Email to Sam Harris:

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Email to Sam Harris:

Post by Leyla Shen »

What about, for instance, the moral judgment that eating pork is bad? Refusing blood transfusions?

Is there a problem here of not having formulated definitions before making a judgment?
Between Suicides
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Email to Sam Harris:

Post by jupiviv »

Leyla Shen wrote:Redness, greenness (optics) and edibility (biochemistry) are as empirically verifiable as nose, ear (anatomy) and pain (endocrine system/autonomic nervous system/neurology). All of these branches of science rely on empirically supported definitions. I still don't know why you think this point needs to be made.
Whether they are empirically verifiable is irrelevant. The point is that they are distinctions made apart from any observation, even though they apply to observed entities.
The above quote boils down in my mind simply to a statement that any judgment about any observable thing cannot be a judgment about an observable thing without being a judgment about that observable thing.

Any judgment about any observable thing cannot be a judgment about an observable thing without being a judgment about that observable thing before the thing is observed. To prove this assertion, I hereby put it to you that you cannot even begin to observe a संगणक wherever you're located.
What about, for instance, the moral judgment that eating pork is bad? Refusing blood transfusions?
I don't think it is moral to think that those things are necessarily not moral. It would depend on the situation, which would require more complex definitions.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Email to Sam Harris:

Post by Leyla Shen »

Whether they are empirically verifiable is irrelevant.
No, it's not irrelevant. It is, in fact, exactly relevant:
The point is that they are distinctions made apart from any observation, even though they apply to observed entities.
If they apply to observed entities, how exactly are they made "apart" from them?
Any judgment about any observable thing cannot be a judgment about an observable thing without being a judgment about that observable thing before the thing is observed.
That's a contradiction of your just prior statement.
To prove this assertion, I hereby put it to you that you cannot even begin to observe a संगणक wherever you're located.
Are you mad? I just observed a word written in a language I don't speak, read or write. How is that relevant to the thing you imply it refers to?
I don't think it is moral to think that those things are necessarily not moral. It would depend on the situation, which would require more complex definitions.
And that differs from Harris and the very point I am presently addressing with you right now how, exactly?
Between Suicides
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Email to Sam Harris:

Post by jupiviv »

Leyla Shen wrote:
Whether they are empirically verifiable is irrelevant.
No, it's not irrelevant. It is, in fact, exactly relevant:
A thing's empirical verifiability is irrelevant to any moral judgment of it.
The point is that they are distinctions made apart from any observation, even though they apply to observed entities.
If they apply to observed entities, how exactly are they made "apart" from them?
Their formulation does not depend upon any observation.
Any judgment about any observable thing cannot be a judgment about an observable thing without being a judgment about that observable thing before the thing is observed.
That's a contradiction of your just prior statement.
Actually, I should have said 'apart from' instead of 'before'. My point, as always, is that judgment about empirical things is different from empirical observation in itself. The judgment that the observable world is separate from the unobservable world is made without any observation, since if it were then we would need to contrast the our observation of the observable with that of the unobservable.
To prove this assertion, I hereby put it to you that you cannot even begin to observe a संगणक wherever you're located.
Are you mad? I just observed a word written in a language I don't speak, read or write. How is that relevant to the thing you imply it refers to?
Here you have judged that what you have observed is a word(sanganak meaning computer) in some language(Hindi) you do not understand. This judgment does not derive from the observation itself, any more than the judgment that it was a weird typo. Rather, it derives from the distinction between known and unknown languages, and between intended and unintended entry of characters into a text field.
I don't think it is moral to think that those things are necessarily not moral. It would depend on the situation, which would require more complex definitions.
And that differs from Harris and the very point I am presently addressing with you right now how, exactly?
Even more complex judgments would not be the logical conclusions of observations. For example, I could define the eating of pork with a Muslim to be bad if he might get offended by witnessing me doing so and I have no reason to offend him, since it is bad to offend someone for its own sake even if the offense is caused by their irrational prejudices.

The above is a moral judgment that applies to quite a specific situation, even though it is not derived from any observation of such a situation.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Email to Sam Harris:

Post by Leyla Shen »

Even more complex judgments would not be the logical conclusions of observations. For example, I could define the eating of pork with a Muslim to be bad if he might get offended by witnessing me doing so and I have no reason to offend him, since it is bad to offend someone for its own sake even if the offense is caused by their irrational prejudices.
Can you give me an example, for the sake of contrast, when you might have a morally good reason to offend someone.
Between Suicides
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Email to Sam Harris:

Post by jupiviv »

Have you learned nothing from the countless times I've pissed people off (including you) on this forum? There is nothing wrong with offending someone if doing so serves a greater purpose, like the Lulz, or disabusing them of the delusion that causes them offense to begin with (driving out the demon, so to speak).
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Email to Sam Harris:

Post by Leyla Shen »

The point is, genius, that where such events did exist, they necessarily exist as a result of logical conclusions derived from observations.

