If so, you've witnessed one example of how the mind clings to its arguments - rational or not, well-informed or not - with fierce determination to avoid the snake-pit of repressed needs, feelings and beliefs.

---

Well-observed and well-stated, Clint. My Master's Degree is in counseling and I, like you, have a particular interest in how psychological "armoring" distorts our thinking. In upcoming columns I'll be looking at that, and related issues like open-mindedness, the role of emotions, and comprehensive versus self-centered thinking, so stay tuned!

Quote:

---

(I don't mean to pick on fundamentalists; my sense is that all minds with significant unresolved experiences have their avoidance strategies - my own included!)

---

The fundies of whatever stripe (Christian, Jewish, Moslem, whatever) are an easy target, as, unlike most of us, they don't even pretend very hard to be rational--and I'm speaking as a former fundamentalist Christian myself! But, as you point out, we are all, as humans, subject to some degree of distortion and closed-mindedness. Keeping that in mind can maximize our empathy for our fundie sisters and brothers.

Quote:

---

I'm open to learning more. Critical Thinking was one class I missed . . .

---

Great to have you on board, Clint, and thanks for sharing your thinking!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

My Fellow Waccobites,

I warmly welcome you all to my new monthly column here at WaccoBB.net!

---

good luck with the column - I look forward to reading it!

one thought I had while reading your introductory essay: sometimes people get their hackles up when one side of a discussion starts appealing to reason - the other immediately feels they're being put on the side of un-reason, or being called unreasonable. Everyone should realize that it's quite difficult to ensure that your argument is reasonable, because it's not the mode of thinking that comes most naturally to anyone. Lots of recent research, and a long history of thinking about thinking, supports the idea that your ideas and feelings emerge more from subjective processes of you mind than from some coldly logical process. It takes some dispassionate analysis to ensure that a conclusion (which you almost certainly didn't initially arrive at purely logically) can be re-cast so that it's rationally and logically defensible. It's an opportunity to understand your own position better - so try to take a plea for reason as a positive suggestion rather than an attack!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

good luck with the column...

---

Muchas gracias, podfish!

Quote:

---

- I look forward to reading it!

---

Wonderful!

Quote:

---

one thought I had while reading your introductory essay: sometimes people get their hackles up when one side of a discussion starts appealing to reason - the other immediately feels they're being put on the side of un-reason, or being called unreasonable. Everyone should realize that it's quite difficult to ensure that your argument is reasonable, because it's not the mode of thinking that comes most naturally to anyone. Lots of recent research, and a long history of thinking about thinking, supports the idea that your ideas and feelings emerge more from subjective processes of you mind than from some coldly logical process. It takes some dispassionate analysis to ensure that a conclusion (which you almost certainly didn't initially arrive at purely logically) can be re-cast so that it's rationally and logically defensible.

---

Yes, and I would hasten to add that, in the process of that dispassionate analysis, instead of finding that our position is rationally and logically defensible, we may find that it isn't. Being able, at that point, to change our position is what separates the men from the boys and the women from the girls.

Quote:

---

It's an opportunity to understand your own position better - so try to take a plea for reason as a positive suggestion rather than an attack!

---

A crucial point, perhaps especially for our local New Age community, and I couldn't have said it better myself.

Way to go, dumbass...
Seriously, I congratulate you on your column, my friend, and wish you success with it... which you seem to already be enjoying.

Quote: 1) I will lay out some basic assumptions about the nature of reality, truth, evidence, reason, and how we can best find truth rather than falling into illusion....

FYI,Whenever someone uses the word “truth”, I almost always have this thought in my head that says there is a huge potential for a difference between “truth” and “fact”; specifically in the first following definition; Note 5 b. I think that there are two divergent and often times opposing conception/s of definition to either depending upon a particular situation. One for example; would be scientifically based and the other one could be religious, and/or philosophically based:

n. pl. truths 1. Conformity to fact or actuality. 2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true. 3. Sincerity; integrity. 4. Fidelity to an original or standard. 5. a. Reality; actuality. b. often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence. Then there are other (qualifying) “zones” that can in semantics, render the word "truth" to somewhat different conclusiveness and/or meanings depending upon the narrative. Some of those zones are: verisimilitude (W.S. Gilbert), "Veracity is the heart of morality" (Thomas H. Huxley), and "beliefs that were accepted as eternal... ...(particularly number 2 below) eternal [ɪˈtɜːnəl] adj 1. a. without beginning or end; lasting for ever eternal life b. (as noun) the eternal 2. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) (often capital) denoting or relating to that which is without beginning and end, regarded as an attribute of God 3. unchanged by time, esp being true or valid for all time; immutable eternal truths 4. seemingly unceasing; occurring again and again eternal bickering [from Late Latin aeternālis, from Latin aeternus; related to Latin aevum age] eternality , eternalness n eternally adv ...verities" (James Harvey Robinson)... ...as are mentioned below: [Middle English trewthe, loyalty, from Old English tr[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/SH/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image003.gif[/IMG]owth; see deru- in Indo-European roots.] Synonyms: truth, veracity, verity, verisimilitude These nouns refer to the quality of being in accord with fact or reality. Truth is a comprehensive term that in all of its nuances implies accuracy and honesty: "We seek the truth, and will endure the consequences" (Charles Seymour). Veracity is adherence to the truth: "Veracity is the heart of morality" (Thomas H. Huxley). Verity often applies to an enduring or repeatedly demonstrated truth: "beliefs that were accepted as eternal verities" (James Harvey Robinson). Verisimilitude is the quality of having the appearance of truth or reality: "merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative" (W.S. Gilbert).

My source for definitions: https://www.thefreedictionary.com/

I guess what I'm really trying to say is that all of us here that agree and/or disagree with each other will still have our personal attachments to our own “truths”....although there most certainly is room for changing one's way of thinking or unreasonable ideals, etc. I have changed my way of thinking and conceptions many times throughout my life, and most likely will again.

