Dispelling The Illusion That The Self Is An Illusion

Me:

I haven’t read the article or followed the link so maybe I’m missing something.

You said: “ That seems right to me.  I am a necessary illusion. I can know I am mere matter but I can't exist as if I were, and mere matter has seen to it.  The idea has a certain annoying charm.” 

And what seems right to you is, “We imagine something similar behind our own eyes. It’s a necessary illusion, rooted deep in our evolutionary history."  

And then you lastly say, “But to be told that our whole lives are governed by an illusion, that there "really" are no persons, is weird. It is the basis of our whole existence.”

So I take it you think your sense of your self/your person or the self or the person of another is an illusion, however weird. 

Do I have that right?

If I can get that clarified, I’ll try to go on to make a point. 

R:

Yes

Me:

Here’s the point I’m struggling to get clear following your “Yes.”

Dispelling or falsifying a claim that X is an illusion is a necessary condition for X to be so considered. If it’s rationally impossible to dispel or falsify claim X, then it can’t be an illusion in any meaningful sense.

Illusions mean a difference between how things seem and how they really are. So for claim X to be an illusion, we have to be able to show its falsity by evidence or logic.

If we can’t, then the claim fails.

So, to repeat, we can generally say, the possibility of dispelling or falsifying such claim X by logic and/or evidence is a necessary condition for an illusion to be one. That condition lets us separate “real illusions” from simply unfalsifiable claims. 

So then how do we falsify or dispel the claim that the self is an illusion?

R:

Both views are theories, and no-one has been able to falsify either.  

Me:

So on my logic, no illusion?

R:

Can't argue with that.  

Me:

What about with this: “logically, then, no illusion?” 

R:

0

Why Is The Trans Issue So Hard?

 Why is the trans issue so hard?  

A reason may be that anyone so driven, so innately impelled, to be opposite of whom they are as between male and female, as to try so radically to transform themselves physically, will feel diminished and insulted to be seen as anything less than whom they feel they fully are.

Hamilton As Middle Brow Emptiness

 Hamilton as middle brow emptiness.

Its music is bourgeois rap: it’s fake rap, co-opted rap, inauthentic rap, however clever. It’s all clever and bright and entertaining but it’s like Taylor Swift rapping or Michael Bublé. If you want the aesthetics of the best rap, urgency, the pounding sound of the street, authentic recreation of a specific time, place and their conditions, Hamilton’s music is not for you. It’s rap via Chat GTP.

I have no objection to brown and black people playing white people. Just I have no objection to white people playing brown and black people, or, generally, anybody portraying someone whom they’re not. I reject the idea of cultural appropriation while I stand against cultural misappropriation. But when people play whom they’re not as a programmatic thing as in Hamilton, I want to know why. I see it there as making a statement that rings about as true as the founding fathers rapping in clever verse. 

Does it jar me into some special insight, let alone an epiphany? No! Does it make some worthwhile point? No! So then what’s with the casting? It seems as something similar to its music. It’s fake daring, fake “Hey, in your face.” And, worst, it’s patronizing ersatz edginess and fake creativity.

The set is great. The cleverness and the craft in the lyrics are impressive, the performances are formidable. So why do I feel like I’ve seen a massive set of special effects all in service of an emptiness, of an aesthetic vacuum, the lack of a there there, a bauble? It’s like costume jewelry. Behind the cleverness and craft and impressive performances is a resounding hollowness that left me unsatisfied and hungry for something simple or complex that is moving and authentic, say Tracy Chapman singing Give Me One Reason or Othello.

Here for me is the essence of Hamilton: it’s a show that aims at being edgy and avant-garde but isn’t, that pretends to be ground breaking and daring but isn’t, that at bottom challenges neither the imagination nor the moral imagination of its audience. It has this quality as well about it: it aims at making people who use the arts to acquire culture as status feel good about themselves.

My Definition Of Woke

 My definition of woke:

Woke first broadly meant, “I woke up to injustice.” It morphed via progressives into a structural analysis of (late?) capitalist society based on hierarchies of power—oppressors on top, oppressed at bottom. 

Oppressors use all of society’s mechanisms to maintain their power, all of which is captured by the apparently concrete idea of “whiteness.” (Such naming shows woke’s preoccupation with abstraction and its reification.)

Woke sees the start of liberating consciousness and truth in the “lived experience” of the oppressed—so marked by their low caste, racial identity, and both deviating gender identity—what you want to be is who you are— and deviating sexual preferences. Superior understanding comes from the weight of oppression.

Woke wants to undo these hierarchies by any means, though it rejects liberal democratic values as but power’s illusive way of perpetuating itself.

One mark of success will be equity’s triumph over equality, when, put in formulae, equality of outcome replaces false equality of opportunity, under which reigns the lie of merit.

My Devastating Stanford Law School Counterfactual Concerning Federal Judge Duncan

What the hell would all the SLS down-players be saying if it were Sotomayor or Brown-Jackson who were slagged, sworn at, and continuously and contemptuously yelled at by cowardly, loutish punks with then a Dean with a prepared text castigating the Justice? 

A Few Points On Equity In Stem Admissions

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Toyu9jXCaKM

Sylvester James Gates, a theoretical physicist, argues on the Glenn Show for diversity in STEM admissions partly on the ground that outsiders being that have a better chance at bucking the “paradigm,” of seeing past givens to get to ground breaking work. 

