Diversity of Everything but Thought

That illustrates an incredibly valuable point.

The woman obviously had her own mental problems.

It was clearly a lie.

No matter what she THOUGHT, the words that came out of her mouth are either true or a lie.

If you are unable to call it a lie, then your judgment pertaining to what is truth, and lie is not useful.

I suppose, as a defendent in a court of law, you would shrug when a lie is told against you that would send you to prison. After all, it was the truth as far as the witness thought.

How can people get so far from basic ability to call something what it is?

0 Replies

dlowan--

I think you're an intelligent person...I agree with most everything you say about decisions you've made re yur work. There are several positive comments I would make regarding you.

It's just that your explanation above is to me a large part of what is wrong in society today.

0 Replies

I dunno, Lash, variations of that have happened to me a lot. There's a whole movie about it called "Rashomon," which takes that as its central premise. (Not to mention a Star Trek episode... er...)

Quote:

This 1950 film by Akira Kurosawa is more than a classic: it's a cinematic archetype that has served as a template for many a film since. (Its most direct influence was on a Western remake, The Outrage, starring Paul Newman and directed by Martin Ritt.) In essence, the facts surrounding a rape and murder are told from four different and contradictory points of view, suggesting the nature of truth is something less than absolute. The cast, headed by Kurosawa's favorite actor, Toshiro Mifune, is superb.

0 Replies

Hmm - well, my sense is that it has always been wrong then.

I think human memory is simply faulty - in some more than others of course - and where there is emotional attachment to stuff - or where, as you say, there is an emotional block of some sort - this is even more true.

But to say it is a phenomenon of today is wrong, I think - look at the witch crazes - or Mc Carthyism - as extreme examples of perception and memory being influenced by circumstance.

Fallibility of memory is almost universal - the research on the so-called "flashbulb" memory is incredibly interesting, for instance.

0 Replies

As I said, too, Lash - I have been in the position of tutoring folk making the weirdest allegations aout why they have low marks.

In 99.99% of cases I, when looking at the disputed work, thought it was lousy.

The exception of course, was my own work when I got a low mark.

That was sheer prejudice!!!

Until I recalled that I had done the reading for the essays in the bath the day befor ethe thing was due in (only way I could make myself keep reading) and written the thing in one quick splurge between midnight and 4 am.

0 Replies

That's more to the point so I won't start posting the "fallibility of memory" stuff I was Googling... it's a subject I think is really interesting and get sidetracked onto too easily.

Did want to welcome Brady, nice to have another voice in this discussion.

0 Replies

Here's another example.

I, in common with almost anyone who works in mental health/emergency services, was convinced that full moons were baaaaaaaaaaaaad.

As an example I think of my last week of on call for a rape and sexual assault service.

Called out every frigging night - and, on the actually full moon nights - called out twice on Friday night, (never made it home) 3 times on Saturday, and twice on Saturday night, and in the hospital all day Sunday and Sunday night. A week with - I counted - 7 hours sleep in total - and I worked all day for five days and every night for 7 nights - getting half of 2 night's sleep!

THIS, I said, and all around me said too, is FULL MOON!

Then - somewhere Craven commented that this perception is bull **** - that it has never come up in any research as true that full moon nights are worse for mental health and other crises.

Crap, I said - yer full of it. But - knowing enough to know that Craven is damned reliable when he says something is a fact - I looked it up.

Damned smegger is right.

I can only assume we all notice full moon nutty times cos we expect them - and ignore all the quiet ones.

0 Replies

Almost laughing...<but no.>

An event occurred. Dlowan did not say the baby was horrible. If the woman said she did, it is a lie.

Soz-- I understand how people can perceive an event differently. But, if they quote someone incorrectly--or say a thing happened which did not--why would anyone hesitate to call it a lie? Are their no lies in your estimation?

I know memory and perception can figure into situations like these---but c'mon.

Wouldn't it be better to investigate a thing, rather than just wave it away?

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

That illustrates an incredibly valuable point.

The woman obviously had her own mental problems.

It was clearly a lie.

No matter what she THOUGHT, the words that came out of her mouth are either true or a lie.

If you are unable to call it a lie, then your judgment pertaining to what is truth, and lie is not useful.

I suppose, as a defendent in a court of law, you would shrug when a lie is told against you that would send you to prison. After all, it was the truth as far as the witness thought.

How can people get so far from basic ability to call something what it is?

Whatever.

To my mind it was either true or untrue. But - she was only LYING if she actually said it knowing it was untrue.

I suspect that she is careless with the truth - and knew she was exaggerating (because of her own emotional stuff) - but that she believed that I HAD said something very like that.

You assume we always know what is and isn't.

The research on memory - and my own experience (anecdotes!) - say that you are unrealistic in your belief in our memories.

Although there is, of course, individual difference in our abilities.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

I dunno, Lash, variations of that have happened to me a lot. There's a whole movie about it called "Rashomon," which takes that as its central premise. (Not to mention a Star Trek episode... er...)

