[Madness]

I have thoughts. But I'm too tired and distracted to give them form.

But I did want to stop in thank you all for helping to make this place a unique monument in the world. There just isn't another noosphere quite like SA.

Also, Alia, apologies for the issues you've been having with the forum. I affected some change this afternoon after talking with hosting support - please let me know if you experience any periods of total inaccessibility, rather than speed issues. Aside, as a rule I long ago adopted the strategy of copying my posts before I try and post on any forum (though, I sometimes still have lapses and my thoughts are eaten by the Abyss ). Again, apologies to anyone experiencing issues.

[Royce]

We are cool, Royce. I was not taking what you said as an attack on that. I also hope i did not give you any reason to think i am talking aggressively here. I'm still getting a hang of writing about such complex topics in english...so i might misstep sometimes. But normally, i am a quite nice person and try to discuss in a civil manner

Cool, Kellais Yeah I am starting to get a hang on this too you know I do not think I have had so much fun since I figured out how to masturbate when I was 13

Am I right to tell my friends that he's wrong, that homeopathy does not work and he just wastes his money on sugar pills and water? Or is my point of view just my philosophy and he's equally right?

Well, if this hypothetical friend has a serious illness, and you could prevent him from dying, I would say that it is right of you to intervene. That if your action/inaction has direct consequences for this friend, we have left the field of philosophy, and we are over in the caring/not caring field of humanness.

As little as I know of homeopathy, I have heard that the placebo is pretty strong with this one. These "doctors" use much more time on their patients than ordinary doctors do. They operate more as a friend than a doctor. So the patients feel comfortable in their presence, and they walk away with positive effects. I am of course talking about minor aches here. I saw James Randy swallow a whole glass of homeopathic "medicine" on stage a few years back, so that their business is pure placebo should be beyond question.

I wasn't trying to criticize you Royce. Really quite the opposite, I applaud your efforts. I just don't have the patients to do that, and it can sometimes get to the point where communications breaks down, though I think you walked the line nicely.

Never thought you were Wilshire We all have our different ways.

[Alia]

Am I right to tell my friends that he's wrong, that homeopathy does not work and he just wastes his money on sugar pills and water? Or is my point of view just my philosophy and he's equally right?

Well, if this hypothetical friend has a serious illness, and you could prevent him from dying, I would say that it is right of you to intervene. That if your action/inaction has direct consequences for this friend, we have left the field of philosophy, and we are over in the caring/not caring field of humanness.

Yeah, that's the one we would all agree on, I think. But if it's just that I don't want him to spend his hard-earned money on sugar pills? And if I see that he's not really ill, he's just one of those worried-well and I'm afraid that his homeopathic healer is making him afraid of a non-existent illness? The line is very much blurred, I think.

[dragharrow]

But, Royce, if you are convinced of something, then that is subjective truth, is it not?! By definition, something that is subjective has only to hold for one subject. Superb if it holds for many many people, but it already fulfills the definition if only one of us sees it that way and holds it for the truth. So i guess you are talking yourself into a dead-end, my friend

About the objective truth...i guess it depends on how strict you are on your definition. I am saying that we have some fields of knowledge, where there is a clear wrong and right. But it is true that even in the purest, most logical science Mathematics, you have to first make some "assumptions" aka put up Axioms. But from there on out, you  can prove everything that follows as true or false.
People who now go "yeah, but you have those axioms and those are made up..." are a bit too hung up on nitpicking...because nothing exists in a Vacuum, right?! So you always have to have a starting point. And let me tell you, those axioms are much more complicated than something you can just make up

This is my position in a nutshell.

