The Shadow Over TLO?

[gveranon]

Acutely decayed, I don't agree with everything Harman says in this article, but I think his main point is that Metzinger isn't just "aiming at accuracy of description congruent with observation" (to use your phrase). Metzinger is making some philosophical claims (e.g., about the "self") along with his neuroscientific descriptions. Harman makes it clear that he isn't arguing with the science, which he finds interesting and valuable, but with some (only some) of Metzinger's philosophical claims and assumptions. "The phenomenal self is not a thing, but a process" is a philosophical claim based on Metzinger's assumption that things made of parts don't have any real existence of their own. I find Harman's philosophical discussion of the inadequacy of this view, and of the philosophical mileage that Metzinger wants to get from it, to be fairly devastating.

[Malone]

Several commentators say Metzinger is saying nothing more original about the self and the ego than David Hume did in the 18th century. I'd be inclined to agree.

As for authors' philosophies and alleigances, I'm tempted to say 'so what?' Free speech is vital.

[Acutely decayed]

I appreciate your reply Gveranon, cheers

Quote Originally Posted by gveranon

"The phenomenal self is not a thing, but a process" is a philosophical claim

Is it considered solely a philosophical claim? I think the ability of science to test this, in some respects, must be here or very close...

I am a bit hazy on the definitions which may vary from commentator to commentator - but I suspect science would support the fact that consciousness is a process... its not fair to waste your time though - I'll re-read the article and I also have one of Harmans books - which even if I have philosophical questions with certainly covers interesting topics.

Malone - To the extent I know Hume, his work is fascinating but I think the point of Metzingers work may be the attempt to meld a scientific basis to some of Humes "armchair" arguments, although Hume may be critical of our capacity to reliably know anything absolutely (I am making no judgement on how successful Metzingers approach is, but I think things may need to get a bit more invasive in looking at neuro-architecture than Metzingers previous work to bear fruit).

In addition if Metzinger is based in a tradition which is not new - I have no problem with that.

I am very sceptical "armchair" arguments will ever get anywhere - although I do find them fascinating and although I favour scientific arguments I suspect there may be intrinsic problems with us knowing how "us" happens even by this means of investigation. These are problems conceptually though, not based on postulating an unsolvable "mystery" - although it is a matter of perspective, I guess.

[ChildofOldLeech]

Just to clarify, I was not advocating censorship in any degree; my point was that when individuals promote an aesthetic or philosophic platform that is very similar to those who use such works to advocate an extreme agenda, and these similarities are pointed out, (to reference what was posted previously) -when the innocuous tchotchke is recognized as a fascist icon, so to speak- the observer has a right to be curious about whether such actions carry any ultra-aesthetic significance, and accordingly, wary of endorsing such works themselves. Art is art regardless, but to apply the 'so what' approach unilaterally to the creators of said art is problematic to me, to say the least: where does one draw the line? Do we say 'so what' equally to the nazi supporter as to the rapist, or any others? People have the unquestionable right to read what they want, but giving a free pass to everyone equally, equating those who never compromised their selves or voices for any ideology with the likes of opportunists and collaborators is shameful.

If you mean what I think you mean then I plead guilty to the same crime as Freud: that of identifying organised religion as a pathology, and not making an exception for the traditional faith of his own people.

========================================

Without wishing to get into a row over this, I find a statement such as this highly prejudicial. It appears to lump all those who accept the claims of Abrahamic religions (Christian, Judaic and Muslim) into the category of unfortunates suffering from some form of detrimental mental illness (or “neurosis”, if you prefer, whatever that means). It therefore entails being able to dismiss their arguments out of hand without proper examination of first principles. I find this ironic because Freudianism, in and of itself, has no claim to anything other than being a subjective truth, one not falsifiable, by which one must first accept its tenets in order to make any claim as to its validity, a charge often (erroneously) levelled at adherents of organised religions.

I am not even going to go down the road of speculating as to what form of corrective treatment atheists/secularists feel we poor folk who hold fast to our Faith should endure for suffering from so-called “pathology” in the face of “progress”. Twentieth century history, the bloodiest and deadliest ever known to humanity, and yet with the most utopian of intentions where (politically) the end justifies the means, provides ample examples enough of such “treatments”.

My feeling is that atheists are prepared to snatch at any concept, whether internally logical or not, or even one which contradicts their own position, that serves ad hoc to discredit Faith. It is not a case of their formulating a coherent argument in this connection, but of relying on the mass emotional mood of rebelliousness permeating contemporary western society. This false claim is one amongst many inherent in the idea that the present must be superior to the past in terms of its philosophical orientation. But it is actually without foundation. We may have advanced technologically, and in the expansion of technical knowledge regarding specific scientific theories. However, any appeal to centuries of spiritual and moral authority is instantly classified as “dictatorial” (and a obscurantist de-reification of the eternal to the political/psychological) in the puerile sense of an “evil father” when it comes to considering the Absolute.

The a priori dismissal of the idea of a transcendental power that is, by its very nature, not subject to the limitations of space and time, and therefore beyond what the modern mind regards as evidence as to its reality, is so-called “scientific” comprehension operating outside its sphere of enquiry and objectively absurd.

Science (and I am veering off topic here, because Freudianism is not even a science) is still unable to provide answers to such essential and gigantic questions as to how the creation of basic cells came about, the formation of the cosmos from nothing to something (as required by the Big Bang) and the intrinsic nature of consciousness—these, incidentally, to my mind at least, forming not a “God of the gaps” objection, but rather a “God of the gulfs” objection—in which Science can only approximate answers in totality by recourse to an underlying philosophical structure; specifically a muddled form of “materialism” (whatever that actually means in an age wherein the structure of the atom has become endlessly divisible and mysterious). Without such an underpinning it becomes nothing more than a complex series of disparate information, of no greater import in and of itself than the results of an autopsy dissecting the body of Beethoven in an attempt to comprehend the meaning of his life and symphonies.

