site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  3yr ago (text post)   34296 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 10, 2022

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

23
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

What is "topology" in this context?

It's clearly a reference to (geometric but perhaps also algebraic/differential) topology, but he wrote the word in English, which seemingly communicates sarcasm. I believe he didn't mean the genuine application of those mathematical domains to plain word games covered by the rest of the paragraph. It is possible that this is a nod to Lacan style postmodernism. Consider this passage from Alain Sokal & Jean Brickmont's Fashionable Nonsense:

These authors speak with a self-assurance that far outstrips their scientific competence: Lacan boasts of using “the most re­cent development in topology” (pp. 21-22) and Latour asks whether he has taught anything to Einstein (p. 131). They imag­ine, perhaps, that they can exploit the prestige of the natural sci­ences in order to give their own discourse a veneer of rigor. And they seem confident that no one will notice their misuse of scientific concepts. No one is going to cry out that the king is naked. ... Lacan’s mathematical interests centered primarily on topology, the branch of mathematics dealing (among other things) with the properties of geometrical objects— surfaces, solids, and so forth— that remain unchanged when the object is deformed without being tom. (According to the classic joke, a topologist is unable to tell a doughnut from a coffee cup, as both are solid objects with a single hole.) Lacan’s writings contained some references to topology already in the 1950s; but the first extended (and publicly available) discussion goes back to a celebrated conference on The Languages of Criticism and the Sciences of Man, held at Johns Hopkins University in 1966. Here is an ex­cerpt from Lacan’s lecture:

This diagram [the Mobius strip17] can be considered the basis of a sort of essential inscription at the origin, in the knot which constitutes the subject. This goes much further than you may think at first, because you can search for the sort of surface able to receive such inscriptions. You can perhaps see that the sphere, that old symbol for totality, is unsuitable. A torus, a Klein bottle, a cross-cut surface18, are able to receive such a cut. And this diversity is very important as it explains many things about the structure of mental disease. If one can symbolize the subject by this fundamental cut, in the same way one can show that a cut on a torus corresponds to the neurotic subject, and on a cross-cut surface to another sort of mental disease. (Lacan 1970, pp. 192-193)

Jacques Lacan: Analogy to what? “S” designates some­ thing which can be written exactly as this S. And I have said that the “S” which designates the subject is instrument, mat­ ter, to symbolize a loss. A loss that you experience as a sub­ject (and myself also). In other words, this gap between one thing which has marked meanings and this other thing which is my actual discourse that I try to put in the place where you are, you as not another subject but as people that are able to understand me. Where is the analogon? Either this loss exists or it doesn’t exist. If it exists it is only possible to designate the loss by a system of symbols. In any case, the loss does not exist before this symbolization indicates its place. It is not an analogy. It is really in some part of the re­alities, this sort of torus. This torus really exists and it is ex­actly the structure of the neurotic. It is not an analogon; it is not even an abstraction, because an abstraction is some sort of diminution of reality, and I think it is reality itself. (Lacan 1970, pp. 195-196)

etc.

Was that it? Who knows. I can go and ask of course, but don't feel like it.

Somewhat off topic, his dirge to lost playgrounds has reminded me of this blogpost by Hugo de Garis. I thought there was something directly on topology there, but alas.

There is another main motive I have. I call it “Building CATHEDRALS of mathematical logic” The CTFSG is the most beautiful and most powerful piece of mathematics I have ever seen. I call it a cathedral of mathematical construction. It is dense, tight, enormous, extremely rich in structure (e.g. look at the Monster with its 10 to power 54 elements) and has the capacity, for anyone with a good math brain, to become totally engrossed by.

I notice, that when I get heavily involved with it, I begin to feel a happiness that ordinary living, with all its daily frustrations, does not evoke. This total engrossing provides enormous satisfaction as one masters the CTFSG step by step, absorbing and memorizing its huge pile of definitions, and then playing with them, to build massive mathematical structures, i.e. “cathedrals” of logic, mathematical logic.

I don't think advanced mathematics has been solved by computers...

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats