The (lack of the) Mysterious

[Mr. Tea]

I'm sure the weretigers of Borneo will appreciate Zhao's "eclectic" DJ sets, anyway.

hotter than the sexy robot, even.

Is it me or is Dissensus turning into The Mighty Boosh?

 

[massrock]

Don't waste mine with your typically poorly worded, vague posts full of 8th-grade caliber discussion points.

I see. Well not to belabour this, and recognising that there is no requirement to justify or explain for your sake, it does kind of amuse me to do so and might even be useful, so...

That post, you see, employed the device of an informal, gently mocking and slightly self-effacing tone. Indeed this was partly in reflexive acknowledgement of the state of the discussion at that point and with awareness of what could usefully be contributed.* It also, I must confess, utilised elements of not only deadpan humour but metaphor as well, so I can see how you might have had trouble parsing the subtler intent and meta level of comment. Not that I was aiming for subtle.

* I think it's clear to anyone with a bit of sense and/or disheartening experience that there are limitations to what can fruitfully be tabled in the context of an internet discussion board with its attendant political karma and cast of characters, not to say this one isn't better than many. Hence the near inevitable descent into horseplay, surrealism and/or flame-war of many threads, perhaps especially some of the most potentially interesting ones. A bit of a shame maybe but there you go. Now fuck off, ya dummkopf.

 

[massrock]

I think what is required is a der-brain smiley. That and a shrug smiley. I believe these in combination could save a lot of time and unpleasantness.

 

[luka]

The tags list for this thread includes "sweaty anal sex" (is there any other kind?) and "broad cumbucket". Now THAT'S mystery.

thought i should make a contribution, no matter how small....

 

[zhao]

it is sometimes telling which points people choose to side step:

Actually people like Richard Dawkins do seem to have a marked hostility towards the mysterious and the irrational.

... spend too much time railing against his perceived ideological enemies - Blake and various others who advocated a romantic, anti-science position.

it is this neo liberal fear of what they perceive to be as the irrational, and dismissal of any value to spiritual teachings, which i think is deeply problematic and worrying.

(edit)

it is people like this who paint an absurd dichotomy in their simplistic model of the universe based on ignorance and fear.

i have always maintained that science and spirituality are not mutually exclusive. especially since last century quantum mechanics has been describing a universe of energy patterns, making us question the usefulness of distinctions such as the one between the "animate" and "inanimate", and so on. and i think as science advances, we will see more of a convergence between its fields and ancient teachings, some of which well in the area of "superstition".

and laughable are the silly buggers in this thread who get all worked up when i say stuff like this. they are so insecure that they get rude and resort to mud slinging and name calling in their childish attempts to discredit me.

whether the above is complete nonsense or not, why are you getting all huffy and puffy about it? if i really am just some smug idiot who knows not what he is talking about, why are you going blue in the face trying to dismiss my points? why are you wasting your time at all?

i guess you are so emotionally invested in a particularly rigid definition of "science" that you feel like you have to defend it against "spiritualists" like me. LOL.

 

[zhao]

I'm sure the weretigers of Borneo will appreciate Zhao's "eclectic" DJ sets, anyway.

just one minor example of how these people childishly attempt to belittle and condescend.

i'm sure they would like my dj sets, padraig, and for your info, so does Kode9.

 

[baboon2004]

"bring back more ritual
go about life and fun with more of a trickster mentality
dress up as demons not on holloween
do inexplicable things without explanation
flash mobs
improvised music outside of concert halls
spontaneous dancing in public places
unplanned concerts
dadaist crazy shit
weird public sculptures
unofficial performance art
creativity outside official channels..."

for most of these - rave culture in the UK??

 

[DannyL]

Not much of that is incompatible with a fundamentally rationalist outlook, IMO. Part of the problem with this thread has been the equation of 'scientific rationalism' (or empiricism or whatever) with staidness, lack of imagination, lack of a sense of fun, materialism, urbanism, all that sort of stuff.