I think that being open to different possibilities is not "wishy-washy", but is actually the opposite. Instead it's "reasonable" when someone knows that they can not, do not, and will not know everything.

Quote: 2) I will attempt to convince you readers of my positions on these things, while being open to correction from you, as I may be wrong about anything at any time!

Great! I would enjoy fact-finding far more than the slippery slope of “truth” digging any day or night of the week.

Quote: 3) Regardless of what conclusions we arrive at, I expect that we'll better understand each other's positions, thus hopefully increasing empathy for one another and the cohesiveness of our community.

Your mission in this is admirable.

Quote: 4) I intend also to entertain,...

I'm looking forward to that.

Quote: 5) I expect my essays to trigger interesting dialogue, and that your ideas will somewhat shape my writings.

Hopefully the intentions are mutual amongst the ones that choose to participate.:thumbsup:

Quote: So relax, get comfortable, and join in the dialogue!

Looks like I'm joining in the dialogue, and I feel pretty relaxed to.Big Smile

Quote: We live in, as they say euphemistically, interesting times. Not only are we faced with the usual vexing, often horrifying problems--war, bigotry, poverty, etc.--but in some ways our problems are unprecedented in human history, e.g., disastrous global environmental change and nuclear immolation.

Yep, we most certainly do live in (euphemistically) Interesting times, no doubt.
I actually had to look up the word “immolation”. I thought it was a typo! I thought it was supposed to be “annihilation”... ... :wow:... ...what a meaning; immolation.:burningman:

Quote:

---

...Conversely, theft, rape, murder, bigotry, war--indeed, most sources of needless human suffering, are fundamentally unreasonable, and they continue largely because we don’t value reason enough to cure them. If we demanded of ourselves, as individuals and as societies, to root out fallacious thinking, to resist appeals to emotion and prejudice, to engage in mutual respectful critique with those in disagreement, to eschew armoring in favor of openness, and to embrace reasonable standards for what we’re willing to call “truth”, we could achieve as close to paradise on earth as we’re likely ever to get.

---

I agree with that and I couldn't have said it better myself.

Quote:

---

Love directed by reason is our best chance.

---

I think it may be our only chance.


I don't remember rating any articles here on waccobb.net, but I will keep in touch with this one and see how it progresses. I will probably give it a high rating.:thumbsup:

Thanks Dixon. Re: "Love directed by reason is our best chance."

My preference is for love, supported by reason. I think wisdom requires both. Congratulations on your balance.

Karl

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44:

FYI,Whenever someone uses the word “truth”, I almost always have this thought in my head that says there is a huge potential for a difference between “truth” and “fact”;

---

'Truthiness' is one of the great neologisms because it captures what a lot of people mean when they think about truth. When someone capitalizes the word it also tells you a lot about their relationship to the idea they're espousing.
I think the key definition is

Quote:

---

the quality of being in accord with fact or reality.

---

which correctly ties the definition to that of reality. And the nature of reality is often what's in question.

Very astute points, podfish, and I'll be exploring the nature of truth and reality in this column over the next couple of months or so, as our presuppositions about such fundamental issues underlie all our thinking, and differences in people's assumptions about truth and reality have made it nearly impossible to reach any common understandings in many of the dialogues/multilogues that have frustrated us all, here on Wacco and elsewhere. :argument: I'm hoping that I can increase my readers' agreement about what "truth" and "reality" mean enough so there's more chance for progress in our mutual understanding of each other and the world.

Well, at least a little bit.Big Smile

My 'two bits' on truth:

Whether it's 'truth,' 'fact,' or 'reality,' it's all a personal, subjective experience. How can it be otherwise? I have my truth, you have yours, and if by chance we meet, that's rapport!

Through the magic of language and communication, though, we can share our experiences with each other. If we're open to hearing each other, we can begin to incorporate the experiences of others into our own. I think of individual "truths" as being like the unique views of a holographic picture, each from a different perspective. By putting together many such "shots," we can assemble a larger, multifaceted picture, though it can sometimes be a bit challenging to see how all the various perspectives fit together (like the story of the blind men reporting their very different experiences of an elephant). Once we have made sense of and reconciled all the different views, we have a much more expansive, inclusive and perhaps valid picture of reality.

Is there such a thing as absolute truth or reality? Perhaps there is, but I would question whether our finite human minds are capable of knowing it. It is possible, though, that by opening our minds to include many different views, we can expand our awareness and understanding so that our perceptions become closer to actual reality. Perhaps this is what enlightenment is: getting out of the wading pool of our own mind-created reality into the ocean of knowing that arises from universal mind.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by CSummer:

Whether it's 'truth,' 'fact,' or 'reality,' it's all a personal, subjective experience.

---

Certainly we experience everything through our subjective filters, shaped by the structure and function of our sensory organs and the programming of our "biocomputers" (brains), but just as certainly there is an objective universe out there that we're experiencing, about which our beliefs can be right or wrong.

Quote:

---

I have my truth, you have yours, and if by chance we meet, that's rapport!

---

If you're implying that every belief is equally right, I vehemently disagree. Do you think you (or anyone) are infallible, incapable of being wrong about something?

Quote:

---

Through the magic of language and communication, though, we can share our experiences with each other. If we're open to hearing each other, we can begin to incorporate the experiences of others into our own. I think of individual "truths" as being like the unique views of a holographic picture, each from a different perspective. By putting together many such "shots," we can assemble a larger, multifaceted picture, though it can sometimes be a bit challenging to see how all the various perspectives fit together (like the story of the blind men reporting their very different experiences of an elephant). Once we have made sense of and reconciled all the different views, we have a much more expansive, inclusive and perhaps valid picture of reality.

---

Your account of things does not seem to take into account the universal human possibility of being mistaken, of having beliefs that simply aren't true.

There's a lot more to say about these issues, but I'm stopping here because I'm going to be covering these issues fairly thoroughly in one of my columns a couple of months from now, so stay tuned!

And thanks for your input, CSummer! :tiphat:

Yo Dixie,

Just wanna say I pretty much concur with everything said in this thread and your articles so far. Have avoided weighing in because, I'm preocupied, and the issue has been well discussed here in the past.

One quibble. There are more than one kind of Reason. The two distinct ones that come to mind are Western Rationality, also known as Binary Oppositional, and Dialectic, coming from Hegel, and the Eastern traditions he ripped it from. Here's a precis:

In the Western tradition, either A or not A, but not A & not A.

In the Dialectical (which I suppose could be called Western as well, but let's distinguish it by saying the Germanic as opposed to the British/American Analytic/Positivist) it's: A and not A, if Thesis and Antithesis results in Synthesis.

There are other alternatives, but those are the ones that come to mind.

See: Critique of Western Reason, The Negative Dialectic (Adorno), The concept of Alterity/Otherness/Difference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-structuralism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Derrida

As I said, overall we're in agreement, but there's always a fly in the ointment.

Cheahs,

Between truth and the search for truth, I opt for the second. -Bernard Berenson, art historian (1865-1959)

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by CSummer:

My 'two bits' on truth:

Whether it's 'truth,' 'fact,' or 'reality,' it's all a personal, subjective experience. How can it be otherwise? I have my truth, you have yours, and if by chance we meet, that's rapport!

Through the magic of language and communication, though, we can share our experiences with each other. If we're open to hearing each other, we can begin to incorporate the experiences of others into our own. I think of individual "truths" as being like the unique views of a holographic picture, each from a different perspective. By putting together many such "shots," we can assemble a larger, multifaceted picture, though it can sometimes be a bit challenging to see how all the various perspectives fit together (like the story of the blind men reporting their very different experiences of an elephant). Once we have made sense of and reconciled all the different views, we have a much more expansive, inclusive and perhaps valid picture of reality.

Is there such a thing as absolute truth or reality? Perhaps there is, but I would question whether our finite human minds are capable of knowing it. It is possible, though, that by opening our minds to include many different views, we can expand our awareness and understanding so that our perceptions become closer to actual reality. Perhaps this is what enlightenment is: getting out of the wading pool of our own mind-created reality into the ocean of knowing that arises from universal mind.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Mad Miles:

..., either A or not A, but not A & not A.

---

Rumsfeldian... (sorry, couldn't resist!)

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

Certainly we experience everything through our subjective filters, shaped by the structure and function of our sensory organs and the programming of our "biocomputers" (brains), but just as certainly there is an objective universe out there that we're experiencing, about which our beliefs can be right or wrong.

---

Thank you for your thoughts, Dixon. I suspect it may be 'worse' than we might like to imagine. I once had the experience of seeing something from one perspective and being somewhat alarmed at what I was seeing (perceiving). I changed my perspective and was relieved to "see" that it was quite different from what I'd originally perceived. Still a little puzzled, I took yet another look from a third perspective and my perception changed again. I thought, "Oh, now I see what that is!" Reflecting on this experience many times over many years, I have come to think that perception is projection: that the mind projects the meaning and significance of experiences onto the raw sensory input coming into the brain.

Do we ever really experience an objective reality that's "out there?" Perhaps on rare occasions we do. I have heard others telling of amazing shifts of perception after attending a workshop or some other mind-altering experience. During the one "peak experience" I've had, I found myself gazing in awe at ordinary trees (with no help from drugs) and being astounded by everything's presence. My sense, though, is that our perceptual center of awareness is normally somewhat removed from direct experience, buried in the synapses and all the associations whereby we seek to make sense of - or ignore - raw input from our sensory organs.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

If you're implying that every belief is equally right, I vehemently disagree. Do you think you (or anyone) are infallible, incapable of being wrong about something?

---

I'm not saying anything about belief. If I had anything to say about beliefs, it would probably be that they're all equally useless. By "truth," I mean our perception or experience of something, whether it's outside of us or within. When we're in agreement, then there is that sense of something shared and of mutual understanding. Interestingly, this seems to be strongest when it's something that isn't "out there" in the objective universe at all but that exists only within us as some need or feeling (emotion). This may be in part because of nonverbal communication in the form facial expressions, voice tone or body language. Of course, our beliefs do strongly bias our perceptions and hence what we imagine to be true.

I would like to revise a Rumi verse to: Out beyond notions of "right" and "wrong" there is a field. Let us meet there!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

Your account of things does not seem to take into account the universal human possibility of being mistaken, of having beliefs that simply aren't true.

---

Starting with the end of that sentence, it may be evident by now that, for me, it's important to distinguish between beliefs and "truths." To me, beliefs are generally problematic in that they interfere with clear or holistic perceiving - like a box we wear on our heads. About "the universal human possibility of being mistaken:" I believe I take this very much into account, and assume that we're very often mistaken. Indeed, it may be sheer luck when we have an "accurate" perception. It seems there is a wide range of "mistaken-ness," all the way from dead wrong - as millions of Germans were who followed Hitler - to missing some important pieces of the puzzle - as is so often the case when couples have communication difficulties.

My view is that truth (your or my truth) is always somewhat hypothetical and needing to be tested in the world. If I'm talking to someone who no one else can see (as in the movie, "A Beautiful Mind"), is this not still my valid experience? It might be helpful, though, for me to consider that this "other person" may be nothing more than a creation of my own mind. However, much of what I "perceive" or project on real people might also be simply creations of my mind.

