Outside-In vs Inside-Out Determinism

[Brant Gaede]

Yes, Michael could be unfair in his comments, Bill. I haven't been following that, however. It's too hard and long a job for me to decipher these long posts-counterposts. If you are hard to understand, Michael comes back with complimentary hard to understand, but it all seems important and profound.

--Brant

then the ad hominem this and that

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

It's a veritable clash of Titans and the very Cosmos and Future of Mankind are the stakes. If only we could get rid of those damn idiots like Sheldrake, life would be paradise on earth.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There is a wonderful example from O-Land of the attitude I hold regarding these woo-woo issues. It comes directly from the interaction Nathaniel Branden had with Ken Wilber. (They have even done some projects together.) Part of this is given in his book, The Art of Living Consciously.

(btw - I hold the same attitude as NB as a natural inclination. I am not emulating him. I've questioned myself in depth on this and, after a long time of thinking it over, I have concluded that I am satisfied with me. )

Here is an excerpt from NB's book (pp. 201-202). He first discusses what Objectivist jargon calls primacy of consciousness (defended by Wilber), then Materialism (which in the O-jargon is called primacy of existence). Then he continues:

However, we need to realize that these two theories do not exhaust the possibilities. We are not obliged to subscribe either to some form of Materialism or some form of Idealism. We are not compelled to seek to "reduce" consciousness to matter or matter to consciousness. We can justifiably maintain that neither matter nor consciousness is reducible to the other. There are powerful intellectual arguments against any such reductionism and no good reason to make the attempt. Metaphysically, mind and matter are different. But if they are different in every respect, the problem of explaining their interaction appears insuperable. How can mind influence matter and matter influence mind if they have absolutely nothing in common? And yet, that such reciprocal influence exists seems inescapable. This dilemma played a role in the attempt to reduce one of these two to the other.

Without going into details, I will suggest a possible way out. There is nothing inherently illogical -- nothing that contradicts the rest of our knowledge -- in positing some underlying reality of which both matter and consciousness are manifestations. The advantage of such a hypothesis is that it provides a means to resolve a problem that has troubled philosophers for centuries -- "the mind-body problem," the problem of accounting for the interaction of consciousness and physical reality. If they have a common source, then they do have a point of commonality that makes their ability to interact less puzzling. How we would test this hypothesis, or provide justification for it, is another question. However, to call this underlying reality "God" or "Spirit" would clarify nothing and would further obscure what we are trying to understand.

If that does not fall in the ballpark of Sheldrake's morphic fields, I don't know what does. Sheldrake claims morphic fields are fundamental, just like matter is. Just like consciousness is. I equate the general idea of morphic fields to NB's "underlying reality of which both matter and consciousness are manifestations."

This gives words to some ideas I have been grappling with, so it is one of the reasons I have warmed to Sheldrake. Whether these fields are as he says is another issue and I need to do more reading and mulling to come to a firmer conclusion.

So did NB step out of O-Land with this line of thinking? Some people have been scandalized and say he did. He strongly insinuates he did not. Back in 1997, Roger Bissell posted some comments about this on one of the first Internet forums on Objectivism, called Objectivism-L, and NB responded:

Dr. Branden replied to me briefly on September 18:

For your information, whatever this may be worth (not much), the view I conveyed re "manifestations" is one that Rand found quite plausible when I presented it to her. I grant my presentation in the book was much too brief to adequately convey what I had in mind.

You can see a more complete discussion on Roger's thread here on OL: Nathaniel Branden on Mind-Body and the Dual-Aspect Theory.

I mention this more for the comfort of people who come here straight from Rand's novels and think, WTF?

Michael

[Xray]

From the amazon article about Sheldrake's book Science Set Free:

http://www.amazon.co...g=vglnkc4830-20

The bestselling author of Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home offers an intriguing new assessment of modern day science that will radically change the way we view what is possible.

In Science Set Free, Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, one of the world's most innovative scientists, shows the ways in which science is being constricted by assumptions that have, over the years, hardened into dogmas. Such dogmas are not only limiting, but dangerous for the future of humanity.

According to these principles, all of reality is material or physical; the world is a machine, made up of inanimate matter; nature is purposeless; consciousness is nothing but the physical activity of the brain; free will is an illusion; God exists only as an idea in human minds, imprisoned within our skulls.

But should science be a belief-system, or a method of enquiry? Sheldrake shows that the materialist ideology is moribund; under its sway, increasingly expensive research is reaping diminishing returns while societies around the world are paying the price.

"God exists only as an idea in human minds" - Is Sheldrake trying to make the case for God existing not only as an idea in human minds?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

"God exists only as an idea in human minds" - Is Sheldrake trying to make the case for God existing not only as an idea in human minds?

Xray,

Maybe.

I would need to read the book or some other writing where he addresses this to know for sure.

For the moment, I prefer not to guess or insinuate anything one way or another. I prefer to take him at face value. He wrote a book arguing against dogmatism and calling on scientists to open up free lines of inquiry--or allow others to do so without kneejerk bashing or hauling out the tin hats and joke books.

It seems more logical that he would be calling for the same with respect to any claim or speculation about God. No?

Michael

[caroljane]

Yes, Michael could be unfair in his comments, Bill. I haven't been following that, however. It's too hard and long a job for me to decipher these long posts-counterposts. If you are hard to understand, Michael comes back with complimentary hard to understand, but it all seems important and profound.

--Brant

then the ad hominem this and that

Yes, Michael could be unfair in his comments, Bill. I haven't been following that, however. It's too hard and long a job for me to decipher these long posts-counterposts. If you are hard to understand, Michael comes back with complimentary hard to understand, but it all seems important and profound.

--Brant

then the ad hominem this and that

Hey, Michael's comeback hard to understand was not very complimentary.

Carol

Just saying

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Carol,

I'm never very complimentary when scapegoating is involved.

I don't like the Savior stories. I don't like what scapegoating does to people. I don't like the cliques that get formed by scapegoating. I don't like the general unfairness to the scapegoated party. And I don't like the insinuation that the reader does not have the brains to judge matters on his own and come to a reasonable conclusion.

I especially don't like the way scapegoating grows into something really ugly, i.e., whoever finds value in anything the scapegoat says is someone bad. So let's get a group together and make sure people don't look at these thoughts (unless people bash them, of course), on pain of peer punishment and being scapegoated, also.

It never starts there, but it always ends there. I've seen it over and over.

Let's put it this way.

I don't like scapegoating.

Criticism and disagreement does not have to be scapegoating. And I don't mind being an asshole when I have to be.

Just sayin'...

Michael

btw - If someone tried to scapegoat you--or William, I would be all over them. Actually, that's the wrong verb tense. Don't think it hasn't already happened backstage. It has.

[caroljane]

But Michael, I did not see any scapegoating. You were uncomplimentary to wss I thought, in casting him as the storyteller dupe, or basher in your paradigm - and I would say the same of him, if he had done the same to you. I admit I have not thought through the whole hypothesis so may not understand the perspective from which you are writing.

I am not aware of cliques on OL either, as I have not been invited to join any. Is that a bad sign?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I am not aware of cliques on OL either...

Carol,

Nor will you be.

When the crap starts, so do I. (I'm trying to make a pun with "asshole," but I'm just too tired. )

I rarely talk about it. in fact, it's probably a mistake to talk about it right now.

This is a discussion forum of ideas, generally with light-hearted banter to keep it all going pleasurably. Except for the political things, when people tend to get more inflamed. But even then it stays within a limit.

That doesn't happen naturally.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

This is a discussion forum of ideas, generally with light-hearted banter to keep it all going pleasurably. Except for the political things, when people tend to get more inflamed. But even then it stays within a limit.

That doesn't happen naturally.

Michael

Huh! I thought this place was organic!