Quote:
This 1950 film by Akira Kurosawa is more than a classic: it's a cinematic archetype that has served as a template for many a film since. (Its most direct influence was on a Western remake, The Outrage, starring Paul Newman and directed by Martin Ritt.) In essence, the facts surrounding a rape and murder are told from four different and contradictory points of view, suggesting the nature of truth is something less than absolute. The cast, headed by Kurosawa's favorite actor, Toshiro Mifune, is superb.

That is, indeed, a fabulous film!!

0 Replies

Not only was it an excellent movie because of the development of the central theme, but for the cinematography, as well. The strangers met in the abandoned market in the heavy rain; and the incident in the woods--each version has it's own cinmematographic representation of the woods: soft, gentle images; dark foreboding images; mysterious apprehension--he expresses so many moods in the manner that he shoots the film. The end scenes of the woman making her case is so very matter of fact in its tone . . . Kurosawa deserves to recognized as among the greatest film-makers of all time.

0 Replies

Blatham wrote to Finn

Quote:

Again. You are just being lazy. If you get off your ass and research Horowitz's past acitivities and employments and statements, and research townhall and its financial backers (and their past and statements), then I will continue talking with you here. Otherwise I won't. You remain uninformed and this whole thread is a fine testimony to how much bandwidth the uninformed can occupy.

Foxfyre wrote

Quote:

Blatham challenged Finn to read up on Horowitz with implications he would otherwise not be worthy to continue in this discussion. It seems by virtue of Blatham's comments, he (Blatham) has not read either Horowitz's background, considered his credentials, nor read what he has written.

To which Blatham wrote

Quote:

Can you possibly be this daft? I shall now pass along the full goods on Hillary Clinton using as source material her PR office and her statements about herself and her mission. There will also be objective input from her mother.

Note that we still have no comment from Blatham on either Horowitz's credentials, biography, or the piece Horowitz wrote in rebuttal to criticisms from the left all posted this weekend. Of course if he actually read them, he could not condemn them for the radical, right-wing plot and/or conspiracy and/or intent that he asserts. Okay, he could and probably would, but he would lose even more credibility than he already has on this issue.

The whole basis of Blatham's argument seems to be that Horowitz plus Lash and Foxfyre would dismantle the U.S. university system, destroy all liberalism and liberal faculty, and install radical, racist, religiously fanatical, and imperialistic conservatives. Horowitz certainly has not suggested that; in fact has been more specific that Lash and I have been that this was not his intent. I went back through several pages, and perceive that the main thrust of Lash's debate is objection to a very narrowly focused point of view required in course work.l. That seem to be what Brandy is saying as well. My focus has not changed since the opening salvo-I want a complete education to be offered; not just a very narrowly focused indoctrination from the radical left.

All our disclaimers and statements of intent, however, are conveniently ignored by the left in their dedicated campaign to paint us as some kind of dangerous, rightwingnuts from whom the world must be protected.

Not one liberal yet has taken up my challenge to answer the following:
Would you consider it acceptable for university campuses to be dominated by a strongly conservative faculty that pushed a strongly conservative point of view and where you would not likely be exposed to any liberal point of view? Would you think you were getting an adequate education? Would your kids be getting an adequate education?

Blatham, to his credit, at least acknowledged that he did not have experience with the U.S. university system. However, the fact that other strongly ideologically liberal members have expressed no problem with it is sufficient for him. If they're liberal they must be right. If they're conservative they are absolutely wrong.

You will note Brandy referenced a post graduate course suggesting she has more experience with this than perhaps most posting on the thread may have, and she also referenced parents who are/were college professors. These two facts should give her input at least some extra weight. The liberals, however, conveniently overlooked Brandy's specific observations about the class and challenged her integrity or ability to make a critical assessment of the class even to the point to suggest she was whining about a grade for inferior work.

Brandy, Lash, and I also have experienced the university system in recent times..

How about you Dlowan? Blatham? Have you seen the inside of a university classroom in the last 10 years? 20 years?

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Almost laughing...<but no.>

An event occurred. Dlowan did not say the baby was horrible. If the woman said she did, it is a lie.

Soz-- I understand how people can perceive an event differently. But, if they quote someone incorrectly--or say a thing happened which did not--why would anyone hesitate to call it a lie? Are their no lies in your estimation?

I know memory and perception can figure into situations like these---but c'mon.

Wouldn't it be better to investigate a thing, rather than just wave it away?

I think you to be missing the point.

Sometimes there is absolute truth - a thing did, or did not happen. But - people may tell different versions of it - fully believing them to be true. Ask any detective investigating a crime where there are witnesses! No two stories are the same. Some bear almost no resemblance. This, by the way, is why police are suspicious if two people tell the same story about an event in too much detail - and why defence lawyers almost always know when police have got together and concocted a story. (An ex of mine said it distressed him when he heard them tell the same stories - cos he thought policing a hard job, and he knew that, nonetheless, he was gonna have to expose their lies - and it would be like shooting fish in a barrel.)

