h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>>You do have an aesthetic side in spite of your insistence on a materialistic whirled view.

Since whan did Materialism preclude aesthetics? Honestly!

Everybody knows that godless commies like Marx and other atheists who see no value in anything except material objects and cold objective reasoning are insensible to aesthetic considerations. I believe the phrase 'pearls before swine' is apt.

Honestly.
~jwf~

Okay dokey....

Ed:

>>
Getting back to this idea of 'getting back in touch with nativeness'...

Think for a moment of who these British colonists were. Were they an evil bunch of buggers who were psychologically or culturally predisposed towards wrecking the (relatively) harmonious lifestyle of the Maori? Well...in a sense, yes. But how did they get to be that way? Remember that many of them were the disposed peoples of Ireland and the Scottish Highlands whose previous lifestyles had been as technologically unsophisticated (or, if you like, as much in harmony with nature) as the Maori: their way of life was based around marginal maritime agriculture. The material circumstances into which they were placed in colonial New Zealand forced them into a position of Us Or Them. It wasn't so much that they came with a non-egalitarian, nature-hating mindset, but that their material circumstances led them to adopt certain (to use Marxist jargon ) class allegiances. (Significantly - they sided with their own oppresors in the interests of the global wool industry).
<<

Listen, mate, you can't give that particular lecture to me. I've written essays on this stuff.

That's my relatives you're talking about. One side of my family left Scotland and came to NZ in the 1860s, as part of the later wave of clearances. They were itinerant farm workers who arrived here not only with no money but owing their passage, a debt that took decades to pay off.

They happened to arrive in a country that was, in various ways, stealing land from the existing occupants and giving it to the colonists, so my family went from itinerant working class to upper middle class in a few generations.

And, I know a little bit about how that story looks to Maori.

And I know a little bit about the politics involved in the British companies that were out here stealing and divvying up the land.


YOU are the one putting up the false dichotomy of evil Brits vs harmonious Maori (so you can argue against it), not me. And you are painting an overly simplistic and in some cases inaccurate picture (eg there *were* people here whose relationship with nature was incredibly destructive and that was directly from their culturel knowledge base and world view).

However to that story of the Scottish clearances and disapora, I would add that the Scots had also had another kind of colonisation, from the church. Christianity tried to strip the native culture and spirituality from the Scots, and that counts as part of why they were like they were when the got here.

Interestingly though, when you read accounts of what the Brits thought of the place, often you get this picture of raw wilderness that man has to beat back and tame (that would be the English view I guess). But you also get stories from people who came here and were completely awed by nature because there simply wasn't any left like that in the UK.

If there is one thing that is consistent amongst every native people that I've seen it's the relationship between people and the land. Native peoples experience themselves as belonging to the land, Westerners generally experience the land as belonging to them. And that is at the heart of why we treat the planet so badly. It's also at the heart of dynamics of the colonisation of NZ by the British.


>>
But that was the and this is now. Granted, the resultant dominant global culture is non-egalitarian and ecologically unsustainable. So...(to quote Lenin )...What Is To Be Done? Is it a matter of people 'getting back in touch with their nativeness.' That's certainly one way of looking at it. But that *doesn't* mean solutions which centre on a return to Maori (or Highland) ways of life. Rather, it means going *forward*, with recognition of our current economic and ecological circumstances and working out what arrangements will make us happiest in the future. Given that - the culture will look after itself.
<<

"Return to"? WTF? Maori are still here alive and well. Have you been listening to what I've been saying? The country I live in will be Polynesian within my lifetime. It's not about returning, it's about what is already happening.

If you discard the historical and contemporary models, what is that you are suggesting? Because I don't see you as offering a way forward. I don't see anything in what you are talking about the suggests a useful way towards egalitarianism and ecological sustainability. You seem to be saying that we just have to look at what arrangements will make us happy and then somehow make that happen?

Maybe I should just feel sorry for you Brits who are so deprived of native consciousness that you can't even see it for what it is. Except of course for the fact that you are allied with the biggest planet trashers on the planet


<<
It goes without saying, of course, that we can learn little tidbits of culturally helpful ideas from one another*. But the culture we develop will be a *new* one, appropriate to our current cultural circumstances.
<<

That's just incredibly patronising. It fits with your previous comment that I said was paying lipservice to native peoples and was a form of imperialism. We don't have guns and small-pox blankets in NZ anymore. What we have is people who think that Maori are a subset of NZers, but the real culture is kiwi. It's a form of white supremacy (albeit unconscious). What I am saying is that the beliefs of people inform the tools of oppression they use, and putting native peoples in a box off to one side and saying we can learn tidbits from them is just another tool. It's marginalisation.

