Posted on 01/01/2012 5:02:18 PM PST by grey_whiskers
One of the things that is fun about forums such as Free Republic is the sheer volume and scale of topics discussed. Everything from discussions of GOP primary races (come BACK, Sarah!) to speculations on the Middle East, from Kim Jong-un to fitness resolutions for the New Year, from Naughty Teacher threads to black helicopter speculations. If the Internet is a microcosm of the real world, then Free Republic is a microcosm of the internet. And all helpfully sorted by keyword, date, and author in order to make drinking from the fire hose easier.
But of course, not is all fun and games. Free Republic bills itself as “the world’s premier conservative internet forum.” And as such, it is a welcome place to hang out and talk with like-minded people, away from the “rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, sh*t-kickers and Methodists”
found on the rest of the internet. Unfortunately, that means that all kinds of people, from Paultards to Mitt-bots, from DU infiltrators to atheist crusaders (a little ironic, that), *all* consider it their dishonor-bound duty to try to worm into FR unnoticed or at least post here, to “set the record straight”. Free Republic has developed its own defense against such, the famed Viking Kitties and their famous ZOT!
And why is there the necessity for the ZOT? Are we not broad-minded enough, intelligent enough, magnanimous enough, tolerant enough to allow the existence of contrary or dissenting viewpoints? Sure. But that’s what the rest of the Internet is for. As G.K. Chesterton wrote, the purpose of an open mind, like that of an open mouth, is to shut it again on something solid. Or, as Rush Limbaugh likes to say, “I am balance.” Conservatives need a place to go to recharge without constantly being ridiculed, calumnied, mocked, and shouted down by main force.
So what happens? The voices of “tolerance” are so offended by the existence of an oasis for conservatives (and, what’s worse, most of them are Christianists as well -- of all the nerve!) that they seek to plant a flag for reason (as they proclaim it) right here on FR. Which leads to noteworthy fireworks when they try to do so, as many of the ideas which they hold to be axiomatic, are marked as heresies here on this site. As Scott Adams (author of Dilbert) wrote, “everybody is someone else’s weirdo.”
But how is that that people identify someone else as a weirdo? After all, with so many different subjects around, and different opinions available on each subject, conservatism is not nearly as monolithic as liberals and atheists assume (indeed, there are some conservative atheist, some of them even have remained unzotted on FR for years). May I suggest, for the purposes of insight, that we borrow a page from statistics, and in particular, from analytical chemistry? This is not meant to be a rigorous discussion, only a semi-humorous one to get the creative juices flowing. Say hello to my little friend, Student’s t-test.
Despite the name, and its use in classes, “Student’s T-test” was originally developed by W.S. Gosset, who went by the fictitious name “Student” and worked for the Guinness brewery. Come to think of it, maybe that had something to do with the name he chose :-) Student’s t-test is used when comparing two small sets of data, to decide whether differences in the data sets are due to chance, or are “significant” (that is, whether or not, the data sets “really are” different -- meaning, that is, 95% of the time, or 99% of the time, or whatever -- the differences in the data sets cannot have come about due to random differences). The idea is conceptually simple. Everyone has heard of a “bell curve” to describe data. The t-test is used to compare, not theoretical bell curves, but sets of experimental data, which have ranges of values instead of infinitely long tails. By looking at the mean of each data set, as well as the range of values of each data set, one can determine whether the two data sets are ‘most likely’ measurements of the same thing or not.
That’s fine, you ask, and how exactly does this relate to websites or social interactions therein? Consider someone’s political views as a set of data points, with the extent of “liberalness” or “conservativeness” for each topic being spread along the X-axis, and the *count* of topics of which a person is liberal or conservative to that extent as the height above the axis. If you plot out a person’s political views in this fashion, you will trace out a curve. It might be a symmetric bell curve, it might be somewhat asymmetric, it might even exhibit kurtosis. But in general, you will be able to get a feel for how a person “stacks up,” left or right, by talking to them.
And so it is on discussion groups, or in forums such as FR. Typically most of the posters in a self-identified, semi-autonomous site such as FR would, if their “political bell curves” were plotted, would be somewhat similar: a significant difference between two people could come about if either the overall shape of their bell curve were different, or if they had a particular outlier on a important topic, on which they differed *greatly* from someone otherwise similar. In either case, other people talking to the person would begin to feel that “something is amiss here”: something which bears an analogy to statistical sampling and comparison. And if the difference is significant enough, the person is outed as a TROLL.