This comes back to something Tea quoted in his first post - "isn't it enough to see that the garden is beatiful, without pretending that there are fairies at the bottom of it..."

You could always cultivate a relationship (talking with them, leaving offerings) with the fairies, acknowledging that they may not be real, as a way of deepening your relationship with the garden:

http://www.redsandstonehill.net/theart.html

 

[DannyL]

William Blake is a threat to humanity? he who inspired countless writers, poets, artists, film makers that stretch across the centuries? his work is standing in the way of progress? I'm sure if Dawkins had his way all those paintings and poetry would be burnt. all of Tarkovsky's films and all the amazing Islamic architecture destroyed

He doesn't ever say Blake's a threat to humanity. Neither does he advocate the destruction of art and culture. You really are putting words in his mouth.

 

[zhao]

William Blake is a threat to humanity? he who inspired countless writers, poets, artists, film makers that stretch across the centuries? his work is standing in the way of progress? I'm sure if Dawkins had his way all those paintings and poetry would be burnt. all of Tarkovsky's films and all the amazing Islamic architecture destroyed

He doesn't ever say Blake's a threat to humanity. Neither does he advocate the destruction of art and culture. You really are putting words in his mouth.

ok i may have been exaggerating. but he is certainly against what Blake stands for, and sees him and those like him, as you yourself said, as "ideological enemies".

 

[pattycakes_]

i have always maintained that science and spirituality are not mutually exclusive. especially since last century quantum mechanics has been describing a universe of energy patterns, making us question the usefulness of distinctions such as the one between the "animate" and "inanimate", and so on. and i think as science advances, we will see more of a convergence between its fields and ancient teachings, some of which well in the area of "superstition".

Zhao, have you ever come across a book called The Music of Life by sufi Hazarat Inayat Khan? If you're into this^ stuff then I think it might be right up your alley. He talks a lot about science, mysticism and spirituality via music. I couldn't recommend it highly enough.

1 2 3

he has some other books too but this is the only one i've read.

 

[nomadthethird]

What business is it of yours at which point I choose to contribute to a thread? Is there a schedule?

As with any other reasonable person what I say and think will probably at times be in partial or complete agreement with the opinions of others. Er, why the fucking fuck not?

The point in this case, as if it needs justifying to you in any way, is, in part, to offer my take on the discussion and to lend support to a point of view in my way, just as others have. I think that's often how group debates work towards some kind of resolution or a clearer understanding - similar things may be expressed a number of different ways and approached from different angles. But again what fucking business of yours is it how I or anyone else chooses to contribute here, unfounded personal attacks aside?

Actually I was of course paraphrasing what I myself had already said. Which is funny because when I did say what was essentially the same thing then, you described it as "Not even sort of true. Not even vaguely true. Full of a bunch of tired strawmen.", without any kind of explanation or engagement. Now it's what everyone is saying, hmm.

Your original response was pointless and almost entirely nonsensical and you know it so now you're pathetically lashing out. You could have just ignored my post, or even read it properly but you had to type some cheap useless dismissive reply before even thinking and now you're crying and acting like a dickhead.

So it's kind of amusing that while my original post was more or less taking issue with what the OP (who you've disagreed with throughout this thread) seemed to be getting at, you've sort of lent support to his argument. Well of course you haven't really, but it does demonstrate for the billionth time how sometimes people aren't really engaging with what's on the page in these discussions, just busy fighting phantom enemies or perpetuating old grudges.

So let me get this straight, somehow according to you I am in some special category where I may not express a similar opinion to other people and agree with them? I'll try and be more consistently contrarian in future.

You've got problems. And don't worry I absolutely realise this is in no way 'a new insight that people just don't get'.

A pattern you think you see.

But then I suppose we do all have our patterns of behaviour, eh yesmad?

First, you've posted far more than your fair share of quick and dismissive posts. Plenty of them. So where you get off acting all huffy about that... I don't know. You also post about seven or eight nonsense posts to every one that makes any kind of sense. Your posts read like they're made by someone who is severely stoned or something.

