Thursday, July 12, 2018

Caitlin Johnstone — Truth


Caitlin Johnston summarizes the foundational issue of Eastern and Western philosophy quite nicely. The history of thought begins with reflections on this. Indeed, one view of philosophy is that it is reflection on experience.

Well-stated. A+

Caitlin Johnstone — Rogue Journalist
Truth
Caitlin Johnstone

25 comments:

Nebris said...

too much acid, babe

Matt Franko said...

“Without the labeling, dividing mind babbling about what things are and how things ought to be,”

Tom, I’m just telling you that in the material Science disciplines, this is all you are constantly taught/trained to do....

jrbarch said...

”Make a list of all that you can know with absolute certainty here and now ... [CJ]

For me, this list is short, and beyond all concepts.

Back and behind of my existence is BEING. Back and behind of this entire universe is BEING. It is Divine, it is one, it is beyond the reach of all human thought and expression: – but, it can be felt, seen, face to face, heard in the Silence. There is no doubt – it IS. It has to be experienced. When you meet it your heart bursts open; your understanding changes - forever. All of life is a river running, leaping, jumping home. That is the religion of Life – come home! Celebrate! Everything else can change; this reality remains ItSelf. It is the only thing in this entire universe that is certain. It WAS, IS, will always BE. It is Breath (motion) - LIFE! It is all around you and within you and yet ignored ....

Consciousness is the self that witnesses this Self. If you weren’t separate, you wouldn’t be able to experience the Divine; the drop would be merged with the Ocean. The body is an appearance, a vehicle for consciousness. Life, Consciousness, Appearance are One, aspects for as long as the Divine holds them manifest; acting together, as three, then two, then one.

From one angle, everything humans do is religion.

When little kids play in a sandpit and make up games, they really believe in the game: - that’s religion.

Then they grow up and play with real money, planes and guns; again with no realisation it is a game - ‘A few golden balls are rolled through the world, and most chase them’. This is illusion - as far as the eye can see. The businessman is an ardent believer in his pursuits, the ascetic who wanders out into the desert. The advertising world knows people are believers. I know because of beliefs you don’t believe me.

A young man grew up in a village in Japan; everything was very real to him until the tsunami came. Village gone, living gone, family gone, friends gone – nothing left but his existence. One day it was all very real; next day the illusion (appearance) had broken. All you ever really have is your existence.

A young boy, watching his mother’s body burning on the funeral pyre - the mother who scolded him, dressed him, fed him, loved him, ruled every aspect of his life – gone! The boy thinks to himself – ‘if ever there was an illusion, it this body’! Once he had a mother, now he has none – but he has his existence.

A trader on Wall St during the GFC – thinking that he lost everything, throws himself from the high rise tower in which he had bound his life. Not able to understand the value of his existence - the only thing he had that was real - that had the potential to save him.

Three people with wisdom, only two used it.

Self-knowledge. Without it, a human being has no idea who they are, or what they are meant to be doing. You know you exist; but do you know why? Your existence holds the key - to You.

Without it, you are nothing (by your metric, not mine). If you are too ’young’ to know this yet, wait a while, it will come ...

With it, you are the richest person on the face of this earth.

A long time ago, someone, doing the greatest of service, put a sign up on the hillside near that same Japanese village, saying ‘Do not build below here’. He knew from experience that the tsunami would come. Many people ignored the warning and built there anyway.

Self-knowledge shows you what is precious, a beautiful seed, nestled within your existence: - how to realise it, how to look after it, water it, let it grow - not throw it away. Whoever can teach you self-knowledge, that person you can’t buy; the knowledge you can’t buy. The heart must ask for this knowledge; mind like a parachute, will not work unless it is open, still, ready and willing to learn. You have seventy laps around the sun to work it out – that’s the game! It’s not chess, or game theory, or world game – it’s Life!

Tom Hickey said...

Tom, I’m just telling you that in the material Science disciplines, this is all you are constantly taught/trained to do....

Then maybe logic and critical thinking course should be required in science curricula.


And it that is all scientists are trained to do, then that will be replaced almost entirely in the digital age, especially as AI is developed further.

