Thursday, April 17, 2014

Walking On Gilded Splinters: Musings on Belief and Logic

Philosophic Determinism

"I walk on gilded needles just to see what they can do"
-Dr John

"The study of human psychology is the study of abnormal psychology"
_G.I Gurdjieff

When Evidence Is Secondary to Philosophy

Is it any wonder that rationalists are destroying the natural world? The pioneering founder of cybernetics, Gregory Bateson observed that the way the human mind works is not how nature operates, and if this is so, is knowledge as it is defined, a verb of subjectivity rather than a noun?
Perhaps one way to frame this potential dichotomy is to observe the apparent objectivity of direct relations found in nature as contrasted to the subjectivity of the human mind. That is not to suggest one nexus of phenomenon is superior to the other, but rather ask, how does this impact how we define our environment and all that occurs within it as a matter of indirect translation and our use of various descriptors as conceptual platforms of observation? It may be we occupy a house of mirrors. I daresay that knowledge has become a argumentative contest of suspicions, nothing more. The basis of William S Burroughs novel, "The Nova Police" was based upon the concept that an authoritarian regulatory agency utilised control over the populace by fomenting and heightening conflict. One could take this literally if one has a philosophic bent toward conspiracies, but I suspect the disorganized nature of the paranormal community has less psychological insight into their own lack of progress than do those outside of their self defined identity. Robert Anton Wilson called this "naive realism".

The skeptical and the believer regarding climate change have their parallels in the study of paranormal phenomenon wherein pragmatism is secondary to social agendas. One could say behind this layer of a proverbial onion is one's conclusive philosophic stance toward uncertainty.The third layer could be considered to be belief systems based as a reactive stance to saying I simply do not know in the face of the aforementioned social pressures that are conductive to labeling, personal attacks that are weighed on a equal basis as the questions that are at hand. After decades in my own studies of various phenomenon, one could say as Walt Kelley once observed, "We have met the enemy and they are us."
Perhaps this essay states the obvious but my own view is that when the obvious becomes illusive, it could be an indication that the return to square one is called for. One could say another quotation is called for. It was Krishnamurti who simply stated that the truth is a pathless land.

In the erstwhile chaos of the paranormal community, what constitutes evidence is a surrealistic game of smoke and mirrors based largely on the opinions of preference whose argumentative postulates are seeming formed by a preference of appetite, wine versus beer, onions versus dissected by the iconoclastic Paul Kimball.

When evidence becomes ambivalent, it just may be that the philosophic underpinning of any individuals world view overrides any other consideration and if unencumbered by agnosticism, the argument becomes more important than achieving a balance between belief and uncertainty.
Is there any state one can achieve in the evaluation of any phenomenon that constitutes an arm's length transaction? One considers the permeability of facts as well as the societal indoctrination we are exposed to
as suggesting that subjectivity has no place in science. This essay in The Society of Scientific Exploration's library suggests that the mythology of science that surrounds it can, at times, resembles religion.

"Until the middle-to-end of the 19th century, science was acknowledged to 
be characterized by the certainty of its knowledge. Philosophers, natural phi- 
losophers, scientists-and often the same individuals could properly be called 
any one of these-agreed that science equalled infallible knowledge. But that 
stance has proved to be untenable. For example, as science progresses, one 
can look back and note that the purportedly infallible science of yesterday 
has been replaced: making it plausible, indeed likely in the extreme, that 
today's science will also be found wanting in the future. "

That is the pervasive and indirect provocation of those that attempt to deconstruct the inexplicable in a game of surrealistic terminology. The words, Demon, UFO, Sasquatch, Greys have transited the border line from placeholder references to a pseudo physicality to be debated in the absence of conclusive arguments on either side. Yet much like the wavering weather extremes within the general umbrella of climate change, phenomenon comes and goes in waves, whether it is a weather front of tornado activity or a wave of strange lights seen in the atmosphere, the psychology of both sides colors both the blatantly obvious as well as more subtle aspects of experiential realities.

As a contrast to the philosophic projection bias of public opinion, when science weighs in by the dissection and measurement of associations of the physical universe alone, something very strange occurs..what constitutes coherency disassembles itself. Russell Standish expands upon this in his very interesting book, "The Theory of Nothing" of which he says,  "The title ``Theory of Nothing'' came from the observation that the more inclusive a scientific theory, the less specific its predictions can be without additional ad hoc assumptions. The ultimate theory of everything is just a theory of nothing. Yet surprisingly, the theory in Theory of Nothing does have some explanatory and predictive properties, which follow from the second assumption, which links the laws of physics to the laws of psychology."

Both sides of this positivist argument, whether it is climate change or the study of the paranormal state that appearances are deceiving. The sharing of this nexus is the loci where the agnostic is pummeled by the interpretation of evidence in the politics of consensus whose motivations are so varied, it would require an encyclopedia to list each and every one.

No matter what philosophic underpinning is lurking behind any claim or for that matter, any theory, one sees that the implications of these stances has a personal implication to those that hold them as defensive barriers.

Yet, none of this is discussed or evaluated and remains hidden only to be evidenced by the atmosphere of ambivalence toward reaching any objective balance on the subject matter.

