In all dualities we want to go to one side (that is, MIND, and the release from inertia and the enhancement of freedom), but the means to do it always seem to lie exactly in the side that negates it (that is BODY, and the power of presence and of being concretely real). In the end, we want more MIND in order to get more BODY. But every time we go in this direction we get farther and farther from what we want, exactly as we are getting nearer.
In fact, we try to go to a third world, a third point beyond the dichotomy, and it becomes an impossible goal which we can’t stop following.
This third shade, this World-3, is not less direct than World-1, nor less real, it is just different. But contrary to World-1, you can never tackle it quantitatively. It is never possible to brute-force World-3, neither with muscle, nor money, nor spam. Thus, BODY-through-MIND is always difficult. Read More »
Trapped by their fears, Realists retreat screaming whenever faced with a Relativist idea. Simply can’t swallow it. And they retreat into exactly the same lack of intellectual discipline they accuse litcrit of. Conditioned by our cruel education system, that treats children as cattle, they refrain from any philosophy not geared towards providing “correct answers to the test”. To win the argument, then, you should proceed not with sound argumentation — that would only lead them into rationalization — but instead with masking relativism’s sour taste of personal responsibility. Read More »
Because the pesky word is on the blog’s title, i keep talking about it. In fact, the very first post cited Popper’s argument that truth might not exist as fact but nevertheless it was an important motivator for science. That, in other words, though people never experience truth or never ever get to know anything that is really, really true, truth is a goal that is important.
Now i did accept the argument. For a long time. But it is just mistaken. It is simply not how things turn out to be. If you want, it is simply not true. Read More »
Back when he was young, Karl Popper said the difference between scientific theories and unscientific ones was that the first were falsifiable. That it was possible to prove them wrong. In other words, that a scientific theory should be a body of ideas with clear and specific implications, so that if we came to experience anything contrary to those implications we consider this theory false.
And then someone correctly pointed out to him that this implies that there is no truth, and he panicked, and to avoid this obvious argument he came up with the theory of spiral truth. Read More »