If the Whole Truth is knowable, my sense is that most of us need a lot of help in discovering it!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

There's a lot more to say about these issues, but I'm stopping here because I'm going to be covering these issues fairly thoroughly in one of my columns a couple of months from now, so stay tuned!

And thanks for your input, CSummer! :tiphat:

---

Yo, H44-- Sorry for the delay in responding to your thoughtful comment, but in addition to being busy with other things, I was put off by the sheer length of your comment. Not that there's anything wrong with a long comment, not at all, but it's daunting to give a response that's extensive enough to do your comment justice. So, I've given myself permission to give a response that is less than thorough, but hopefully satisfactory:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44:

FYI,Whenever someone uses the word “truth”, I almost always have this thought in my head that says there is a huge potential for a difference between “truth” and “fact”;

---

Like so many words, "truth" has a zillion definitions, not all of which are relevant to the current discussion, and some of which tend to muddy the waters. My position (for which I will make a fairly thorough case in a couple of columns I'll be writing soon), is that there is an objective reality which it's possible to have accurate or inaccurate beliefs about, and I'm using the term "truth" in the commonly accepted sense of "accurate descriptions of reality". Thus, for instance, "The earth orbits the sun" is almost certainly true, while "The sun orbits the earth" is almost certainly false. "Truth", the way I'm using the term, is nearly synonymous with "fact", the main difference being that "fact" usually refers to very specific examples of truth, while truth can often refer more comprehensively to large collections of facts, or even to the totality of all facts.

Quote:

---

I think that there are two divergent and often times opposing conception/s of definition to either depending upon a particular situation. One for example; would be scientifically based and the other one could be religious, and/or philosophically based

---

:

If by "scientifically based" you're referring only to conclusions reached by scientific experiment, then obviously we must have some source of truth beyond that, because we couldn't possibly run experiments on all possible claims. But if by "scientific" you mean something more broad like "rational" (i.e., reaching truth by reasoning correctly from observations), well, I know of no other valid approach to truth-seeking. You mention "religious, and/or philosophically based" truth, but I can't think of a single example of some belief we could reasonably call true which comes from religion or philosophy without being based on evidence and logic. Can you? For instance, most religions posit one or more god(s) as an important "truth", but the claim that some god (however defined) exists is a claim about the objective universe, not fundamentally different than the claim that Bigfoot exists, and it's subject to the same rules of evidence. The fact that a zillion people believe it does not make it true (or false, for that matter).

Quote:

---

I guess what I'm really trying to say is that all of us here that agree and/or disagree with each other will still have our personal attachments to our own “truths”....

---

I'm always uncomfortable with this way of using the word "truth", because it seems to imply that believing something makes it true. Can we agree, H44, that the fact that someone believes something tells us nothing about whether it's really true--in other words, that often, our "truths" aren't truths at all, but mistaken beliefs? I myself have been wrong many times, and I assume I'm still wrong about some things and always will be, and that this is true of everyone.

Quote:

---

...although there most certainly is room for changing one's way of thinking or unreasonable ideals, etc. I have changed my way of thinking and conceptions many times throughout my life, and most likely will again.

---

In other words, you decided that your earlier belief wasn't true, and changed to a belief that seemed true, eh?

Quote:

---

I think that being open to different possibilities is not "wishy-washy", but is actually the opposite. Instead it's "reasonable" when someone knows that they can not, do not, and will not know everything.

---

Absolutely! And that's an essential tenet of reason--and of science. But notice that being open to different possibilities is not the same as endorsing everything as true or as equally reasonable--far from it.

Quote:

---

Great! I would enjoy fact-finding far more than the slippery slope of “truth” digging any day or night of the week.

---

I see no difference between fact-finding and truth-digging, so it may be that you and I are experiencing semantic confusion due to using the words differently.

Quote:

---

I don't remember rating any articles here on waccobb.net, but I will keep in touch with this one and see how it progresses. I will probably give it a high rating.:thumbsup:

---

Thanks for your kindness and your interest, H44.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

Yo, H44-- ... ...Like so many words, "truth" has a zillion definitions, not all of which are relevant to the current discussion, and some of which tend to muddy the waters. My position (for which I will make a fairly thorough case in a couple of columns I'll be writing soon), is that there is an objective reality which it's possible to have accurate or inaccurate beliefs about, and I'm using the term "truth" in the commonly accepted sense of "accurate descriptions of reality". Thus, for instance, "The earth orbits the sun" is almost certainly true, while "The sun orbits the earth" is almost certainly false. "Truth", the way I'm using the term, is nearly synonymous with "fact", the main difference being that "fact" usually refers to very specific examples of truth, while truth can often refer more comprehensively to large collections of facts, or even to the totality of all facts.

---

Thanks Dixon for your clarification on that. After reading many of your posts here on waccobb I pretty much guessed that's where you're coming from with this thread.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

If by "scientifically based" you're referring only to conclusions reached by scientific experiment, then obviously we must have some source of truth beyond that, because we couldn't possibly run experiments on all possible claims. But if by "scientific" you mean something more broad like "rational" (i.e., reaching truth by reasoning correctly from observations), well, I know of no other valid approach to truth-seeking. You mention "religious, and/or philosophically based" truth, but I can't think of a single example of some belief we could reasonably call true which comes from religion or philosophy without being based on evidence and logic. Can you?

---

I'll make the answer to the question in the last part of your statement (leaving out the caveats) short as possible; no.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

For instance, most religions posit one or more god(s) as an important "truth", but the claim that some god (however defined) exists is a claim about the objective universe, not fundamentally different than the claim that Bigfoot exists, and it's subject to the same rules of evidence. The fact that a zillion people believe it does not make it true (or false, for that matter).

