Heresy at Foot

Bretheren,

Let it be known that such heresies at foot in the land
in these dark times, such as those put forward by J Gill,
are contrary to dogma, and the duty, of all members in
good standing of the Order of the Octavic Multiples.

There will be no exceptions made for exceptions, period.

It is Done, The Octavians

Ha, ha! You meant "heresy afoot"?

--- In tuning@y..., The Octavians <JGill99@i...> wrote:
> Bretheren,
>
> Let it be known that such heresies at foot in the land
> in these dark times, such as those put forward by J Gill,
> are contrary to dogma, and the duty, of all members in
> good standing of the Order of the Octavic Multiples.
>
> There will be no exceptions made for exceptions, period.
>
>
> It is Done, The Octavians

--- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <BobWendell@t...> wrote:

> Ha, ha! You meant "heresy afoot"?
_____________________________________

"Blessed are the cheesemakers..."

The Octavians

> --- In tuning@y..., The Octavians <JGill99@i...> wrote:
> > Bretheren,
> >
> > Let it be known that such heresies at foot in the land
> > in these dark times, such as those put forward by J Gill,
> > are contrary to dogma, and the duty, of all members in
> > good standing of the Order of the Octavic Multiples.
> >
> > There will be no exceptions made for exceptions, period.
> >
> >
> > It is Done, The Octavians

Is there no objective reality or is it all just a matter of opinion?
Is it true that all who fail to agree with a particular viewpoint are
rigid fanatics blindly married to a fruitless idea?

--- In tuning@y..., The Octavians <JGill99@i...> wrote:
> Bretheren,
>
> Let it be known that such heresies at foot in the land
> in these dark times, such as those put forward by J Gill,
> are contrary to dogma, and the duty, of all members in
> good standing of the Order of the Octavic Multiples.
>
> There will be no exceptions made for exceptions, period.
>
>
> It is Done, The Octavians

--- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <BobWendell@t...> wrote:
> Is there no objective reality or is it all just a matter of opinion?
> Is it true that all who fail to agree with a particular viewpoint are
> rigid fanatics blindly married to a fruitless idea?
>
>
> --- In tuning@y..., The Octavians <JGill99@i...> wrote:
> > Bretheren,
> >
> > Let it be known that such heresies at foot in the land
> > in these dark times, such as those put forward by J Gill,
> > are contrary to dogma, and the duty, of all members in
> > good standing of the Order of the Octavic Multiples.
> >
> > There will be no exceptions made for exceptions, period.
> >
> >
> > It is Done, The Octavians

> Is there no objective reality or is it all just a matter of opinion?

JG: If an "objective reality" truly exists,
then (it seems) there is no functional need to
formulate a (lasting) concept of "opinion".
"Opinions" would become fallacious deviancies.

> Is it true that all who fail to agree with
> a particular viewpoint are rigid fanatics
> blindly married to a fruitless idea?

JG: Only for one caught up in an "objective" zeal.

You are right, these "Octavians" have simply gone
"too far"!

Tounge in cheek (if not "foot in mouth"), J Gill :)

--- In tuning@y..., "unidala" <JGill99@i...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <BobWendell@t...> wrote:
> > Is there no objective reality or is it all just a matter of
opinion?
> > Is it true that all who fail to agree with a particular viewpoint
are
> > rigid fanatics blindly married to a fruitless idea?
>
> JG: If an "objective reality" truly exists,
> then (it seems) there is no functional need to
> formulate a (lasting) concept of "opinion".
> "Opinions" would become fallacious deviancies.
>

Bob:
So opinions have no value if there is an objective reality? Don't
they exist as attempts to approach reality? My experience indicates
that many opinions do represent a "fallacious deviance", but that's
part of learning, isn't it?

If you are serious in the above statement, it would imply that no
opinion could ever be wrong. Everything's just a matter of equally
valuable opinions. Some people do indeed seem to think that
everyone's opinion should have equal weight, but in the sciences and
engineering this paradigm fails completely to yield fruitful results.

The weight of an engineer's or scientist's opinions depends very much
on how often such opinions have borne fruit in the past. Combining
glycerine and nitric acid does not produce water, and if in your
opinion it does, upon attempting to drink it you will likely not last
long enough to discover that your opinion represented a rather
catastrophically explosive misjudgment of reality.

--- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <BobWendell@t...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "unidala" <JGill99@i...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <BobWendell@t...> wrote:
> > > Is there no objective reality or is it all just a matter of
> opinion?
> > > Is it true that all who fail to agree with a particular viewpoint
> are
> > > rigid fanatics blindly married to a fruitless idea?
> >
> > JG: If an "objective reality" truly exists,
> > then (it seems) there is no functional need to
> > formulate a (lasting) concept of "opinion".
> > "Opinions" would become fallacious deviancies.
> >
>
> Bob:
> So opinions have no value if there is an objective reality?

JG: I suppose one's outlook on that might depend on where
they stand relative to an alleged "objective knowledge claim".
If one's opinion differs, then (of course) they might "beg to
differ". If one's outlook is congruent to some quantity of
folks who are convinced that they "have it all summed up",
then it seems likely that those folks within the group of
(self-procalimed) "objectivists" would see the detractor's
position as "folly", and the detractor's "opinions" as
lacking value (as seen through their "objective" eyes).

> Don't
> they exist as attempts to approach reality?

JG: Your statement appears to imply (to me) that you are
a person who is of the mind that there exists an "objective
reality". Personally, I see the concepts of "objectivity"
and "subjectivity" as each being "poles" at the (total)
conceptual extremes, both of which have "Achilles heels".

A *completely* "subjective" outlook, in ignoring the
"applicability" of the rest of the universe, might
(literally) "bump into" that which they blissfully
have (so far) ignored... An unyielding "brick wall"
and is likely to remain such, yielding not to one's
"subjective" belief that it exists not ...

A *completely* "objective" outlook, in ignoring the
possibility that just because "me and my friends of
like mind" *think* they have it "all summed up",
fails to account for the vastness and indifference
of Nature to cadres of "like-minded folks" who,
in their "mutual assuredness", may fail to recognize
the limits of the applicability of such beliefs.
Since the concept of "objectivity" depends upon
*agreement* between parties, its fortresses may
turn out to be less perennial than imagined ...

> My experience indicates
> that many opinions do represent a "fallacious deviance", but that's
> part of learning, isn't it?

JG: Once again, your statement appears to imply that you are
a person who is of the mind that there exists an "objective
reality". Personally, I see the concepts of "objectivity"
and "subjectivity" as each being "poles" at the (total)
conceptual extremes, both of which have "Achilles heels".

Only a (pure) "objectivist" would not rest until others were
"persuaded" that their "opinions" represented a "fallacious
deviance". A (pure) "subjectivist" mind find other occupations
(such as navel-gazing, according to others) more gratifying.
>
> If you are serious in the above statement, it would imply that no
> opinion could ever be wrong.

JG: If "no opinion could ever be wrong", then why would we
differentiate between the concepts of "truth" and "opinion"?

> Everything's just a matter of equally
> valuable opinions. Some people do indeed seem to think that
> everyone's opinion should have equal weight, but in the sciences
> and
> engineering this paradigm fails completely to yield fruitful
> results.

JG: From an "engineer" - the "sciences and engineering" provide
no assurances of the derivation of "absolute truth", either,
any more than other functional social systems such as religion,
astrology, reading tea leaves, etc. All of these "alliances"
have shown themselves to fall short of producing "neat and tidy"
descriptions/explanations. When Einstein saw what all others
had missed, I doubt if those others felt that their sense of
"objectivity" had served them well, after all. When we look
backwards in time, we can see such failures in retrospect.
Let us not forget that a party of "like minded" individuals
does not a world make, and that Nature is indifferent to all
of our explanations ...

> The weight of an engineer's or scientist's opinions depends very much
> on how often such opinions have borne fruit in the past. Combining
> glycerine and nitric acid does not produce water, and if in your
> opinion it does, upon attempting to drink it you will likely not
> last
> long enough to discover that your opinion represented a rather
> catastrophically explosive misjudgment of reality.

JG: Let us hope that humility accompanies our sense of knowing,
lest we put too much faith in either human will or "prevailing
opinions". We call it "reality" after the fact presents itself,
but why should we assume that the laws of Nature are static and
unchanging (as if those laws existed in service of our concepts)?

If it were not for diversity of outlooks, there would be little
to say. By the same right, who can "know" that an explanation
(which looks backwards in time to a predetermined conclusion)
will be applicable tommorrow? A comforting (but dubious) thought.

