On the futility of knowledge

[GeneralStriker]

Reposted here from Ufer threads since Philosophy has no thread of its own:

The 'what the fuck was that?' question is the operative general question. Three question follow by logical extension and form the impetus for the entire field of speculation.

1. Where do they come from?
2. How did they get here? and-
3. What do they want?

The entirety of the vast body of Ufer literature is devoted- depending on the relative ambition of the author- to answering one or more of those three questions. It's interesting that those very same queries also form the basis of all Philosophical, Metaphysical and Scientific investigation regarding the nature of existence per se.

Drake's Equation and Fermi's paradox are typical of the concomitant blending of the fields. Both beg the largest of questions and demonstrate the futility of scientific method regarding a cohesive theory- the answer to the questions they pose. And why? Because both are based in presuppositions that are themselves unproven. It's the nature of presuppositions to be assumptions derived from anecdotal data. That's actually the contradiction that lies at the heart of all Ontological hypothesis and it necessarily substitutes 'belief' for 'proof' as the foundation of Theory. Such is the nature of human endeavor to provide a proof of any existents beyond the brackets of Logic and is the reason that rationalists insist that logic does not apply to the 'real world' except by the (tenuous) extrapolation of analogy.

So this is the Epistemological dilemma in a nutshell: Every speculation concerning existence is ultimately founded in nothing more 'proven' than a leap of faith. Why should the study of Ufology escape conformity to this universal conundrum?

Does all of this mean that, despite the contradictions and the futility, that the questions ought not be even asked in the first place? Certainly there are those who would say precisely that- that adherence to rational skepticism precludes flights of imaginative speculation. I'm not among them for one simple reason- a simple choice, really- a choice to be curious about the mind of God.

[GeneralStriker]

Well- truth be told- John does consider these things. He's the only one I've ever found on any of the boards of this sort with whom I could actually discuss Whitehead and Plato. There's something to be said for that...

[Hazelnut]

Wow. I learned alot of new words. Thank you.


Every speculation concerning existence is ultimately founded in nothing more 'proven' than a leap of faith. :rock:

[hp]

BE, for all we know your avatar mimics god or whatever. Standing and looking into the frying pan that is our universe. If so, wonder when it is considered 'done'.

[GeneralStriker]

God also wonders

[pack3tg0st]

since Philosophy has no thread of its own:


Do you want one?

Subforum of Society perhaps?

let me know... thats like a 2 sec job.

[GeneralStriker]

you're the past master at the 2 second job!

[pack3tg0st]

just trying to be helpful...

I remember trying to figure out where to post my thread on nihilism in the past... I think I ended up posting it in society...

[GeneralStriker]

yeah- well... i dunno where it belongs. since philosophy subsumes all things it oughta just be the fabled Unithread. can you create the Unithread Forum?

[Lexion]

Unithread forum.

With only one thread.

That would be quite
novel.

[GeneralStriker]

i've been working towards it for two years now. notice? hahahaha

[skunk]

If y'all want a philosophy forum let us know.

Ps be I had no idea what you meant by 'ufer' until I sounded it out hahah.

[theeindiee]

philosophy is dead. we didn't kill it. We just made it up to substitute for our willing ignorance. so, in essence, it never really lived. It's all a big misinterpretation and makes fairly simple things into very complex and hard to understand things. That's what intellectuals like. Very complex things. I guess there's nothing wrong with that, seeing as how that's the story of creation. Take a simple thing and divide it into a complex thing and then from further division, everyone's stumbling around going WTF, to varying degrees. Ok, so that's Plato, but WTF IS THIS??? Philosophy lives, but that's because it never was dead, but it never was philosophy, either. So, it is neither dead, nor living, nor philosophy, nor shut the fuck up indiee. It just.... IS, mannn. But it isn't!!!! HAHA!!!!!

There, I've solved the universe : HAHA, or YHVH in Hebrew, or Jah in Rasta, or Joke in English. Are you laughing yet? Because I am, the little universe bitch.

[Snow Crash]

I seriously need to find out what his dealer is selling him.

[pack3tg0st]

I don't even know if its possible to agree or disagree with indee's statement...

[Raptor Jesus]

Why dnt we move the whole of Amkon onto one single uber-powerful thread?

[mur]

Why dnt we move the whole of Amkon onto one single uber-powerful thread?


