Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Send Topic Print
All knowledge must be based in experience. (Read 16598 times)
issuevoter
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9200
The Great State of Mind
Gender: male
Re: All knowledge must be based in experience.
Reply #30 - May 4th, 2017 at 6:46am
 
A commonly held view on the right is that Multiculturalism has failed because one religious culture rejects its concept. That is not the the failure of multiculturalism.
Back to top
 

No political allegiance. No philosophy. No religion.
 
IP Logged
 
Yadda
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 20901
A cat with a view
Re: All knowledge must be based in experience.
Reply #31 - May 4th, 2017 at 8:21am
 
issuevoter wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 6:46am:
A commonly held view on the right is that Multiculturalism has failed because one religious culture rejects its concept.

That is not the the failure of multiculturalism.




'Multiculturalism', is a contradiction.

Tolerance of another culture, is [also] the tolerance of the mores and the morality which each new culture brings to 'the whole'.

Where all cultures [actually] mix, and where there is an insistence that every culture is given imbued with equal social validity,       the best AND THE WORST, from any/every particular culture will eventually be 'infused' into 'the whole'.

Won't it ?

e.g.
Some cultures tend to 'wink' at corruption in business [and societal governance], and will tolerate corruption in business [and societal governance] more than some other cultures.



Is that a good thing, to tolerate ?



Back to top
 

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31
 
IP Logged
 
Nom de Plume
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 671
Re: All knowledge must be based in experience.
Reply #32 - May 4th, 2017 at 10:56am
 
Frank wrote on May 3rd, 2017 at 6:36pm:
Nom de Plume wrote on May 3rd, 2017 at 7:09am:
The conscious is the agent. Self awareness defines us.



You cannot be a self-aware human being OUTSIDE language.   You cannot be aware in a way that cannot be communicated (ie wrapped in language). Awareness is, by definition, is what is communicable = is IN language.

Language is not words only, of course. Wittgenstein fell off his bike when he realised it - he was cycling through Cambridge, deep in thought, and someone flipped him the bird. Non-verbal communication. Still language -although not tongue, the distinction most European languages make. Awareness to awareness communication in nonverbal language.


Awareness is to consciousness as unawareness is to unconsciousness. 'The conscious is the agent.'; I intended for the sentence, was to be  to be so restricted as to identify that feeling of 'me-ness ' that  differentiates between you and me.

Most often we exist unconsciously, relying on our autopilot to engage with the world. Our autopilot does nor require language. For example, Wittgenstein was  not aware of the bike he was riding or the navigational skills he was applying. He was engaged with proofs required to support his hypotheses which were made invalid upon receiving 'the bird'.

We spend a great portion of our life on autopilot.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Nom de Plume
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 671
Re: All knowledge must be based in experience.
Reply #33 - May 4th, 2017 at 11:04am
 
Frank wrote on May 3rd, 2017 at 6:36pm:
Nom de Plume wrote on May 3rd, 2017 at 7:09am:
The conscious is the agent. Self awareness defines us.



You cannot be a self-aware human being OUTSIDE language.   You cannot be aware in a way that cannot be communicated (ie wrapped in language). Awareness is, by definition, is what is communicable = is IN language.

Language is not words only, of course. Wittgenstein fell off his bike when he realised it - he was cycling through Cambridge, deep in thought, and someone flipped him the bird. Non-verbal communication. Still language -although not tongue, the distinction most European languages make. Awareness to awareness communication in nonverbal language.


Awareness is to consciousness as unawareness is to unconsciousness. 'The conscious is the agent.'; I intended for the sentence, was to be  to be so restricted as to identify that feeling of 'me-ness ' that  differentiates between you and me.

Most often we exist unconsciously, relying on our autopilot to engage with the world. Our autopilot does not require language. For example, Wittgenstein was  not aware of the bike he was riding or the navigational skills he was applying. He was engaged with proofs required to support his hypotheses which were made invalid upon receiving 'the bird'.

We spend a great portion of our life on autopilot.

*EDIT changing 'nor' to 'not'
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Yadda
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 20901
A cat with a view
Re: All knowledge must be based in experience.
Reply #34 - May 5th, 2017 at 9:34am
 
Nom de Plume wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 10:56am:

Awareness is to consciousness as unawareness is to unconsciousness.

'The conscious is the agent.'; I intended for the sentence, was to be  to be so restricted as to identify that feeling of 'me-ness ' that  differentiates between you and me.

Most often we exist unconsciously, relying on our autopilot to engage with the world. Our autopilot does nor require language. For example, Wittgenstein was  not aware of the bike he was riding or the navigational skills he was applying. He was engaged with proofs required to support his hypotheses which were made invalid upon receiving 'the bird'.

We spend a great portion of our life on autopilot.





