it’s.a live dilemma for a lot of people

:up: I only summarised what was in the original but yes you hit the nail on the head. One thought that occurs to me is that current culture has to dislodge itself from this ‘either/or’ dilemma - of either ‘God did it’ OR ‘it’s random chance’. (That too will resonate with @Gnomon). Although, I will add, often both sides of the ‘culture wars’ cling to a caricature of the idea of ‘Creator’, which the physicalists depict in terms of bad science, and the creationists as a super-engineer. I’m still hopeful there is a spiritual philosophy which can accomodate whatever facts are there to be discovered but still orient us towards the fundamental mysteriousness of existence.

I have family in Wisconsin. Lovely place, hope to be back there again in August. The political scene has been extremely fraught, beginning with Scott Walker who oversaw gerrymandering of the whole state and whose party basically attempted a silent coup. I'm really glad Tony Evers won in November.

I've quoted the work of Hubert Yockey in the last few days so won't copy it again, but you can read it here. The basic drift is, according to someone who appears to be a leading theorist, that there's an unbridgeable gap between the 'analog' processes of physics and chemistry, and the 'digital' processes of living systems. Read the excerpt for details. (And Yockey *was not* an apologist for ID, even though many of them tried to co-opt his work for their purposes.)

You might find the article I linked above of interest also. It's by a leading theorist of biosemiotics.

There's a lot in what Brooks says about nihilists. These MAGA lunatics are completely out of touch with reality. (What was the saying from a few years back, 'reality appears to have liberal bias?') It's true that Government indebtedness is a huge problem, but nobody in the advanced economies dare utter 'tax rises' even while their populations age and the expectation from public services continues to grow.

Default would be bad for government employees, Social Security and Medicare recipients, Disability program recipients, military employees, suppliers, and all the US bond holders around the world (like China) who might want to cash a few million of the bonds in. — BC

I've read that a US Bond Default would credibly cause a financial apocalypse, an 'all the banks are closed and there's no money' scenario. I think it's an exaggeration but not much of one.

Hey, well put.

:ok: Personal note: my dear departed father was a world-renowned Prof of gynae/obstets who was one of the generation of doctors that released the Pill. He was deeply involved in global plans to introduce birth control to India and Africa (I still remember his angry fulminations about Catholic opposition to birth control.) My family home was very much swinging sixties, so in a small way I was right in the middle of the sexual revolution. I suppose I became swept up by it, or carried along with it, in my teens (I was born the same year as Playboy magazine). I found it irresistible, but I also always felt guilty about it (not an uncommon plight.)

Anyway - one thing I have come out of it all with is, at least, awareness that there has been a 'sexual revolution'. A lot of people younger than me don't even know what it means. (Fish: 'what do you mean, "water"?) Sexual self-expression and identity have now become central to the modern idea of the person, almost an equivalent for religious affiliation (not least because 'sexual orientation' is now routinely checkboxed alongside 'religious affiliation' in all manner of application forms.) Sexual acts are now routinely treated not as procreative but recreation. Criticism of it is nearly always associated with fascism - on Dharmawheel forum, I ventured a post along these lines, and the response was a picture of Hitler and Goebels.

But my spiritual side tells me this is all based on a fallacious idea of freedom. The reasons why are deep and difficult to convey, but there it is. I sometimes reflect that this phase of what amounts to complete and total sexual freedom facilitated by advanced techology is an inevitable consequence of history, but I still recall a wise saying by one of my first spiritual teachers. 'It only exists', he said, 'in order to be overcome'.

:up: Thank you.

