The Paucity of Positive Thinking

The Paucity of Positive Thinking is the paucity of all thinking.

Beacon of Dark

It is interesting how when Humanity has some new form, or function, the new option is, itself, before evolving with use, turned on its head. Afterwards the newness of the new function is forgotten. But right after birth, there is a phase where  the new something is tossed around, held upside down and shaken, and generally, objectively, examined. 

Things I am talking include the work of the novelist Laurence Sterne -- particularly his novel : Tristram Shandy. The novel, was a new form in the 18th century. People say the novel was born in classical myths, in medieval tales, and yet, when we talk of the novel as a form, we mean something of which man, a psychological entity, separable from his surroundings, is the star. This whole notion may be analyzed for its accuracy, but now, that would be a diversion from my point. The novel, published in full by 1767, both invents and exhausts, the form, before it has even become a --  formula. Tristram Shandy parodies the whole idea, of taking an individual and making his life events, to be of some interest, in a linguistic, linear, form. 

This kind of birth, where something new is shaken, turned upside down and thoroughly examined,  before being commonly used, is similar to what happened when man acquired language. One might assume these births of the novel would proceed with learning and examination of the options slowly evolving with use and time. Such was not the case with Sterne and also not the case with human language.  This birth of human language one may easily imagine necessitated millenia to occur. So my focus is on that shaking examination of mind itself, soon after rational discourse was brought on stage, which is evidenced in what we now call--- the Paradoxes of Zeno. 

These are remembered today, the most common perhaps, that proving that motion cannot occur. At least such is a common description now, of Zeno's point. An example was that if, with each step, you covered half the remaining distance to your goal, you, would never get to the goal. Actually Zeno's knew quite well that motion was part of human, planetary reality. What Zeno wanted to show was the limitations of language as a tool. He used language itself to prove the inadequacy of words. Such an astounding feat did he accomplish that his deathless reputation is not a surprise. Nor, to someone acquainted with human nature, is the misunderstanding of Zeno's purpose.  Motion occurs, language cannot capture it. Our modern world utterly misunderstands Zeno's point about the limitation of language. Modern popularizers of science typically assumes language not just sufficient, but the sole guarantor of reason. Yet Zeno's insights are not out of reach for the empirical among us today. 

Courting more than black rectangles

The tennis courts in the park remind me of the verbal mind, that is, the ordinary, binary mind. This incredible, necessary, dimension to our life, remains at the same time, a hindrance to efforts to persistently inhabit a less asphalt ruled surface. An impediment to an aural dimension where the whop of the bop bop balls drowns the bird melodies and grasshopper hums. Without the linguistic domineering of the mechanical mind, men in crowds could not progress. The individual though must win a grassy verge with none of the jolliness of company. So it has been, and it is hard to imagine how that hard blade would change. That any purchase at all is pertinant is enough of a joy. 

Paradox or Parable

A review of Jim Al-Khalili's new book, Paradox: The Nine Greatest Enigmas in Physics, points to an apparently superficial summary of certain aspects of modern thought. The review though gave me a new way to focus on the question of the difference between that aspect of the material world we denote as consciousness, and that, aspect we, less problematically, call the physical world. This is an ongoing puzzle, that may never be resolved, but lots of fun to think about: the difference between consciousness and other aspects of the world we encounter. Our apprehension of the so-called external world is mainly communicable through the rational mind, and for my present purposes, the ordinary. binary mind of man, that allows him to alphabetize, and otherwise. divvy up the external, is thrown into contrast with pure consciousness, an awareness not focused on a particular object. From a cognitive point of view this could point to the difference between the physical and the mental, though we are speaking loosely.

The Nine Greatest Enigmas in Physics, has a chapter on the paradoxes of the philosopher Zeno. These are typified by the one which says if you move towards a destination by having each step cover half the distance, you will never arrive at your destination. This is supposed to show how motion is impossible. 

What occurred to me is that what we have here is the difference between the consciousness of man, and one aspect of that consciousness, -- rational thought. What I like about this perspective is that it points to the necessity for complications in man's mental functioning, beyond the the rational, binary, aspect, that part we often call the rational mind. The paradox is less pungent when you realize that the apprehension of motion needs both binary thought and a wider consciousness extant constantly. This wider consciousness, is apparently necessary all the time, for man's comprehension. This is not the majority view of 20th century philosophy, focused as it was on linguistics. The solution to this paradox -- motion is impossible, and yet exists -- was within and about us, all the time. 

What Zeno meant, to demonstrate the limitations of rational thought,  was a paradox and is now a parable. There are at least two, aspects to consciousness-- that which divides (that is, the rational mind) and that which unifies, unifies human perception, and awareness.

The above paragraphs hardly explain the unity the human mind demonstrates, but hints I hope at the necessity of two necessary dimensions each second that mind is alert. I would not want to suggest that two is a confining condition.

