M.H. on Poetry, Psychology, and Quantum Physics.

Hi again. I tried to keep my response brief so if there's anything I didn't deal with just let me know.
For those of you just joining us this is a continuation of my discussion with Demosthenes about a poetic work I wrote and which Demosthenes has issues with. If you're curious to read the rest of it just look for the posts "We" and "Lex Orandi".

“I do not feel that Dummett and Popper were necessarily correct”
Could you support this? All you say is that Popper and Dummett use this idea as a way to place value on ideas but I’m pretty sure even they would say that’s exactly what they wanted. How is your position different from theirs other than merely stating that it isn’t necessarily so? Of course it isn’t necessarily so. There’s always room from reevaluation.

“prolegomena”
You’re using this term in a way that I’m unfamilar with so I’d like to make sure we’re on the same page. You allude to math and scientific method to evaluate cosmological theories and say that this is the same type of idea you’re refering to. So a prolegomena is basically a type of proof structure? I’m fine with that.
So this prolegomena is what you meant the whole time when you used the term authority? If so I’m fine with that too. I’d rather use the term prolegomena than authority though.

“I am referring to that level of accepted idea that has no proof.”
How’s about psychology and Quantum physics? You’ll have to be willing to accept a bit of empiricism with both of these though. Is that alright?

“Now in your psuedopoem (def: a work of poetry with neither foot nor measure)”
An unflattering choice of terms but fair enough. Most modern poets wouldn’t appreciate it however, seeing as how conventional structure is no longer seen as either necessary or complementary to the true spirit of poetry. I’ll leave it for now. (I’d definitely like to deal with this idea in more depth in a latter post so if you’re curious to see how I deal with it keep checking back).

“you make many statements that have no proof, but I believe many of them need proof.”
Is this just your opinion? I mean, are you simply trying to understand my work or are you trying to force me to admit that my work (especially the statement you had issues with in the last post) doesn’t fit with your personal biases and view points? How can you believe that a statement presented in a piece of art needs to be held philosophically accountable? I’d like you to support this.
If you’re just trying to understand what I have to say I gave you a bunch of acceptable interpretations in my last post. I’m also willing to accept any interpretation you’re willing to arrive at on your own. Such is the beauty of Art, the artist needn’t be attached to the piece. In fact it’s absolutely desirable for the artist to be distanced from it and to refuse to support it. This gives the piece that coveted quality of timelessness. The fact that it can be interpreted differently by different people (hopefully endlessly) gives a piece that stamp of “high art”. Case in point: the mona lisa.

“Not formal proofs, even, but simply proof that they can all be arived at from the same prolegomena.”
I’m always willing to entertain philosophical problems even when I think their inappropriately placed.
My first prolegomena: psychology. There is a generally accepted theory in psychology (based on empiricism. It’s the best proof structure available with psychology. I can elaborate on how the evidence is compiled if you want) that people have a mechanism (rather a set of them) in their mind (or brain, the distinction is trivial at this point) that allows them to cope with the enormous task of interpreting perceptions. This coping mechanism is composed of three functions: deletion, distortion, and generalization. These are necessary functions of the human condition and are as rigorously supported as anything in physics.
So I can use psychology as my prolegomena in this case by stating that these functions of the mind are ensuring that “reality” is being perceived in the most useful way possible based on past experience. This implies that, despite appearances, we are truly functioning at out greatest capacity.
Something like 400 billion bits of information are reaching our brains every second but our conscious mind can only cope with something like 50 bits. These mechanisms, therefore, allow us to sort through those 400billion bits and translate the most important ones (at least what we perceive to be the most important based on our how our past translations have or haven’t served us. There’s more to it than this but I’m trying to be brief. If you’re still unsatisfied I’d be happy to devote a whole post to this topic and deal with it in great detail) to our conscious awareness. We are functioning at maximum capacity 24/7. It may not look like it because most people don’t know how to reconcile what we want with how the deletions, distortions, and generalizations are taking place. This is how you can perceive a person that is engaged in “self-sabotage”. Both you and the other person are ignoring the mechanisms at work and misinterpreting the 400billion bits of information.

I can also use another Prolegomena: Quantum physics. I went into this in last post as well. I’ll just say briefly that since there is no other resolution (at least not so far) for the entanglement issue (which implies a paradox when it is assumed that there are two or more distinct observers) than to assume that we all are really just facets of a great, single, universal mind, then we are forced to admit that in the present moment (as opposed to the intellectual structures of past and future) we are each of us truly standing at the acme of human potential. The only thing keeping us from realizing this truth are those aforementioned mental mechanisms.
A third Prolegomena could found in religion as well. I’ll go into if you want but it doesn’t go much beyond the quantum interpretation, I’d really only have to get into it just to satisfy the narrow minded people who can’t see past their own religious prejudices.

