Stephen Roney's Blog, page 193
July 14, 2021
Putting Descartes before the Horse
Bishop George BerkeleyI pointed out to a correspondent of late that Descartes, to arrive at his famous statement “I think, therefore I am,” had assumed a stance of radical doubt. He then realized that the one thing he could not doubt was his own thoughts, whether or not they referred to anything outside themselves. And if he was experiencing thoughts, then he existed too. It took him several further steps to come to the conclusion that the physical world existed.
And that conclusion was soon successfully challenged by Berkeley. Berkeley points out that there is no logical necessity to posit the existence of any physical world that corresponds to our perceptions, our thoughts. Therefore—Occam’s Razor—it is improper to do so.
I think I am correct in saying that nobody has successfully challenged Berkeley on that point. Most of us just live our lives ignoring it.
My correspondent reacted badly.
Of Descartes, she wrote, “Descartes could NOT have affirmed rationally that the brain did not exist! All humans who think and behave normally have brains. No humans who do not have brains can think or behave normally. THAT much science was known to Descartes.”
Of Berkeley, she wrote that he was “delusional and lost in the ego-centricity of his right-brain so that he can no longer interact rationally with the rest of the human and physical world.”
What I see here is “cognitive dissonance”: it is a common cognitive dissonance. It is why we commonly just ignore Berkeley. The idea that the reality of the physical world is open to question is so unexpected to us Moderns that we cannot assimilate it. We simply refuse to entertain the thought.
Meaning we are all mad.
It is demonstrably true that the existence of the physical world is debatable; because it has been debated throughout history. Aside from Descartes and Berkeley, Plato and the Neoplatonists doubted its existence. It was only shadows of puppets reflected on the wall of a dimly-lit cave. The thing was so obvious to Plato that he did not even think to make an argument. And Plato has been pretty well-respected throughout the history of Western philosophy. The medieval school of philosophy called “Realism” rejected attention to the physical world in favour of concentrating only on what was “real”—that is, the ideal forms, which exist only mentally.
The Buddhist world, similarly, considers the world of the senses “maya”: “illusion.” “The power by which the universe becomes manifest; the illusion or appearance of the phenomenal world.” So does Taoism. So does Hinduism. The same insight is critical to understanding Canadian indigenous people’s traditional beliefs: far from being modern ecologists, they did not believe that nature was real. We in the modern West are actually in a minority in assuming the importance of the physical world.
Now, realizing that the physical world may not be real is pretty mind-expanding. Real or not, it is an important insight that our experience of the spiritual is immediate and undeniable, but our experience of the physical is indirect and dubious. “Scientism”—our modern pseudo-religion—has this backwards. It is a profoundly inadequate account of reality. Much or most of what we call “mental illness,” I suspect, is caused by this inadequacy. Mental illness happens when we discover our actual experience does not conform with the official world view, or we see flaws and inconsistencies in the matrix, and do not know how to interpret it. It is vital to have a bullet-proof world view—to see the world as it truly is. Our “scientistic” world view has too low a ceiling. Leonard Cohen speaks of a “spiritual catastrophe."
Even if there is a world that corresponds to our sense-perceptions, we have a second, epistemological problem: how does it correspond, and how can we know that correspondence? Does our experience of the colour “blue,” for example, tell us anything meaningful about the external quality “blue”? Or is the real blue a chuckling demon blinking in semaphore? Do you perceive what I perceive as blue, as what I would call red if I saw with your eyes? For the first thing is mental, a thought in the mind. The second thing remains, in principle, unknown in its essence.
Philosophy is more fun than LSD. And safer.
'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.
July 13, 2021
An Inconvenient Truth
Small Dead Animals has uncovered a piece from the Regina Leader-:Post reporting on the local Indian Bands protesting the closing of the Marieval Residential School in 1971. The same one at which 750 or so unmarked graves have been found.
Not only did the Indians themselves ask for the schools to be established, they still wanted them when the government wanted to shut them down.
"The pupils are generally children from broken homes, orphans or are from inadequate homes." They had nowhere else to go.
And the Indians wanted the religious instruction.
"'Children in the residential school get a measure of correction, discipline and religious training and this should be taken into consideration, when plans are under study for the phasing out of the school,' the spokesman said.
While residential schools are not the best, they meet the most needs of the children. Children in foster homes are deprived of correction, discipline and religious training. The older members were disciplined and given religious training and 'we must get back to these old traditions,' the spokesman said."'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.
