.
Wittgenstein's Notion: "what can be said [known?] at all can be said clearly, and what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence"
Wittgenstein's Notion: "what can be said [known?] at all can be said clearly, and what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence"
.
I would amend to say: what can be said measurably can be said mathematically, and what we cannot measure, we must pass over quantitatively (but not qualitatively ... and not "in silence)."
.
After all, a great deal can reasonably and self-evidently be experienced, feared, praised, and appreciated without its being reducible to measurable, quantitative clarity. That is the realm of the subjective, qualitative, analogical, metaphorical, intuitive, empathetic, fluxing, observer-affected feedback. Indeed, if we did not try to communicate concerning our subjectively immeasurable experiences, interests, and fluxing apprehensions, we would deny ourselves opportunity for communicating about much of anything.
.
As to "clarity," excepting trivialities, there is no thing-in-itself that we do know. Yes, we know mathematical equations concerning relational translations, but they are set true by trivial definition. We know geometric properties, which, again, are true by definition. That is, each unfoldment of the cosmos obeys self-defining, self-conserving equations, even though the set of possible or potential unfoldments seems to be unbounded. In the "physics of math," we experience vibrations of vibrations of an empty set. But what do we "know" of any vibration-in-itself, or even whether any such a thing exists? We "know" very little, yet neither we nor the cosmos "passes over" such lack of knowledge in silence. Of measureables, we empirically ascertain relationships that are conserved in obedience to equations that can be ascertained. However, not even the Higgs Boson is a thing in itself. It is a relationship that marks the enforcement of mathematical limits for the unfolding experience of possibilities determined within such vectoring fields of math with which we happen to share, for bonding and communicating such interests as are appreciated in respect of our iterative expressions of a reconciling Identity that is, in itself, not measurable. Thus, we learn ways that work within a given context for measuring measurements of measureables. Apart from that, there is no thing-in-itself that we know in terms of being able to measure. Only a fool expects he should be able to confine and measure God.
.
Our subjective brain's interpretation of our sensory experiences helps us represent, conceptualize, rationalize, and analogize. We don't sense or "know" any measureable truth-in-itself. We only measure conservational relationships and aspects of vibrations of vibrations, given to us as being true by such context as happens to define us. In a way, our senses are aspects of the cosmos, trivially and self-evidently sensing measurable aspects and unfolding relations and perspectives of itself. But how do we interpret, analogize, model, and qualitatively appreciate such aspects as the cosmos relates to us? We don't objectively measure gradations of art or subjective appreciation. We intuit, empathize about, analogize, and qualitatively appreciate subjective experiences, holistically. But even though we cannot "know" such experiences in the sense of objectively measuring them, there is no reason to expect that we must or should "pass over them" in silence.
.
.
12 comments:
Re: “the rights come from mankind” — Well, where do these ”rights of mankind” come from? Many people seem to be fundamentally confused: mistaking religion with God; mistaking secular enforcement with moral rights; mistaking arbitrary executive fiat (legalism) with philosophical rights. Mankind did not lay the groundwork, or decree a right to such groundwork, as was needed for designing anyone's birth, point of view, or cosmic context. For that, we can look only to a common cosmic Source, which has continued with us all along an unfolding path of interested feedback.
Those who buck at the authority of religion don’t need religion to approach the idea of moral rights, as conferred by that Source. Yes, religion can provide acculturated metaphors for communicating about that Source. And that can be helpful for providing a common logos for assimilating and sustaining a society. However, even a social outcast could devise words for conveying the idea of moral rights as conferred by that Source.
For that, one only needs intuitive receptivity to common sense and decent human empathy. What sense could it make to refer to any inalienable moral right, if it could be taken away upon mere fiat of executive order? Moral rights come from one’s inherent dignity as a perspective of a reconciling Source. Others will respect your moral rights only insofar as they sense their dignity is somehow connected with that of your own. So called objective or measurable “rights,” of which human secualrists are fond, are baubles bubbling out of otherwise nothingness. Mere man made laws (even under faux laws from Ivy-degraded ideas about some philosophical "social contract," i.e., niche for mutant wolf packs in sheeps' clothing) will not objectively, empirically "prove" inalienable rights. To meaningfully talk about morality necessitates talking about inalienable rights. But you don't prove such rights objectively. Rather, you inculcate and assimilate shared, meaningful belief in such rights, intuitively and subjectively, under an implication of a Reconciling Source.
The cost of doing business is to pay the local representatives of the Chicago Mob, Bilderbergers, whatever. And no one is free to buck or leave this Orwellian system. So, none but the "best" of the (cream?) crony cynics and godless corrupters can float to the top. Insofar as every measurable "thing" is nothing more than organized information, the Bilderberger-Google-Patriot Act bank of information will of course function as a niche for enticing and shaping mutant packs of predators best designed to exploit that bank of dossiers on everyone. Do not expect the Internet to save us! Decent society can either watch the transformation in fascinated impotence, or it can anticipate and appropriately arm itself. Meanwhile, agents of mutants will demand "empirical proof" of the conspiracy of intimidation. That is, they will demand objective proof of subjectively enforced social intimidation. (And while we're elevating empirical proof over decent, intuitive, common sense, I'd like a citation to prove they're actually human. And when they give that, I'd like a follow up citation to prove the first citation wasn't itself just pulled out of a previous citation, that itself was pulled out of a void. The Regime is as "transparent" as a hollow soul.)
Why would anyone just assume that truing the vote should be branded as racist? Is it not (weasel-y) mouch (Mouch was a crony corporatist in Atlas Shrugged) more self evident to any reasonable thinker that failing to true the vote invites gross corruption? Why does Kellogg fund this? How does it benefit? What does Kellogg, or any other Regime Crony, stand to gain from acting in concert with those who want to corrupt the vote? It seems likely that these people: (1) know enough not to convey their true purposes via emails; (2) have a secure grip around the necks of those who have access to ways for sifting such emails; (3) communicate nefarious ends only in secure wolf lairs; and/or (4) have so compromised such a majority of the public that no undercover investigator would be able to expose the big lie to any practical political effect. The audacity of the crony corporatist collectivist morlochs (CCCM) has become astonishing. Conspiracy? What conspiracy? (Laughed the Nazis, as they lined their victims up against the wall.) Move along.
******
You know, I keep trying to point out how the crony corporatists and collectivists are united. Yet, so many keep espousing that nothing, nothing, nothing need or should be done to reduce or control the wealth accumulated by corporatists that can be put to use for freely buying and selling the republic and corrupting its trust backed politicians and currency. Helloooo.
The problem for Conservatives is to establish a safety net that preserves human decency without killing human initiative. For Dims, the problem is only to get your homies together in order to liberate more resistribution of stuff. Yet, the MSM insinuates it is the Tea Party that is mean and morally blinkered. Good people have omni-tolerated the unionization of thugs to such an extent that mainstream notions of morality are now unside down in nearly all institutions of social significance. The Poseidon is still afloat, but upside down.
The Prevailing Ideal has passed the welfare state and has now brought us to the omnitolerant society -- a crooked walking omnimoronic oxymoron. We have arrived on a metaphoric vehicle that presumes to make sense by saying God is Love. But God is not just love. Not in the sense of tolerating everything. If God tolerated everything, then spiritual guidance would be nonsensical. If evolution is guided, it is via spiritual feedback from an holistic field to variously expressed particulars. If that Field is morally relevant, then it is qualitatively discriminatory in its unfolding, reconciling appreciation. For purposes of spiritual guidance, it makes moral sense to conceptualize God as purposeful, empathetic feedback, but not as omni-tolerance. Omnitolerance makes no moral sense when it advocates that the good and competent should allow themselves to be swept away by the unprincipled and incompetent. Technology temporarily allows much of the world, out of locales of overabundant compassion, to carry the hormonally prisoned and morally handicapped to such an extent that they have "unionized." As useful stooges, they now control voting majorities, as well as every institution of social significance --- including most churches. After all, a majority of Catholics voted for the Chief of the Incompetents, Obama. And the Unitarian Church seems to have filled a niche to become spiritual headquarters for inculcating moral zombies with some absurd notion that the world is morally obliged not only to accomodate, but to entitle enrich and service the most blinkered, who give no thought beyond basest hormonal urges with regard to the family values it takes to establish and preserve a society of decent human freedom and dignity. It's not God who is marginalized. Rather, this millenium is a highly transitional one. The unprincipled and incompetent are allowed to rise only as catalysts for transition to more mature appreciation of the spirituality of the Cosmos. The unfolding pursuit of fulfilling moral competence continues. God is guiding empathy, not omnitolerant love.
Were every model declared a religion, then would no model be a religion? Well, not so fast. I only declare that every "ism" that claims moral superiority to reorganize adherents and dimmis within a society is a religion. When one tends to one's own garden, one is a gardener. When one seeks to farm other people by convincing them of some higher cause, then one acts as a religious Gardener. When one seeks to gang up and take from others merely because one can, with no fundamental desire to "convert them for their own good," then one is simply functioning as a pack ravager.
To say there are important jobs to be dones that necessitate cheap, nearly slave, labor is to say that the product is not presently of sufficient value to attract needed visionaries, investors, producers, and laborers at humane prices. If and when the product does become seen as of sufficient value to warrant its production, then its production will attract the needed investors, producers, and laborers at decent prices. Until then, the cheap labor argument for opening a nation's borders is simply an argument for reducing the dignity of the nation's laboring citizenry to the corruption of others.
Vomit inducing indeed! The clear agenda of the pack ravagers now sitting atop America is to do away with the Second Amendment, make Americans gun shy, erase national borders, induce subservience and dimmi-hood, and dehumanize and "de-dignify" the workers of the world ... so they can be farmed by pack ravagers.
