Here Follows Some Psycho-Metaphysics:

[kiahzero]

If you are not hot for philosophy, best just to skip it.

The Aneristic Principle is that of APPARENT ORDER; the Eristic Principle is that of APPARENT DISORDER. Both order and disorder are man made concepts and are artificial divisions of PURE CHAOS, which is a level deeper that is the level of distinction making.

With our concept making apparatus called "mind" we look at reality through the ideas-about-reality which our cultures give us. The ideas-about- reality are mistakenly labeled "reality" and unenlightened people are forever perplexed by the fact that other people, especially other cultures, see "reality" differently. It is only the ideas-about-reality which differ. Real (capital-T True) reality is a level deeper that is the level of concept.

We look at the world through windows on which have been drawn grids (concepts). Different philosophies use different grids. A culture is a group of people with rather similar grids. Through a window we view chaos, and relate it to the points on our grid, and thereby understand it. The ORDER is in the GRID. That is the Aneristic Principle.

Western philosophy is traditionally concerned with contrasting one grid with another grid, and amending grids in hopes of finding a perfect one that will account for all reality and will, hence, (say unenlightened westerners) be True. This is illusory; it is what we Erisians call the ANERISTIC ILLUSION. Some grids can be more useful than others, some more beautiful than others, some more pleasant than others, etc., but none can be more True than any other.

DISORDER is simply unrelated information viewed through some particular grid. But, like "relation", no-relation is a concept. Male, like female, is an idea about sex. To say that male-ness is "absence of female-ness", or vice versa, is a matter of definition and metaphysically arbitrary. The artificial concept of no-relation is the ERISTIC PRINCIPLE.

The belief that "order is true" and disorder is false or somehow wrong, is the Aneristic Illusion. To say the same of disorder, is the ERISTIC ILLUSION.

The point is that (little-t) truth is a matter of definition relative to the grid one is using at the moment, and that (capital-T) Truth, metaphysical reality, is irrelevant to grids entirely. Pick a grid, and through it some chaos appears ordered and some appears disordered. Pick another grid, and the same chaos will appear differently ordered and disordered.

Reality is the original Rorschach.

Verily! So much for all that.

-- Principia Discordia, p00049, All Rites Reversed.

I found this rather interesting, as it mirrors the philosophy I had developed on my own (as much as such a thing is possible). I realize that it's awfully post-modern in its definitions of little-t truth, but I'm curious what you all think.

[yella_dawg]

1. Interesting

But I think the Discordians smoke too much dope. They are more interested in the appearance of enlightenment than any real enlightenment, in my opinion.

Basically, they discovered one small thing and think it's a miraculous Truth.

[kiahzero]

2. Eh.

I don't smoke. :shrug:

[trotsky]

3. H.L. Mencken had it pegged a long time ago.

The accumulated body of philosophical speculation is hopelessly self-contradictory. It is not a system at all, but simply a quarreling congeries of systems. The thing that makes philosophers respected is not actually their profundity, but simply their obscurity. They translate vague and dubious ideas into high-sounding words, and their dupes assume, as they assume themselves, that the resulting obfuscation is a contribution to knowledge.

Oh I understand the beauty of envisioning these "grids" by which we all experience life, but the reality of the situation is that we don't have the luxury of always living on our own grid. If your grid says that children can be sexual partners, there's an issue when your grid comes up against their grids - or mine. It won't be much of a defense in court to say, "But your honor, can't you see that capital-T Truth isn't beholden to any one grid?"

[kiahzero]

4. Really?

That "critique" - if you can really call it that - strikes me more as anti-intellectual pablum than anything else, and seems to smack of projection. It sounds like your objection, that you can't go into a courtroom and argue that you see reality differently, is relevant, but it really isn't. Courtroom proceedings aren't about reality, they're about the law. It doesn't matter if you don't see your actions as wrong to be convicted of a crime; rather, you simply must have committed the crime and had the requisite criminal intent. Mistakes of criminal law are completely irrelevant, because to hold otherwise would be to make the law whatever one thinks it is.

