And McGilchrist elegantly describes the unspoken phenomenological encounter (being). Deutch would agree that we don’t have the words to capture the experience (inexplicit knowledge), but imagines one day we will, through conjecture & refutation leading to objective progress
-
-
Replying to @mindmeanings @Malcolm_Ocean and
Whereas McGilchrist views attempting to quantify our encounters via explicit concepts, detracts from the quality of the experience (over-relying on the left hemisphere).
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Both can happen. The way culture is currently set up, trying to rationalise inexplicit stuff does typically suppress parts of it. Crucially, in Deutsch's view—cf. other rationalists—these two sides are *equal* (should be listened to as equal, full participants). Suppression bad.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @reasonisfun @mindmeanings and
But in the Deutschian view, the inexplicit and nebulous can in principle be made explicit and precise. In the McGilchrist view, this can’t be done without loss of meaning. Fallibilism doesn’t get you irreducible nebulosity.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @JakeOrthwein @reasonisfun and
(I don’t know about CRs specifically but) this distinction between ontological nebulosity and epistemic uncertainty is the central thing rationalists (other brands at least) don’t understand (and often seem to actively resist understanding for emotional safety reasons)
3 replies 0 retweets 19 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @JakeOrthwein and
in your terms, ontological nebulosity is distinct and prior to epistemic uncertainty; y/n?
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
-
Replying to @Meaningness @JakeOrthwein and
another one if in the mood: in your terms, emptiness is distinct and prior to nebulosity; nebulosity has a bit more of conceptual flavor, but they are close; y/n?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @meditationstuff @JakeOrthwein and
mm, not so much… I haven’t tried to clarify this because afaict “emptiness” is somewhat a “floating signifier” in Buddhism; different people use it to mean different things, none of which are clearly defined. “Nebulosity” is also not clearly defined, so… https://meaningness.com/terminology/emptiness-form-nebulosity-pattern …pic.twitter.com/vuimwgG9hM
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @JakeOrthwein and
I want to gently push back on the emptiness thing. I'll be just another voice in the cacophony, but it seems like you take a very scholarly approach to emptiness (which is excellent and critically valuable) but what about the direct experience part?
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
Well… what different people say about their experiences of emptiness seem to be different. Maybe they’re all talking about the same thing, or maybe they aren’t? How would we go about finding out?
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @JakeOrthwein and
Describing the experience as best we can, idiolectally, and then collaboratively working towards common terminology, and then seeing if people agree or disagree!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @meditationstuff @JakeOrthwein and
So I adopted a different word in caution against multiple dangers. One potentially present: An assumption that there is exactly one thing in this general vicinity, so the task is to identify it clearly. That *might* be true, I don’t have a strong opinion, suspect not.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.