Ken your description of science as a golden child, made me think of the one ring to rule them all. Mathematicians are stuck using numbers as a tool to describe the universe, yet others attribute language as the base to describe reality, I believe that language provides a way to explain the numbers that really do contain the foundation of language and our universe. The two have to exist together in order for all of us to understand the world, the fluidity of our relationship with time can be explained, that little more than what language and math give us is beyond my words, the ephemeral relationships we have with each other and the world around us, it is both within our realm to control, but just beyond attributing a physical connection to this dimension. Thank you both DC and Ken, peace.
27:30 re: ideas move in history like languages do. They (like everything that is) is simultaneously emanation & emergence. Languages & ideas evolve, but they also are spiritual realities that emanate & colonize the “lower”.
Languages are developed by social processes; Thomas Sowell (Conflict of Visions) gives a simple outline of social processes over rational articulation. (especially since the social process embody and contain data/information that isn't purely 'rational': "the heart has it's own rationality the head knows nothing about" - Pascal.) This is why Hayek thinks social justice is a meaningless term; how can distributed social processes be just? One has to anthropomorphize the collective (an abstraction): then claim the outcome of the social processes was planned and intentional. The outcomes were not planned; the outcome is thousands, if not millions, of variables (human choice) interacting in complex and dynamic ways. The modernity I/we are against is the inner logic(s) of society based on the diabolical. The inner logic(s) are the 'firmware' - the 'ontological givens' - the metaphysics, of a culture; very few individuals want to discuss the foundations we all stand on but barely think about (modern hatred/silence regarding metaphysics). The unquestioned reflexive inner logic(s) of society running on complex social networks ('banality of evil' - decentralized-diabocity); we see the effects but the cause remains unseen. We are too close to the inner logic(s) of modernity that we were socialized into. A socially given orientation to being; it's the air we breathe; we are too close to these logic(s) and they are too close to us (identity). Two people can be debating politics, screaming at each other, yet there is no proper communication. They are speaking the same language and there is inherent variations of definitions (often easy to notice and deal with). The greater problem is the massively different orientations relative to the 'ontological stance' - how one stands and responds to reality. Genesis comes to mind "Come, let us go down, and confuse their language there, so that they will not understand one another’s speech.” (Gen 11:7) Sacrificed clarity for brevity. Peace and Joy be with everyone.
If you say that modernity is about being taken out of any context and embededness, then isn't this just a consequence of philosophy? Philosophy focuses humans on the self and inner experience of concepts to which human mind has, allegedly, natural access. If humans have access to concepts and moral law, then context is useless, isn't it. This is why St. Thomas could write striking words that we learn philosophy not to know what people thought in the past but to know what is the truth about reality.
It seems you may be referring to Philosophy as understood by modern academics, broadly speaking. This is precisely inverted from what I mean when I say Philosophy, which is something like a life lived toward the Love of Wisdom. This is the ancient sense of Philosophy. I'm not sure if that addressed your question?
It's more of a question whether the error of philosophy is in the fact that it wants to have access to timeless and pastless truths in the form of "natural reason" that has by nature access to clear concepts and moral truths. In this sense philosophy attempts to take humans out of context and make them live with access to inner concepts at any moment, regardless of temporal context. This is why philosophy until really only Renaissance didn't value historiography at all.
Thanks David and Ken!
Agree about the sound😊
Almost done with this one.
Dang. I’m gonna forward these to everyone I think could benefit. These are excellent.❤
So glad to hear it! Thank you!
I’m just getting around to this series. Amazing
46:15 How the Good becomes subjective…👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
That which we find pleasure in is good, and that which we find pain in is evil.
Expedient analysis.
Ken your description of science as a golden child, made me think of the one ring to rule them all. Mathematicians are stuck using numbers as a tool to describe the universe, yet others attribute language as the base to describe reality, I believe that language provides a way to explain the numbers that really do contain the foundation of language and our universe. The two have to exist together in order for all of us to understand the world, the fluidity of our relationship with time can be explained, that little more than what language and math give us is beyond my words, the ephemeral relationships we have with each other and the world around us, it is both within our realm to control, but just beyond attributing a physical connection to this dimension. Thank you both DC and Ken, peace.
Fantastic to see you back together discussing this wonderful subject and book. Thanks to you both 🙏
27:30 re: ideas move in history like languages do.
They (like everything that is) is simultaneously emanation & emergence. Languages & ideas evolve, but they also are spiritual realities that emanate & colonize the “lower”.
❤
hi Dali
29:00 Rupert sheldrake and morphic fields.
I think morphic fields are emanating spiritual realities/persons. Angels? Demons?
20:20 it arouse by technology.
Technological Babel. Imo.
Languages are developed by social processes; Thomas Sowell (Conflict of Visions) gives a simple outline of social processes over rational articulation. (especially since the social process embody and contain data/information that isn't purely 'rational': "the heart has it's own rationality the head knows nothing about" - Pascal.) This is why Hayek thinks social justice is a meaningless term; how can distributed social processes be just? One has to anthropomorphize the collective (an abstraction): then claim the outcome of the social processes was planned and intentional. The outcomes were not planned; the outcome is thousands, if not millions, of variables (human choice) interacting in complex and dynamic ways.
The modernity I/we are against is the inner logic(s) of society based on the diabolical. The inner logic(s) are the 'firmware' - the 'ontological givens' - the metaphysics, of a culture; very few individuals want to discuss the foundations we all stand on but barely think about (modern hatred/silence regarding metaphysics). The unquestioned reflexive inner logic(s) of society running on complex social networks ('banality of evil' - decentralized-diabocity); we see the effects but the cause remains unseen. We are too close to the inner logic(s) of modernity that we were socialized into. A socially given orientation to being; it's the air we breathe; we are too close to these logic(s) and they are too close to us (identity). Two people can be debating politics, screaming at each other, yet there is no proper communication. They are speaking the same language and there is inherent variations of definitions (often easy to notice and deal with). The greater problem is the massively different orientations relative to the 'ontological stance' - how one stands and responds to reality.
Genesis comes to mind "Come, let us go down, and confuse their language there, so that they will not understand one another’s speech.” (Gen 11:7)
Sacrificed clarity for brevity.
Peace and Joy be with everyone.
If you say that modernity is about being taken out of any context and embededness, then isn't this just a consequence of philosophy? Philosophy focuses humans on the self and inner experience of concepts to which human mind has, allegedly, natural access. If humans have access to concepts and moral law, then context is useless, isn't it. This is why St. Thomas could write striking words that we learn philosophy not to know what people thought in the past but to know what is the truth about reality.
It seems you may be referring to Philosophy as understood by modern academics, broadly speaking. This is precisely inverted from what I mean when I say Philosophy, which is something like a life lived toward the Love of Wisdom. This is the ancient sense of Philosophy.
I'm not sure if that addressed your question?
It's more of a question whether the error of philosophy is in the fact that it wants to have access to timeless and pastless truths in the form of "natural reason" that has by nature access to clear concepts and moral truths. In this sense philosophy attempts to take humans out of context and make them live with access to inner concepts at any moment, regardless of temporal context. This is why philosophy until really only Renaissance didn't value historiography at all.