Freedom of thought and expression is the best we can do at it.
"Objectivity" cannot be shoved down peoples throats, for in
order that it remain "persuasion" (and not "coercion"), the
free human will (to disagree) on the part of the "audience"
must remain. And in the realm of the "aural mind", what could
could be a more fruitful environment for "subjective impression"
(and a less fruitfull environment for atomization and dogma)?

Regards, J Gill

--- In tuning@y..., "unidala" <JGill99@i...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <BobWendell@t...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "unidala" <JGill99@i...> wrote:
> > > --- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <BobWendell@t...> wrote:
> > > > Is there no objective reality or is it all just a matter of
> > opinion?
> > > > Is it true that all who fail to agree with a particular
viewpoint
> > are
> > > > rigid fanatics blindly married to a fruitless idea?
> > >
> > > JG: If an "objective reality" truly exists,
> > > then (it seems) there is no functional need to
> > > formulate a (lasting) concept of "opinion".
> > > "Opinions" would become fallacious deviancies.
> > >
> >
> > Bob earlier:
> > So opinions have no value if there is an objective reality?
>
> JG: I suppose one's outlook on that might depend on where
> they stand relative to an alleged "objective knowledge claim".
> If one's opinion differs, then (of course) they might "beg to
> differ". If one's outlook is congruent to some quantity of
> folks who are convinced that they "have it all summed up",
> then it seems likely that those folks within the group of
> (self-procalimed) "objectivists" would see the detractor's
> position as "folly", and the detractor's "opinions" as
> lacking value (as seen through their "objective" eyes).
>
Bob now:
Why assume that that is what's going on? I make no claims to a
monopoly on objective knowledge, or even that what knowledge I have
is all objective. I merely object to the idea that everything is a
matter of opinion, or that opinions disappear in the light of
objective knowledge. Opinions are merely confirmed or invalidated by
objective knowledge to whatever degree we achieve access to it. And
no "objective knowledge" concerning relative existence can ever
represent "absolute truth".
>
> > Don't
> > they exist as attempts to approach reality?
>
> JG: Your statement appears to imply (to me) that you are
> a person who is of the mind that there exists an "objective
> reality". Personally, I see the concepts of "objectivity"
> and "subjectivity" as each being "poles" at the (total)
> conceptual extremes, both of which have "Achilles heels".
>
> A *completely* "subjective" outlook, in ignoring the
> "applicability" of the rest of the universe, might
> (literally) "bump into" that which they blissfully
> have (so far) ignored... An unyielding "brick wall"
> and is likely to remain such, yielding not to one's
> "subjective" belief that it exists not ...
>
> A *completely* "objective" outlook, in ignoring the
> possibility that just because "me and my friends of
> like mind" *think* they have it "all summed up",
> fails to account for the vastness and indifference
> of Nature to cadres of "like-minded folks" who,
> in their "mutual assuredness", may fail to recognize
> the limits of the applicability of such beliefs.
> Since the concept of "objectivity" depends upon
> *agreement* between parties, its fortresses may
> turn out to be less perennial than imagined ...
>
Bob now:
This is your definition of "objective reality"; not mine!
Defining "objective reality" as majority opion would be sheer folly.
Nothing I have said was intended to imply that "objective reality"
consists of or is in any way dependent upon a prevailing set of
opinions. I believe that often the prevailing set or opinions is
totally mistaken, as you rightfully point out as historically self-
evident. So why are you reading all this extraneous stuff into what I
say? I merely said what I said and not all this extra baggage it
somehow seems to imply for you.

> > My experience indicates
> > that many opinions do represent a "fallacious deviance", but
that's
> > part of learning, isn't it?
>
> JG: Once again, your statement appears to imply that you are
> a person who is of the mind that there exists an "objective
> reality". Personally, I see the concepts of "objectivity"
> and "subjectivity" as each being "poles" at the (total)
> conceptual extremes, both of which have "Achilles heels".
>
Bob now:
No, it implies only that, as you yourself have just stated above,
sometimes opinions don't work out to be worthwhile, and hopefully we
learn enough from that to begin to adjust our opinions to align more
fruitfully with reality.

> Only a (pure) "objectivist" would not rest until others were
> "persuaded" that their "opinions" represented a "fallacious
> deviance". A (pure) "subjectivist" mind find other occupations
> (such as navel-gazing, according to others) more gratifying.
> >
Bob now:
The existence of an objective reality in no way implies that the
validity of anyone's opinions has anything to do with whether they
are aligned with that of the majority. (By the way, I have practiced
meditation faithfully every day for over 30 years.)

