Nietzsches nihilism and Virginia Wolfs depression could have been reflective of their intuitive understanding that the richness of experience must be made up of a multitude of hidden processes and that the core self must be an illusion, maybe that was what upset them.
Nietzsche 'my hypothesis is the subject as multiplicity'
Virginia Wolf 'we are splinters and mosaics, not as they used to hold, immaculate, monolithic, consistent wholes'
Friday, 31 August 2012
The meeting up
There is some kind of meeting up of the parts. Skreeworld has recurring subject matter. That religion is not a force for good, that there is no mind/body duality, that being is a singular but that self is a multiplicity of urges, drives, feelings, thoughts and moods. Through Candace Pert we learned that receptor sites are all over us, not just in the brain, emotions take place all over us. From Ryle that bodies exist in space and are subject to physical laws where as minds do not exist in space and can not be said to be spatially anywhere.
Having grown up an atheist religion was something others practised as was astrology and other supernatural belief. I have only recently returned to the subject through pointing out how abandoning reason, being unreasonable is bad for the world. There is no interventionist creator. More recently we have been discussing the lack of self. We are not autonomous individuals, rather we are a product of the history and influences of those around us. This notion of no self is familiar to both Buddhists and philosophers. Buddha taught that enlightenment required 'annatta' , the loss of self. Hume argued there is no single core self but a bundle of experiences and sensations.
Most of us believe we posees a self, an internal individual who resides inside our bodies who is the pilot or author of our vehicle or story. A 'me' inside me. This idea is under threat from science and understanding of the brain. Rather than a single entity the self is a constellation of mechanisms and experiences that creates the illusion of an internal you. Our brain is a device that constructs narratives. It looks for and invariably finds causal patterns, even where there are none. It discards awkward details that disprove the stories it creates and depends on.
Having abandoned the stories as a race we developed to help us in difficult times, a creator who can intervene to help us out when we face our ends, having abandoned the story of a life after death it seems now we must learn that we, ourselves are not as we thought. Gilbert Ryle struggled with the fact our language is structured using the assumption of the ghost in the machine, the idea of a little man inside our heads controlling us. The understanding that there is not requires we step outside of linguistic convention. Language is thought yet there is not room within our construct to explain what we are finding out. The illusion of self may well be the most difficult concept we have yet come across.
There is a common thread to Ryle, Harris, hood, Pert, Buddhism even yoga and that is that there is no dancer just the dance. There is no 'I' am thinking these thoughts, only the thoughts. God is a delusion and self is an illusion, that is not to say an illusion does not exist nor it's significance explored.
Having grown up an atheist religion was something others practised as was astrology and other supernatural belief. I have only recently returned to the subject through pointing out how abandoning reason, being unreasonable is bad for the world. There is no interventionist creator. More recently we have been discussing the lack of self. We are not autonomous individuals, rather we are a product of the history and influences of those around us. This notion of no self is familiar to both Buddhists and philosophers. Buddha taught that enlightenment required 'annatta' , the loss of self. Hume argued there is no single core self but a bundle of experiences and sensations.
Most of us believe we posees a self, an internal individual who resides inside our bodies who is the pilot or author of our vehicle or story. A 'me' inside me. This idea is under threat from science and understanding of the brain. Rather than a single entity the self is a constellation of mechanisms and experiences that creates the illusion of an internal you. Our brain is a device that constructs narratives. It looks for and invariably finds causal patterns, even where there are none. It discards awkward details that disprove the stories it creates and depends on.
Having abandoned the stories as a race we developed to help us in difficult times, a creator who can intervene to help us out when we face our ends, having abandoned the story of a life after death it seems now we must learn that we, ourselves are not as we thought. Gilbert Ryle struggled with the fact our language is structured using the assumption of the ghost in the machine, the idea of a little man inside our heads controlling us. The understanding that there is not requires we step outside of linguistic convention. Language is thought yet there is not room within our construct to explain what we are finding out. The illusion of self may well be the most difficult concept we have yet come across.
There is a common thread to Ryle, Harris, hood, Pert, Buddhism even yoga and that is that there is no dancer just the dance. There is no 'I' am thinking these thoughts, only the thoughts. God is a delusion and self is an illusion, that is not to say an illusion does not exist nor it's significance explored.