What that bit implies, however, is that perspectives are just that - perspectives. You can evaluate perspectives on all sorts of factors: "Some grids can be more useful than others, some more beautiful than others, some more pleasant than others, etc., but none can be more True than any other." The law generally chooses on the basis of social utility and liberty.

[trotsky]

5. Ah yes, the typical response.

Accuse the plebe of "anti-intellectual pablum" because we can't possibly fully understand the vastness of your universal discovery.

Enjoy life on your grid! Just watch out when it intersects with others.

[kiahzero]

6. It's not an issue of "not understanding."

It's the claim that all philosophy is just big words meaning northing that's anti-intellectual. If you consider an idea and reject it, that's different than refusing to consider it because ideas are worthless.

[trotsky]

15. I'm sorry but that passage IS "just big words meaning nothing."

Let me sum up what it tries to say:

We all look at life a bit differently.

Oh gosh, oh golly, oh gee, that's so profound and deep I can't imagine anyone has ever thought of it before. Oh, I'm sure you'll object, and say that it also includes a commentary on how because of this we can't ever be sure of objective reality. I guarantee that if I punch you in the nose, it will hurt. Gotta be some objective reality of muscles, nerves, and pain receptors in amongst that, right?

[cosmik debris]

19. Brevity is the soul of wit

"...brevity is the soul of wit,
And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,"

--Bill Shakespeare

[kiahzero]

22. I can't help but be verbose.

The ability to use twenty words where one will suffice comes default when you enter law school. :D

[cosmik debris]

34. I guess that explains why

So many lawyers are considered to be half-witted.

[kiahzero]

21. You know, this is a good example of why pathological readings are bad.

Remember that conversation we had about readings intended to make a text look bad, and I was arguing that they inhibited sincere discussion? Here's an example... several times in this thread, examples like that have been used. Were I looking to read your replies in their worst possible light, I could claim you were threatening me, and we'd go on this nice long tangent about how you were just using it as an example, and don't actually mean physical harm, etc. But that would be pointless, because I'm assuming your comments are made in good faith, and that you aren't actually implying you want to punch me in the face (or shoot me, as the case may be). :shrug:

Back on topic, if you want to distill it to that level of meaninglessness, you're free to do so (here, let me sum up every story that ever has been written: "stuff happened"), but doing so obscures some significant bits. Of course, since it's talking predominantly about culture and philosophy and so far every single "counterexample" offered is dealing with physics, I can see how those bits would seem less significant.

Instead of thinking about physical actions (such as punching me in the face), think about it with respect to religion. People look at the chaos that surrounds them and attempt to put order on it, but because their world view is built up from different principles, and they come to wildly different conclusions about the big questions that are on their minds, such as "why are we here?" or "is there anything behind this that makes it all make sense?"

I also feel it's important to note that I didn't think this was some sort of mind-blowing new understanding of the universe... I just stumbled across it flipping through the book and thought it was a nifty starting point for discussion. I was also hoping to perhaps get some responses from some of the other theists, but apparently they all just think I'm high on pot. :shrug:

If you're interested, there's another bit that's along the same lines, but perhaps evokes more of the interpretation I was talking about above.

http://discordia.loveshade.org/ek-sen-trik-kuh/mythstar.html

There once was a huge boulder, perched precariously, on the edge of a cliff.
For hundreds of years this boulder was there, rocking and swaying, but
always keeping its balance just perfectly. But one year, there happened to be
a sever windstorm; severe enough it was, to topple the boulder from its
majectic height and dash it to the bottom cf the cliff, far far below. Needless to
say, the boulder was smashed into many pieces. Where it hit, the ground was
covered with a carpet of pebbles--some small and some large--but pebbles
and pebbles and more pebbles for as far as you could walk in an hour.

One day, after all this, a young man by the name of Ichabod happened on the
area. Being a fellow of keen mind and observational powers, naturally he was
quite astounded to see so many stones scattered so closely on the ground.
Now Ichabod was very much interested in the nature of things, and he spent
the whole afternoon looking at pebbles, and measuring the size of pebbles,
and feeling the weight of pebbles, and just pondering about pebbles in
general.

