Is debate possible between ignoramuses?How is it possible

I didn't underscore the "connection".

spendius.

I see the animal nature of man as inseparable from the intellect, or an aspect of the intellect, therefore not a weakness, but rather a reality that must be considered in any intellectual endeavor.

If you mean we should be aware of our feelings and mood and always be looking for ways in which those feelings distort logic, then I agree, we should do that. But seeing emotions or mood as a weakness may promote the tendency to manage those feelings through the use of denial rather than through rational thought and acceptance.

The way I think about the physical/non-physical debate is this. The brain and explanations about it's component parts and functions is like describing the mechanical workings of an engine, or a computer, etc....(except that a computer lacks a limbic system.) We can understand the mechanics of the brain and how it produces experience.

Experience of mental functioning is just that, experience. We experience the combination of our constitutional brain make-up and the chemical reactions caused by our interaction with the environment. So we can talk about mind and brain using different terms. One set of terms is about experience of brain function and the other set is about the mechanics of brain function.

So that psychological theories or theories of psychic experience such as psychoanalysis are about conflict and compromise formation. Drive, affect, psychic conflict, defense, guilt, and gratification are mental representations for the experience of brain function. It's sort of like the difference in the diagram of a sentence and the meaning of it. (Not sure if that analogy works or not.....thinking about it.......it's limited at best.) But theories of conflict and compromise are not incompatible with knowledge of the mechanics of the brain. They are simply different aspects of the same thing. We are, after all, made up of neurons firing.......there's no logical way around that.

Don't worry too much about the size of my limbic system.....there are advantages as well as disadvantages. And I do have a limbic system, after all. Even men have feelings......and so do I. How does it work out? I'm a bit less likely to get weepy and hard to get along on certain days of the month than most women. I prefer logic and reason over arguments based on emotion. My logical skills are pretty good, I think.

I'm not as good a care giver as many women are....I haven't the patience required to do it really well. However, I have been a good mother to my children....I think so and so do they. But they all do say and sometimes complain, that I'm not as soft and giving as the other mothers they know. I don't like to stay at home and cook, for instance. And sometimes, I'm not as tuned into the feelings of others as many women are. I give, but am more motivated to do so if I get in return. I tend to be more comfortable, for instance, with anger and action than I am with the sensation of need and helplessness. This doesn't make me a less satisfying partner than others........just less so for some and more so for others.

Looking forward to the T1 and T2 post.

Lola:-

We had a programme on called Light Fantastic.In it last night they talked about a madman called Hook.an Englishman,who subjected his body to painful and dangerous experiments in his scientific research.There are many examples of the same thing.Wouldn't that constitute a separation of the animal from the intellect.Wouldn't any form of sacrifice?

I didn't say that emotions or moods were a weakness.They are facts.It is giving in to them that is the weakness.And then not all of them.

I don't think we understand the brain at all.I think that we have made a slight start on some methods of trying to.

Armstrong certainly doesn't distinguish mind and brain.He says they are just two words for the same thing and that body is another word for it.

I wasn't worrying about your limbics.I was simply thinking about them a bit.

Who is on who's couch here?That's a bit confessional.You are not hard enough on yourself from the male point of view.That is not the same as saying that you are not hard enough on yourself full stop.

Have you not got the Hughes yet?

Keep snuggling

spendius.

Lola:-

The concept of T! types and T2 types are like Reisman's "inner" and "other" directed types.(I'm presuming you know The Lonely Crowd.)Max Weber had some similar categories.They are "ideal" types.Veblen does it with "industry" and "exploit".They are not literal but simply a thinking aid.They clarify certain issues.Obviously,in real life,there are mixtures.But that confuses discussion as you might have noticed.
The question at hand is whether the two ideal types are capable of debating anything.T1s together only think they are having a debate.They are actually arguing and if the subject is important they can end up fighting.
The problem for T2 types is that they can't debate with a T! either because their concentration cannot help but focus on the spectacle of a T! talking rather than on what is being said.I suppose that's what a psychoanalyst does.A bit like when you watch a butterfly trying to escape from a jam-jar.It is often the cause of mirth in the T2.A typical T1/T2 confrontation at a supermarket check out when a T2 is placing his tins of fuel in the plastic bag might go like this-

Checkout girl as T1.Cusomer as T2.2nd customer ?.