---

It (a general knowledge of the ‘belief system’ in which the person you are conversing with has) does however when speaking to certain people that have certain belief systems (as I call them) serve as an indication of how far a discussion about facts or truth that are scientifically based, which conflict with their personal religious beliefs is likely to go.
I think essentially you and I do agree and have pretty much stated the same thing. (That is) Essentially, that we (are capable to) change our minds and/or “beliefs” based on rules of “evidence” in which we personally accept.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

I'm always uncomfortable with this way of using the word "truth", because it seems to imply that believing something makes it true. Can we agree, H44, that the fact that someone believes something tells us nothing about whether it's really true--in other words, that often, our "truths" aren't truths at all, but mistaken beliefs?

---

Good call!
That's exactly what I was alluding to in a previous post to this discussion.... ... We most certainly can agree specifically on this, and I think we do.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

I myself have been wrong many times, and I assume I'm still wrong about some things and always will be, and that this is true of everyone.

---

Me, ditto that.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

In other words, you decided that your earlier belief wasn't true, and changed to a belief that seemed true, eh

---

Well there probably is a “zillion” ways to say that (which have the potential to make a particular discussion become convoluted), but, essentially, yes.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

Absolutely! And that's an essential tenet of reason--and of science. But notice that being open to different possibilities is not the same as endorsing everything as true or as equally reasonable--far from it.

---

I sure have noticed!
I have noticed that for far more than half of my life.
I have experienced people misinterpreting what I say as if they are convinced that I think it's some sort of an absolute fact or something to that effect, whereas I am just experimenting with thoughts about the reasonably conceivable possibilities of particular thing, and sharing it with them.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

I see no difference between fact-finding and truth-digging, so it may be that you and I are experiencing semantic confusion due to using the words differently.

---

I'm not as sure as to whether or not I would call it “semantic confusion”. But I would consider that it may be a difference in the conception of the use of semantics, which may cause some confusion in a discussion without it being clarified, understood and/or agreed-upon first.

Now I will have an understanding about what you mean when you say: “truth-digging” or “fact-finding” because for all intents and purposes it's the same thing when you (Dixon) say that. To me, that is “reasonable”.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

Thanks for your kindness and your interest, H44.

---

I appreciate your gratitude, and I also appreciate this discussion. Dixon,Thanks to you too.

Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence,
it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines.

-Bertrand Russell, philosopher, mathematician, author, Nobel laureate (1872-1970)

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:

One quibble. There are more than one kind of Reason. The two distinct ones that come to mind are Western Rationality, also known as Binary Oppositional, and Dialectic, coming from Hegel, and the Eastern traditions he ripped it from. Here's a precis:
In the Western tradition, either A or not A, but not A & not A.
In the Dialectical (which I suppose could be called Western as well, but let's distinguish it by saying the Germanic as opposed to the British/American Analytic/Positivist) it's: A and not A, if Thesis and Antithesis results in Synthesis.
There are other alternatives, but those are the ones that come to mind.
See: Critique of Western Reason, The Negative Dialectic (Adorno), The concept of Alterity/Otherness/Difference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-structuralism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Derrida

---

Yo, Miles.
I still haven't found time to read any but your first link, and won't likely read Adorno any time soon, so can't respond in a well-informed way to most of what you said. Right now I'll just say:

1. I'm somewhat familiar with both the Western and Dialectical models of reasoning, and don't really see them as mutually exclusive or even contradictory. Perhaps there's something I'm missing.

2. I myself have been strongly influenced by polaristic or Yin-Yang reasoning which unites monistic and dualistic views in a way which is, I think, more accurate than either. Maybe this is one of the "other alternatives" you mentioned?

3. Some of what get called "alternative systems of reasoning" seem to be just the same old logical fallacies falsely dignified with a new coat of paint. Much of what gets called "Crazy Logic" or "Women's (or Womyn's) Ways of Knowing", for instance, seems to fall into this category.

4. The few little tastes of Post-Modernism I've stumbled upon seem to exude a whiff of puffed-up sophistry and unrealistic relativism, such as suggesting that the scientific world-view is just one more story, not objectively more accurate than, for instance, various shamanistic systems. Feh. But I'm pretty ignorant on this subject, so that may be an unfair characterization.

Anyway, thanks for your interest, Miles.

Hi, Sara!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sara S:

Between truth and the search for truth, I opt for the second. -Bernard Berenson, art historian (1865-1959)

---

Maybe it's just because it's out of context, but to me, this is one of those quotes that initially sounds profound but, upon further consideration may turn out to be too vague to assess, or even just baloney. For instance, is this quote equating "truth" with certainty and "the search for truth" with open-mindedness? Is he talking about specific truths such as particular facts or the solutions to particular problems, or is he saying something about the concept of truth more generally? Is he saying that the journey is more important than the destination? Is he saying that objective truth doesn't even exist? Or...? :dunno:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by mhqc:

When it comes to an “objective universe,” I think it depends on how (closely) you look at IT. Hmmm, I think Heisenberg already said that, or many words to that effect./mhqc/

---

Ah, but is he certain? Big Smile

I'll pretty much avoid discussing quantum physics in my column because I'm just not knowledgeable enough about it to have much to offer on the subject. I think that's true of nearly everyone, though that doesn't stop lots of folks from using their interpretations of it to bolster their fave beliefs, or from advertising "quantum" products or "healing" techniques right here on Wacco! :bs:

Luckily, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle has little or no practical relevance for our daily lives. We may be unable to specify for sure the location of any of the subatomic particles that make up my fork, but I can locate the fork itself well enough to get the food into my mouth.

Clint, thanks for being interested enough to put so much thought into multiple posts. Sorry it takes me a long while to respond sometimes. I do want to give each post its due, rather than rushed or trivial responses.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by CSummer:

I'm not saying anything about belief.

---

There's a self-canceling statement! :crazysmile:

Quote:

---

If I had anything to say about beliefs, it would probably be that they're all equally useless.

