Tocky on 5/7/2012 at 05:03
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Whilst I have some sympathy with your point of view this statement is just wrong. For me, certainly, anyway.
If you're alluding to a "what is the point of it all anyway" attitude my answer would be "because it was fun whilst it lasted". I don't even think you have to do anything especially meaningful in life to feel that you've lived well. For me it's all about appreciating what you have, the time you have, the people and experience you have. And this world interacts with our senses such that one can find a great deal of fabulous without needing imagination. I don't need to have an imagination to appreciate the sound of the sea. Do I?
Actually yes, you do. Without imagination making connections you are left with nothing more than repetitive sound. Imaginative associations in the brain soothe or excite with notions of what it is to be at the beach. In such a way you are not merely here and now but past experience and future possibility. You are your notions of holiday and sailing ships or bikini clad expectations of oily skinned beauty. Even your first sight is weighed against pictures and tales of deserted islands and the like. Had all your previous knowledge been of sharks and giant crabs cutting people in half then the sound of surf would take a more ominous turn in the mind.
As for "the point" that's what I was saying. We don't have the beginning or the end. All we have is now (though none can stamp out my belief we will find a way to live forever and conquer all with all this defeatest acceptance of reality thinking). Live large. Have a vast internal life and express it outwardly. Encourage others to enjoy. I'm not saying believe in mermaids but enjoy the tale. Revel in every myth and association as you gaze out at a vast and pitiless expanse of overwhelming nature. Indulge imagination. It doesn't mean you must disengage your brain to appreciate the salty old devil who first pulled a leg with the tale.
As for republicans urging dullard minds to simple paranoid delusions of commie heathen leftist democrat enemies bent on the destruction of Amurika well that's a different kettle of fish. Since only the unthinking would argue for the further enrichment of the already rich over their own personal welfare and that of society, of course they need to cultivate a stupid electorate.
faetal on 5/7/2012 at 09:26
I don't think imagination is all memory based. There are numerous hard-wired aspects of aesthetic processing which will always treat certain stimuli the same way. Fear of giant crabs may certainly make you too cautious to sunbathe or stay on the sand too long, but I doubt it will take away from appreciation of the sights, sounds, smells, temperature of the sand on your feet etc...
faetal on 5/7/2012 at 11:13
Quote Posted by heywood
Of the three, religious fundamentalism is the most worrying because it's a global problem, it's no longer fringe but spreading into mainstream religious organizations, it's causing wars, and it's not just anti-intellectual but openly regressive. If it keeps growing it could be the great scourge of the 21st century, like fascism and communism were in the 20th century.
I'm not sure if communism was considered a great scourge by anyone other than the US really. To most, it was just a system which existed elsewhere. To the US however, it was system which directly undermines capitalism and which started taking hold in the form of democratic socialism in Latin American nations, which the US found very threatening, hence all of the regime interference by the US post-WWII. I'm not saying I think communism is any good, it's not, as adequately illustrated by Animal Farm, just that it was only portrayed as a great scourge as a propaganda tool.
Quote:
Poison politics is the most annoying of the three, especially in the US where too many people see everything through a reality-distorting political lens. I dread meeting people who are so political they aren't comfortable talking to you until they've decided which team you're on, and then either talk to you like you're a "brother" who agrees with them on everything, or you're an enemy and a moron and obviously you believe all the stupid stuff the other side thinks. Either way, no intelligent conversation can be had.
True that. I continually get tired of hearing people using the words 'right' or 'left' to describe someone's politics.
Quote:
In this hyper-political context, science is just another weapon to be used against the other side, or the other side's weapon to be defended against.
Which is pretty sad, given that science is supposed to simply be the extraction and analysis of data from nature.
Quote:
I'm somewhat mystified by the rise of conspiracy theories. On one hand, it seems like a natural response to being fed a constant stream of propaganda.
Agreed. The anti-vaccine, we never landed on the moon, 9/11 was an inside job stuff all seems to be based on confirmation bias though, which suggest starting with a conclusion and trailing the web for anything which supports it.
Quote:
But I would have expected the rise of the internet and the proliferation of news sources to counter it and instead they seem to reinforce it.
Anyone can write an article e.g. on why homoeopathy definitely works and how "allopathic medicine" is a pharmaceutical company ploy to force feed people expensive chemicals.
Quote:
Maybe this is what happens to people who deeply trusted something or someone and had their trust broken.
Could be. I think a lot of the time it is linked to an egotistical belief that "I'm one of the few that can see the truth", which is good for people who like to isolate themselves from others as it reinforces the idea that being a loner is the same thing as being savvy.