It makes sense to me to think of agnosticism as uncertainty concerning god (i.e. epoche)... which makes the religious and irreligious, fundies and secularists, theists and atheists, alike also agnostic as well. Is 'being agnostic simpliciter' even possible? I suppose Pyrrhonians think so ... — 180 Proof

If you go back to the origins of Pyrrhonian scepticism with Pyrrho of Elis, he is said to have voyaged to India (likely Gandhara, in the Swat Valley, straddling today's Afghanistan and Pakistan, then a major cultural center) where he spent some period of time with the 'gymnosophists' (naked philosophers i.e. ascetics) and Buddhists (specifically Mahāyāna in that time/location.) ¹ On his return he began to teach his doctrine of "non-assent to what is not evident", in pursuit of ataraxia - indifference or tranquility. This, it is said, was derived from the Buddhist principle of nirodha - cessation or turning away from attachments and sources of craving - in pursuit of release - mokṣa or Nirvāṇa - also epoché (suspension of judgement) which is compared to the Buddhist principle of emptiness (śūnyatā). Buddhists reject the existence of a personal creator god (Isvara) on the basis that we are authors of our own destiny (although as the tradition evolved a pantheon of demi-gods were later to appear in the form of celestial beings, past and future Buddhas and so on.) But the point behind all this is that this form of ancient scepticism was still firmly grounded in the pursuit of liberation from the cycle of birth and death. It was, from our modern perspective, still a religious philosophy, albeit grounded in a completely different kind of religious vision to the Biblical faiths (hence the interminable arguments about whether Buddhism really is a religion, or is a philosophy or way of life. That is because it doesn't fit within the implicit faultlines that have been carved into Western culture by history.)

Within that context, 'unknowing' or 'suspension of judgement' is not at all like what scepticism is taken to mean in day-to-day speech, although there are some overlaps. But the context makes a major difference. If you do one of the ten-day meditation retreats, all 'philosophising' is completely forbidden (although you're certainly allowed to raise questions about the difficulties you're having, which are often considerable.) The instruction is, invariably, pay attention to your breathing, watch your thinking processes as they arise and cease, but don't pursue them. That is what 'scepticism' means in that context. I'm also fairly sure it's close to what it meant for the early Greek sceptics and cynics.

I have often read criticism of porn based on it often depicting violence, real or simulated assault and apparently non-consensual sexual acts. But I happen to know that in a great deal of mainstream product, all involved look like they're consenting and willfully engaging. Does that mean, therefore, that in the absence of coercion and/or violence that these activities are morally wholesome?

The appetite for pornography seems insatiable. — Shawn

Took me decades to rid myself of tobacco. The adage that really struck me when trying to quit was 'one is too many, a thousand is not enough'. All addictions are like that. 'Insatiable' means 'incapable of satisfaction'. That should tell us something.

I wonder whether this "problem" is peculiarly American. Or perhaps Christian. — Ciceronianus

I vaguely recall a story some years ago to the effect that there was a very high concentration of porn searches from internet cafés and kiosks in Pakistan.

You do wonder what the effect must be of digital pornography suddenly appearing in cultures which had previously been characterised by extremely censorious and proscriptive sexual mores, where women are veiled and extramarital sex is punishable by death. It's a long way between that and the kind of sexuality that is routinely depicted in contemporary porn, which nowadays anyone in a remote rural village can access via their new smartphone. I can only imagine that the effects would be truly explosive. You do wonder if it is implicated in the so-called 'rape culture' of the sub-continent.

(I found a very balanced and lucid book on the effects of pornography in Indian culture, Pornistan.)

I'll refer to John Wheeler's paper, Law without Law:

The dependence of what is observed upon the choice of experimental arrangement made Einstein unhappy. It con­flicts with the view that the universe exists "out there'' inde­pendent of all acts of observation. In contrast Bohr stressed that we confront here an inescapable new feature of nature, to be welcomed because of the understanding it gives us. In struggling to make clear to Einstein the central point as he saw it, Bohr found himself forced to introduce the word "phenomenon."' In today's words Bohr's point - and the central point of quantum theory - can be put into a single, simple sentence. "No elementary phenomenon is a phenom­enon until it is a registered (observed) phenomenon."