“Nor is it acceptable to hide behind the idea of poetry.”
Who’s hiding? I can easily support the idea of artistic license if you want. In fact I will, just not in this post. For now just take a look at Dadaism, and the artistic revolution of the turn of the last century with all that non-representationalism. The artist needn’t answer to the viewer just so long as the viewer gets something out of it (be it exaltation, distaste, introspection, or, like you, a chance to interpret it in a way that leads to some new insights).

“Poem or prose, you did have a reason for your words… and those reasons should be ideas. Preferably, coherent ideas.”
Whether or not a poem conveys a coherent idea to the reader is much more dependant on the reader than the artist. I had a coherent idea in mind when I wrote this piece. I also had no idea whatsoever. What I mean by this is that I was working from a non conscious state of mind. I use visual spatial awareness (and sometimes auditory awareness) when I write much more than linguistic awareness. That’s not to say that I didn’t have a very definite vision of what I was writing, only that that vision is not liable in the same way my philosophical writing is liable. As you can see from the above I can support what I wrote and I can honestly say that I wrote the piece with the intention of conveying those ideas (at least to myself). I was not, however, concerned with how it would be interpreted because I would prefer to let the words that I chose to act as representatives of my “vision” to be interpreted by the reader however the reader prefers to interpret it.

“(to those who doubt authorial intent, I only ask why the sceptics bother to publish their works?)”
You must distinguish authorial intent with allowing the reader to be influenced by the piece how the reader sees fit. It must be based on their personal penchants and past experiences and being too clear in a work of art, especially when it comes to poetry, is going to effective stymie any chance of that. Authorial intent in poetry, novels, short stories or even pseudopoems, is very different than authorial intent in philosophy and hard science. The former seeks varied interpretation based on the reader’s subjectivity, the latter seeks a very specific interpretation based on the author’s views. Imagine what would change in your perspective if you accepted this distinction, even if only for a second, just to try it out.

“Even if this is meant relative to a person's awareness (in which case they are not at the end of themselves, they are at the limits of their awareness),”
I addressed this in my last post. I admit there may have been some things missing or misrepresented in my last post but I think I cleared most of them up in the above points. You’re statement, however, is open to suspicion. What are you alluding to when you imply that there might be other limits to the human condition besides limitations of awareness? Please, if you don’t mind, could you clarify what other limits you're referring to?

“I have observed that many people go through life as self-sabateur. Deliberately.”
First of all are you actually making the blind assumption that you know what is going on in someone’s head? You say “deliberately”. Doesn’t this imply that you know for sure that this person is fucking themselves over? Did this person say to you (or are you implying that your observation skills border on telekinesis) “I’m going to do this (whatever it might be) because I know it will hurt me. I’m also not willing to say that such pain is one of the ways in which I seek pleasure. I am doing this thing knowing that it will hurt me and knowing that such pain is honestly distasteful to me”? If you’ve honestly observed this I’d be hard pressed to not consider that person insane. True I did say “we have ALL been to the end of ourselves” and this does bar any perceived anomalies (should they come up), but you also said you weren’t concerned with the words per se, just the intention behind them. So I’d hope you’re willing to overlook my generosity with the use of the universal quantifier.

“Many people don't want to test there limits, or do well with what they have.”
Yeah that’s true superficially but you can look at in a way (the quantum way) that demonstrates progress regardless of intention. As William James said “we are embarked”. No matter how hard you try to struggle against it and no matter how convinced you are (consciously) that you’re succeeding, you, like everyone else, are at the fore front of human evolution with every passing moment.
Another way of looking at it would be that these people only think this way because of their perception of reality. Their deletions, distortions, and generalizations have told them that since right now they are safe, and doing something different might make them unsafe, they become unwilling to consciously change to admit that there is something else going on. These people are simply misunderstanding themselves, an unavoidable (from time to time) byproduct of the human condition. This does nothing to undermine my arguments.

“Enev Melanowski's hierarchy is strained by desperate men who above all else fear what they might actually be.”
Ok, their experience has led them to believe that change is dangerous. Even ignoring the quantum principles and the psychological interpretation of such a state this is still saying that those people are living at, or at least have been to, the end of themselves. They’re just afraid of it. That does absolutely nothing to reveal flaws in my original statement.