Quote:
Sometimes scientists and other intellectuals do themselves no favors when advocacy becomes more important than objectivity. If people get a hint you're withholding or manipulating information to achieve a certain outcome in the public opinion (e.g. with climate science), it's hard to gain their trust back.
Can you tell me what you are referring to with climate science? From what I can tell, most of the data in climate science is solid. It is mostly climate change denial that deals in manipulation of information.
heywood on 5/7/2012 at 12:07
Quote Posted by faetal
I'm not sure if communism was considered a great scourge by anyone other than the US really. To most, it was just a system which existed elsewhere. To the US however, it was system which directly undermines capitalism and which started taking hold in the form of democratic socialism in Latin American nations, which the US found very threatening, hence all of the regime interference by the US post-WWII. I'm not saying I think communism is any good, it's not, as adequately illustrated by Animal Farm, just that it was only portrayed as a great scourge as a propaganda tool.
That's a bunch of revisionist crap.
(
http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm) Twentieth Century Atlas - Death Tolls
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes) Mass killings Under Communist regimes
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism) The Black Book of Communism
(
http://www.scottmanning.com/content/communist-body-count/) Communist Body Count
Quote:
Can you tell me what you are referring to with climate science? From what I can tell, most of the data in climate science is solid. It is mostly climate change denial that deals in manipulation of information.
I was speaking of climategate and in particular the famous words "hide the decline" that skeptics jumped at as an Aha, Gotcha! moment. It didn't change the scientific consensus, but it planted a seed of mistrust and doubt in the non-scientific public's mind that helped stall progress in addressing climate change. You can look at what happened and say it's all just the stupid public falling for the deniers' spin, but I think it was also true that some scientists lost their objectivity and put a public policy objective above frank and open sharing of information. They got sucked into a propaganda war because they felt it was important to take action.
Vivian on 5/7/2012 at 12:17
You could argue that those were all dictatorships pretending to be communism though. I'm not sure 'communist regime' isn't an oxymoron.
heywood on 5/7/2012 at 12:28
I agree. 20th century communism never got past the Dictatorship of the Proletariat stage, which in most countries turned out to be a totalitarian nightmare and the new ruling class (the party) were no more willing to give up absolute power than the old ruling class (monarchy and bourgeoisie). I don't think "true" communism, i.e. the final stateless stage, exists except on the smallest scale.
faetal on 5/7/2012 at 13:25
I'm happy to conflate communism with those dictatorships on the broader point of communism being a scourge of the 20th century, though I also agree that they weren't doing communism by the book. Either way, I'll consider myself educated.
Some of what the US committed in Latin America in the 20th century though was pretty damned horrific. Nothing quite so direct as the Mao killings, but e.g. giving millions in military aid to train death squads to carry out the systematic genocide of Mayan hill people is pretty damned nauseating.
Some reading about that:
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemalan_Civil_War)
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvadoran_Civil_War#United_States_involvement)
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_invasion_of_East_Timor) (Not Latin America, but still US basically helping out with genocide, a persistent hobby it seems)
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States)
In short, during the majority of the 20th Century, the US was involved in squashing any political movements seen to be in favour of labour rights, power of citizens - basically, anything resembling socialism which might work and spread elsewhere. There are a lot more examples such as these - I'll dig them up if needs be.
faetal on 5/7/2012 at 13:28
Quote Posted by heywood
I was speaking of climategate and in particular the famous words "hide the decline" that skeptics jumped at as an Aha, Gotcha! moment. It didn't change the scientific consensus, but it planted a seed of mistrust and doubt in the non-scientific public's mind that helped stall progress in addressing climate change. You can look at what happened and say it's all just the stupid public falling for the deniers' spin, but I think it was also true that some scientists lost their objectivity and put a public policy objective above frank and open sharing of information. They got sucked into a propaganda war because they felt it was important to take action.
Climategate was a red herring taken out of context and ran with: (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy)
But that doesn't matter, because the idiot deniers will take a mote of doubt and turn it into an entire field being completely incorrect without exception.
Yakoob on 5/7/2012 at 17:01
Quote Posted by Vivian
You could argue that those were all dictatorships pretending to be communism though. I'm not sure 'communist regime' isn't an oxymoron.
Agreeing with everyone above, I always claimed we have not really had communist country yet; most communist nations have really been a dictatorship/totalitarian state only disguising itself as communist. Russia is like a staple example of that (together with its satellite states, like Poland), and China appears to be too, albeit not as extreme. I am not familiar with some of the non-soviet-union communist countries, but from what I've heard they seem to follow similar patterns.
faetal on 5/7/2012 at 17:07
I'm not convinced true communism is possible outside of theory, simply because power invariably corrupts.