T1-Can you manage?
T2-Of course I can manage.Do I look like a bloke who can't get these tins into this bag.(expletives deleted).
T1-I was only trying to be polite.
T2-I'm sorry love.I have a nail in my shoe.(whilst thinking If you want to be polite give us a flash).

Or

T1-Can you manage?
?C-Of course he can manage you silly girl.Come on I'm in a hurry.Does he look like etc etc?
T2-She was only being polite Madame.
?C-She's flattering your vanity and it makes me retch to see it.Its a betrayal.
T2-You think so do you?
?C-It connotes the idea of the female as handmaiden to the male.
T2-Not at all madame.(leans closer)Is it permissable for me to address you as Madame?
?C-Yes-that's alright.
T2-Right then Madame.What it connotes has nothing to do with handmaidens.It has to do with her stupidity and fatuity and vacuity.Had she been male I would have given her a gobfull but then you wouldn't have so graciously interjected because your impatience,charming though it is,would have been massaged a little by the confrontation which is unlikely anyway because a male wouldn't have asked me could I manage.
?C-But she isn't a male.The girl is female and I'm not impatient.
T2-Yes Madame I know that.I was simply trying to point out that you might have misjudged her intentions which could just as well have derived from her stupidity as from her femininity.You called her silly yourself.
?C Well she is silly.
T2-It could easily stem from her training.A simple trained reflex action so to speak.
?C-What exactly is a trained reflex action.
T1-Doing you want doing or not?
?C-In a moment.Go on.
T2-Well-it's an action that occurs automatically when the subject of the training recognises certain conditions which elicit the reflex the training is designed to elicit.I could give you an example on a more refined level than this young lady.
?C-Could you!!!?
T2-Yes I could Madame.
?C-Well go on then.
T2-I thought you were in a hurry.
?C-I can change my mind can't I?
T2-Certainly Madame.Well-take the contents of your trolley for example.
?C-What about them?
T2-They tell discerning people a good deal about the reflexes you have been trained to elicit.
?C-Perverts you mean?
T2-If you like.But I could tell you quite a bit about yourself from this little lot you have in there.
?C-Such as?
T2-Let's get out of here and nip across to the pub and we can discuss it at some length.

It's only bare bones Lola.If I had the time and patience I could make a challenging sketch out of it.
Would T2 be better off taking the T1 to the pub.Is ?C a T1 or a potential T2.

Where have you gone?

spendius.

Not only is debate possible between ignoramuses. It is possible ONLY among ignoramuses.

I knew there was a reason I don't debate.

sorry spendius......I'm a little bit sick, nothing to worry about, just incapacitated for today. I'll be back, but only after the migrane is gone.

New day Sire,

That's only true if debate means emptying your lungs at each other.

Suppose expert dietary science had conclusive evidence that meat eating was dangerous.They wouldn't be ignoramuses but they could debate how letting such information loose could,or would,affect the economies of different regions of a country or even the whole world and they could go on to debate on whether the consequences of their first debate were acceptable or not to the various political systems involved.

That would be genuine debate.Inputs could come from those who had the health of people in mind and those that had health of regions,or states or even countries in mind.The latter group could justifiably claim that destruction of certain regional economies,those with soils suitable only for grazing,would be more damaging to people's health than meat eating.That debate is actually going on and the people engaged in it are not ignoramuses.See The Ukraine.
Your statement shows that you don't participate in such a debate which is the same as saying that you are "out of the loop" and that isn't a respectable to position for somebody getting on a microphone in front of young impressionable fans.A song is a mode of debate as you must know.Your eagerness for flippancy has overridden your potential artistry.

spendius.