Less or more

Could we comparatively rank the natural scientist and the persistent mystic? One looks at stuff, the other between the stuff. The latter draws mo boundaries because there are none, the former know nothing of the latter, and could not work if they did. So together they are one molecule.

Sometimes a headline is enough

Our comments today are inspired by a news item about physical inactivity as a "pandemic" situation.
"Physical inactivity – A worldwide pandemic". The headline was enough for me to know there was no glimpse of the facts of the situation in this news. For the spreading arses actually reflect a rising intelligence. Not individual intelligence. NOT the IQ of some person. But the intelligence which may be said to characterize humanity as a whole.

Nobody said it would be hard

Christopher Howse, on Augus t 31, 2012, published a column entitled, 

"Big question from Stephen Hawking."

Christopher Howse is a religion columnist at the British newspaper, The Telegraph. I read him a lot, usually I learn something fun. This recent column about the questions of science reminded me of a recent perspective that Neil DeGrasse Tyson led me to. Tyson was repeating a common complaint among scientists, and he put it this way, (not an exact quote though) We don't know what happened before the big bang, but the religious people take this and say, aha, that proves there is a god.

Tyson and I say, Nah, this gap, PROVES, not a thing. And boy, is this logic prevalent in the religious press. My plan for this column is to just quote the questions Howse brings up, and at the end, let me have another go at explaining why these gaps in science do not prove anything at all. Oh, you can find the edge of the gap, and look and listen. But you cannot from this, say, here is an answer. Here is Howse with ellipses:

..."Ever since the dawn of civilisation, people have craved an understanding of the underlying order of the world," Stephen Hawking said. "Why it is as it is and why it exists at all." The answers keep changing.

According to Saul Perlmutter, a winner of the Nobel prize last year, the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate because of an entity called dark energy. A generation ago, the orthodoxy was that the expansion of the universe was slowing down.

The uncertainty of facts about the physical world makes it hard for those who hope to use them to prove the existence of God. ....

In setting out to prove God's existence, however, the task is not to say something extra about the universe. The God whose existence is to be proved, or disproved, is not part of the universe. If God by nature could be seen, he would lack the attributes that are part and parcel of what we mean by God.

Thus the infinity of God is not the mathematical infinity of time and space (whether it is "curved" or not). The kinds of infinity applicable to God are unlimited intellect, will (love) and power. Nor is God a cause in the universe like other secondary causes. He is the cause of the cosmos in the sense of explaining "why it exists at all" in Professor Hawking's words. God is called transcendent because he is not in the universe as one object among many. He is called immanent because he is intimately present to the cosmos as the cause of every bit of it existing.

So, to prove God's existence from traces that he leaves in the universe would not be like detecting dark energy.... Instead of inventing a sensitive meter to detect the presence of God, the argument has to proceed by examining metaphysical truths about the universe.

The universe seems very nicely arranged, for a start – with an "underlying order" as Professor Hawking notes. So what accounts for things, far and near, falling into patterns?

Then, to explain "why it exists at all" is not just to find a starting point, as if the Big Bang was someone lighting the blue touch-paper. Aristotle was happy to think it had always been there; some cosmologists draw an elegant graph in which space and time start at the same point. Neither view explains why there is anything there.

I suspect an argument can be constructed based on the intelligibility of things. It is not just that oxygen behaves the same way here as at 8.5 billion light years away. It is that material things can be known rationally. We do not just bump into them, we understand them, identify them as kinds of things, and use them.
.....

As far as our poor minds go, understanding the principles of things is an ability to form universal concepts: not just an impression of a squawking feathery mass but of a kind of thing called a chicken. As far as things themselves go, they must have properties than can be understood.

....principles in things that correspond to our conception of them. ....logos, ...the name of one universal Word or principle that was there in the beginning.

Finished with quoting Howse. My point was to stress he saw answers as possible, answers expressed verbally.

Perhaps the quote was over long for my point, but I guess I am still entranced by the aspects which have apparently been accepted uncritically by the theologians. I count Howse as the best the theologians have to offer. Nothing above in his words lead me to think he has a clue about what an answer could consist of. You can stress the inadequacies of science, and they are legion. I like to put it simply that scientists are not empirical, enough. But Howse looks for answers---answers that can be put into words. That will not work from any kind of astute, inquiring perspective. Yes I am saying that the answers cannot be put into words. And what then would I be writing anything for. Because there are realities that cannot be summed up in words. In fact, and this is a point for another day, but it is obvious that there are realities that cannot be put into words. 

To phrase it this way, to point, the way Gurdjieff and Jan Cox, were tilting their heads, --over here. Questions are in a format like this --- words_words_words.  Answers are assumed to be in a comparable order-- word! words! words!  

NO NO NO. Words cannot be the answer, words cannot convey-- the answer. Words are a big part of the problem. Not certain words, words themselves.