EdenicFaithful
Dark Wizard of Ravenclaw
No bio...
User ID: 78
So, what are you reading?
I'm going through Freinacht's 12 Commandments for extraordinary people to master ordinary life, which came out recently. I think it suffers from the gimmick of being a response to Peterson's 12 Rules, because it doesn't put the effort into that aspect. In any case, so far it's the usual combination of saturated nice-guy sentiments underpinned by a deep materialism, and it is as interesting as ever to see how the two are reconciled in Hanzi's persona. The writing could use more restraint, but it seems to be improving.
You might like Ryosuke Takahashi's work. Dougram in particular, and maybe some parts of VOTOMS.
Great series. Expect a fair amount of caricature-level commanders and silly politicians to be a common thread in the stories. It's not all like that first battle, but it will recur, especially for side characters.
I've only watched one season of the new series/remake (Die Neue These), but it's actually not bad. It might be a classic in its own right. It has a kind of modern-yet-glacial pace which grows on you, like an old novel.
Hard derec of Marcus Aurelius' Meditations. It's a great book, but it's also one of the most repetitive books I've ever read, and it is bound to seem dull to some creative spirits. Not a good place to start IMO.
Don't have any recs myself, unfortunately, but you can try the IEP which has a handy bibliography at the bottom and sometimes includes short reviews. The SEP may also help, though it is usually more dense.
This is probably because population-level masking is more of a political than an evidence-based issue- values play a big role. And in any political issue, no matter how much people claim to be objective, factors such as "what the other side did" will always matter in judging the data, and in judging the proponents of particular interpretations of that data.
For this reason I find both sides of the flip-out to be lacking in self awareness. These kinds of conversations often begin with a friendly calm and end with both sides betraying each other without admitting to having done so, because somewhere along the line instinct and fuzzy memories took over without being noticed.
Thanks for that second link with the interview.
[interjects]… please do not call me an expert. I'm a guy who has worked in the field for some time. That has to be the message. I don't work with models, I don’t make predictions. I don't hassle people or chase them on social media. I don’t call them names… I'm a scientist. I work with data.
In the few I've read there's a fair amount of what I would call "essentialist" views, which argue that the scandals were in some ways directly related to the teachings of Zen. For example, one monk in particular reportedly claimed that since the incident took place in a private room, whether she says he touched her, or he says that she took his hand and made him touch her, are both just subjective views, and the paper (Zen Has No Morals) argued that this was encouraged by the Zen framework.
I'm typically skeptical of essentialist arguments related to bad behaviour, because religion is often just incomprehensibly crazy, but there it is.
Others have argued that Western Zen in particular has some unique issues in D. T. Suzuki's influence (something about far right sympathies), and of course there's talk about Zen during WWII. Another made an interesting claim that Western Zen has a debt to a non-mainstream form of Zen (Sanbokyodan) which did not have a proportional strength in Japan, though I haven't read far enough to know if this is considered a bad thing or just something that muddies the scholarship. The use of the term "new religion" which is often related to "cults" might set the tone, or it might not.
So, what are you reading?
Still on Watts' The Way of Zen. Also reading some essays on here critical of Zen. I'm a bit surprised at how recent the discussion is. For some reason I thought that all the robe-wearing men had their sex scandals long ago. It does appear that it was talked about in the 70s, though few consequences came from it.
So, what are you reading?
I'm still on Watts' The Way of Zen. So far his discussion of relativity has been clarifying.
Anything of note you didn't finish?
Too many.
-
Most impactful: Levy's Hackers. Clarifies a lot about the world we're living in.
-
Most important: Lucretius' On the Nature of Things, H. A. J. Munro's translation. Still not finished, but I'll be mulling this one for a long, long time.
-
Most useful: Ellis' Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy. It led me to E-Prime (I don't think it was actually mentioned in the book), which has had much use in my life. Also, Ellis' thoroughly calm viewpoint was an example to all. The book itself could have been better, but was not bad as far as I got.
-
Best written: Chandler's The Big Sleep. "Masterful" doesn't even begin to describe it. This is a man's book. I'll add Thurman's Jesus and the Disinherited. It's the kind of book which reminds you why preachers exist.
-
Most memorable: Freinacht's The Listening Society. Something didn't work in his conclusions, but the structure of his thoughts follows me.
-
Glad I forced myself: More's Utopia. The creeping conformity and obedience which I saw in the beginning went full circle by the end, and it became odd, charming and disturbingly striking. There's an ethos there.
-
Most reread: DaystarEld's Pokemon: The Origin of Species. This man ought to be famous, rich and have an anime. Still ongoing.
-
#1 Should finish: Vinge's A Fire Upon the Deep. The conversation with the trees about AI risk has remained in my mind, as someone who doesn't usually get anxious about those things. Very unsettling. Feels like a source for unconsciously absorbing best practices.
He's a little arrogant, and way too confident. There's a strong feeling that I'm missing the implications, much like how one feels when he studies mathematics above his level of understanding. But I feel a lot of sympathy for the broad outlines of his project, minus the materialist assumptions.
The old dictum that we 'are' animals leaves us hopeless, but if we merely copy animals in our nervous responses, we can stop it, and the hopeless becomes very hopeful, provided we can discover a physiological difference in these reactions. Thus we are provided with a definite and promising program for an investigation.
