Dear Diary Moments:

Half-formed posts, inchoate philosophies, and the germs of deep thought.

Dear Diary Moments:

Postby d63 » Thu Mar 12, 2020 8:45 pm

Dear Diary Moment 3/12/2020:

I recently listened to the audiobook for Paul Krugman’s Arguing With Zombies: Economics, Politics, and the Fight For a Better Future –as usual with his books: he was offering a collection of his blogs and editorials for the New York Times. And confession: this is clearly a matter of confirmation bias in that he brought up something I have thought for some time. The point he made was that when it comes to arguments for FreeMarketFundamentalism, we have to take a good look at the motivations of those making those arguments. This, of course (from the perspective of informal Logic), is considered a “Circumstantial Ad Hominem”. And within the framework of Logic studies, it makes sense in that while we generally get arguments for FreeMarketFundamentalism from those most likely to benefit from it: the rich. But we still have to take the argument on its own merit as if it could be argued by someone that didn’t share that benefit from it. We see a similar dynamic at work with the Tu Quoque argument that argues, in an ad hominem manner, that one be consistent with their selves. For instance, if were arguing a pro-choice position with a pro-lifer and found out that they had gotten an abortion their selves, it would be pointless for you to point that out since any argument they might make might be offered by someone that didn’t have an abortion.

However, while informal logic is a useful tool that can help one whittle an argument down to its strongest form, the whole discipline of logic tends to work in its own little world where everything falls into a predefined place while being mostly detached from the real world. There's a kind of Marcusian operationalism at work in it based on an appeal to authority. Zeno’s logic makes perfect sense as concerns the arrow. But we’re hardly inspired to go prancing around between an archer and his target.

The political and social world is a different world altogether. In it we have to work from the pragmatic truth test as compared to the correspondence and coherence truth test. In this sense, the pragmatic truth test is a synthesis of the previous two and then some in that it is about what argument works: what seems sufficiently justified. But it’s not just a matter of whether an argument works; it is equally a matter of who that argument is working for and why.
Humble yourself or the world will do it for you -it was either Russell or Whitehead. I can't remember which.

When I was young, I use to think the world was a messed up place so i was pissed off a lot. But now that I'm older, I know it is. So I just don't worry about it. -John Lydon (AKA Johnny Rotten).

Anarchy through Capitalism -on a flyer thrown out during a Kottonmouth Kings concert.

First we read, then we write. -Emerson.

All poets are damned. But they are not blind. They see with the eyes of angels. -William Carlos Williams: in the introduction to Ginsberg's Howl.

You gotta love that moment when the work is done and all that is left to do is drink your beer and sip your jager and enjoy what you've done. It's why I do and love it.

I refuse to be taken seriously.

Once again: take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru. Just someone to jam with.

:me
User avatar
d63
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5544
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: Dear Diary Moments:

Postby promethean75 » Thu Mar 12, 2020 11:10 pm

we generally get arguments for FreeMarketFundamentalism from those most likely to benefit from it: the rich. But we still have to take the argument on its own merit as if it could be argued by someone that didn’t share that benefit from it.


Ah but you can't take the argument on its own merit because despite whether or not the person in favor of the argument benefits from the system, the system itself requires that not all people benefit from it in order for it to work, see. So, it doesn't matter who argues in favor of it. That is to say, you'd be no more suspicious of the veracity of an argument in favor of it if it were given by a capitalist, then you would if it were given by a homeless bum. It duddint matter where the argument comes from; the system still doesn't benefit everyone equally (by that I mean equal obligation to labor... not the utopian equality crap conservatives think socialism is about).
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2737
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Dear Diary Moments:

Postby d63 » Fri Mar 20, 2020 8:06 pm

promethean75 wrote:
we generally get arguments for FreeMarketFundamentalism from those most likely to benefit from it: the rich. But we still have to take the argument on its own merit as if it could be argued by someone that didn’t share that benefit from it.


Ah but you can't take the argument on its own merit because despite whether or not the person in favor of the argument benefits from the system, the system itself requires that not all people benefit from it in order for it to work, see. So, it doesn't matter who argues in favor of it. That is to say, you'd be no more suspicious of the veracity of an argument in favor of it if it were given by a capitalist, then you would if it were given by a homeless bum. It duddint matter where the argument comes from; the system still doesn't benefit everyone equally (by that I mean equal obligation to labor... not the utopian equality crap conservatives think socialism is about).
:text-bravo:
Humble yourself or the world will do it for you -it was either Russell or Whitehead. I can't remember which.

When I was young, I use to think the world was a messed up place so i was pissed off a lot. But now that I'm older, I know it is. So I just don't worry about it. -John Lydon (AKA Johnny Rotten).

Anarchy through Capitalism -on a flyer thrown out during a Kottonmouth Kings concert.

First we read, then we write. -Emerson.

All poets are damned. But they are not blind. They see with the eyes of angels. -William Carlos Williams: in the introduction to Ginsberg's Howl.

You gotta love that moment when the work is done and all that is left to do is drink your beer and sip your jager and enjoy what you've done. It's why I do and love it.

I refuse to be taken seriously.

Once again: take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru. Just someone to jam with.

:me
User avatar
d63
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5544
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: Dear Diary Moments:

Postby d63 » Fri Mar 20, 2020 8:23 pm

Dear Diary Moment 3/20/2020:

Throughout my process in which I have either been engaged with, or fully immersed, in culture and the creative act (in my teens, I thought it my manifest destiny to become a rockstar), I have tended to get some of the best advice from sources outside of the cultural high end. For instance, the best advice I ever got on the creative act actually came from an interview of a famous cook. As he pointed out: the main ingredient of a good cook (excuse the pun (is a good taster. And how could that not apply to the creative act no matter what medium?

But the one that haunts me now seems relevant to the very surreal situation we find ourselves in now. Like most people, I have gone through some really shitty phases. And with those phases always came a tendency to try to assert my will, to find some scheme that could make things work for me when the forces described by chaotics seemed to be working against me. And it always ended the same: me surrendering to the situation (of letting go of the wheel (or what Alan Watts simply referred to as “letting go” in a Taoist sense. Sometimes the only way out is through; right?

But for all my effort, what finally set me on the right path was a documentary about people trapped in snow storms. Social scientists did a study on it and came up with a survivor MO. It comprised of an individual that looked at their situation and didn’t waste energy on assigning blame. It was an individual that looked at their situation and determined that it really didn’t matter whose fault it was. All they needed to know was that they were in a situation that they had to deal with and that if they just kept trudging forward, one way or the other, it would pass.

And this is why Trump’s attempts to make COVID-19 a “Chinese disease” are not only misguided but counter-productive. Sure: it started in China. But the scientific narrative is that a group of cold viruses found each other, felt that itch, had an orgy and made a baby. And even less productive is this idea of punishing everyday Asians for it. I think that drunk guy on a bus harassing an Asian woman should redirect his energy. He should go to China, get as drunk as he was in the video, and take his issues up with the authoritarian regime that participated in the cover-up that actually did participate in the situation we are dealing with. I mean even if that poor young lady was Chinese (even if she was from China), she would have been as much a victim of the cover-up as we are.

Once again: sometimes the only way out is through. And one way or the other we will get beyond it. Leave the blame for the historians.
Humble yourself or the world will do it for you -it was either Russell or Whitehead. I can't remember which.

When I was young, I use to think the world was a messed up place so i was pissed off a lot. But now that I'm older, I know it is. So I just don't worry about it. -John Lydon (AKA Johnny Rotten).

Anarchy through Capitalism -on a flyer thrown out during a Kottonmouth Kings concert.

First we read, then we write. -Emerson.

All poets are damned. But they are not blind. They see with the eyes of angels. -William Carlos Williams: in the introduction to Ginsberg's Howl.

You gotta love that moment when the work is done and all that is left to do is drink your beer and sip your jager and enjoy what you've done. It's why I do and love it.

I refuse to be taken seriously.