And no, Massrock, what you said in your first post in this thread, the first two-thirds of it, was just patently false. I could go through and explain why, or you could think about why this might be the case on your own, in light of all the things that have already been stated and suggested in the thread. If you *really* need me to hold your hand through that, I will. But let's save some time and effort for everyone and let YOU do some of the work, shall we?

"Crying"...huh? What? Being a "dickhead"...maybe. I'm telling you I don't like you as a poster. I never have. I don't think you're as charming as you think you are, and I think every thread you contribute to devolves rapidly into shit like this. I don't pretend to be charming, or friendly. I just say what I mean.

And, of course, I see you've gone to your plan C: there's nothing clever or subtle about anything you've said here, although that's usually what you claim when anybody questions what you've said.

 

[nomadthethird]

just one minor example of how these people childishly attempt to belittle and condescend.

Zhao, would you like me to cut and paste all of your "belittlings" of everyone else from this thread? They outnumber everyone else's by a long shot, I think. Pretty impressive, given how many people ganged up on you for this one.

 

[zhao]

Zhao, have you ever come across a book called The Music of Life by sufi Hazarat Inayat Khan? If you're into this^ stuff then I think it might be right up your alley. He talks a lot about science, mysticism and spirituality via music. I couldn't recommend it highly enough.

1 2 3

he has some other books too but this is the only one i've read.

wow wow wow this looks amazing! thanks!

Pretty impressive, given how many people ganged up on you for this one.

as someone just noted in a PM, it's always the same few people who take issue with my posts: you, Tea, Padraig, and a couple more less vocal ones.

i guess you people have a problem with my "tone". which admitted can be strong, but it's to make a point, usually in opposition to what i perceive as injustice.

i make bold statements, yes, that is right. and i'm not going to apologize for or stop making them.

 

[massrock]

And today at the special olympics...

what you said in your first post in this thread, the first two-thirds of it, was just patently false.

Or as you put it earlier,

Not even sort of true. Not even vaguely true. Full of a bunch of tired strawmen.

Let's see, can your statements, aside from their inaccuracy, even be said to make actual sense in the context?

The first third of that post consists of one personal subjective statement and one multiple choice question addressed to the OP's position, which I guess by implication are together rhetorically asking if there is really a dichotomy here. So I would say that logically neither of these types of sentence are things you can meaningfully call 'untrue'. Nor I believe can we identify any viable candidates for the title of 'strawman'.

The second third is basically a statement to the effect that while science provides us with more and more useful models and systems for working with and predicting phenomena, there remain as always many places to find mystery and wonder if you wish to. Would you care this time to outline how you interpret this as 'not even vaguely true' or identify where you see your 'strawmen'? Preferably without relying on petty hair splitting semantic squabbling. Or shall we just save time and agree that you were talking out of your arse?

Finally for the sake of completeness let's consider the third part of that post. This was a borrowed metaphor, I suppose saying something about the ever expanding or fractal nature of knowledge. We can of course question the relative veracity of this idea, I've got no problem with doing that, you might for instance believe that one day 'we' will know all there is to know. Maybe you think you do already.

 

[massrock]

Could it be, nomad, while we are getting personal, that your thinking is sometimes characterised by an overly polarised style that has trouble finding conceptual space for ambiguity, 'vagueness' and metaphor? Kind of seems that way. Or is it just that you were getting het up because you thought somebody might yet again be blaspheming against your religion? Don't kid yourself that you are representative of good scientific attitudes when you come out with that stuff, or that I am in any way criticising 'scientists' or denying the value of the application of science, heck I use it myself! I don't see that zhao has been either, incidentally, contra some of the defensive responses on this thread.

 

[baboon2004]

Is it me or is Dissensus turning into The Mighty Boosh?

nope, it's turning into rent-a-cyber-argument

 

[nomadthethird]

nope, it's turning into rent-a-cyber-argument

Where if Zhao doesn't Godwin a thread within the first few posts, he Blake's Laws it to death.