In claiming that something is true, you must present a justification. Any justification that you present, I can call into question. You will then have to justify that your previous justification, and so on. Because of this there is no way to prove any claim to truth. The justifications for whatever you believe must ultimately take one of three (in my opinion unsatisfactory) forms. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma :

If we ask of any knowledge: "How do I know that it's true?", we may provide proof; yet that same question can be asked of the proof, and any subsequent proof. The Münchhausen trilemma is that we have only three options when providing proof in this situation:
-The circular argument, in which theory and proof support each other (i.e. we repeat ourselves at some point)
-The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum (i.e. we just keep giving proofs, presumably forever)
-The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts (i.e. we reach some bedrock assumption or certainty)
The first two methods of reasoning are fundamentally weak, and because the Greek skeptics advocated deep questioning of all accepted values they refused to accept proofs of the third sort. The trilemma, then, is the decision among the three equally unsatisfying options.

While this problem obviously doesn't necessarily show that reality itself is relative or that there is no truth out there somewhere, it does make it impossible to prove that one's knowledge is correct.

Further, even the basic tools we use to deal with knowledge can be called into question. The legitimacy of logic and reason can no more be proven than can faith in a holy scripture. The most basic claim on which logic relies, ~(A & ~A) or that something cannot both be true and false simultaneously, is unreliable. If I ask you to justify that claim you cannot. It is an arbitrary axiom. The only reason you accept it is because, in your experience of the world, it appears to hold and is useful to you. But the truth of your experience of the empirical world is itself not solid. You might be mad, or brain in a vat, or a mathematical expression, or logic could not hold and your existence could be beyond reckoning. Ultimately you accept the things you do because they are useful, not because you know them to be true.

We have no reliable compass or anchor by which to navigate the storm of reality, so why assume that their even is a truth out there at all? Again, I get that this does not prove that reality is subjective, but for me, it raises the question.

From their, my relativism is informed by the apparent power of frames. Things are defined by the frames in which they exist and the lenses through which they are viewed. Any insight we might have is based on an appeal to the rules of a frame. The argument I made above was founded on the axioms taken by the logical frame. You know your own experience of the world to be subjective, its nature is ultimately determined by the lenses through which you see it. If we modify the axioms normally used for geometry, we can explore non-Euclidean geometry, an entirely different but apparently internally consistent frame.

My position is the foundationalist response to the trilemma, minus the usual assumption that one frame of reference must be THE frame of reference.

 Without an unbiased external frame of reference it is impossible to compare frames or weigh the absolute truth of one over the other. We can only ever see a frame through another frame, and the truth value of a frame is different when viewed from within an alternate frame.

So, while my position cannot be proven, neither can other. As the entirety of my experience indicates that truth is subordinate to frame, I have come to suspect that is the nature of reality. Frame is prime. There is no absolute, true, bedrock. Only shifting frames and lenses.

If anything, I would say that the trilemma might indicate that blind faith based systems of belief are likely to be truer than logically informed ones, as they are not self-invalidating. In its ceaseless questioning, logic eats its own tail. Faith, on the other hand, is generally perfectly consistent. Premise = god is true. Conclusion = god is true. It isn't like its axioms are any less provable than those of logic.

Royce you did a lot of dancing to avoid offending anyone . The whole 'treat all ideas as equal' is nonsense. Truth/facts do exist and/or are generally accepted. They can turn out to be wrong, and then a new truth/fact takes its place, but the ability to correct mistakes or fix errors does not make every possible idea a viable one. Though that, in my observation, is a major difference between science and religion. Science (where most people find there facts, right?) is aware of its fallibility and adapts, whereas religion tends more toward absolute truths that are set in stone.

Science takes axioms, just like any other frame. Empiricism is just as arbitrary as any other way of inquiring into the truth.

if you subscribe to the multi-verse theory and infinite probabilities, there is a universe where every idea in our own universe could be found to be 'objective' in another. Then you beg the questions, what makes it objective then, if it only holds in a limited space-time (albeit a space-time the size of a universe...)

I don't think my position is incompatible with this. In fact, I think they support each other. Perhaps the universes are just better understood as overlapping sets of rules.

