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 @meditationstuff and
I've been running into this problem...it seems as if "emptiness" is an illustration of what it is talking about, and a precise definition of it would be missing the point somehow.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
That has not stopped 2000 years of logic-chopping academic arguments :)
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.