 

[nomadthethird]

Could it be, nomad, while we are getting personal, that your thinking is sometimes characterised by an overly polarised style that has trouble finding conceptual space for ambiguity, 'vagueness' and metaphor? Kind of seems that way. Or is it just that you were getting het up because you thought somebody might yet again be blaspheming against your religion? Don't kid yourself that you are representative of good scientific attitudes when you come out with that stuff, or that I am in any way criticising 'scientists' or denying the value of the application of science, heck I use it myself! I don't see that zhao has been either, incidentally, contra some of the defensive responses on this thread.

Could it be that I can actually make arguments in a clear manner that makes some kind of sense while some people think equivocation and ambiguity is somehow tantamount to profundity?

I am not "het" up, I just don't like you. You come into a thread that has a bunch of good posts with actually pointed claims and clear, concise arguments in them and post this:

I'm finding it hard to see what the issue in this thread is exactly. Is it do with 'mysteries', or 'a sense of wonder', or with what is and isn't considered 'real'?

Cos obviously science has been trying quite hard to make mysteries go away for a long time and that's quite useful but at the same time there are obviously loads of gaps in what can be 'explained' by 'science'.

The "issues" in the thread are very clear. Crystal clear. Zhao is thinking in binaries. He is accusing people who do not subscribe to his particular brand of New Ageism of being x, y, and z. (Usually "brainwashed" is his favorite...) He has quite a long history of tantrums to this effect. And of cyber-stalking people in an attempt to evangelize them in the ways of Exoticizing the Other.

Science has not been trying to make "mysteries" go away, per se. It's been trying to examine the natural world. If some things people previously thought were mysterious have happened to be debunked, it's not because science is overdetermined in favor of debunking mysteries, although, yes, I realize this is what the tard brigade insists MUST be true of scientists.

Even all the Sagan exhibits A, B, and C in the world notwithstanding.

 

[nomadthethird]

I am in any way criticising 'scientists' or denying the value of the application of science, heck I use it myself! I don't see that zhao has been either, incidentally, contra some of the defensive responses on this thread.

I don't give a damn whether you "deny the value of science." I really couldn't care less. But Zhao was on here purposely trying to rankle people, he JUST admitted as much when he said this:

i make bold statements, yes, that is right. and i'm not going to apologize for or stop making them.

No, they're not bold, they're asinine, to borrow a word from Padraig. If you're going to make "bold" statements, be prepared to get "bold" ones in return.

As for Zhao not "denying" the value of what he perceives to be a "rationalist" way of looking at things, here are some quotes from this thread alone. (There are plenty more where this came from.)

and it is very much a product of the dark ages from which europe only emerged recently: this fear of the irrational and your, and Dawkin's, and Mr Tea's, and many other "progressives"' negative attitudes toward anything mystical and even denial of the "spiritual dimension".

the problem with the Dawkins' severely stunted world view, is that while making sound criticism of certain modern and indeed fucked up kinds of irrationalism, it denies the existence of the mystical dimension of existence, and its central importance in the life of humans.

there is a very sad, in the melancholic sense, breed of "progressives" whose experience of life is entirely limited to the rationalist upbringing that has shaped them, and are incapable of imagining other ways of life as being anything legitimate, much less desirable.

but the real thing exists. and i feel sorry for those who don't realize that it does.
you people will likely continue ignore what I'm saying, refuse to address important points like you did my response to Gavin above, and insist on having parallel conversations. and i understand that this is because you are incapable of allowing for the possibility of reality being far more complex and bigger than your precious newtonian rationalist universe. shame.

typical western conceit born of ignorance and fear.

Oh yes, but you've got this thrown into the thread:

again, no one is saying scientists lack imagination.

Right after this was written:

breed of "progressives" whose experience of life is entirely limited to the rationalist upbringing that has shaped them, and are incapable of imagining other ways of life as being anything legitimate, much less desirable.

Sounds sorta like he's saying "rationalistical" scientists have no imagination here...