Hi Spendius,



No, it wouldn't. Self sacrifice is as much a method for getting what one wants as is any other method. It's hard to see, I know. But the human mind works in mysterious ways.

I ordered the Hughes book. It should be coming in the mail in a few days.

Lola:-

It isn't hard to see.I know what you mean.

But the animal wouldn't do it.Apart from Lassie.I was simply suggesting that this human capacity is one of this things which separate our animal side from our intellectual side.That an animal wouldn't have the capacity to make the choice.
In dire emergencies it is "women and children first" isn't it?But not everybody adheres to that.Are you saying there is no difference between the captain on the Titanic and that other captain who was in the first lifeboat.Its a tricky subject.Probably insoluble.We might only know for sure if we are tested and I hope we never are.I liked Philip Larkin's take on it as I think I mentioned once.In a psychoanalysis I don't see how you could get to the bottom of it for sure.There's a funny scene in Frayn's novel The Tin Men.

spendius.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=42248&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=390

Take a look at this thread, spendius. You'll see photos of some of your favorite members of a2k.

Lola:-

I can tell which one you are.I trained as a detective.I guess that's blather on you right.Who's the other?

The MG looks a bit artsy whatsit.The Tao wisdom physiognomy shines.

I'm not just busy.It's a lot worse than that.

See you soon I hope.You look good.

spendius.

Sorry to hear you're worse than busy. I'm worse than busy too.........paying bills and getting in fights with my insurance company. Here are a few more photos for your entertainment. The guy with the white hair at the head of the table is Frank Apisa, for your information. In the photo on the last link listed below, left to right is as follows: Blatham, Lola, Joe Nation, Frank Apisa, Kickycan and Dagmaraka. The photo in the second link has (obviously) been doctored. It's a long story and a long standing joke on Frank. Enjoy. See you soon.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=42248&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=350

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=42248&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=220

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=42248&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=180

where are the pictures on MSN?

Lola:-

I'm very surprised to see you in the company of people who use expressions like "get laid" and then compound the error by tying it in to dollar bills and that not being enough locate it in places where a nickel carries influence.
It places woman as "object for the use of",whore and cheapskate to boot.
The Great Goddess will have taken note.

spendius.

Lola...perhaps you are right about Spendius.

He is entertaining.

I know I find myself laughing at him quite often these days.

He is a bit of a prig, though...wouldn't you say?

And there are very few things in this world quite as laugh provoking as a prig with a British accent. (Yeah, you can hear the accent in the threads!)


What is even funnier is the temerity he displays in talking about you being in the company of someone who uses the expression "get laid." Some of the childish sexual references he has made during the last couple of weeks are almost embarrassing to read...they are so self-conscious and...

...well...

...British.

The Benny Hill kind of thing...funny, in a perverse way; titilating...but childish.

In any case, if any of you are wondering about the "get laid" or "tying it to dollar bills" references (which you will see he got wrong)...look here.

Lola:-

A small selection of opposites to "childish".

One foot in the grave.
Toothless.
Passe.Withered.Palsied.Decrepit.(131)

Fossil.Dotard.Greybeard.(133)

Undazzled.Judgmental.Wise as a serpent.(498)

Mordant.Pungent.Sententious.(571)

Solemnity.Prima Donna.Big bug.(638).

References to Roget.

spendius.

Yep.

Entertaining!

The wit of spendius on a2k is a pleasure.

spendius.......I defended you at the restaurant the other night. You have a way of annoying some people when they don't realize you're joking. I live in Manhattan and know about this kind of humor......but then again so does Frank.....oh, no that's not exactly right, Frank lives in New Joyzy. LOL

Frank,

You're too much! <Laughing> That exchange between you two was hilarious.

I love you both.

And c.i. I agree. spendius's humor is welcome in these parts.

But spendius, I've always hung out with people who use such expressions. (I use them myself regularly). I think it was the hippy, baby boomer generation thing. It was a badge of honor to talk filth, (along with what had previously been described as whore type behavior). It became a habit. But I love the habit.

Must eat breakfast........back later.