Gates notes that Newton had a heterodox religious view, being a trinitarian, and that Einstein obviously was an outsider in his society. 

Loury pushes back with this point: while test scores and grade point averages are at least concrete indicators, there is no way to measure the creative capacity to see past what seems set.

This point seems irrefutable. The leap from outsider to ground breaker is wholly speculative, an assumption impossible to substantiate. 

Since this capacity is born of a confluence of ascertainable intellectual strength and unascertainable innate qualities, only serendipity will yield it. 

Gates makes two further points: test scores and marks are fallible measures; and they at best will only yield proficient scientists operating within the paradigm; they won’t get scientists past it. 

These points ring hollow. 

The imperfect isn’t the enemy of nothing better. 

And serendipity may  well deliver up a Newton or an Einstein in the person of the most privileged appearing, conformist seeming scientist imaginable.

Therefore, stick to admissions based on objective criteria, however imperfect.

Why Is The Trans Issue So Vexed?

 A reason may be that anyone so driven, so innately impelled, to be opposite of whom they are as between male and female, as to try so radically to transform themselves physically, will feel diminished and insulted to be seen as anything less than whom they feel they fully are.

Robert Warshow Argued…

 Robert Warshow argued criticism—explaining, evaluating with reasons and integrating into social and cultural context of the times—ought cover all art, high to low. People’s ability to judge quality in art is essential to a polity based on individual sovereignty and competence. Few will take in high art. So criticize a Bogart film as closely as an Eliot poem.

Neo Equity As A Corruption Of Equity

 

David Decosimo

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1539302500888723456.html

Few recent shifts have been more consequential than the deliberate transformation & obfuscation around "equity."

What once named a key dimension of justice has been redefined & repurposed as a tool for culture-warring, institutional capture, & unearned privilege & favors. 1/

Justice sets relations right by rendering someone what's due. It has at least two aspects.

1. Equity is about consistency, like cases treated in like ways. So, *ALL* who do X are treated the same way.

2. Desert is about what *this* person is owed. She did X, so she deserves Y. 

2/

Equity & desert can come apart (qualifications apply).

Equity without desert: Two people with equally superb work get *the same* grade - but it's *bad,* not what's due. 

Desert without equity: Two people with equal work get different grades; only one gets what she deserves. 3/

Believers have redefined 'equity,' fashioning a subtle & effective ideological sword, while hiding what's really going on & leveraging the borrowed capital of *real* equity's true relation to justice.

'Equity' *sounds* righteous - but its meaning is deliberately vague & hazy. 4/

'Equity' now means 'equal outcomes across select, politically useful group identity.'

If there's a field where composition doesn't mirror the broader population or one group 'outperforms' another, that's an 'equity' problem. It's defined as an injustice that must be corrected. 5/

Neo-equity:

The *goal* is equal outcomes.

The *assumption* is that unequal outcomes are necessarily unjust & produced by unjust standards/processes.

The *means* is doing whatever it takes to get equal outcomes: redefining 'excellence,' abolishing grades, declare merit a myth. 6/

In the name of neo-equity (equal outcomes for select groups), anything goes, even outright discrimination.

Yet b/c it is cloaked as 'justice,' what's happening must be redescribed.

It's not that we're rejecting excellence, it's just that our old idea of excellence was bigoted. 7/

The logic of neo-equity is viciously circular: 

How do we know the old idea of excellence was bigoted? Because of the unequal outcomes.

What's true excellence? Whatever standard produces equal outcomes.

The whole thing is deeply dishonest, degrading, & condescending. 8/

The consequences of neo-equity are devastating:

Institutions & practices that require uncompromising commitment to excellence are hollowed out.

Deserving people aren denied their fair shot.

Others have their true merit discounted.

Systemic lying means a loss of real standards. 9/

Unequal outcomes *can* be a symptom of injustice.

Neo-equity makes that 'can' a 'must' & acts unjustly to get desired results. 

True equity says: Look closely & see if there's real unfairness. If there is, we must address it! But not by abandoning desert & forsaking justice. 10/

Call neo-equity what it is: a corruption of the right, a counterfeit virtue, a tool for doing injustice under cover of righteousness.

And *claim* justice & equity. They don't belong to those who abuse their names for personal gain & deploy destructive means for misguided ends. 11/11

Availability Cascades, Tipping Points And Memes, Briefly Compared And Contrasted

Availability cascades refer to a process by which the repetition of information can lead to its widespread acceptance and influence. Availability cascades do not necessarily lead to a "tipping point" or a sudden shift in behavior or opinion, but rather involve a gradual and cumulative effect of repeated exposure.

Tipping points, on the other hand, refer to a critical point at which a small change in one factor can lead to a large change in behavior or opinion. Tipping points are characterized by a sudden and often unexpected shift in the status quo, and they can result from a variety of factors, such as a change in social norms or a new piece of information that changes people's perceptions.

Memes refer to units of cultural information that are transmitted from person to person through social networks, such as jokes, slogans, or fashion trends. 

Unlike availability cascades, memes can spread rapidly and widely through social media and other communication channels, and they can become deeply embedded in a culture or community.

In summary, availability cascades refer to the cumulative effect of repeated exposure to information, tipping points refer to the critical point at which a small change can lead to a large shift in behavior or opinion, and memes refer to units of cultural information that are transmitted through social networks.