That's what I think the various many-worlds interpretations are rejecting. They view the lacuna at the bottom of the whole process as meaning that quantum theory itself is forever incomplete. I'm sure that's why Deutsch says that sans 'many worlds', we don't have a theory. They're wanting to hold on to what they consider scientific realism, albeit at the cost of 'splitting the universe'. It really is a philosophical problem, about not being able to deal with the fact that there is something fundamental that we can't know.

Apart from that, I can only refer back to the earlier quote I provided from QBism in this post.

Inly in respect if the question of how life originated. In all other respects it’s a perfectly naturalistic theory. We might never know how life originated.

The familiar problem that we all try to solve is why is there this unitary evolution of quantum mechanics which seems to explain everything very naturally and, all of a sudden, during a measurement this evolution has to be reduced, collapsed in the Copenhagen interpretation and that's I think something that David doesn't like — Are There Many Worlds? David Deutsch in conversation with Markus Arndt

That's the crux. To avoid the 'observer effect'.

I put this question to NoAxioms but he wasn't sure how to respond, so I'll try again, as you seem to have insight into this area.

On face value, the many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics seems the opposite of parsimomious. It seems to say that the world or universe splits or divides at the point of measurement or observation of a sub-atomic particle. So the question is, what problem does the interpretation of quantum physics try to solve? What would its proponents such as Wallace and Deutsch be obliged to acknowledge (apart from the obvious fact that they were mistaken), if by some means it was shown to be untenable?

Deutsch's proposed experiment would implement the Wigner's Friend thought experiment. — Andrew M

I had read that this had been done in 2019.

if you can have multiple singularities, you'll need to change the name.

It's OK with the women wearing shoes. Not the men, though. The first is titillating, the latter merely vulgar.

Sure. But I don’t regard what it turned out as particularly brilliant, merely competent. It helped me because I had those specific questions. It’s no substitute for doing the reading but it’s a helpful aide.

There is definitely a thrill of transgression. It has to be knowingly wicked.

Actually that reminds of a legend about Kerry Packer, once upon a time Australia’s richest man and a notoriously huge gambler. He said something along the lines that if a loss isn’t really going to hurt, then you’re not really gambling.

Somehow, there’s a connection.

I get how a lot of people just don't get how it can be a problem. I've never really understood how anyone can get addicted to gamblng, but people loose their careers, homes and go to jail over it. And we can't loose sight of the fact that the free and to all intents unlimited access to an endless variety of highly realist imagery is completely novel.

What is more alarming than 12 year olds looking at pornography, is 12 year olds looking at pornography without having had any education in sexuality--personal sexuality, and interpersonal sexuality. — BC

I have read numerous times over the last several years that the vast majority of children have been exposed to pornography before age 12, and that it comprises their only detailed information source. I also don't buy the 'moral equivalence' argument that all habits are in some ways the same. Yes, they're all habits, but heroin addiction and gambling addiction are vastly more problematical than, say, watching soap operas.

I've been aware of a recent book by a journalist by the name of Louis Perry, who recently published The Case against the Sexual Revolution.

Although it would be neither possible nor desirable to turn the clock back to a world of pre-60s sexual mores, she argues that the amoral libertinism and callous disenchantment of liberal feminism and our contemporary hypersexualised culture represent more loss than gain. The main winners from a world of rough sex, hook-up culture and ubiquitous porn – where anything goes and only consent matters – are a tiny minority of high-status men, not the women forced to accommodate the excesses of male lust. While dispensing sage advice to the generations paying the price for these excesses, she makes a passionate case for a new sexual culture built around dignity, virtue and restraint.

Sounds instant troll bait, but she handles herself exceedingly well in online interviews and has quite a reputation:

Scarily good. I think it's going to make the internet revolution look quaint by comparison.

Old-school Buddhism - traditional forms - are just as puritanical about sexuality as Christians or Muslims. Then there's Western Buddhism, which came in as part of the hippie trail and the counter-culture - completely different attitude. You tell a lot of people 'hey I'm interested in Buddhism', they'll say, 'yeah, Tantric', with a salacious wink. And there have been many scandals in those circles, one high-profile international Buddhist teacher being forced into exile for repeatedly abusing students. Caused a lot of grief amongst many high-flying followers in business and cultural circles.

