Sorted by New

Wiki Contributions


It is10

Suppose that, as a Buddhist or a lobotomy patient or just a very phlegmatic person, finding your shoelaces tied together didn’t make you angry.

Buddhist, lobotomy patients and phlegmatic people all have things in their closets, they all have things to get angry, upset or confused about. If you are a Buddhist, lobotomy patient and phlegmatic you still see the particular narrative worldview. What you see does not change because after all there will always be something to get tied up on. It is about shaping the things that you do get tied up on and further controlling your reaction to them.

The goblin is the writer 
The closet is your map and territory of your mind
The shoelaces tie together connections in your mind
The shoes are the words

If you read an article here that makes you angry it is okay. The writer has simply made a connection in your mind that you believe imposes upon you a negative feeling. You feel angry because of the map and territory of your mind, not what is written.

Perception of the writer as the globin disappears when you can change the shape of the map or territory.

Who is a globin to steal your gold, but a leprechaun at the end of the rainbow.

It is12

Science was noticing that certain modes of thinking uncovered beliefs that let us manipulate the world

Science is our tool to manipulate the world. Science is the instrument of truth. If you can not manipulate the meaning of reality through definition of words such as 'rational', what it is and it isn't. Where science is the substitute for truth and rationality is the substitute for truth also. As self-evident the definition of rationality is substituted for science and this forms our basic definition for rationality moving forward. Care not to define science as in rationality, science is a tool as is rationality.

In rationality, as in science. 'Curiosity, pragmatism, and quasi-moral injunctions' are injected into research questions and colour our understanding of both the world and truth. 

To use science as a tool is to obtain the truth, to use rationality is to obtain the truth. We must apply a scientific approach and method to our rationality. 

It is10

You cannot change reality, or prove the thought, by manipulating which meanings go with which words.

The same word can mean many things, words that have convergent evolution in their sounding but different meanings are spelled differently for a reason. Propaganda is manipulating the meaning of things, this is often done with slogans and words. Lies are the changed meaning of things to shape reality. Reality is a perception from a particular perspective as in the anthropic problems, it is relational not necessarily objective.

Creating a definition can be done, and is at times useful to make sense of and verify the likeness of maps and territory contained in other people's heads. Such to confirm the maps of language and words are congruent.

If things can not be defined the definition is left up to the individual and open to interpretation. The utility of this experiential approach allows individuals to engender their own ideas. When reading around a philosophical work and engaging with the material you build a representation of its meaning. As you do every time you read or write a word. Even where philosophical works have definitions there is often further assumed knowledge to decode and grasp the work in its entirety. In both cases where there is a formal definition, examples and implementation of its usage, this adds meaning and information. 

Where the probability of controversy high and the ability to quell controversy is low, the probability of formal defence of ideas is reduced. There is a ceiling but unto time to which, things can be defended, defined or explained.

We need not provide and defend formal definitions, a definition is defined through usage. If the probability of a definition causing controversy is high and defining it has low utility the importance of a formal definition is decreased. Leaving things in ambiguity or with multiple degrees of interpretation limits reprisals.

If you don't have anything nice to say don't allow it to take shape, to become definitive. This is besides the point that communication can still transmit useful information. 

The fact that there is no definition is the definition and is evidence for the definition. You can define things, but in the experiential sense what can you do with information that is wrong to steel-man it, to give it utility and make it useful.

If the benefit of a definition providing epistemic accuracy is lower than the instrumental utility of not defining, why define it?

Ultimately if we are to become rational the worst way to brainstorm is to have an anchoring effect around a definition of rationality that also causes controversy. As in the Stability–instability paradox, not naming something creates more names not of the thing in actuality but ideas around it. We are the Blind men yet but touching the elephant that is rationality.