= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
RichardKennaway comments on Uncritical Supercriticality - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (159)
None of this would be particularly usable in terms of argument or convincing someone else. I saw "coincidences" on a level that made no sense, without there being what could be called "something more" than the ordinary world of cause and effect, operating only locally. Like three events that did not occur to me before or since, that would be rare for anyone, and that all happened, seemingly independently, one after the other, on one day, in about an hour. And that seemed to mean something. Basically, something like "Don't worry, it's covered."
And I also experienced something directly, it would be called "mystical" here, except that it's really quite ordinary. It's a shift in perspective. Suppose that we are seeing all of life through a mirror. We don't realize this, because we don't see the signs that the mirror exists, we don't see the edges. Sometimes we might see that the mirror is dirty, though. I won't go there yet.
However, what does a mirror look like? Suppose that a mirror has a certain characteristic color. Let's call that color "clarity." Suppose that one has a faculty for seeing that color. (I suspect we all do.)
This isn't "scientific." There is no way to show that there is any "clarity" other than the reality of what is reflected. Or directly seen. It's an experience, though, and because of it, the whole elementary level of Zen koans became transparent for me, and when I asked a Zen master about this, he confirmed it. I was something like 22 years old. I didn't have training, I was just lucky, or something.
I don't consider this truly significant, but I could probably write a book about it. It's not the way I think any more, particularly. Again, all this did for me was to connect me with wide religious traditions, which I saw, then, as referring to experience that was not the "ordinary way" of looking at things. I've not fully expressed this at all, I was just describing the gateway that I walked through.
Because I wasn't taught by any individual or within any tradition, I didn't have a method for transmitting this. I was able to confirm some others, though. Landmark Education, however, is teaching "transformation," and a crucial part of that is the concept of "nothing." It can easily sound like total BS, but ... people actually -- and with reasonable reliability -- experience it, can talk about it with each other, it is easily visible, and it has transformative value, people do become more competent, more effective, happier, fully self-expressed, etc. Call it "clearing away the cobwebs," perhaps. Again, clarity itself. No content.
Okay, sorry about confusing you, that's not my goal. You are referring to "bulk behavior," that more or less assumes that Muslims and Jews and Christians "worship the same God." Sort of. But each of those categories covers a huge variety of actual beliefs. Some Christian concepts of God are very different from some Muslim concepts. When I said that there is no "over" I meant that I wasn't rejecting anything by accepting Islam. And when I said that there is no "other" (religion), I meant that "lslam" is a name -- this is standard -- for the natural relationship of the human to Reality.
(That's very standard Islam, only I use the term Reality to refer to God. Color me ecumenical.)
What "other religions," then? Buddhism is actually a whole set of religions, there is a huge variation. Many Buddhists don't accept the "Buddhist mythology," just the actual practice, the psychology, if you will. Buddhism has been considered an "atheist religion," because some forms don't refer to a deity at all. My interest, though, is in what those who actually practice Buddhism experience. Why would I be interested in rejecting this or in thinking my own experience superior?
I'm not sure what "supernatural" means. Out of the ordinary? But isn't deep rationalism out of the ordinary? What are we talking about?
There is something called, loosely, "causeless joy." Call it "existential joy." Is it real? I really don't know, I just know that it's really cool! In the end, whatever I experience is a state of the brain, a pile of patterns, right? Except for one thing. What is this "I" that supposedly is having this experience? There is a pile of patterns, that's a practically universal understanding -- and very Buddhist, the skandhas. But is there anything else? I'd say, sure, but I can't prove it. What else there is, I'll call Reality. I can't prove that Reality exists, but so what?
I don't talk about "belief in God," not for myself. Certainly many people use this language, but, for me, and in my reading of the Qur'an, the issue is a basic relationship with Reality. What you pointed out from EY was a kind of trust in Reality, he called it the Universe.
Is Reality sentient? That would be more of the issue, eh? I don't know. I am simply moved to trust it.
