Conversation

Replying to and
This isn't growing *solipsism*, it's increasing the perfection of one's understanding of another object. twitter.com/vgr/status/127 The humbling of the ego is antithetical to solipsism, which is by definition closed off to things outside the mind.
Quote Tweet
So growing solipsism, in the context of a ego being shrunk by an instrumental connection with reality is a sign of a *growing* scientific sensibility. (not a necessary result of "doing STEM"... in fact shallow talent can grow the ego in a narrow prowess/procedural identity sense)
Show this thread
1
Replying to and
There's a beautiful ethical corrollary to this: twitter.com/vgr/status/127 Doing science is like "joint attention," the process by which humans become aware of other people's perspectives *by* focusing on the same object. By it, we are led out of solipsism into other-awareness.
Quote Tweet
So growing solipsism, in the context of a ego being shrunk by an instrumental connection with reality is a sign of a *growing* scientific sensibility. (not a necessary result of "doing STEM"... in fact shallow talent can grow the ego in a narrow prowess/procedural identity sense)
Show this thread
1
Replying to and
In joint attention, we gain awareness of another person's perspective through focus on an object. In science, we gain awareness of another object by focusing on the signs by which we experience the object. Both lead us out of solipsism by checking experience against a mediator.
1
Replying to and
As joint attention is the servant of other-awareness, science is the servant of being-awareness. Both humble and strengthen us. Both keep us from self-worship (that is, unless we get confused and start worshipping science or joint attention!) Worship the deity, not the priest.
1
Replying to and
I love how so often we have to pursue a question down to the farthest depths before finding real value. Reality doesn't come with a how-to. It's almost like it's set up to favour worshippers and true lovers. No one else has the will to go deep enough.
Quote Tweet
This particular example is particularly powerful for me. Spent my PhD years working on interferometric space telescopes for exosolar terrestrial planet detection. The stack of assumptions underlying the instrumentation is *incredibly* deep.
Show this thread
1
Replying to
Interesting counter but no. I would not describe my position as moderate realism. I’m merely moderately polite towards prevailing conventions of consensus realism. My definition of solipsism is a more robust one: I cannot be sure of the nature of anything outside my in mind.
1
1
Replying to and
“Hail being” is where *you* land pursuing this line of development, but it’s not the only place to land. What you’re calling other awareness and joint attention are still bracketed for me with not-my-mind doubt and subject to something closer to solipsism and Cartesian skepticism
1
1
Replying to and
Solipsism isn’t “driving” things. It’s the least unstable core at the core of flux. Your attempt to locate a “cause” for scientific sensibility in a particular place in the western tradition (second scholasticism over cartesianism) suggests we are not talking about the same thing
1
1
Replying to and
To me “STEM” is merely a historically specific chapter in the evolution of being-and-world that relates the least-unstable core (provisionally but not absolutely labeled me-being in time) to the most-unstable.
1
1
Replying to and
It is not the sort of thing that can be “caused” by behaviors assumed of very strong entities you label “minds” (plural) doing historically situated philosophy. It’s like saying the bottom of a valley (of doubt) “causes” slopes rising up around it. No it’s all one doubt landscape
Replying to and
“Being” may be the least unstable thread in the being-and-world flux but it is still incredibly shaky ground. Solipsism is best understood as staying attached to it anyway. Other minds are no more than dubious claims of the existence of other valleys that are like “me”.
2
1
Replying to and
This is much clearer in the eastern tradition, where the conflicts between the various versions of advaita and dvaara, as well as Buddhist voidism, arose out of different ways of trying to resolve this. It is notable that the doctrine of Maya is a specific consequence of trying.
1