Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 15:19:08 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: BHA: criteria of judgment -oughts - learning



Hi Dick,



As usual, your questions are incisive and subtle.



Let us begin with a thought experiment – Envision a debate between a postmodernist and a realist in which the realist reveals the shortcomings in the postmodernist’s arguments. Now my question is: why does the postmodernist still cling to his/her views? And there are multitudes of them despite the onslaught of realism! How would you comment on this state of mind, on this ‘reasoning’? 



2. In PON, RB makes a reference to ‘double monitoring’, i.e. people can monitor their monitorings. I am interested in probing this further. According to a commentator, the only way a person can know his mind or ‘instrument of analysis’ is by employing the ‘instrument of analysis’. It is like asking the eye to see the eye itself! Don’t you think this is asking for the impossible? There is an impossible dilemma here. And, where exactly is this ‘homunculus’ located?



3. ‘Reflexivity’ should ideally mean ability of humans to reflect upon all their actions, thoughts, etc. and then be able to change them, wherever desirable. However this is asking for the impossible. Concrete instances abound – Heidegger’s Nazi-turn, Paul de Man’s Nazi sympathies, Jean Bodin et al. believing in witchcraft and so on. Our own actions will be reconstructed a few decades hence. By the way, how do you construe reflexivity to be? 



As for your more concrete posers, given the fact that all languages are pre-scientific, my idea is somewhat inexpressible in words. (It is another matter as to how it has been conceived of (somewhat) independently of language; it is a matter of ‘biography’, due to certain incidents whence hitherto opaque structures give way and one can interpret things differently, but this is not the place to go into these details). In the available lexicon, I would rather say that humans are ‘observers’ who are aware of their thoughts and actions with the parenthetical remark that to know something is not to realize it. More crudely but without any loss of meaning, there is a complete association with what occurs in one’s cranium and the being at time t1. I have inverted the causality here. Furthermore, the ‘doctrine of incorrigibility’ is irrefutable. I would be interested in enquiring whether there is a single stream of movement which gives the appearance of a double movement. You have only to
 look at these postmodernists (amongst many other segments of people) who tenaciously hold on to ‘their’ views despite the onslaught of realism. The point of enquiry is – do they have a choice in this?



The central question is: why is x, x? What makes x, x and not y? To exemplify, what makes a realist a realist and not a postmodernist or vice versa? Do these people read every fragment of information on planet earth? If we were to respond to these questions ourselves, it possibly could be an enlightening exercise. My own enquiries have revealed that responses to these puzzles do not entirely lie in social practices. Here too the causality is inverted. A series of experiments with focus on – why infants, children respond differently to the same data, phenomena. How is their thought process structured and why in manner x and not y? – are required. It is likely that such experiments have already been conducted, but I am not aware of them, though I would be interested in their results.



You say:

Again, I agree that millions of years of evolution have gone into the creation of genetically programmed mechanisms that influence our behavior. What I contend, however, is that these more often serve as "predispositions" than as "dispositions." Predispositions set constraints as to what a human can learn to do, and make some learnings more probable than others, but they are incomplete generative mechanisms. 



Don’t you think the dividing wall between predispositions and dispositions is tenuous; becoming and being are one and the same. 



 

You say:

It seems to me that you would have either the microbiologists, or the political or corporate masters doing the advance legislation. I trust them no more than I trust the metaphysicians.



I agree none of these is trustworthy. Though a significant issue, this is not of immediate concern to me. 



I appreciate your engaging the issue than superficially rejecting it. As Bhaskar (PON) says: to posit an object as unknowable is already to hypostatize it. If philosophy consists of ‘an irreducible discourse’ and not ‘constitute an autonomous order of being’, there is a philosophical reason too to enquire into the (‘tyrannical’) power of the ‘replicators’. As RB says (again in PON): philosophy, like any science ought to be able to tell us something we did not already know; it ought to be able to surprise us.



Shiv

Hi Dick,



As usual, your questions are incisive and subtle.



Let us begin with a thought experiment – Envision a debate between a postmodernist and a realist in which the realist reveals the shortcomings in the postmodernist’s arguments. Now my question is: why does the postmodernist still cling to his/her views? And there are multitudes of them despite the onslaught of realism! How would you comment on this state of mind, on this ‘reasoning’? 