--Brant

[Paul Mawdsley]

It's funny, Michael. The exact same excerpt, along with a couple of others of NB's, jumped to mind when I was writing my responses to you about Sheldrake. I remember discussing this briefly with Roger a few years ago but was not yet clear in my thinking about it.

In the current thread I have been taking the stand that there is one common "stuff" underlying all that exists and that all complex energy patterns, including matter and consciousness, are emergent from this stuff. This is in the spirit of what NB wrote about.

Michael, you and I disagree on what is the nature of this basic "stuff." I say this stuff is the very well known and measurable EM field. You are saying it is this hard to pin down morphic field. I am saying complex patterns, including matter, life and consciousness, emerge from simpler patterns in the EM field evolving through reciprocal whole-to-part causation. You seem to be saying there is a field where complex patterns, such as consciousness or morphogenetic fields, can exist independent of matter and guide the formation of matter.

Our disagreement is fundamentally in the field of causality and this is where I challenge your view in the spirit of shared exploration, not as an attack on your way of seeing things. The morphic field, in my mind, becomes a pseudo-explanation for consciousness existing separate to matter when we assume it having an existence separate to known and measured fields. When we see it as forming and maintaining complex energy patterns without an underlying causal dynamic, we are stepping into the world of gods and ghosts. This strikes me as metaphysics built from consciousness first, with morphic fields being the hidden variable used to account for it.

Paul

[Paul Mawdsley]

But Michael, I did not see any scapegoating. You were uncomplimentary to wss I thought, in casting him as the storyteller dupe, or basher in your paradigm - and I would say the same of him, if he had done the same to you.

Michael,

I agree with Carols's take on this. I think you were seeing patterns in wss and drew a conclusion based on similar patterns you have seen in others in the past. I think there are other ways of interpreting these patterns. Personally, I don't think wss was coming from the motives you ascribe to him.

Paul

Some peer review with an alternate view.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael, you and I disagree on what is the nature of this basic "stuff." I say this stuff is the very well known and measurable EM field. You are saying it is this hard to pin down morphic field.

Paul,

This is what happens when you inform your observations from within THE STORY.

Where have I said that? I never have, yet you believe I said it and even elaborated on it. You did some mighty fine detail, too.

Why, if not inferring all that stuff from within THE STORY?

If you are interested in what I really do believe, you could ask. But I think I have been clear. I've said it over and over in many places. From within THE STORY, it might sound confusing, though. Lots of people have said I don't make sense when I know I have. (And... I admit, sometimes I actually don't... )

Anyway, I'll say it again. I hope I get through this time.

I believe the universe has both form and content as components. Not just one or the other. I hold claiming it is one or the other only is a false assumption. I do not believe that, on a fundamental level, form arises out of content or that form shapes content. On higher levels, you see both, so I contend that on a fundamental level, you also get both. (This applies to both matter and consciousness.)

To use a metaphor, it's like the beginning and end of a circle. They are both at the same point. The universe is closed under the concept of existence just like the circle is closed. I.e., there is no universe outside of existence. I hold another way of saying this is the universe is form and content. So where does form start and content end? Or content start and form end? I contend at the same place, just like with the circle. To use another metaphor, it's like facets on a gemstone. You cannot remove the facet from the stone without taking some of the stone with it, but you can look at the facet and talk about it.

You say I believe everything boils down to one thing only and I specifically remember addressing a post to you where I asked where it was written in stone why everything had to boil down to ONE. I was very clear. I said I am leaning heavily toward THE FEW.

And what is that ONE THING? From within THE STORY, I imagine this would mean--for form--ghosts or something like that to you since you keep bringing it up and inferring this is where I am coming from. I don't recall ever discussing ghosts and such as conceivable metaphysical issues. Not even insinuating it. Yet you keep pinning it on me.

I understand, though. From within THE STORY, that's all there is for people who think about form as a fundamental component of reality. From within THE STORY, form emerges from content and anything else is woo-woo-land.