> > If you are serious in the above statement, it would imply that no
> > opinion could ever be wrong.
>
> JG: If "no opinion could ever be wrong", then why would we
> differentiate between the concepts of "truth" and "opinion"?
>
Bob now:
Exactly my point! So why did your initial statement so clearly imply,
no, directly state that if an objective reality existed, the very
concept of opinions would become meaningless?!

> > Everything's just a matter of equally
> > valuable opinions. Some people do indeed seem to think that
> > everyone's opinion should have equal weight, but in the sciences
> > and
> > engineering this paradigm fails completely to yield fruitful
> > results.
>
> JG: From an "engineer" - the "sciences and engineering" provide
> no assurances of the derivation of "absolute truth", either,

Bob now: Agreed!

> any more than other functional social systems such as religion,
> astrology, reading tea leaves, etc. All of these "alliances"
> have shown themselves to fall short of producing "neat and tidy"
> descriptions/explanations. When Einstein saw what all others
> had missed, I doubt if those others felt that their sense of
> "objectivity" had served them well, after all. When we look
> backwards in time, we can see such failures in retrospect.
> Let us not forget that a party of "like minded" individuals
> does not a world make, and that Nature is indifferent to all
> of our explanations ...
>
Bob now: Agreed!

> > The weight of an engineer's or scientist's opinions depends very
much
> > on how often such opinions have borne fruit in the past.
Combining
> > glycerine and nitric acid does not produce water, and if in your
> > opinion it does, upon attempting to drink it you will likely not
> > last
> > long enough to discover that your opinion represented a rather
> > catastrophically explosive misjudgment of reality.
>
> JG: Let us hope that humility accompanies our sense of knowing,
> lest we put too much faith in either human will or "prevailing
> opinions". We call it "reality" after the fact presents itself,
> but why should we assume that the laws of Nature are static and
> unchanging (as if those laws existed in service of our concepts)?
>
> If it were not for diversity of outlooks, there would be little
> to say. By the same right, who can "know" that an explanation
> (which looks backwards in time to a predetermined conclusion)
> will be applicable tommorrow? A comforting (but dubious) thought.
>
> Freedom of thought and expression is the best we can do at it.
> "Objectivity" cannot be shoved down peoples throats, for in
> order that it remain "persuasion" (and not "coercion"), the
> free human will (to disagree) on the part of the "audience"
> must remain. And in the realm of the "aural mind", what could
> could be a more fruitful environment for "subjective impression"
> (and a less fruitfull environment for atomization and dogma)?

Bob now:
Objective reality, assuming that it exists, would not need anyone to
shove it down anyone's throat. Don't drink the potion of
nitroglycerine I referred to earlier, or you will find (assuming an
afterlife) that nature does a fine job of shoving reality down all of
our throats all the time with no outside help other than our own
foolishness.
>
By the way, I believe the scientific method exists only because the
noise in our human channels of communication with nature has been
such that a great deal of redundancy has to be built into our
inquiries into the realities of natural law in order to overcome the
lousy signal-to-noise ratio (from information theory). I believe when
we truly COMMUNE (rather than merely communicate) with nature, the
noise in our nervous systems is systematically reduced, and the
communications redundancy implied by the scientific method becomes
less and less necessary. Then we see life as it really is (a
condition traditionally referred to as an enlightened mind).

I do not claim to have reached this state, but see it as a state in
which, as you rightly imply, unity eliminates the need for concepts
such as subjectivity versus objectivity. Subjectivity is different
from objectivity only because of system noise (human nervous system).

Regards,

Bob

Bob, thanks for the title edit (though, don't you think
that (perhaps) the term "afoot" is a derivation of "at foot"?