---

So then, you see no difference in usefulness between the belief "If I jump from this window I'll die" and the belief "I can fly!"? Or between Nazism and Humanism? Note also that just about everything we say and do, including most or all of your statements in this post, imply beliefs, even if they're held tentatively.

Quote:

---

By "truth," I mean our perception or experience of something, whether it's outside of us or within.

---

So then, hallucinations, illusions, misperceptions, misinterpretations and false beliefs would all be examples of "truth" in your lexicon? Is there anything left to call "untruth"? I'm glad you're explicating your idiosyncratic definition of truth, because otherwise, I'd be very confused when you use the term. However, I don't think it's a good idea to use such a common term in a way that's so different from how most people understand the term; that tends to confuse people.

Quote:

---

I would like to revise a Rumi verse to: Out beyond notions of "right" and "wrong" there is a field. Let us meet there!

---

To me, that's another one of those phrases that initially sounds cool, but doesn't necessarily hold up under scrutiny. I think notions of right and wrong, both in the sense of accuracy and in the sense of morality, are essential for living the good life.

Quote:

---

...it may be evident by now that, for me, it's important to distinguish between beliefs and "truths." To me, beliefs are generally problematic in that they interfere with clear or holistic perceiving - like a box we wear on our heads.

---

It would appear that your personal definition of "belief" is as idiosyncratic as your definition of "truth". I'm still unclear on your distinction between the two. I would agree that our beliefs can seriously distort our perceptions, often making them very inaccurate. But I would not say that it's possible to reach conclusions, however tentative, about the meanings of our perceptions without beliefs being involved. So for me the task is not to kid myself that I could or should be belief-free, but to have good standards by which to distinguish reasonable beliefs and assumptions from less reasonable ones.

Quote:

---

About "the universal human possibility of being mistaken:" I believe I take this very much into account, and assume that we're very often mistaken. Indeed, it may be sheer luck when we have an "accurate" perception

---

I would say that it's rare to have inaccurate perceptions, but common to have inaccurate interpretations of the meanings of our perceptions. Then again, you and I may be using the word "perception" differently. I would not say that the accuracy of our interpretations is sheer luck. Au contraire, we can maximize our accuracy through developing the skills, habits and traits commonly known as critical thinking.

Quote:

---

My view is that truth (your or my truth) is always somewhat hypothetical and needing to be tested in the world.

---

I agree, except that this is what I would call "belief", and I'm very resistant to confusing that with truth. I see many people wanting to call belief "truth" (as in "my truth", "your truth") as a way to avoid acknowledging that some of their favorite beliefs aren't really true at all.

Quote:

---

If I'm talking to someone who no one else can see (as in the movie, "A Beautiful Mind"), is this not still my valid experience?

---

I don't see the term "valid" as even being relevant to our direct experiences--only to our interpretations of them. In that situation, his experience was that he was talking to a voice. That he was "talking to someone no one else can see" (as opposed to a hallucinated voice in his head) was his interpretation of that experience, not the direct experience itself, and in this case, it was an invalid, inaccurate interpretation--confusing a subjective experience (auditory hallucination) with objective reality. That and other inaccurate interpretations of his experience (i.e., the difference between his beliefs and objective truth) substantially ruined his life. Great movie though!

Quote:

---

It might be helpful, though, for me to consider that this "other person" may be nothing more than a creation of my own mind. However, much of what I "perceive" or project on real people might also be simply creations of my mind.

---

Bingo! And I'm trying to promote critical thinking as the best way to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Quote:

---

If the Whole Truth is knowable, my sense is that most of us need a lot of help in discovering it!

---

Of course, it's a huge universe, with way too much truth (way too many facts) for anyone even to know 1% of it all. But to the extent we can discern truth, I'd agree that we need to help each other. Critical thinking generally works best in dialogue (or multilogue), so we can correct for each other's blind spots and biases, benefit from each other's perspectives, etc.

So thanks, Clint!

Dixon said: "Luckily, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle has little or no practical relevance for our daily lives..."

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by mhqc:

Dunno about that. Think it depends on how you look at it.

---

Maybe you're right. Could you give an example or two of how you use Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle in your daily life?

Hi Dixon,

I sorry I got cut off somehow. What I was asking was where might the evidence be or how would you defend this statement in a scientific or pure reasoning way? "Those whom we view as archetypes of evil, such as the Nazis, are usually not psychotic, nor purposely evil. They’re normal people, fundamentally like you and me, who love and fear and struggle to survive." How would you know if Hitler was or was not psychotic? There is hardly a science that makes diagnosis a sure bet and as far as I know you are not a psychologist or psychiatrist. While, as I said to you personally, I have much affinity with your wish for reason to play a greater part of our world, statements like that make me wonder how you see reason? There is no way to attest to the mental status, or for that matter, the spiritual nature of Hitler. In fact, for anyone. There is some science applicable to such areas as personality disorders and the like, but its value is basically clinical not scientific.

Anyway, I will read the rest of what you have to say before responding more.

Be well, DeadwoodPete

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

My Fellow Waccobites,

I warmly welcome you all to my new monthly column here at WaccoBB.net!.....

---

Hello Dixon and everyone else,

I think that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is very much alive and well in our everyday lives. Today we know the world and nature to be an uncertain place and we live our lives according to probabilities. We now know that we can never know something with absolute certainty.

There are people who are uncomfortable and do not feel safe in a world without absolute structure and knowledge of truth. These are the people who tend to see the world as black and white. There is much striving to maintain their sense of structure, security, and their knowledge of truth. This is the extreme of course, most people are probably somewhere in the middle of the spectrum.

I find the world of uncertainty to be liberating, providing freedom for creativity.

I think that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is more about a paradigm than specific examples.

p.s. Paradoxically, I sure hope our economic system improves soon. I've had many days of insecurity recently.