From that kind of perspective, with all due respect (and I'm not trying to be hostile), it's no wonder you don't see why I stopped the scapegoating--and you don't even see the scapegoating as scapegoating. You call--or agree with others who call--a person who holds different ideas as a crank and so on. That is perfectly normal. Because such a person is a crank in THE STORY.

You're entitled to your opinion, and we're friends, but I stand by mine.

And, like I've said, I don't buy the identification of scapegoats from within that particular STORY. I've seen too many adherents sell out to bloody dictators. Hell, if they don't have enough discernment to see the real evil crank and bash him right in front of their noses because of goddam power and paycheck, how can I believe any judgment they have of human nature?

I'm certainly not in that STORY. I refuse to be. And I don't believe a difference of ideas is reason enough from within that STORY to keep calling a person a crackpot and ostracizing him. I'll use my own eyes and my own mind--and yes, my own STORY--to judge who is a crank and who is to be taken seriously.

Hell, now the deal from WSS (from within THE STORY) is to claim--and keep claiming--that Sheldrake is to blame for others baiting him and mocking him all those years.

Really?

Try looking up the "2006 British Association controversy." You can see it on the Wikipedia article on Sheldrake--and that is just the tip of the iceberg on how much this man has been persecuted. He was invited to speak at a prestigious science event and all hell broke loose. Not from Sheldrake. But from the luminaries who follow the Science: Savior of Mankind Story. The sell-outs to the dictators.

And WSS is going around repeating over and over that this distancing from "the community" is Sheldrake's sole choice and fault. The hell it is. If that blaming the victim stuff is not a case of scapegoating, I don't know what is. It's a pure case of rewriting history.

And I like WSS. I believe he is highly intelligent with a good heart. But on this issue, to be blunt, he's so embedded in THE STORY, he can't see straight. So I call it like it is. I will not allow scapegoating here on OL to grow without speaking out against it.

If that pisses people off and they think I'm wrong, well, it pisses people off and they think I'm wrong. If they want to see where I am coming from, they will have to step back from THE STORY they adhere to.

I'm beginning to believe that THE STORY is some kind of epistemological morphic field that gives shape to the mind to filter out parts of reality. I certainly see something akin to morphic resonance when crowds start getting lathered up and the same mis-attributions keep being repeated in face of situations where they are the contrary.

I have seen really good people do really stupid things--and evil things--in crowds. Do you think Hitler didn't know how to manipulate such a field? I say he did. It started with THE STORY. In his case, a strong component of THE STORY was Ayrians once ruled the world, but lost power because they started breeding with lesser humans and are now being kept servile so they don't discover their true strength and take their rightful place once again. Look what happened from within that morphic field (if such be a morphic field--I'm just calling it that right now to be a smart-ass ).

Apropos, has human evolution stopped where we are and will no longer continue in your worldview? Or is that an idea--one I keep harping on--you prefer to overlook as you attribute me with ideas I do not hold?

Sorry if I sound blunt, but it's more like a loud noise to get a person to wake up. I have been thinking about mis-identification for a long time (and I rigidly correct myself when I detect I have done it), but with all that mulling over and forcing myself to eat crow when I'm wrong, I just don't know how to get a person to step back from THE STORY and correctly identify before judging when the competition and scapegoating game (according to the rules of THE STORY) starts.

This goes for THE STORIES of Islam: Savior of Mankind, Judaism: Savior of Mankind, Science: Savior of Mankind, Religion: Savior of Mankind, Objectivism: Savior of Mankind, Progressivism: Savior of Mankind, USA Government: Savior of Mankind, Anarcho-Capitalism: Savior of Mankind, hell, even WSS: Savior of Mankind .

And don't think I am immune. Holding to framing stories is how the human mind works, including mine.

Getting a handle on it is a different matter. It's doable, but tough--like all learning. But you first have to admit you do it. Most people don't. They find the idea offensive and, when it is pointed out that they do it and where they are vulnerable, they generally protest--usually very loudly with feelings of outrage--according to the standards of THE STORY they live in.