J Gill

--- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <BobWendell@t...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "unidala" <JGill99@i...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <BobWendell@t...> wrote:
> > > --- In tuning@y..., "unidala" <JGill99@i...> wrote:
> > > > --- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <BobWendell@t...> wrote:
> > > > > Is there no objective reality or is it all just a matter of
> > > opinion?
> > > > > Is it true that all who fail to agree with a particular
> viewpoint
> > > are
> > > > > rigid fanatics blindly married to a fruitless idea?
> > > >
> > > > JG: If an "objective reality" truly exists,
> > > > then (it seems) there is no functional need to
> > > > formulate a (lasting) concept of "opinion".
> > > > "Opinions" would become fallacious deviancies.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Bob earlier:
> > > So opinions have no value if there is an objective reality?
> >
> > JG: I suppose one's outlook on that might depend on where
> > they stand relative to an alleged "objective knowledge claim".
> > If one's opinion differs, then (of course) they might "beg to
> > differ". If one's outlook is congruent to some quantity of
> > folks who are convinced that they "have it all summed up",
> > then it seems likely that those folks within the group of
> > (self-procalimed) "objectivists" would see the detractor's
> > position as "folly", and the detractor's "opinions" as
> > lacking value (as seen through their "objective" eyes).
> >
> Bob now:
> Why assume that that is what's going on?

JG: I was just pondering *your*,impression (above), stating,
<<So opinions have no value if there is an objective reality?>>

My statement,

<<If an "objective reality" truly exists,
then (it seems) there is no functional need to
formulate a (lasting) concept of "opinion".
"Opinions" would become fallacious deviancies.>>

was a thought about the nature of the *concepts*,
and neither it (or my subsequent statement) were
intended to be taken as value judgements about
your thoughts in general.

> I make no claims to a
> monopoly on objective knowledge, or even that what knowledge I have
> is all objective.

JG: Fair enough, my friend.

> I merely object to the idea that everything is a
> matter of opinion, or that opinions disappear in the light of
> objective knowledge.

JG: Clearly, they do not (since some claim to have
"objective knowledge" and others have varying "opinions").

> Opinions are merely confirmed or invalidated by
> objective knowledge to whatever degree we achieve access to it.

JG: I would point out that you (appear, to me) to "intonate"
here that you envision an "objective knowledge" which exists
outside of (or at least transcending) human experience. I can
respect that, my friend. My own "take" on this stuff would
lean more towards viewing these "concepts" as of our own
making, without a superceding "objective reality" just
"waiting to be discovered" (as if "knowledge" were a "thing",
and not an aspect of human conceptualization). That does not
mean that I, on the other hand, as a human being, consider
"all other opinions to be equally (and incontrovertably) valid".

> And
> no "objective knowledge" concerning relative existence can ever
> represent "absolute truth".

JG: Hear, hear. So why fret about the existence of an
"objective knowledge", since (if it concerns "relative
existence"), "subjectivity" (once again) rears it head?

> > > Don't
> > > they exist as attempts to approach reality?
> >
> > JG: Your statement appears to imply (to me) that you are
> > a person who is of the mind that there exists an "objective
> > reality". Personally, I see the concepts of "objectivity"
> > and "subjectivity" as each being "poles" at the (total)
> > conceptual extremes, both of which have "Achilles heels".
> >
> > A *completely* "subjective" outlook, in ignoring the
> > "applicability" of the rest of the universe, might
> > (literally) "bump into" that which they blissfully
> > have (so far) ignored... An unyielding "brick wall"
> > and is likely to remain such, yielding not to one's
> > "subjective" belief that it exists not ...
> >
> > A *completely* "objective" outlook, in ignoring the
> > possibility that just because "me and my friends of
> > like mind" *think* they have it "all summed up",
> > fails to account for the vastness and indifference
> > of Nature to cadres of "like-minded folks" who,
> > in their "mutual assuredness", may fail to recognize
> > the limits of the applicability of such beliefs.
> > Since the concept of "objectivity" depends upon
> > *agreement* between parties, its fortresses may
> > turn out to be less perennial than imagined ...
> >
> Bob now:
> This is your definition of "objective reality"; not mine!
> Defining "objective reality" as majority [opinion] would be
> sheer folly.

JG: But how can you separate a "human conceptualization"
such as "objective reality" from the very humans who invent
and utilize said "conception". How can we have "knowledge"
which can be said to arise from without (while we perceive
it from within)?

> Nothing I have said was intended to imply that "objective reality"
> consists of or is in any way dependent upon a prevailing set of
> opinions.

JG: Again, how can you separate the "known" from the "knower"?

> I believe that often the prevailing set or opinions is
> totally mistaken, as you rightfully point out as historically self-
> evident. So why are you reading all this extraneous stuff into what
> I
> say? I merely said what I said and not all this extra baggage it
> somehow seems to imply for you.