Which is probably very considerate of you. However, I do not have patience for that. And I feel that with some fellow humans this course of action is really not feasible. Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade - how am I supposed to react to some of my students' blatant xenophobia? Yes, I do tell them then openly, that they are off the mark and their ideas are stupid (not they - but their ideas).

That's fine I guess. I certainly would do the same. I just don't think you should think your positions is truly objective in any sense. Like I said, just because I'm a relativist doesn't mean I don't have moral or philosophical commitments. I just know they are arbitrary. I would never let philosophical relativism prevent me from standing up for something I believed in. That would descend into nihilism and there is no greater sin.

In summation, my relativism is an argument for the primacy of frames over truth. As every truth I have encountered has been subordinate to its frame, it seems unwise to believe in truth before frame.

[Royce]

Yeah, that's the one we would all agree on, I think. But if it's just that I don't want him to spend his hard-earned money on sugar pills? And if I see that he's not really ill, he's just one of those worried-well and I'm afraid that his homeopathic healer is making him afraid of a non-existent illness? The line is very much blurred, I think.

Yeah it can be tough to talk to people who are convinced that this method of homeopathy actually works for them. What you say might not have as strong an impact as this homeopath(who very often are smooth talkers). If you look around you, the list is endless in regards to people almost wanting to be deceived. This whole "alternative" business is filled with deceit. It is rampant in Norway, for instance our princess starting "angel schools" etc. I dont care though.

In summation, my relativism is an argument for the primacy of frames over truth. As every truth I have encountered has been subordinate to its frame, it seems unwise to believe in truth before frame.

So if I understand you correctly, frames are truth to you? I will follow wherever the frames take me?

If we dive to the bottom of the rabbit hole, what do we see? I saw conditioning in so many subtle layers it almost blew my mind. First we learn letters, then words, then sentences etc. I never ever heard an adult tell me that they too have been conditioned, as their parents, and their parents ad infinitum.

This is the foundation of my relativism. But either way, where do we go from here? Is it helpful information this knowledge of relativism? It seems to me you can either argue/discuss yourself to death, write great fiction, or repeat this message to students. I think we are at a point in our evolution now, where practical value is essential for further survival of the species/ecosystem. So this is mainly my problem with philosophy in general. It is fun, but practically meaningless. Meaningless in the sense that when we philosophize,we only question our own conditioning, and that may be funny, but nothing more than that IMO.

[dragharrow]

Where do we go from here? Is it helpful information this knowledge of relativism? It seems to me you can either argue/discuss yourself to death, write great fiction, or repeat this message to students. I think we are at a point in our evolution now, where practical value is essential for further survival of the species/ecosystem. So this is mainly my problem with philosophy in general. It is fun, but practically meaningless. Meaningless in the sense that when we philosophize,we only question our own conditioning, and that may be funny, but nothing more than that IMO.

Perhaps philosophy is more fun than it is useful. I became a much more effective and likable person in my day to day life when I finally internalized the fact that rational argument was one of the least effective ways to convince someone of something. Now I mostly argue for fun. I don't think there's anything wrong with that though. I do what gets me hard. You have to indulge yourself sometimes. Besides, play is good for the mind and good for the soul. Play that encourages mental gymnastics especially

Honestly though, I don't think I agree that philosophy is not useful. I assume the practical skills you are talking about are ones that focus on mundane problems, but in my read, the modern world is running pretty low on those. On the whole, we are better fed, clothed, protected, etc, than ever before. All the metrics on such things continue climbing up.

The crises of the modern world are by and large crises of spirit. Without the traditional structures we once had to shape us, guide us, and explain our place in the world we seem to find ourselves adrift. The doom I fear is the death of meaning, and I think philosophy does help with that. In my own life, philosophy has been an oasis in the semantic wasteland. It is a foundation for the stability, happiness, and richness of my life. I'd like to think that it has helped me bear the water for others too.