If I had to summarize what I've personally gained so far from ideas in the General Semantics sphere, it is the idea that the ability to say too much in too few words may explain many psychological problems of self-regulation. I have started saying more often things like "I don't know" instead of "I'm not sure," "I should" instead of "I must" ("I must" implies that if one fails, he is broken with no possibility of redemption. After all, it wasn't a question of whether I wanted to do it or not- it had to be done, no mitigating factors existed, and therefore no investigation of such factors is warranted. "I should" constantly raises the question of why "I didn't," and impels the search for answers.) and "the likely outcome" rather than "it will happen."
So, what are you reading?
I'm still on Korzybski. Haven't made much progress.
As I understand it, it refers to the response, which is conditional on personal (non-verbal?) meanings applied to an event. An example might be if someone sees a criminal and says "he believes in law and order." A verbalistic/"elementalistic" analysis wouldn't be able to understand how such a semantic reaction is formed.
Though to be honest, Korzybski is quite confusing, so I possibly misunderstood. I just think it's a neat term for the relationship between map and territory (Korzybski coined the phrase) when specifically talking about how people respond to things.
For clarity, it isn't just mismatched reactions, it's any reaction. One of his goals was to teach "extensional" semantic reactions (ie. non-elemental, multi-level) such as more use of words like "I don't know," I have run into some of this in my experiments with E-Prime. I ended up using a lot more of the phrase "I don't know at present" rather than things that let one off the hook like "I'm not sure" (which often implies that I have an idea and knowledge is just around the corner, and does so without explicitly trying to justify that claim).
So, what are you reading?
I'm still on Korzybski's Science and Sanity. I haven't managed to wrap my head around all the implications of his system, but Korzybski had an interesting project. In his view, the reason why people have not caught up to science is related to our conception of language. I've started adopting the term "semantic reaction" to describe people's understanding or lack of understanding of what underlying structure they are referring to when they speak. God knows I could do better in that regard.
Happy New Year! So, what are you reading?
I'm on Korzybski's Science and Sanity. E-Prime has had a surprising effectiveness for me, and I have been interested in any links between Korzybski's system and Zen. I can already see that I'll find a lot that I won't agree with, but maybe I'll find some useful clues. General Semantics attempts a "non-aristotelean" way of thinking which is supposedly more harmonious with new sciences like quantum mechanics. It is one of those systems which didn't really take over the world, but did have influence, and seems to have generated some interesting people.
1D protagonist and generic isn't what I remember about it at all, so I'm sure you won't regret sticking with it for a little longer. However it was incredibly long and the author evidently didn't care about any pace other than her own, so I never actually finished it. It switches from intensely emotional stretches to lulls as if there's no difference between the two in the author's mind.
Don't worry, Foundation soon becomes bombastic. But it also loses focus long before the end. Uneven but great.
Merry Christmas, everyone. So, what are you reading?
I'm starting Balaji Srinivasan's The Network State. From skimming it, it looks like it touches on lots of contemporary things.
So, what are you reading?
I'm still on Lucretius' On the Nature of Things, and also flipping through whatever vaguely Christian books happen to be in arm's length.
Munro's translation is highly regarded and I haven't had a reason to regret the choice. I tried a poem form and while it was striking it didn't keep me interested. There's just too many ideas in there, and the essay format is perfect.
I don't know what the best poem version is, but I do remember that Anthony Esolen's version was regarded well.
So, what are you reading?
I'm trying to finish Lucretius' On the Nature of Things, H. A. J. Munro's prose translation. I stopped at Book 5 (each "book" is small) last time, it got a little repetitive. It has to be one of the most profound books I have read, regardless of how much I disagree with its materialism.
This Epicurean tract distills the best of all that might resemble scientific humanism, and I felt that it revealed a lot that was hidden from view due to its unfailing self-awareness. Lucretius, you see, tells his philosophy in poetry because he intends to lessen the blow, the same way that one might sweeten an unpleasant but necessary medicine. It's a fine way to get into the aesthetics behind the humanist mind.
If you have ever doubted that atheism and materialism can be beautiful, inspiring and wise, this is essential reading.
I haven't used it, but if they fed it libraries and historical documents, it could bring to light a lot of information which no-one has the time to go through. Frankly I'm more worried about the downsides for now though.
Yeah, Gladwell's monologue near the end was an incredible display of compartmentalism. He really didn't seem to realize what he was saying.
I don’t mean to make light of it at all, but it is one that makes me a little uncomfortable. Because I don’t think that you can ultimately say that trust in institutions is reserved solely for institutions that perfectly match the characteristics of the general population. It is like saying that we don’t trust kindergarten teachers, because kindergarten teachers are over-represented with people having an enormous amount of patience for the temper tantrums of four year olds. I mean they are an extraordinary and very specific subgroup of the population that performs very well in that particular task more generally.
Murray's objections about the disorderly manner they conduct their thoughts was spot on.
As sympathetic as I am to this point of view, you're waving away too many possibilities in too glib a manner. For example, Chalmers' idea that there could be rules which manage whether a structure comes with consciousness. If this were the case, then even if a structure won't intrinsically have qualia, the laws of nature might assign it anyways. Not to mention the entire idea of panpsychism.
It seems wise not to assume that the non-materialist perspective is itself less ambiguous than the materialist one. As far as I know, no consensus exists.
More options
Context Copy link