Morlochs are twisting our own arguments for free enterprise against us. They argue that cheap, border-crossing labor is irreplaceable. However, to say there are important jobs to be done that necessitate cheap (nearly slave) labor is to say that the product is not otherwise of sufficient present value to attract needed visionaries, investors, producers, and laborers at humane prices. However, if and when the product did become seen as of sufficient value to warrant its production, then its production would attract the needed investors, producers, and laborers at decent prices. Until then, the cheap labor argument for opening a nation's borders is a twisted argument for reducing the dignity of the nation's laboring citizenry to the corruption of others. The problem with importing and giving amnesty to cheap laborers is that they vote, and they bring their kin with them. Of course, this is exactly what is desired by the union of advocates for cheap labor and cheap laborers. America is now so weakened by this corrupt alliance that She is vomiting and hemorrhaging.
Whistle blowers are now properly intimidated. Obama asserted executive privilege. Crowley was complicit with his lying. Christie became his Greek column. Matthews' thrill has returned. Cronies are lining up. At this point, what person who is near power will incline in Stalin's presence to agree with him that he might be incompetent? You may want the truth, but the media cannot handle it. There needs to be a storm of protest that is powerful enough to destabilze and wash the Regime away, like Morsi seems to be washing away. Problem is, this Regime is backed by an Evil that is much more practiced than Morsi in leveraging destabilizing crisis, and certainly much more practiced than everyday Americans. It is a great, organized, advancing Evil. Meanwhile, hounds are loosed against the only Godly forces that can reasonably hope to counter it. All decency, modesty, honor, integrity, and moral belief are being routed from the public square, to be replaced by The Farm.
Eventually, the Regime will overreach, people will rise as One and say Enough! and the Regime will then be replaced. However, the scale of suffering it will have power to impose before that happy day is incalculable.
It's as if the New Regime of ant-think must "pass over in silence" anything that cannot be reduced to the quantitative. After all, the qualitative is not amenable to bureaucratic redistribution for the sake of equality. Elitists seem to be serving up warmed over Wittgenstein to the masses. He said "what can be said [known?] at all can be said clearly, and what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence". However, I would amend to say: what can be said measurably can be said mathematically, and what we cannot measure, we must pass over quantitatively --- but not qualitatively! and not "in silence." After all, an entire world can reasonably and self-evidently be experienced, feared, praised, and appreciated ... without its being reduced to measurable, quantitative clarity. That is the realm of the subjective, qualitative, analogical, metaphorical, intuitive, empathetic, fluxing, observer-affected feedback. Only those who relish the errand of a fool expect they should be able to confine and measure God. Failing that, they substitute a quest to reduce everyone to ants: collectively building mathematical harmonies with pagan Gaia, dehumanizing all individuals as worth nothing at all. When we decline to try to communicate concerning subjectively immeasurable experiences and interests, we deny ourselves opportunity for communicating as individuals about much of anything. We become like hills of ants. No mortal objectively measures gradations of art or subjective appreciation. We intuit, empathize about, analogize, and qualitatively appreciate subjective experiences, holistically. But even though we cannot "know" such experiences in the sense of objectively measuring them, there is no reason to expect that we must or should be inculcated to "pass over them" in silence. What a dead world callow knowitalls want to serve up!
And then there are the bottom dwellers, content that, because "God don't make no junk," what must be valued are not opportunites for living a decent life. No, what must be valued are ALL behaviors, and I do mean all. Of course that is madness! It's as mad as tolerating those who would allow the obliteration of goodness for the sake of tolerating badness. No doubt, we will soon have "Churches" not for redeeming Zombies, Goths, Mad Bombers, and Serial Killers, but Churches for justifying them.
Re: "you could do whatever you wanted in this life, because the material world was ultimately unimportant"
I think the materially measurable world is the world by which we give signification to our communications. It is the Means to communication, not the Purpose of communication. The purpose of communication is to establish empathetic connection and participatory feedback. It is not just to make measurements or to facilitate equality in distributions of stuff. Too many people are diverted to purposeless acquisition of, and jealousy about, stuff. In their off hours, they divert to purposeless, immediate gratifications, drugs, depressions, and hollow souless lives. The problem I have with such people is this: They want to force everyone else to come and live in their holes with them. And they have become adept in diverting callow youth with false promises of wonderful, material utopias.
Of the cosmos with which our several identities and perspectives of consciousness have bonded, there is an inherent opportunity cost in such bonding. That is, while taking on the perspective of a particular mortal, one cannot simultaneously take on the perspective of the holism of the cosmos. That is, one cannot empirically pull back the curtain of the holism to measure how or to what end the holism in itself has facilitated our individually separate perspectives. That dark curtain is rather like a force field that fuzzes, confuses, redirects, rephases, and confounds us as we ecercise our perspectives of consciousness to try to confine or control IT to our comprehension. From the perspective of parts, we cannot comprehend or measure the empiricism of the holism. We can, however, be receptive to intuitive, empathetic, experiential, metaphorical, artistic, harmonic, musical appreciation of IT. It also seems we may not even be able to describe with precision where the curtain begins. This is because some aspect of IT seems to interpermeate our individual, particular experiences. We can try out various models, and each model seems to have its own practical uses. However, we do not seem to be able to synthesize a Standard Model that can tell us precisely where, how, why, or in what aspect we can count on the curtain to appear.
Post a Comment