Relativism is just the way that has manifest for me. A tool by which I can create meaning and shape the world to my will. We no longer inherit meaning from our families and religions so we must dig our own wells. Plant our own gardens. Breath life into new ceremonies.

What practical skills do you feel we are in need of? What are the critical dangers to our survival you perceive? I am not being rhetorical or condescending at all. I am genuinely interested.

I guess I can see where the danger to the ecosystem exists but that doesn't worry me to terribly. Life will find a way. That is what it does.

[Kellais]

Wow...what a post, dragharrow. I can not at all agree with what you said, but i have to applaud you for it nontheless. I think you made your point very clear.

Be that as it may...the fundament of the whole thing, namely trying to take apart our format of logic (by Baron Münchhausen, nontheless ) stands on very weak legs. Because the only justification for why point 3 of proofing stuff in the Trilemma is not valuable is only this

....and because the Greek skeptics advocated deep questioning of all accepted values they refused to accept proofs of the third sort.

And that is, to say the least, not at all sufficient.
This is a very weak argument....i wouldn't even call it an argument. Just because some greeks refuse to accept the third way of proof it follows that... xyz... . No, i'm sorry, cop out.
And to repeat myself, Axioms are not just totally trivial stuff.

Also, and i'm repeating myself again, nothing stands on empty air. You have to have an origin to start from. So trying to come out of thin air only works for religions

[sciborg2]

Also, and i'm repeating myself again, nothing stands on empty air. You have to have an origin to start from. So trying to come out of thin air only works for religions

But ultimately it's conviction in God or Hume's "moral sentiments", or conviction with regard to reason?

I feel confident assuming mathematical truths following from the axioms, but does this even require bivalent logic? (I'm not challenging, I honestly don't know!  )

Outside of math...things get even more murky it would seem. Searle went through a bunch of philosophical questions here.

We start by assuming Solipsism is false as a matter of practicality....but then after that....is there a good way to distinguish between Idealism and Materialism?

eta: All to say I think a great deal of the "bitterness" stems from the demand people accept certain ideas over other ideas. But I think Dragharrow makes a good case that we should just chill, at least to an extent, because so much of what we know rests on assumptions.

[Royce]

What practical skills do you feel we are in need of? What are the critical dangers to our survival you perceive? I am not being rhetorical or condescending at all. I am genuinely interested.

First I just want to emphasize that I do not think that philosophy is meaningless for me as an individual(I am not even convinced that there are individuals, but that is another thread . To me it is very meaningful in many ways, maybe because I am wired that way. That being said, what I mean by it not being practical is that the receiver of your philosophic statements also has to be philosophically inclined. If I talk philosophy to my mom, she only hears weird sounds coming out of my mouth. To her I could just as well have barked like a dog. Same effect.

So it boils down to training. We train and we end up hanging out with people who are also trained in the same area. We feel at home, and suddenly we have a group of people who call themselves "philosophers". This then leads to other people(who are not in this specific group) not taking philosophy seriously, because they are not trained. They hear jibberish, nothing more. So the philosophizing group see those "other" people as idiots. So, then we have this whole separation thing going(philosophy is only a small part of the big picture of course). This is what I mean by not practical. Of course it depends on what you view as important in life. Your own individual, personal growth, individualization etc, or a more holistic approach to this whole deal called existence.

I am not sure what my position is regarding this. My ego yells "ME ME, I AM THE BEST", and when I find myself in a mental state of non-ego, "me" does not exist. Since I spend 99.9 % of my time with my ego intact, that is the view I have to go with for now. So when you ask me what practical skills we are in need of, I have to answer I do not know....yet. All I know is that our culture is so dependent on tech, that the whole deal would practically collapse if we went of grid. What practical skills do you need nowadays? You only need money, and a phone/computer. You can fix everything with your phone and money. This is not a problem as long as we are safely online.

