The value of metaphors consists in explaining something that is difficult to fully understand via something that is impossible to understand, yes? If the regression of principal components gives us trouble, our insight may improve by placing them on the genitals of a water plant!
-
-
While we might debate the value of particular metaphors, i find doing it with respect and dignity for age old cultures is a best practice. Further, replacing something hard to understand with something impossible can be a very productive position, see Dada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dada
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I respectfully disagree. My null hypothesis is that cultural narratives tend to point at some truth, but the degree of venerabilitous demeanor of their proponents is not proportional to insight, but to the degree of effort that has to go into hypnotizing the disciples.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
You realise how such views can be seen as very near to colonial attitude? e.g. the conquistadores committing genocide in the americas clearly did not see any value in the indios culture, beyond their gold & potatoes.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
From the perspective of the conquistadores, the value of a culture expressed itself in the ability to win wars, control countries and feed their inhabitants. I don’t agree with their perspective but I dl so because I have different values, not because it is factually incorrect.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Most cultures that ever existed have disappeared, not because other cultures were evil and they were good, but because cultures are subject to evolutionary competition. Evolution is not good or evil, just horrible.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
A moral lens not a tool that a scientist or philosopher can use to understand, it is a tool to program human minds with a doctrine.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Good analogy Joscha. I am using evolution to my advantage here. In a competition of ideas, it goes both ways. What will survive is what fits best to the surrounding ecology. I am confident that the Dharmic philosophical systems have a better alignment with the reality of nature.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
I am worried about philosophies that have decided that their survival is more important than truth, because they will create an ecology of deception. I do not doubt your confidence and intentions, but I don’t yet see the clear path of reasoning and evidence that should support it
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
This is true. But ecology has to align with the truth. If in misalignment, it will be destroyed. I am not convinced that the dominant intellectual paradigm will save our planet. The signs of ecological collapse are everywhere. A course-corrective towards truth is needed urgently.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
A cell that keeps dividing and refuses to die is not lacking truth. In truth, domesticated homo sapiens is a cancer on the biosphere, and the most agressive variant wins, before the food chain collapses. It is too easy to romanticize less effective strains of the cancer.
-
-
Don't be too hard on your human self :) My perspective is that humans are not cancer, but there is an intellectual virus in our brains. It aggressively colonizes the planet & tries to occupy all ecological niches. Just like any parasite, it dies when its host (human society) dies
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
A course-corrective is needed in our intellectual paradigm if we want to save ourselves. If we look at the history of human civilizations, there is a differential rate of survival. Some collapsed quickly and turned the ecosystem to desert. Some survived for long. We need to learn
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
End of conversation
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.