To judiciously pick from your post:
Indeed. BigMike believes in an overarching necessity. He has no idea as to why everything (or even anything) should be necessary, but he believes that it is anyway. He expresses this in terms of determinism: that is, that there are certain "physical laws" which force the universe to be the way that it is. In this sense, the universe is, exactly, like a computer program: the physical laws are the program, and the matter of the universe is the "computer" upon which the "program" executes.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 4:18 pm Now what I find interesting is that BigMike declares himself to have the proper and necessary grounding in mathematical logic. But is that not exactly the sort of logic upon which computer technology and AI is based? But BigMike is actually making a statement it seems to me and it is that man's mind should become *logical* in the same sense that a computer is necessarily logical (in a strict mathematical sense). So if I read BigMike correctly he recommends imitating -- becoming like -- a computer program! I do not mean to be at all facetious. There is a sort of *war* against metaphysical modes of thinking and perception. If it happened that the physicalist mode did come to dominate, it would be because the machine-mode or the computer-logical mode dominated. And if it did dominate it would, I think necessarily, involve itself in projects of eliminating the incorrectly-based thinking of those who, retrogradingly, remain stuck in *false consciousness*.
But what I have described here is, I think, what you primarily object to. Because you do notice the *consequences* of this sort of arrogating mode of thought. Ideas have consequences.
These physical laws which he believes to be necessary of course preclude the existence of free will, because they necessitate everything, including every human (so-called, he would say) choice.
This is quite obviously insane, but the big fella is and always will be oblivious to that. It is perfectly obvious from our personal experience that we effect changes in reality via our free will, and thus that nothing is truly necessitated. Put this to the big fella, however, and all you will get is denial. In other words, the dude's a fool. However, on this theme, you suggest:
My response is to be rather nonplussed. "Foolish" or "nescient" - it really doesn't make much difference to me, but I think I prefer "foolish". It's more to the point and understandable in the modern world.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 4:18 pm So instead of the term *fool* and *foolishness* I thought it might be useful to introduce a more complex and laden term: nescience.
[Late Latin nescientia, from Latin nesciēns, nescient-, present participle of nescīre, to be ignorant : ne-, not; see ne in Indo-European roots + scīre, to know; see skei- in Indo-European roots.]
Yep, it's a battleground. Some folk deny this and think that we can all just play nice and be rational. They are, themselves, however, fools.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 4:18 pm Now it should be clear that we are involved (really on a world level) in idea wars. All around us the idea-wars rage even if we are not completely aware of them. The essential battle and conflict? Defining the world. Defining existence.
Harry is telling BigMike that he has a nescient perspective. BigMike is telling Harry that, no, Harry's perspective as really the nescient one. And others, like Sculptor, agree adamantly and thus the opposed and polarized perspectives are set in battle-posture.
