Libertarianism as a fundamentalist religion

Guest

MUST listen podcast.

Brain scientist (neurological anatomist) has stroke. "Watches" her own brain self destruct. Learns a lot. Spends 8 years recovering. Tells us about it.

Much to hear.

Left brain: structure, engineering, analysis, anger, planning, worry

Right brain: joy

Can you hear music if you are doing structural analysis of the symphony?

Is there any point (religion, spirituality, meaning... crap like that) for the left brain experience absent a right brain experience?

Is vichy absent right brain?

Is Eckhart Tolle absent left brain?

...

Listen. Come back and review the above.

Rant away. lol!

- NonE

She also did a TED Talk here: Stroke Of Insight.

Perhaps somewhat connected, a recent LessWrong.com post here: You Are A Brain

Guest

I think a key element in recognizing what she has learned is the same one that it behooves us to recognize when we "collectivize" any group of elements. It's like saying "American culture." What does that mean? Is it southern fried chicken, chinatown, the jewish dominated media, christian fundamentalists, ... ?

"The Brain," like anything else, is not a unitary entity. Rather, it is an amalgamation of a lotta shit, different in each cranium, and each moment as well, most likely.

- NonE

Guest

The Brain," like anything else, is not a unitary entity. Rather, it is an amalgamation of a lotta shit, different in each cranium, and each moment as well, most likely.
Right, our 'selves' are a complex set of variable entities and relations - the Cartesian self is, in the first place, nonsensical in a material perspective. What our actions and choices are are simply those aspects of 'interests/ideas' which are dominant at any given moment.

NonEntity wrote:

I think a key element in recognizing what she has learned is the same one that it behooves us to recognize when we "collectivize" any group of elements.

I'm not a frigging antelope.

_________________
My Blog

Number of posts: 281 Registration date: 2008-12-04

That certainly was fascinating. I've been reading a good bit of cognitive psych/neuroscience recently so it came at an opportune moment.

Keep in mind though that no matter how much more she knows about this stuff than the average person, she still knows next to nothing compared with what could conceivably be known. It's so frakking complex.

I think it's too simple to call right brain "joy." The two hemispheres work synchronistically and a lot of the intense (negative or positive) feelings we have are probably only possible with both hemispheres working together. Some of the nastiest types of brain damage are those that impair communication and synchronization of the two hemispheres. So the emphasis, I think, should be on striking a balance.

Guest

eye2i2 wrote:

She also did a TED Talk here: Stroke Of Insight.

Perhaps somewhat connected, a recent LessWrong.com post here: You Are A Brain

I saw that. I was rather unimpressed with the way she interpreted her experience (in some ways). Here interpretation was often mystical, rather than scientific/objective. She would say stuff like, "I was one with everything" (which is not only a meaningless statement, but not necessarily a conclusion that one can draw from one's perception or feelings). I've taken LSD many times. I might "see a UFO" under such circumstances, but I wouldn't interpret the experience as there actually being a alien space craft (because it's far more likely to be a hallucination).

Guest

T.E.M. wrote:

That certainly was fascinating. I've been reading a good bit of cognitive psych/neuroscience recently so it came at an opportune moment.

Keep in mind though that no matter how much more she knows about this stuff than the average person, she still knows next to nothing compared with what could conceivably be known. It's so frakking complex.

Exactly. That is why I have such a hard time with those who claim to KNOW everything. It's cool to learn stuff and to then understand even more how little we know.

T.E.M. wrote:

I think it's too simple to call right brain "joy." The two hemispheres work synchronistically and a lot of the intense (negative or positive) feelings we have are probably only possible with both hemispheres working together. Some of the nastiest types of brain damage are those that impair communication and synchronization of the two hemispheres. So the emphasis, I think, should be on striking a balance.

I wasn't attempting to be exclusive in my list. I used the word "joy" as that was what was most prominent (for me at the moment) in her description of her right brain experience. Obviously the right brain is hugely complex.