Sometimes it is important to establish the truth. If that woman had complained formally I would have had to rebut her story.

Full moon anecdotal beliefs are pretty harmless, on the other hand.

(Except I used to dread the damn things if I was on call!)

0 Replies

I certainly believe that it is a good idea to investigate something rather than waving it away.

The thing is -- and it's come up about a zillion times on this thread -- what evidence does the investigation yield?

Brandy's story could go a few ways. It could be that she was unfairly discriminated against merely because of her political leanings. I would hope that she would speak to an administrator at her university and make her case if so. It could be that the criticism she received was entirely warranted. It's impossible to say for sure. It's an interesting addition to this discussion, and I'm glad Brandy is here. But nothing is proven one way or the other.

0 Replies

Dlowan---

I fully understood and acknowledge the truth (watch out, duck! she said truth!) of your example and agree with your translation of it.

Not to be borrowing, but I don't think you extended it adequately to include MY example.

So people may perceive the same event differently.... so, they may envision seperate realities of that same event..... Does that mean we stop there, and allow resultant damage to occur? Or, are we responsible to investigate what actually occurred, and define the actual presence of truth, if it exists? Everything doesn't possess a skeleton of truth--but many things do.

The professors in question, and their accusers (if the weight of the outcome for one of them is untenable) must have the issue resolved by unbiased parties, -----or at least, people who choose to evaluate the event. Was the student injured unfairly? Was the professor unjustly accused?

It is NOT impossible to say. (Though, not having the paper, the assignment or enough data WE cannot say---) But, truth can be determined in some cases.

<purses lip>

It seems as though there is a hardy contingent who no longer cares about, or even believes in, such a thing as truth.

My wish on you is that your toddlers will adopt this belief, and torment you with your folly through their adolescence!

Did you burn down the garage?

Toddler: <drags cig> Well, it really depends on what you mean by "burn down", doesn't it....really?

<Going for aspirin.>

0 Replies

I think the WE cannot say is the important part for purposes of this discussion.

I think it can probably be determined in some sort of objective fashion, by people who have the course syllabus, the textbooks, Brandy's paper, and maybe an interview or three with the professor in question.

Just, for the purposes of this discussion, not us. (Unless, like, there is a formal investigation and a thorough, reliable examination of the whole story that appears online somewhere.)

0 Replies

Whenever anyone claims to be the possessor of truth, and further, to assert that those who will not acknowledge as much are willfully blind, there is usually a good deal of irony involved as to who is, in fact, practicing self-deception.

0 Replies

Well, Set. Are you claiming that is the truth? Ironic.

But, OK soz.

No one here said every accusation was exactly as it was reported. I'm sure we all know some can be led by a biased perception. But the preponderance of reported cases, I sincerely hope, has people of merit questioning what is going on.

0 Replies

Questioning, sure. I have a hypothesis, that seems to be supported by the evidence, but of course if the evidence shows otherwise, the hypothesis will change.

There are a few things I don't particularly question.

1.) That there are a lot of liberals in academe. Just as there are a lot of conservatives in the military, as another example of a field that tends to attract one or the other.

2.) That there are students who are unhappy with their professors. For many reasons mind you.

3.) That there are terrible, somewhat bad, and merely OK professors mixed in with a lot of just fine, very good, and absolutely amazing professors. Who are terrible, somewhat bad, and merely OK for many reasons, mind you.

Just, what does that amount to? Where is the problem? Can the disgruntled students who attribute their angst to liberal professors really be meaningfully separated from the disgruntled students who attribute their angst to the fact that the professor doesn't like women, or minorities, or fans of Ayn Rand, or those with red hair? Can the terrible, somewhat bad, and merely OK professors be separated into those who do bad things in the name of liberalism and those who do bad things in the name of laziness, or power trips, or not liking women, or scrambling to finish their book?

That's where evidence comes in.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Well, Set. Are you claiming that is the truth? Ironic.

Not at all, and that's a rather feeble way to try to avoid your absolute claim . . . you claimed to in possession of truth--i simply made a qualified observation about how often that is likely to be the case.

I have never claimed to be a possessor of absolute truth, and in this thread i have not even denied the thesis. What i have done is assert steadily that it is not proven; that were it proven, the putative harm has never been adduced nor proven; that she who initiated this thread with a linked article was unable to articulate the premise. If people wish to debate, they need to be able to state their case, and both forward it as well as defend it.

People here have repeatedly pointed out that the evidence offered is neither proven nor compelling. When this has been asserted until the self-professors of a truth cannot ignore it, then a discussion of the nature of anectdotal evidence arises. The exercise becomes circular, and both the starting point and ending point of the circle is an absolutist claim to the possession of truth.

Rather like chasing one's tail, don't you think? Oh . . . sorry, . . . rather as though i were chasing my tail . . . i'm not sure what you humans chase when you engage in the corollary behavior . . .

0 Replies

Diversity of Everything but Thought

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know