By Ruth Shaw, Staff Reporter
YORKTON (Staff) – A resolution asking that the Marieval Residental School be kept open as long as the Indian people want it, was passed by the chiefs and counsellors of eight Indian bands at a regional meeting held Thursday.
The meeting was held in the Royal Canadian Legion Hall, with Joe Whitehawk of Yorkton, district
supervisor, as chairman.
Various spokesmen said the pupils are generally children from broken homes, orphans or are from inadequate homes. There is a great need for the school and the need is increasing, rather than diminishing. Many of the children have no other place to stay, as many have only grandparents, who through lack of space, health or age are unable to look after them.
The alternative is foster homes, which will cost just as much money. Children in the residential school get a measure of correction, discipline and religious training and this should be taken into consideration, when plans are under study for the phasing out of the school, the spokesman said.
While residential schools are not the best, they meet the most needs of the children. Children in foster homes are deprived of correction, discipline and religious training. The older members were disciplined and given religious training and “we must get back to these old traditions,” the spokesman said. The spokesman, who is a community development officer, said the Marievale Residential School must be expanded one step further and a junior high school established.
Another spokesman said the Indian people passed a resolution asking that the school remain open and it should not be up to the department to say whether the school should be closed.
Another said that if the request is made it should remain open and “the people should not be bribed to close the place.”
Chief Antoine Cote of the Cote reserve said the people on his reserve are not satisfied with the integration of Indian students at Kamsack.
“They claim there is no discrimination, but there is and we realize there is. One of the reasons of phasing out the student residential schools is so our children can be sent to so called integrated schools,” he said.
July 9, 2021
How Fake Genocide Claims Support Real Genocide
'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.
The Rectification of Terms
But the most insidious thing demonstrated here, is demanding that speakers use only their preferred terminology. They must say “equity,” and may not use the term “critical race theory.” This is what Orwell warned against as “Newspeak”: an attempt to control thought through restricting language.
How important is this? Confucius, asked what was the first task of government, answered “the rectification of terms.” The meaning of words must not be tempered with, or everything in society falls apart; honest communication is no longer possible. Honest interpersonal relationships of any kind are no longer possible.
In that spirit, here are some grossly dishonest terms currently in common use. I propose a parallel to “Godwin’s Law” here; or rather, to the misinterpretation of Godwin’s Law common on the internet. Godwin stated that any Internet discussion, if it went on long enough, would end in a Hitler analogy. The false version, which I refer to here, is that the first person who uses a Hitler analogy loses the debate.
My proposal is similar to this latter: If anyone uses one of these terms in debate, they ought to be declared to have lost the debate. They are not debating in good faith.
“My truth”
Use of this phrase implies that truth is different for different people. If this premise is accepted, there are no grounds on which to discuss anything. From this point on, it is just might makes right.
“My community”
Unless this means the people living in your neighbourhood, this is always a discriminatory term. You are saying anyone who does not look like you, or think like you, is no concern of yours. It is a mental redlining. Compare Jesus’s parable of the good Samaritan.
“Gender”
“Gender” is correct as a grammatical term: nouns and adjectives have gender. Any other usage confuses things terribly. The current usage to mean “having a male character or personality” or “having a female personality” was invented in 1945: “The state of being male or female as expressed by social or cultural distinctions and differences, rather than biological ones; the collective attributes or traits associated with a particular sex, or determined as a result of one's sex.” (OED) Why was such a term not needed before this time? Because it expresses a theory, that the state of femaleness or maleness is independent of sex. Nobody thought so before 1945; demonstrably, that is debatable. Casual use of the term as if the existence of what it refers to has been established is an attempt to avoid such a debate.
“Islamophobia”
“Phobia” means fear, and irrational fear. Use of the term implies that anyone who disagrees with Islam does so out of fear, and is irrational. But Islam is itself a set of rational assertions. The attempt to suppress discussion could not be clearer.
“Homophobia”
This is almost as bad “Homophobia” makes no more sense than “pedophilophobia” for those who oppose pedophilia, or “kleptophobia” for those who oppose theft. Homosexuality is a behavior. This is an attempt to suppress discussion of whether that behavior is immoral. The case must be made, not avoided.
“Lived experience”
All experience is lived. The first thing you can say about anyone who uses this phrase, therefore, is that they are not very smart. But because nobody s privy to another’s experience, this is a refusal to discuss the matter. You are simply being asked to take their word for it. This is not reasonable; it is a con.
