GENIUS FORUMS

.

Here's the thing with vulgar determinism: that view of human doings, and all doings, as mechanistically limitable and explicable. For the human in particular, there is no reason to be feeling oneself as a self, or no reason to assume oneself an entity; hence, no reason to think you actually choose. The human is all product and effect.

Even if no consideration of the sui generis quality to life/human life is given, determinism - in human affairs - will only ever be able to speak of the individual anyway. Even if all is mechanistically determinable, it will end up describing a reality of individuals. It will only ever be able to do that from genetic configuration to response to stimulus, to memory of prior experience, to health of the individual being (to nature of the entire cosmos) . . . and all of these things will be bound to the individual in the end. Being led back to the individual (again) ought to be of some note, for shitsake, of the presence of such an entity as an individual.

Generalizations do not lead anyone to see more; they obscure. What one combines to describe collectively does not fit any given human being exactly. The 'norms' set about in psychology, for one, makes this sort of practice a [self-defeating] habit. What kind of thinker would be satisfied at such an obvious/erroneous thing to do? - it will serve to describe no-one at all. It does not improve one's sight in any way. It's a habit that needs constant pressure on it, or one will never see clearly exactly what it is they seek to describe. And in human affairs, we will only ever be describing one another. Or ourselves.

It was right, what was said here, about everything leading back to ourselves. It is our thinking after all.


.

Having a good grasp of how things generally work can be quite helpful. Parents can and should benefit from knowing what to generally expect with their new born children. It isn't wise to be surprised and/or displeased when your boy wants to play with guns and your girl wants dolls. Also, having primary and elementary school curriculum's tailored to appeal to the unique ways in which the genders learn will produce better citizens if you ask me. You'll also have a better sense for what to do when your child is gender atypical, exhibiting an unusual mix of masculine and feminine qualities.

Aside from the whole gender thing, it's also important to know what to expect with certain disease. If you can detect cerebral palsy or down-syndrome in the fetus when it is still in the mothers womb, the family should be briefed on what to expect when the baby arrives. The mother might even want to get an abortion.

What else......practices in agriculture are based on knowing generally what to expect from nature, so it's important there.

Thinking in terms of generalities is helpful almost everywhere in civilization. Not saying details aren't important, but they can be pretty useless without accompanying generalities.

Cory Duchesne:
Thinking in terms of generalities is helpful almost everywhere in civilization.

Carmel: "Thinking in terms of generalities" is also harmful everywhere in civilization. Racists and misogynists thrive on generalities...and hate likely based on a deep inner loathing.

When people generalize they're often revealing more about themselves than the group which they are discussing.

An extreme example of this is Valerie Solanas' scum manifesto. It 's a horrible, vitriolic rant in which she generalizes men, but it's easy to see that she's really not describing men at all in her essay. She is revealing her own inner nature, her own anger, her own bitterness, her own insecurities. Her attempt to denigrate men fails and she only succeeds in denigrating herself.

Solanas struck a few right notes, but she missed out on the bigger picture of what men do. Being skillful with generalities is about stepping back and looking at the big picture, and Solanas definitely didn't step back enough. She got lost in some details, basically.

As for your comments on misogynists and racists, you're talking about hatred, and seeing in generalities doesn't have to involve hatred. However, people do like to use generalizations as an excuse to let their hatred run rampant. And racists often cling to a few vague generalizations (blacks commit crimes) and ignore other issues (e.g., poverty causes crime).

So they only value the generalizations that are convenient (ones that preserve their hatred).

Cory Duchesne:
Solanas struck a few right notes, but she missed out on the bigger picture of what men do. Being skillful with generalities is about stepping back and looking at the big picture, and Solanas definitely didn't step back enough. She got lost in some details, basically.

Carmel:
I agree with that assessment though it seems her extreme methodology was intentional. She described her essay as "a satirical literary device" used to "elicit debate", so on that level she was successful. You have to remember she wrote that in 1968, perhaps she felt an extreme viewpoint was necessary in achieving her agenda. She may have woken some women up out of their slumber but ultimately, I think it's divisive and laden with emotionalism so, therefore, "unconscious".

Cory Duchesne:
As for your comments on misogynists and racists, you're talking about hatred, and seeing in generalities doesn't have to involve hatred.

Carmel:
agreed. It's the spirit in which they are used which is key to promoting or hindering conciousness.