If criticism like that comes from another SAVIOR STORY, hostility escalates and you often get war since both sides are incorrectly identifying. but both are judging. Any threat to THE STORY generates great passion in these judgments. I know for a fact friends stop being friends. Marriages fall apart. And so on.

To me, that's a pretty stupid way of being. But then, I am trying to stay out of Savior of Mankind stories as much as I can muster.

As a throwaway idea, I have been drifting away from Glenn Beck precisely because he is now trying to save the world. He even uses "Saving the country..." as a PR tag. I still touch base because he has done some really good work on identifying forms and agendas that others would prefer to keep covert. But now implementing his STORY is becoming his main focus. And that doesn't interest me very much. I don't believe in it. But just like with all these SAVIOR STORIES, I hold some of the same values that are in them, so I get what enlightenment and recharging of the batteries I can from where I can.

I generally don't buy the scapegoats from any of them.

Have you noticed that defending a scapegoat is one sure way of identifying a STORY adherent? It pisses the hell out of most people who adhere to it and the others claim--with certainty--that you hold to ideas you don't.

Michael

[Paul Mawdsley]

Thanks Michael. I enjoy listening to your story. I enjoy listening to everyone's story. I am trying to point to what I think are the differences in our stories so we can go deeper to find the truths beneath the stories. I have not done any attacking or scapegoating in this exchange. I am also seeking the truth beneath Sheldrakes story with an I to deep truths I have explored and tested.

I would like to respond more fully than I often have time for, with more care about misrepresenting my perspective of your story and others. I write many of my responses on my phone when I find a few minutes to write and don't always get the chance to evaluate my posts from the lens of how well they convey my intended view of your and other's perspectives. I do think my basic orientation to consideration and valuing other's views comes through though.

Dialectics allows us to step out of our own story into a meta-perspective and hold our own and other's stories suspended on equal ground for evaluation. This is how I approach other people's views, from a dialectical lens. Are you including this truth in your story of me that is behind your vision, feelings, thoughts and responses? Or are you painting me with a different brush?

Paul

[Brant Gaede]

Ideas: Savior of Mankind!

--Brant

no--women!

[caroljane]

Ideas: Savior of Mankind!

--Brant

no--women!

Answering your SOS call -- oh, it's you again Mr.Gaede.

[william.scherk]

Xray and Bob, Tony considers you determinists. Is this how you see yourselves? My sense is you are both open to whatever the evidence presents and to the best theories that connect the dots. While I think no one here wants to inject supernatural explanations, is there the possibility of some basic principle in physics, outside of strict determinism, indeterminism and a supernatural grand designer, that can account for the emergence of an element of self-determinism or intrinsic determinism in the universe?

Determinism clashes with my sense of self-determinism and my sense that intrinsic determinism is an unaccounted for element in our understanding of a causal universe. Determinism is built from a view of causality that sees how things are influenced by forces outside themselves. What if there is a fundamentally intrinsic force within things? How does the universe look when we start by looking at things through a metaphysical lens from the inside-out instead of a physics lens from the outside-in? Is there an element of self-determinism built into every thing that exists? I'm NOT talking about intelligence or goal directedness here, although this may be a higher form of this principle. I'm simply suggesting the possibility of a simple intrinsic force in the fundamental stuff of existence that breaks strict determinism from the outside-in and adds an element of inside-out causation. Would this produce a very similar view of the physical and biological universe but better account for the appearance of and our inner sense of inside-out determinism? Is such an idea compatible with existing evidence, maybe even able to produce causal explanations of anomalous evidence like quantum entanglement, the causal leap between inanimate and animate matter and our enduring sense of free will?

I take a very humble position on Determinism. In the 'macro world' determinism is a given. What comes before determines what comes after. Today is a product of yesterday. The past determines the future. My thoughts determine my action.

That is so general as to be tautological, but that is what I see at the level of my own perceptions. I have never seen anything, perceived anything directly in which I came to doubt causality as a function of time. Because I am what I am (a man/human) I am carried away by the 'arrow of time.' From a human vantage, what preceded is the very best clue to what will succeed.

