Can tension become creative?

[Nordic]

Often when your heart and your head appear to be separated then some sort of "yoga" or something (Pilates maybe? ) is needed to bring them together.

.

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?p=183508#p183508






.

WTF? Are you saying that looking at porn sites brings your head and heart together? Or that you think these girls, taking photos of themselves for a porn site, does this for them?

I really don't get it.

[Canadian_watcher]

I really do think there is room here for all kinds - if we do not embrace all kinds then we cannot come close to any sort of 'truth' ...

I loved that story, stafano, about the meteorites. I think it is perfect in demonstrating something that I harp on about and that is that sometimes science is no more 'rational' than religion. There is mutable 'truth,' and then there is truth.

If, sometimes, someone wants to say motherfucker in pursuit, I see no harm in it. If someone wants to ask "Are you INSANE??" when one of their beliefs is questioned, then that's good - that's a starting point for discussion. THAT, is how tension can be creative. In art, science, philosophy; it seems that someone has to think someone else 'insane' before creativity can happen.

As to the relations on this board, I only get offended when someone or a group-of-someones tries to undermine another person ... that's not fair. Even though it creates tension it doesn't lead to too much creativity outside of namecalling and hair pulling.

[barracuda]

I've always felt that rationalism and irrationalism were separated by a moustache's hair-breadth. Then I realised that politics and woo contain an essential, defining overlap. Now I'm coming to terms with the idea that scientific theory and cultural myth are two sides of the same coin as well.

Fucking dualism. It never seems to pan out. And then that doesn't pan out either.

[82_28]

What is it that we are doing? Easy. We are all here -- and that is what we are doing.

That's not all we are doing, though. We're also having discussions about all sorts of subjects, and often disagreeing pretty vehemently about how to understand them. Then I'm afraid there is a very clear bifurcation between logic and feeling.

Yeah of course "being here" and feeling are important, and I'm glad members here feel comfortable posting about sad or stressful things that happen in their lives, it makes me feel like part of a good thing. But there are threads for that and threads for other things, and I personally really don't enjoy participating in discussions where I happen to know a lot, and bringing news and background to the board, and then being confronted with a quasi-religious belief system that's immune to logical persuasion.

Some people want to make RI completely devoid of any kind of fascination of our cosmos/reality/surreality and are doing so in personalized fashion.

No, I don't think so actually, or maybe a tiny number of people. I'm one of the "Analysts" Searcher talked about and I'm 100% for woo threads, in fact I'm disappointed that they've got less numerous since I joined. Bring it on, talk about it.

As am I. I am total Carl Sagan devotee and have been my entire life, but I have also since found quite a bit of fascination with what is known as the "occult". However, I do think that sometimes, merely by dint of being human and "human RAM" if you will, when you jump from one subject to the other (concerning differing threads) you will necessarily bring some of the previous thread with you -- should you decide to comment there. Thus, we must remain more open to one another and each and everyone of our proclivities. Get pissed at the world, at the state of things, but not each other.

In my life, I have held a grudge for exactly, probably at most, 2 hours. I for one, do not hold grudges, but recognize when people do against others. It's all rather easy, if we are to remain "free". You simply do not tell people how or what to think. You can call them dicks because of their attitude, but you do not tell them that they are ever invalid. When you do that, you piss me off. When I get pissed, I get pissed. That's me, not everyone else. You also don't start pushing people around with rhetoric that you may feel superior about, but in the end, could in fact be matched if it was chosen to do so, match you with your wit, your analysis, your speculation, your creativity. Just don't be a fucking dick. Do not antagonize. Do not play dumb when you know somebody over PM has called you out and has asked for your hand so it can be shaken and then do nothing, because the grudge you hold in your mind is more important than actually just getting along all because of words on a computer screen. Additionally, you also do not accuse others of being something you would have no idea whether they were or weren't simply based on your own inner hatreds of everything.

I have worked in an industry and have grown up in a miasma of people who give each other shit constantly and using the word "fuck" a lot. I happen to be different in that I always get shit, have all of my life, for being too emotional, too liberal, too "out there". I recognize this. You take it in stride. And that is what I am doing here. Don't ever fucking tell me that I am something that I am not in an Internet thread made specifically for me in a place that I admire and value. I tell you, all of you, day in and day out who I am and am frankly offended by some people here. It does not mean I hold a grudge of any kind.

