To derive something unknown from something familiar relieves, comforts, and satisfies, besides giving a feeling of power. With the unknown, one is confronted with danger, discomfort, and care; the first instinct is to abolish these painful states. First principle: any explanation is better than none. Since at bottom it is merely a matter of wishing to be rid of oppressive representations, one is not too particular about the means of getting rid of them: the first representation that explains the unknown as familiar feels so good that one "considers it true." The proof of pleasure ("of strength") as a criterion of truth.
The causal instinct is thus conditional upon, and excited by, the feeling of fear. The "why?" shall, if at all possible, not give the cause for its own sake so much as for a particular kind of cause--a cause that is comforting, liberating, and relieving. That it is something already familiar, experienced, and inscribed in the memory, which is posited as a cause, that is the first consequence of this need. That which is new and strange and has not been experienced before, is excluded as a cause. Thus one searches not only for some kind of explanation to serve as a cause, but for a particularly selected and preferred kind of explanation--that which has most quickly and most frequently abolished the feeling of the strange, new, and hitherto unexperienced: the most habitual explanations. Consequence: one kind of positing of causes predominates more and more, is concentrated into a system and finally emerges as dominant, that is, as simply precluding other causes and explanations. The banker immediately thinks of "business," the Christian of "sin," and the girl of her love.
...and so a torpedo's touch is needed to "separate" one from one's "most favoured cause" and point the will towards something potentially more "empowering" AND "pleasurably rewarding".
...and this we mistakenly re-label "the truth", and thereby allay our former fears.
Symmetry is thereby restored in the brain, dopamine released, and consciousness shifts its' attention back to more pressing matters like, "what's for lunch" and "where are these fertile phermones originating from" as I have seed or eggs that also need "releasing" on a 23/28 day cycle (Freud to Fleiss letter).
Did I ever relate to either of you two the story of a bar fight I once witnessed in Santos, Brazil, between two prostitutes fighting over a customer....
The instant one broke a beer bottle over the cafe table to serve as a weapon for slicing the other, she screamed, "Butterfly!
Ever since then, I've been fascinated with starting fights/arguments. ;)
To me, her statement was modern equivalent to that of an ancient Saprtan emissary stating the causus belli to an enemy's army befor signalling his own warriors forward.
'That is a reach of thought more than human; but, pray, go on with the image, for I suspect that there is more behind.' There is, I said; and bearing in mind our two suns or principles, imagine further their corresponding worlds—one of the visible, the other of the intelligible; you may assist your fancy by figuring the distinction under the image of a line divided into two unequal parts, and may again subdivide each part into two lesser segments representative of the stages of knowledge in either sphere. The lower portion of the lower or visible sphere will consist of shadows and reflections, and its upper and smaller portion will contain real objects in the world of nature or of art. The sphere of the intelligible will also have two divisions,—one of mathematics, in which there is no ascent but all is descent; no inquiring into premises, but only drawing of inferences. In this division the mind works with figures and numbers, the images of which are taken not from the shadows, but from the objects, although the truth of them is seen only with the mind's eye; and they are used as hypotheses without being analysed. Whereas in the other division reason uses the hypotheses as stages or steps in the ascent to the idea of good, to which she fastens them, and then again descends, walking firmly in the region of ideas, and of ideas only, in her ascent as well as descent, and finally resting in them. 'I partly understand,' he replied; 'you mean that the ideas of science are superior to the hypothetical, metaphorical conceptions of geometry and the other arts or sciences, whichever is to be the name of them; and the latter conceptions you refuse to make subjects of pure intellect, because they have no first principle, although when resting on a first principle, they pass into the higher sphere.' You understand me very well, I said. And now to those four divisions of knowledge you may assign four corresponding faculties—pure intelligence to the highest sphere; active intelligence to the second; to the third, faith; to the fourth, the perception of shadows—and the clearness of the several faculties will be in the same ratio as the truth of the objects to which they are related...
Nietzsche, "Twilight of the Idols"
ReplyDeleteTo derive something unknown from something familiar relieves, comforts, and satisfies, besides giving a feeling of power. With the unknown, one is confronted with danger, discomfort, and care; the first instinct is to abolish these painful states. First principle: any explanation is better than none. Since at bottom it is merely a matter of wishing to be rid of oppressive representations, one is not too particular about the means of getting rid of them: the first representation that explains the unknown as familiar feels so good that one "considers it true." The proof of pleasure ("of strength") as a criterion of truth.
