Loooking for philosophers

[labelwench]

My take on lunacy is that it is a social disease. The true madness is mutually reinforced by tribe members, media and tradition gone wrong.
Individual madness when isolated and self-produced should be called something else, something inconvenient yes, but not nearly as fundamentally delusional as the socially transmitted mind disease.
Originally by JimBarlow

For all that Science has learned of the functions of the mind, how little we truly know.

Genetics, disease, chemistry and environment are but a few of the known factors that affect mind function.

One person's lunacy is anothers' greatness, the coping mechanism of another.

When whole segments of a society act in atypical fashion, one may be observing the early warning signs of a population under extreme stress.

Regards,

Labelwench

[austintorn@aol.com]

(Austin -you are a scientist and also a poet -what do you make of this?): "The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens; The logician seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits".

Left brain in unison with the right brain.

A sculpted angel coming for a live sculptor.


THE SOLIDARITY OF THE CONCORDANCE

The blend of the coalition grows upon itself,
Striving for the dynamic-balance—of light
And dark, Yin and Yang, and wrong and right.

Reality’s not found in separate actions,
But in related events blended in twilight.

The concept of Classicism accentuates
Order and clarity of thought, simplicity,
Restraint, balance, dignity, and
A mistrust of emotion and excess;

However, since it relies on imitation and
The acceptance of objective standards,
It may lack spontaneity, and degenerate
Into excessive traditionalism and empty formalism.

Romanticism embraces an exaltation
Of the feelings, an individualism,
With new modes of imagination,
Of freedom of form, spontaneity,
Self-expression, and subjectivity.

It began, at least in art, music, and literature,
As a revolt against 18th century doctrines
Of restraint, forms and rules, decorum,
Stagnation, and blind tradition.

However, romanticism and classicism
Are now taken as more general terms.

Some exemplars of their contrast are:
Passion as opposed to reason,
The whole against the details,
The Yin facing the Yang,
The right vs. the left side of the brain,
“Don’t confuse me with emotion”
Or “don’t confuse me with facts”,
The sails confronting the rudder of the soul.

This epitome may become a battlefield,
Or it may grace a smooth sailing ship.

How easy they are not transformed,
These apparently opposing forces
That may wage war upon the other,
But how tremendous they can be
In their bond of confederacy.

Pure reason, ruling all alone,
Is a force confining and stale;
While passion, unattended,
Is a flame that burns
To its own end.

Poetry is an ideal of the unison:
The right side of the brain
Provides the inspiration;
The left side devises the rhyme.

An utter, absolute classicist
Or romanticist is an extremist!
S/he honors one worthy guest
In the house above the other,
And so loses the love and faith of both.

Witness the average classicist at IBM,
One who knows little of the humanities,
One who ever works through lunch,
Never having the time by to hear of life,
Making every decision by the book
But none from the heart.

Or the total romanticist:
One who can’t even hold a job,
even taking drugs, and losing all control.

The writing of this page—this analysis—
Is rather a classicist undertaking.
But I do not live by the unbending way
And therefore my songbird
Is never imprisoned within.

Perhaps, it chooses to be here, classically,
Or perhaps it will, at any time of day,
Burst forth and enjoy a total feeling.

Nor does a long wild night of lovemaking
Mean that you’ve gone bonkers.
Life is full of spikes of valleys and mountains—
It is only when one can’t merge the two
Or at least make jumps between
That one may need some reflection.

How can there be any sort of resolution
Of a dichotomy in which one side
Expresses itself so logically and
The other in emotions and images?

Well, if either your sails or rudder be broken,
You will soon be dead in the water...

Therefore, the discord and rivalry
Of one’s elements must become
Rhythm and all sweet melody!

It’s not the same for everyone,
But the knowledge of
The ‘contrast’ itself is the first step…

Therefore, let your blended soul exalt
Your reason to the height of passion,
That it may sing and fly about,
Letting it direct your passion with reason,
That your passion may live and survive
Through its daily death and resurrection, but
In effect, ever arising from its own ashes.

Now, no one can ever achieve
The ultimate and perfect balance
Between classicism and romanticism,
But for the rare times in the ‘zone’,
And indeed, this balancing attempt
Itself smacks of classicism!

And so we all have leanings—
And that’s what I mean when I say
The tilt is toward romanticism.

Emotion, slightly favored, rules,
But every so often I do check in
wWth logic and analytical reason.