2. In PON, RB makes a reference to ‘double monitoring’, i.e. people can monitor their monitorings. I am interested in probing this further. According to a commentator, the only way a person can know his mind or ‘instrument of analysis’ is by employing the ‘instrument of analysis’. It is like asking the eye to see the eye itself! Don’t you think this is asking for the impossible? There is an impossible dilemma here. And, where exactly is this ‘homunculus’ located?



3. ‘Reflexivity’ should ideally mean ability of humans to reflect upon all their actions, thoughts, etc. and then be able to change them, wherever desirable. However this is asking for the impossible. Concrete instances abound – Heidegger’s Nazi-turn, Paul de Man’s Nazi sympathies, Jean Bodin et al. believing in witchcraft and so on. Our own actions will be reconstructed a few decades hence. By the way, how do you construe reflexivity to be? 



As for your more concrete posers, given the fact that all languages are pre-scientific, my idea is somewhat inexpressible in words. (It is another matter as to how it has been conceived of (somewhat) independently of language; it is a matter of ‘biography’, due to certain incidents whence hitherto opaque structures give way and one can interpret things differently, but this is not the place to go into these details). In the available lexicon, I would rather say that humans are ‘observers’ who are aware of their thoughts and actions with the parenthetical remark that to know something is not to realize it. More crudely but without any loss of meaning, there is a complete association with what occurs in one’s cranium and the being at time t1. I have inverted the causality here. Furthermore, the ‘doctrine of incorrigibility’ is irrefutable. I would be interested in enquiring whether there is a single stream of movement which gives the appearance of a double movement. You have only to
 look at these postmodernists (amongst many other segments of people) who tenaciously hold on to ‘their’ views despite the onslaught of realism. The point of enquiry is – do they have a choice in this?



The central question is: why is x, x? What makes x, x and not y? To exemplify, what makes a realist a realist and not a postmodernist or vice versa? Do these people read every fragment of information on planet earth? If we were to respond to these questions ourselves, it possibly could be an enlightening exercise. My own enquiries have revealed that responses to these puzzles do not entirely lie in social practices. Here too the causality is inverted. A series of experiments with focus on – why infants, children respond differently to the same data, phenomena. How is their thought process structured and why in manner x and not y? – are required. It is likely that such experiments have already been conducted, but I am not aware of them, though I would be interested in their results.



You say:

Again, I agree that millions of years of evolution have gone into the creation of genetically programmed mechanisms that influence our behavior. What I contend, however, is that these more often serve as "predispositions" than as "dispositions." Predispositions set constraints as to what a human can learn to do, and make some learnings more probable than others, but they are incomplete generative mechanisms. 



Don’t you think the dividing wall between predispositions and dispositions is tenuous; becoming and being are one and the same. 



 

You say:

It seems to me that you would have either the microbiologists, or the political or corporate masters doing the advance legislation. I trust them no more than I trust the metaphysicians.



I agree none of these is trustworthy. Though a significant issue, this is not of immediate concern to me. 



I appreciate your engaging the issue than superficially rejecting it. As Bhaskar (PON) says: to posit an object as unknowable is already to hypostatize it. If philosophy consists of ‘an irreducible discourse’ and not ‘constitute an autonomous order of being’, there is a philosophical reason too to enquire into the (‘tyrannical’) power of the ‘replicators’. As RB says (again in PON): philosophy, like any science ought to be able to tell us something we did not already know; it ought to be able to surprise us.



Shiv


"Moodey, Richard W" <MOODEY001-AT-gannon.edu> wrote:Hi Shiv,

Sorry to have taken so long to reply -- I have been out of town and then have been playing catch-up with my classes. My comments are inserted in your text.

You wrote:

"You have raised an interesting question. My response can be stated thus: My argument does not engage the 'mind', 'introspection', 'reflexivity' et al. per se. It is not moving in the circuitous route of a (ceaseless) thought-process. [There is a linguistic constraint here which I cannot transgress, and have to employ the same words to convey a different meaning]."