I am otherwise pretty much bereft of well-seated philosophical beliefs. At the Cosmic Level there are grand puzzles of causality. If I can only feel the arrow of time going forward in my organism, and if my field of vision extends only to the horizon, and if that horizon is constantly moving forward in time as the mark of the future beyond the now, my perceptions are still constrained. How do I make sense of such things as 'dark energy' or 'vacuum energy' or 'dark matter,' when these notions are implicate in a physics I do not understand? I have never perceived dark energy or matter. I know only that these two things are predicate on measurements/perceptions of anomalies in the equations following the Standard Model.

At the quantum level, Paul, I am utterly ignorant in comparison to the names we associate with quantum theories. I can barely comprehend the lessons of causality from quantum effects and observation, yet I understand that the mechanics (Quantum Mechanics) are exquisite prediction machines. I understand from my science reading only the basics of why our silicon-world of instantaneous GPS is possible due to our understanding of the quantum world.

So, it is only at the level of my greatest competence, the personal, perceptual level, that I feel able to comment intelligently on causality. I just do not have the chops for cosmology or for the quantum realms.

I am then a 'soft' determinist. I recognize the 'hard problem' in philosophy at its juncture with science, but it occurs to me that much practical work in unravelling the puzzle can be done in the sciences while philosophy grapples with itself, new findings and new theoretical approaches.

A soft determinist is pretty much what Xray and you and Tony and I all are, all we can be. We know from personal perceptions that we have will. We know that actions are usually preceded. We tend to be surprised when events appear to be disjoint with this background expectation of action preceding reaction.

A soft determinist like me will have to fudge over things he does not understand. If what goes before generally determines what comes after, what are the exceptions? In my crude personal philosophy, I just open two envelopes into which I can put the things I do not intuitively understand, Quantum and First Cause.

Does that make sense? As an individual, I know nothing of quantum mechanics or cosmology, certainly not enough to puzzle out in my own brain all the details of who is right and what is suspect, which is leading edge and which is debris.

As a realist, I have to acknowledge my ignorance. I can follow along argument to a certain point with comprehension, but beyond is beyond.

My orientation and point of crossing with Objectivish things is as a Realist. My basic orientation since a young age was to separate what is real from what may be illusion. I have a few tools in my kit, but no great sword with which to cut through ultimate puzzles. I can only assemble my knowledge by my best application of Reason.

All this long blather on my ignorance to return to field your question to Bob and Xray:

Is there the possibility of some basic principle in physics, outside of strict determinism, indeterminism and a supernatural grand designer, that can account for the emergence of an element of self-determinism or intrinsic determinism in the universe?

This is dense, with many qualifiers. What is at issue, where is the question's centre?

Here? -- "emergence of an element of self-determinism or intrinsic determinism to the universe"

Here? -- "[outside] basic principle in physics"

Here? -- "outside of strict determinism, indeterminism, and a supernatural grand designer"

Three determisms, then: Strict Determinism, Indeterminism, Grand Designer. I read Grand Designer as gawd,, frankly, so set that aside, because the question asks me to set it aside as Outside. Similarly, I can view the qualifiers as a list, not descriptives. Then we are asked to find something outside of basic principles (of physics), outside of strict determinism, outside of indetermism, outside of a supernatural grand designer.

And then knit physics back in, since the question begins, "Is there ... some basic principle in Physics ..."

OK. Outside of strict determinism, outside of a gawd, outside of indeterminism, is there a basic principle in Physics ... that can account for .... the emergence ... of an element ... of self-determinism/intrinsic determinism ... to the universe.

OK. I discard the things to discard and confront the emergence of an element of self-determinism in the universe. That is what is being examined. We have the emergence, the self-determinism (or element therein/preceding) ... in history. Do I understand this correctly if by way of example I insert Will? I do not add in qualifier human will or free will, because Paul may be describing a lesser holon, perhaps the first glimmering of sentient action, a new agency in the universe, a thing that acts to move itself and position itself and react to external events in ways outside the usual repertoire of mere lifeless matter.

