"Subucule blinked, opened his mouth to speak, then closed it once more. Roremaund, the skeptic, turned away to inspect the waters of the Scamander.
Garstang, sitting to the side, smiled thoughtfully. 'And you, Cugel the Clever, for once you are reticent. What is your belief?'
'It is somewhat inchoate,' Cugel admitted. 'I have assimilated a variety of viewpoints, each authoritative in its own right: from the priests at the Temple of Teleologues; from a bewitched bird who plucked messages from a box; from a fasting anchorite who drank a bottle of pink elixir which I offered him in jest. The resulting visions were contradictory but of great profundity. My world-scheme, hence, is syncretic.'
'Interesting, ' said Garstang. 'Lodermulch, what of you?'
'Ha,' growled Lodermulch. 'Notice this rent in my garment; I am at a loss to explain its presence! I am even more puzzled by the existence of the universe.'"
Your articles are always thought stimulators. But first, a critical comment:
Coherentism says that for a belief to be justified it must belong to a coherent system of beliefs; that the beliefs that make up that system must “cohere” with one another. In other words, coherence is a necessary but not sufficient condition for justification. This is different that what you noted applies to postmodern thought, that the coherence of beliefs within a system is sufficient to justify the system.
Now to the thoughts you have stimulated:
You have illuminated (for me, at least) a fatal flaw in postmodern logic: that coherence can justify a system of beliefs. This con game works only for individuals who lack noesis; just about anyone else can see it as obviously wrong. As our society descends more deeply into chaos, I believe we will find that the opposing classes will increasingly represent those who possess noesis versus those who do not.
So how did we get here? The advent of social media has given greatly disproportionate voice to those whose deficient mental capacity would otherwise have marginalized them (or excluded them entirely) from discussions of importance to society. Their sudden visibility triggered misplaced compassion from certain of those noetic souls who actually ran things, causing them to call for "inclusion," "social justice," and other progressive tropes. Once so encouraged, the non-noetics, in their uniquely illogical but certainly loud and passionate way, called for, then demanded, then usurped an unearned equivalent standing to the "ruling" noetics.
Our problem is not that such people exist; they always have and always will. Our problem is that we have turned over to them the focus of national attention, then the reins of policy, and now actual positions of power and authority. Even dogs are smart enough not to let their dumbest lead the pack.
You're right re: coherentism of course, and I over-simplified the explanation of coherentism beyond what I ought to have. But I had covered it in more depth in prior essays and wanted to get to the good part!
I offer my strong agreement on all of your conclusions. That's exactly where we are.
I am quite impressed that Mr Macris has come to a sequence of conclusions that Cognitive Scientists, Practitioners of various Wisdom Traditions, etc likewise have similarly arrived at (in some cases after years of study and/or practice).
This means one of three possibilities:
1) Assistance from the Unseen
2) High Latent ability now activated.
3) Combination of (1) and (2)
In general, me being the Doompornographer that I am…. Will urge anyone and everyone who has gotten (1) or (3) to be extremely cautious. The beings on the other side of the gate are not always benevolent.
Isn’t there more than one type of noesis? For example, the argument can be made that cognition is not possible without the ability to perceive Truth of Identity, i.e., that a thing is itself, which is a faculty that even our dogs have, and the salient difference between meat and silicon intelligence.
Professor Vervaeke took part in a task force some years back to discuss with the panel (all of whom being researchers, practitioners, etc. involved in various aspects of Wisdom Study and Practice) what current "broad sweeping" notions have developed with regards to the Science of Wisdom.
Noesis (as you put it) is a select faculty that not every human being has access to (due to the Diversity of Human faculties as well as overall *lack of practice* in many cases to flex what little Noetic-ability they may possess).
In this panel discussion, they came to similar conclusions with regard to what would comprise "Common Wisdom". From the description below, the corollary that can be gleaned (if one is honest) is that said "Common Wisdom" is not a Human Universal.
Relevant Concluding remarks from the article:
>> These considerations notwithstanding, empirically oriented wisdom scientists around the world converge on a set of morally-grounded aspects of metacognition as a common psychological signature of wisdom.
Building on the commonalities across many construct operationalizations in empirical sciences, the Wisdom Task Force has proposed the common wisdom model, defining wisdom’s psychological characteristics as morally-grounded excellence in social-cognitive processing.
The task force established that by excellence in social-cognitive processing empirical scientists typically refer to PMC—i.e., features of meta comprehension and meta-reasoning that apply to problem-solving in domains that have consequences for other people.