Marty

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

Dixon said: "Luckily, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle has little or no practical relevance for our daily lives..."
Maybe you're right. Could you give an example or two of how you use Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle in your daily life?

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Marty MacMillan:

I think that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is more about a paradigm than specific examples.

---

I don't think we're talking about the same Heisenberg.....

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

I don't think we're talking about the same Heisenberg.....

---

This Heisenberg? - In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states by precise inequalities that certain pairs of physical properties, such as position and momentum, cannot be simultaneously known to arbitrarily high precision. That is, the more precisely one property is measured, the less precisely the other can be measured.
Published by Werner Heisenberg in 1927, the principle implies that it is impossible to determine simultaneously both the position and the momentum of an electron or any other particle with any great degree of accuracy or certainty. This is not a statement about researchers' ability to measure the quantities. Rather, it is a statement about the system itself. That is, a system cannot be defined to have simultaneously singular values of these pairs of quantities. The principle states that a minimum exists for the product of the uncertainties in these properties that is equal to or greater than one half of ħ the reduced Planck constant (ħ = h/2π).

People who are not familiar with the science, use "the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle" like a metaphor [sic - simile].

The tendency to misuse language or reinvent meanings for things that have useful and established meanings is one of the most egregious tendencies of the political right and the writers of FOX News.

I really appreciate seeing the science inserted in a conversation that was misusing the phrase. I believe the Principle IS about "not knowing" and that "looking at something can change it." To use it in the service of those ideas seems more appropriate.

I don't think there is "another Heisenberg"!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Pterosapiens:

This Heisenberg? - In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states by precise inequalities that certain pairs of physical properties, such as position and momentum, cannot be simultaneously known to arbitrarily high precision. That is, the more precisely one property is measured, the less precisely the other can be measured.
Published by Werner Heisenberg in 1927, the principle implies that it is impossible to determine simultaneously both the position and the momentum of an electron or any other particle with any great degree of accuracy or certainty. This is not a statement about researchers' ability to measure the quantities. Rather, it is a statement about the system itself. That is, a system cannot be defined to have simultaneously singular values of these pairs of quantities. The principle states that a minimum exists for the product of the uncertainties in these properties that is equal to or greater than one half of ħ the reduced Planck constant (ħ = h/2π).

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Flexible:

People who are not familiar with the science, use "the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle" like a metaphor [sic - simile].

The tendency to misuse language or reinvent meanings for things that have useful and established meanings is one of the most egregious tendencies of the political right and the writers of FOX News.

I really appreciate seeing the science inserted in a conversation that was misusing the phrase. I believe the Principle IS about "not knowing" and that "looking at something can change it." To use it in the service of those ideas seems more appropriate.

I don't think there is "another Heisenberg"!

---

I submit that no small part of The Right's long term plan, slowly unfolding over the last 40 years while most people were busy acquiring stuff and generally living off the fat of the land, was to incrementally defund education and dull the science text books down to Texas levels... have you seen what they have out there these days? They are ridiculous. Designed to turn kids off to science... "Why do I need to learn THIS crap?" is easy to understand if you see what is presented to the majority of them. Most kids equate school with getting employment, nothing more. Exploring the wondrous workings of the universe of which they are a part meets with a big "Huh?" - when I was young, science was exciting. I looked forward to science class the way they look forward to virtual killing through their electronic devices.

Howdy, Deadwood!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by DeadwoodPete:

...where might the evidence be or how would you defend this statement in a scientific or pure reasoning way? "Those whom we view as archetypes of evil, such as the Nazis, are usually not psychotic, nor purposely evil..."

---

Re: the "purposely evil" issue--People who embrace evil as a desirable thing and purposely pursue it are very rare. Even most people who see themselves as evil see it as something they do, not on purpose, but because they can't control themselves. Jeffrey Dahmer, for instance, was very distressed by his overwhelming impulse to kill and eat people, but couldn't control himself. This doesn't mean he wasn't evil, just not purposely so. (Here I won't get into the philosophical tangent of whether it makes any sense to call people, as opposed to their specific actions, evil or good.)

Of course, the Nazis would be in the category of those who did what they did on purpose, but didn't see it as evil. A few years ago, I saw a movie about the last days of Hitler and his cohorts in their bunker. The wife and children of one of Hitler's lieutenants were among them. When they all decided to commit suicide, the mother first killed her children, saying that she loved them and couldn't bear for them to have to live in a non-Nazi world. They thought they were making the world a better place for their children, Deadwood, just like right-wing Americans think they're doing the same thing for their children by supporting the slaughter of other people's kids in our wars of aggression. Are these people guilty of distorted thinking, tainted by nationalism, authoritarianism, etc.? Sure. Are they purposely evil? I see no reason to think that, though I'd be quite willing to hear you or someone make a case for it.

Many years ago when I was reading X-Men comics, their archenemy Magneto had a group of villains called The Brotherhood of Evil Mutants. By the time the X-Men made it to the silver screen, the name of that group was changed to The Brotherhood of Mutants, dropping the "Evil", because it's generally understood that virtually nobody purposely does anything very substantially evil. And remember this, Deadwood--whatever group of people you want to believe are purposely evil--they're thinking the same thing about you.

"...They’re normal people, fundamentally like you and me, who love and fear and struggle to survive."

This is something we discover the more we learn about those who seem so different from us. That's why higher education or more exposure to people of other cultures tends to be correlated with greater tolerance--experience of "those other people" shows that they're more like us than different. If you want to make a case for some fundamental difference between WWII Germans and us..well, the burden of proof is on you. Go for it.

Quote:

---

How would you know if Hitler was or was not psychotic? There is hardly a science that makes diagnosis a sure bet and as far as I know you are not a psychologist or psychiatrist.