He spent the night there, not wanting to lose this miraculous find, and awoke
the next morning full of enthusiasm. He spent many days on his carpet of
stones.

Eventually he noticed a very strange thing. There were three rather large
stones on the carpet and they formed a triangle--almost (but not quite)
equilateral. He was amazed. Looking further he found four very white stones
that were arranged in a lopsided square. Then he saw that by disregarding
one white stone and thinking of that grey stone a foot over instead, it was a
perfect square! And if you chose this stone, and that stone, and that one,
and that one and that one you have a pentagon as large as the triangle. And
here a small hexagon. And there a square partially inside of the hexagon.
And a decagon. And two triangles inter-locked. And a circle. And a smaller
circle within the circle. And a triangle within that which has a red stone, a grey
stone and a white stone.

<snip>

[trotsky]

23. Oh I fully understand the refined and noble approach you're trying to use here.

But religion is not just a matter of personal opinion and that's the end of it. In case you haven't noticed, a lot of religionists want to legislate their beliefs into law. Hell, they already have. If their religion is just another way of looking at the world, no different than yours or mine, who are we to oppose them? Why can't the Heaven's Gate-ists drink their poison and await the comet to take them away? If you had a child who had joined HG, and you knew what was going to happen, would you stop them? I mean, an HG-ist just has a worldview that is built up from different principles, and they've come to a wildly different conclusion about reality than you. C'est la vie?

[kiahzero]

24. Interestingly, I just wrote on this topic the other day

My resistance to people trying to legislate their religious beliefs into law is in part based on this understanding of religion: they're trying to force everyone to use their grid, to accept their world view, to see reality as they see it.

If their religion is just another way of looking at the world, no different than yours or mine, who are we to oppose them?

We can oppose them because they're trying to force their definitions of reality down everyone else's throats. Their religion is another way of looking at the world, but it certainly is "different than yours or mine."

Why can't the Heaven's Gate-ists drink their poison and await the comet to take them away?

So long as there was no coercion, they can. I don't remember enough about the case to remember if there was or was not in that specific case. However, if someone, of their own free will and in sound mind decides to kill themselves in the hope of landing on a comet, you and I have no authority to stop them. It's their life.

If you had a child who had joined HG, and you knew what was going to happen, would you stop them?

I'd try to change their mind, but I don't know that I could ethically use force to prevent it from happening.

[trotsky]

25. So?

My resistance to people trying to legislate their religious beliefs into law is in part based on this understanding of religion: they're trying to force everyone to use their grid, to accept their world view, to see reality as they see it.

Yeah, and by disagreeing we're forcing them to use our grid. Can't escape the problem here. If we all lived in our own hermit-shacks thousands of miles from each other, this "your grid, my grid" stuff would be wonderful approximations of reality. But we don't.

However, if someone, of their own free will and in sound mind decides to kill themselves in the hope of landing on a comet, you and I have no authority to stop them. It's their life.

I'd have to say that by definition, anyone who wants to kill themselves to be escorted to heaven on a comet is NOT "in sound mind."

I'd try to change their mind, but I don't know that I could ethically use force to prevent it from happening.

Sorry, pal, but I absolutely cannot relate. I'd do anything to save my children.

[kiahzero]

27. How are they being forced?

Yeah, and by disagreeing we're forcing them to use our grid. Can't escape the problem here.

How do you figure?

Sorry, pal, but I absolutely cannot relate. I'd do anything to save my children.

I don't have kids, so maybe my perspective will change as I age. However, dealing with it on a purely hypothetical level (and therefore without the emotional connection that one generally has with one's children), I don't see how I could ethically force someone to do (or not do) something against their will, even when the person in question is my own child.

[trotsky]

31. Let's use a specific example: abortion.

The religious right believe it's murder. They can't bear thinking that they are accomplices to murder by allowing it to occur. (We'll leave aside for the moment that making it illegal sure isn't going to stop it.) So they seek to legislate and force their views on others. But we're forcing our views that it's a matter of personal choice on them. Whose grid has priority? How can we justify laws protecting the right to an abortion when they feel that we are forcing our grid onto the unborn who die?

I don't see how I could ethically force someone to do (or not do) something against their will, even when the person in question is my own child.

