Learning habits

I've said it before, and I can say it again.

The reason your posts are incomprehensible, at least to me, is that they reek of self-righteous drivel.



This is another way of saying "I follow the herd". Nothing more.



True that. And this helps me explain why it is that you have never responded to any posts here on A2K except with quotes from something you wrote earlier, or quotes from philosophy in the flesh or this Ernest Becker guy.
If you cannot phrase a thought in your own words that is a good indication that you do not understand what it is about.
You just keep spewing out this drivel, and whenever someone objects you just ignore them or wash over them with something you've already said. I have yet to see you adapt your ideas to the stance of those objecting, an act that would require true insight into what you're preaching.

Seems to me, coberst, that you are so hung up on analizing and interpreting that you never reach the core of what you're reading. If you were to take the time to read some of the things written by other participants of A2K instead of posting things no one bothers to read, you would find a wealth of information, insights and alternative viewpoints to just about any issue you can think of.

The best way to learn something is to shut up and listen. Now, I suggest you take your own advice and do so.

See, there's your problem. You think everything has to fit neatly into a frame, and if it doesn't, you discard the old puzzle and start on a new one. Has it ever occurred to you that what you need to do is to forget the frames that define the limits of each author's view of reality, realize that some pieces are badly cut and do not belong anywhere, and take the remaining pieces and fit them all together to make a coherent picture, even if it's not the one on the front of the box?

It would be nice if you would have a conversation with us instead of posting long-winded lectures.

Re: Learning habits


From my perspective, you aren't in that few even though you seem to think you are.

You read books and collect tidbits of data but are unable to comprehend the actual overall meaning from what you've read. You parrot terms and misuse them in doing so and then ignore anyone that points out the errors in your posts. How many times have I commented on your misuse of "Self Actualization" over the years? Yet you continue to misuse it.

Being able to recite passages from a book isn't knowledge.

Re: Learning habits


I doubt you'll find anyone here who would disagree with this (despite your claim that everything you post is contrary to the "status quo"). None of us sees any value in discarding new ideas "automatically." However, what are your feelings about discarding new ideas after reflection and careful consideration? How can you tell when is someone is disagreeing with you for the former reason rather than the latter?

It is the "me-against-the-status-quo" that I primarily object to in your posts, Coberst. As the first paragraph of this thread demonstrates, you place such a high premium on being a solitary, misunderstood thinker that you will do whatever you can to define yourself against the evil masses, which usually results in your prefabricating a picture of these masses without actually giving us examples of real-life people. When pressed for details, you simply retreat further into abstraction, touting things like matador's veils and frontier families. You frequently use the metaphor of "detective work" to describe what you do, but in all honesty: would you trust the work of a detective who claims to have solved the crime but, instead of presenting evidence, cites the "matador's veil"?

Yup...what everyone else has said!

I've always found that the reason Coberst's post are incomprehensible is, in large part, because they are nonsense. And when they are comprehensible, they are invariably insipid. Typically, the parts that are nonsensical are those that Coberst has copied and pasted from someone else (this Ernest Becker guy seems to be the favorite). The insipid parts, however, are generally 100 percent Coberst.

The problem, though, isn't the incomprehensibility or the insipidness of Coberst's posts; it's that Coberst treats this forum like his/her own personal weblog. There's little or no interaction with those who post responses, and Coberst almost never posts to anyone else's threads. This intellectual isolationism is antithetical to the nature of this type of forum, where we expect that members will engage in a conversational give-and-take with other members. Coberst, in contrast, does little else than start threads. It's a sort of magisterial arrogance that doesn't play well in a forum like this and is not at all justified by the content of his/her posts.

I agree Joe.
But right now I'm thinking that we may have scared him away for good...

Coberst- I read your knowledge puzzle piece when you originally posted it and I was struck by what you wrote on an emotional level, because it worked to remind me that maybe sometimes it's good to veer away from the tried and true (or at least comfortable and familiar) way of responding to stimulus and acknowledge that you might come up against situations or circumstances in which a change of stance is warranted. I didn't respond because it seemed personal- applicable only to myself- and not really of interest to anyone else.

I know you'll be surprised to hear this - but I disagree with the responses you got here. I do enjoy reading what you write. I do get something out of most of them, although I only respond to a few. I have to admit that my brain works on a more concrete, action or solution oriented level than on an "esoteric, think just for the sake of thinking and go around and around in circles about issues" level. That's why I take what you offer and try to fit it into my specific realm of knowledge and understanding and look for a way to use it. Honestly, I could never have studied philosophy. I don't have the patience to sit and think and talk about things to the extent that it seems you have to be willing to.