Live and let fucking live. That's it.

[Spiro C. Thiery]

If, sometimes, someone wants to say motherfucker in pursuit, I see no harm in it. If someone wants to ask "Are you INSANE??" when one of their beliefs is questioned, then that's good - that's a starting point for discussion.

I tend to agree. I mean, most native English speakers have internalized the vernacular of "Are you m-f'in' crazy!?" On the other hand, calling someone a motherfucker is another story. As is calling someone stupid or an idiot. And I hasten to add that one might want to tread lightly with the casting of the crazy aspersion as well. Seriously.

I'm pretty new here, so I don't have an overview of the relationships - keeping identity sorted on such a forum is difficult. But the rules of the forum seem logical to me. I just don't think that hurling personal insults is any way to make for creative tension (irrespective of their obscenity); unless your goal is to have even more creative insults hurled back atcha.

I have mocked the idea that our politics suffers from uncivil language. This has to do with the fact that--using Jon Stewart's gathering in DC as an example -- the folks we are talking about are in a struggle to corner the market on murder and oppression. Their incivility towards one another, or an outsider telling it like it is, is the least of politics' problems. Frankly, I'm not so sure that we couldn't use more candid insults in politics.

But those on this board are not those people. So it seems to me that if you don't like woo, there might not be a lot to contribute to a discussion by simply saying, "I'm sick or your fucking woo!" Making the case for why this particular instance of woo is whack, on the other hand, could. This might include analogy and metaphor which mocks the position, but it shouldn't denigrate anyone for simply having one.

[barracuda]

You simply do not tell people how or what to think. You can call them dicks because of their attitude, but you do not tell them that they are ever invalid.

I'm not sure about this. We've had individuals bring perspectives to the forum that were simply and clearly wrong, such as (actual examples I've read on this forum): antisemites claiming jews control the world, or fundamentalist christians claiming that the earth is only 6000 years old, or others saying that organite will solve the world's problems. These points of view can be difficult, if not impossible to argue against without understanding that they are, at their basis, invalid. Not only that, but there are highly developed and contrived debate strategies in place for each example here, strategies which are codified because they are extremely difficult to refute without falling into built-in traps for anyone who might argue against them. And the proponents of such insanity can weasel their doctrinaire assertions into almost any subject that occurs here. They have a twisted key that fits any lock.

Anyway, these are just a few examples where people decidedly do need to be told how to think. In fact, I think a new descripttion of how to think is one of the most important things anyone can take away from such a place as this.

[wallflower]

Reading 82_28 above I'm reminded how hard feedback is on discussion boards. I suspect few people really travel all through the threads, at least I don't. And then there are threads I read but keep quite in because I don't have anything to add to the discussion. Facebook's "Like" is perhaps insidious with it's commercialization, but it does fit the need for small increments of regular feedback.

82-28 is saying many things and I probably don't quite understand all of it, but taking a broad brush it seems to me that something he's pointing out is the importance of the "Intuition" part of Rigorous Intuition. "Like"

Peirce's categories probably seem a bit pedantic, but thinking beyond binary is important, thus Peirce's triad. From the Paul Ryan piece I linked to before, Ryan makes this point:

McCulloch has argued that the non-hierarchic circularity of preference inherent in intransitive choices is at the core of human’s logic of survival. (McCulloch 1965: 40-45)

Facts are clearly important but not sufficient, especially on a board with an emphasis on exploring theories of networks.

LOL my writing is garbled, what I want to say plainly is I appreciate and agree generally with 82_28's points; likewise appreciate and a agree with a couple of posters here 82-28 feels besieged by. Their styles of communicating aren't my preferred styles. And when "manners" are brought into the discussion of communication styles I feel quite uncomfortable treating particular sorts of manners as a matter of commonly accepted fact. The accusations of bad manners seem a playing foul. Nonetheless, pointing to manners leads away from the strict binary and oppositional thinking that is prevalent among those who most vigorously defend their positions as rigorous.

[stefano]

It's all rather easy, if we are to remain "free". You simply do not tell people how or what to think. You can call them dicks because of their attitude, but you do not tell them that they are ever invalid.