Now, as to the Qur'an, it's pretty simple. It's not that the Qur'an is "untranslatable," per se, it is that each word in Arabic has a huge number of possible meanngs, and to translate it into English requires choosing English meanings, and the English set of meanings for a word is often very different from the Arabic set of meanings. So by translating it, one is "specifying" the meaning more than what was present in the original (and/or possibly adding new meanings). And this is necessarily limited by the understanding of the translator. From what I've seen, the best isn't nearly good enough, and the task is largely impossible, unless one replaces a "translation" with an explanation that covers every possible meaning of a text, and that would be ... huge. And would still doubtless be incomplete.
Two of the followers of the Prophet were arguing about the text. One said it went a certain way, call it A. The other said, no, it was B. So they went to the Prophet. He listened to the first, and said, "Yes." He listened to the second, and said, "Yes." And then he said that the Qur'an was revealed in seven dialects, and that each dialect carried seven levels of meaning.
It might help to understand that "seven" is common Arabic usage for "many." That tradition is a commonly-accepted one. It kind of blows the fundamentalists out of the water.
The Qur'an calls itself a "reminder." I read that as implying that it will only show us what we already know.
Is this specific to the Arabic language, or is it just the mismatch there will be between any two languages? I note that Christians take a completely different view of their sacred text: it must be provided to everyone in their own language, the better for them to understand it.
I would be interested to see your exegesis of some specific passage from the Qur'an along these lines. Perhaps as a top-level discussion post. I've read it in English translation (this translation), and to my eyes it consists mostly of exhortations to believe and promises of doom to unbelievers, and almost nothing about what anyone is expected to believe or to do beyond allegiance to the tribe. Randomly dropping into this online version yielded eight suras consisting of nothing else, and two that contained that plus some rather sketchily recounted stories.
What is it a reminder of? My reading of it reminds me only of the leaders of the ant colonies in T.H. White's The Once and Future King.
It's not specific to Arabic, but Arabic is particularly amenable to such wide interpretation.
Well, what Christians? Some Christians do insist on studying the "relatively original" texts.
And the problem Christians face is different. To some extent, they don't have the original text. They only have translations (at best) and rumors (in the other direction.)
Much Christian opinion (as with much Muslim opinion) is preposterous. In order to revere the Bible, as "the Word of God," and especially what they will hold up and thump or whatever they do, they have to create a whole doctrine of "inspired translation." They have to assume, as well, that there is a message that can be translated, one size fits all, equivalent. No wonder the standard Christian story is so ... dumb.
(I hasten to add that there are lots of Christians who understand it differently, and, in my experience, they more that they actually know about their religion, the broader their view. The naive fundamentalist view is largely ignorant of Christian tradition, not only of other possibilities.)
What happens with a text like the Qur'an, or the Torah, or the Gospels, is that they are interpreted, and that the interpretations come to be considered the original message, so much so that the original message practically disappears -- even if the text is being read in the original language.
I read what's reported of Jesus in the Gospels, and don't notice that he claims to be God. He said some other things that are so interpreted, even though there are alternate interpretations that, in some cases, are extremely simple and consistent with the context. I've gone over these passages with Christians, on occasion. It is as if they can't hear the alternate meanings, they keep saying, "But he said ...!"
However, they don't know what he said. He didn't speak Greek, for starters, as far as we can tell. The only actual words of Jesus purportedly preserved were the words on the cross, kept in Aramaic, the language of the people of the time. (Aramaic and Arabic are very similar.)
Now as to Qur'anic exegesis, I'd be happy to look at any particular passage, indeed,it's an obligation (it's that "Muslim" thing, though it's also broader, I do feel an obligation to respond on topics where I have unusual knowledge) . I can't create top level posts, though my karma has been coming back up from the initial big whack. But I can respond to them.
It doesn't say. I can only say what's obvious to me, from my own experience of it. It's a reminder of life, of our relationship with Reality, and we all, if we study and carefully consider ourselves, already know what it would remind us of. But there still is a language problem.
Or it's not for you. The Qur'an does not, as some might assume, condemn "non-Muslims." It warns against the consequences of denial, though. Yup. Be careful, eh? (And the Book says that it is for those who seek to be careful, it just doesn't create a Careful Club, with badges that will ward off Hellfire, just say the magic words.
Rumi made the point.