“Presuming that nature is engineered optimally and efficiently, it would seem that nature is stunted, especially in humans. We are, after all, a part of nature, and yet we are also one of nature's most damaging enemies.”
I’d like you to support this (where’s your authority?) before I make a comment. A hoard of recent research done by men like Bruce Lipton, Gregg Braden, and tons of others (especially environmental scientists) are very convincingly saying that this is just not true. Quite the opposite is true in fact.

“But your words here could have two different meanings. The first is that man is limited from reaching his full potential by his awareness (or lack thereof).”
True but only consciously limited. That true potential is always present. Every religion in the world would support this as well as quantum physics, neuroscience and psychology.

“The second, and more interesting to my mind, is that man's potential grows concordantly with his awareness.”
The Potential here referred to is the limitless potential of humanity. There is nothing we can’t do. The only limitation we experience is self imposed and dissolves with increased awareness. Is the Potential a fixed thing, static and mysteriously absent from our current experience? Not at all. Is it something that we can experience at every step and that changes as we develop? Yes. It’s both. As we experience new states of awareness we have access to more and more of that potential. So our experience of it is “dynamic” even though we can all attain to that level of “full potential” that would stand as a “static limit” only because it is infinite. I think we’d have to start using mystical language (the language of the Qabalah is well suited for this) to be able to deal with this fully. If your Qabalistic vocabulary is up to it we can get into it further if you’d like. Otherwise I’m not sure you’re gonna like what else I have to say. I guess for now I’d have to just say that we experience a dynamic, ever developing potential that will eventually lead to a state that could only be appropriately called “infinite potential”. If you want to call that state a static state that’s fine with me but at the same time you’d have to admit that it is a limitless state.
(after reviewing the above I could probably support this using physics if you’d like. I just don’t think it would be as satisfactory or rigorous as a Qabalistic treatment.)

Lex Orandi...

hello,
good to hear from you. Our friend is mutual.
To start my piece "We" was intended to be poetical (regardless of it's "pseudo" appearance). I wrote it as a free expression of my state. The words were not contrived through some filter of "knowing" I was simply using poetry to express a more remote state of consciousness that I enjoy playing with. I am however willing to entertain the rigorousness that you seem to like to play with.
Also "art" does have meaning (at least depending on what theory of meaning you're willing to accept. I personally have a hard time arguing with Dummett and Wittgenstein when they deal with meaning as use).

"You make some authoritative, absolute statements, such as 'we have all been to the end of ourselves'".
Please define your intentions when you use propositions like "authority". I find it too confusing to deal with otherwise. We'd be here all night.
That being said I'm just gonna go for the gusto and assume I know what you mean by this. My authority comes from experience, empiricism, modern psychology and plain old intuition. The reason I didn't demonstrate my authority is because it was meant more as a game than a philosophical position (this was a work of verse not prose). On the more rigorous side of things, however, I literally meant that every person is always working in the best way they know how with the resources available to them at their current level of awareness. This is sound psychology (I'm sure I could find quotes and peer reviewed sources if you really don't believe me).
Interpreted another way (this is poetry after all and poetry does work on levels even if it is pseudo) I'm willing to say that I meant we all (at least on some level) know what we are and aren't capable of. This is a weaker interpretation however.

"I ask only by what authority you speak."
Again I'm not entirely sure what you're after here. I'll assume you just want some support for what I said. Consider the statement "we have all been to the end of ourselves." Let's interpret it in a new way, a more rigorous analytical way (then maybe we'll address a synthetic interpretation). It's not unfair to break it down into reworded sentences such as "for every element that is aptly called an element of Humanity (We) that element has an awareness, and that awareness necessarily entails an awareness of what the element is capable of being aware of(awareness of awareness isn't unreasonable). That awareness of capacity marks one of the limits of what the element can aptly call 'self'." Is this awareness the only thing that marks our limits? No not by a long shot. Does it provide a tangible limit that may or may not be useful for dealing with one's present circumstances? Yes. Put in yet another way: people never knowingly fuck themselves over. No one wakes up in the morning and says to themselves "I'm gonna make things hard for myself". It does happen that a person's self awareness and awareness of their surroundings and of reality in general is so distorted, generalized and incomplete (owing to a necessary function of the human brain to cope with the staggering mass of information presented to it every second) that that person works in an inappropriate way. That is not to say that they are not functioning in the best way they know how (at the end of themselves) it just means that, for whatever reason (environmental factors, genetics, habit, or just due to misunderstanding of the presence or nature of those deleting, distorting and generalizing faculties) that person does not know how to get the results they want or that they have distorted what they think they want into what they are use to, or to what they think works for others (a poor M.O.). Whatever the case the human condition, just as nature as a whole, is engineered to function efficiently and optimally. Consciousness is designed to give us choice (a great creative faculty) but in so doing it also opens up the possibility of making strange choices. That's not to say that those choices are not always in the form of optimality based on the subjective relation of the element to it's environment.