By moral grounding, empirical wisdom scholars typically refer to a set of inter-related aspirational goals: balance of self- and other-oriented interests, pursuit of truth (vs. dishonesty), and orientation toward shared humanity.
Future psychological scientists can build on these insights, establishing a common language for a psychometrically sound construct operationalization across multiple levels of analysis(e.g., state vs. trait), and with an eye toward possible ways to nurture wisdom in challenging times. <<
>> .... morally-grounded excellence in social-cognitive processing. .... <<
And:
>> .... by excellence in social-cognitive processing empirical scientists typically refer to PMC—i.e., features of meta comprehension and meta-reasoning that apply to problem-solving in domains that have consequences for other people. <<
Direct Acquaintance (or "Noesis" if you will) with Truths would Thus be at best something that Sages, Saints, Wisemen, Prophets and Messengers (in that order, leftmost to rightmost being a rough qualitative 'measure' of the overall Strength of Noesis involved) can exercise.
What the Layman can do is to merely emulate said Pious individuals; for their overall level of "Wisdom" does not rise up to their level (given the definitions outlined above).
That's really fascinating! "meta comprehension and meta-reasoning", precisely.
The fact that Noesis is not a widespread faculty seems evident when we look at clown world. I am increasingly persuaded that the critics of democracy were right.
The notion of “democracy” that pervades the west today is a far cry from what the Athenians et al had in mind.
Mind you, even they (being the philosophical types rather than the religious type like the Delphic Greeks) knew very well that only a handful of MEN ever got close to being directly acquainted with Truths.
Most others (especially the brilliant and genius ones like Pythagoras) tended to “open themselves up” to the spiritual realm and lost themselves entirely to those UNSEEN entities on the other side of the gate. Common occurrence, even back then!
"Functional" is a purely relative term. It has to be always asked "Functional... with regard to WHAT?"
If anything, the Athenian model (if somehow were once more applied today) would enable many Western societies to escape from the Rat race that is Clown World; because the citizenry would NEED to be MEN who have some Skin in the Game; and not just any random Tom, Dick or Harry.
Citizenship in the West today is a Cheap commodity rather than a Rare Privilege... that alone creates thousands of Problems.
Well, America has managed to last nearly 2 and a half centuries without being dominated by another power for starters. Not routinely exiling victorious generals helps.
> because the citizenry would NEED to be MEN who have some Skin in the Game
There are Things I am NOT. Therefore there ARE Things that I AM. There is that which IS Right. Therefore I believe that there ARE Things that ARE Wrong. I JUDGE THIS. I seperate Ethics from Morals thusly; Ethics grow from WITHIN One. Morals are imposed on One from WITHOUT.
In a nihilistic society it is moral to murder your own unborn baby, for example. In a sane Society it is not Ethical. Relativism is an Evil where there is NO Right, only positions. Just sayn 🤔
The various paradoxes that seem to spin out of epistemology have come to seem -- as far as I care to engage with that debate anymore -- a product of first divorcing the mind and its qualities from an abstract ideal of "matter" (whatever that may turn out to be), and then going through the motions of seeing how or if the concepts in thought can somehow regain a grip on it.
Even scientifically-minded thinkers like Davidson and (at least in his earlier incarnations) Rorty still manage to fall for this. Quine, for all his naturalistic veneration of science, was arguably an even harsher empiricist than Hume.
The problems largely evaporate if we look back to another fact that Aristotle recognized: that the mind's activities already participates in the "non-mental" world. The impassible logical divide between the inner mind and the outer reality, which reached its best-known modern realization in Descartes, has stuck with us, for better or worse, but nothing about it is inevitable or necessary.
Rudolf Steiner, when he wasn't moonlighting as a spiritual guru, wrote some fascinating remarks on the supposed and largely illusory separation of self and world in _The Philosophy of Freedom_. Among more recent writers, Charles Taylor has many interesting things to say about the involved and participatory dimensions of human agency, which include our status as thinking and knowing beings continuous with outer reality.
I agree. With the exception of the occasional geniuses like Steiner, you genuinely do have to dial it all the way back to Aristotle and the classical thinkers to avoid the Cartesian trap.
I haven't managed to finish "The Philosophy of Freedom" yet, Steiner is a tough read.