Thereby, I enjoy the world, mainly,
Because, like many of you,
I am much impressed by it wonders…

Without perception’s deeper depiction,
One finds little that excites—
Not noticing much, ever in a hurry,
And seldom having the time…

Two other poor relatives
Of classicism and romanticism
Are substance and surface glory.

The romanticist in me likes the veneer
Of the shiny red car or motorcycle,
But the classicist in me would like
To know that the vehicle operates well,
Even be able to take it much apart,
For that is the very substance.

When I maintain my car or cycle well,
Shine it up, and then speed off
Into the country sunshine
With the wind on my face,
Then I have the best of both worlds!

Now, I really don’t know all the answers—
I just like to tug at the hem of the garment
In which life’s mysterious dualities are clothed.

As ever as in all good marriages,
“The oak tree and the cypress
Grow not in each other’s shadow”.

People involved in the arts may
Like to listen to music while they work,
In order to deactivate the left side of the brain
By giving it something innocuous to focus on.

Personally, I often dream up many ideas
While listening to music that moves me deeply,
For then the imaginative power
Of the brain’s right hemisphere
Is free and inspired to soar unbounded.

Yet, I do lean toward romanticism...
Perhaps it is my nature nurtured,
Or perhaps I feel a need to counteract
The overabundance of classicism in the world,
Or perhaps because in romanticism there is grandeur,
While in classicism there is but cold logic
And endless analytical thought.

But even with these leanings,
The good romanticists never forgets
That it is classicism that pays the bills
That authorizes some indulgence.

I have some hope, that,
In any totally classical person,
No matter how stern or dull s/he be,
That one day, somehow, somewhere,
There will come some small measure,
But then ever-luring triumph of jubilation.

Yes, the desire to be orderly and factual
Is one part of he human species,
But there are other yearnings in every person,
The desire to be imaginative and unrestrained in
Expressing personal emotions
Warmly and freely flowing,
And to take in art, music, literature,
As well as escalate the way one lives a life
From an illuminating flame fed from the self,
A source of lucid experience that
Can usher wisdom and fervency,
As the means to the rounded truth.

Then luckily, these may be some of its aspects:
Sentiment, celebration of nature, interest in the past,
A new emphasis on feeling and the senses,
Even actually enjoying melancholy and sadness.

Thence comes love of freedom, mysteries,
Even fascinating figures and heroes,
The allegorical, some delight in whimsy,
The improbable and the ‘impossible’,
Of legend, folklore, and mythology,
An awe before the immensity of what is—
The Earth as a friend and
The sky as a warm blanket,
And certainly the uniqueness of all selves.

The curious blend never lets one down,
Ever keeping one centered but ranging.

So, extroversion entertains, at large,
While love’s introversion is great one-on-one.

Intuition and sensing
Can sustain each the other
In a magnificent fusion.

Thinking and feeling combined
Are of an unbeatable synergy,
The being coalesced and intermixed.

Sensing the general direction but
Not exactly knowing one’s next move
Is of a spontaneous higher ‘order’.

There looms the classical planning of
A magnificently grand adventure,
Whether triumphant or of glorious failure
Always of the superb and the sublime.

Merge these ingredients, until smooth,
This loving mix, mingling and combining,
Soon melding into the ‘zone’, well integrated,
Stirred, whisked, and folded in and out, the commingling
That leads to the harmony of amalgamation’s union,
The marriage and the synthesis, the very admixture
Of the concoction of life’s ever-during brew.

The parts all sum to the whole flow, so,
Life must be more like a mosaic done
Than some focused laser tunnel of sun.
Since few lengthy pleasures are lent to us,
We build a stained-glass window of small ones.

Oh, thou soul, dare to live near the edge;
Brave the walk of the line, balancing fun
There between adventure and misfortune—
For the greatest blunder in life is to
Repeatedly fear that you might make one.

Hail! Lord Byron’s Golden Mean extends:
Let us have wine, lovers, song, and laughter—
Water, chastity, prayer the day after.
Such we’ll alternate the rest of our days—
So, on the average, we’ll make Hereafter!

Wholeness arrives by mixing the suspension:
Classicists drone toward dull perfection,
Romanticists drown in feeling’s affection;
Worse, others alternate between extremes—
It’s not this nor that, but a joined direction.

Harmony then rolls along, round and round:
Each holding within it the seed of the other—
Yin reaches climax, then retreats in Yang’s favor,
A cyclic movement of rotational symmetry:
Rounded life is the blend of Yin/Yang together.

The perfect balance may still call upon us:
Edges dissolve when opposites are balanced—
Time and dimensional space are transcended.
Everything joins yet remains as itself,
For what “is not” is as great as what “is”.