Once again: take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru. Just someone to jam with.

:me
User avatar
d63
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5544
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: Dear Diary Moments:

Postby Meno_ » Fri Mar 20, 2020 10:16 pm

Hello d63,

There was a pretty good film in once saw, it was called 'The Spanish'
It was not really about a Spanish patient , I believe he was Hungarian.

The reason I bring that up , is, because labeling can become deceptive.

The same goes for the 'Chinese flue' it too is a label, as much as the 'Spanish flue' was a hundred years ago.

Who really knows where they really come from, what was their intended function.

The appropriatness, of reaching beneath the various stages of development can literally be opined by the various stages represented as flow back reinfections, just like the indirectly attributable logic systems, which can be reduced and merged with more elementary logics , and logistics.

Usually , this type of state of affairs is brought about calamitous events like that of the effects of the World Wars had on the mind, and connecting that to the body of the knowledge of both: the interaction ( integrative & differential ) logical systems.

The mind of the ethereal Being and it's substantial reduced existence, is a case in point.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6457
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Dear Diary Moments:

Postby d63 » Sun Mar 22, 2020 8:01 pm

Dear Diary Moment 3/22/2020

Have recently been going through Rorty’s Objectivity, Relativism, Truth and am struck, yet again, with the double-edge sword we “fuzzier” thinkers are faced with. At the heart of Rorty’s pragmatism is the recognition that language is not a mirror representative of reality, but a rather tool by which we adapt to a given reality. Language is one of the primary means by which we have managed to evolve. I mean think about it: would we actually think with words unless we had developed a language to communicate with others outside of us in the first place. And given intimate relationship that implies, it’s easy to see how some confusion might emerge between reality and language.

And we see a pragmatic overlap with Deleuze who encouraged people, when reading his books, to not ask what it means but, rather, what it does. And this later evolves into his work with Guattari in which it was argued that a book does not so much reflect the world as form a rhizome with it. (Think: Rorty’s Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature.) The point here, again, is that language is not a matter of perfectly reflecting reality as it is utilizing it to create an effect on reality: a kind of feedback loop.

That said, we are now looking at the most telling expression of the double-edged sword when it comes Trump and many Republicans. They basically look at language as a tool that can get them what they want if they manipulate the rules of the language game –albeit to the point of divorcing language completely from reality. And this, of course, is what is behind these neo-classicist criticisms of Continental and Pragmatic thinkers: this complaint that the “fuzzier” thinkers and soft disciplines are to blame for the so-called “post-truth” society we are in.

The problem, however, for the neo-classicists is that they seem to think that the epistemological system of the Pragmatics and the Continental was (or is even (prescriptive, like they were describing how thought should work, when, in fact, they were actually describing how thought actually evolves. What the Pragmatics and Continentals were doing is seeing thought, and its relationship with reality, for what it is as compared to what the neo-classicists think it should be. And they make this assertion based on the neo-classicists’ failure to find some “skyhook” or transcendent epistemological criteria by which all statements can be judged.

In other words, they put their faith in the free market of ideas and an open and democratic discourse that lets it come out in the wash, even if every once in a while it produces a Trump.
Humble yourself or the world will do it for you -it was either Russell or Whitehead. I can't remember which.

When I was young, I use to think the world was a messed up place so i was pissed off a lot. But now that I'm older, I know it is. So I just don't worry about it. -John Lydon (AKA Johnny Rotten).

Anarchy through Capitalism -on a flyer thrown out during a Kottonmouth Kings concert.

First we read, then we write. -Emerson.

All poets are damned. But they are not blind. They see with the eyes of angels. -William Carlos Williams: in the introduction to Ginsberg's Howl.

You gotta love that moment when the work is done and all that is left to do is drink your beer and sip your jager and enjoy what you've done. It's why I do and love it.

I refuse to be taken seriously.

Once again: take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru. Just someone to jam with.