If one defines BELIEF as the adoption of a position or attitude, enabled through the rejection of evidence and logic, then further discussion centres merely on the varying qualities of arrant foolishness or neurotic compulsion. Or, one can be absolutist and simply conclude, as do I, that all BELIEVERS are insane, because the above definition can equally be applied to the behaviour of the insane.
Wrong. I do. But by all means disagree. Save me from lifelong humiliation and provide a better definition that I might adopt this and go my way a wiser and happier man.
You do realise your definition of believer includes yourself, right? Stop and think about your definition for a minute before you read on...
Let's put aside logic and just consider that there are many different kinds of evidence. If I say I saw a UFO fly through my bedroom just now... that is evidence of a UFO flying through my bedroom. If I say the sky is blue, that is also evidence. If you combust hydrogen and oxygen and get H2O, that is evidence. If you say you want to kill your neighbour, and some weeks later your neighbour turns up dead with a kitchen knife buried in their ribcage, that's evidence of your guilt.
However, there is a huge, gaping, yawning chasm between "evidence" and "proof". We must naturally reject some evidence if we are to reach a conclusion - hence why courts distinguish between hearsay, eyewitness testimony, circumstantial evidence, and why perjury is considered to be so serious. When the scientist combusting H2 and O2 detects minute amounts of Fe2O3 in his results, he quite reasonably rejects this evidence as the result of contamination (though as a scientist he should still report its existence).
You did not address 'belief'. You merely danced around interpretations of evidence, to which I have no objections. My central point implied is that I have no beliefs. I look at the evidence, apply logic, and draw a conclusion. If somebody brings better evidence to the table, or superior logic, then I accommodate the new conclusion. Believers, as in modern Christians, will work slavishly to create 'logic' structures that justify their beliefs. As in "the universe is way too integrated and complex to be the outcome of accident. A higher power, a higher being must have created it".
The obvious faults in logic are (a) application of the word 'accident', which is plain non sequitur; and (b) the personalising of the alternative, which is plain stupid primitive. Both issues are solved with the term 'universal evolution'. And, in fact, I identified the "universe/life evolution" riddle in 1964. This was to my satisfaction and will not share this with anyone else because they will waste my time anguishing over posible alternatives, including 'god'.
"My central point implied is that I have no beliefs."
This is a belief, whether by the conventional definition or your own. For example, as you didn't get my point about evidence, you choose to reject the evidence of the Bible to arrive at your conclusion. Whether you are right or wrong to do so is irrelevant.
Without going too much into your (heh) beliefs, simple logic dictates that the universe had to have come about due to supernatural (that is, superior to the laws of nature) means, because you cannot have infinite regression, nor can you have something coming from nothing.
Now, if you have no desire to explain "universal evolution" that's fine, although it makes me wonder why you (a) come here to argue that everyone else is wrong, and (b) even mention it at all.
PS how did you solve the problem of mutation fixation rates in your theory?
The Law of Non-Contradiction: Nothing can be and not be.
The Law of the Excluded Middle: Everything must either be or not be.
The Axiom of Existence: Existence exists.
The Axiom of Evidence: The evidence of the senses is not entirely unreliable evidence.
These laws and axioms cannot be proved but we can recognize them as true by direct apprehension of their truth. Although they are irrefutable, they are not undeniable. Despite the fact that all logic and science depend on these laws and axioms, Munchausen skeptics will still deny their truth. "You can't prove A is A, so its unfounded!" This led me to ponder "why would someone deny an irrefutable truth that is self-evident?" I have concluded that is because its not self-evident to them, they are unable to directly apprehend truth, e.g. they lack noesis.
I do not have any other noetic knowledge to share except that. Would that I did, but I don't.
May 11, 2023·edited May 11, 2023Liked by Tree of Woe
Got it. We are talking basic foundational stuff here. [I'd add "The law of human sexual dimorphism: one can define what a woman is" ;) ]
>I wrote about them here
I read the other essays within the last year, but obviously forgot some of the details.
> Munchausen skeptics will deny their truth
I have long subconsciously suspected that the modern philosophers who "perfected" those ideas to the point of nonsense weren't entirely serious. And that the lesser philosophers and lay people who took their ideas seriously did not quite grasp it.
A few weeks ago I saw some support for that idea: https://www.ecosophia.net/the-reign-of-quantity/ (it's in the first introductory paragraphs; the rest, while highly interesting, is not relevant to this discussion.)
Add to it how fashion in intellectualism and ideas can serve and sway power, and you have a mighty incentive for intellectual dishonesty, including self-deception.
