Re: Joy of this, Joy of that

On Fri, 6 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 06/12/2024 09:11, D wrote:

  On Fri, 6 Dec 2024, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
 

On 12/5/24 7:17 AM, D wrote:

  On Thu, 5 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
 

On 05/12/2024 09:31, D wrote:

There is great good and great evil in man. That's what makes him so fascinating and why fighting is such a necessary sport to give an outlet for all that aggression.

 Only man creates the categories of good and evil.
Science does not include them

 I think you know what I mean. In order to avoid nitpicking, let's say creative and destructive energies.

  To "Nature" ... I think it's all just superstrings hummin'
  WE make of it all as we will.
  Joe Alien ... he many have entirely different ideas ...
 

 I know. Natural and I have discussed this violently and agreed to disagree. I'm a huge fan of the material world. As for the ultimate nature, laws and composition, I am agnostic, and we'll see how far science will take us. I lean towards instrumentalism/cognitive empiricism.

>
I don't think we disagree except on one fundamental point.
>
I do not see the world we commonly understand as 'real' to be anything more than a construction.

I have a feeling our disagreement then, is more about definitions, than about actual state of things. Since I am leaning towards instrumentalism/constructive empiricism, I am very comfortable with science as a map, or tool, and not an exact description of reality.
I once experimented with the concept of agnostic monism, by which I mean, a unified underlying construction or explanation of the world (of which we are a part), but, that we cannot (at the moment, and probably, never will)
determine the nature of it.

BUT where we do agree is that it has a sense and order that reflects some underlying reality that is beyond our power to modify, and that is the massive mistake the 'reality is a social construct' trans and Marxist ideologists make. You can wear a dress, but you cannot thereby change what you really are.
>
It is the introduction of a level of meta-data - a series of indirections, that creates the world of our experience.  And that introduction is man made. Our everyday life deals with the pointers, never with the data itself. That is the essence of Kant, phrased for an IT audience..
>
And we can rearrange the pointers in any damn fool way we want -  and the Left love to do that - but the data itself is not ours to change.
>
So I too have the concept of a 'beyond the mind' reality. I just don't consider it to be accessible directly. We work with interpretations of it that are anthropic and approximate only.
>
"The map, is not the territory."...
>
>
>