@ Scott Miller:
Well - I'm just trying to be clear on what you're trying to say, and whether your point is more, or needs to be taken as, metaphorical. What does it mean to say that the universe is nearly empty of "matter." From my lay-tsar's study of physics, I have reached the point where I haven't the slightest idea what matter is anyway.
I'll just leave it at that for now, because I would need to be provided with or guided to an accessible rendering of the material to be able to discuss its claims and the claims you make on its behalf any further. You seem to be arguing for some kind of proof in physics regarding a traditional question in metaphysics. It is never surprising to someone with a smattering of background in philosophy to observe such a discussion being resurrected at the theoretical limits of hard science. I think the attitude of real philosophers or fans like me is "Hah! and you thought you'd banished us!" You could call it the philosopher's revenge, though vengefulness isn't a characteristic often associated with wisdom. I'll just say I'm not optimistic about walking sideways via mathematics, astronomy, and particle physics into a novel solution of problems that are metaphysical.
@ Scott Miller:
Seems like a rather contentious response to observations from bob that didn't strike me as contentious at all.
What physicists actually prove is not always the same as what they set out to prove or seem to be in the process of proving, or what people talking about their work in terms appropriated from another discourse say about it. So, until what they actually say is submitted to us, in context, we cannot assess it. We're only guessing, and are likely to simplify in a way that suits our prejudices or preferred modes of thinking and speaking. I can say, or affirm, that "Consciousness is the Ground of Being," but I have no way to assess the import of that statement - how I or we or anyone would go about his or her business differently if Being was the Ground of Consciousness, or Ground the Consciousness of Being or of was the the Being Ground Consciousness. I'm not being only smart-alecky. These are philosophic concepts that may mean very different things in different contexts/conceptual frameworks. What Consciousness, Being, or a "Ground" of Being (sounds Heidegerrian, not sure) might stand for to a neuroscientist may be very different from what it stands for to a pyschologist, poet, cybernetic theorist, shaman, yogi, or a Hegelian or neo-Hegelian - and so on...
Your own description - Hindu physicists proving Hinduism, non-Hindus thinking them lame - already encourages suspicions of self-interest or circularity on either side of whatever supposed conflict.
@ Scott Miller:
What I was addressing was the idea that I was merely indulging in "fatalism." I think I was saying, "The grains of sand fell downward, not upward, and didn't turn into ponies." I would have had more to say on the subject if I wasn't already in a death and death struggle with my own fateless hopes. All I think I should say for now is that I think the Persian Gulf is more like a pony than like a particle (or wave).
Fatalism? Is it fatalism to suggest that the sand in the hour glass will likely fall from top to bottom (...so are the days of our lives...)? Or to suggest that the world system, like all other systems, is subject to the First and (for this subject more applicable) Second Laws of Thermodynamics? We're not at war with "the terrorists" or even less with "terror." We're at war with entropy, and, since no
one wins that battle, the only escape appears to be to define ourselves out of the equation.
Remember, when Saddam Hussein was found, he didn’t have one person by his side. Not one. All alone. Could that happen to someone with any real power? The enemy is of our own construction. It’s the creation of the “U.S. military entertainment complex,” as an old friend once described it. Imagine the let down if it was an actual movie. The bad guy who has been hunted by the world’s most powerful country at the cost of trillions of dollars is found in a bunker all alone.
You make a decent symbolic point, but it's not a logical one. By the time Saddam was found, the country had been invaded and taken over, and he had been on the lam for 9 months. So of course he was less powerful than he had been at his peak. His power had been taken away from him at great cost. It could be a fine ending, although it all depends on what story you're tellng. I suppose you could play his execution under the end credits, with a ghostly voice intoning, "Moqtada, Moqtada."
The "enemy" is to a very large extent "our construction," but the fact that we follow what Rex calls a "fantasy narrative" doesn't mean that there aren't other narratives that make some sense. It's WHAT'S UP, TIGER LILY? Just not very funny except to the least sympathetic gods.
One of the difficulties assessing how "traumatized" we are, again referring to Rex's point, with which I'm in significant sympathy, is the same multi-simultaneity of narratives. The same 99.9% of us who aren't at war are generally satisfied with at most a few gestures and a bit of reflection guided by TV coverage of memorial events. It's patriotic to pretend to be traumatized.