That was the hard-nosed response. Here's the soft fuzzy one:

>>
But that was the and this is now. Granted, the resultant dominant global culture is non-egalitarian and ecologically unsustainable. So...(to quote Lenin )...What Is To Be Done? Is it a matter of people 'getting back in touch with their nativeness.' That's certainly one way of looking at it. But that *doesn't* mean solutions which centre on a return to Maori (or Highland) ways of life. Rather, it means going *forward*, with recognition of our current economic and ecological circumstances and working out what arrangements will make us happiest in the future. Given that - the culture will look after itself.
<<

Here's an example of different ways of knowing:

We tend to think of our ancestors as being behind us, yes? Because they are in the past. And our descendants are ahead of us, still to come. A friend of mine told me once, when I was much younger, and this was one of the first inklings I had of perceptual difference, that Maori see their ancestors as being before them and their childrens childrens children as being behind them, because they come after.

Now I'm sure ~jwf~ is likely to appreciate what I just said, and probably Effers will be interested, but it won't surprise me at all if Ed comes back with an analysis that turns that example into mere semantics and then dismisses it as irrelevant, and anhaga might look at it go "what are you on about?" .



If you try and see that example with the rational mind, it does just become about semantics. But if you soften your focus it will take you to a better understanding of that particular native view of the world. I think there is a direct connection between it and that Maori experience their ancestors as being with them. If my dead people are before me I can still see them. If they are behind me I can't. Out of sight out of mind. And if I can see them then I am likely to have a different relationship with them than if they are well behind me and no longer visible.

What I would expect the rationalists to do at this point is say 'but you can't see dead people'. To which I would roll my eyes and say 'literalists!' in exasperation.

>>
btw...do you really expect me to believe the guff about affecting change in the wider, material universe by working with its Chi?
<<

No I don't expect you to believe it Ed, because as an atheist you're not allowed to. But I am wondering if you experienced chi when you were doing tai chi practice?


<<
Very few Chinese, even, believe that. It's as daft as a belief in prayer.
<<

That's quite a claim, to speak for nearly all Chinese. Care to back that up?

'You do have an aesthetic side in spite of your insistence on a materialistic whirled view. '

a rather sad straw man: 'oh. you think the rainbow has a material explanation, therefore you don't have any aesthetic appreciation of it'




No. Unweaving the rainbow increases and deepens the aesthetic appreciation of the rainbow. Perhaps you don't appreciate that fact because you have no desire to 'analyze it "scientifically"', or, to put it another way, you have no desire to fully appreciate the experience.

I fail to understand how self-imposed ignorance has come to be seen as a virtue in some circles.

I may disappoint you, kea: I understand quite nicely what you are on about, it think.

But I don't see that as a different way of knowing, I see it as a different way of looking and, sorry, a difference of semantics.

If you don't see it as being a difference of semantics, you're not seeing the complete picture. Your explanation of the Maori viewpoint was completely rational, and, the Maori viewpoint also strikes me as completely rational. And, it is a question of semantics:


'Semantics is the study of meaning' says wikipedia. I've always been startled and amazed by the dismissive statement 'it's *just* semantics'. Semantics is the fundamental thing: 'What do you mean?' You have described (in rational terms) the Maori *meaning* and contrasted it with what you consider the European *meaning* and then dismissed the response you expect from Ed (it's semantics). Well, it is *all* about semantics, about meaning.


Maybe I don't know what you're on about.

At the risk of turning this into a semantic argument about semantics... I was using a more colloquial meaning of semantics:

>>• the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text : such quibbling over semantics may seem petty stuff.<<

my mac's dictionary.

*

Yes I explained it rationally, but I hope there was enough there to take us beyond the rational.

I don't know if you understand what my post was about. Would you like to tell me what you thought I was saying about Maori relationship with their ancestors?

That's okay, kea, you were more eloquent than I would be.
I think I understood what you were saying and I have no argument with you.