Another kind of practicality which I think is important, is the "work on yourself" kind of practice. Easy stuff, like if you want a peaceful world, be peaceful. Be a manifestation of peaceful, not just philosophize around the topic "peaceful". Again this boils down to what you want the world around you to be like. I want it to be peaceful. I can not force anyone to want the same as me, but I am pretty sure that if you ask someone face to face if they want an angry world or a peaceful world, most of them will choose peace. You can not talk anyone into being peaceful, this is something each and everyone of us has to work on on your own. Of course this is a first world privilege, to act peacefully towards your fellow humans etc. I bet it is not first priority in the third world, or even in most other countries around. So do I make sense here?, probably not. My mind wanders a lot, and you triggered me off Dragharrow

Our critical dangers to our survival? Well, that is an entirely new thread too my friend. There are so many things, or should I say, so much speculation maybe? In this vastness of information, you really can not tell which source of information you can trust. As I mentioned earlier, this "I am an individual" scenario we got going, really just causes a separation between "you" and all other forms of life. It increases paranoia in every group of individuals too, so we have a "we" versus "them" scenario going, which I think is pretty unhealthy. We now face a "we" versus "nature" scenario too, which to me is rather self-contradictory, if we see man as nature. As you said, life will find a way. Will wee survive? To me the worst that can happen is that life changes form.

I apologize for completely off topic post though. Dragharrow triggered something in me, and I just went with the flow

[sciborg2]

No worries, it was good stuff Royce. I think being at peace with yourself and the world isn't necessarily just a first world privilege, for all but the most extreme cases it becomes a question of possibly deep importance. Krishnamurti talks about this in the dialogue I linked in his thread - can people escape conditioning?

You mention philosophy seeming like another language - I actually wonder if everyone is capable of dealing with the kind of discussions we have. And on the flip side, what if our cognitive faculties are actually limited? Maybe our qualia are duller, for example. 

I also wonder if discussion becomes an addiction and leads to people just complaining about the world around them in a snake-eating-tail situation...which leads us to what knowledge is worth evangelizing? Or is it more action that matters, as the spreading of supposedly important knowledge might simply be a selfish excuse to exercise and exorcise our bitterness?

(I guess knowledge relating to doing should be separated from simply evangelizing of paradigms here.)

Especially if our supposed knowledge is only a series of "bets", as Robert Anton Wilson says in Creative Agnosticism:

...When I speak of The “Real” Universe being created by self-hypnosis, I do not intend anything else but psychological literalness. In the hypnotized state, the existential “reality” around us is edited out and we go away to a kind of “Real” Universe created by the hypnotist. The reason that it is usually easy to induce hypnosis in humans is that we have a kind of “consciousness” that easily drifts away into such “Real” Universes rather than deal with existential muddle and doubt. Everybody tends to drift away in that fashion several times in an ordinary conversation, editing sound out at the ear like Bruner’s cat. As Colin Wilson points out, when we look at our watch, forget the time, and have to look again, it is because we have drifted off into a “Real” Universe again. We visit them all the time, but especially when existential concerns are painful or stressful.

Every “Real” Universe is easy to understand, because it is much simpler than the existential continuum. Theists, Nazis, Flat Earthers, etc. can explain their “Real” Universes as quickly as any Fundamentalist Materialist explains his, because of this simplicity of the edited object as contrasted with the complexity of the sensory-sensual continuum in which we live when awake (unhypnotized).

Being hypnotized by a “Real” Universe, we become more and more detached from the existential continuum, and are annoyed when it interferes with us...

I wanted to pop in and mention that IIRC there is an entire tradition of Greek skeptics so the Trilemma does not make any appeal to authority, rather it's the philosophical position that is being referred to.

Delvagus actually did a whole thing about this kind of skepticism on Bakker's blog, will try to hunt it down.

[dragharrow]

Wow...what a post, dragharrow. I can not at all agree with what you said, but i have to applaud you for it nontheless. I think you made your point very clear.

Thanks Kellais
I've been really enjoying this forum. It's a great community.