Can't agree with you here, man. Of course you tell people how and what to think; being free doesn't enter into it at all. 'Don't think you're going to have a bad day because a black cat crossed your path,' you could say to a superstitious person, 'there really is no connection.' 'Don't think it's a good idea phoning that girl drunk,' you might say to a friend, 'it's really a terrible idea.' 'Don't think Kennedy was shot by a lone nut,' you might say on a conspiracy board, 'here are some very cogent reasons to think it was a conspiracy.' Do you really reckon that's out of line? It's not. If you don't want your beliefs challenged then you can keep them to yourself, especially as this is a discussion board and you ought to expect a certain amount of, you know, discussion. The whole point of it is to come here with your ideas, share them, see if they stand up to challenge, find out if there are relevant things you don't know, get hooked up to interesting writers on the subject and so on. Sometimes we can't, on the available evidence, deduce what's going on. But we should still try and share the thought processes that brought us to our conclusions.

I really don't like this kind of deconstructionist angle that "since every text is subjective no opinion is invalid." It's got very pervasive and it's a crock of shit.

And what barracuda said, I just saw his post before submitting mine.

[82_28]

You simply do not tell people how or what to think. You can call them dicks because of their attitude, but you do not tell them that they are ever invalid.

I'm not sure about this. We've had individuals bring perspectives to the forum that were simply and clearly wrong, such as (actual examples I've read on this forum): antisemites claiming jews control the world, or fundamentalist christians claiming that the earth is only 6000 years old, or others saying that organite will solve the world's problems. These points of view can be difficult, if not impossible to argue against without understanding that they are, at their basis, invalid. Not only that, but there are highly developed and contrived debate strategies in place for each example here, strategies which are codified because they are extremely difficult to refute without falling into built-in traps for anyone who might argue against them. And the proponents of such insanity can weasel their doctrinaire assertions into almost any subject that occurs here. They have a twisted key that fits any lock.

Anyway, these are just a few examples where people decidedly do need to be told how to think. In fact, I think a new descripttion of how to think is one of the most important things anyone can take away from such a place as this.

Yeah, but you don't dog on free speculation as what happened to 8bit, in the thread that has been locked. You do not tell people who seem cool enough to me to shut up and then create another thread, personalize it in order to "attack". I was not "attacked". I can fully handle it, but with the respect most of us have for Jeff and RI in general, it gets a little dicey as far as "retaliation". It was outside of the norm, it was in fact disruptive, and if it comes to telling people "how to think" every single time I've been disagreed with in this form, it is because I am in all ways telling people to "chill the fuck the fuck out". Then it becomes "oh my, I see the word 'fuck' must be somebody trying to intimidate me". Fuck no. I use the language I use and will not be deterred. Shall we ban all rudepundit links here now? People talk like this in real life. I write in real life. I make myself as clear as possible and I also write with a view to creating mystery, with irony, in goodwill. Just don't be a fucking dick. If I am calling you a "dick" this means I know one when I see one and this I assert because I am not a dick in any facet of life until I need to be. I deplore passive aggressive bullshit. Be nice or use "force". Embrace, do no harm and when you have to, defend yourself and others, always. Don't beat around the bush when in interest of damaging someone or something else, come out and do it or don't do it at all. Don't start threads specifically about others. Answer PMs when they need to be sent without further condescension. And if you can't do that expect that I will give you a friendly "fuck you" forever. As far as I am concerned, the ball is always in everyone else's court. When I speculate I do so freely and I will defend that right for all to do so, here and everywhere else.

These are not rules some dick known as 82_28 is "laying down" here. It is the golden rule of all and every aspect of life. You just must fight against hatefulness and make adjustments to your attitude as far as others in all ways and on all days of your life. People who cannot do this, get a "fuck you" from me. Don't take it personal, but allow me and others to use words too and don't accuse us of shit publicly.

Take it away you fine hockey loving vegan gents of Canada known as Propagandhi:

[Canadian_watcher]

82, barracuda was in no way calling you out in that post, nor do I think it necessitated a familiar diatribe about how you are the lord of your own manor and will always and forever call people dicks if you think they deserve it.

I am pretty sure I speak for everyone when I say that we know you feel that way.

So chill the fuck out, bro.

[Pierre d'Achoppement]

Yeah, ffs cocksucker. Anyway, what do you people think of my fitness regime?

