Knowledge is a tree, not a conclusion, and it has been a tree for all of time. Sometime, however, it verboten in the Bible with a didactic “tale” apparently by oligarchs telling the average religious person to view the tree of knowledge and its information as verboten. This is the beginning of the limits and control of information necessary for oligarchic dominance, as opposed to capital-type control which is more commodity-based --though information is now a commodity as “intellectual property.” (With “intellectual” being a strong word for the slurry capital pumps into the population.)

The most important extension of this type of information control currently exists as academia with its early revival of control as the dialectic and didactic by academy founders Socrates and Plato in ancient Athens, and recently by Hegel to fit current capital. Important is that these instructors specifically used sexual abuse to control, which survived to our time as, for instance, the Aboriginal residence schools openly, and covertly elsewhere.

Causality is a rational reduction of the complexity of life saying that “if something happens in relation to something else, that something else caused the first thing.” As a rational reduction, it is a “dumbing-down” of all the highly sophisticade life-system that affect us. Knowledge is naturally structured both in society and in our minds in tree structures, also called “complex data structures” Personally, I have never been “causal” (I believe) because I have been influenced by aboriginal knowledge organization, and also abstract art and music early on as a child with access to all of New York’s museums and libraries (access has since been restricted to children.)

If I something is unavoidably causal, I say “simple math” --this causes that, w/o making a bid deal about it.

Empiricism is the scientific method (and system) built from causality and is considered the only (measurement) science, even by scientist who should know better. It suffers from being highly-fractured, as it is built from independent causal conclusions that also tend to be ego-vehicles from empiricist scientists. Another widely-misused term is “objective” as a synomym for “cruel” such that normal human thinking, such as the recollection of experiences, is excluded from empiricist conclusions; only empiricist numbers are used, often as an output of highly-purposed statistical systems. Dependance on statistics is such that statistics now often produce hypothesis and theory, that is validated by the same statistical systems. Information from other sources such as experience and observation, no matter how detailed, cannot test well against conclusive information produced specifically to test well by statistical systems. This statistical reality is most true for current control of the mind (both human and animal) in cognitive-behavioral strategies of CBT. Interestingly, in CBT, the dialectic method as the socratic method is also key for (as they say) “thought control.”

Objectivism, such as Ayn Rand’s and (current-capital’s) Adam Smith’s objectivism simply “objectify’s” people to make then inanimate numbers rather than feeling people to allow for capital exploitation. As it happens, capital-supporting empiricism, as info-oligarchic, also leverages this, and fills its capital-supportive role by defining and maintaining it as its own from of exploitation, originally sexual abuse.

Friday, October 12, 2012

Constructivist modeling of spirituality

In my experience, atheists tend to view religion is something you do for some tangible benefit, such as providing a basis for social cohesion or identifying ethnicity, or listening to a choral society or classical quartet. They would like to see spirituality as likewise providing a benefit, though what benefit that may be they will never “grok.” Long story short, after a few early years of their atheism, I discovered Buddhism (Japanese style) and grasped it--especially the martial arts pacifism of Judo. As a multiculturally-infused New Yorker, I was very sensitive to Christian intolerance yet maintained a basic understanding of Christianity that finally manifested when I recently attended a small rural church. I was studying constructivism and sociology at the time and instantly saw “text book” examples of the emotional/informational phenomena described by constructivists as the “community of knowledge.”

I felt I could model an abstraction with religion as the organizational tool, and spirituality as the feeling within it. Since I see spirituality as the human guidance that opposes inhumanity through prayer (and by doing other things) for those in need, and religion as providing the “house” for it, then someone who is genuinely religious/spiritual will find a home in any “house.” Since tolerance is key to spirituality, then overlooking minor differences should be easy, such as the conflict between reincarnation, the after-life, or a natural death (or possibly an explosion of the Earth into fire as in the last Gospel of the Bible).

By extending constructivist ideas in a psychological context, it is my “belief” that there is specific neurological activity associated with prayer and meditation especially in groups. Every church or temple I have attended has a family-type empathic atmosphere of “love” that transcends sexual attraction (or should). Providing proof for this may be difficult because, for instance, it is impossible to simultaneously put an entire congregation in fMRI machines. From other brain research, however, I attempt to hypothesize how this should work.

No comments:

Post a Comment