:me
User avatar
d63
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5544
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: Dear Diary Moments:

Postby Meno_ » Sun Mar 22, 2020 8:47 pm

d63 wrote:Dear Diary Moment 3/22/2020

Have recently been going through Rorty’s Objectivity, Relativism, Truth and am struck, yet again, with the double-edge sword we “fuzzier” thinkers are faced with. At the heart of Rorty’s pragmatism is the recognition that language is not a mirror representative of reality, but a rather tool by which we adapt to a given reality. Language is one of the primary means by which we have managed to evolve. I mean think about it: would we actually think with words unless we had developed a language to communicate with others outside of us in the first place. And given intimate relationship that implies, it’s easy to see how some confusion might emerge between reality and language.

And we see a pragmatic overlap with Deleuze who encouraged people, when reading his books, to not ask what it means but, rather, what it does. And this later evolves into his work with Guattari in which it was argued that a book does not so much reflect the world as form a rhizome with it. (Think: Rorty’s Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature.) The point here, again, is that language is not a matter of perfectly reflecting reality as it is utilizing it to create an effect on reality: a kind of feedback loop.

That said, we are now looking at the most telling expression of the double-edged sword when it comes Trump and many Republicans. They basically look at language as a tool that can get them what they want if they manipulate the rules of the language game –albeit to the point of divorcing language completely from reality. And this, of course, is what is behind these neo-classicist criticisms of Continental and Pragmatic thinkers: this complaint that the “fuzzier” thinkers and soft disciplines are to blame for the so-called “post-truth” society we are in.

The problem, however, for the neo-classicists is that they seem to think that the epistemological system of the Pragmatics and the Continental was (or is even (prescriptive, like they were describing how thought should work, when, in fact, they were actually describing how thought actually evolves. What the Pragmatics and Continentals were doing is seeing thought, and its relationship with reality, for what it is as compared to what the neo-classicists think it should be. And they make this assertion based on the neo-classicists’ failure to find some “skyhook” or transcendent epistemological criteria by which all statements can be judged.

In other words, they put their faith in the free market of ideas and an open and democratic discourse that lets it come out in the wash, even if every once in a while it produces a Trump.



Yes, these times consist of the motherload of acid tests, regarding the recurrent function of the naturalistic fallacy.

So far the verdict appears inconclusive.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6457
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Dear Diary Moments:

Postby Mowk » Mon Mar 23, 2020 2:15 am

Are you looking for an interactive diary? asking?
Mowk
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 8:17 pm
Location: In a state of excessive consumption

Re: Dear Diary Moments:

Postby d63 » Fri Mar 27, 2020 7:24 pm

Dear Diary Moment 3/27/2020:

When Trump got elected, I knew it would pull me away from my more abstract pursuits such as French theory or Rorty’s pragmatism. It just seemed like an all hands on deck situation.

But this…. this is totally different. With the pandemic, even venturing into abstraction feels like a violation of some kind –like I’m engaging in a kind crass escapism or something.
Humble yourself or the world will do it for you -it was either Russell or Whitehead. I can't remember which.

When I was young, I use to think the world was a messed up place so i was pissed off a lot. But now that I'm older, I know it is. So I just don't worry about it. -John Lydon (AKA Johnny Rotten).

Anarchy through Capitalism -on a flyer thrown out during a Kottonmouth Kings concert.

First we read, then we write. -Emerson.

All poets are damned. But they are not blind. They see with the eyes of angels. -William Carlos Williams: in the introduction to Ginsberg's Howl.

You gotta love that moment when the work is done and all that is left to do is drink your beer and sip your jager and enjoy what you've done. It's why I do and love it.

I refuse to be taken seriously.

Once again: take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru. Just someone to jam with.

:me
User avatar
d63
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5544
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: Dear Diary Moments:

Postby d63 » Fri Mar 27, 2020 7:25 pm

Mowk wrote:Are you looking for an interactive diary? asking?


It's like a process in public, Mowk: a public journal. Thanks for asking.
Humble yourself or the world will do it for you -it was either Russell or Whitehead. I can't remember which.