[82_28]

82, barracuda was in no way calling you out in that post, nor do I think it necessitated a familiar diatribe about how you are the lord of your own manor and will always and forever call people dicks if you think they deserve it.

I am pretty sure I speak for everyone when I say that we know you feel that way.

So chill the fuck out, bro.

Consider me chilled. Seriously. I know fish wasn't calling me out. It just felt good getting that out in a matter of like three minutes and then another minute searching for the Prop song. I needed to do it and RI is fucking an important place and would never do anything to upset the cart. Let's move on. But everyone, quit dogging on everyone who is "real" here and not expecting a response in return.

Go Canucks!!!!!!

[brainpanhandler]

From the OP:

Another point of discussion for Searcher: I wonder if the difference in what we're posting is related to the focus of our culture at large: during Bush's term a lot of people were thinking magically. The thrift shop I volunteer at sees what was popular "last season" and in 2009 and 2010 (2009 especially) we had a huge increase in donations of "magical" merchandise and books on fortean topics and spiritual enlightenment. The fact that people are giving these things up leads me to think that overall, the cultural focus has changed.

Possibly. I did some searching around looking for statistics on book sales by genre. The information I could easily find is sketchy and I don't know how reliable it is. The following seems to be an industry first and favorite and it's a mere $999 to get a look.

Bowker Publishes First Consumer-Focused Research Report for Book Industry
Today’s most comprehensive range of data from Bowker’s PubTrack Consumer gives publishers crucial insight into book selling price, demographics of book buyers, marketing effectiveness and motivation for purchase

New Providence, NJ - July 28, 2009 - Members of the U.S. book publishing industry now have access to the first complete consumer-based research report with detailed analysis of who is buying books and what motivates them to make their purchases.

Bowker’s 2008 U.S. Book Consumer Demographics and Buying Behaviors Annual Report includes in-depth book data, demographics, psychographics, genre category breakdowns and distribution channel analysis. The report also includes first quarter 2009 trends, documenting that mass merchandisers picked up market share while bookstores had the largest decline.

Additionally, it includes data from Bowker’s 2008 book production statistics, which benchmark the number of new titles produced in the U.S. according to a variety of genres and publishing formats.

The report can be ordered now by visiting http://www.bookconsumer.com. Pricing starts at $999 for a single-use PDF or print copy, but the company is offering a 10% discount for orders by July 31, 2009. In addition, members of the news media are entitled to a 50% discount if they are interested in purchasing the report.

“This report is a breakthrough in the U.S. publishing industry because it places crucial business intelligence into the hands of book publishers regarding who is buying books, what kinds of books they’re buying, what is motivating them to make those purchases and where they’re going to buy those books,” said Kelly Gallagher, vice president of publisher services for New Providence, N.J.-based Bowker, the global leader in bibliographic information management solutions.

According to Gallagher, some of the detailed insights contained in the new report include the following:

57% of book buyers are women yet women purchase 65% of the books sold in the U.S.

Mystery books are the most popular genre for book club sales, with 17% of all purchases of mystery books coming directly from book clubs

Generation X consumers buy more books online than any other demographic group, with 30% of them buying their books through the Internet

21% of book buyers said they became aware of a book through some sort of online promotion or ad

Women made the majority of the purchases in the paperback, hardcover and audio-book segments, but men accounted for 55% of e-book purchases

“Our report also provides a peek into the growing trends of e-books and e-book devices for digital delivery of book content, as well as the growth of social networks for discovery and interaction with this content,” added Gallagher. “These represent the bright spots of opportunity in an otherwise challenging economic climate for U.S. book publishers.”

The report was produced in collaboration with Publishers Weekly, the leading publication serving all segments of the U.S. book industry.

Lightning Source, the global leader in print on demand book manufacturing and distribution, will manufacture the Annual Report on demand. Copies of the report will be printed as they are needed, allowing Bowker to fill every order of the report from virtual inventory.

PubTrack Consumer, a service of Bowker, is the publishing industry’s premier resource for understanding consumer book buying behavior. Data are derived from a nationally representative panel of U.S adult men, women and teens that complete weekly online surveys about their book purchase behavior.

http://www.bowker.com/index.php/press-releases/567

I'm just curious whether Crikkets speculation and anecdotal evidence is really representative of a larger trend. It would be interesting to know.