Religious stress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusions about its condition is the demand to give up a condition that needs illusions. The criticism of religion is therefore in embryo the criticism of the vale of woe, the halo of which is religion. Criticism has plucked the imaginary flower from the chain, not so that man will wear the chain without any fantasy or consolation but so that he will shake off the chain and cull the living flower.
Karl Marx
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusions about its condition is the demand to give up a condition that needs illusions. The criticism of religion is therefore in embryo the criticism of the vale of woe, the halo of which is religion. Criticism has plucked the imaginary flower from the chain, not so that man will wear the chain without any fantasy or consolation but so that he will shake off the chain and cull the living flower.
Karl Marx
Wednesday, 29 August 2012
Further thoughts on previous posting
It seems poignant to bring this up. Last night Thomas Heatherwicks Olympic flaming flower was relit to launch the Paralympics. Perhaps it is down to the recession but the Olympic party caught the imaginations of many more than expected. Of course some still remain closed minded to sport as many do to art but many new faces found out that great rewards were there for those who cared to look. The whole period has offered respite to what otherwise would have been a miserable summer, financial collapse, festivals rained off. There seems a genuine attempt to learn about the different bodily condition people find themselves in. Children growing up watching the Paralympics will have far greater spread of references, all positive from whence to view people different from each other in body.
This leads me in to the one group it seems society continues to shun. Mental illness may no longer have asylums and the attempt to drag the deviant off to be locked away from sight but the public fear remains. Considering one in four will see a doctor during their lives with mental health issues this is shocking. The mind is a fragile balance. Most people will have experienced feelings of loss of confidence in their thought patterns yet it remains taboo. And it is this taboo, this reluctance to try to understand that lies behind our attitudes to addiction.
Smoking. We all know smoking is very dangerous. Arguably more dangerous than most illegal drugs. It is always odd to look and see who smokes or has smoked. Why are these people attracted to do something that harms em so much? Many carry on till it kills them. Roughly 25% of adults smoke. 75% of schizophrenics smoke. Clearly smoking either relates to mental illness or could be considered a mental illness in itself.
Many were surprised when Kate Middleton chose Action on Addiction as one of the charities to be the public face of. I was greatly impressed, not just because this is a charity I do work for but because her clean cut image offers acceptability to a charity that struggles to find backing amidst the army of good causes. Why is this? Herein lies the problem. We still haven't found quite how to think of addiction. Graylings despisal of addicts got me thinking does he despise all addicts or just those he specifies, those dependent on heroin and cocaine. Some speak as if addiction were a disease, using that language. Others apply thinking towards a negative habitual behaviour. No one in their right mind buys unspecified powders of dubious origin from strangers on the street, goes home and injects it int o their veins. Let us dismiss the idiocy of blame and take a pragmatic approach to a problem responsible for many peoples deaths, 75% of all crime and huge damage across most sections of society.
Graylings appendage to his call for drug legalisation may be a disclaimer so he doesn't appear libertarian. Whilst altering supply of heroin from street dealers to doctors may well help, legalisation is not the whole answer. Of course it would be better to have heroin supply taken out of the hands of criminals. The simplicity of the idea begins to fall away once crack cocaine comes in to the mix. Heroin, to an addict can be seen as like insulin to a diabetic but no am mount of crack brings satisfaction to the addict. People spend as much as they can get, committing highly dangerous actions to get the money from crime to prostitution. What does Grayling advise here? A doctor to be on call 24 hours a day handing out pipe after pipe? Clearly the problem is not a simple one that could br solved by legalisation. Too many who have little or no experience of drugs are stepping vocally in to a debate that seems stuck in a logjam.
The answers may be far more complex than we can yet know. Abstinence must be the goal.
This leads me in to the one group it seems society continues to shun. Mental illness may no longer have asylums and the attempt to drag the deviant off to be locked away from sight but the public fear remains. Considering one in four will see a doctor during their lives with mental health issues this is shocking. The mind is a fragile balance. Most people will have experienced feelings of loss of confidence in their thought patterns yet it remains taboo. And it is this taboo, this reluctance to try to understand that lies behind our attitudes to addiction.
Smoking. We all know smoking is very dangerous. Arguably more dangerous than most illegal drugs. It is always odd to look and see who smokes or has smoked. Why are these people attracted to do something that harms em so much? Many carry on till it kills them. Roughly 25% of adults smoke. 75% of schizophrenics smoke. Clearly smoking either relates to mental illness or could be considered a mental illness in itself.