I do, however, get a little tired of the sort of attitude displayed by ~jwf~ earlier: 'I like the feeling and I don't want to analyse and understand it in any sense other than the feeling and (this is the tiresome part) anyone who is interested in analysing and understanding it in every way possible is unable to feel it, which is the most important way of understanding it (even though I have no understanding of it in any other way).

or, more briefly, I'm tired of being told that if I find the material, the physical, to be the best fundamental explanation of phenomena, I can't enjoy the Big Bopper. It's simply anti-intelectualism and I meet far too much of it in the real world already.

>>
I guess I've never learned those other languages because I haven't got a clue what you mean, kea.

If the soul isn't immaterial, what is it? Material? Something else (which would seem to me to mean, by definition, that it is not material, hence, immaterial )?

So, the supernatural is material? I know you don't want to go there, but . . .

'other languages' 'other ways of knowing' I don't understand.
<< anhaga

One of the things I'm noticing is this continual positioning of the argument as an oppositional dichotomy. You want the argument to be about whether the soul is material or immaterial. I don't care which it is or if it's neither or both. I'm willing to suspend my need to have a rational understanding of the soul so that I can look at it in different ways. It's that third way that takes us in a new direction and gives us deeper understanding (not to mean that rational is shallow in a derogatory sense).


One good way of getting out of the dichotomy is to look at experience. I can experience chi. I didn't used to, now I do. It's something I have learnt. We can have an intellectual discussion about what I am experiencing but that discussion will take place within rational rules, and that takes us further from understanding what chi is from an experiential point of view. I know you like specificity, and that's a good thing in many situations but it's no use if you want to speak the other languages.

I would hazard a guess that you are quite capable of learning other languages and experiencing other ways of understanding reality, but your world view prevents you from doing that or being aware of it (not sure which). I'm not making any judgement about that, it seems to me that the rationalist world view is useful especially if we want to make use of the hard sciences. But I do object to being told that other experiences of reality are not real, which is what Ed has done. It's patently obvious to those of us who experience other realities that people who don't believe in them are not able to experience them *because* of that belief. The really weird thing about that is it's so irrational

Oh, I thought you and ~jwf~ were just poking fun at each other. I'm not often sure what *exactly* the squiggly one is on about, which I think it the point (it doesn't have to be precise). He's being provocative and I can't tell if he's also being patronising. I didn't think he was really saying that rationalists can't appreciate beauty. I thought he was being a trickster to get people to look at it in different ways. I could be completely wrong though, that's the risk with the fuzzy and soft


>>I think I understood what you were saying and I have no argument with you.<<

I still don't know whether you did or not. I'm interested because I'm very curious about how as a rationalist you have so much respect and quality understanding of the native peoples you live with yet they have so much about them that is supposedly irrational.

So you don't have a problem with Maori having direct relationship with their dead people?

last question first (and I'll likely miss a few)

of course I don't have a problem with the Maori having a direct relationship with their dead people. I thought we all did.

'One good way of getting out of the dichotomy is to look at experience. I can experience chi. I didn't used to, now I do. It's something I have learnt. We can have an intellectual discussion about what I am experiencing but that discussion will take place within rational rules, and that takes us further from understanding what chi is from an experiential point of view. I know you like specificity, and that's a good thing in many situations but it's no use if you want to speak the other languages.'

Well, it may or may not surprise you that I suspect I've had just as many 'spiritual' or what ever you want to call them experiences as anyone outside of a hermitage or monastery. I've experienced these 'other realities' of which you speak, but I have never, ever felt the urge to call them 'other realities'. Personally, I don't think that the 'experiential point of view' brings me any closer to an understanding of either the phenomenon being experienced or the experience itself. It's only the first step to a real understanding. As far as the 'other languages', I'm beginning to get an idea of the phenomena to which your words point, but, for me, your 'other languages' are not 'other' but part of the 'language' I've been talking about. It's not a third way, it's a first step on the one way to the actual deeper understanding. I'm not particularly interested in stopping at the first step *which I have experienced*. I'm interesting in experiencing and understanding the whole thing. This talk of 'other languages' strikes me as a needless and narrowing slicing and dicing of human experience. I'm not interested in narrowing my experience, thanks.

as I walked away from the computer, kea, I had another thought:


'So you don't have a problem with Maori having direct relationship with their dead people?'

No I don't.

