I enjoy Ebert’s criticism; and Predator is one of those Cockaygne films I love…
[Originally posted 16.12.07]
Hmm, getting better, Timo…
Words & Music by Tolkki/Kotipelto
Once again I try to make things work
facing all the power of society
Searching all the answers of the life
Ill never make it on my own
Was I meant to fail everytime
Seems to me thats my destiny
Is this all thats left to me
Confusion and bad memories
But now my time has come
No more running in the dark
I want much more than this
I really want it all
Against the wind we run
to every place under the sun
Weve got so much power inside
We will never give up
Against the wind we go
towards the new shore
together well forget the sorrow
its forever gone
Michael (submitted 22.12.2007)
David Lewis has a phrase which goes something like “we [as philosophers] should be on the side of physics, but not take sides within physics”.
This is a very noble and difficult position to have; but face it; we will be dead in a hundred years, and scientific developments will continue as always. My eye is on Kant here; Kant’s transcedental aesthetic fails because of a little thing called non-euclidean geometry. Kant believed that our belief that space was infinite and boundless is a priori necessary…hmm, ‘fraid not Immanuel.
Despite this; I think metaphysics is very important; and we need to accomodate for scientific developments as much as we can. Metaphysics isn’t science (contrary to some philosophers in my department); but the two are supposed to depict the same world of experience (metaphysics of a world of experience? That would sound absurd to many!)
Let me give a paradigm case in Mathematics:
We grant that some of the oldest platitudes in mathematics are true; like Pythagoras Theorem; or (almost entirely all of) Euclid’s elements; yet during the time these mathematical truths were thought of and agreed upon, they believed in superstitious absurdities, socially deleterious nonsense and things which are just plain false! Pythagoras the philosopher may have been wrong; Leibniz the philosopher may have been wrong. But Leibniz the Mathematician, Newton, the Mathematician, Pythagoras the Mathematician…were hitting on a reality so beyond their contemporamous knowledge of empirical science and theoretical physics that they went beyond knowledge and hit upon the realm of indisputable truths and platitudes; the so-called “book” that Erdos referred to. [Destre]
Perhaps Destre has just shot me in the foot; Destre referred to Mathematics as the paradigm science of reason over experience…NOT metaphysics. Destre sometimes suggests there isn’t a real different; or rather, that one should survive, and not the other…and he doesn’t think mathematics is ever going to die…
I’m optimistic that metaphysics is possible. Kant (rightly) points out the thirst for knowledge that humans have, so thirstful that we are too pretentious for our own good to even come close to fulfilling those pretentions. The Kantian programme I am okay with; despite that; I think the Lewis Proviso should assert two things
The independence of Metaphysics from Empirical Science
The openness of Metaphysics to be refined or not contradict, or not make assertions regarding the domain/discourse of Empirical science
But here are some hard questions I can’t answer:
Is metaphysics superior to mathematics?
Is mathematics a reduction of metaphysics to its fundamental primitives?
What is the relation to metaphysics and logic; and better still; metaphysics to mathematics? (corollorary question: mathematics and logic)
Kant’s ultimate question: Is metaphysics possible?
These are all hard questions
I’m not as worldly a man as I should be; but many of you readers will know more about the Pakistan situation than I do; I understand that Musharraf has declared Martial law about a month or so ago; and there are civil problems. Destre reminds me of the Greek word for “civil strife”; and the reforms of Solon, Peisistratos, and Cleisthenes…Archons…Areopagites.
It is sad to hear about Bhutto; this has made a bad situation worse. The Christmas period is normally a time for Christians to think about improving themselves; reminding themselves about the forgiveness that Jesus gave humanity by his death.
Times are difficult in the world; and times will get harder still.
I hope things improve in Pakistan; and international relations wider.
This is a terrible video…
I saw it in a dream the day that changed our history
I still can hear the screams swear it was no mystery
In the heat of the blast Houses fell down into the ground
This happened so fast Mankind disappeared without sound.
Now the world lives in shadow of atomic fear
Can we win the fight for peace or will we disappear?