One of the reasons I left dharmawheel, where I used to post, was I posted about what I saw as the tension (not to say actual conflict) between sexual and spiritual liberation. Might as well have casually strode into the building and set off a 44 gallon drum full of TNT. Did not end well. I left.

Has anyone mentioned the Kama Sutra? — Agent Smith

I really don't think it's relevant to a discussion of pornography, in particular. Sullies it.

I watched a powerful youtube doco on it last night, you can find it here. Cutting edge.

I first saw actual hardcore aged, I think, 19, when an incredibly vulgar full-page photo was printed in a student newspaper in defiance of obscenity laws. I regret to say I was electrified by it, although at that time (early 70’s) it was still impossible to get hold of. Then I went to Amsterdam, awash with porn stores, followed by Copenhagen, in 1973 and saw Deep Throat which was - how to say - something you can’t un-see. I don’t want to go too deeply into personal experience other than to acknowledge that I instantly became habituated, and that I regret it and think that I would have been a better man had I not become so.

Atheism mistakes spiritual with religion. — Agent Smith

As I say - it's one of the consequences of the way Western thought, in particular, evolved. Because Christian orthodoxy absorbed so much of so-called pagan philosophy, and then made it subject to right belief, all of it tends to be lumped together and then abandoned together. The Indian view is very different.

...according to science... — Shawn

How is it a scientific issue? Why are such questions to be arbitrated by scientific methods, and by what criteria?

And more to the point, I'm certain there are a great many peer-reviewed journal articles from sociology, social psychology and more on the harms and effects of exposure to pornography. I do notice the odd soul-searching kind of article in the Australian media I read, but it's usually counter-balanced by the overall libertarian attitude of Western media for whom all such questions are non-negotiably a matter of individual predeliction.

Was it Comte who said that he wasn't an atheist on the grounds that it took the idea of god too seriously? — Tom Storm

'I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar…' ~ The Great Moustache

My main complaint against atheism - and bear in mind, to many religious types, I myself would be categorised atheist - is that it casts its net too wide. And that's because in the history of Western culture, Christian theology absorbed (not to say appropriated) most of what was of value from the pre-existing cultural tradition, particularly Greek philosophy. So in throwing out religion, atheism usually always throws out the indigenous 'wisdom tradition' of Western culture with it, and ends with a complete acceptance of, and reliance on, the 'testimony of the senses' and omits what is described as the sapiential dimension of human existence.

Interesting note: the original humanists of the Italian Renaissance were often in trouble with the Church, for predictable reasons - but they were not, in today's terms, atheist or materialist in outlook.

I guess so. I wrote in another thread that I recently re-discovered David Crosby, who died just the other day, of Crosby Still and Nash fame. He had long periods of quiescence, but in his last ten years made a number of albums with various collaborators, across a diverse range of styles and sounds. I don't like all the songs, but I'm impressed with how he kept coming up with new ideas instead of simply falling back on his greatest hits and tried-and-true techniques.

I recall reading that one of the things that drove Coltrane to his early death from heart attack was the requirement to keep creating something entirely new. Jazz at the time was in a period of frenetic evolution, with a handful of supremely talented individuals constantly trying to come up with the next big thing. Maybe the quest for novelty is one of the faces of the 'creative destruction' that characterises modern culture.

I've come to the sad conclusion that there's far too much popular music. I recall seeing, about 20 years ago, auditions for one of those TV talent shows - Voice, or something - with people literaly lined around the block to audition. A lot of them couldn't sing for shit, they were complete no-talents, but they were convinced they were Going To Be A Star. There are literally billions of these people. Probably, some thousands of them are actually talented, and some smaller number again are exceptional, but there's so much content, so much noise, that they're almost impossible to discern.