“Everybody is someone else’s weirdo.”
Cheers!
Isn't that a skin rash caused by stress? I think reading these threads is causing me to break out.
All communication, whether words, mathematical symbols including numbers, signs, or whatever, are abstractions representing thought. For that matter, we even think in symbols for our thoughts are either images or subvocal language. Even thoughts of nothing, as in meditation, are images of a blank screen in a soundless environment. Therefore, everything, subjective and objective, abstractions in themselves, is an abstraction.
So, that brings us back to:
The point I was trying to make earlier was that any abstraction the mind subjectively makes rests for its validity on something REAL of which it is the reflection. (Otherwise we may be dealing with psychosis.) An abstraction from or mental image of Reality is tested for its Truth in the degree it corresponds with the objectiveTruth already in-built into the world.
The mind works, according to the latest I have read, through perceiving, organizing into patterns, associating, storing, and then starting over again with new perceptions, organizations and associations, all forming an ever growing data base of "knowledge." We first remember the patterns and associations as we recall things. "New" ideas are just new associations of old ideas.
Our imaginations, just like reading fiction or seeing movies, allow us to increase our database without actually experiencing things in real life. Imagination allows us to learn, or project, vicariously. All of this was organized and set in place by the Logos.
Either we cannot directly experience the Logos, only its abstractions, or conversely, we are always experiencing the Logos because we are immersed in it. You said
It really all comes down to my belief that the LOGOS is "in" the world, and is what "structures" (but does not fully "determine!") the world — from Alpha to Omega and everything in-between.
so I suppose you believe the latter. To me, it is both. We are immersed in Truth and we interact with it in everything we do. Yet, we cannot know the essence of that with which we are interacting. It is too vast and too powerful for us to comprehend except for our right-now, earthly needs. We can comprehend the things being discussed here but there is much more than we will ever know while in this plane. We are individual rooms of ignorance which will be filled with knowledge later.
I have experienced my own mind. I have not experienced my own "soul." I have not seen anything in my human experience that is not accounted for by a basic understanding of biology, chemistry, and the phsyical laws of nature. But try to understand. It doesn't mean I am a keen student of biology, chemistry, or physics. It just means that the explanations they offer seem far more likely than anything any religion has offered. But it doesn't tempt me to emerse myself in any of them, which is why I do not argue with the names of great philosophers, and try not get into intricate discussions about logical procedure, scientific method, etc.
I do my best to explain why I think the way I do. I have everything figured out to my own satisfaction. I speak up occasionally on this topic only when atheist-bashing starts, or when people keep pinging me, not when religious people are arguing amongst themselves over the details of their belief systems.
Here, let's parse this. :-)
I do not expect to be viewed as a logician. I have very little interest in science, philosophy, or logic. I am telling you what I have observed and the conclusions I have come to.
<snip>
I have experienced my own mind. I have not experienced my own "soul." I have not seen anything in my human experience that is not accounted for by a basic understanding of biology, chemistry, and the phsyical laws of nature. But try to understand. It doesn't mean I am a keen student of biology, chemistry, or physics.
OK -- so without the wherewithal to be a judge of science, philosophy, or logic, you nonetheless accept the conclusions of science as being disposative.
This, without understanding the philosophical underpinnings of science, the logical thought to know when the conclusions are either warranted, or sufficient, or the knowledge of the science itself.
That leaves...belief.
And *there* is your belief system, oh shallow one.
Trivial counterexample to accepting the word of scientists on its own authority:
1) Heliobacter pylori
2) Anthropogenic Global Warming
Cheers!
FOTFLOL!!!!
Fun read ping.
You wrote: “...OK — so without the wherewithal to be a judge of science, philosophy, or logic, you nonetheless accept the conclusions of science as being disposative. This, without understanding the philosophical underpinnings of science, the logical thought to know when the conclusions are either warranted, or sufficient, or the knowledge of the science itself. That leaves...belief. And *there* is your belief system, oh shallow one. ...”
A_Perfect_Lady loves to accuse others of “circular and fallacious reasoning” while obliviously engaging in it herself:
Argument from authority
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
Argument from authority (also known as appeal to authority or argumentum ad verecundiam) is a special type of inductive argument which often takes the form of a statistical syllogism
Although certain classes of argument from authority do on occasion constitute strong inductive arguments, arguments from authority are commonly used in a fallacious manner.
LOL
No, I simply accept science as being a better explanation than religion. It’s rather like being presented with two pictures and being asked, “Which one is better?” You judge one as better than the other, but you don’t have to take either home.
You’ve got something there. My teens and I have heard a song on the radio with the lyrics:
“I’ll be your velcro”
Why not make your own number 1 on the hit parade....
“I’ll be your weirdo”
Here it is...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXevL7hvpgU
Cheers!
(and the understated vocals with throwaway visual absurdities remind me of David Byrne and "Once in A Lifetime" for some reason...)
Cheers!
Axiomatic: Evident without proof or argument, as in presumptuous sense seen in the premise of liberal elitism which knows best and would reign as if God, or gods, worthy by nature, being led by the devil who seeks God’s position but is unworthy of it.
Liberalism seeks to climb up to authority some other way than what is lawful and right, and would like to shutdown all opposing voices as unnecessary, unwarranted, and hindering their fantasy of a Garden of God without God, and without moral restraints such as the marriage for sexual relations, and their wants and lusts are provided by the government issued Trees. More here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2827335/posts?page=34#34
But in reality, someone is paying the bill.
Thank you so very much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!
LOLOL!
To this thread...I embrace and revel in my own weirdness/eccentricity.
And Happy New Year to you as well.
My personal philosophy...Keep smiling, it makes people wonder what you've been up to! {;^) anonymous my "pale backside"
Cheers!
Snort! (chuckle)
Quite so, my grey whiskered FRiend!
Outstanding observations, dear grey_whiskers! Thank you so very much!
But if this is "all there is" to it, then it would appear that there can really be no "new ideas," and — worse — no way to avoid the problem of solipsism: a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing.
Without the "reality test" — comparing our subjective thoughts to objective reality — the world "outside" of us — we're just spinning our wheels. Or worse, we'd be psychotic in some degree....
I believe there is direct correspondence between mind and world. To find the correspondence is to conduct a "reality test," which consists of bringing the subjective mind and the objective world into relation. The correspondence "works" because the "objective" (relative to us) Logos is in both.
I'm NOT criticizing your analysis as "false" by any means. Just suggesting that it might be "incomplete."
Bottom line, we do not live in a world of abstractions. If we did, we'd be abstractions, too — not real flesh-and-blood human beings.
Your last paragraph is particularly admirable. And true: For we humans in our mortal existence do "see as if through a glass darkly."
I like the way you think, dear MNR, and so enjoy conversing with you!
Thank you so much for writing!
Indeed. You point to the foundational presupposition of Natural Law Theory here. (On which all of natural science is based.)
It may not take 4 billion years, though, when the random processes are saturated by intelligence. Its my view that, as you begin to see the principles involved, at some point you begin to glimpse the intelligence behind them.
What do we mean when we say that a natural process is "random?" I dunno; it seems to me that "random" is the adjective we use to describe a process that we really don't understand. (Yet.) As such, the word seems to be a kind of fig leaf to cover our ignorance.
But IMHO you are certainly right, dear brother marron, in pointing to intelligence as the source of order in the world.
The problem is, if the world displays intelligent order, then "whose" intelligence is responsible for this? I — a more or less intelligent being — certainly did not make it so. Even the consensus of the entire scientific community cannot make it so....
Of course, there is very strong agreement among many theoretical biologists these days that intelligence (which necessarily implies consciousness) is an evolutionary product of inorganic matter; and so is Life itself. (So also "morality.")
Their problem, however, is such a notion is completely undemonstrable by scientific methods. So they construct the "just-so story" of brute matter having astonishing propensities that are completely undetected upon examination by scientific means. This way, they can preserve the "randomness" of the material world so as to make it fit their presuppositions. But it seems to me the facts of the matter cannot be explained in this way without falsifying Reality itself.
Although it is unfashionable nowadays to say so, I just don't see how the world we have can possibly have come into existence, or "be the way it is" in actuality, without an original Intelligence imposing "guides to the system" according to which the system evolves over time.
Thank you ever so much, dear brother in Christ, for your (as ever) sensitive and penetrating essay/post!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.