Then they would have leisure to culture themselves and develop the heart.

Matt Franko said...

Wouldn’t it be logic that would indicate to someone who would say “the money supply causes inflation!” and then, the “money supply” is increased by 13,0000 %, and prices collapse, that that was false?

Iow the “true” vs “false” are states of logic? Is that what you mean by “logic”?

Tom Hickey said...

@ jrbarch

Yes, the various expressions of perennial wisdom that aspects of that view.

Tom Hickey said...

Is that what you mean by “logic”?

I am talking about your category errors that you seem to refuse to acknowledge. Instead. your shift the emphasis to something that not relevant to the original question, which whether Trump is a scientist as you claim and I dispute on the grounds to give, that he has a BS degree.

If you wish to hold that they have have to account for how a BS in economics becomes an art degree when someone with a BS in economics gets a PHD in economics. You have not attempted that but just changed the subject.

I am criticizing your logic in that regard. You seem to be basing your argument on the dichotomous distinction between science and art.

At the same time you are implicitly making a distinction between good science with bad science and calling bad science, art.

By that logic, there is good art and bad art and bad art is science.

Matt Franko said...

I’m saying there is an inequality in the training of these people..

I don’t have time to interview and audit the people involved... I’m going by what is in the public records that is easily accessible... there is a correlation between science training and material systems competence..

My point is Trump is not a trained artist he has a Science degree and has spent his life in business (which is also ideally a Science degree) he is trained and qualified in material systems and he is forming policies to increase wages as he thinks they are too low and seeks to repair the situation... he will be successful if left alone to do it by econo morons who instead are going to be going all around saying “inflation!” Which their own leading leader Yellen just said they don’t even know what it is...

Matt Franko said...

“correlation between science training ”

Should have said “RIGOROUS science training”...

Matt Franko said...

Tom, some guy could go in to the gym everyday and do 2 sets of 10 lb curls and say “I am a weightlifter!” then another guy could go in 2 days a week and lift 15,000 lbs then the other guy could say “you’re not a weightlifter you only lift 2 days a week!”...

Matt Franko said...

The degree requirements are (at least at the top level) indicative of the characteristics of the training...

Schofield said...

Caitlin Johnstone ignores the fact for energy purposes we are both predators and anti-predators on a daily basis!

Tom Hickey said...

My point is Trump is not a trained artist he has a Science degree and has spent his life in business (which is also ideally a Science degree) he is trained and qualified in material systems and he is forming policies to increase wages as he thinks they are too low and seeks to repair the situation

Matt, you are being inconsistent. How does Trump have a science degree when you are claiming that economics is "arts" rather than science. How is business science. It is not part of STEM unless one takes a very broad view of T. Generally speaking the degree programs in T are engineering and medicine.

Most of the courses in business are "soft" courses. Business people takes some accounting and some math. PHD candidates in economics specialized in advanced math and its application.

Your case is riddled with categories issues owing to ambiguity, and you are clearly influence by confirmation bias wrt DJT. On reasonable standards, you are unqualified.

Sorry if this seems harsh, but I am just coming back at you with what you have been putting out for some time, which appears to correlate with the rise of DJT.

Tom Hickey said...

The more accurate and simply to defend dichotomy is between STEM and non-STEM, which are complements that are inclusive of the whole.

There there is the question of defining the sets, S, T, E, M.

How clear are those set boundaries? To what degree do they overlap with each other STEM sets and also non-STEM sets?

Does business and business experience count under S, T, E or M in STEM?

That alone is controversial. You are simply asserting it. I dispute it.

Psychology, sociology, anthropology, philosophy, and history, as well as business finance and law, use scientific method and formalization to some degree. To what extent does that make them scientific, if at all?

You place a lot of emphasis on material systems competence. Some STEM may be a necessary condition for competence in material systems, but is a STEM degree a necessary condition?

The questions go on.

My conclusion is two-fold. Your approach is simplistic and doctrinaire. Only those that accept it already will be "convinced" by it, since the argumentation is not compelling and the issues are far from being as obvious as you seem to think from your POV. Moreover, you assume your POV to be "reality."