Let's have a poll...i vote no

[Raptor Jesus]

"Let's have a poll...i vote no"

Oh go bug the Pickerings

[pack3tg0st]

I'm polled out.

[MissA]

It's the nature of presuppositions to be assumptions derived from anecdotal data. That's actually the contradiction that lies at the heart of all Ontological hypothesis and it necessarily substitutes 'belief' for 'proof' as the foundation of Theory. Such is the nature of human endeavor to provide a proof of any existents beyond the brackets of Logic and is the reason that rationalists insist that logic does not apply to the 'real world' except by the (tenuous) extrapolation of analogy.

So this is the Epistemological dilemma in a nutshell: Every speculation concerning existence is ultimately founded in nothing more 'proven' than a leap of faith. Why should the study of Ufology escape conformity to this universal conundrum?

Does all of this mean that, despite the contradictions and the futility, that the questions ought not be even asked in the first place? Certainly there are those who would say precisely that- that adherence to rational skepticism precludes flights of imaginative speculation. I'm not among them for one simple reason- a simple choice, really- a choice to be curious about the mind of God.


This was poetry. Thank you.

[mur]

"Let's have a poll...i vote no"

Oh go bug the Pickerings

I'm all bugged out

[boycotteverything]

This was poetry. Thank you. hahaha glad you liked reading as much as i like writing it. poetry? yes, in a sense.. that sense being that in the last analysis Philosophy is really nothing more than a special language- one devised to discourse on things of exquisite nature. i think that's the point to which Indy either objects or misses- or disses... oh well- it's not everyone's cup of tea.

[MissA]

I agree. There are occasions where I like to "shoot the shit" and then there are those times where I revel in words and want to build something beautiful with them. I love reading old letters for this reason. It seems people long ago saw the beauty in the power of a sequence of words strung together in perfect rhythm. I read a letter written about sixty years ago that stated: "the frost was thick enough to track a rabbit in it". Lovely. Today we would say: I saw a lot of frost on the ground.

[boycotteverything]

Speaking of Frost, and thinking in pictures- this seems somehow apt...


Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it,
And spills the upper boulders in the sun,
And makes gaps even two can pass abreast.
The work of hunters is another thing:
I have come after them and made repair
Where they have left not one stone on a stone,
But they would have the rabbit out of hiding,
To please the yelping dogs. The gaps I mean,
No one has seen them made or heard them made,
But at spring mending-time we find them there.
I let my neighbor know beyond the hill;
And on a day we meet to walk the line
And set the wall between us once again.
We keep the wall between us as we go.
To each the boulders that have fallen to each.
And some are loaves and some so nearly balls
We have to use a spell to make them balance:
'Stay where you are until our backs are turned!'
We wear our fingers rough with handling them.
Oh, just another kind of out-door game,
One on a side. It comes to little more:
There where it is we do not need the wall:
He is all pine and I am apple orchard.
My apple trees will never get across
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.
He only says, 'Good fences make good neighbors'.
Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder
If I could put a notion in his head:
'Why do they make good neighbors? Isn't it
Where there are cows?
But here there are no cows.
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence.
Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That wants it down.' I could say 'Elves' to him,
But it's not elves exactly, and I'd rather
He said it for himself. I see him there
Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top
In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed.
He moves in darkness as it seems to me~
Not of woods only and the shade of trees.
He will not go behind his father's saying,
And he likes having thought of it so well
He says again, "Good fences make good neighbors."

Mending Wall, Frost

[Lexion]

I read a letter written about sixty years ago that stated: "the frost was thick enough to track a rabbit in it". Lovely. Today we would say: I saw a lot of frost on the ground.

You'd love South Louisiana.

One of my favorite phrases :

Fucked up like a snake in a bush hog.

In case you're unfamiliar with
the term bush hog :

http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa20/Lexion07/BushHogPullType.jpg


Yeah, they fuck snakes up.

[MrPenny]

Thirstier than a bitch wolf nursing nine pups.

[captainkiwi]

I agree. There are occasions where I like to "shoot the shit" and then there are those times where I revel in words and want to build something beautiful with them. I love reading old letters for this reason. It seems people long ago saw the beauty in the power of a sequence of words strung together in perfect rhythm. I read a letter written about sixty years ago that stated: "the frost was thick enough to track a rabbit in it". Lovely. Today we would say: I saw a lot of frost on the ground.

True that man, I love the lilt and rhythm of words when they hit the cord of my thinking they sparkle like stars in the night sweet dreams unfold from the terror of the night and wonder shines on and on and on.....today I know nothing, tomorrow even less......