You scare me.

[kiahzero]

33. Thanks.

I have no idea why I scare you, but OK.

The religious right believe it's murder. They can't bear thinking that they are accomplices to murder by allowing it to occur. (We'll leave aside for the moment that making it illegal sure isn't going to stop it.) So they seek to legislate and force their views on others. But we're forcing our views that it's a matter of personal choice on them. Whose grid has priority? How can we justify laws protecting the right to an abortion when they feel that we are forcing our grid onto the unborn who die?

The lack of criminal sanctions does enforce a grid, but that's true of all law. My legal theory is that law imposes a certain view of reality on utilitarian grounds - we need an agreed-upon set of rules in order to function as a civilization. However, justifying the law on such grounds also means that individual choice should be preserved wherever possible, and thus it is justified to leave the decision of having an abortion or not to the parties in question rather than making that decision for them.

Basically, to me, the law should be a minimally restrictive grid, allowing as much 'chaos' - freedom - as possible.

[trotsky]

39. "A minimally restrictive grid"

but a grid that is nonetheless forced on others.

But a special caveat with the abortion issue is that religious belief cuts to its core. If you believe that a fertilized egg is a human being with full rights, allowing "individual choice" to be preserved is meaningless - what of the choice of the zygote?

[kiahzero]

41. Yes, you have to force a grid on people for society to function.

I don't argue with that proposition... in fact, I embrace it.

But a special caveat with the abortion issue is that religious belief cuts to its core. If you believe that a fertilized egg is a human being with full rights, allowing "individual choice" to be preserved is meaningless - what of the choice of the zygote?

It's a balancing of interests, and the interest of the woman has to win out. That's why I'm pro-choice.

[trotsky]

48. Yes, but whose grid?

When you can't even agree on what "minimally restrictive" is, or what constitutes an individual with rights, you're just arbitrarily picking a grid (likely compatible with yours, of course).

It's a balancing of interests, and the interest of the woman has to win out. That's why I'm pro-choice.

In an abortion, the fetus always dies. If you believe that a fetus is a human being with full rights, then it is murder. That's why others are pro-life. That's what their grid tells them. You can't force your grid on them, can you? You wouldn't force it on your own child who was about to kill him- or herself, but you'll force others to accept the murder (in their view) of innocents.

And you don't understand why you scare me.

[kiahzero]

49. Oooga booga booga!

:scared:

If the anti-abortion forces were to be victorious, there would naturally be no more legal abortions; women would be compelled to give birth by the law. On the other hand, as it is now, anti-abortion folks are perfectly free to argue that abortion is murder and that people shouldn't have abortions. Thus, allowing abortion is less restrictive than not allowing abortion.

The determination of what is "minimally restrictive" isn't arbitrary.

I suppose I understand why I seem scary, but it really strikes me as a bit silly. I understand that advocating freedom means advocating the freedom for my own child to kill himself. Similarly, I understand that advocating civil liberties means advocating protections for child molestors, terrorists, and every other boogeyman that one can possibly imagine. I simply feel that the alternative is worse than the monster under the bed. :shrug:

[trotsky]

50. I think you're still missing the point.

If the anti-abortion forces were to be victorious, there would naturally be no more legal abortions; women would be compelled to give birth by the law. On the other hand, as it is now, anti-abortion folks are perfectly free to argue that abortion is murder and that people shouldn't have abortions. Thus, allowing abortion is less restrictive than not allowing abortion.

Again you're ignoring that the "anti-abortion forces" generally really do believe that the fetus is a full-fledged human being with rights. They don't view it as JUST a decision by a woman, like you do. Your grid looks at "minimally restrictive" only as it applies to the woman, because you don't believe the fetus has rights. But a policy that results in the willful destruction of living human beings is pretty restrictive - at least to those particular beings, isn't it?

[kiahzero]

51. I'm actually looking at "minimally restrictive" at a societal level.

Would you mind sharing your position? I'm always interested to see how others resolve this issue.

[trotsky]

54. Again, what if "society" includes the unborn?

That's part of their grid, you know.

