I've started reading The Dancing Wu Li Masters by Gary Zukav. The subtitle is An Overview of the New Physics. New? Well, apparently the birth of quantum physics is dated at 1900 (over a hundred years ago), and this book was written when I was a child, in 1979. Still, there is some justification of the use of the word 'new' even now, since it seems to take human beings so very, very long to catch up with any developments in just about any field of endeavour. (For example, as far as I'm concerned, Huysmans comprehensively trashed so-called literary realism with La Bas back in 1891, but certainly the Anglosphere, if nowhere else, is still asleep to this fact.)
On an anecdotal note I remember quoting some of Bell's theorem to someone in an Internet debate in which I was taking up my characteristic anti-materialist stance. The person with whom I was having the dialogue seemed very puzzled and got his science friend to check the theorem out. His science friend has never heard of it and rejected it as science. Bell's theorem dates from 1964.
Now, I certainly don't pretend to know much about science (unlike that science friend, who apparently knew enough to reject the theorem), but I do wonder why developments in physics are taking so long to penetrate the consciousness even of people who claim to be interested in science, or qualified in it in some way. (Hint: Why did Samuel Johnson so resent Berkeley's immaterialism?)
This is kind of incidental. I just wanted to say that The Dancing Wu Li Masters is the kind of book that I am increasingly on the look-out for.
One thing I have come to hunger for in life are books that give a good general overview of a subject. There are not enough good general overviews of things about. I loathe the way I was educated at school – the way, I imagine, that children are still educated. It was as if we were told to scrutinise random pieces of a jigzaw puzzle, without being told the reason why, or what the picture was from which the pieces were taken, or even what a jigzaw puzzle was. It makes me furious every time I think about it. It also seems to me that there are very few good 'generalists' in the world today. Perhaps I'm wrong. I heard somewhere that good specialists are hard to find. Maybe it's simply hard to find anyone at all who has even the beginnings of an epistemology by which they might differentiate their arse from their elbow. In any case, my impression is that the value of generalism – of stepping back and looking at the larger picture and the overall arch of the development of a thing – has been almost entirely lost. Therefore when I find a book written by someone who seems to understand that value very deeply, it makes me feel good.
I want to find more such books.
That's all.
cap writes:Are there any good generalist accounts of something approximating your anti-materialist stance? I’m neither materialist nor anti-materialist (due to laziness, not due to having a more nuanced position), but probably my sympathies lie somewhat on the materialist side.
That’s an interesting question. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of any. I’m not sure, though, actually, that there’s much that needs to be known about immaterialism, or anti-materialism. I mean, I basically just have a viewpoint that is – I suppose – a conjunction of my own particular environment, heredity and so on, plus, well, quite possibly some nameless or unquantifiable factors, too.I would trace something that you could call ‘immaterialism’ back to my childhood (in my own case, I mean, not in the history of the world), but since then, because of this disposition in me, I’ve been influenced by… well, I suppose by some Daoist and Zen thought, but also by other bits and pieces here and there: I still haven’t read Berkeley, but only read of him. I must read him, though, as he seems to be something of an historical touchstone in immaterialism. There’s also William Blake, of course. Bill “it’s just a ride” Hicks. Richard Bach. I wonder if someone has put all of this kind of material together in a general overview somewhere. I’ll have to ponder this. And Google it, I suppose.I’m neither materialist nor anti-materialist I wouldn’t really call myself immaterialist (or anti-materialist), either. I mean, I don’t. I’ve just had, so often, the experience of feeling constricted in conversation by materialist assumptions that in the past few years I have been hell-bent – in writing at least – on challenging them. I have to do it, for many reasons, not least of all that I don’t want to go on nodding mutely to something that I don’t agree with.