[That reminds me of a quote from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:
"Bloody hell," said Majikthise, "now that is what I call thinking. Here Vroomfondel, why do we never think of things like that?"
"Dunno," said Vroomfondel in an awed whisper, "think our brains must be too highly trained Majikthise."]
A related thought: I wonder to which extent the German Idealists were serious about their ideas.
To conclude: I do not think there is enough support to the hypothesis that large segments of otherwise normal and cognitively way-above-average population lack noesis. A better hypothesis is that they engage in other- and self-deception. And being cognitively superior, they are quite good at it too fool us and themselves.
That's a perfectly reasonable conclusion. Because I am a humanitarian endowed with enormous good will towards my fellow men, of course, I will continue to believe that when meat robots tell me they are meat robots, they are being honest. My sensitive soul couldn't abide the notion of widespread deception by our elite! :D
Interestingly, The Ulama when in debate with the Philosophers and the Skeptics made the point that what the latter two called Laws and Axioms... are simply nothing more than Derivates from their proto-Knowledge and Innate Disposition towards their Creator.
Namely, all Axioms and Laws regarding the created world (the Universe, Multiverse, etc and everything in it) are themselves Consequents from a more Fundamental sort of Understanding (call it "meta-understanding" if you will) regarding the Creator's 13 Attributes. These are themselves in 3 categories and are as follows:
Personal Attribute:
0. Being
Negative Attributes (i.e. "Without" .... ; these can be gleaned from Natural Theology)
1. Beginninglessness (i.e. "Without Beginning")
2. Endlessness (i.e. "Without End")
3. Oneness (i.e. "Without Equals")
4. Self-Subsistence (i.e. "Without Dependance")
5. Absolute dissimilarity to Creation (i.e. "Without Similitude")
Positive Attributes (Attributions to the Creator that are in Revelation)
1. Life
2. Knowledge
3. Will
4. Power
5. Hearing
6. Sight
7. Speech
.... every understanding of the Creator comes back down to these 13 Atomics. And every Understanding of the created world (and what sort of Axioms and Laws one can Directly Acquaint with) they too come back to these 13.
That is true, which is why I very specifically have avoided the word "intuition." I have many intuitions and almost none of them are noetic apprehensions of truth. They're just hunches. It's a different experience. A truly noetic insight cannot be refuted. (See "Defending the Trilemma" for what I mean by irrefutable axioms.)
Your answer for the skeptics is "they're like that". :) As in "they're missing an organ of the mind". :) It really rises the question if the skeptics are humans. No, seriously, think about it. If "to be human" involves being rational, intelligent, able to commune with spirits, able to interact with God, able to deal with higher things... and you're saying skeptics are organically unable to do those things... are skeptics trully human?
A much better solution would be "skeptics are just stupid", which I admit is almost indistiguishable from "skeptics are just anoetic", but the key disctinction is that "skeptics are stupid" holds that skeptics are as able as I am to comprehend ultimate truths, they just either willingly and knowingly choose not to, or are demoralized and don't try, or are prevented by some other cause. Yes, I'm "Left" and an equalitarian. How did you tell? :)
Ultimately, calling skeptics "anoetic" is just giving up on them and moving on. It might be a good idea to give up on them and move on, but justifying that by saying they're "anoetic" is just all kinds of bad. :)
"Subucule blinked, opened his mouth to speak, then closed it once more. Roremaund, the skeptic, turned away to inspect the waters of the Scamander.
Garstang, sitting to the side, smiled thoughtfully. 'And you, Cugel the Clever, for once you are reticent. What is your belief?'
'It is somewhat inchoate,' Cugel admitted. 'I have assimilated a variety of viewpoints, each authoritative in its own right: from the priests at the Temple of Teleologues; from a bewitched bird who plucked messages from a box; from a fasting anchorite who drank a bottle of pink elixir which I offered him in jest. The resulting visions were contradictory but of great profundity. My world-scheme, hence, is syncretic.'
'Interesting, ' said Garstang. 'Lodermulch, what of you?'
'Ha,' growled Lodermulch. 'Notice this rent in my garment; I am at a loss to explain its presence! I am even more puzzled by the existence of the universe.'"
--Jack Vance "The Eyes of the Overworld"
Magnificent. No one writes like Vance.
Matthew Hughes does, but he's trying to write like Vance...