'Awareness is to consciousness as unawareness is to unconsciousness.'


Or perhaps;
Awareness is to consciousness as 'unawareness' is to subconscious-ness.  ???

Yet on some level, the 'realm' of the subconscious is still 'present',      Q. isn't it ?

Q.
Is       our        subconscious [or the 'autopilot'] similar to the relationship between a servant, and its master ?

i.e.
The 'master' being the conscious awareness [of our 'being'] ?

And, while the 'master' is not always 'directly aware' nor directly 'overseeing' the tasks which his/her servant may be engaged in,          the 'master' has the ability to take personal charge [or 'give directions'] at any moment ?




A little more;

'Unconsciousness' is still a 'tricky' concept - for human 'sciences' and for human areas of psychological exploration, imo.

e.g.
When we recline and 'go to sleep', we usually enter a period of 'unconscious-ness'.

But i myself, and many others, have experienced the 'state of mind' [during a period of what we refer to as 'sleep'], where i have regained my conscious awareness [i.e. while my body was still immobilised/'unconscious'].
[on some occasions, even retaining my  conscious awareness, fully, from the time i recline, through until my body becomes fully 'immobilised'.     and that is not a wholly uncommon experience for many people        Paul gives an account [with very little detail], 'out-of-body' conscious awareness.  2 Corinthians 12:2-3]



Q.
When i am 1/ [actually] awake, and 2/ 'in my body',        what is it [what 'facility' is it!!], that actually 'motivates' my physical body ?

I certainly do not know!

But i certainly believe, that that 'facility',       the 'facility' that actually 'motivates' my physical body is NOT NECESSARILY 'my' 'consciousness' !   i.e. not directly!

To my 'mind', to my understanding,           there is some other [unidentified] 'agency', which enables my own 'consciousness' to 'engage', with what actually 'motivates' my physical body.


It is an exhilarating thought/idea!

In the same way, that the experience of being 'out of my body' and yet being fully conscious, is exhilarating !


Back to top
« Last Edit: May 5th, 2017 at 9:40am by Yadda »  

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31
 
IP Logged
 
Nom de Plume
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 671
Re: All knowledge must be based in experience.
Reply #35 - May 7th, 2017 at 10:12am
 
This is all deliciously 'off topic' and I am responding only because your enthusiasm is infectious; and the fact that I may still bring this discussion back on topic. Let's see...

On the matter of the subconscious, I don't know what it is beyond its Freudian interpretation which aims at distinguishing between two different states of  unconsciousness.

Dare I say that Freud, like his pupil Jung, were mystics rather than Psychiatrists, with medical backgrounds.

On the matter of the 'master/ servant' analogy referencing the interrelationship between mind and body, I confess, I do not know! It is certainly appealing, at least to me. However, greater thinkers, such as Daniel Dennett, argue that the whole idea of there being a mind, in and of itself, is an illusion, created by the brain.

Possibly there is evidence to support Dennett. Latest research in Neurology has shown the existence in rats of a super-sized neuron found at the base of the brain, linking all parts of the brain...

PART 2 TO FOLLOW
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Yadda
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 20901
A cat with a view
Re: All knowledge must be based in experience.
Reply #36 - May 7th, 2017 at 11:43am
 
'off topic'

hmmmmm,   what do those words mean ?

[Yadda plays dumb]


Grin


[De Plume, i am a notorious OT poster here.    Sorry.     Smiley    ]
Back to top
 

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31
 
IP Logged
 
Yadda
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 20901
A cat with a view
Re: All knowledge must be based in experience.
Reply #37 - May 7th, 2017 at 12:05pm
 
Nom de Plume wrote on May 7th, 2017 at 10:12am:

On the matter of the 'master/ servant' analogy referencing the interrelationship between mind and body,

I confess, I do not know! It is certainly appealing, at least to me. However, greater thinkers, such as Daniel Dennett, argue that the whole idea of there being a mind, in and of itself, is an illusion, created by the brain.

Possibly there is evidence to support Dennett. Latest research in Neurology has shown the existence in rats of a super-sized neuron found at the base of the brain, linking all parts of the brain...

PART 2 TO FOLLOW




The 'mind and body' ?

No, not the mind and body.


I was referring to the relationship between the conscious awareness [as master], and the subconscious [as servant].



My body ?

I see my physical body,        as being analogous to a motor vehicle,        and i, my conscious awareness, as the driver of that motor vehicle.



Another way of explaining......

I can hold the palm of my hand out in front of me.

But that hand is not me.

Yes, [when i am conscious] i have control of my arm and my hand,
but my body, my arm, my hand,       that, is not 'me'.

The pleasure of food, the pleasure of music, the pleasure of......well, it just goes on, and on.

And i am partially addicted to all of those pleasures !




