tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-885245149616425096.post5947556127664424426..comments2023-07-03T08:15:06.513-07:00Comments on attempts to speciate a new culture (homo sustainabilis?): Progress or progress?Iuval Clejanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14268182906177574307noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-885245149616425096.post-3323813267385814222016-10-09T02:26:38.824-07:002016-10-09T02:26:38.824-07:00How do we understand something without the intelle...How do we understand something without the intellect? Or do we merely feel it with some other part of ourselves and acknowledge its existence and refer to it with the intellect, but not understand it? Are you referring to things like love or awe or joy or whatever triggers them?Iuval Clejanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14268182906177574307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-885245149616425096.post-7888713573067501342016-09-30T11:55:04.350-07:002016-09-30T11:55:04.350-07:00No you don't know me. I agree with all you sa...No you don't know me. I agree with all you say but what i wanted to get at was something deeper... the psychology (but it's more than psychology) that leads us to quantify the world instead of apprehending it in a different mode. There's a quote that i do _not_ wholly "agree" with, but does sort of point towards this:<br /><br />Those... who call for more intellectual depth, more spirituality, have understood nothing, for the problem is that the intellect has taken over everything. Everything has become intellect, even our bodies, they aren't bodies anymore, but ideas of bodies, something is situated in our own heaven of images and conceptions within us<br />and above us, where an increasingly large part of our lives is lived. The limits of that which cannot speak to us -- the unfathomable -- no longer exist. We understand everything, and we do so because we have turned everything into ourselves.<br /><br /> -- Karl Ove Knausgaard (Norwegian writer)<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-885245149616425096.post-37787987096117933112016-09-08T10:24:54.467-07:002016-09-08T10:24:54.467-07:00I was just curious if I knew you and was guessing ...I was just curious if I knew you and was guessing who you could be. Of course there are things that exist that can't be measured or are not useful to measure. But it is fashionable to believe that everything should be measured and subjected to statistical analysis. I think some things that are impossible to measure can still be quantified and modeled mathematically and that this can be useful. Sometimes the result is something measurable, for example with wave functions (not measurable) in quantum mechanics that yield probabilities (measurable). Some things may not even be quantifiable, or they may be after we have already chosen them (such as values), based on faith, reasoning out consequences, and preference.Iuval Clejanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14268182906177574307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-885245149616425096.post-67748827312671263792016-09-07T17:27:19.545-07:002016-09-07T17:27:19.545-07:00quote: so... yes.
Who am I? No one, really. I ...quote: so... yes.<br /><br />Who am I? No one, really. I dislike the fact that every comment and posting one makes on the internet is saved forever, so i don't generally comment at all unless i can do so anonymously. A disincentive that probably few websites take into consideration and even fewer people (like me) constrain themselves by. So, what do you think? If it can't be measured it doesn't exist? :-) The map is not the terrain?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-885245149616425096.post-37196391563339731182016-09-07T05:39:20.408-07:002016-09-07T05:39:20.408-07:00By point 3, you mean the limited usefulness and va...By point 3, you mean the limited usefulness and validity of measurement? And can you tell me who you are?<br />Iuval Clejanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14268182906177574307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-885245149616425096.post-82888082844813072512016-09-05T14:47:14.225-07:002016-09-05T14:47:14.225-07:00I like the analysis... and agree with the general ...I like the analysis... and agree with the general drift of the preferences expressed at the end. Point 3 ("measurement as a tool of limited validity") is the point that i think is particularly difficult (especially in our time). Point 4 seems to be an attempt to address the problem of 3 but, unsatisfactorily, imo. Not that i disagree with any of it. But i feel that pt. 3 is an issue requiring subtle and deep thought to see through to the heart of. I myself haven't yet managed to articulate my feelings/thoughts sufficiently to my satisfaction regarding this problem, which is why i'm commenting, hoping for further probing into this area of things. Some people see me as an irredeemable rationalist because of my belief in the power of language and reason -- when properly understood and used. But the important understanding in this respect, still, i think, is understanding their limitations. Your point 3 looked at this from what i consider a quite "practical" angle. Of course we can make mistakes in a great many ways. But the truly difficult issues in this regard lie still deeper, imo. My 2¢, for what it's worth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com