I saw it on the screen The day that changed our lives and history
There goes our dream Nuked into the sky dont know why
In the heat of the blast Watch the beauty of the mushroom cast
It wont take long You wont live till the end of this song
now the …
Michael (submitted 22.12.07)
Among my intellectual and cultural heritage; which includes Catholicism and Christian Theology; Early-Modern and Analytic philosophy; Classical (and Romantic) period music and ideology; black comedy; and certain discourses of difference…I also have a certain social theory tradition on my back which strives to be critical; ideological; and foremost: forward thinking in improving society.
A post was made by Antisophie [https://sinistredestre.wordpress.com/2007/12/22/an-important-social-question/]; and Sinistre provoked me to do a joint post. A certain utopian or Imaginary Reconstitution of Society [cf. Levitas] method has inspired these thoughts in Areopagus, but have also been around in social theory, literature, and even (continental) philosophy for a while.
1. If we are going to improve thigns in society; we must understand its processes
2. One thing we realise is that we have a finite quantity of resources that are applied to satisfy human needs and desires
3. The ‘Gap’ exists between the desires and needs we have, and the resources available to attain them.
I should emphasise this: this is NOT my area of expertise in any sense; but coming across this in my upbringing, it is important to remind myself, and to awaken these thoughts in my readers. Some ways we can apply solutions to the problem is firstly to define the problem; and then types of solutions.
DefN: The scarcity gap is the problem where a void exists when we have a set of desires and needs, and a stretch to meet said desires/needs by virtue of our available resources.
Solution 1: COCKAYGNE: assume technology will somehow find an answer, or we exhaust our current resources to satisfy our desires; the only thing that changes is (if anything at all); our technologies that manipulate resources, and NOT our consumption patterns.
Solution 2: ARCADIA: change our own attitudes towards resource usage, and our own moral character, and change resource usage and management. The leaning of this tendency is to be as ascetic as possible; soak up as much oil as you can for as much time as you can use it, for example.
I’m going to end the post prematurely here; so maybe we can provoke discussion
P.S. Hope you had a Merry Christmas…we are thinking of you, Destre
“Who will clear up our shit”; let me rephrase:
How do we deal with waste?
What kind of people deal with the most unappealing, yet necessary task
How do we deal with conservation/preservation/cleaniness?
How do we gel together the aspirational hopes we try to implant in the people; with the not-so-aspirational, yet necessary tasks, like cleaning toilets, working in sewers…
Please give an answer better than “Robots will…”
P.S. My thanks to Dr. Matthew Cole for always asking this question…
I shall tell you a little bit more about Sinistre*:
Back in the past; when I was an aspiring musician; I was part of a corp of individuals; lets call them the Sinistreans. The basis of the Sinistreans was pure ability in music; our capacity to compose, perform, and try to outdo each other. We were a group of artisans and artists from a variety of backgrounds. Sinistre* was the leader.
Sinistre* was known as the leader; he was the most eminent of us all; he was known by many as the storyteller, the legend, the man with the memory, the man with the hands; his reputation made him both feared and revered. Sinistre* was my was my hero; he was my leader; my hope.
There came a point when (so we thought) he ceased to be. I was alone without him; lost, mediocre. I couldn’t continue playing the piano anymore; as the memories were too difficult. I ceased to be myself as Sinistre* died. I, however, took the unforunate burden of taking his name, taking the place of my hero as he died. I did not deserve this place, but it was forced upon me to continue his name.
Now that my hero has returned. What is of my existence? My life is characteristed by the response to his loss, the response to, and the creation of a new life, a new source of identity from my past one, moving away from the reputation of ‘the legend’ and the man of stories; what shall become of me now that Sinistre* has returned?
I suspect he will challenge Destre’s authority; and try to take over Areopagus. Michael will be absent from our inner conflict; there will only be the fight for dominion between Sinistre and Destre; two headed dragons who fight for identity in the world of nous. For leadership of the bodypolitic Areopagus.
If Sinistre* defeats Destre; then our project becomes the one I adopted in hte past; all the things I became shall be lost, as I revert to Sinistre*’s rule. I will be condemned to repeat the past; the past I was supposed to have moved forward from. I have the certain hope of Troy past; do I choose that in favour of an uncertain-to-be-possible Rome future?
I cannot stand in this fight for our dominion; only Destre has the capacity as leader of Areopagus, to defend against that dragon/hero of the past, Sinistre*; for dominion. It is unfortunate when brothers must defeat each other. Especially those so intimate of heart as Destre and Sinistre*
This made me laugh HARD
A (originally posted 19.12.07