But what is 'me' ????

My conscious awareness,      that, is me.

And, i don't particularly 'like' it here,        i want to 'go home'.           Smiley


....but, God willing,      .....i'll be here [on OzPol    Wink   ] tomorrow.



Back to top
 

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31
 
IP Logged
 
issuevoter
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9200
The Great State of Mind
Gender: male
Re: All knowledge must be based in experience.
Reply #38 - May 7th, 2017 at 12:29pm
 
Yadda wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 8:21am:
issuevoter wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 6:46am:
A commonly held view on the right is that Multiculturalism has failed because one religious culture rejects its concept.

That is not the the failure of multiculturalism.




'Multiculturalism', is a contradiction.

Tolerance of another culture, is [also] the tolerance of the mores and the morality which each new culture brings to 'the whole'.

Where all cultures [actually] mix, and where there is an insistence that every culture is given imbued with equal social validity,       the best AND THE WORST, from any/every particular culture will eventually be 'infused' into 'the whole'.

Won't it ?

e.g.
Some cultures tend to 'wink' at corruption in business [and societal governance], and will tolerate corruption in business [and societal governance] more than some other cultures.

Is that a good thing, to tolerate ?



What does multiculturalism contradict? You're subsequent paragraphs do not explain any contradiction.

In my view, multiculturalism suffers from the lack of definition. It started out with the idea that the cultures would be assimilated by western societies as they became more tolerant. When that did not work, a separate but equal philosophy began to emerge, but the same lack of universally acknowledged definition remains.

References to Indonesia and Malaysia often cite a multicultural foundation to their post colonial statehood, but the dominant Islamic culture dictates the laws. viz, the idea that a person can be prosecuted for blasphemy. That is not a contradiction or failure. Its a lack of definition. Its all too vague.
Nonethenless, the idea that a state can be home to several cultures and live in peace is not faulty because pig-headed people would rather fester in their own brand of ignorance.
Back to top
 

No political allegiance. No philosophy. No religion.
 
IP Logged
 
Yadda
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 20901
A cat with a view
Re: All knowledge must be based in experience.
Reply #39 - May 8th, 2017 at 2:18am
 
issuevoter wrote on May 7th, 2017 at 12:29pm:
Yadda wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 8:21am:
issuevoter wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 6:46am:
A commonly held view on the right is that Multiculturalism has failed because one religious culture rejects its concept.

That is not the the failure of multiculturalism.




'Multiculturalism', is a contradiction.

Tolerance of another culture, is [also] the tolerance of the mores and the morality which each new culture brings to 'the whole'.

Where all cultures [actually] mix, and where there is an insistence that every culture is given imbued with equal social validity,       the best AND THE WORST, from any/every particular culture will eventually be 'infused' into 'the whole'.

Won't it ?

e.g.
Some cultures tend to 'wink' at corruption in business [and societal governance], and will tolerate corruption in business [and societal governance] more than some other cultures.

Is that a good thing, to tolerate ?



What does multiculturalism contradict? You're subsequent paragraphs do not explain any contradiction.




QUESTION;
The masses of humanity seeking entry to nations like Western Europe, N. America, Australia atm....

Are those masses of humanity seeking to enter those nations for the attraction of the cultural diversity in Western Europe, N. America, Australia, etc ?

Or are those masses of humanity seeking to enter those nations for the the sake of the attraction of their political stability and their material prosperity ?


QUESTION;
If this current trend continues [masses of humanity moving to those nations], do you believe that the, presumably, attractive 'cultures' in Western Europe, N. America, Australia, etc, will remain wholly, and to the same 'degree', 'attractive' ?


My own view, is that they will not.

Why do i believe that ?

Because, imo, the native cultures predominant within nations like Western Europe, N. America, Australia, etc, will be irrevocably altered - to the worse.


'Multiculturalism', is a contradiction, because 'multiculturalism' does not create cultural cohesion, imo.

Perhaps 'multiculturalism' brings some advantages.

But it also brings many underlying cultural conflicts.

'Multiculturalism' is a process of upheaval and the destruction of the 'better', by the 'worse', imo.



We [individually] should be tolerant of, and encourage, cultural virtue.

The problem though, is that the social scientists and social experimenters, have hoisted upon us, a belief, an insistence, that all diversity is good, is beneficial.

It isn't.

e.g.
You wouldn't mix animal blood in with your food, just because it was a 'different' way to eat your food. [some cultures do this]
You wouldn't eat the brains of monkeys, just because it was a 'different' way to eat your food. [some cultures do this]
You wouldn't seek to undermine the laws of the land, because 'our' laws are unfamiliar and cause some new immigrants to feel persecuted.     Would you ?

Why not !

That, is what cultural diversity can bring, to a new land.