Many were surprised when Kate Middleton chose Action on Addiction as one of the charities to be the public face of. I was greatly impressed, not just because this is a charity I do work for but because her clean cut image offers acceptability to a charity that struggles to find backing amidst the army of good causes. Why is this? Herein lies the problem. We still haven't found quite how to think of addiction. Graylings despisal of addicts got me thinking does he despise all addicts or just those he specifies, those dependent on heroin and cocaine. Some speak as if addiction were a disease, using that language. Others apply thinking towards a negative habitual behaviour. No one in their right mind buys unspecified powders of dubious origin from strangers on the street, goes home and injects it int o their veins. Let us dismiss the idiocy of blame and take a pragmatic approach to a problem responsible for many peoples deaths, 75% of all crime and huge damage across most sections of society.
Graylings appendage to his call for drug legalisation may be a disclaimer so he doesn't appear libertarian. Whilst altering supply of heroin from street dealers to doctors may well help, legalisation is not the whole answer. Of course it would be better to have heroin supply taken out of the hands of criminals. The simplicity of the idea begins to fall away once crack cocaine comes in to the mix. Heroin, to an addict can be seen as like insulin to a diabetic but no am mount of crack brings satisfaction to the addict. People spend as much as they can get, committing highly dangerous actions to get the money from crime to prostitution. What does Grayling advise here? A doctor to be on call 24 hours a day handing out pipe after pipe? Clearly the problem is not a simple one that could br solved by legalisation. Too many who have little or no experience of drugs are stepping vocally in to a debate that seems stuck in a logjam.
The answers may be far more complex than we can yet know. Abstinence must be the goal.
A C Graylings comments on Drugs
I like to read what Richard Dawkins has to say. I used to enjoy reading what Christopher Hitchins had to say, even if I disagreed it was always a joy to follow the thread of his reasoning. Through them I found neurologist Sam Harris whose ideas have painted my week. And Bruce Hood who's Self Illusion is taking some unpicking.
And from these I got to A C Grayling who strongly advocates legalising all drugs yet 'dispises' people dependent on heroin and cocaine. My feelings are the reverse. I feel compassion and pity for anyone in such a terrible predicament. To despise someone suffering seems terrible. Does he despise other I'll people? does he see addicts as the architects of their own unhappiness? And how will legalising heroin help anyone?
What always strikes me in this debate is how legalisation overtakes all other arguments. Junkies couldn't care whether it is illegal or not. They do it all the same. The legalisation debate is for politicians and has no interest for heroin addicts. It is clear this is a health issue and not a criminal one, or ought not to be. In effect all drugs are legal. Police only make token assaults on illegal drugs.
It was the word despise that got me writing. Is Graylings sentiment common in society? Do people see in junkies a terror tale of warning about how low a man can fall, or do they see broken souls struggling through as best they can.
I no longer drink ot take any drug. Some people can get away with it but I am not one of them. Though I choose not to I still feel compassion for anyone finding life so hard they take the slow suicide of heroin in preference to unadulterated reality. Perhaps Grayling has led a life of safety and comfort and from his secure footing can only imagine heroin use as some sort of self indulgence or expanded party.
And from these I got to A C Grayling who strongly advocates legalising all drugs yet 'dispises' people dependent on heroin and cocaine. My feelings are the reverse. I feel compassion and pity for anyone in such a terrible predicament. To despise someone suffering seems terrible. Does he despise other I'll people? does he see addicts as the architects of their own unhappiness? And how will legalising heroin help anyone?
What always strikes me in this debate is how legalisation overtakes all other arguments. Junkies couldn't care whether it is illegal or not. They do it all the same. The legalisation debate is for politicians and has no interest for heroin addicts. It is clear this is a health issue and not a criminal one, or ought not to be. In effect all drugs are legal. Police only make token assaults on illegal drugs.
It was the word despise that got me writing. Is Graylings sentiment common in society? Do people see in junkies a terror tale of warning about how low a man can fall, or do they see broken souls struggling through as best they can.
I no longer drink ot take any drug. Some people can get away with it but I am not one of them. Though I choose not to I still feel compassion for anyone finding life so hard they take the slow suicide of heroin in preference to unadulterated reality. Perhaps Grayling has led a life of safety and comfort and from his secure footing can only imagine heroin use as some sort of self indulgence or expanded party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)