I comment:

I agree that linguistic constraints, or constraints imposed by other systems of symbols (e.g., mathematical symbols, graphic expressions), make it difficult for us to express just what is on our minds. I like Polanyi's little sound bite -- "We always know more than we can say." Anything that we articulate explicitly depends upon a much larger context of tacit knowledge. But I question the possibility of what you claim to be doing -- aguing without engaging the 'mind,'or without 'reflection' (I hope I am interpreting your rejection of 'reflexivity' correctly). Whenever we engage seriously in argument, we have to be aware of the criteria of judgment we are using. I can only know what criteria of judgment I am using by reflecting upon my actual judgments of (more or less probably) true and false. So, let me ask you this:

How do you know the criteria you use to make judgments of truth and falsity other than by reflecting upon the way you actually do make such judgments.

You wrote:

"I am attempting to step outside this and thereby posit that if we want a change in human behaviour then we should alter the mechanisms that produce those behaviour. 

I comment:

Here you are not making a judgment about truth or falsity, but a practical judgment about how best to achieve a goal. Who do you think should get to specify the kinds of behaviors you want these microbiologists to eliminate or to foster? It seems to me that your practical judgment carries with it the spector of totalitarian rule.

You wrote:

"No realist can doubt the presence of antecedent mechanisms (since millions of years), or the biological substratum in humans. I expect agreement on this at least."

I comment:

Again, I agree that millions of years of evolution have gone into the creation of genetically programmed mechanisms that influence our behavior. What I contend, however, is that these more often serve as "predispositions" than as "dispositions." Predispositions set constraints as to what a human can learn to do, and make some learnings more probable than others, but they are incomplete generative mechanisms. They are completed only through interactions with the environment. 

Is it really controversial to argue that humans adapt to their environments through learning? 

You wrote:

"Now what their powers are can be defined and possibly be manipulated by microbiologists over a period of time. This is what I mean when I paraphrase Bhaskar that metaphysicians cannot legislate in advance." 

I reply:

It seems to me that you would have either the microbiologists, or the political or corporate masters doing the advance legislation. I trust them no more than I trust the metaphysicians.

You wrote:

"For instance, if a microbiologist manipulates some mechanisms of both Saddam and Bush wher eby they simply cannot 'think' or act in terms of aggression, then the argument would be clinched. This would be achieved minus reflexivity or a vision for global peace, yet produce the same results. I understand this is unlikely in 2003 but I place my optimism for the future."

"In short, biological reductionism is empirically verifiable/falsifiable, as distinct from 'states of mind'."

I reply:

What are your criteria of verification/falsification? How do you know, without reflecting upon how you actually verify or falsify propositions? (A possible alternative to personal reflection much be blind submission to some authority, but I do not get the sense that this is what you want.)

Best regards,

Dick





Richard Moodey wrote:Hi Shiv Kumar,

In the first half of your posting, you argue quite persuasively that can be 
only the appearance of reasoning and reflexivity, that all we can do, 
really, is to keep reiterating what we already believe. Then in the second 
half, you seem to be arguing that you are an exception to the seemingly 
universal judgment you make in the first half. That is, you claim that 
your statements about the biological underpinnings of human nature are 
objectively true, rather than a reiteration of what you already 
believe. Could you clarify this for me?

Regards,

Dick

At 09:51 AM 09/29/2003 -0700, you wrote:

>The subject-of spiritual turn, universal love-has generally been 
>reduced
>to that of taking sides, being 'for' or 'against' which has compromised 
>understanding. The substantive issue is-what is 'X' (the spiritual turn)? 
>It can well be imagined that to commit 'epistemic fallacy' comes somewhat 
>naturally to the lay man, when realists themselves can be caught off-guard 
>in their 'diurnal' (as distinct from 'nocturnal') philosophy!
>
>Irrespective of the intent behind the original mail, there is no
>gainsaying that the main issue is spiritualism, as also so-called 
>universal love. All this lends credibility to the following:
>
> There is no privileged access to the mind; there is only an
> inferential access. There is no Cartesian Theatre with a central 
> processing unit, where all the information is processed. As Marvin Minsky 
> pointed out, there are drafts that are being continually edited in the 
> brain by the millions of units which have little or correlation with each 
> other. In the instant case, the mechanisms of materialism (of yore, of 
> RTS) are no longer available; they have been superseded by the mechanisms 
> of spiritualism. The role of biological substratum is paramount here. The 
> 'doctrine of incorrigibility' ensures that whatever one thinks at a given 
> moment is correct.
> A person maybe aware that he is a realist, but why he is a realist, he 
> can never explicate. To do so is oversimplifying social reality. For 
> instance, Kant was an idealist, but did he read every fragment of 
> information available, discount each of them and then arrive at idealism. 
> This is asking for the impossible given the short span of life and the 
> infinity of data. Hence, there is only appearance of reasoning and 
> reflexivity. People reiterate what they 'believe' in and reject the rest.
> It is easy to embellish texts by saying that we can and should learn 
> from history. This is a fictive statement. In reality, there is no 
> learning from history. Firstly, no two historical periods are similar to 
> have the same solutions and, secondly, the data are infinite to pinpoint 
> any specific lessons. It is self-evidently true that all past attempts at 
> so-called peace, universal love have failed and failed miserably. Robert 
> Owen's 'New Harmony', or 'Oneida Community' are typical examples. What is 
> not learnt is that certain social objectives can only be the by-product 
> of other activities and cannot be achieved directly by willing.
> Dissemination at irregular intervals cannot alter the biological 
> underpinnings of human nature. Philosophers ignore this at their own 
> peril. Change of human nature is confused with deactivation of 
> mechanisms. And, it is a tenet held by realism that mechanisms act 
> transfactually! One only needs to witness a war between two communities, 
> to see how the beast in the man emerges. Leave aside the fascist states 
> of the Second War. In USA too, the Japanese were systematically caught 
> and segregated during that War. So much for reasoning, thinking, 
> reflexivity in the home of democracy! And, that too not in the medieval 
> period, but right in the middle of twentieth century. The only way it can 
> be explicated is by activation of biological mechanisms which antecede humans.
> Philosophers, as the logical positivists rightly remarked, repeat the 
> same old mistakes, cite the same old summaries. What have they changed in 
> these centuries of philosophizing? We want results and not high sounding, 
> or resounding phrases which are a cipher in explanatory power. We need to 
> look at the right places for the answers ­ the answers lie in biological 
> reductionism. Galileo was ridiculed, Newton was, so was Darwin. History 
> proved them right. Biological reductionism too shall be proven right. 
> Those who don't believe it, it is their 'false consciousness' in 2003! To 
> employ Bhaskar's own words from PON: these philosophers' views are 
> 'absolutist', as they want to 'legislate' in advance; and, in an imperial 
> fashion, they want science to be the realization of philosophy.
>
>Do we really learn from history?
>
>Shiv
>
>
>Jamie Morgan wrote:You maynotlike the
>language and the thecratic overtones but what is wrong
>with love peace and harmony, would you prefer hate war and dischord?
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Daniel Pineu"
>To:
>Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 6:44 PM
>Subject: BHA: Re: FWD: Job Opportunity: Agent-Publicist-Fundraiser and 
>Business Manager for Philosopher and Spiritual Teacher Ram Roy Bhaskar
>
>
> > *gulp*
> >
> > Wow, and i thought what we were doing was philosophy of (social) 
> > science,
>and that that was Bhaskar
> > was all about... When in fact, we should apparently be spreading 
> > peace,
>love and harmony, and heal
> > the world through enlightenment. Whew, I'm glad i got the heads up, 
> > I only
>hope i can see the light
> > too. Hail to the great mentor, live long and prosperous,
> >
> > Daniel ;-)
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From:
> > To:
> > Cc:
> > Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 12:09 AM
> > Subject: BHA: FWD: Job Opportunity: Agent-Publicist-Fundraiser and
>Business Manager for Philosopher
> > and Spiritual Teacher Ram Roy Bhaskar
> >
> >
> > > Possibly someone here on the bhaskar-list would be interested in 
> > > the job opportunities below, working with Ram Roy Bhaskar.
> > >
> > > the contact information is at the bottom,
> > >
> > > all the best,
> > >
> > > Hans D.
> > >
> > > Two Job Opportunities: (1) Agent-Publicist-Fundraiser and
> > > (2) Business Manager
> > > for Philosopher and Spiritual Teacher Ram Roy Bhaskar
> > >
> > > Ram Roy Bhaskar, founder of the worldwide philosophical movement 
> > > of critical realism and now Meta-Reality, is an exceptional person 