'Multiculturalism', is a contradiction,        in that when it is accepted wholly uncritically,
'multiculturalism' becomes a process of devolution of cultures,        rather than a process of enhancement of       any        culture, imo.


Back to top
 

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31
 
IP Logged
 
Yadda
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 20901
A cat with a view
Re: All knowledge must be based in experience.
Reply #40 - May 8th, 2017 at 9:15am
 
Yadda wrote on May 8th, 2017 at 2:18am:


QUESTION;
If this current trend continues [masses of humanity moving to those nations], do you believe that the, presumably, attractive 'cultures' in Western Europe, N. America, Australia, etc, will remain wholly, and to the same 'degree', 'attractive' ?


My own view, is that they will not.

Why do i believe that ?

Because, imo, the native cultures predominant within nations like Western Europe, N. America, Australia, etc, will be irrevocably altered - to the worse.


'Multiculturalism', is a contradiction, because 'multiculturalism' does not create cultural cohesion, imo.

Perhaps 'multiculturalism' brings some advantages.

But it also brings many underlying cultural conflicts.

'Multiculturalism' is a process of upheaval and the destruction of the 'better', by the 'worse', imo.






For example France;

France is a large and important nation, in Western Europe.

Until very recently, i would argue that, France could have been described as a nation in Western Europe which was;
1/ WEALTHY,       2/ PROSPEROUS,        and 3/ POLITICALLY STABLE.


I would argue that while France [as a nation in Western Europe], can still be described as a WEALTHY nation,
France is no longer a PROSPEROUS nation,
and France is no longer a POLITICALLY STABLE nation.

And i would argue that the loss of that PROSPERITY and POLITICAL STABILITY in France, can be directly attributed to France's 'wholehearted', and uncritical, embrace of 'multiculturalism'.

And, imo, the situation in France is only going to get much, much worse.


n.b.
This morning, the news that Macron has just been elected President of France.

Is anyone brave enough to argue that after this latest election in France, of another 'multiculturalist',
that now, all of the problems caused by 'multiculturalism', within France, are now going to be solved, by the election [to president of France] of another pro-'multiculturalist' ?


Back to top
 

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31
 
IP Logged
 
Prime Minister for Canyons
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 26906
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: All knowledge must be based in experience.
Reply #41 - May 8th, 2017 at 10:23am
 
Argue with zero evidence you mean.
Back to top
 

In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

No evidence whatsoever it can be attributed to George Orwell or Eric Arthur Blair (in fact the same guy)
 
IP Logged
 
issuevoter
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9200
The Great State of Mind
Gender: male
Re: All knowledge must be based in experience.
Reply #42 - May 8th, 2017 at 8:30pm
 
Yadda, I don't know where you live or how old you are, but I clearly remember Australia as a monoculture. It was so dull and intellectually stultifying that anyone, who could, got f#ck out of the place as soon as they could scrape together the fare. The food was Anglo-Australian, the worst of both worlds. Coffee was instant, and you got weird looks if you didn't drink tea or beer. The clothes were dreadful and badly made, and you were expected to conform to the lowest common denominator, which was like being immersed in the football and horse racing crowd.
Back to top
« Last Edit: May 8th, 2017 at 8:37pm by issuevoter »  

No political allegiance. No philosophy. No religion.
 
IP Logged
 
Yadda
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 20901
A cat with a view
Re: All knowledge must be based in experience.
Reply #43 - May 8th, 2017 at 9:09pm
 
Quote:
.....Australia.....[used to be] so dull and intellectually stultifying that anyone, who could, got f#ck out of the place as soon as they could scrape together the fare.



issue,

The word      diversity     means difference/different

It does not necessarily mean better.



Me too.

When i was a young man, i completed my trade apprenticeship, and then, soon after that, i left Australia, to travel in Europe, and Israel.

Some years later, i came home, to Australia.


[i'm not Jewish]

Back to top
 

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31
 
IP Logged
 
Yadda
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 20901
A cat with a view
Re: All knowledge must be based in experience.
Reply #44 - May 8th, 2017 at 9:50pm
 
issuevoter wrote on May 8th, 2017 at 8:30pm:
Yadda, I don't know where you live or how old you are, but I clearly remember Australia as a monoculture. It was so dull and intellectually stultifying that anyone, who could, got f#ck out of the place as soon as they could scrape together the fare.

The food was Anglo-Australian, the worst of both worlds.

Coffee was instant, and you got weird looks if you didn't drink tea or beer. The clothes were dreadful and badly made, and you were expected to conform to the lowest common denominator, which was like being immersed in the football and horse racing crowd.




issue,

The facility of now having access to kebab shops, imo,       isn't worth the 'trade-off', in having to suffer the proximity of 'ISLAMICS'.      !!!!



Back to top
 

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Send Topic Print