Your articles are always thought stimulators. But first, a critical comment:
Coherentism says that for a belief to be justified it must belong to a coherent system of beliefs; that the beliefs that make up that system must “cohere” with one another. In other words, coherence is a necessary but not sufficient condition for justification. This is different that what you noted applies to postmodern thought, that the coherence of beliefs within a system is sufficient to justify the system.
Now to the thoughts you have stimulated:
You have illuminated (for me, at least) a fatal flaw in postmodern logic: that coherence can justify a system of beliefs. This con game works only for individuals who lack noesis; just about anyone else can see it as obviously wrong. As our society descends more deeply into chaos, I believe we will find that the opposing classes will increasingly represent those who possess noesis versus those who do not.
So how did we get here? The advent of social media has given greatly disproportionate voice to those whose deficient mental capacity would otherwise have marginalized them (or excluded them entirely) from discussions of importance to society. Their sudden visibility triggered misplaced compassion from certain of those noetic souls who actually ran things, causing them to call for "inclusion," "social justice," and other progressive tropes. Once so encouraged, the non-noetics, in their uniquely illogical but certainly loud and passionate way, called for, then demanded, then usurped an unearned equivalent standing to the "ruling" noetics.
Our problem is not that such people exist; they always have and always will. Our problem is that we have turned over to them the focus of national attention, then the reins of policy, and now actual positions of power and authority. Even dogs are smart enough not to let their dumbest lead the pack.
You're right re: coherentism of course, and I over-simplified the explanation of coherentism beyond what I ought to have. But I had covered it in more depth in prior essays and wanted to get to the good part!
I offer my strong agreement on all of your conclusions. That's exactly where we are.
This explains a lot about how Skeptics can be so wrong about some things and yet still seem intelligent to most people. Thanks for the read!
-But I did have breakfast this morning!
“Through the lens of noesis, skepticism is simply the natural consequence of the absence of this intellectual capacity in some individuals”
10/10 response, made my day
I’ve been searching for quite some time for a way to put words to this exact phenomenon. You, my friend, may have cracked a code.
I am quite impressed that Mr Macris has come to a sequence of conclusions that Cognitive Scientists, Practitioners of various Wisdom Traditions, etc likewise have similarly arrived at (in some cases after years of study and/or practice).
This means one of three possibilities:
1) Assistance from the Unseen
2) High Latent ability now activated.
3) Combination of (1) and (2)
In general, me being the Doompornographer that I am…. Will urge anyone and everyone who has gotten (1) or (3) to be extremely cautious. The beings on the other side of the gate are not always benevolent.
Isn’t there more than one type of noesis? For example, the argument can be made that cognition is not possible without the ability to perceive Truth of Identity, i.e., that a thing is itself, which is a faculty that even our dogs have, and the salient difference between meat and silicon intelligence.
I think that case could be made, yes, though I hadn't considered it until you brought it up.
Professor Vervaeke took part in a task force some years back to discuss with the panel (all of whom being researchers, practitioners, etc. involved in various aspects of Wisdom Study and Practice) what current "broad sweeping" notions have developed with regards to the Science of Wisdom.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341653068_The_Science_of_Wisdom_in_a_Polarized_World_Knowns_and_Unknowns
Noesis (as you put it) is a select faculty that not every human being has access to (due to the Diversity of Human faculties as well as overall *lack of practice* in many cases to flex what little Noetic-ability they may possess).
In this panel discussion, they came to similar conclusions with regard to what would comprise "Common Wisdom". From the description below, the corollary that can be gleaned (if one is honest) is that said "Common Wisdom" is not a Human Universal.
Relevant Concluding remarks from the article:
>> These considerations notwithstanding, empirically oriented wisdom scientists around the world converge on a set of morally-grounded aspects of metacognition as a common psychological signature of wisdom.
Building on the commonalities across many construct operationalizations in empirical sciences, the Wisdom Task Force has proposed the common wisdom model, defining wisdom’s psychological characteristics as morally-grounded excellence in social-cognitive processing.
The task force established that by excellence in social-cognitive processing empirical scientists typically refer to PMC—i.e., features of meta comprehension and meta-reasoning that apply to problem-solving in domains that have consequences for other people.
By moral grounding, empirical wisdom scholars typically refer to a set of inter-related aspirational goals: balance of self- and other-oriented interests, pursuit of truth (vs. dishonesty), and orientation toward shared humanity.