[austintorn@aol.com]

"Seeds seeding seeds has to end somewhere"

And why is that? Is it because we require things to be finite and the concept of infinite (endless, unending) is incomprehensible? I think the moment we decide that we ought to think to somehow bring about an end to thought, we introduce a fundamental paradox and the beginnings of lunacy. Aren't certain types of Madness brought on by confinement. Confinement of thought?

The word 'infinity' means 'cannot be reached', 'cannot ever be complete', cannot be'…

A light beam heads out toward forever [infinity], but it never gets there, for an infinite sequence can never be completed.

The word 'infinity', which is only a word, as defined, often gets a lot of magic glued onto it.

If causes never end, God becomes non fundamental, a middle manager laid off.

If causes end, the first cause, itself uncaused, cannot be a totally defined complex system of mind, for, remember, it can have no reason or DESIGN or DESIGNER before it.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Anyone want to see an epic poem I'm working on,
Interviewing all the Gods of on and on anon?
It's rough,
But good enough.

[MissChristian]

Would love to see more poetry. May I also recommend "The Great Divorce" (C.S Lewis) to all you wonderful intellectuals. Great book, lots of food for thought.

BTW I am currently working on a novel...one of many...that involves a QP. I think it is high time that an understanding of Quantum Physics is somehow made accessible to the mainstream mob.

Does anyone else here write fiction? (prose)

[labelwench]

Would love to see more poetry. May I also recommend "The Great Divorce" (C.S Lewis) to all you wonderful intellectuals. Great book, lots of food for thought.

BTW I am currently working on a novel...one of many...that involves a QP. I think it is high time that an understanding of Quantum Physics is somehow made accessible to the mainstream mob.

Does anyone else here write fiction? (prose)

With all due respect, and depending on one's perception of 'Reality',

things are not as they appear.

With that in mind,

we are all writers of fiction....

[austintorn@aol.com]

Miss Christian,

There is a thread on poetry:

http://www.toequest.com/forum/anecdo...oe-poetry.html

Also, can you post some parts of your QM novel here?

I ended up writing a 166 page 'Bible' in the last few days. Will probably post it in new thread. Some pages are greatly illuminated.

Have been on vacation from research and my retirement—enjoying lazy summer days. Not in Lewis's grey town, but in happy town. Also illustrated some poems to post in the 'Toe Poetry' thread.

[MissChristian]

A few years ago I started a book entitled "The Unholy Bible" It starts with Genesis....and goes through to Revelation (from a humanist perspective, but with Theistic overtones if you know what I mean)..Don't expect anyone to read all of what I'll paste below...but here are the first few pages.


Caveat Lector

THE UNHOLY BIBLE

NAV

New Atheist Version

GENESIS

Ex nihilo nihil fit

Chapter 1 – No room for the hypothetical

1In the beginning there was nothing. 2And, as convoluted and implausible as it may sound, nothing produced something, and something rather slowly (devoid of any divine guidance) became the precursor of everything. 3Important Note: It is impossible to maintain the Christian faith (along with the numerous preposterous stories narrated in the Holy Bible) without a certain superciliousness. 4The beliefs outlined in these wholly scientific and evidence-based scriptures however, are notably different in that an Atheist, by very definition, ought to be a perfectly reasonable and rational creature, willing, if the evidence were to arise, to change his point of view. 5It is perfectly possible (although the probability of such an event is arguably low) that God (according to Biblical prophecy) will return in the clouds (or whatever) and say something like: 6“Actually, this[1] is how the universe was created. Humans didn’t evolve from apes that evolved from unidentifiable fish creatures that evolved from lifeless blobs in a primordial soup that came from something that suddenly acquired life that evolved from absolutely nothing. 7There is a Creator. 8I am He. 9Jesus Christ was the exact representation of my being, sent so that mankind might know me; in the only capacity their limited brains are capable of knowing me: through faith, human relationship and unconditional love. 10The universe (I am about to show you things that will blow your mind) is mine, and human beings were created for a purpose. 11Yes, things weren’t straightforward but this was a result of free will and other factors that you have no comprehension of. 12And I love you. 13I have always loved you. 14So there!”


[1]Here He would say things that would most likely boggle our minds.

Chapter 2 – The only alternative: It’s not who you know.