Cory Duchesne:
However, people do like to use generalizations as an excuse to let their hatred run rampant.

Carmel:
I agree, but often it's more subtle than the extreme examples I gave. It's still the same negative dynamic at play, just more obscured by elaborate rationalizations.

Cory Duchesne:
And racists often cling to a few vague generalizations (blacks commit crimes) and ignore other issues (e.g., poverty causes crime).
So they only value the generalizations that are convenient (ones that preserve their hatred).

Carmel:
I agree. Failure to see cause and effect and engaging in "confirmation bias", only seeking out opinions or "facts" which support their views keeps them mired in their hate.

Pye wrote:.Here's the thing with vulgar determinism: ....hence, no reason to think you actually choose. The human is all product and effect.

Interesting you imply but not explain the difference between choosing and actual choosing. What determinism actually says is that there's no difference. A choice is still being caused to make, no matter which considerations we are caused (or chose?) to give it. The implications of the view lie elsewhere.

Then again, it's hard to determine what you mean with "vulgar determinism". Some simplistic, moronic version of "educated determinism"? Smells like a red herring to me...

Even if all is mechanistically determinable, it will end up describing a reality of individuals.

I wasn't aware that determinism has anything to do with mechanistically determining "all", or even "a lot". Or is that what the "vulgar" variant does, living somewhere so obscure I never seriously encountered it but in the minds of strong opponents of determinism?

Generalizations do not lead anyone to see more; they obscure.

Indeed , like such statement obscuring the whole story about generalizations? To me it's non-sensical. We all generalize like we breath, like we think. It's all provisional.

It is our thinking after all.

So much is borrowed, copied or parroted that it's not a stretch to believe none of it is our own. But in so far it is ones own it might be called soul. But even then, it's just connecting dots, binding thoughts and ideas given to us together in a temporary arrangement that could be called individual. At least, when seen through extreme close-up.

inner purps

Its just what humans do, duality/dichotomies are products of human perception. You can't perceive without some sort of duality. If you eliminate all dichotomies you end up with a smeared and incomprehensible view of reality - which itself may be more truthful but is not how humans generally think.

It is good to know that Men and Women are only generalized distinctions in part of a boundless spectrum of probability, but such insight will not come ex nihilo.

Consider it in these terms:

"Given a particular brain, with its neurons and axons, dendrites and synapses, one can, in principle, accurately compute the extent to which this brain is integrated. From this calculation, the theory derives a single number, Φ (pronounced “fi”). Measured in bits, Φ denotes the size of the conscious repertoire associated with any network of causally interacting parts. Think of Φ as the synergy of the system. The more integrated the system is, the more synergy it has, the more conscious it is. If individual brain regions are too isolated from one another or are interconnected at random, Φ will be low. If the organism has many neurons and is richly endowed with specific connections, Φ will be high—capturing the quantity of consciousness but not the quality of any one conscious experience. (That value is generated by the informational geometry that is associated with Φ but won’t be discussed here.)" - http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ess&page=2

The mind takes in information slowly, at first recognizing stark contrasts between generalities. And only over time, through proper recognition, can one achieve a dissolution of the generalities. Additionally, no one can communicate without some kind of generality, especially with low Φ individuals. ;)

The process of learning to discriminate is precisely to separate things into recognizably different classes. This isn't something we actively choose to do, its how we work. An early example would be learning to discriminate mother from father, self from other, food from toys, etc.. and so we construct this differentiated representational hierarchy of perception, and sure enough at some point realize that its all in our heads, but this is a conclusion we could never arrive at had we not began the process of learning.

A more expedient but dangerous method is "thesis, antithesis, synthesis" rinse and repeat ad nauseum.

If you start here with "Cause" as the thesis, and "Effect" as the antithesis, the synthesis would be "Causality". But the method demands that we start anew with "Causality" as the thesis and "Contra-causality" as the antithesis, what we have in this case for a synthesis is vague and incomprehensible. Even if it were true that one could find a synthesis between causality and contra-causality, there would be no use in explaining anything in terms of this synthesis, I think it would prove impossible.

"Dalism"

determinism: "the aft mark of the 11th hencemen brought forth the angel's 8th win"

utilizes the triad of "thesis, antithesis, and synthesis" in a sub modulur form ("dub").

sub mod is 11 x to the ninth degree . . .