'
I would hazard a guess that you are quite capable of learning other languages and experiencing other ways of understanding reality, but your world view prevents you from doing that or being aware of it (not sure which). I'm not making any judgement about that'

despite your closing claim, you seem to have a problem with my direct relationship with my dead people, and making a judgement. You shouldn't hazard the guess that my world view prevents me from learning, experiencing, or being aware of anything. The sentence of yours quoted above (the hazarding a guess one) is really little other than 'materialists can't experience the rainbow unless they give up materialism' which is absolutely wrongheaded.

>>
despite your closing claim, you seem to have a problem with my direct relationship with my dead people, and making a judgement.
<<

Anhaga, I have no idea at all what your relationship with your dead people is like, as we've never had a conversation about that. I would really like to know


>>You shouldn't hazard the guess that my world view prevents me from learning, experiencing, or being aware of anything<<

I never said that. Obviously you are an intelligent, thoughtful person with a large range of experiences. It's no surprise to me that you have what you have called spiritual experiences. Most people do.


>>The sentence of yours quoted above (the hazarding a guess one) is really little other than 'materialists can't experience the rainbow unless they give up materialism' which is absolutely wrongheaded.<<

I think you are confusing me for someone else who might argue that. I hear that you don't like the line that ~jwf~ was taking, and I'm sorry if I *seem* to be saying that rationalists can't feel or have depth or whatever. That's not what I am saying though.

I've asked a number of times for you and Ed to share what your experiences are. Neither of you has done so yet, and instead you both seem to prefer the semantic arguments.

I think greater understanding would come from us sharing more, I really have no idea what your experiences are yet. I know that you can look at a rainbow and experience something. I just don't know what it is yet. In order for us to have shared understanding here we would actually have to share

>>I'm beginning to get an idea of the phenomena to which your words point, but, for me, your 'other languages' are not 'other' but part of the 'language' I've been talking about. It's not a third way, it's a first step on the one way to the actual deeper understanding. I'm not particularly interested in stopping at the first step *which I have experienced*.<<

Hmm, well all I can say is that I think we are still talking about different things. Experience isn't the end point. As you say, it's the starting point. I just think rationalists go in a different direction than where people who are multi-lingual might.

I'm really open to being proven wrong about you not being bilingual

Probably the reason I brought up the experience thing is because atheists so often talk about god as being about belief. That's one thing of course. But what people *experience* is another. Someone can talk about there being no such thing as spirit 'til the cows come home but if the majority of people on the planet actually experience spirit then why not accept that? And then try and find some shared understanding?

'if the majority of people on the planet actually experience spirit then why not accept that? And then try and find some shared understanding?'

Indeed!



But I fear we may disagree on the path and means for finding that shared understanding. What do theists do with atheists who experience spirit (and even God)? What is the road to a shared understanding?

>> ...little other than 'materialists can't experience the rainbow unless they give up materialism' which is absolutely wrongheaded. <<

And yet you think I should accept the reverse proposition.
It has been suggested that because I don't know squat about prismatic refraction and couldn't put an atomic number on squirrel poop that I cannot possibly appreciate the FULL beauty of a rainbow. Aooarently I also need to be rational. Horsecocks. Rainbows are like guns; I don't need to know how they work to make them work for me.

Oh god I'm sounding like a labour/socialist politician.
Shoot me.


~jwf~

>> ...that's the risk with the fuzzy and soft <<

The real risk of soft and fuzzy is, as anhaga pointed out, that they make you all sleepy tired. Sorry to be such a boar. I'll try to sharpen my points.

~jwf~

>> Now I'm sure ~jwf~ is likely to appreciate what I just said, and probably Effers will be interested, but it won't surprise me at all if Ed comes back with an analysis that turns that example into mere semantics and then dismisses it as irrelevant, and anhaga might look at it go "what are you on about?" . <<

What ARE you on about?

~jwf~

'It has been suggested that because I don't know squat about prismatic refraction and couldn't put an atomic number on squirrel poop that I cannot possibly appreciate the FULL beauty of a rainbow. Aooarently I also need to be rational. Horsecocks. Rainbows are like guns; I don't need to know how they work to make them work for me. '

Yes, rainbows are like guns. And some become military snipers, some become biathletes, some become skeet shooters, some have a BB gun and some are vice-presidents.

Which are you, ~jwf~?