Me, I'm pro-choice and I'll fucking shove my grid on them with no qualms. Oh I won't force anyone to actually get an abortion if they don't want to, of course. But I don't operate from the stance that grids are all just different ways of looking at things, so there's nothing I have to justify.

[kiahzero]

55. Why do you want to "shove your grid on them?"

In other words, what makes it OK for your grid to be forced on them but not for theirs to be forced on you?

[trotsky]

56. Because I'm right and they're wrong, of course.

But that is not a question for me to answer, anyway. That's your argument - you defend it.

[kiahzero]

57. On what basis are you right and they're wrong?

If power is not its own justification, there has to be a reason it's exercised. So, assuming that you don't feel that power is its own justification, on what basis is that power exerted?

To clarify, I'm trying to understand the alternative view you're offering.

[trotsky]

58. Majority rule! Reasoned approach! Doesn't really matter.

You've got the position to defend. Go ahead.

[kiahzero]

59. I already have. (n/t)

[BurtWorm]

26. How about Christian Scientists sacrificing sick children to the principle

that Jesus is a better healer than medical science? Is that grid just as valid as any other?

[kiahzero]

29. "Valid" isn't really the operative word.

If pressed, I would have to say it's equally "valid," but that doesn't mean that the government has to respect it. This comes up against my thinking on juvenile rights - that parents are essentially holding the child's rights in trust for the benefit of the child, and thus are limited in their decision-making.

Take, for example, intersex children. Parents will often modify the genitals of their intersex children in irreversible surgical operations. While I don't question the ability of an intersex person to make that decision, the parents have no right to do so on behalf of the child. I see this situation in a similar light.

[BurtWorm]

36. "There are now statutes in 44 states which contain a provision stating that a child

is not to be deemed abused or neglected merely because he or she is receiving treatment by spiritual means, through prayer according to the tenets of a recognized religion. Although these exemptions take different forms and interpretations in different state jurisdictions, the overall effect has been to limit the ability of the state to prosecute parents for suspected or alleged abuse or medical neglect of children when such occurrences may be the result of religious practice. Severe (even fatal) physical discipline, failure to seek medical care, or refusal of a proven efficacious treatment of a critically ill child may be protected from prosecution because of the religious exemption clauses now found in a majority of state codes. However, most of these cases do not involve Christian Scientists.

"Two important sets of interests are in apparent opposition - those of children in the perceived benefits of medical care and those of parents in making a decision about their children's well-being. Some parents believe that the constitutionally protected freedom of religion allows them to choose the method of healing (spiritual or medical) they feel will best benefit their children. However, this interpretation of the US constitution is in contradiction to important court rulings to the effect that parents may not martyr their children based on parental beliefs and that children cannot be denied essential health care.<8> However, a Christian Scientist would deem spiritual treatment as being "essential health care" that would most expediently lead to their child's health and well being."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science#Christian_Science_and_law

Lots of grids seem to be crashing into each other on the question of the parental rights to practice their religious beliefs vs. the child's right to be free from abuse.

It's all good...

[kiahzero]

37. Yes, conflicting views inevitably collide.

That's a consequence of living in a free and heterogeneous society.

[BurtWorm]

42. And what does a society do to resolve them?

*Not* to resolve them is to resolve them. In Alabama, because the state legislature bows to the right of Baptists to beat their children in Jesus' name, Christian Scientists have a right to pray their ailing children to death in the name of their beliefs if they so choose.

It seems that some of us, just by the accident of which family and state we're born into, are unequally exposed to the sharper edges of that consequence.

But it's all good. It's all good.

[kiahzero]

44. I agree that inaction is action.

As I said above, I hold the parents to have a legal relationship with their children akin to a trust, and thus don't have the same level of free decision-making as they would if dealing only with themselves. Thus, parents shouldn't have the right to "beat their children in Jesus' name" or choose medically unsound treatment for their children.

[BurtWorm]

46. But it's all good. Isn't it?

If a majority of Alabamans believe parents' right to raise their children according to their individual interpretation of Biblical tenets outweighs a child's basic right to freedom from abuse, who are we in the DU R/T forum to impose our contrary beliefs on them?