The causal instinct is thus conditional upon, and excited by, the feeling of fear. The "why?" shall, if at all possible, not give the cause for its own sake so much as for a particular kind of cause--a cause that is comforting, liberating, and relieving. That it is something already familiar, experienced, and inscribed in the memory, which is posited as a cause, that is the first consequence of this need. That which is new and strange and has not been experienced before, is excluded as a cause. Thus one searches not only for some kind of explanation to serve as a cause, but for a particularly selected and preferred kind of explanation--that which has most quickly and most frequently abolished the feeling of the strange, new, and hitherto unexperienced: the most habitual explanations. Consequence: one kind of positing of causes predominates more and more, is concentrated into a system and finally emerges as dominant, that is, as simply precluding other causes and explanations. The banker immediately thinks of "business," the Christian of "sin," and the girl of her love.
...and so Nietzsche's "1st principle" is revealed in a "double proof".
ReplyDelete...and so a torpedo's touch is needed to "separate" one from one's "most favoured cause" and point the will towards something potentially more "empowering" AND "pleasurably rewarding".
ReplyDelete...and this we mistakenly re-label "the truth", and thereby allay our former fears.
ReplyDeleteSymmetry is thereby restored in the brain, dopamine released, and consciousness shifts its' attention back to more pressing matters like, "what's for lunch" and "where are these fertile phermones originating from" as I have seed or eggs that also need "releasing" on a 23/28 day cycle (Freud to Fleiss letter).
Cranky today, fj?
ReplyDeleteBlame Nicrap... HE set me off. ;)
ReplyDeletenicrap...don't set him off. ;-)
ReplyDeleteI was but minding my business ;)
ReplyDeleteDid I ever relate to either of you two the story of a bar fight I once witnessed in Santos, Brazil, between two prostitutes fighting over a customer....
ReplyDeleteThe instant one broke a beer bottle over the cafe table to serve as a weapon for slicing the other, she screamed, "Butterfly!
Ever since then, I've been fascinated with starting fights/arguments. ;)
...but that doesn't mean I wasn't interested. ;)
ReplyDelete...and in case yer wondrin', no, I wasn't the customer in question.
ReplyDeleteTo me, her statement was modern equivalent to that of an ancient Saprtan emissary stating the causus belli to an enemy's army befor signalling his own warriors forward.
ReplyDeleteYou need to find a more productive hobby, in my opinion. :P
ReplyDeleteLOL. Half of your mind indeed lives below the belt... :)
ReplyDeleteLike the Parthenon, there is an upper and lower "level" to my mind, one for "serpents"... another for "angels". ;)
ReplyDelete::and laughs::
ReplyDelete;-)
::rolls eyes::
ReplyDeleteYou can see from the Parthenon picture which half human minds spend most of their time in. ;)
ReplyDeletefrom the Jowett summary of Plato's "Republic"
ReplyDelete'That is a reach of thought more than human; but, pray, go on with the image, for I suspect that there is more behind.' There is, I said; and bearing in mind our two suns or principles, imagine further their corresponding worlds—one of the visible, the other of the intelligible; you may assist your fancy by figuring the distinction under the image of a line divided into two unequal parts, and may again subdivide each part into two lesser segments representative of the stages of knowledge in either sphere. The lower portion of the lower or visible sphere will consist of shadows and reflections, and its upper and smaller portion will contain real objects in the world of nature or of art. The sphere of the intelligible will also have two divisions,—one of mathematics, in which there is no ascent but all is descent; no inquiring into premises, but only drawing of inferences. In this division the mind works with figures and numbers, the images of which are taken not from the shadows, but from the objects, although the truth of them is seen only with the mind's eye; and they are used as hypotheses without being analysed. Whereas in the other division reason uses the hypotheses as stages or steps in the ascent to the idea of good, to which she fastens them, and then again descends, walking firmly in the region of ideas, and of ideas only, in her ascent as well as descent, and finally resting in them. 'I partly understand,' he replied; 'you mean that the ideas of science are superior to the hypothetical, metaphorical conceptions of geometry and the other arts or sciences, whichever is to be the name of them; and the latter conceptions you refuse to make subjects of pure intellect, because they have no first principle, although when resting on a first principle, they pass into the higher sphere.' You understand me very well, I said. And now to those four divisions of knowledge you may assign four corresponding faculties—pure intelligence to the highest sphere; active intelligence to the second; to the third, faith; to the fourth, the perception of shadows—and the clearness of the several faculties will be in the same ratio as the truth of the objects to which they are related...
^^Plato's "Divided Line" epistemology^^
ReplyDelete