Sign in with Facebook
“With more and more decision making and work done by robots, what will be left for humans to do? Do we really want to compete biologically with robot technology by using brain implants and genetically improved intelligence and social behavior? This choice would mean a sharp departure away from the human nature we have inherited, and a fundamental change in the human condition. Now we are talking about a problem best solved within the humanities, and one more reason the humanities are all-important. While I’m at it, I hereby cast a vote for existential conservatism, the preservation of biological human nature as a sacred trust. We are doing very well in science and technology. Let’s agree to keep it up, and move both along even faster. But let’s also promote the humanities, that which makes us human, and not use science to mess around with the wellspring of this, the absolute and unique potential of the human future.”
― The Meaning of Human Existence
― The Meaning of Human Existence
“Eno again: “I know he liked Another Green World a lot, and he must have realised that there were these two parallel streams of working going on in what I was doing, and when you find someone with the same problems you tend to become friendly with them.” Another Green World (1975) has a different feel to Low, but it deploys some of the same strategies. It mixes songs that have recognisable pop structures with other, short, abstract pieces that Eno called “ambient”—with the emphasis not on melody or beat, but on atmosphere and texture. These intensely beautiful fragments fade in then out, as if they were merely the visible part of a vast submarine creation; they are like tiny glimpses into another world. On the more conventional tracks, different genres juxtapose, sometimes smoothly, sometimes not—jazzy sounds cohering with pop hooks but struggling against intrusive synthetic sound effects. The end result is a moodily enigmatic album of real power and ingenuity. One structural difference between the two albums, though, is that while Eno interspersed the “textural” pieces across Another Green World, Bowie separated them out and put them on another side, which provides Low with a sort of metanarrative.”
― Low
― Low
“No, no – you don’t understand!” he sputtered, his face growing red not just with anger but with embarrassment, which seemed to make him angrier still. “Space is empty; it is a void in which the atoms move freely. There is no ‘notbeing;’ everything is in process of becoming. Everything is composed of atoms which are mobile and invisible, whirling in the void.” “Then the void is a place within which this takes place, where all these invisible atoms are in – what did you say? – constant motion.” “Yes, precisely,” he replied, relieved to discover that I was not quite the dunce he had begun to fear I was. “The atoms move inside space, inside the void, creating through their combination everything that is.” “Space, or void, then is not made up of atoms?” “No, because then there would be no place for them to move, as you yourself just pointed out.” “I’m still not quite sure what you mean. Everything is in process of becoming – doesn’t that mean that nothing is, that there is no being?” “No, because everything is always changing; everything that comes into being passes away.” “But how can anything ‘come into being,’ if ‘being’ does not exist?” “We define things, put them in categories, but nothing is exactly what the definition says it is.”
― Helen
― Helen
“I don’t believe it too harsh to say that the history of philosophy when boiled down consists mostly of failed models of the brain. A few of the modern neurophilosophers such as Patricia Churchland and Daniel Dennett have made a splendid effort to interpret the findings of neuroscience research as these become available. They have helped others to understand, for example, the ancillary nature of morality and rational thought. Others, especially those of poststructuralist bent, are more retrograde. They doubt that the “reductionist” or “objectivist” program of the brain researchers will ever succeed in explaining the core of consciousness. Even if it has a material basis, subjectivity in this view is beyond the reach of science. To make their argument, the mysterians (as they are sometimes called) point to the qualia, the subtle, almost inexpressible feelings we experience about sensory input. For example, “red” we know from physics, but what are the deeper sensations of “redness”? So what can the scientists ever hope to tell us in larger scale about free will, or about the soul, which for religious thinkers at least is the ultimate of ineffability?”
― The Meaning of Human Existence
― The Meaning of Human Existence
“Parmenides was then quite old, but his mind was still powerful and clear. The question was what is, what can be, how does anything come into being? And Parmenides gave a very strange answer: Nothing can come into being; only unchangeable being is. But all the accounts given by the poets, Homer and Hesiod and the others, tell how the gods were created; and we know from these and other writings that every city has its own gods. Parmenides says that the gods having come into being cannot be. He replaces the gods by the unchangeable being. There cannot be a beginning, a genesis, because coming into being means a movement from nothing to being and nothing is not. What is there if the gods do not exist? – Intelligible principles. One of them is Eros, which Parmenides called the first and oldest of all the gods.” I thought I understood, but I was not sure; and let me confess that I was so much in awe of him that my usual selfconfidence, what some no doubt thought my arrogance, had all but vanished and left me a stammering, tonguetied fool. And he knew it, knew it probably before I did; knew it as easily, as completely, as I knew how to breathe. “If the gods have not come into being,” he said, “how then can anything, even these intelligible principles, come into being? They must, like the world itself, be eternal. But then, you wonder, is it possible for Parmenides, for anyone, to say that one of these principles, Eros, is the first and oldest.”
― Helen
― Helen
Stuart’s 2025 Year in Books
Take a look at Stuart’s Year in Books, including some fun facts about their reading.
2,364 books
|
151 friends
450 books
|
94 friends
495 books
|
123 friends
210 books
|
47 friends
1,007 books
|
88 friends
193 books
|
457 friends
978 books
|
95 friends
1,125 books
|
413 friends
More friends…
Polls voted on by Stuart
Lists liked by Stuart