I also often don't reply because I feel outclassed in terms of philosophical thought and knowledge by your usual participants. I respect Shapeless and Fresco and JLNobody and their obvious intelligence and ideas (and I try to understand them) but I know I can't hang in that rarified air and honestly, it's not what I'm most interested in doing with my time or my life- but again- I do enjoy reading (sometimes) what is expressed.

Just wanted you to know that I do appreciate what you do. I might not have anything to say in response, but I almost always read it and get something out of it.

I agree with Aidan. Coberst gets my vote as the most consistently original and thought provoking initiator of topics on this site!

Except that there's nothing original about what he writes.

Girls, if your statements are counterresponses from pity because you think what was written here before was harsh, you are not doing anyone any favors. It is only beneficial to any thinker to call a spade a spade.

But if, on the other hand, your comments are sincere opinions, I apologize for this comment.

I apologize to all for not responding before now but my computer went mad. I am back on the air now and will continue with my ever interesting posts.

Thirty years ago at mid-life I started my intellectual life. My hobby as a self-actualizing self-learning began and it has become the most important aspect of my life. I have learned a great deal about myself and my world in the process. Several questions have developed along the way and I have just recently discovered an author who has the answers to these questions. His name is Ernest Becker he is a professor of sociology and of anthropology and is a Pulitzer Prize winning author. He has brought together in 6 or 7 books the answers to many of my questions. He died at an early age about thirty years ago.

I slowly understand his words and shall post his answers as I find them. The big questions he has answered for me are why we are inclined to hold on to habits that are destroying our ability to survive as a species? How can we overcome this inability to adapt and therefore survive? His answers are, in my opinion, marvelous and clear sighted but are long and difficult to comprehend.

I shall try to answer specific questions that have been posted in the last few days a little later.

I don't pity Coberst because I see no need to.
All I was saying is that I find what he contributes thoughtful and comprehensible, and most importantly applicable. Whether it's his own work/writing/thoughts or whether he's introducing some of us to the thoughts of another, it still works for me in that it makes me think about things I wouldn't have otherwise necessarily thought of.

Maybe the philosophizing experts could allow that there might need to be an introductory portal for those of us who have not been so "schooled" in what to think or how to think about the world around us.

To be honest, I feel more pity toward those people who feel that they already have all the answers in these areas and have made it their job to grade/mark others on their perceived proficiencyjust because they've made some formal study of it.
Some of us have chosen to learn through living and being in the world. Just because we don't apply labels or names to our particular state of being or reality or belief , it doesn't mean we know any less about the meaning of life.
Jargon, in any field, is confusing and divisive and ultimately unproductive when one is supposed to be making an effort to communicate across diverse populations with varying degrees of education and interest-which is what this forum purports to do.

Cyracuz

We have all spent 12 to 18 years in our school system, which is designed to produce graduates who can easily fit into the industrial work place and quickly become maximum producers and consumers. We know nothing about learning beyond what our educational system has taught us, therefore it is understandable that we tend to think that "The best way to learn something is to shut up and listen." However, this is an error that can be comprehended when a person has finished their schooling and has set about on their own to learn how to learn. Such independent learning is not easy to learn and takes a good bit of will, determination, and work. But should a person make the effort that effort will be well rewarded with a view of reality beyond the superficial one taught in our schools and colleges.

Terry

After we have completed our schooling we can begin the long and wonderful process of learning about our self and our world. The first problem one must solve is to learn how to gain entry into new domains of knowledge. In our schooling we have been able to depend upon a teacher to hold our hand and lead the way, but after schooling we must learn how to replace these guiding hands with our own learning skills.

Fishin

I won't repeat what I have said to others because you can read the posts above to gain my opinion about such matters.

Shapless

Developing a critical sense of the status quo is not easy. Most of the authors I read have become expert at these matters. Socrates is perhaps the best role model for the critical thinker. Also the fate of Socrates is often that which anyone who wishes to awaken a sleeping crowd must expect.


Frank

Well said!



Joe

Until one learns how to become a self-learner they will continually have little means in which to guide them in recognizing drivel from solid thinking.

I don't see how this addresses my question, which was this: Would you trust the work of a detective who claims to have solved the crime but, instead of presenting evidence, cites the "matador's veil"?