He describes the situation of the castle of a King, defended by dogs. Someone coming, unwelcome, to the castle, telling the dogs, "I take refuge in the King from your viciousness," will be torn to pieces by them. No, only if the visitor is actually clinging to the "hem of the King" will they be safe. Rumi was asserting that the most common ritual phrase in Islam, repeated with every prayer session, was useless unless it represented a reality.
An actual refuge being taken in Reality, an actual trust in Reality, I've been saying.
There is a good chance that you understood none of it. That's okay. It's not in your language, and was not explained to you consistently with your existing accepted concepts (i.e., creating a bridge).. You expected something different from a book. This is no ordinary book, even if we simply look at it from a point of view of history.
If communication is the purpose, that is a defect, not a virtue.
Yes. If accurate, unambiguous communication is the purpose, that's true, though for that purpose, even in English, terms must be specifically defined for context. Jargon. Seems to me that this happens around here.
If a different form of communication is the purpose, such as with poetry, Arabic might even be optimal.
However, the Qur'an does explain why it's in Arabic. It's because Muhammad was Arab. And so was his community.
Did you notice the place where I mentioned that each of the seven "dialects" (sets of meanings for words) and the seven "interpretations" was confirmed by the Prophet as being legitimate? I assume, for some purpose.
The Leader Astray is one of the names of God, for example. The Qur'an is not a science textbook, in spite of some rather naive and enthusiastic claims by some Muslims.
Well, duh. For the same reason, the Torah is in Hebrew, the New Testament was originally in Greek, and the Buddhist scriptures were originally in Pali. It's almost as if, to communicate an idea to people, you have to express it in their language. Fancy that!
I did, but I lack your faith in the value of ambiguity and obscurity, regarding them instead as deepity engines.
I'd caution against creating a TLP on virtues of Islam, or any other religion for that matter. While it might be obvious to you that Islam is like nothing else, the inferential gap to the LW community is basically uncrossable, so you will only get whacked again. The general understanding is that Eliezer has adequately dealt with faith and religion when discussing belief in belief, and that Reductionism does not need faith, let alone any specific religion or scripture. I am guessing that the inferential gap works the other way, too: you likely misunderstand some of the standard ideas accepted and discussed here. It would be a good exercise in rational thinking to identify and analyze such inferential gaps between you and the more mainstream LWers.
The general understanding is that none of that particular topic is unique to Eliezer, who mentions (but doesn't always cite) his sources on "belief in belief" — specifically Sagan and Dennett.
I would also caution against using the idea "mainstream LWers" ....
Right. I did not mean to imply that it was original research, though I suspect that he reproduced much of it on his own before matching with the existing literature.
My definition of a "mainstream LWer" is someone who adopts the Reductionism sequence without any significant reservations. Whether it's a good definition may be open to debate.
My definition of "phyggery" is ... ah, never mind.
This "general understanding" might be so for some (most?) in the LW community, but my prior on that is, like, highly unlikely that a single individual in a few words has "adequately dealt" with centuries of human experience and thought and inquiry. What is quite possible is that EY has addressed certain outlines of the subject;.Generally I'm in agreement with him, but also see certain unexplored points. I'm continuing to read, and as I read more, I find both more agreement and more of what I usually call "edges."
I wouldn't dream of "creating a TLP on 'virtues of Islam.' Wrong place, for sure. I'm far more interested in rationality and the stated goals of this blog.
However, there was a whole school of Islam, dominant for a time, called the "rationalists," and science was considered compatible with Islam for centuries. That's an Islam that, I assume, most LWians haven't contacted. So there may be some room for this, that's all.
I'm quite aware that atheism is the standard belief here. However, is that a rational necessity? (And if it is, I'm still interested in the question of what atheism is. I do not think of it as being "wrong.")
What is "obvious" to me is not what is being inferred by some from what I've written, nor would I expect it would be obvious to others who don't share the necessary referents. I simply offered to respond if asked.
Fubarobfusco, thanks for the link. I'll check that out. I do not imagine that LWers are monolithic, though some may imagine that their own opinions are the opinions of the group. Maybe. More likely, not, though they might dominate.
edit: I'd already read that, and TheSimpleTruth. I've been looking for a while, and I haven't seen an examination of "faith and religion," but only of certain naive ideas about them. I'm pretty sure that a higher degree of sophistication exists here. But I can't yet prove it. Where should I look?