[MissA]

Has anyone read Stephen King On Writing? Excellent book about the power of words. He said that he reads the old Noir novels for their phrasing, his favorite being: Blacker than a car full of assholes.

[Lexion]

King was one of my fave
writers until Gerald's Game.

Jesus Christ, that book just
sucked.

I forced myself to finish it,
thinking it MUST get better.

How wrong, I was.

[MissA]

Yes, Gerald's Game...must we talk about it? Can't we just remember him for Needful Things?

[Lexion]

I loved all of his books,
until that one.

What the fuck was he
thinking ?

[MissA]

Sometimes when you write you invest a lot of time and don't want to let go of it even though you may think it sucks...you want to finish.

[captainkiwi]

Jiggery-pokery sums up the whole deal of philosophy and as history tells it, we have learned nothing from history .....

[Cogburn]

Counterpoint.

UFOlogy transcends the margin of error for practical reality, consigning it to the realm of "interesting diversion". As such, it has become nearly the sole province of liars, snake oil salesmen, and fools.

Sixty years of modern investigation conducted by millions of professionals and amateurs have yielded little better than their medieval counterparts attempting to count the number of members of the angelic chorus that could fit on the head of a pin.

Too bad that thread of jokes between the engineer, the physicist, and the mathematician disappeared. "Consider everything/believe nothing" works only for those not intent upon creation. It denies one the ability to make decisions in a manner that allows one to pursue a course of action that requires any level of thought beyond that which could be conceived in the length of time it takes to smoke a cigarette.

There are those who are not afraid to fall, not afraid to fail, not afraid to be wrong. You insult the do'ers, be'ers, and makers of our society, and I'll have no truck with that.


Tho' much is taken, much abides; and tho'
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

- Lord Alfred Tennyson

Inspired poetry? No, but someone needed to say it.

[MissA]

Sixty years is not a terrific length of time when you consider that only recently does everyone have a camera on them at all times. This is one of the only "fields" where firsthand knowledge/evidence is always discounted, if not vilified. I have no opinion on whether the phenomenon is human or extra terrestrial, just an opinion on how Ufology has been held to a different degree of skepticism based on a unique turn of the phrase of a single scientist.

[Cogburn]

I constrained my comments with the phrasing "60 years of modern..."

It's not to say that UFOlogy isn't a worth-while pursuit, however to maintain that the claim of "Consider everything/believe nothing" is a workable philosophy for investigation is simply ludicrous.

It's certainly a manner by which one might come to terms with the unknown, but then that's the same argument used by scientists posing as Catholic schools instructors as to why one should believe in the divinity of Jesus.

I give you Jesus Toast.

http://www.palmettoscoop.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/jesus_toast.jpg

[MissA]

Re: Cogburn

Why do you feel that way?

Considering that we have not the tools nor technology for a high speed chase after the alleged aliens, that we have not the ability to record with regularity and posterity a random event, all that we can reside in is the "assumptions" stage of research. That is a very valid stage. You observe, record, perform analysis as to what tools you might need to prove a hypothesis, etc. It is still scientific, still worthwhile to remain in this phase as long as necessary.

Before they could prove the earth was round they conjectured about it. Had someone told the early adventurers then that "consider everything/believe nothing" was invalid reasoning they would have been and were wrong in historical hindsight. They had the right ideas before they had the means to prove them. They were considering the possibilities, considering everything.

[Cogburn]

I'll chalk your comments up to poor reading comprehension.

As such, I'll restate the point in my last post: it is valid for initiating an investigation, it is not a valid means by which to conduct one, as the OP post would have us believe.

[GeneralStriker]

You insult the do'ers, be'ers, and makers of our society...and i fully intended to.

[Cogburn]

... and as such, you and I keep the forum interesting.

We could use someone around here that is as well read and hates us both.

[GeneralStriker]

Had someone told the early adventurers then that "consider everything/believe nothing" was invalid reasoning they would have been and were wrong in historical hindsight. They had the right ideas before they had the means to prove them. They were considering the possibilities, considering everything.That's exactly correct, in my estimation. They relied on imaginative speculation rather than 'rational' will. That was my point an that is our point.

[MissA]

I'll chalk your comments up to poor reading comprehension.

As such, I'll restate the point in my last post: it is valid for initiating an investigation, it is not a valid means by which to conduct one, as the OP post would have us believe.