Be that as it may...the fundament of the whole thing, namely trying to take apart our format of logic (by Baron Münchhausen, nontheless ) stands on very weak legs. Because the only justification for why point 3 of proofing stuff in the Trilemma is not valuable is only this

....and because the Greek skeptics advocated deep questioning of all accepted values they refused to accept proofs of the third sort.

And that is, to say the least, not at all sufficient.
This is a very weak argument....i wouldn't even call it an argument. Just because some greeks refuse to accept the third way of proof it follows that... xyz... . No, i'm sorry, cop out.
And to repeat myself, Axioms are not just totally trivial stuff.

A quick rebuttal, on what grounds can you just stop justifying when you reach axioms? If you don't think justification is essential why justify at all? Most premises need support but some just don't? I don't buy it.

This is a very weak argument....i wouldn't even call it an argument.

I can very well say the same thing. Your argument for the insufficiency of my argument is not an argument. You just outright rejected it. Adherents of reason generally accept that knowledge has to be justified.

Axioms are generally accepted for one reason divided into two parts. One, the systems derived from them work therefore they are useful. And two, because we inherit them biologically and socially. We inherit them because they work and are useful. Useful axioms are selected for, reproduced, and live on.

Which brings us back to my original point. We use axioms because they are useful not because they are true.

I can only think of two ways you could attempt to justify your axioms. Either, you accept in some form that axioms are justified by their effectiveness. Or you accept them a priori. I don't yet know where you stand but this will likely be the crux. I am not satisfied with those.


We can not inquire from an objective removed position so we can not trust ourselves or our tools. We are located in the very philosophical swamp we hope to gain insight on. Whatever you believe Kellais I assume that there are people with whom you disagree or think are deluded. Those with different political or religious views to you, those you consider dumb, children or the mad?

In those people you should see ample evidence of how we are hard programmed to take our given frame to be objective truth (I'm cribbing Bakker here). This alone should make you suspicious of your axioms. What makes you different?
 

[Royce]

This is from a book I am reading. This is to our Maths teacher(you know who you are

I am a mathematical man. I am a curious man. I have always wondered at the nature of mathematics, and at my own nature as well. What is mathematics? Why should mathematics describe the laws of the universe so exactly? Why should or minds seemingly arbitrary creations fit so well this mad, swirling blizzard we call reality? For example, Why should gravity act between two objects according to the inverse of the square of the distance separating them? Why does it not act according to the second and a half power, or the two point zero one five and so on power? Why is everything so tidy and neat? It may be, of course, that the human brain is so puny that it can discover only the simplest, the most obvious, of universal laws. Perhaps there remain an infinity of laws so hopelessly complex that they would be impossible to state. Had gravity acted more complexly Newton probably never would have found an equation to describe it.

Still, this does not explain why mathematics works as it does, or why it even works at all. What is mathematics? We create mathematics as surely as we create a symphony. We manipulate our axioms with logic as a composer arranges musical notes, and so the holy music of our theorems is born. And in a different sense we also discover mathematics: The ratio of a circle`s circumference to the diameter remains the same for all human minds. All minds discover the same mathematics for that is the way the universe is. Creation and discovery; discovery and creation- in the end I believe they are the same. We create(or discover) undefined concepts such as a point, line and betweenness. We do not seek to define these things, because they are as basic as concepts can be.(And if we did try to define them, we would make the same mistake as Euclid and say something like: A line is breadthless lenght. And then, using other words we would have to define the concept "breadthless" and "length". And so on, until all the words in our finite language were eventually used up, and we returned to the simple concept: A line is a line. Even a child, after all, knows what a line is.)