There was very likely national remembrance of Pearl Harbor 9 years later. I seem to recall memorial events in many years, especially the 50th anniversary. The 60-100 million casualties and immense historical significance of the events that followed lent great meaning to Pearl Harbor beyond the military casualties. And that helps explain why the Dawn writer's got it wrong. 9/11 didn't force us into the wars and so on. Like Pearl Harbor, it marked a transition point. Pearl Harbor didn't start World War II - World War II was well under way by the time the Japanese attacked. It marked our late, but inevitable entry into the global "contest." If 9/11 had never happened - if we can imagine the plot having failed to come together - there would have been something else.
I think being a Iranian, he’s a little more informed about these things, they change the name,
No, being an Iranian he apparently is unaware of the simplest facts about the project. They came up with Park51 as the name for the entire project, and were accused by the "Islamic victory monument" types - like you, I think - of running away from criticism of "Cordoba." The Imam founded his "Cordoba Initiative" years ago. At one point they seemed to be saying that "Cordoba House" would be the name for the Islamic center within the multi-use facility.
In any case, I like the Imam's vision, and I'd also like to see the project built for the sake of defeating the paranoids and bigots, but I'm not convinced at all that the thing will ever be built in any form, and I don't pretend to know anything about how serious the developers really are or should be taken. I remain at least as interested in the whole story for what it has exposed, and continues to expose, about the opponents.
You know, I just read that truly irresponsible and misinformed, altogether idiotic article by Amir Taheri that miguel linked initially. Taheri writes on the subject, pretending to inform people about it from a position of expertise, without having informed himself first - for instance, his claim that the promoters of the project just started calling it "Cordoba House" in response to criticism, when actually that name and the Cordoba Initiative long preceded this whole made-up imbroglio.
His arguments about the precise meaning of "culture" and his fabrications about a "rabat" for Muslim raiders are ludicrous and offensive - classic misuse of history for the sake of entertaining and massaging the prejudices and paranoia of the half-educated.
I will never read him again in quite the same way.
Well... I'll see what I can come up with for you maintenance-wise. Others might help. Or you could play the field at some other blogs (we're not monblogamous around here) and recruit some new playmates.
@ Scott Miller:
Well - I'm just trying to be clear on what you're trying to say, and whether your point is more, or needs to be taken as, metaphorical. What does it mean to say that the universe is nearly empty of "matter." From my lay-tsar's study of physics, I have reached the point where I haven't the slightest idea what matter is anyway.
I'll just leave it at that for now, because I would need to be provided with or guided to an accessible rendering of the material to be able to discuss its claims and the claims you make on its behalf any further. You seem to be arguing for some kind of proof in physics regarding a traditional question in metaphysics. It is never surprising to someone with a smattering of background in philosophy to observe such a discussion being resurrected at the theoretical limits of hard science. I think the attitude of real philosophers or fans like me is "Hah! and you thought you'd banished us!" You could call it the philosopher's revenge, though vengefulness isn't a characteristic often associated with wisdom. I'll just say I'm not optimistic about walking sideways via mathematics, astronomy, and particle physics into a novel solution of problems that are metaphysical.
@ Scott Miller:
Seems like a rather contentious response to observations from bob that didn't strike me as contentious at all.
What physicists actually prove is not always the same as what they set out to prove or seem to be in the process of proving, or what people talking about their work in terms appropriated from another discourse say about it. So, until what they actually say is submitted to us, in context, we cannot assess it. We're only guessing, and are likely to simplify in a way that suits our prejudices or preferred modes of thinking and speaking. I can say, or affirm, that "Consciousness is the Ground of Being," but I have no way to assess the import of that statement - how I or we or anyone would go about his or her business differently if Being was the Ground of Consciousness, or Ground the Consciousness of Being or of was the the Being Ground Consciousness. I'm not being only smart-alecky. These are philosophic concepts that may mean very different things in different contexts/conceptual frameworks. What Consciousness, Being, or a "Ground" of Being (sounds Heidegerrian, not sure) might stand for to a neuroscientist may be very different from what it stands for to a pyschologist, poet, cybernetic theorist, shaman, yogi, or a Hegelian or neo-Hegelian - and so on...
Your own description - Hindu physicists proving Hinduism, non-Hindus thinking them lame - already encourages suspicions of self-interest or circularity on either side of whatever supposed conflict.
But thanks for the p.e. anyway. I don't want to look at it for fear that I may turn it n. If I haven't done so already. Durnit.
@ Scott Miller:
What I was addressing was the idea that I was merely indulging in "fatalism." I think I was saying, "The grains of sand fell downward, not upward, and didn't turn into ponies." I would have had more to say on the subject if I wasn't already in a death and death struggle with my own fateless hopes. All I think I should say for now is that I think the Persian Gulf is more like a pony than like a particle (or wave).
Scott Miller wrote:
Fatalism? Is it fatalism to suggest that the sand in the hour glass will likely fall from top to bottom (...so are the days of our lives...)? Or to suggest that the world system, like all other systems, is subject to the First and (for this subject more applicable) Second Laws of Thermodynamics? We're not at war with "the terrorists" or even less with "terror." We're at war with entropy, and, since no
one wins that battle, the only escape appears to be to define ourselves out of the equation.
Scott Miller wrote:
You make a decent symbolic point, but it's not a logical one. By the time Saddam was found, the country had been invaded and taken over, and he had been on the lam for 9 months. So of course he was less powerful than he had been at his peak. His power had been taken away from him at great cost. It could be a fine ending, although it all depends on what story you're tellng. I suppose you could play his execution under the end credits, with a ghostly voice intoning, "Moqtada, Moqtada."
The "enemy" is to a very large extent "our construction," but the fact that we follow what Rex calls a "fantasy narrative" doesn't mean that there aren't other narratives that make some sense. It's WHAT'S UP, TIGER LILY? Just not very funny except to the least sympathetic gods.
One of the difficulties assessing how "traumatized" we are, again referring to Rex's point, with which I'm in significant sympathy, is the same multi-simultaneity of narratives. The same 99.9% of us who aren't at war are generally satisfied with at most a few gestures and a bit of reflection guided by TV coverage of memorial events. It's patriotic to pretend to be traumatized.
There was very likely national remembrance of Pearl Harbor 9 years later. I seem to recall memorial events in many years, especially the 50th anniversary. The 60-100 million casualties and immense historical significance of the events that followed lent great meaning to Pearl Harbor beyond the military casualties. And that helps explain why the Dawn writer's got it wrong. 9/11 didn't force us into the wars and so on. Like Pearl Harbor, it marked a transition point. Pearl Harbor didn't start World War II - World War II was well under way by the time the Japanese attacked. It marked our late, but inevitable entry into the global "contest." If 9/11 had never happened - if we can imagine the plot having failed to come together - there would have been something else.
miguel cervantes wrote:
No, being an Iranian he apparently is unaware of the simplest facts about the project. They came up with Park51 as the name for the entire project, and were accused by the "Islamic victory monument" types - like you, I think - of running away from criticism of "Cordoba." The Imam founded his "Cordoba Initiative" years ago. At one point they seemed to be saying that "Cordoba House" would be the name for the Islamic center within the multi-use facility.
In any case, I like the Imam's vision, and I'd also like to see the project built for the sake of defeating the paranoids and bigots, but I'm not convinced at all that the thing will ever be built in any form, and I don't pretend to know anything about how serious the developers really are or should be taken. I remain at least as interested in the whole story for what it has exposed, and continues to expose, about the opponents.
You know, I just read that truly irresponsible and misinformed, altogether idiotic article by Amir Taheri that miguel linked initially. Taheri writes on the subject, pretending to inform people about it from a position of expertise, without having informed himself first - for instance, his claim that the promoters of the project just started calling it "Cordoba House" in response to criticism, when actually that name and the Cordoba Initiative long preceded this whole made-up imbroglio.
His arguments about the precise meaning of "culture" and his fabrications about a "rabat" for Muslim raiders are ludicrous and offensive - classic misuse of history for the sake of entertaining and massaging the prejudices and paranoia of the half-educated.
I will never read him again in quite the same way.
@ fuster:
None whatsoever - and come to think of it there's no reason why certain amphibious adventurers couldn't do the perusaling.
Scott Miller wrote:
Well... I'll see what I can come up with for you maintenance-wise. Others might help. Or you could play the field at some other blogs (we're not monblogamous around here) and recruit some new playmates.