1Hypothetical conversations aside, an Atheist must never deal in ‘What ifs’. 2What we know, is what we know now. 3What we know now is admittedly, very little, but Atheists must strive to be content with sketchy, largely unconfirmed theories, as this is a far better alternative than the promise of 1 Corinthians 1:13 and a potentially non-existent God (that cares for us apparently) with a far bigger brain, imagination, and power that a human could hope to fathom. 4The Holy Bible makes the nauseatingly defeatist suggestion that “It’s not what you know, It’s who you know” implying that as a human it is impossible to know all, but it is possible to know the creator of all. The Unholy Bible would like to uphold to the view that this would be stupid.

Chapter 3 – Evolution: The fundamentals

Rather, read and evaluate the following: In the beginning, the heavens and the earth did not exist. Over time, the heavens and the earth created themselves –climbing mount improbable, infinitesimally small step by infinitesimally small step. Eventually, with the help of a mysterious ‘force’ named Natural Selection[2], things arrived at the point of unbelievable beauty and complexity that we witness today. Your young son or daughter or curiosity-stricken pupil (if they were particularly precocious and deprived of an X box) may see a contradiction with the theory of evolution through natural selection alone. “Natural Selection is about elimination. How then can you account for the variation we see in the world?” they may ask. Or indeed they may simply ask for a definition of Evolution itself. You must be fully equipped to answer their questions. It is these fundamentals that ultimately and adequately (within reason) explain our very beginnings. These things are at the very foundations of evolutionary science. What is evolution? It is simply the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. These changes are caused by a combination of three main processes: variation, reproduction, and natural selection. Note that Natural selection explains how everything came to be the way it is, but it does not itself cause variation; it simply acts on existing variation. The most important factor upon which variation depends begins with an M. M for Mutation. And there you have it –the building blocks of Evolution. The way our world, and indeed you and I –came to be. Their next question, if they were being particularly inquisitive, might be: “It’s all well and good that we account for evolution and the origin of species by these main processes. How, however, did these processes come into play in the first place?” Be on your guard against an individual (child or adult) that asks questions of this sort. They are likely to have theistic inclinations and would be best treated with a considered amount of contempt.....

[1] See Appendix 1.0 Hypothetical Conversations with God
[2]Natural selection: One of the cornerstones of modern biology. Term introduced by Darwin in The Origin of Species. A process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, while unfavorable heritable traits become less common, due to differential reproduction of genotypes. Natural selection acts on the phenotype (the observable characteristics of an organism), such that individuals with favorable phenotypes are more likely to survive. To return to our library analogy, the human genome is like a stack of 20,000 to 25,000 books, each on average about 1,500 letters long. Each book represents a gene.

[labelwench]

[2]Natural selection: One of the cornerstones of modern biology. Term introduced by Darwin in The Origin of Species. A process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, while unfavorable heritable traits become less common, due to differential reproduction of genotypes. Natural selection acts on the phenotype (the observable characteristics of an organism), such that individuals with favorable phenotypes are more likely to survive. To return to our library analogy, the human genome is like a stack of 20,000 to 25,000 books, each on average about 1,500 letters long. Each book represents a gene.

I would suggest that there is more societal pressure than natural selection involved in the mate selection of our species, and that this shift occured about the time we began to live in ever larger groupings, likely when Agriculture enabled long term settlement.

The skill sets and temperament required to tolerate close living are considerably different than those required to venture into the unknown wilderness, possibly alone, for days at a time, in search of resources for your small clan.

Genetic research, especially of autosomal recessives, should prove interesting, as I would also suggest that several of these recessives are becoming more prominant.

So, does gene recombination affect survival rate for the individual? Or does survival of the individual improve the survival rate for the gene?

Do gene traits that are favorable for "group habitation" inherently conflict with gene traits of individuation?

It has been speculated that there may be a genetic factor involved in religious belief.

Which would lead me to comment that there would be a natural and possibly dangerous reaction to any manipulation or treatment of a commonly observed 'holybook'.

Personally, I am neutral in this regard. The Satanic Verses was met with considerable controversy, as I recall, .......

[austintorn@aol.com]

Over time, the heavens and the earth created themselves –climbing mount improbable, infinitesimally small step by infinitesimally small step.

This is good. There is an elaboration of this in my 'Bible' when I meet the God of Intelligent Design, who is in turn replaced by the God of Irreducible Complexity, who must give way to the God of the Gaps, who then retreats to becoming a Deity, etc., but first we'll have to joyfully 'suffer' through many introductory pages of great pictorial illuminations with some small amount of verse accompanying each.

As my 'Bible' is also fun and incisive, no one will get that upset but perhaps some fundamentalists whom even the regular religious don't always appreciate.