As to your statement of "should be on striking a balance," I would suggest that I see no reason for that assumption. As far as I know, there is no way of knowing what a "proper" balance should be, if there even is such a thing as a "proper" balance. I think it makes more sense for me to simply be aware, and not to judge or place valuations upon things that are far to complex for me to fully understand.

For me this is what always leads me back to my basic philosophy of voluntary action, or as a friend points out as perhaps a better way of saying it, mutually cooperative action. To use force is to make the presumption that you know "the right way" another should behave. I find that the height of arrogance. (And, as I've said before, I believe arrogance is a manifestation of fear, and so it logically follows that those in fear of life are those most likely to be thuggish in their relations with others in the attempt to control that which is uncontrollable: life.)

So please take note that I was not attempting in my post to make declarations or definitions, but rather to throw out ideas and pointers for others to examine for relevance to their own lives and views. (By the way, is it just me, or is this board becoming a bit snarky of late? If I wanted to enjoy the ambiance of FDR, I could just go over there and troll around a bit.)

- NonE

Number of posts: 628 Registration date: 2009-02-09

NonEntity wrote:

Exactly. That is why I have such a hard time with those who claim to KNOW everything. It's cool to learn stuff and to then understand even more how little we know.
- NonE

Yep.

Number of posts: 281 Registration date: 2008-12-04

NonEntity wrote:

I wasn't attempting to be exclusive in my list. I used the word "joy" as that was what was most prominent (for me at the moment) in her description of her right brain experience. Obviously the right brain is hugely complex.

As to your statement of "should be on striking a balance," I would suggest that I see no reason for that assumption. As far as I know, there is no way of knowing what a "proper" balance should be, if there even is such a thing as a "proper" balance. I think it makes more sense for me to simply be aware, and not to judge or place valuations upon things that are far to complex for me to fully understand.

For me this is what always leads me back to my basic philosophy of voluntary action, or as a friend points out as perhaps a better way of saying it, mutually cooperative action. To use force is to make the presumption that you know "the right way" another should behave. I find that the height of arrogance. (And, as I've said before, I believe arrogance is a manifestation of fear, and so it logically follows that those in fear of life are those most likely to be thuggish in their relations with others in the attempt to control that which is uncontrollable: life.)

So please take note that I was not attempting in my post to make declarations or definitions, but rather to throw out ideas and pointers for others to examine for relevance to their own lives and views. (By the way, is it just me, or is this board becoming a bit snarky of late? If I wanted to enjoy the ambiance of FDR, I could just go over there and troll around a bit.)

- NonE

Ok so it seems I'm not in much disagreement with you. I suppose I just took the things you said more literally than you meant it, more left brained perhaps.

Although I think you just interpreted my "balance," also much more literally than I meant it. I don't think there's a "correct," balance or that I know what it is... more just that you should consider this stuff from a broad perspective. Sorry if my tone sounded snarky... There's nothing to be snarky about but snarkiness itself.

Guest

No, I wasn't commenting upon your post when I mentioned snarkitude. Sorry if you got that impression.

- NonE

Guest

T.E.M. wrote:

Although I think you just interpreted my "balance," also much more literally than I meant it.

Point taken. Cool

That's why it's helpful to recognize that conversation is a team sport, not a one way street. We each have different maps in our heads and coordinating them is not a simple endeavor. (A very good reason why the idea of legislated law is doomed to failure from the start, and conflict resolution is the only sane way to attempt to create peace.)

- NonE

NonEntity wrote:

That's why it's helpful to recognize that conversation is a team sport, not a one way street. We each have different maps in our heads and coordinating them is not a simple endeavor.

This post remark serves a classic example of an issue I too often find I have with AEnglish.