The Role of The Agnostic

Name the formality of a social structure made of dissenting provocateurs such as I label myself ...a rag tag group of restless pawns to the slings and arrows of the quest to pin a tail on the donkey of a misnamed and singular realty.
Are those enmeshed and entangled in the brew of anomalies, in reality, a creature of uber-skepticism who have failed to be convinced by consensus, who view the universe as yet to be given a convincing portraiture?
I suspect we fail to be convinced by the answers at hand while lacking answers ourselves. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Any answer is better than none. Or is it?
The instinctual fear of uncertainly is certainly is at play.

Within our ruminations we acknowledge the transient nature of knowledge itself which is deconstructive to the uncreated that lurks unseen,that descends to fill the container of the mind to be molded by language which has no relationship to rationality. A rose can be a dog if we call it such.
The tool of symbols inherent in language becomes a veil for experts whose presumptions are subject to the immeasurable as if one could contain the delimited in a glass be counted as if the mathematics of zero as if zero had any other meaning other than to demarcate themselves from creative nature itself.

The artifice of counting comes to mind, the presumptions of a void that requires filling while language is the crystalline lattice work of a snowflake captured in hand that vanishes once it is held and returns to the provider. We accept to surrender to the futility of counting as one leads to relations unaccountable, ascending and descending in imagination where the uncreated seeks form and form as an expression of who happens to be looking in what circumstance within a finite container that serves us as a lens.
Yet religiosity pervades the facing of the uncertain. Whether it is the explanatory mythology's of two thousand years ago or at the present moment.

Naive Realities

The demonology of emotional energy has a territorial prerogative based upon food as a possession whereas no one owns anything. Nation states and the presumptive drawing of boundaries has its role as well in the positing of critical assumptions that are more a matter of conveyance than the ownership of the natural world being grounded in reality outside of self reference.

Does this strike you as absurd? UFO as a mistranslated of the delimited and uncreated descending to be captured in a container of “like”, and \ or resembles in the physicality of metaphors that denote relationships and not solid objects as we accept there are no solid objects except by the senses wired to signal communications. There is no object of pain, it is a signal. We accept this as an indication that physicality fits hand in glove with what cannot be directly observed. One can see this reflected in the two opposing theories of the nature of consciousness.One theory states that consciousness exists entirely in the physical brain, while the other states that the physical brain is a receptor for a quantum information field. Rather than the game of ping pong between the two sides currently being played, one could simply accept that the observer of phenomenon is ignorant of the nature of what is observing, or more succinctly, the nature of the observer has a direct bearing on what is seen.

Most seek sobriety in a tavern. Most nod in a complacency of fear of what cannot be repeated, extended or measured by rationality. The alien arrives in a sea of babble and so what can be said? In this tavern, it is better to say nothing as every symbol is misconstrued and bent to the felicity of consensus as a form of willing logic and causation to be linear as defined by the appearances that are controlling agencies. We accept this as subtle and difficult discernment.

Subjectivity and Objectification

The container of formulated references that define themselves within their users. The demarcation of God as a precept of God made in mankind’s image versus the Gods within natures image as the deflection of mirrors, one presumption leads to dividing the indivisibility of the immeasurable, as if to seperate atmosphere from water, earth from minerals and expecting to create life in these file folders for the unnamable that we have given terms to.
The Anomalist unravels knots to create tapestries made of knots seeking the definitive in the movement of trajectories within comparisons, only to find himself accepting a surrender to an ascent with wax wings that melt under the weight of a puzzle whose pieces mutate in resistance to a frame. We call this the best guess in a post editorial forensics of what cannot be named seeking names. Call this the nexus of a qualifier.
What are we left with? The deconstruction of ruses, of ploys, of the scrims of self comfort as a form of creative self flagellation? I suspect we are agents of a provocation we cannot name, to unravel a comfortable chair that can lead to madness, self parody, the bartering of one delusion for another delusion more suitable to sit upon.We accept the universe we inhabit is a rumor mill.
The best guess could be most accurately framed as suspicions rather than the steps of a ladder that most climb in the fool’s errand of a definitive conclusion, a final episode, a logical explanation wherein each piece locks like the tools of language into a comprehensible, coherent relationship that stretches to infinity.
The field is chock full of the naive realism of terms made into solid objects whereas the weight of ironies within this quest asks a central question. What is the alternative? If you must sleep, sleep well? Do we restless folks regularly walk off the face of the earth only to find ourselves at a McDonalds of the mind at 3am?
I suggest to you we are surrealists at play, playing as a developmental stage that ties to the ascent of imagination to make the passage between what is to come and what has passed in a game lodged between death and life. A sense of humor is required but his is not a joke aside from the joke we expell when donning the cap of expertise before a willing audience of alcoholics in this tavern.

An except from the following link is pithy and to the point..

First of all, if we adopt a surrealist viewpoint, then, as we have seen, art logically must be and naturally will tend to be surrealist, and thus be justifiable only in its ability to reveal the new, the "never seen," the parallel activity of thought and chance in consciousness. ..... More important by far -- infinitely more important, perhaps -- is the response that arise in the individual who tries to openly experience the work as "evidence" in the case for the sublime as the living center of the surreal unity of psyche and "external reality," of inside and outside."

I define myself somewhere on a map without a cartography, perhaps located somewhere between sobriety and falling off my stool as the music plays on with or without me, thinking I have stirred the pot when the pot has stirred me.
And so it went and so it goes within the only game in town.

No comments:

Post a Comment