And you are misrepresenting mine. All research has phases, and the assumptions phase is still a part of research, ergo you are "conducting" it.

[GeneralStriker]

mountebanks who claim to know everything are the detritus of history.

[Cogburn]

And you are misrepresenting mine. All research has phases, and the assumptions phase is still a part of research, ergo you are "conducting" it.

Is not then Jesus Toast and Mother-Theresa-In-A-Sweetbun proof of God?

When one decides upon an initial course of investigation, all else becomes means to that end.

If you abandon all reason and begin from the beginning with each step, you get no where.

I'll illustrate my point with one of those lost jokes I mentioned.

A physicist, a mathematician and an engineer were sitting in a bar and see a beautiful lady sitting by herself. The physicist says, "I'd go over there but I know that due to the electromagnetic forces on the quantum level, such closeness is impossible." The mathematician says, "I'd go over there, but I would only ever be able to get close enough by half, never being able to close that distance." The engineer turns to them both and says, "Fuck it, I can get close enough for all practical purposes."

[GeneralStriker]

Is not then Jesus Toast and Mother-Theresa-In-A-Sweetbun proof of God?

When one decides upon an initial course of investigation, all else becomes means to that end.

If you abandon all reason and begin from the beginning with each step, you get no where.

I'll illustrate my point with one of those lost jokes I mentioned.

A physicist, a mathematician and an engineer were sitting in a bar and see a beautiful lady sitting by herself. The physicist says, "I'd go over there but I know that due to the electromagnetic forces on the quantum level, such closeness is impossible." The mathematician says, "I'd go over there, but I would only ever be able to get close enough by half, never being able to close that distance." The engineer turns to them both and says, "Fuck it, I can get close enough for all practical purposes."

mountebanks who claim to know everything are the detritus of history. Case and point.

[Cogburn]

mountebanks who claim that nothing is knowable make no history.

[GeneralStriker]

are you so damaged, so defensive, so protective- that imagination threatens your very existence? come, child. Take a chair and learn.

[MissA]

If the Jesus toast turns out to be proof of God what would you do?

[Cogburn]

If the Jesus toast turns out to be proof of God what would you do?

I would be wrong, then I would be wiser.

Does the prospect of being wrong scare you? I'm okay with it.

"Dance as though no one can see you, sing as though no one can hear you, love as though you have never been hurt before. Live as though heaven is on earth."

Fear nothing but your own perspective.

[GeneralStriker]

Does the prospect of being wrong scare you? I'm okay with it.unfortunately i see that as your greatest lie and weakness as a man. you are somehow damaged, frightened, and insecure. to me that is obvious. perhaps to others too.

[Paroxysm]

Fear nothing but your own perspective.
And maybe what shows directly below that line...:confused:




http://i47.tinypic.com/icigiv.jpg

[Cogburn]

you are somehow damaged, frightened, and insecure. to me that is obvious. perhaps to others too.

Post on AmKon long enough and that becomes true for us all, tovarish.

I claimed nothing else.

[Cogburn]

And maybe what shows directly below that line...:confused:

It was before your time.

[MrPenny]

We could use someone around here that is as well read and hates us both.

Isn't it sufficient that a bunch of less well read people hate ya' both?

:D

[Cogburn]

Isn't it sufficient that a bunch of less well read people hate ya' both?

:D
It only takes the ability to fling poo more accurately to anger a monkey.

[GeneralStriker]

I claimed nothing else. you cannot make that claim in good faith. especially now that warrening is disallowed. hoist on your own petard.

[Cogburn]

you cannot make that claim in good faith. especially now that warrening is disallowed. hoist on your own petard.

I think that you've just gone to full on projection at this point.

I am not your mirror, sir.

[GeneralStriker]

that's very true. you are by no means my mirror.

[Cogburn]

that's very true. you are by no means my mirror.

Yet it still seems difficult to have a discourse on opposing ideologies without it eventually degenerating into ad hominem.

Alas, at least I am not alone upon my petard.

[GeneralStriker]

it has less to do with ideology than ethics

[Cogburn]

it has less to do with ideology than ethics

Either is valid in this context.

Dialectic would seem to be important only within your own comfort zone. Pose a challenge, and I'm two posts away from returning to being a serial-killer-sandpaper-dick whose wife should leave him at the first opportunity.

<sigh>

Your high mindedness was disappointingly brief.