I would vigorously agree with you here, Aidan, but I think this is much of what we are objecting to in this thread. It's what I'm objecting to, anyway. Real-world examples rarely appear in Coberst's threads. When they do, as in his recent thread on sympathy and infants, I agree that they can be genuinely stimulating. But more often then not, his threads have a much more ambitious scope, purporting to be critiques of "Society" with a capital S, and these are invariably targeted at generalized, phantom straw men like the "status quo" he referred to just now. One would have thought that Hurricane Katrina, for example, would have shown us how futile (not to say irresponsible and offensive) it is to speak of "the people" as if they were a unified social class immersed in the luxuries of consumerism. Since "society" is a system of interactions and transactions between people, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect social critiques to cite information about what actual people are doing, rather than attribute the evils of contemporary society to abstract placeholders. (Put more simply, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask Coberst to specify who the "we" and the "ours" are in his remark to Cyracuz that "We have all spent 12 to 18 years in our school school system..."--let alone to specify which school system he has in mind, since there are lots of 'em out there.)

As you rightly point out, jargon gets you only so far. You can't rely on generalized sound bytes, no matter how pretty they may sound, to stand in as evidence. Abstractions are supposed to follow, not precede, the phenomena they purport to explain. Coberst has candidly admitted on several occasions that he proceeds in the reverse direction, such as in this thread.

I think this is the common theme in what we've all been saying here. This is what I was getting at when I asked Coberst about the importance of actual evidence in his "detective work" and, well, you see how evasively he answered.

You seem to take it pretty much for granted that people stop learning when they've finished school. It is impossible to stop learning. If you try, learning will be forced on you by way of experience. It's the way of life.

And having taught myself the english language without teachers, taught myself to play several instruments without teachers, I am well versed in "independent learning".

At one time I started studying philosophy. The professor who gave us the lectures had studied Kant for his doctorate, a study that had taken him ten years. I quickly realized that he was incapable of giving an original answer to any question posed. All he could do was quote whatever Kant or some other long dead thinker had said on the issue. Through endless studies of other people's thougts he had snuffed out his own ability to think creatively and become a jukebox of old philosopic thoughts and statements.
That is why I am saying "shut up and listen". Reading has never been a means for anything but accumulating information, and that is only a small part of what it means to learn.

Shapeless- I see what you're saying. I hesitate to speak for Coberst, but I'll tell you what I view his role as being (and I acknowledge that's not to say that I'm right or that he'll agree with me).

I see Coberst as kind of a discussion facilitator. He's struck by a subject or idea which he's read about or done research on, and he presents that as fodder for discussion. And then he pretty much lets the participants take over. Maybe he's looking for input in the form of ancillary information, so that he can strengthen or firm up his own ideas about whatever subject he's introduced, or perhaps even come to a different conclusion. I rarely get the feeling, as everyone else seems to, that he is close-minded and totally committed one way or another to any stance on any issue he introduces- except to the need to commit to self-directed learning. I feel that he's strongly committed to that ideal.

I think the threads could go in a different direction if the participants would take them there. Instead of belittling his ideas or research methods, maybe the participants could give real-world, specific examples of why his initial premise is flawed, if they think it is, or on the other hand, what they have learned or seen or read that leads them to agree with him, if in fact they do. That would probably instigate more honest give and take and truthfully, for someone like me who is reading along with an eye to "learn" (because I don't already "know" a lot of times) it would make it much more interesting, and I'd feel like I was learning something instead of just that the study of philosophy, with all its incomprehensible jargon and circular logic, is not for me.

I also don't find it arrogant or disingenuous when someone who obviously has a different agenda separates himself from the lazy, apathetic masses of "society" or the "status quo" in a specific area of behavior. We all do that. I know I do. In terms of how he's separating himself, I truly believe that Coberst does have more discipline, insight, and a different focus toward his own personal "learning" than that which is evidenced by the popular masses, as evidenced by what he reads and thinks. So why shouldn't he separate himself? I know I do- and I hope you do too-because you're obviously different (from what I've read of you) from those who are not self-directed learners, unenlightened (about certain issues) and seem happy to stay that way. So I don't find the statement of such a separation offensive- I find it to be factual and truthful.

Cyracuz- You're just really lucky in that you're able to learn so much on your own. But you need to understand that not everyone is as blessed with the intelligence or gifts or talents or skills or motivation to do that.
Who do you think Coberst should shut up and listen to?
And I have to disagree with you about the role of reading in learning.
I'm a visual learner- I literally could not digest or learn what I needed to learn through a purely auditory mode. I could listen as intently as I possibly could and would not learn as much as I would from a text.
I think you need to understand the fact that every person is different.