berkeley was the guy who postulated that the cat he left in the other room ceased to exist when he closed the door on him. but that’s a strange kind of absurdity; he must have read chuang tzu, the genius of the absurd. chuang tsu tells a little story about watching a butterfly and being transported to the question “am i just a man dreaming i am a butterfly? or even a butterfly dreaming he is a man.”in search of the miraculous” by peter d. ouspensky (the author of “tertium organum” and ” a new model of the universe”), tells his experience with george ivanovich gurdjieff and his ‘system’. g., as ouspensky referred to gurdjieff in those days, described a universe of a scale from the macrocosmos to the microcosmos, man. a ‘table of hydrogens’ and a food diagram describing the real possibilities of man’s birthright to achieve higher states of consciousness through specific work on himself.i tell this because, Originally posted by quentinscrisp:I wonder if someone has put all of this kind of material together in a general overview somewhere.fascinating post for me. 🙂
Robin Davies writes:The Fabric Of Reality by David Deutsch is one of my favourite books. It attempts to draw together quantum physics, theories of knowledge, computation and evolution to explain, well, the fabric of reality. It also contains some illuminating discussions on the very nature of explanation, inductive reasoning etc. Deutsch is a keen advocate of the multiverse idea and makes a pretty strong case for it. I can’t pretend I understand everything in the book but it makes for fascinating, mind-expanding reading (and re-reading).
Before I write more, I want to quote from a paper by the physicist Henry Stapp:If the attitude of quantum mechanics is correct, in the strong sense that a description of the substructure underlying experience more complete than the one it provides is not possible, then there is no substantive physical world, in the usual sense of this term. The conclusion here is not the weak conclusion that there may not be a substantive physical world but rather that there definitely is not a substantive physical world.Although the fact that many members of the scientific community (by no means all) are wary of drawing parallels between quantum physics and mysticism makes me, in turn, wary of citing the work of physicists when talking about immaterialism and so on, it seems clear that if any general overview of immaterialism were to be written, it would really need at least one chapter on quantum physics, and perhaps more.berkeley was the guy who postulated that the cat he left in the other room ceased to exist when he closed the door on him. but that’s a strange kind of absurdity; he must have read chuang tzu, the genius of the absurd. chuang tsu tells a little story about watching a butterfly and being transported to the question “am i just a man dreaming i am a butterfly? or even a butterfly dreaming he is a man.I was thinking about this today. In the book – The Dancing Wu Li Masters – the author writes of the quote I have transcribed above:This claim at first appears so preposterous and remote from experience that our inclinatio is to discard it as the foolish product of cloistered intellectuals.There is more in that vein, about “our ordinary ideas about reality”. However, such ideas (those contrary to the apparently ordinary ideas) have never seemed at all preposterous to me. They have seemed very natural and comfortable. If I may be allowed a little melodrama, I feel I have suffered a great deal precisely because I have been surrounded by people who find such things preposterous.By the way, Stapp is currently located in Berkeley, I believe. To which I must ask, any relation?”in search of the miraculous” by peter d. ouspensky (the author of “tertium organum” and ” a new model of the universe”), tells his experience with george ivanovich gurdjieff and his ‘system’. g., as ouspensky referred to gurdjieff in those days, described a universe of a scale from the macrocosmos to the microcosmos, man. a ‘table of hydrogens’ and a food diagram describing the real possibilities of man’s birthright to achieve higher states of consciousness through specific work on himself.Thanks. Ouspensky is a name I’ve heard a great deal, but I have yet to read him.The Fabric Of Reality by David Deutsch is one of my favourite books. It attempts to draw together quantum physics, theories of knowledge, computation and evolution to explain, well, the fabric of reality.This does sound interesting. I’ll definitely look this up.