Future psychological scientists can build on these insights, establishing a common language for a psychometrically sound construct operationalization across multiple levels of analysis(e.g., state vs. trait), and with an eye toward possible ways to nurture wisdom in challenging times. <<
Here is the key:
>> .... morally-grounded excellence in social-cognitive processing. .... <<
And:
>> .... by excellence in social-cognitive processing empirical scientists typically refer to PMC—i.e., features of meta comprehension and meta-reasoning that apply to problem-solving in domains that have consequences for other people. <<
Direct Acquaintance (or "Noesis" if you will) with Truths would Thus be at best something that Sages, Saints, Wisemen, Prophets and Messengers (in that order, leftmost to rightmost being a rough qualitative 'measure' of the overall Strength of Noesis involved) can exercise.
What the Layman can do is to merely emulate said Pious individuals; for their overall level of "Wisdom" does not rise up to their level (given the definitions outlined above).
That's really fascinating! "meta comprehension and meta-reasoning", precisely.
The fact that Noesis is not a widespread faculty seems evident when we look at clown world. I am increasingly persuaded that the critics of democracy were right.
The notion of “democracy” that pervades the west today is a far cry from what the Athenians et al had in mind.
Mind you, even they (being the philosophical types rather than the religious type like the Delphic Greeks) knew very well that only a handful of MEN ever got close to being directly acquainted with Truths.
Most others (especially the brilliant and genius ones like Pythagoras) tended to “open themselves up” to the spiritual realm and lost themselves entirely to those UNSEEN entities on the other side of the gate. Common occurrence, even back then!
> The notion of “democracy” that pervades the west today is a far cry from what the Athenians et al had in mind.
True. The Athenian version was a lot less functional.
"Functional" is a purely relative term. It has to be always asked "Functional... with regard to WHAT?"
If anything, the Athenian model (if somehow were once more applied today) would enable many Western societies to escape from the Rat race that is Clown World; because the citizenry would NEED to be MEN who have some Skin in the Game; and not just any random Tom, Dick or Harry.
Citizenship in the West today is a Cheap commodity rather than a Rare Privilege... that alone creates thousands of Problems.
Well, America has managed to last nearly 2 and a half centuries without being dominated by another power for starters. Not routinely exiling victorious generals helps.
> because the citizenry would NEED to be MEN who have some Skin in the Game
Doesn't seem to have helped Athens.
There are Things I am NOT. Therefore there ARE Things that I AM. There is that which IS Right. Therefore I believe that there ARE Things that ARE Wrong. I JUDGE THIS. I seperate Ethics from Morals thusly; Ethics grow from WITHIN One. Morals are imposed on One from WITHOUT.
In a nihilistic society it is moral to murder your own unborn baby, for example. In a sane Society it is not Ethical. Relativism is an Evil where there is NO Right, only positions. Just sayn 🤔
very interesting as always enjoyed the read, the piece sounds like its explaining academically what received wisdom is via living, to me at least.
Without actually saying its Wisdom.
I'm not saying its Wisdom
RAISES HANDS UP NEXT TO CRAZY HAIR
But it's Wisdom
The various paradoxes that seem to spin out of epistemology have come to seem -- as far as I care to engage with that debate anymore -- a product of first divorcing the mind and its qualities from an abstract ideal of "matter" (whatever that may turn out to be), and then going through the motions of seeing how or if the concepts in thought can somehow regain a grip on it.
Even scientifically-minded thinkers like Davidson and (at least in his earlier incarnations) Rorty still manage to fall for this. Quine, for all his naturalistic veneration of science, was arguably an even harsher empiricist than Hume.
The problems largely evaporate if we look back to another fact that Aristotle recognized: that the mind's activities already participates in the "non-mental" world. The impassible logical divide between the inner mind and the outer reality, which reached its best-known modern realization in Descartes, has stuck with us, for better or worse, but nothing about it is inevitable or necessary.
Rudolf Steiner, when he wasn't moonlighting as a spiritual guru, wrote some fascinating remarks on the supposed and largely illusory separation of self and world in _The Philosophy of Freedom_. Among more recent writers, Charles Taylor has many interesting things to say about the involved and participatory dimensions of human agency, which include our status as thinking and knowing beings continuous with outer reality.
I agree. With the exception of the occasional geniuses like Steiner, you genuinely do have to dial it all the way back to Aristotle and the classical thinkers to avoid the Cartesian trap.
I haven't managed to finish "The Philosophy of Freedom" yet, Steiner is a tough read.