I actually write songs myself (see here) at one stage I thought they might have commercial potential, but long ago came to the realisation that it was not to be. But in the process, I learned to use LogicPro, which is the Apple music production platform, and it's utterly phenomenal. You can create any kind of ensemble, any kind of instrumentation, anything from a small band to a symphony orchestra - it has millions of loops of pre-made riffs and sounds and all manner of instruments. Utterly incredible. But there are probably tens of millions, and maybe hundreds of millions, of people with these tools now, all vying for attention and trying to find an audience.

Sometimes, I imagine what life would be like for performing musicians if there were no recorded or digitally-produced music. You as a listener could only hear music if you went to a venue and listened. It would be a vastly different world. Instead now it's being thrown at you from speakers in all the stores, we're literally drowning in it. All that said, still love music, but I'm a grand-dad now, and feel much the same about music today as my grand-dad did when I was a teen.

Huge problem. Any child with a digital phone or tablet device, anywhere in the democratic world (and in the absence of parental control software), now has instaneous access to an unlimited array of pornographic media through the same device they're supposed to use for homework. How can that *not* have an effect? There has been a lot of media coverage on the effects this is having on teen sexual problems, expectations of how girls ought to behave during sex, and what sex actually comprises. There are 'no-fap' websites completely populated by people, mainly men but also some women, desperately trying to de-habituate themselves to repetitive behaviours around pornography which frequently results in the inability to really engage in mature erotic relationships. It's all the work of the devil, although criticizing porn on the internet is like criticizing beer in a pub.

And if reality can be merely real, can something else can be more than real? — Pantagruel

Thanks for that example. That passage is clearly a poignant reflection on mortality, but I will have to continue to explore that theme, sans Proust.

I've been on a David Crosby bender since last year, when my dear other and I discovered his last album, and more to the point, his last single, with the inimitable Michael McDonald on backing vocals, produced by his once-adopted and subsequently re-united son/co-writer/producer James Raymond. This became our Single of the Year, we played it on countless road trips.

Love this song :heart: :heart: :heart:

It should not be an issue. Newt Gingrich was the malevolence that started this entirely inane and destructive tactic in modern American politics. Everyone should be clear that raising the debt ceiling is a legislative requirement that is required to cover the debts incurred by all Federal governments, be they Republican or Democrat. Using that requirement to try and bludgeon any current government into cutting so-called 'excessive spending' is completely illegitimate, a form of political blackmail. If the Republicans really want to cut programs, fine, let them run on it, and win the election and implement it. But as is amply documented, if this gamesmanship really did result in a US default, then it would make the Great Depression seem like a walk in the park. However I'm cautiously optimistic that the whole gambit will in the end only result in further humiliation and estrangement for the lunatic MAGA clownshow and that sanity will prevail before disaster. (After all, McConnell assured the media just the other day that 'America will always pay its debts'.)

It should also be recalled the one of the last installments of this political insanity actually increased the overall Government debt, AND contributed greatly towards Republican losses in the subsequent elections. But then, it's no use trying to explain the obvious to those unable to understand it.

Right, although he’s long since cut his hair.

The more serious issue is that of explanatory frameworks. You and I have often discussed that, and I seem to recall you often saying that science is really the only credible public framework for such discussion, with other perspectives being designated 'poetic' - noble and edifying but essentially personal. But then, I guess that's part of the cultural dilemma of modernity, of which Chalmers and Dennett are two protagonists.

I've just been perusing the book from which the oft-quoted expression of 'Cartesian anxiety' is drawn. It is a 1986 book 'Beyond Objectivism and Relativism: Science, Hermeneutics and Praxis', by Richard J Bernstein (only died July last, see this touching obituary). It's a hell of a slog, but I think I'll persist with it, as it addresses just these themes from a cosmopolitan point of view - his main foils include Gadamer, Habermas and Hannah Arendt so he's not solely focussed on the Anglosphere (which is by and large a philosophical wasteland in my view.)