> > > seeking
>to
> > > fill vital positions to ground his work, especially in America. He 
> > > is
>committed to
> > > spreading, peace, love and enlightenment, through his profound
>understanding of
> > > the philosophy of science and human freedom. His knowledge also 
> > > broadly includes (but is not limited to) the history of philosophy 
> > > of both East
>and
> > > West, comparative religion and spirituality and the path to 
> > > self-realization or enlightenment, as well as the main traditions 
> > > of exoteric and esoteric knowledge. His dynamic speaking and 
> > > personal qualities are experienced by many as charismatic.
> > >
> > > We seek someone to act as his agent-publicist-fund-raiser 
> > > ("agent") who
>is
> > > knowledgeable in public relations, media scheduling, book 
> > > promoting,
>and
> > > grant-writing, etc. We are also looking for a skilled business 
> > > manager
>who
> > > is enthusiastic about helping our organization and Ram Roy. The 
> > > people selected can work with us through telecomputing and 
> > > phoning, with occasional face-to-face meetings, as schedules, 
> > > geography and
>circumstances
> > > permit.
> > >
> > > The position of agent-fundraiser-promoter ("agent") as of now has 
> > > to be totally based on commission, but we are willing in these 
> > > early stages
>of
> > > organization to make the commission a high percentage of the 
> > > income generated by the person in the position, exact terms to be 
> > > negotiated.
>The
> > > agent would mainly be expected to (a) seek out and schedule Ram 
> > > Roy for
> > > fee- or honoraria-generating presentations, scholarly lectures,
>spiritual
> > > or academic workshops, and other related events; and (b) write 
> > > grant proposals to sustain and spread Ram Roy's work. The agent 
> > > would also
>help
> > > to publicize and promote such income-generating events, help 
> > > promote
>Ram
> > > Roy's many books and arrange book-signings where he speaks, etc. 
> > > The business manager position's earnings as an independent 
> > > consultant will
>be
> > > negotiated, depending on the scope and complexity of jobs, time 
> > > spent,
>etc.
> > > The business manager would handle finances, accounts, track grant
>monies,
> > > track income and expenses and donations, track personnel-related
>financial
> > > matters, etc.
> > >
> > > We would also welcome volunteer work--to fill or aid both
>positions--from
> > > those people who would like to give meaningful help to Ram Roy and 
> > > have independent means of support.
> > >
> > > If you are feeling called to either of these positions, can work 
> > > independently within our organizational concerns and directions, 
> > > are enterprising and interested in, even intrigued with, helping 
> > > to support this work and spread Ram Roy's insightful philosophical 
> > > and spiritual teachings of unconditional love and peace through 
> > > self-empowerment and self-realization, we would like you to send 
> > > us a cover letter and
>resume or
> > > CV. Please indicate which of the two positions you seek and on 
> > > what
>basis
> > > you could help (commission, independent consultant or contractor, 
> > > volunteer, etc.).
> > >
> > > These are potentially life-changing positions--possibly leading to 
> > > new intellectual and spiritual paths. People who successfully work 
> > > with us,
>or
> > > otherwise substantially benefit our work, will become part of our 
> > > team
>and
> > > help shape our future together.
> > >
> > > Also, if anyone may want to bring Ram Roy to their campus, place 
> > > of
>worship
> > > or other spiritual organization, self-improvement or business 
> > > forum, scientific or technical organization or some other kind of 
> > > institution
>or
> > > arena for him to speak and receive a fee or an honorarium, please 
> > > also
>get
> > > in touch with us. We will try to schedule him to accommodate those 
> > > who would like to hear him speak at their localities, but Ram Roy 
> > > must be
>paid
> > > for these appearances and his expenses must be covered in order 
> > > for
>his
> > > work to continue.
> > >
> > > Send cover letter (with contact information including email 
> > > address), resume or CV to:
> > >
> > > Cheryl Frank
> > > General Secretary to Ram Roy Bhaskar
> > > 111 Pine Tree Rd., Apt. 2
> > > Ithaca, NY 14850
> > > 607-256-7499
> > >
> > >
> > > --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> > >
> >
> >
> > --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> >
>
>
>
>
>--- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Do you Yahoo!?
>The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
>
>--- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
>This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
>
>Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
>
>--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative
> text/plain (text body -- kept)
> text/html
>---
>
>
> --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---




--- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears

--- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed --- 
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.

Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.

--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- 
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---


--- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


--- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard

--- StripMime Warning --  MIME attachments removed --- 
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.

Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.

--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- 
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
---


     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---