From: Frederick Mann (fm1@amug.org)
Date: Sun Jun 16 2002 - 16:27:15 MDT
You can change your mind about certain things,
for example, change from one belief about
abortion to another. This could be regarded
as a change at the level of surface knowledge.
If you regard concepts as units of knowledge,
then a deeper level at which you can change
your mind becomes evident: Change at the level
of concept.
If you use a faulty concept like "phlogiston"
(as "a volatile constituent of all combustible
substances"), no matter what logic you apply
to it, your conclusions will mostly be faulty.
Now consider the concept "sunrise" (as "the sun
rises above horizon every morning"). As stated,
"sunrise" is a faulty concept. However, for most
practical purposes it's a relatively harmless
concept.
We utilize concepts to represent aspects of
reality. Concepts as "units" in which knowledge
is expressed can be questioned and analyzed to
determine their accuracy and relative utility.
The concept "sunrise" is inaccurate, but is
useful for most practical purposes.
Now consider the concept "constellation." A
number of stars, viewed from a particular
viewpoint are said to constitute a "group" or
"constellation." But some of these stars may
be much further away from a particular viewpoint
than others. Inhabitants of other points in
space, would most likely "group" different sets
of stars into their "constellations."
>From the lecture "Pragmatism and Humanism" by
William James:
"In many familiar objects every one will recognize
the human element. We conceive a given reality
in this way or in that, to suit our purpose, and
the reality passively submits to our conception...
We carve out groups of stars in the heavens, and
call them constellations, and the stars patiently
suffer us to do so,--though if they knew what we
were doing, some of them might feel much surprised
at the partners we had given them. We name the same
constellations diversely, as Charles's Wain, the
Great Bear, or the Dipper...
In all these cases we humanly make an addition to
some sensible reality, and that reality tolerates
the addition."
The above comes from the book 'Pragmatism and four
essays from The Meaning of Truth.' The entry in the
index is worded, "Additions, human, to the given."
"Constellation" is an inaccurate concept, but not
without utility.
Now consider the concept of "truth." According to
Dr. Michael Hewitt-Gleeson in 'Software for Your
Brain,' "Most destructive of all these inventions
has been the Plato Truth Virus."
<http://www.thinkers.com/chapters/03.htm>
The concepts we create, adopt, and use result in
consequences. Certain political concepts in the
minds of humans may result in millions being
periodically slaughtered.
Probably the greatest mind-changer at the level
of concept was Max Stirner. In 'The Ego & Its Own'
<http://www.buildfreedom.com/content/books/ego/>
he wrote: "The decision having once been made not
to let oneself be imposed on any longer by the
extant and palpable, little scruple was felt about
revolting against the existing State or overturning
the existing laws; but to sin against the *idea*
of the State, not to submit to the *idea* of law,
who would have dared that?"
Max More has written an article, much of which
addresses change at the level of concept: DEEP
ANARCHY -- AN ELIMINATIVIST VIEW OF "THE STATE"
<http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/tl07d.shtml>.
The human concept of "law" (as "words of some
people that are somehow "special" and must be
obeyed") may be a most destructive concept. At
the deep level of concept-change, you don't think
about "laws being good or bad," you challenge
the very idea of "law" (so-called). See
#TL07H: Conversations About Deep Stupidities #1
<http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/tl07h.html> --
includes discussions with Richard Brodie ('Virus
of the Mind'), Steve Nichols (of "posthuman" fame),
and J. Neil Shulman (libertarian author, journalist,
and publisher).
An important thinking skill for questioning concepts
is called "Martian analysis" -- do a Google search!
Chapter 11 of 'The Inner Game of Golf' by W. Timothy
Gallwey has a good section on "Martian analysis.")
Frederick Mann
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:50 MST