searching david deutsch i wound up at ted.com i was engrossed there comfortably listening to all kinds of intelligent people. finally, i even registered. now, i’m not sure reading will survive in our ‘brave new world’. it’s so easy to sit back at home and listen comfortably, meaning ‘listen well’ or, think while listening.Originally posted by quentinscrisp:If I may be allowed a little melodrama, I feel I have suffered a great deal precisely because I have been surrounded by people who find such things preposterous.i share this complaint. i have been used to thinking freely about everything and am sure that the limitations of digestion of ideas is in the state of consciousness; i.e. not in the customary filtering of new concepts through an educated formatory brain. new ideas need to be played with to be digested.metaphysics is so much in the head that without some direct experience of dimensions etc., time and space and altered states of consciousness, without drugs even, it is not likely that any thinking outside the box would take place.the lead balloon of the illusion of an egocentric world prevents my connecting a higher functioning attention which can pursue an idea and reason sensibly about it. what is missing is that something like will or direction of concentrated questioning is absent most of the time. usually, for all of us due to the necessities of having a body at all. survival on a day to day basis.but i have tried the mountaintop and the bodhi tree; nights under the stars… something limits our thinking.you might know what i’m talkiing about.i’d like to know some things once and for all. :happy:
cap writes:I’ll second the recommendation for Deutsch. I would call it heavily materialist (or maybe realist is more accurate). Incidentally, Julian Barbour has said this book made him take many-worlds quantum mechanics seriously. Though I’m not sure, I think what Stapp says probably stems from a different, more mainstream interpretation.Re: Blake. I should have thought of this. I am well-versed in Blake (compared to the general population), and pretty much revere him. Thinking now of his Vision of the Last Judgment, I shudder to think that Newton, Bacon, Locke (so to speak) seem to be dominating my epistemology. But there it is.”but i have tried the mountaintop and the bodhi tree; nights under the stars… something limits our thinking.” Yup. I hear ya, ArtMan.
now, i’m not sure reading will survive in our ‘brave new world’. it’s so easy to sit back at home and listen comfortably, meaning ‘listen well’ or, think while listening.Presumably it will continue to be ‘taught’ in schools, but, yeah, I imagine that everyone will give it up once they leave. The longest things people will read will be advertising slogans. Since I’ve still got dozens of ideas for books I want to write, this is a depressing thought for me, but there’s nothing I can really do about it. One way or another I was born in the wrong world. Momus desperately and light-heartedly tries to sell his book in the current climate of non-reading:http://imomus.livejournal.com/488401.htmlRe: Blake. I should have thought of this. I am well-versed in Blake (compared to the general population), and pretty much revere him. Thinking now of his Vision of the Last Judgment, I shudder to think that Newton, Bacon, Locke (so to speak) seem to be dominating my epistemology. But there it is.In the end, I think everyone just experiences the world differently. I personally don’t believe in objectivity. Even that is ‘just my point of view’. Nonetheless, of all the aspects of my point of view, I think that’s the one on which I most insist. The notion of ‘objectivity’ is something that people use to pull rank to promote their own views and demote the views of others. This gives rise to the question of how it is possible to know anything. I’m not sure it is possible. But I’m not sure it’s not possible, either. It’s early in the morning to tackle this one, but I suppose I hope that a kind of knowing is possible through experience. You know what a rock is through being a rock.But… how do you know you’ve been a rock?I can’t answer that question at the moment.By the way, I was aware after I’d written it what a fine joke I’d accidentally made in calling Berkeley a “touchstone” of immaterialism.
Justin Isis writes:G.I. Gurdjieff was known for extending human potential by masturbating a lot. To give a brief overview for the layman, Gurdjieff believed that the ultimate goal of man was to be able to masturbate as much as desired without feeling tired or suffering from decreased volume ejaculations. Gurdjieff felt that ordinary masturbation took place in a state similar to sleep, and it was (metaphorically) necessary to “wake up” in order to beat off harder, faster, longer. This is in fact the true meaning of Gurdjieff’s teachings, I can’t vouch for Ouspensky though. Ouspensky borrowed five dollars from me once and then she never paid it back…I ain’t saying Ouspensky’s a gold digger, but she ain’t messing with no broke nigga.
I know Gurdjieff’s philosophy largely in the form that “People are manure”. I think Slipknot stole this philosophy.I’ve only read a very little Gurjieff. I liked his prose. It was ridiculous.