When I was young, I use to think the world was a messed up place so i was pissed off a lot. But now that I'm older, I know it is. So I just don't worry about it. -John Lydon (AKA Johnny Rotten).

Anarchy through Capitalism -on a flyer thrown out during a Kottonmouth Kings concert.

First we read, then we write. -Emerson.

All poets are damned. But they are not blind. They see with the eyes of angels. -William Carlos Williams: in the introduction to Ginsberg's Howl.

You gotta love that moment when the work is done and all that is left to do is drink your beer and sip your jager and enjoy what you've done. It's why I do and love it.

I refuse to be taken seriously.

Once again: take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru. Just someone to jam with.

:me
User avatar
d63
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5544
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: Dear Diary Moments:

Postby d63 » Thu Apr 16, 2020 8:32 pm

Dear Diary Moment 4/16/2020:

Watching the live comedy shows I always have (Real Time w/ Bill Maher, Last Week Tonight w/ John Oliver, Full Frontal w/ Samantha Bee, and Saturday Night Live or even stand-up comedy) as well as the filmed sitcoms (SuperStore, Brooklyn Nine Nine, and Modern Family) in the new reality, I’ve been thinking a lot about humor which is important to my process since I consider humor an essential tool (most notably as concerns how I get my point across (and something I’ve always been thinking about to some degree or other.

And this point mainly came to me after watching Saturday Night Live’s at home edition. While I would not call it lame (I did chuckle at Kate McKenna and Adie Bryant’s breakdown during a Zoom conference), it simply was not as effective (didn’t make me laugh as much (as it use to be live. And I’ve seen as much with the other previously live shows as hard as they have tried to fill in the gap. I’m beginning to wonder if maybe they should resort to the same canned laughter that old sitcoms did and Chuck Lorre does in that much of what made/makes them work (I like Lorre's latest project: Mom (was/is a kind of threshold dynamic like that at work in mob situations: a feedback loop in which with the lowest threshold reacts through a violent act that provokes resistance that then sets off the next threshold and so on and so on. And this is what happens with a live audience or even canned laughter in that it gives you a necessary cue. And this has nothing to do with the talent of the actors involved.

What does still seem to work, however, are the prerecorded sitcoms: especially those without canned laughter such as SuperStore and Brooklyn Nine Nine. And this is because they tend to work from the Thurber Law of Humor: create a character that you fall in love with and keep coming up with reasons for others to fall in love with them. And as I have always found out, your best bet is to go for the chuckle and let the gut laugh create itself. This is what distinguishes humor (which leans towards character (from comedy which leans towards the joke. And it makes perfect sense given that the explanation many evolutionary scientists give for laughter is that laughter establishes trust.

To give you an example of what I’m talking about: imagine how much better off the crew of Saturday Night Live would be if, instead trying to reestablish their past glory, they tried to fill in the gap through a pre-recorded sitcom very much like 30 Rock, something like a comedy troupe trying to put on a weekly comedy show. Or imagine Maher, Oliver, or Bee, rather than trying to reproduce what they got from a live audience, simply presenting themselves as an alternative news program that focuses on given issues. By doing so, they lower the expectations from comedy to humor and stand a chance of becoming more effective. On top of that, they’re allowed to develop a character that people might come to love.
Humble yourself or the world will do it for you -it was either Russell or Whitehead. I can't remember which.

When I was young, I use to think the world was a messed up place so i was pissed off a lot. But now that I'm older, I know it is. So I just don't worry about it. -John Lydon (AKA Johnny Rotten).

Anarchy through Capitalism -on a flyer thrown out during a Kottonmouth Kings concert.

First we read, then we write. -Emerson.

All poets are damned. But they are not blind. They see with the eyes of angels. -William Carlos Williams: in the introduction to Ginsberg's Howl.

You gotta love that moment when the work is done and all that is left to do is drink your beer and sip your jager and enjoy what you've done. It's why I do and love it.

I refuse to be taken seriously.

Once again: take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru. Just someone to jam with.

:me
User avatar
d63
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5544
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest


Return to The Sandbox



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users