“Judgmental”
A blood-red flag if used as a criticism. This is an assertion of the right to do any wrong. Judgement is the moral faculty.
“Aboriginal“; “Indigenous”
Wrong when used to refer to groups of people. Reasonable in the case of vegetation. So far as we can tell, no group of people is aboriginal to the place in which they currently reside. It is almost impossible that any are. Using the term is not just scientifically and historically false. It sets up an artificial division among people, almost certainly in order to assign different rights. Our doctrine of human equality is based expressly on the Biblical concept that we are all brothers, all descendants of one original creation. “When Adam delved, and Eve span/Who then was the gentleman?” Deny that, and we lose all human rights and all human dignity.
“Race”
The concept of race is not meaningless, but it is usually worse than useless. Is it ever legitimate to discriminate among individuals on the basis of race? Perhaps when considering the odds of some genetic disease.
But our current usage is nonsensical. Mary Simon is heralded as Canada’s first Inuit Governor-General. Yet her father was English. Barack Obama is heralded as the US’s first black or African-American president. Yet his mother was European. Kamala Harris is declared the first African-American vice-president. Yet her mother was Indian. Is Tiger Woods black, or Thai? Is Muhammed Ali black, or Irish? Most of us, in the Americas, are of mixed race; it becomes arbitrary to assign us to this or that race. And to what purpose, other than to discriminate?
“Gay”
The term is meant to enforce the view that homosexuals are or should be happy about their sexual preference. This is debatable; there are perfectly practical reasons why they might not be. It is dong no favour to homosexuals, in particular, to suppress that debate.
It also robs the language of a useful word. “Gay” can no longer be used in its original meaning without distracting double entendre.
“Exceptional”
This term is deliberately misleading when used to refer to people with mental deficiencies. And resorting to euphemisms for stupid is like a dog chasing its own tail. The new term soon accrues all the stigma of the old. The only thing that is accomplished is the wrecking of another vocabulary item.
“Mental illness”
Whatever the experiences we call “mental illness” are, they are not an “illness.” That is at best a metaphor or analogy. Declaring them so is an ad hominem attack; it serves to discount the views of anyone so labelled without consideration. A perfect way to strip anyone of their rights. Witness Britney Spears.
Readers may have their own suggestions to add. I’d be delighted to see any in the comments.
'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.
July 8, 2021
The Canadian Genocide
Manitoba Premier Brian Pallister is taking flak from native leaders for planning to repair and reinstall the statues of Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II that were pulled down by a mob on Canada Day. Victoria’s head was recovered from the Assiniboine River.
The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs released this statement:
“To minimize, romanticize and celebrate the settler colonialism that displaced First Nations from their ancient and sacred lands in the most brutal and heinous ways, the way he did in his comments, is unconscionable and a desecration to the graves of the ancestors on which the legislature is built and on which the City of Winnipeg now lies.”
NDP member Nahanni Fontaine, an Indian, added:
“Canada was forged in the blood of our Peoples, on the bodies of our women and children, and in the theft of our lands.”
It is time to look at the actual history.
Not that I can blame the native people too much for not knowing it. Unless they have done a special study, they know no more about the history than the rest of us. They have been fed all the same pop culture. Their genes do not tell them anything. That said, the Indian leaders show a shocking disregard if not contempt here for their fellow Canadians, and a shocking irresponsibility in not taking the trouble to do the research. We all deserve better of them.
The First Nations of Canada have not been displaced from their lands by European settlement. Eighty-nine percent of Canada is Crown Land. Indians retain by treaty the right to hunt and fish on Crown Lands at will. In other words, for the most part, any indigenous person is able to go on using the land just as his ancestors did before Europeans arrived.
On top of the benefits they are getting from the “settler” government—welfare, free medical care, greater economic opportunities and career options of all kinds, and so forth.
Nor were indigenous groups required by the Canadian government to move. That happened in the US, not in Canada. In the treaty negotiations, they chose the location of their reserves.
If they had any ancient land, they get to keep it. But probably no Indian group in Canada is currently on “ancient” land. They were nomadic, and Plains Cree, for example, relocated about every two weeks, fighting with other unrelated groups for hunting and foraging territory as they did. Before the coming of the Canadian government, they could count on being displaced. Only now can they expect to retain any lands indefinitely.
They might have considered some landscape features “sacred,” but would not have owned them, been able to control their use, or happened by them except on rare occasions.
Nor is the Manitoba Legislature or the city of Winnipeg likely to be built on the graves of Indian ancestors. The Plains Indians did not bury their dead in graves, but left the bodies in trees. And moved on, quite possibly never visiting that place again.