Paul, this is an effort to re-establish bona fides in this thread. Long before I got teary-eyed in this thread, long before scapegoats had their throats slit, you put up a good question. Michael answered the question with Sheldrake/fields ... which eventuated the throatslitting and goat hunt when I countered that Sheldrake's stuff was fruitless.

So, do I understand the question correctly so far? It is intriguing that this causal spark led on to the events we witness, so maybe I can reset the anger meter by going back to first things.

Edited August 29, 2012 by william.scherk

[Brant Gaede]

I think William's posts should be taken at face value. I think he's trying to be sincere in what he says. However, to really back this up I'd have to read him on this thread with a fine-toothed comb and I haven't the time.

--Brant

very interested in Michael's story story

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Are you including this truth in your story of me that is behind your vision, feelings, thoughts and responses? Or are you painting me with a different brush?

Paul,

What a question.

Of course I am including this truth. And I knew I would get through to you, too.

I could have just said, Paul, that's not what I wrote or think. And I'm pretty sure you would have examined it.

But I wrote a lot from different angles and with some emotion to try to get more myelin wrapped around the neural pathways (especially ones that weaken THE STORY--which is usually axon/dendrite-armored to the teeth ). And at least get my correct views on the table.

Generally, when I have a discussion with strong STORY adherents and I want some information, I play their SAVIOR STORY against a rival SAVIOR STORY to probe for dogmas and inconsistencies. Or when researching, I try to see where this has happened. It's not a perfect system since all STORIES encourage their brand of blind spots, biases and so forth. When you get information from STORY adherents, they always have clever rationalizations and persuasion traps to cover their weaknesses. But when STORY adherents go after threats to their respective STORIES, often they will be brilliant at finding the flaws in the reasoning of the other. Say what you will, when the stakes are saving mankind, people (who believe that) are MOTIVATED.

For normal tactical reasoning, here is my method. I first started calling it the cognitive-normative sequence.

1. You correctly identify something, i.e., you learn it.

2. You judge it.

You have to do it in that sequence to use your volitional reason. Most people don't. They judge, then identify. And a SAVIOR STORY trips shit up all over the place.

The cognitive-normative sequence is opposite to the one a baby or child uses. He perceives something, evaluates it, then learns and reasons about it. He has an opinion about something, then he tries to figure out what his opinion is about. The other way, the cognitive-normative sequence, only happens with conceptual volitional awareness, which a younger person hasn't developed yet in his prefrontal cortex.

So with reasonable adults, I go through the following sequence in my mind to reason with them.

1. I try to correctly understand what they are saying and communicate what I am saying as clearly as possible.

2. I verify if I correctly understand them and they understand me by asking them and putting things in different words.

3. I discuss agreements, disagreements, new information and so on.

4. I mull it over.

5. I judge.

I don't always manage to do this, but I try. It is the best sequence I have found so far.

In so many discussions, I have seen matters start with Step 5--Judge. Then people try to understand each other. These discussions go nowhere, since each person is merely presenting material to bolster and validate his initial uninformed judgment. That becomes his agenda, and I have seen people get highly technical and go to great lengths when covering it.

A very good example of An Opinion In Dire Search Of Intellectual Reasons can be found on the blog Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature. Very complex thinking and discussions go on there sometimes, but it always goes back to "Ayn Rand was wrong." Always. With several people.

(She is a huge threat to their SAVIOR STORY--which I suspect is Progressivism: Savior of Mankind, so scapegoating her and "proving" her wrong on as many points as possible is a way to validate THE STORY. This validation is the most noble thing a STORY adherent could ever do and it proves--within THE STORY--what a moral and good person he is.)

When I encounter this inversion, I generally stop the discussion and try to get the judgment erased or temporarily neutralized so we can start all over and make sure we are talking about the same thing. But when you do that, you generally piss off the judgmental person.