If one defines BELIEF as the adoption of a position or attitude, enabled through the rejection of evidence and logic, then further discussion centres merely on the varying qualities of arrant foolishness or neurotic compulsion. Or, one can be absolutist and simply conclude, as do I, that all BELIEVERS are insane, because the above definition can equally be applied to the behaviour of the insane.
> If one defines BELIEF as the adoption of a position or attitude, enabled through the rejection of evidence and logic
Fortunately no one defines belief that way.
Wrong. I do. But by all means disagree. Save me from lifelong humiliation and provide a better definition that I might adopt this and go my way a wiser and happier man.
You do realise your definition of believer includes yourself, right? Stop and think about your definition for a minute before you read on...
Let's put aside logic and just consider that there are many different kinds of evidence. If I say I saw a UFO fly through my bedroom just now... that is evidence of a UFO flying through my bedroom. If I say the sky is blue, that is also evidence. If you combust hydrogen and oxygen and get H2O, that is evidence. If you say you want to kill your neighbour, and some weeks later your neighbour turns up dead with a kitchen knife buried in their ribcage, that's evidence of your guilt.
However, there is a huge, gaping, yawning chasm between "evidence" and "proof". We must naturally reject some evidence if we are to reach a conclusion - hence why courts distinguish between hearsay, eyewitness testimony, circumstantial evidence, and why perjury is considered to be so serious. When the scientist combusting H2 and O2 detects minute amounts of Fe2O3 in his results, he quite reasonably rejects this evidence as the result of contamination (though as a scientist he should still report its existence).
You did not address 'belief'. You merely danced around interpretations of evidence, to which I have no objections. My central point implied is that I have no beliefs. I look at the evidence, apply logic, and draw a conclusion. If somebody brings better evidence to the table, or superior logic, then I accommodate the new conclusion. Believers, as in modern Christians, will work slavishly to create 'logic' structures that justify their beliefs. As in "the universe is way too integrated and complex to be the outcome of accident. A higher power, a higher being must have created it".
The obvious faults in logic are (a) application of the word 'accident', which is plain non sequitur; and (b) the personalising of the alternative, which is plain stupid primitive. Both issues are solved with the term 'universal evolution'. And, in fact, I identified the "universe/life evolution" riddle in 1964. This was to my satisfaction and will not share this with anyone else because they will waste my time anguishing over posible alternatives, including 'god'.
"My central point implied is that I have no beliefs."
This is a belief, whether by the conventional definition or your own. For example, as you didn't get my point about evidence, you choose to reject the evidence of the Bible to arrive at your conclusion. Whether you are right or wrong to do so is irrelevant.
Without going too much into your (heh) beliefs, simple logic dictates that the universe had to have come about due to supernatural (that is, superior to the laws of nature) means, because you cannot have infinite regression, nor can you have something coming from nothing.
Now, if you have no desire to explain "universal evolution" that's fine, although it makes me wonder why you (a) come here to argue that everyone else is wrong, and (b) even mention it at all.
PS how did you solve the problem of mutation fixation rates in your theory?
I remain mystified why our host continues to indulge this idiot.
Nothing you said is worth responding to. Please find some kids to talk to.
Good piece
Can you please share a few pieces of your noetic knowledge, beyond cogito, ergo sum?
I wrote about them here: https://treeofwoe.substack.com/p/defending-against-the-trilemma
The Law of Identity: Whatever is, is.
The Law of Non-Contradiction: Nothing can be and not be.
The Law of the Excluded Middle: Everything must either be or not be.
The Axiom of Existence: Existence exists.
The Axiom of Evidence: The evidence of the senses is not entirely unreliable evidence.
These laws and axioms cannot be proved but we can recognize them as true by direct apprehension of their truth. Although they are irrefutable, they are not undeniable. Despite the fact that all logic and science depend on these laws and axioms, Munchausen skeptics will still deny their truth. "You can't prove A is A, so its unfounded!" This led me to ponder "why would someone deny an irrefutable truth that is self-evident?" I have concluded that is because its not self-evident to them, they are unable to directly apprehend truth, e.g. they lack noesis.
I do not have any other noetic knowledge to share except that. Would that I did, but I don't.
Got it. We are talking basic foundational stuff here. [I'd add "The law of human sexual dimorphism: one can define what a woman is" ;) ]
>I wrote about them here
I read the other essays within the last year, but obviously forgot some of the details.
> Munchausen skeptics will deny their truth
I have long subconsciously suspected that the modern philosophers who "perfected" those ideas to the point of nonsense weren't entirely serious. And that the lesser philosophers and lay people who took their ideas seriously did not quite grasp it.