From our basic concepts we make simple definitions of mathematical objects we believe to be interesting. We define "circle"; we create "circle"; we do this because circles are beautiful and interesting. But still we know nothing about circles. Ah, but some things are obviously true (or it is fun to treat them as if they were true), and so we create the axioms of mathematics. All right angles are congruent, parallel lines never intersect, parallel lines always intersect, there exists at least one infinite set- these are all axioms. And so we have lines, circles and axioms, and we must have rules to manipulate them. These rules are logic. By logic we prove our theorems. We may choose the natural logic where a statement is either true or not, or one of the quantum logics where a statement has a degree of probability of trueness. With logic we transmute our simple, obvious axioms into golden theorems of stunning power and beauty. We may prove many wonderful things which are not obvious at all.

I must say(Royce speaking) that it was fascinating to come across this at the same time as we where indulging ourselves in this thread .

[Kellais]

Hey Royce, thanks 

I guess i have to bow out of this thread. First of all, i don't think my meager english skills are up to the task of what i'd like to write in response to the latest posts (it's a lot of work for me every time and as the posts get longer, it gets harder), second of all, we have gone way off topic by now (we are discussing two systems of believe now [and before that about subjective truth and objective truth]...and not "intellectual bitterness" anymore ) and last but not least...i am not sure i could continue this discussion without stepping on anyones toes...and to be honest, i have no wish to do that (discussing beliefs is always a...delicate subject).
Maybe i will jump in again, who knows, but atm, don't wait on/expect any contribution from me.

[sciborg2]

we have gone way off topic by now (we are discussing two systems of believe now [and before that about subjective truth and objective truth]...and not "intellectual bitterness" anymore ) and last but not least...i am not sure i could continue this discussion without stepping on anyones toes

I think it's relevant in that bitterness seems to come from people disagreeing with supposedly correct answers intelligent people hold. But at times this frustration might be the fault of the presumably self-identified intelligensia.

But I do agree that it leads off into questions of epistemology.

I do think we can argue for plausibility and improbability while accepting definite knowing is outside our grasp. Climate change seems like one example where we can be confident in our assertion that something should be done.

[Madness]

Alright people.

Apologies for the nature of this response. My inclinations are to go through and respond to specific quotes that compel words from me but there has already been such back and forth. Forgive me of taking advantage of this and structuring my post as a more general response.

Aside, you all lost the thread . So I won't be touching more than I feel necessary on the objective/subjective knowledge split. Another thread perhaps .

Conviction

We begin as fitting with Royce's suggestion that what we are convinced by determines our peace of mind. This initial position seems to have led to the objective and subjective knowledge dissension. However, what we are convinced by inevitably influences our perception.

Non/biological depression

Pendulous mentioned way up-thread the distinction between depression as biological imposition rather than intellectual conviction. However, in rereading the thread as a whole, I feel as if this makes for a misleading division. The way we think can and does change the biological structure of our brains. I'm not reducing minds to brains, etc, etc, however, we would be foolish to discount this interaction. Thoughts changing biological structure influence thoughts which change biological structure. There is a wealth of evidence that discusses this back and forth (instances top-down processing, virtuous/vicious feedback loops). This argument can even be taken to biological extremes where the very circuitry of perception is ultimately influenced and augmented by our thoughts.

It seems to be that cognitive processes interact with biological predispositions and can sometimes tip this balance - this is an aspect of logic underlying how some "stressors" can trigger full-blown collections of symptoms as related to certain mental disorders. And even, "intellectual depression" must correlate with differential activation in unique structures (which may or may not differ from "biological depression," and its activation/inactivation patterns).

Intellectual Discrepancy

Wilshire brought up the notion of how "intellectual bitterness" might result from what I jotted down as the intellectual discrepancy. That is, as was articulated by Royce, dragharrow, and Sci, people with a greater depth of accurate knowledge have difficulty communicating what they believe is obvious and simple - based on years and years of specialized research - and make it generalizable to a greater, less specialized commons.

And I think this is where the majority of topical commentary in the thread falls.

It probably has more to do with how much more intelligent you believe you are than everyone else.