JG: It would be hard for me to "know" exactly what you meant
every time unless I *were* you... You are not on trial, and
I assume that I am not, either. We are jabbering about "reality",
after all. Excessive seriousness just makes one "excessively
serious" ... Not my intentions here in our conversation!

> > > My experience indicates
> > > that many opinions do represent a "fallacious deviance", but
> that's
> > > part of learning, isn't it?
> >
> > JG: Once again, your statement appears to imply that you are
> > a person who is of the mind that there exists an "objective
> > reality". Personally, I see the concepts of "objectivity"
> > and "subjectivity" as each being "poles" at the (total)
> > conceptual extremes, both of which have "Achilles heels".
> >
> Bob now:
> No, it implies only that, as you yourself have just stated above,
> sometimes opinions don't work out to be worthwhile, and hopefully >we
> learn enough from that to begin to adjust our opinions to align >more
> fruitfully

JG: Seems pragmatic...

with reality.

JG: The term "reality" brings back to "human conceptualization",
and (in my opinion) not a "thing" (such as a brick wall
is a "thing")

> > Only a (pure) "objectivist" would not rest until others were
> > "persuaded" that their "opinions" represented a "fallacious
> > deviance". A (pure) "subjectivist" mind find other occupations
> > (such as navel-gazing, according to others) more gratifying.

> Bob now:
> The existence of an objective reality in no way implies that the
> validity of anyone's opinions has anything to do with whether they
> are aligned with that of the majority.

JG: Seems (to me) that that depends a lot on to *whom* one
relies for actualization (whether it be others, or one's self).
However, the term "objective" deeply (and implicitly) implies -
"true for others as well as true for myself". So, even if one's
concepts of "objective reality" were of a totally "subjective"
(personal) origin (if such were possible), the implication of
the term "objective" is that it *applies* (in kind) to others.

> (By the way, I have practiced
> meditation faithfully every day for over 30 years.)

JG: Sounds like you find what you do to be meaningful!

> > > If you are serious in the above statement, it would imply that no
> > > opinion could ever be wrong.
> >
> > JG: If "no opinion could ever be wrong", then why would we
> > differentiate between the concepts of "truth" and "opinion"?
> >
> Bob now:
> Exactly my point! So why did your initial statement so clearly
> imply,
> no, directly state that if an objective reality existed, the very
> concept of opinions would become meaningless?!

JG: Because it seems valid upon analyzing the meaning and
application of the concepts of "opinions" (as diverse views),
and "objective reality", which would seem to imply that any
"diversions" from that "reality" would (upon that "reality"
becoming known), appear rather "fruitless". These are
statements of my thoughts about these linguistic metaphors,
their origin, and their application in human conceptualization.
Not a "raging tirade" which has to be perceived as "right"!

> > > Everything's just a matter of equally
> > > valuable opinions. Some people do indeed seem to think that
> > > everyone's opinion should have equal weight, but in the sciences
> > > and
> > > engineering this paradigm fails completely to yield fruitful
> > > results.
> >
> > JG: From an "engineer" - the "sciences and engineering" provide
> > no assurances of the derivation of "absolute truth", either,
>
> Bob now: Agreed!
>
> > any more than other functional social systems such as religion,
> > astrology, reading tea leaves, etc. All of these "alliances"
> > have shown themselves to fall short of producing "neat and tidy"
> > descriptions/explanations. When Einstein saw what all others
> > had missed, I doubt if those others felt that their sense of
> > "objectivity" had served them well, after all. When we look
> > backwards in time, we can see such failures in retrospect.
> > Let us not forget that a party of "like minded" individuals
> > does not a world make, and that Nature is indifferent to all
> > of our explanations ...
> >
> Bob now: Agreed!
>
>
> > > The weight of an engineer's or scientist's opinions depends very
> much
> > > on how often such opinions have borne fruit in the past.
> Combining
> > > glycerine and nitric acid does not produce water, and if in your
> > > opinion it does, upon attempting to drink it you will likely not
> > > last
> > > long enough to discover that your opinion represented a rather
> > > catastrophically explosive misjudgment of reality.
> >
> > JG: Let us hope that humility accompanies our sense of knowing,
> > lest we put too much faith in either human will or "prevailing
> > opinions". We call it "reality" after the fact presents itself,
> > but why should we assume that the laws of Nature are static and
> > unchanging (as if those laws existed in service of our concepts)?
> >
> > If it were not for diversity of outlooks, there would be little
> > to say. By the same right, who can "know" that an explanation
> > (which looks backwards in time to a predetermined conclusion)
> > will be applicable tommorrow? A comforting (but dubious) thought.
> >
> > Freedom of thought and expression is the best we can do at it.
> > "Objectivity" cannot be shoved down peoples throats, for in
> > order that it remain "persuasion" (and not "coercion"), the
> > free human will (to disagree) on the part of the "audience"
> > must remain. And in the realm of the "aural mind", what could
> > could be a more fruitful environment for "subjective impression"
> > (and a less fruitfull environment for atomization and dogma)?
>
> Bob now:
> Objective reality, assuming that it exists, would not need anyone
> to
> shove it down anyone's throat.