A few weeks ago I saw some support for that idea: https://www.ecosophia.net/the-reign-of-quantity/ (it's in the first introductory paragraphs; the rest, while highly interesting, is not relevant to this discussion.)
Add to it how fashion in intellectualism and ideas can serve and sway power, and you have a mighty incentive for intellectual dishonesty, including self-deception.
[That reminds me of a quote from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:
"Bloody hell," said Majikthise, "now that is what I call thinking. Here Vroomfondel, why do we never think of things like that?"
"Dunno," said Vroomfondel in an awed whisper, "think our brains must be too highly trained Majikthise."]
A related thought: I wonder to which extent the German Idealists were serious about their ideas.
To conclude: I do not think there is enough support to the hypothesis that large segments of otherwise normal and cognitively way-above-average population lack noesis. A better hypothesis is that they engage in other- and self-deception. And being cognitively superior, they are quite good at it too fool us and themselves.
That's a perfectly reasonable conclusion. Because I am a humanitarian endowed with enormous good will towards my fellow men, of course, I will continue to believe that when meat robots tell me they are meat robots, they are being honest. My sensitive soul couldn't abide the notion of widespread deception by our elite! :D
Interestingly, The Ulama when in debate with the Philosophers and the Skeptics made the point that what the latter two called Laws and Axioms... are simply nothing more than Derivates from their proto-Knowledge and Innate Disposition towards their Creator.
Namely, all Axioms and Laws regarding the created world (the Universe, Multiverse, etc and everything in it) are themselves Consequents from a more Fundamental sort of Understanding (call it "meta-understanding" if you will) regarding the Creator's 13 Attributes. These are themselves in 3 categories and are as follows:
Personal Attribute:
0. Being
Negative Attributes (i.e. "Without" .... ; these can be gleaned from Natural Theology)
1. Beginninglessness (i.e. "Without Beginning")
2. Endlessness (i.e. "Without End")
3. Oneness (i.e. "Without Equals")
4. Self-Subsistence (i.e. "Without Dependance")
5. Absolute dissimilarity to Creation (i.e. "Without Similitude")
Positive Attributes (Attributions to the Creator that are in Revelation)
1. Life
2. Knowledge
3. Will
4. Power
5. Hearing
6. Sight
7. Speech
.... every understanding of the Creator comes back down to these 13 Atomics. And every Understanding of the created world (and what sort of Axioms and Laws one can Directly Acquaint with) they too come back to these 13.
In addition to what Tree of Woe said, Euclid's five Common Notions are excellent examples --
(1) Things which equal the same thing also equal one another.
(2) If equals are added to equals, then the wholes are equal.
(3) If equals are subtracted from equals, then the remainders are equal.
(4) Things which coincide with one another equal one another.
(5) The whole is greater than the part.
One problem is that a number of highly counterintuitive beliefs have turned out to be true, e.g., relativity and quantum mechanics.
That is true, which is why I very specifically have avoided the word "intuition." I have many intuitions and almost none of them are noetic apprehensions of truth. They're just hunches. It's a different experience. A truly noetic insight cannot be refuted. (See "Defending the Trilemma" for what I mean by irrefutable axioms.)
This is stupid. xD
Your answer for the skeptics is "they're like that". :) As in "they're missing an organ of the mind". :) It really rises the question if the skeptics are humans. No, seriously, think about it. If "to be human" involves being rational, intelligent, able to commune with spirits, able to interact with God, able to deal with higher things... and you're saying skeptics are organically unable to do those things... are skeptics trully human?
A much better solution would be "skeptics are just stupid", which I admit is almost indistiguishable from "skeptics are just anoetic", but the key disctinction is that "skeptics are stupid" holds that skeptics are as able as I am to comprehend ultimate truths, they just either willingly and knowingly choose not to, or are demoralized and don't try, or are prevented by some other cause. Yes, I'm "Left" and an equalitarian. How did you tell? :)
Ultimately, calling skeptics "anoetic" is just giving up on them and moving on. It might be a good idea to give up on them and move on, but justifying that by saying they're "anoetic" is just all kinds of bad. :)
Late to the party, but…
Body= world knowledge (5 senses)
Soul= self knowledge (thoughts, will, emotions)
Spirit= God knowledge, with Noesis being a subset of this as God is truth (understanding of truth)
Therefore spiritually dead humans as described in the Bible lack noesis.