After highlighting this gap, Wilshire goes on to describe something I’ll call the intellectual deficit; that is, “intellectual bitterness” may follow from one’s lessened ability to communicate across the discrepancy and affects how one interacts with the world.

Ostracized

Following this dragharrow brings up being ostracized. I figure this is how the conversation came up in Quorum, in that, we all really lack a large peer group where discussions can happen as they happen here.

I was lucky growing up. The group of friends who took me in didn’t really belong to any sort of clique and so there was a little more openness in drugs and teenage curiosity than in other teenage or most adult conversations. But my childhood years were much more difficult. I was clearly at odds with the families and children that I grew up with, except those who lived on the fringe.

Age-inappropriate behaviors

Now I would sum it up but Alia went on to note age-inappropriate behaviors and this does much better than I might have.

This provides a great bridge between the childhood and adulthood circumstances. Through development we have a really well informed body of knowledge to compare what kinds of developmental features are likely to be common across an average number of kids. But how does this help us compare developmental features beyond a biological growing age?

In a way, sketching the intellectual discrepancy in terms of age-inappropriate behaviors, we can ask: how do we define what is age-appropriate to talk about? Perhaps we should be talking about maturity-inappropriate behaviors but this is even harder to define. It’s a complex crux of sociocultural phenomenon in which we all play a part.

So I’ll hold there and move onto Sci’s thoughts for a moment. Sci seemed to be following the “communicative” aspects of this conversation and suggests that “intellectual bitterness” arises from the discrepancy:

All to say I think a great deal of the "bitterness" stems from the demand people accept certain ideas over other ideas.

Again, the reason that knowledge and objective/subjective validity came into this is because being “intelligent” here seems to be defined in terms of our adequate ability to communicate our specialized, privileged knowledge (in this case, whatever information that makes you your own unique perspective) to one another (as opposed to over one another).

However, I might be twisting Sci’s words inappropriately but they also allow us to consider the discrepancy between dogmatic believers (of any faith, including science) and their reliance on and definition of evidence (along a spectrum of all available to none at all).

I would hold that most of us are believers in considering another’s perspective, in communicating over being right, etc, etc… I hesitate to use the word belief but it comes out in our interaction with each other.

So it seems these kinds of communicative methods are the maturity-inappropriate behaviors that can instill “intellectual bitterness.” It seems to be our belief that another should communicate and consider our perspective as much as we do theirs, and “intellectual bitterness” could easily arise from the sort of perpetual social rejection intelligent people can suffer (again, we mediate that each in our own way and I know some very sociable intellectuals – but the trick is they either have a peer group or they limit the exhibition of intelligence whenever possible (or necessary)).

A question I would ask here is whether our behaviors really are maturity-inappropriate? Since we span a number of generations, I would hazard that our ages don’t make a common trait, and therefore our behaviors cannot be maturity-inappropriate throughout all our stages of life?

 I’m just meandering and running out of notation to string together but Sci also notes that our ability to consider this “intellectual bitterness” is a first world privilege, even if the discrepancy would manifest in any body of knowledge, regardless of culture, society, or socioeconomic status. I thought this was important because it specifically highlights possible criteria or constraints of defining “intellectual bitterness.”

Being or Talking About It

I thought I’d end and bring back the conversation to Royce’s being or doing. Now I’m paraphrasing a little out of context because Royce was considering how you still have to act despite an inability to know for sure about the rightness of your perspective. Also, that doing beats debating it. I’m all about bringing the practicality back to these conversations (or really any epic endeavour) so I would have to consider:

“Intellectual bitterness” seems to arise from our inability to adequately communicate our specialized, privileged perspectives on our terms to others who will consider our perspectives as much as we do theirs. This amounts to suggesting that we can’t express ourselves comfortably, the way we want to, about what we want to.

I feel I’ve sketched the issues a little more… perhaps, I’ve been intellectually bitter in my life but now all I see in that moment is an opportunity to learn how to express myself more effectively.