Nor was Canada forged in the blood of native people. There were no Indian Wars, nothing justly worthy of that name. There was no theft of lands. In most of Canada, including Manitoba, the local indigenous people negotiated to quit their land claims in return for compensation—not to mention still being able to use the land. And, in effect, having sold it to themselves, as they became Canadian citizens with the same vote as everyone else, and the same right to own land.
It is profoundly wrong to interfere with the right of all Canadians to recognize and commemorate our shared heritage, and to honour our current monarch, the symbol of our nation. Canada has too little history as it is.
But that is not the worst consequence of this strange historical slander. It actually aids and abets genocide going on today, in places like Xinjiang.
'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.
July 6, 2021
Mary Simon, Our New Viceroy
Canada has a new Governor-General, Mary Simon. On the whole, she seems a good choice. It is awkward that she does not speak French. To my ear, despite a background in broadcasting, she has shown herself in her acceptance speech to be a poor speaker in English as well. It is also unfortunate that she got her start in journalism. Canada is too prone to appoint journalists to posh government sinecures. This undermines journalistic neutrality. But Simon, unlike Michelle Jean, Pamela Wallin, Mike Duffy, or Adrienne Clarkson, also had a career in elected office.
Simon was appointed, as everybody understands, because she is half-Inuit. Everyone seems to think it was time for a GG who is from one of the native peoples.
Most often, appointing someone by race is offensive; it is a violation of the fundamental principle of human equality. But perhaps this is a worthwhile exception. It should be harder for native people to feel alienated or say they are not Canadian, when the Queen’s representative herself is native.
Relations between native people and the rest of the population are currently strained, and getting worse year by year—in no small part thanks to the mislabeled “Peace and Reconciliation” process. Simon’s appointment, and her tenure, if she uses it well, may be oil on those troubled waters.
'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.
July 5, 2021
The Mantle of Prophecy
The mass readings this Sunday were full of advice for prophets.
Who is a prophet? We are all supposed to be.
Numbers 11: 29. “Are you jealous for my sake? I wish that all Yahweh’s people were prophets, that Yahweh would put his Spirit on them!”
We ought to attend.
No, this does not mean we can reliably predict the future. William Blake had it right:
Prophets in the modern sense of the word have never existed. Jonah was no prophet in the modern sense, for his prophecy of Nineveh failed. Every honest man is a Prophet. He utters his opinion both of private & public matters “/Thus/If you go on So/the result is So/” He never says such a thing shall happen If you do what you will.”
If anyone sincerely seeks and speaks the truth, he is a prophet. These are God’s people. Most people do not do this. Winston Churchill said, “Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.”
George Orwell was a prophet in simply this sense: his talent, by his own estimation, was simply in being able to face the truth without flinching. The same might be said of Churchill. Or truly good artists generally.
On to this Sunday’s lesson:
Ezekiel 2: 2-5
“As the LORD spoke to me, the spirit entered into me and set me on my feet, and I heard the one who was speaking say to me: Son of man, I am sending you to the Israelites, rebels who have rebelled against me; they and their ancestors have revolted against me to this very day.
Hard of face and obstinate of heart are they to whom I am sending you. But you shall say to them: Thus says the LORD GOD!
And whether they heed or resist for they are a rebellious house they shall know that a prophet has been among them.”
2 Corinthians 12: 7-10:
“Brothers and sisters: That I, Paul, might not become too elated, because of the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, an angel of Satan, to beat me, to keep me from being too elated.
Three times I begged the Lord about this, that it might leave me, but he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness.” I will rather boast most gladly of my weaknesses, in order that the power of Christ may dwell with me.
Therefore, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and constraints, for the sake of Christ; for when I am weak, then I am strong.”
Mark 6: 1-6:
Jesus departed from there and came to his native place, accompanied by his disciples.
When the sabbath came he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astonished. They said, “Where did this man get all this? What kind of wisdom has been given him? What mighty deeds are wrought by his hands!
Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.
Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honour except in his native place and among his own kin and in his own house.”
So he was not able to perform any mighty deed there, apart from curing a few sick people by laying his hands on them.
Let’s try to extract the lessons. If you are a prophet, a truly honest man:
1. Nobody will listen to you. They will not follow your advice.
2. You will endure “weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and constraints.”
3. You will be scorned by your own family, and by those with whom you grew up.
'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.
July 4, 2021
Milo on Vortex
Scary