It's all good.

[kiahzero]

47. No, it's not all good.

Majority rights must be tempered by the rights of the minority, especially when that minority is powerless, as is the case with children.

Is there a reason you keep repeating, "It's all good?"

[BurtWorm]

52. "Reality is the original Rorschach."

It's all good.

[kiahzero]

53. I assume you're differing there, but I'm not sure how.

Would you care to explain, beyond the sarcastic "It's all good?" I'm more than happy to have a meaningful discussion if you're willing to actually express the ideas you're trying to express, rather than have me guess what you're trying to say.

[Odin2005]

8. Must. resist. urge. to. go. on. anti-PoMo rant....

[Evoman]

9. No, please do. And when you do, make sure you include

the Sokal Affair hehe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_Affair

[Odin2005]

7. What a load of profound-sounding BS.

Postmodernism makes me vomit, like pretty much all continental philosophy since Kant. I'll stick with J. S. Mill, Bertrand Russel, and Karl Popper thank you very much.

[kiahzero]

10. Do you think that we can know objective reality?

Perhaps I've been overly influenced by epistemological skepticism, but I don't think that mankind has the capacity to actually know what reality is.

[Odin2005]

17. No, but we can get a reasonable aproximation of objective reality.

I suggest you read some works by Popper.

[kiahzero]

20. To a certain extent I agree with that.

The physical sciences lend themselves to such approximation, but I think our ability to create such approximations wanes dramatically as we move away from them into more abstract concepts.

[Evoman]

11. I drew a comic in order to illustrate a point.

Okay, so there isn't much point..I just needed an excuse to do some painting.

[kiahzero]

12. Decidedly missing the point.

:shrug:

Nice drawing, though.

[Evoman]

13. Lol...dude, I think I nailed it.

Your just an anti-intellectual! hehe

[trotsky]

14. LMAO

I thought it was pretty accurate. :thumbsup:

[kiahzero]

18. No, you really didn't.

The point is that what makes sense from one view will make little or no sense from another, not because reality is different or because people are deluded, but because people build their framework for interpreting reality differently.

I think the problem is that you're underinterpreting "Some grids can be more useful than others, some more beautiful than others, some more pleasant than others, etc." ... that phrase is rather significant, because what it means is that some views of reality can be significantly more useful for, say, avoiding death. I'm reminded of the legend of Pyrrho's demise: he was so dedicated to his skepticism that he walked right over a cliff... his world view may have had other benefits, but survivability was not one of them. Empiricism is a very useful model for understanding the world, but that doesn't mean that one is limited only to an empirical understanding of life, the universe, and everything.

[cosmik debris]

16. There's another wonderful mechanism of "deep thinkers"

Anyone who disagrees must be missing the point. How could such intelligent people think that your ideas are sophomoric? If they really understood, they would see the wisdom, right?

Could it be that your ideas really are sophomoric and not just misunderstood?

[cosmik debris]

28. We had a similar thread not too long ago

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=111834

Another fundie claimed that paleontology was just another paradigm--or in your language, another grid.

In any case, it sounds like the same logic to me.

[kiahzero]

30. Not really.

Unless he has some really novel way of reconciling the two systems, one of his two sets of belief are insincere (hence the speculation that he was just "playing along" so that he could have a Ph.D and claim that the earth is 6,000 years old).

[cosmik debris]

32. Yep, really

His paradigms and your grids are similar enough to be interchangeable.

(now this is where you say that I'm missing the point):rofl:

[kiahzero]

35. Except that he's claiming to have two mutually exclusive belief systems.

I suppose the concepts share some similarities, but I'm not sure what the point of pointing that out is (other than to say "Hey, that sounds vaguely like something a fundie once said!")

[cosmik debris]

38. You say all grids are equally true

He says all paradigms are equally true.

I think you are missing his point. :rofl:

[kiahzero]

40. That doesn't preclude value judgments.

For instance, I still believe that YEC is both useless and silly, because it would take a deity bent on deception for it to be true. :shrug:

[cosmik debris]

43. A distinction without a difference

yawn.

[kiahzero]

45. Hardly. (n/t)