So first, thanks for reminding me... that this sort of "re" wording ticks me off!! Ok, it aggravates me. Cool

And OK, I realize AEnglish is largely a morphing language*, and that's mostly at the root of such as this.
But what's up with this "re" (and for another, "con") prefix aspect of Anglo+ish communication?!?
*[Middle English recognisen, "to resume possession of land, alteration" (influenced by Medieval Latin recognizre, "to recognize") of Old French reconoistre, reconoiss-, "to know again", from Latin recognscere : re-, /re-/ + cognscere, "to get to know"; see gn- in Indo-European roots.]

But 'fore I go on that rant, it proved interesting for me to examine how I (me "self") heard this (your?) word "recognize" initially, in reading your post; then how I re`con`sider'ed* it upon notation of it specifically, and then how I wondered about your (your) intent!

*[I mean, r-e-a-l-l-y!?! "re+con+sidered"?!?]

It seems this specific word, recognize, is 're+cognize', where one Author-ties it down with "cognition" as: "To know to be something that has been perceived before".

Interestingly, to me, is how this same Author+ity establishes the pronunciation: "rec'og·nize"
What does that "say"...(to the eye to hear / eye2here)? [is it similar to "rec'ord" and "re'cord"?]

Another classic example is the word "represent". So is it "re+present" -or- "repre+sent"? (or is it both?)
Where in "Court" U.S. it's Stated that one may "represent" themselves?!? (where I argue, in that realm, indeed, one re-presents their "self" akin to a weird duality/double-state of mind, for sure; because otherwise, how can one re'present/repre'sent/"represent" their present self/themselves?) scratch

To (attempt to) tie this back to mye tickness, is to see/hear it as considering two possibilities; perhaps re+presented as: "rec+ognize" versus "re+cognize" --the latter point being tied to yet another "re" word: "re+peat".
Because the word recognize can be (if, not most often is) taken as meaning "to become aware of (for the first time)", no? Back to one Author+ity: "To perceive or show acceptance of the validity or reality of"; "To approve of or appreciate"

Where it seems interesting, that in your usage, both definitions apply (imho). Yet I wonder how many would catch that?

Point I'm seeking to make being, though, that in context (the forum), it's more applicable as re+cognize ala re+mind, as re+peat the mental process perpetually (in each "con+versation"), rather than merely approved as valid (tho arguably, if it's valid, it's perpetually valuable). But how many ~~recognize~~ catch that?
[I mean, like, is there a limit to or re'striction upon having another word available to use... re'use!?]

I suppose tiz but the nature of the beast...

Now, about that re+mark/rem+ark... bounce

Number of posts: 2159 Registration date: 2007-09-20

I suppose, all other things aside, it would be fair to characterize my belief in the fundamental value of human liberty as an article of faith. Even if you could prove to me, beyond a shadow of a doubt (though I know this cannot be done) that the world would be more orderly, peaceful and prosperous under the watchful eyes of a totalitarian police state with absolute power to regulate every aspect of human life, I would still reject it as a violation of human freedom and dignity. We each deserve to have the opportunity to make a mess of our lives, or to reach our fullest potential, despite the jealousy, insecurity and other bad feelings it might inspire in others, or the substantial increase in material wealth it brings us compared to those less successful. Even if that's a super-ought, it is one I hold near and dear to my heart, and I seek to live among others who feel the same way.

So, all I have to say on the matter of libertarianism is: Amen, brother!

_________________
Please check out my blog!
Dylboznia

Number of posts: 628 Registration date: 2009-02-09

Here's an amen from the balcony. Well said brother! I couldn't agree more!

» junior and senior high religion curriculum
» Neumann Press 'Our Holy Faith' religion books.
» "Religion" section in profile
» The Deen (Religion) of Islam by Sheikh Muhammad Salih Ibn al-Uthaymeen
» Michael Josephson preaches the religion of self hatred but calls it "character counts"

Libertarianism as a fundamentalist religion

Libertarianism as a fundamentalist religion

Similar topics

Similar topics