"How is it possible to quantify a statement such as this? What metrics are used in its apprehension?"
Do we really need to invoke metrics? It is possible. I'm sure I could lay out a formal proof with Venn diagrams or quantifiers or whatever if you'd like but I'd ask you first to let me know why such formality is necessary. As far as I'm concerned this will only provide an analytic proof, not very interesting. The synthetic support for this is much more appropriate to the task of translating my intent (at least attempting to anyway).

"Are you speaking of an absolute human condition?"
Poetically no I hadn't intended that. But I am, obviously, willing to entertain the possibility. Like I said above it is a common psychological position that human behavior (used in a very broad sense so as to include mental and emotional behaviors as well as conscious awareness) is constantly working at it's current relative optimality.
Now, you might have been questioning my ability to support the statement in the context of "absolute human potential". If that's the case I'm not sure how I could reasonably support that except by referencing the ever elusive entanglement principle of quantum physics. By invoking entanglement we can now discard the conscious realizations of any one individual and accept that humanity as a whole (as well as every other aspect of existence and the universe) is inseparable and privy to the awareness of any and every awareness that has ever been, both human awareness or otherwise. So we can effectively say that if you believe in the existence of a man like Jesus (or his ilk), and that such a man was privy to the consciousness of godhead (even in a remote way, whatever that may mean) then every other part of humanity is likewise privy (this I assume would be the limit of human potential. Unless of course you're either unwilling to acknowledge Jesus as either the hight of human potential or a human at all. Either way I'd love to hear your arguments for that;). The only difference between Jesus and Joe Slob is that Jesus acknowledged and used that consciousness. Joe Slob has only availed himself of this consciousness through Jesus and has yet to call it up into conscious awareness. That is not to say that he is unaware of what Jesus was aware of (Joe Slob has been to the end of himself just as Jesus had) only that Joe is using a more remote aspect of himself to do it than Jesus did. Entanglement is unable to differentiate between individual minds. It literally supports the notion of universal consciousness, ever present, all pervasive. No one is exempt. So if Jesus did it he did it as a result of Humanity as a whole, and also if you are willing to say that Jesus did then you must say that the entire human race did as well.
Yet another interpretation of my statement. Not a bad one either.

"Is it possible to know such while being a part of the control group?"
It is just as supportable to say yes as it is to say no. That being the case is it even worth discussing? Probably not so let's just say that I'm willing to say "yes it is possible." How would I support that? This is not like Wittgenstein's case of the eye that can see everything but itself. Humanity has an advantage that it can collectively reflect on it's elements and on the whole. It's called communication (we've also previously invoked Entanglement so we can reference that as well). What you are proposing is like saying that we cannot know anything absolute about ourselves because we can't see our own faces. We can however introspect about the whole of ourselves and our parts. Also there are mirrors all around, and friends. If the opposite were true you would have effectively demolished the entirety of psychology and possibly a large part of philosophy. How could psychology stand as even a pseudo-science if your proposition were consistent with reality? Also we really wouldn't be able to say much about Logic or Language, maybe even physiology, neuroscience, or biomechanics, the very concept of introspection would have to be dismissed, infact I'm libel to think that the mind in general would have to be dismissed as merely a pipe dream, something left for the musings of confused poets.
I'm a bit unsatisfied with my treatment of this section so pleas be as brutal as possible with this as you can (that goes for the rest of it as well). It's the only way I'll learn.:)

"To quote myself (because it is a good quote), given a large enough context, any field of human study encroaches upon itself."
It sure does (if I'm translating your intention properly). But the good thing about this is that such a broad perspective is only useful when considering holistics. A good thing to do and a whole heap of fun, but a bit inappropriate in this context. Context is important otherwise we'd all have to face this "encroaching" at every turn and I don't think that'd be too much fun. In most cases we have to abandon broadness in favor of usefulness. If we didn't we'd have to do away with philosophy (at least a large part of it) and I'd be forced to ask you to stop philosophizing about my poetry (something I'm not willing to do). Popper deals with this concept nicely when he deals with the infinite regress. Seems to me Dummett treats it in the same way.
(reviewing this I'm no longer convinced that we're dealing with similar concepts. I'd really appreciate it if you'd elaborate on this. It might be fun to explore this in more depth with your help.)