Also, we're having the damndest time moving sci fi, probably because of the "hauntological" opinion that we're living what used to be sci fi.

I did find the following article from the NYT. It's a bit dated, but I can't really imagine there are huge fluctuations in books sales by genre in such short time spans so probably this articles observations are still roughly accurate and relevant.

Recession Fuels Readers’ Escapist Urges
By MOTOKO RICH
Published: April 7, 2009


In a recession, what people want is a happy ending

At a time when booksellers are struggling to lure readers, sales of romance novels are outstripping most other categories of books and giving some buoyancy to an otherwise sluggish market.

-snip-

Like the Depression-era readers who fueled blockbuster sales of Margaret Mitchell’s “Gone With the Wind,” today’s readers are looking for an escape from the grim realities of layoffs, foreclosures and shrinking 401(k) balances.

-snip-

Such escapist urges are also fueling sales of science fiction and fantasy, said Bob Wietrak, a vice president for merchandising at Barnes & Noble. Mr. Wietrak said sales of novels with vampires, shape shifters, werewolves and other paranormal creatures were “exploding,” whether they were found in the romance, fantasy or young-adult aisles, where Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight series continues to dominate and inspire look-alike books like the House of Night teen novels by P. C. Cast and Kristin Cast

...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/books/08roma.html

Somehow that seems more likely to me to be an overall cultural trend.

Its like there is a line drawn between straight rationalist stuff and woo

So anyway this dynamic isn't unique to the outside world. It also appears to be on display here. No one talks about the reality bending qualities of adrenochrome in ritual anymore (or was that just me?)

This is a point I have heard brought up a number of times over the years, usually in the form of a complaint from those that wish we could go back to the good old days when anything was fair game for conversation and people were more interested far out fringe topics. I'm not saying that's how your framing your observation, just that thats how I've seen the topic broached before. I've only been a member here since the end of 2006. But suspect there is some truth to the observation that there has been a general trend away from "woo" topics and toward more immediate, rationally based topics and concerns. I think that is partly as a result of certain members leaving and/or falling silent.

If true then we, meaning the RI discussion board membership, might be a counter current against the general cultural trend suggested by the NYT piece. Which would be interesting to know.

Often when your heart and your head appear to be separated then some sort of "yoga" or something (Pilates maybe? ) is needed to bring them together.

I'm fond of chemical yoga. Less stressful.

perhaps we need to not take it so seriously and spend more time reading the comedy thread and looking for reasons to be cheerful.

Or talk about "the reality bending qualities of adrenochrome in ritual", which sounds like a fascinating topic to me. Some people here may never have read your stories about your encounters with alien/inter-extradimensional beings.

Did I mention Searcher was spot on before?

If not.

Spot on Searcher.

Agreed. It was well put. Your an interesting fellow to start a conversation like this Joe. One minute you can go to the outer reaches of woo and entertain the wildest speculations and the next minute your rather mundanely rational and reasonable. It's the demonstration of the rational/reasonable part that lends credibility to your other speculations. It's sort of like how Picasso had to be an accomplished realist before he invented his style of cubism if he ever expected to taken seriously.

[Canadian_watcher]

Your an interesting fellow to start a conversation like this Joe. One minute you can go to the outer reaches of woo and entertain the wildest speculations and the next minute your rather mundanely rational and reasonable. It's the demonstration of the rational/reasonable part that lends credibility to your other speculations. It's sort of like how Picasso had to be an accomplished realist before he invented his style of cubism if he ever expected to taken seriously.

BPH, consider that many ppl here are probably just like Joe.. but maybe we feel safe here not having to demonstrate our talents in realism before we flash you our abstract stuff. That's what we have to do IRL constantly, and it gets laborious. I always figured RI was a place where I could throw a little woo out there without having to worry that I'd automatically be thought of as a nutter.

just a thought to keep the ball rolling.

[brainpanhandler]

I always figured RI was a place where I could throw a little woo out there without having to worry that I'd automatically be thought of as a nutter.

I agree that it is or should be. There's a difference between being called a nutter and not being taken seriously. I guess all I'm saying is that for me a demonstration of rigor from someone makes me more likely to take the intuitions seriously. Thats all. Pretty uncontroversial I would think.