One's thinking may be full of contradiction, but one's behaviour and one's thinking are never contradictory.
Between Suicides
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Email to Sam Harris:

Post by Leyla Shen »

Unfortunately, I do not remember you pissing me off. Such things tend not to linger in my mind.
Between Suicides
RZoo
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:26 am

Re: Email to Sam Harris:

Post by RZoo »

Urizen wrote:... Nietzsche at least understood this problem (thought he never found the correct solution, which of course is traditional metaphysics; for modern Westerners, the solution had to wait until the arrival of Guenon and Schuon)....
On the contrary, Nietzsche correctly ascertained the flaw of metaphysics - it's not the solution, rather it is in fact the entire problem!
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Email to Sam Harris:

Post by Pam Seeback »

jupiviv: Even more complex judgments would not be the logical conclusions of observations. For example, I could define the eating of pork with a Muslim to be bad if he might get offended by witnessing me doing so and I have no reason to offend him, since it is bad to offend someone for its own sake even if the offense is caused by their irrational prejudices.

The above is a moral judgment that applies to quite a specific situation, even though it is not derived from any observation of such a situation.
Before you defined the eating of port with a Muslim to be bad, you had to have first been made aware that the eating of pork is perceived, by a Muslim, to be bad. Is not conscious awareness of a situation not an observation of a situation? Are you saying that one can use logic without first having a reason to use logic? Even if one could do such a thing, what would be the point? Might as well suck your logic thumb until you die.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Email to Sam Harris:

Post by Pam Seeback »

Leyla Shen wrote:The point is, genius, that where such events did exist, they necessarily exist as a result of logical conclusions derived from observations.

One's thinking may be full of contradiction, but one's behaviour and one's thinking are never contradictory.
True. One may ponder the wisdom of drinking a glass of wine, contradiction, but if the wine is not drunk or if the wine is drunk, pondering is over, no contradiction.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Email to Sam Harris:

Post by jupiviv »

Leyla Shen wrote:The point is, genius, that where such events did exist, they necessarily exist as a result of logical conclusions derived from observations.

No amount of observing of pork or the average Muslim's reaction to it will tell me whether to eat it in front of them or not.
One's thinking may be full of contradiction, but one's behaviour and one's thinking are never contradictory.

I can think of plenty of examples where thinking and action are contradictory, like when someone overeats even though they want to be healthy, and understand that overeating is bad for health. In most cases, the deluded person is under the delusion that their actions are completely in accord with their delusions, when in reality those false thoughts must necessarily oppose their actions.

Why do you think the phrase - "watch what people do and not what they say" - even exists?
Last edited by jupiviv on Wed Jun 18, 2014 2:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Email to Sam Harris:

Post by jupiviv »

movingalways wrote:Is not conscious awareness of a situation not an observation of a situation?
Yes, but not the judgment of its moral value.
Are you saying that one can use logic without first having a reason to use logic?
There is no "reason" why we should use logic. One uses it if one is caused to.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Email to Sam Harris:

Post by Leyla Shen »

No amount of observing of pork or the average Muslim's reaction to it will tell me whether to eat it in front of them or not.
What tells you whether or not any activity (including eating pork) is an irrational prejudice is evidence, that is, observation, to the contrary from which it becomes possible to logically conclude that not eating pork for religious reasons is an irrational prejudice. One quickly learns from observation and reasoning thereupon, too, that since such evidence has no value to the person with the irrational prejudice, there's little to be gained by engaging directly in that activity in their presence except self-preservation. That's the extent of your suggested "morality" on this point.
I can think of plenty of examples where thinking and action are contradictory, like when someone 1) overeats even though they want to be healthy, and understand that overeating is bad for health. In most cases, the deluded person is 2) under the delusion that their actions are completely in accord with their delusions*, when in reality those false thoughts must necessarily oppose their actions.
You like to swing both ways just in case, don't you?

*This is, of course, an atrocious sentence. Nevertheless, I will assume that by it you meant the exact opposite of what you stated in (1); that their thinking is consistent with their actions/behaviour.

Make up your mind. Is the reason (1) or (2)?
Between Suicides
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Email to Sam Harris:

Post by jupiviv »

Leyla Shen wrote:
No amount of observing of pork or the average Muslim's reaction to it will tell me whether to eat it in front of them or not.
What tells you whether or not any activity (including eating pork) is an irrational prejudice is evidence, that is, observation, to the contrary from which it becomes possible to logically conclude that not eating pork for religious reasons is an irrational prejudice.