Tom Hickey said...

The degree requirements are (at least at the top level) indicative of the characteristics of the training...

PHDs in economics are far more math and applied math qualified than engineers with a bachelors degree, which is most engineers.

Ryan said...

Truth is appearance, basically.

But then there is social truth, when multiple people in your tribe agree to a truth and create a narrative to motivate the group. It's truth, it's "real" even if not absolute truth. We create lives with narratives of love and we destroy lives, put people to death on these truths, to pretend they aren't real, is to pretend our experience isn't real.

Then there are physical truths, once we agree the sun is the sun, and we agree how to measure it, it doesn't matter whether it's real in the deepest sense, just that we all perceive and measure it in the same way to get the same result, whether simulation or not, it follows rules, everything in the simulation or reality acts as if it's real, so for all humanity, it's as real as anything can be, I'm not sure how the abstraction of the physical world through a transition (moving it back a level to the computer running the simulation) or translation (adjusting it to be different because of say, perception distortion) changes the fundamental except for philosophers (theoretical physicists) which contemplate that outside the measurable.

Then you have implicit truths. Humans have a capability to detect patterns. Patterns enable us to conceive abstractions, math, ethical, moral and these types of endeavors are true because they're true, in a spectacularly circular way but indisputable, universally true because they are entirely imaginary, entirely our creation and we define them --start to finish-- so they have to be true given our definitions.

While people like Sam Harris who believe everything is understandable and can be boiled down to root truths is obviously an fool or idiot, it's difficult for me to ascribe any less truthiness to much of what happens inside my head. Childish patterns!!@W$Q)$Q$(

Tom Hickey said...

The philosophical question that CJ is raising is between foundationalism and anti-foundationalism.

Foundational philosophies (points of view) are those that specify a criterion of truth that founds or grounds the POV, and establishes a standard of certainty.

Anti-foundational philosophies (POVs) hold that such criteria are themselves perspectival and that there is no absolute POV that is overarching.

The history of thought can be viewed from this vantage. The issue is one of the enduring questions.

The classic work to demonstrate the issue and a proposed solution is Descartes' Meditations.

Ryan said...

Sorry, went off on a tangent.

Matt Franko said...

“PHDs in economics are far more math and applied math qualified than engineers with a bachelors degree,”

No way....

Matt Franko said...

No way Tom...

Matt Franko said...

Read my reference in the other thread Greenspan published a series of articles with commentary and got a PhD...

Matt Franko said...

So Tom are you saying there is no difference between a BA and a BS? Discipline aside ...

Tom Hickey said...

Quora
How much math do you need for a PhD in economics? Is calc 1-3, discrete math, linear algebra, differential equations, real analysis, and 2 courses in probability & statistics enough? Will I struggle without a full BS in math as some have suggested?

Tom Hickey said...

So Tom are you saying there is no difference between a BA and a BS? Discipline aside ...

Depends on the school. in fact, the college I attended decided to change how they configured this during the time I was a student. As I said, BA and BS don't mean much in themselves.

It's necessary to see what the requirements were in the various disciplines, what courses a particular student took, and what grades they got.

Back in the day, the liberal arts were desirable degrees but liberal education in the classical mode began to go out of style while I was an undergrad.

STEM didn't become a the big deal it has morphed into until the 80s. It was considered specialized training.

Tom Hickey said...

Read my reference in the other thread Greenspan published a series of articles with commentary and got a PhD...

Actually, that was the traditional way that PHDs were awarded. A person was awarded a PHD after being in the discipline for some time and making an original contribution to it.

The current system is a fairly recent development.

Even the recent system has recently changed. In around the 70s Yale decided that a PHD program should be finished in 3 years instead of the then standard 5 to 7 years.

BTW, the longer PHD program included getting a Masters degree first, which took a couple of years. The PHD was 3 or more years after that. Yale omitted the prior MA requirement.

Only about 50 percent of PHD candidates who are ABD (all but dissertation) finish the dissertation. Those that have completed all other requirements can petition for a Masters.

I was a PHD candidate long ago and that's how it was then. I don't know about now.