---

My BA is in Psychology and my MA is in Counseling. I worked in Mental Health for over 20 years, working directly with hundreds, maybe thousands of psychotic people, and I did some extra study in diagnosis. The word "psychotic" refers to symptoms or disorders that involve impairment of thought, perception and/or emotions. Psychotic disorders range from Simple Paranoia to extremely debilitating multi-symptom disorders like Schizophrenia, which commonly include hallucinations (usually auditory--"voices"), bizarre delusional beliefs that aren't changeable by reasoning, loss of motivation, loss of capacity for pleasure, alienation from one's body so that they don't bathe or otherwise take care of themselves, confusion, decline in social and occupational interest/ability, etc. Most people with psychotic disorders, if unmedicated (and there weren't any antipsychotic meds in Hitler's time) are hard put to hold down a job at all, much less to rise to the top leadership position of their country. I'm not an expert on Hitler, but I've never seen the slightest indication that he had any psychotic symptoms at all, nor any reason to see psychosis as being any more prevalent in Nazi Germany than anywhere else (maybe about 2% in any society, including milder forms) or of having any role in the rise of Nazism.

Did Hitler have a personality disorder, as opposed to a psychotic disorder? I think he'd qualify for a diagnosis of "Antisocial Personality Disorder", meaning he was willing to do terrible things to others to get what he wanted, not being encumbered much, if at all, by a conscience. Does that make him different from the corrupt war criminals who run our own country, or the Wall Street criminals who own them? There is no substantial difference between the Nazi ruling class and that of the USA or most other countries, as far as I can see. Most of them are willing to start needless wars and slaughter innocents to get more money and power--or haven't you noticed? How do you think the USA was founded in the first place?

Here's an interesting question: Why are people so intent on seeing Hitler/Nazis/whatever evil bunch as crazy/psychotic in the absence of any real evidence that they are? I think we're desperate to reassure ourselves that we're radically different from them. When you live in a society based on the twin atrocities of genocide and slavery, as we do, there's a tremendous need for some evil bastard(s) upon whom to project our own darkness, the better to be in denial of it. Never mind the fact that the USA, like all the colonial countries, is based upon an even bigger and darker genocide than that committed by the Nazis--we're good in contrast to the evil Nazis; we're sane while they're psychotic; our founders (like the invader/rapist/torturer/slaver/mass murderer Christopher Columbus among many other evil fuckers) go down in history as heroes while Hitler is (appropriately) remembered as a villain, because "we" won the war and he didn't. As William F. Buckley Jr. said, "History is the polemics of the victor."

What this boils down to, Deadwood, if that if you want to present evidence that Hitler was psychotic (as opposed to being a fairly typical sociopathic national leader), that there was more psychosis among Nazis than any other group, or that the Nazis were intentionally evil, go ahead; the burden of proof is on you.

And thanks, Bro', for hanging in there with me.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Marty MacMillan:

Hello Dixon and everyone else

---

Yo, Marty!

Quote:

---

I think that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is very much alive and well in our everyday lives. Today we know the world and nature to be an uncertain place and we live our lives according to probabilities. We now know that we can never know something with absolute certainty.

---

Marty, I and many, many others figured out that absolute certainty is chimerical and the world's an uncertain place long before we ever heard of Heisenberg. We have records of ancient thinkers figuring that out thousands of years ago--some of the Greek philosophers, for instance. That has almost nothing to do with Heisenberg. His Uncertainty Principle is about the impossibility, even in principle, of measuring particular qualities of subatomic particles. It has nothing to do with any decisions you or I have ever made, or ever will. As I've said, we cannot know both the position and spin of a subatomic particle in my fork, but we can certainly specify (beyond any reasonable doubt) both the location and any movements of the fork itself--and neither you nor I will ever have any need to worry about the subatomic particles, so where does Heisenberg fit into our lives? Essentially nowhere.

Perhaps the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is personally important to you because you hadn't fully understood the uncertain nature of reality in our day-to-day lives until it was driven home to you by the metaphor of Heisenberg's subatomic example. I can certainly understand that. But the "principle of uncertainty" that you and I agree rules our daily lives on the human-size level does not depend on Heisenberg at all any more than relativistic time-dilation, for instance, affects our planning when we go out for a drive (at waaaaaay less than relativistic speeds).

I hope I'm not making my point too aggressively. The Heisenberg thing pushes my buttons a little sometimes because I've seen too many New Agers use wild interpretations of the Uncertainty Principle or of quantum physics to justify various wacko beliefs.

Quote:

---

I find the world of uncertainty to be liberating, providing freedom for creativity.

---

Yeah! I myself have made peace with uncertainty and have even written a sort of hymn to randomness, which I will include in a column on that subject one of these months.

Thanks again for writing, Marty!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Flexible:

I believe the [Heisenberg] Principle IS about "not knowing" and that "looking at something can change it." To use it in the service of those ideas seems more appropriate.

---

I agree, as long as we understand that Heisenberg's principle is specific to subatomic particles and it is only as a metaphor that it has any relevance to our daily lives on the human scale.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

I agree, as long as we understand that Heisenberg's principle is specific to subatomic particles and it is only as a metaphor that it has any relevance to our daily lives on the human scale.

---

yep - although there are apparently some hints of observable quantum effects on larger-scale objects, it's by no means accepted. People have inverted the metaphor - analogies to "normal" experience are used to develop the language used in talking about physics, and they don't have to be particularly accurate analogies either. For example, particles have "color" but it isn't related to the frequency of light, they can't "spin" because they don't have an axis, and "charm" isn't an attribute, it's an object. Any flipping of the analogies back to subjective experiences ("real life") is essentially meaningless. You wouldn't particularly enjoy spending time with a charm quark any more than with a strange one - but the difference between charm & strange quarks aren't helpful to you in understanding why some people are charming and others just strange.