I cannot tell whether an action is irrational without defining what irrationality is. The only reason you would argue to the contrary is if you believed that some things are inherently irrational, or objectively existent.
One quickly learns from observation and reasoning thereupon, too, that since such evidence has no value to the person with the irrational prejudice, there's little to be gained by engaging directly in that activity in their presence except self-preservation. That's the extent of your suggested "morality" on this point.
No, my morality on this point is that it is irrational to offend someone for the sake of it, and this cannot be derived from the observation that someone may be offended by something. I said nothing about self-preservation, but even the value of self-preservation cannot be derived from observation.
I can think of plenty of examples where thinking and action are contradictory, like when someone 1) overeats even though they want to be healthy, and understand that overeating is bad for health. In most cases, the deluded person is 2) under the delusion that their actions are completely in accord with their delusions*, when in reality those false thoughts must necessarily oppose their actions.
You like to swing both ways just in case, don't you?

*This is, of course, an atrocious sentence. Nevertheless, I will assume that by it you meant the exact opposite of what you stated in (1); that their thinking is consistent with their actions/behaviour.

Make up your mind. Is the reason (1) or (2)?
If they are deludedly acting in accordance with their thinking, then their thinking is contrary to their actions. Someone might believe that smoking cigarettes will make him happy, so he would smoke cigarettes thinking that he is acting in accordance with his thoughts, even though he would actually not be.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Email to Sam Harris:

Post by Leyla Shen »

If they are deludedly acting in accordance with their thinking, then their thinking is contrary to their actions.
No, dear. It's not possible to deludedly act in accordance with anything but delusion.

It's the ol' adage, actions speak louder than words.
Between Suicides
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Email to Sam Harris:

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »


Delusion is all about contradiction being blocked as it tries to develop towards its own resolution or collapse. That's why some have called this attachment. Not the contradiction is the delusion, as life throws up contradictions at every turn. Existence as fundamental ambiguity will always appear as contradiction and suffering that way, including all our actions.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Email to Sam Harris:

Post by jupiviv »

Leyla Shen wrote:No, dear. It's not possible to deludedly act in accordance with anything but delusion.
Yes, inasmuch as one deludedly (i.e., falsely) thinks one is acting in accordance with one's thinking. But insofar as one's thinking itself is delusional, it can't accord with reality, which includes one's actions as well.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Email to Sam Harris:

Post by Pam Seeback »

jupiviv wrote:
movingalways wrote:Is not conscious awareness of a situation not an observation of a situation?
Yes, but not the judgment of its moral value.
Is it your assertion that the moral realm exists independently of the sense realm? If so, how would you know this given that you are sense dependent?
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Email to Sam Harris:

Post by Leyla Shen »

jupiviv wrote:
Leyla Shen wrote:No, dear. It's not possible to deludedly act in accordance with anything but delusion.
Yes, inasmuch as one deludedly (i.e., falsely) thinks one is acting in accordance with one's thinking. But insofar as one's thinking itself is delusional, it can't accord with reality, which includes one's actions as well.
If one deludedly thinks one is acting in accordance with one's thinking, then his thinking is necessarily delusional and his actions accord with that reality.
Between Suicides
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Email to Sam Harris:

Post by Leyla Shen »

You know, that's by definition.
Between Suicides
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Email to Sam Harris:

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Different definitions at work:

Jup: " ...accord with reality"

Ley: " ...accord with that reality"

But really, what's the difference between a deluded action and a deluded thought? Especially since no consistency would have to in place in either case. Next thing: a deluded fart.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Email to Sam Harris:

Post by Leyla Shen »

The reality of delusion is a particular accordance with reality, otherwise delusion would be meaningless.
Between Suicides
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Email to Sam Harris:

Post by jupiviv »

movingalways wrote:Is it your assertion that the moral realm exists independently of the sense realm? If so, how would you know this given that you are sense dependent?

I said that moral judgments are made without the aid of sensual perceptions. This doesn't make the "moral realm", by which I assume you mean moral judgments or ideas etc., independent of the sensual realm.

Clearly, clarity isn't high on the priority list for most members of this forum.
Leyla Shen wrote:The reality of delusion is a particular accordance with reality, otherwise delusion would be meaningless.

Delusion *is* meaningless. That's the whole point of calling it delusion as opposed to knowledge of reality.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Email to Sam Harris:

Post by jupiviv »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:But really, what's the difference between a deluded action and a deluded thought? Especially since no consistency would have to in place in either case. Next thing: a deluded fart.

A deluded person wrongly believes a deluded action to be in accordance with a true thought. He wrongly thinks so either because the thought is false (ignorance), or because he is not acting in accordance with it (hypocrisy). The action itself is necessarily real, unlike the thought, which may be illogical and hence unreal.
Locked