JG: Hear, hear!

> Don't drink the potion of
> nitroglycerine I referred to earlier, or you will find (assuming an
> afterlife) that nature does a fine job of shoving reality down all >of
> our throats all the time with no outside help other than our own
> foolishness.
> By the way, I believe the scientific method exists only because the
> noise in our human channels of communication with nature has been
> such that a great deal of redundancy has to be built into our
> inquiries into the realities of natural law in order to overcome
> the
> lousy signal-to-noise ratio (from information theory).

JG: Nature transcends ditties from Shannon and Nyquist, et al ...

> I believe
> when
> we truly COMMUNE (rather than merely communicate) with nature, the
> noise in our nervous systems is systematically reduced, and the
> communications redundancy implied by the scientific method becomes
> less and less necessary. Then we see life as it really is (a
> condition traditionally referred to as an enlightened mind).

JG: Yeah, history is full of "enlightened" genocide in the name
of wisdom. I watch those "traditional referrals" (the agnostic
in me showing) ... Men/women of peace are known by their actions.

> I do not claim to have reached this state, but see it as a state in
> which, as you rightly imply, unity eliminates the need for concepts
> such as subjectivity versus objectivity.

JG: Well, if you had, you probably would not need to talk
about it ...? The conceptual "poles" tend to divide the mind.
Our obsessions with "certainty" may be one kind of (self-
generated) "noise" (Gaussian amplitude distribution, zero mean).

> Subjectivity is different
> from objectivity only because of system noise (human nervous
>system).

JG: Whoa, this seems "super-technical" and "reductionist" ...
I love mathematics, too, but I do think that "all is numbered",
as opposed to "all is number". Can those elegant axioms and
clever identities give life (or are they conceptual derivations
of life in "prehension").

Best to you, J Gill

--- In tuning@y..., "unidala" <JGill99@i...> wrote:
> Bob, thanks for the title edit (though, don't you think
> that (perhaps) the term "afoot" is a derivation of "at foot"?
>
> J Gill
>
Bob now:
Well, I suppose "awash" in "the boat was rudderless, helplessly awash
in the rough seas" could derive from "at wash" originally, so by
analogy...

Bob earlier:
> > I believe
> > when
> > we truly COMMUNE (rather than merely communicate) with nature,
the
> > noise in our nervous systems is systematically reduced, and the
> > communications redundancy implied by the scientific method
becomes
> > less and less necessary. Then we see life as it really is (a
> > condition traditionally referred to as an enlightened mind).
>
> > Subjectivity is different
> > from objectivity only because of system noise (human nervous
> >system).
>
> JG: Whoa, this seems "super-technical" and "reductionist" ...
> I love mathematics, too, but I do think that "all is numbered",
> as opposed to "all is number". Can those elegant axioms and
> clever identities give life (or are they conceptual derivations
> of life in "prehension").
>
>
> Best to you, J Gill

Bob now:
The latter, I would agree.

However for the record, there is nothing wrong
with "technical". "Technical" is just a way of designating precise,
pragmatic modes of thought that bear reliable fruit in our
interactions with nature. If we misapply such thought, we create
pollution and other negative results of "technology", but
these things are not intrinsic to technical thought, but are rather
the result of its thoughtless misapplication, typically from ignoring
the wholeness of nature in the narrow quest for short-term, local
solutions.

The products of powerful technical thinking manipulated by the unwise
in the fragmented search for solutions to immediate problems is a
very dangerous thing for society as our culture is unfortunately so
clearly beginning to confirm. This should not cause people to reject
the value of precise thinking.

--- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <BobWendell@t...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "unidala" <JGill99@i...> wrote:
> > Bob, thanks for the title edit (though, don't you think
> > that (perhaps) the term "afoot" is a derivation of "at foot"?
> >
> > J Gill
> >
> Bob now:
> Well, I suppose "awash" in "the boat was rudderless, helplessly awash
> in the rough seas" could derive from "at wash" originally, so by
> analogy...
>
> Bob earlier:
> > > I believe
> > > when
> > > we truly COMMUNE (rather than merely communicate) with nature,
> the
> > > noise in our nervous systems is systematically reduced, and the
> > > communications redundancy implied by the scientific method
> becomes
> > > less and less necessary. Then we see life as it really is (a
> > > condition traditionally referred to as an enlightened mind).
> >
> > > Subjectivity is different
> > > from objectivity only because of system noise (human nervous
> > >system).
> >
> > JG: Whoa, this seems "super-technical" and "reductionist" ...
> > I love mathematics, too, but I do think that "all is numbered",
> > as opposed to "all is number". Can those elegant axioms and
> > clever identities give life (or are they conceptual derivations
> > of life in "prehension").
> >
> >
> > Best to you, J Gill
>
>
> Bob now:
> The latter, I would agree.
>
> However for the record, there is nothing wrong
> with "technical". "Technical" is just a way of designating precise,
> pragmatic modes of thought that bear reliable fruit in our
> interactions with nature. If we misapply such thought, we create
> pollution and other negative results of "technology", but
> these things are not intrinsic to technical thought, but are rather
> the result of its thoughtless misapplication, typically from ignoring
> the wholeness of nature in the narrow quest for short-term, local
> solutions.
>
> The products of powerful technical thinking manipulated by the unwise
> in the fragmented search for solutions to immediate problems is a
> very dangerous thing for society as our culture is unfortunately so
> clearly beginning to confirm.

JG: Agreed!

> This should not cause people to reject
> the value of precise thinking.

JG: Agreed!

PS - I'm a "nerd" from way back, and love math and
"critical reasoning" (though there is no "objective
definition" of what constitutes such!). Have found
that there is much that is not "summed up" by various
"belief systems" (scientific or religious), and that
is a humbling and profound experience (to realize the
limitations of our conceptual constructs as they apply
to Nature in its indifference).

Best Regards, J Gill

--- In tuning@y..., "unidala" <JGill99@i...> wrote:

Bob earlier:
> > However for the record, there is nothing wrong
> > with "technical". "Technical" is just a way of designating
precise,
> > pragmatic modes of thought that bear reliable fruit in our
> > interactions with nature. If we misapply such thought, we create
> > pollution and other negative results of "technology", but
> > these things are not intrinsic to technical thought, but are
rather
> > the result of its thoughtless misapplication, typically from
ignoring
> > the wholeness of nature in the narrow quest for short-term, local
> > solutions.
> >
> > The products of powerful technical thinking manipulated by the
unwise
> > in the fragmented search for solutions to immediate problems is a
> > very dangerous thing for society as our culture is unfortunately
so
> > clearly beginning to confirm.
>
> JG: Agreed!
>
> > This should not cause people to reject
> > the value of precise thinking.
>
> JG: Agreed!
>
> PS - I'm a "nerd" from way back, and love math and
> "critical reasoning" (though there is no "objective
> definition" of what constitutes such!). Have found
> that there is much that is not "summed up" by various
> "belief systems" (scientific or religious), and that
> is a humbling and profound experience (to realize the
> limitations of our conceptual constructs as they apply
> to Nature in its indifference).
>
> Best Regards, J Gill

Bob now:
Neat! I think we're actually very much on the same wavelength. When I
say "objective reality", I'm also referring to the indifference of
nature to off-track opinions and useless concepts. I further agree
that even useful concepts do not represent "Truth" in any absolute
sense.

No intellectual concept is more than a mental model of reality that
is forever condemned to incompleteness, because no finite concept can
ever fully comprehend the ultimate nature of anything. I believe
holograms represent a profound metaphor for the structure of nature,
where the whole is contained in every part, infinity in every point.
I tend to like the Mahayana Bhuddist idea of a systematically self-
negating cosmology that ultimately ends up saying nothing about that
by knowing which all is known.