Psybertron Asks

From Berkeley University via Jorn at Robot Wisdom.

The repositioning of birds and the insignificance of mammals are noteworthy.

Did Timothy Leary really say that (as Dave Pollard quotes) ? You learn something every day. Pretty much every linguistic representation or explanation of anything is metaphor at root, dead or alive, (Lakoff et al) , so no argument with the sentiment.

Can I have some of what he’s having ? Maybe not, as Dave continues [LSD and other] psychedelic drugs work for some people, and have for thousands of years. And, nope, I don’t have any on me.

Typically thorough review from Dave of “twelve ways to think differently”. It’s not rocket science, and there’s nothing new under the sun for 6000 years or so (as one commenter already pointed out). Dave also has a review of ways to access blog content as knowledge bases – which oddly misses the fact that many blogs already have categorisation. Post Note – it’s not the categorisation or tagging that is Dave’s problem, it’s the presentation of the “topics” in browsable form – Matt Mower’s Blog and my comments on this.

Simplistic “quiz” at Quizfarm (thanks to Frizzy Logic) says I too scored as a Cultural Creative.

It says … Cultural Creatives are probably the newest group to enter this realm. You are a modern thinker who tends to shy away from organized religion but still feels as if there is something greater than ourselves. You are very spiritual, even if you are not religious. Life has a meaning outside of the rational. (Tends to shy away from !! Go on, don’t mince your words.)

Cultural Creative 94%
Existentialist 81%
Postmodernist 81%
Idealist 63%
Modernist 56%
Fundamentalist 44%
Materialist 38%
Romanticist 31%

Very Zen, that icon.

Richard Florida’s “Rise of the Creative Classes” looks interesting. Being plugged by Tom Peters’ blog – actually they’re plugging the sequel, but hey. Human creative drive is the main agent of change (social, cultural and technological) in recent decades (centuries ?). So if the memes are in the driving seat, who’s directing the traffic Sue (Blackmore) ? Baudelaire and Blake amongst the references, not to mention Dylan and Hendrix.

Thanks to Georganna‘s comment on the 21st Century Athesist post for this Washington Post article.

Packed with good stuff, though as Georganna points out, the conversion from sceptic to the faith is described but hardly explained. Harvard, Chicago, CS Lewis and a mysterious Cambridge “tavern” – all grist to my particular mill.

Interestingly despite his conversion to being an “intelligent designer” Johnson’s closing remark is pretty close to the truth – he states simply that he’s “content just to open science up to an intellectual world that’s been closed to it for two centuries.” Me too, it’s where I came in.

Whatever side of the “war” argument you stand there can be no doubting George Galloway shows how to make a point. “The mother of all smokescreens”.

Cervantes’ Don Quixote is indeed a “great book” in every sense. I make it almost half a million words, and I’m just a third of the way through its 1100 pages. Clearly at that scale, it’s full of stories within stories, and from the fact that the stories people quote from it – the “giant” windmills and the “army” of sheep – are half a page each in the first 50 or so pages, leads me suspect that not many people stay the course.

Who is really mad, what makes a story true or real, and what makes a good justification or rationalisation for action are the main themes. The device of portraying Quixote as completely barmy and Sancho as a simpleton, simply allows Cervantes to put into their mouths his unpalatable truths. The book-burning curate is the recurring baddie in the plot so far – now there’s a surprise.

(Must research whether the logical inconsistencies in the plot, pointed out by Smollett, were believed to be deliberate or genuine accidents – if this was cinema, continuity would be sacked over Sancho’s re-appearing ass. Talking of ass, the coarse and lewd descriptions of bodily functions put me in mind of Melville’s butchery in Moby Dick – you can almost smell it.)

The story of Anselmo and Lothario (8 sheets of manuscript but over 50 pages of the book ?) is an excellent parable of best-laid plans, road-to-hell, best intentions. Put me in mind of William James (or was it Barrett) – “the most rational plans often bring about the complete opposite of what they intend”. Oh, and the women are cleverer than the men, naturally. ‘Twas ever thus.

Can’t help thinking about those million 21st century Venezuelan’s ploughing through the 17th century Spanish – the 18th century English is tough enough. I wonder what Chavez was (is) hoping to inspire – intriguing.

(I have ten other unread books stacking up behind me – but I may be some weeks before I can get round to them.)

====

[Post Note – my conclusions after finishing the read.]

[Post Note – 2003 review from Harold Bloom.]

I really would like to get off this “anti-theist” track, but it just keeps coming.

The Rev Sam Norton posted this UK Grauniad link on MoQ the other day. It met with mixed responses ranging from cheering on the battle against “immature” atheists to those critical of its mealy mouthed tone eg “I can almost hear the editors commissioning this piece: We need something that looks like a whole lotta critical thinking is going on, and yet comes down firmly on the side of the angels.”

Both sides of the argument make my point. Firstly mainstream opinion must indeed tread amongst the eggshells in being critical of “theism”, and secondly naive scientific argument plays right into the theist trap.

These were my responses to these specific quotes from the article …

“Not believing in God is no excuse for being virulently anti-religious or naively pro-science.” I say – Agreed. I keep complaining about the naive use of science in debates everywhere.

“No other atheist has done more for the cause of religion than Richard Dawkins.” I say – you must have heard me say exactly that a hundred times. Catch-22.[Here is the article where I said it most comprehensively.]

“The only mature attitude to religion is to see it for what it is – a kind of art, which only a child could mistake for reality …” Ian says – absolutely (A placebo, an opitate of the people, he goes on to say in his book). It can no more be false as it could conceivably be true in connection with reality.

I am genuinely A-theist, but am conscious that I take an Anti-theist stance, but that’s because I find theists arguing about “reality”. If they didn’t, I could respectfully ignore the lot of em. (As in fact I will, should anyone so much as suggest a “god” with any causal effect on the real world.)

The self-replicating robot news story.

Don Quixote’s progress.

The Guardian article on theistic arguments.

Setting up my categories and a proposal for extending their behaviour.

Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!

NOTE
This is “p1” since switching to WordPress in May 2005.
Psybertron has been blogging continuously since September 2001.

To start at the beginning go to September 2001.
Earliest post at the bottom.
(Archives also linked in the side-bar).