Comments on: Contingency http://www.sharpsand.net/2007/08/07/contingency/ Joseph Duemer's blog about reading, writing, politics, birds, food, & weather Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:31:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Peter http://www.sharpsand.net/2007/08/07/contingency/comment-page-1/#comment-6000 Peter Mon, 13 Aug 2007 06:06:42 +0000 http://www.sharpsand.net/2007/08/07/contingency/#comment-6000 AXIS Faith in fundamental meaninglessness and faith in fundamental certainty for mankind earth the cosmos these two doorposts threatening to fall in on one another bullying ghosts mostly of ancient murders sealed in bloody recapitulations unholy pact of rival brothers dedicated to annihilate any middle way. AXIS

Faith in fundamental
meaninglessness
and faith in fundamental
certainty

for mankind earth the cosmos
these two doorposts
threatening to fall in
on one another

bullying ghosts mostly of
ancient murders sealed
in bloody recapitulations

unholy pact of rival brothers
dedicated to annihilate
any middle way.

]]> By: Jonathan Mayhew http://www.sharpsand.net/2007/08/07/contingency/comment-page-1/#comment-5991 Jonathan Mayhew Fri, 10 Aug 2007 00:26:06 +0000 http://www.sharpsand.net/2007/08/07/contingency/#comment-5991 Religion is the most contingent system out there, because what you believe is largely determined by what family you happen to be born into. Yet a contingent system that does not recognize itself for what it is... that's fundamentalism. Any intelligent believer knows that he or she believes what she believes because of a series of contingencies--cultural and family tradition, temperament, etc... not because that particular religious tradition is objectively true. So I always experience cognitive dissonance when someone from the Catholic church, say, talks about the value of objective truth. Religion is the most postmodern thing that could possibly exist, the best demonstration that notions of "truth" are relative and contingent. Religion is the most contingent system out there, because what you believe is largely determined by what family you happen to be born into. Yet a contingent system that does not recognize itself for what it is… that’s fundamentalism. Any intelligent believer knows that he or she believes what she believes because of a series of contingencies–cultural and family tradition, temperament, etc… not because that particular religious tradition is objectively true. So I always experience cognitive dissonance when someone from the Catholic church, say, talks about the value of objective truth. Religion is the most postmodern thing that could possibly exist, the best demonstration that notions of “truth” are relative and contingent.

]]> By: jd http://www.sharpsand.net/2007/08/07/contingency/comment-page-1/#comment-5986 jd Wed, 08 Aug 2007 21:06:40 +0000 http://www.sharpsand.net/2007/08/07/contingency/#comment-5986 Thanks for your response, Professor Minsky. I thought of Sophocles as soon as you mentioned anger. In Oedipus Rex, which is all about seeing & blindness, both real and metaphorical, anger prevents Oedipus from "seeing" the truth about himself. In any case, both science & the arts, along with many religions, recognize that certainty is a one-dimensional response to an uncertain world, a kind of intellectual & spiritual death. Thanks for the link to the book chapter on which the radio segment was based. I look forward to reading it. Thanks for your response, Professor Minsky. I thought of Sophocles as soon as you mentioned anger. In Oedipus Rex, which is all about seeing & blindness, both real and metaphorical, anger prevents Oedipus from “seeing” the truth about himself. In any case, both science & the arts, along with many religions, recognize that certainty is a one-dimensional response to an uncertain world, a kind of intellectual & spiritual death.

Thanks for the link to the book chapter on which the radio segment was based. I look forward to reading it.

]]> By: Discordian Research Technology » Systems http://www.sharpsand.net/2007/08/07/contingency/comment-page-1/#comment-5985 Discordian Research Technology » Systems Wed, 08 Aug 2007 12:38:52 +0000 http://www.sharpsand.net/2007/08/07/contingency/#comment-5985 [...] There’s more Make a social bookmark to this (digg, de.licio.us, furl, etc.)This entry is filed under Art, Mind, Religion, Science. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Leave a Reply [...] [...] There’s more Make a social bookmark to this (digg, de.licio.us, furl, etc.)This entry is filed under Art, Mind, Religion, Science. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Leave a Reply [...]

]]> By: Marvin Minsky http://www.sharpsand.net/2007/08/07/contingency/comment-page-1/#comment-5982 Marvin Minsky Wed, 08 Aug 2007 03:38:09 +0000 http://www.sharpsand.net/2007/08/07/contingency/#comment-5982 I like your contingency-vs.-certainty view because of meeting so many "certainty-people" who complain that Science is just like another religion. I try to point out that although these two social organizations have many similarities, the personal goals of their 'converts' are quite different. In the 'fundamentalist' religions, one big goal is Faith -- which Mark Twain described as "believing what you know ain't so." In contrast, ambitious scientists aim toward achieving their Sainthood (which in Science is called The Nobel Prize) by (1) designing experiments to show that established beliefs are not quite right and (2) discovering new, better explanations. My radio lecture came out OK, but it was a very condensed version of ideas in Chapter 1 of my new book "The Emotion Machine," which you can read at http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/E1/eb1.html. I also agree with you about Sophocles. Many of my students study modern 'cognitive psychology', and I try to persuade them to supplement this with the insights of Aristotle's I like your contingency-vs.-certainty view because of meeting so many “certainty-people” who complain that Science is just like another religion. I try to point out that although these two social organizations have many similarities, the personal goals of their ‘converts’ are quite different. In the ‘fundamentalist’ religions, one big goal is Faith — which Mark Twain described as “believing what you know ain’t so.” In contrast, ambitious scientists aim toward achieving their Sainthood (which in Science is called The Nobel Prize) by (1) designing experiments to show that established beliefs are not quite right and (2) discovering new, better explanations.

My radio lecture came out OK, but it was a very condensed version of ideas in Chapter 1 of my new book “The Emotion Machine,” which you can read at http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/E1/eb1.html.

I also agree with you about Sophocles. Many of my students study modern ‘cognitive psychology’, and I try to persuade them to supplement this with the insights of Aristotle’s

]]>