When a person simply mis-attributes what another is saying in order to validate his initial uninformed judgment, I admit I get ticked--when he is being is sloppy. When he is doing it on purpose and being dishonest, I get really burned. (I'm trying to seek more serenity with this, though, since these habits are so common. And don't watch mainstream news if you are this way. That will give you an ulcer. )

But I have noticed that many people innocently do the normative before cognitive sequence because of THE STORY they have adopted. There are predefined roles in THE STORY. So when something looks or sounds like a bad guy, they uncover their holster without a second thought.

Rather than trying to argue with misconceptions and mis-attributions, I am now focusing on taking out the influence of THE STORY. It's the only thing I know how to do to achieve clarity in a discussion--in other words, clarity BEFORE judging. And even then, I am not always successful--not even with myself.

There is one thing I have noticed about THE STORY. It is always there. In everyone. You cannot eliminate it.

For instance, I believe honest individual independent thinking, person by person--and learning how persuasion techniques and crowds can corrupt this--is a good path to progress, and to keeping war and things like that from happening. I see evidence of this everywhere I look and wed this perspective to how mankind's history has developed.

I don't even say "rational" because I believe most people try to be as rational as they can--within the context of their lives and cultures--when they do serious thinking for themselves. That's a given to me. So I try to encourage honest individual independent thinking in my interactions, even and especially when people disagree with me. And I guess you could call that vision saving mankind. I know it is one STORY I am committed to.

But regardless of what THE STORY is, you can step back from it and greatly weaken its influence as you examine issues (using the cognitive-normative sequence).

That's all I've been able to manage so far. But then again, is any other action on this level really needed?

I note that, as a general habit, you tend to do this, also. (You also seek civility and things like that, but that's another matter.)

Well, maybe one more point. I own a human brain. So sometimes I get caught up in someone else's SAVE MANKIND STORY. They are heady, intoxicating things with deep roots in our mental wiring. (Think Atlas Shrugged for Objectivists for an uncomfortable example. ) But I have developed an internal process of spitting myself out of THE STORY most of the time when I detect I have gotten caught up in one. I'll take some of the values and keep them, but nowadays, I try to leave THE STORY of others behind as I go forward toward the horizon.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I think William's posts should be taken at face value. I think he's trying to be sincere in what he says...

Brant,

William always has a sincere theme, even when he is presenting satire. That's one of the aspects I value in him.

Just because a theme comes from THE STORY, that doesn't mean insincerity. And don't think he can't back away from THE STORY some. He certainly can.

Look at his last post above. He's snarling a bit to save face, but now his interest is the ideas qua ideas--and not the ideas in order to debunk Sheldrake the Scapegoat to comers--one and all--and prove he is a crackpot (i.e., validate the Science: Savior of Mankind Story).

Stepping back from THE STORY is a wondrous thing to behold when you can see it.

(All right, that was smart-ass, but I also mean it sincerely. )

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Michael,

Everything rests on the back of a giant story.

It's stories, all the way down.

--Brant

[caroljane]

Causality 101 is way hard, Jeez! Some guy told me it was an easy A. Is it too late to switch to Womens Studies 113 "Feminist Overview and Analysis on Major Sports Leagues in the Last Two Weeks"?

[Paul Mawdsley]

It's funny, I see each of us struggling in our own way to get back to a calm, sstable centre so we can move forward again. It's very cool actually. I just dealt with my kids today after they had an escalation in conflict brought about by judging before understanding. The tool I used was to get each to listen to the other put blame and guilt and judgment aside, and find a place of understanding the other's perspective before judging. You could feel the tension leave the air. It seems to work here too. Lol.

Michael, what you are saying about learning before judging is very similar to what I said on another thread about empathy before judgement. Things are getting interesting. I have so many posts I want to respond to with depth.

Paul

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Everything rests on the back of a giant story.

It's stories, all the way down.

Brant,

Every turtle has his day.

I have a feeling I need to reread ITOE through this story lens...

Michael

[caroljane]

Turtle Story for Chief Big Shot!

- Manitou

Witness Delegate