When it is acceptable to promote the idea of the extermination of the entire human species as a consummation devoutly to be wished, and, on a lesser scale, when those who dare defy the idea that religion comes from man, rather than from God, and are then to be glibly classified as pathological (i.e. diseased), whose arguments here form the new totalitarianism?

[ChildofOldLeech]

Mr. Samuels, I say this as one who has a great respect for your work; four volumes of your stories are in my library, and I would not hesitate to name you as perhaps the greatest english weird writer since Ramsey Campbell. However, I fear I must risk drawing your ire in responding to several claims:

I. -". . that atheists are prepared to snatch at any concept, whether internally logical or not, or even one which contradicts their own position, that serves ad hoc to discredit Faith"; if true, how is this any different from the actions of the Faithful, or sadly, from that of any True Believer, whether they subscribe to marxism, Ayn Randism, or The Secret? Irrationality does not afflict one, but all; it is a universal component of the human makeup. As Woody Allen once said, we need illusions like we need the air.

II. The ". . .false claim. . .that the present must be superior to the past in terms of its philosophical orientation"; a true statement, as it is incorrect to automatically associate progress and enlightenment with the march of time. It is equally incorrect to regard the world as a stopped clock which requires to be reset; blindly worshiping past or future leads only to blind alleys.

III. On ". . .twentieth century history, the bloodiest and deadliest ever known to humanity, and yet with the most utopian of intentions where (politically) the end justifies the means"; again, sad but true, but again, whenever, honestly hasn't the end being said justify the means? The only real differences is that formally atrocities were committed at the behest of god or his earthly agent the monarch, whereas the pretenses have now been dropped (mostly), and terrible things are largely done simply in the name of man. Another significant difference behind secular 'progress' is that it merely took a century for the fatalities from human, utopian dreams to approach those resulting from that most utopian drive of all over the millennia: establishing the kingdom of god on earth.

III. The secular ". . .has no claim to anything other than being a subjective truth, one not falsifiable, by which one must first accept its tenets in order to make any claim as to its validity, a charge often (erroneously) levelled at adherents of organized religions." Um, really? As religion is fundamentally driven by *faith*,by that which is believed rather than what can be proven or measured in any concrete fashion, this is erroneous how exactly?

IV. That ". . .any appeal to centuries of spiritual and moral authority is instantly classified as “dictatorial” "; well, seeing how many agents of god and authority have been, in fact, dictators and tyrants, starting with old Elohim himself if the old testament is any guide, why shouldn't they be classified as such? (See also III).

To conclude, everyone is entitled to their delusions whatever these might consist of. I myself might be inclined towards the delusions labelled 'atheism' or 'absurdism', but I also recognize that these beliefs are simply concepts, constructs which have no ultimate relation to the universe which inspired them as it transcends meaning by dint of being 'meaningless' in the human sense. All of us, I think, would like to find an escape, return to a more harmonious age; I too find refuge of sorts in tales of Old Europe, edwardian England, and the like, but I don't deem this is problem that can fixed, except within ourselves. To stand athwart the world screaming 'stop' for my own convenience and comfort, to demand all return to the shackles that held them to reinstate some arbitrary status quo is, can be considered no less 'extreme and presumptous' as others declare (voluntary) extinction to be.
Ni Dieu ni maître.

[Joel]

Mark, I don't want to get into a debate over religion versus atheism, largely because such debates usually start from a false premise: that the individual's beliefs are based on ratiocination from first principles, and therefore an abstract argument about the 'first cause' or whatever is the crux of the issue. It doesn't have much to do with that. Religions are social and cultural traditions, they are primarily about the social order and the moral code by which we live. I certainly don't regard religion as an individual neurosis because I don't think it's individual at all. Religion is about social forces and which group you align yourself with in order to take on a view of the social order and how society should develop. I actually find the whole 'Is there a God or not?' debate tedious and irrelevant. If you find religion adds meaning to your life I don't have a problem with that, it's not my concern. I'm concerned with questions about society and history, not with 'the infinite'. I have no reason to attack your personal religious beliefs.

[Acutely decayed]

Quote Originally Posted by Acutely decayed

I also have one of Harmans books -

Actually I don't, I got it mixed up with Eugene Thackers - Afterlife - looks interesting though - especially the Nightland section...

sorry to interrupt ... Joel I reread "Your European Son" quite often and think very highly of your works aesthetic....

And Mark "The Colony" is another favourite (signed copy) - apologies for the pedantic interruption - irrational need for precision

[Malone]

The a priori dismissal of the idea of a transcendental power that is, by its very nature, not subject to the limitations of space and time, and therefore beyond what the modern mind regards as evidence as to its reality, is so-called “scientific” comprehension operating outside its sphere of enquiry and objectively absurd.

This is a good example of the 'old totalitarianism'. Do not dare question your God, for he has no need to make an account to you and your puny questions or trivial moral concerns. Live in fear of the deity who pulls your strings and obey the self-appointed guardians of his Power.

Ni Dieu ni De Maistre

[Joel]

To clarify my earlier statement: a view on organised religion as a social phenomenon is not the same as a view on the existence of a god or an afterlife, though the Roman Catholic tradition does tend to consider the two inseparable. I'm not remotely interested in debating the existence of a god or an afterlife – my comments have been on the social and historical role of organised religion. I was always rather taken with Graham Joyce's comment that he had found organised religion a massive disappointment in spiritual terms.