Everything IS connected (including the nasty comments that show up here)
Dominick's opinion (above) is so wrong, that I hesitate to dignify it with further commentary but here goes...
Polymathic James Burke made a name for himself with his writings and especially his vibrant TV series Connections, which was a vibrant account of how things are connected. (Some reading this saw the show or parts of it I suspect:)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connections_(TV_series)
James Burke is no intellectual slouch:
But here are a few other thoughts about how Everything is
Connected:
How Dominick, a smart guy, could allow himself to denude the
idea that things (everything, I contend) are connected, baffles me.
I would hope that visitors/readers here, who are brave
enough to comment, provide support for their views, and not just blurt out
stupidities.
One esteemed offerer here is unhappy with the bile and
vindictiveness that has ensued between my (obnoxious?) pal Zoam Chomsky and
others whom he irritates with his categorical denunciation of the UFO reality.
I’d like to curb some of the incendiary back-and-forths,
while enjoying them considerably. After all, it’s good fun, yes?
No one is really angry with Zoam and his nutty position. I
love the guy and think his offputting views are not without some merits. He’s
a brilliant academic as some of you know.
His critics are beloved by me also: Daniel And Dr Dee, both
providing grist here, Daniel, a soft-spoken critic of off-thinking and Dee a
hard-boiled intellectual whose thinking and commentaries brighten my mind and
days at the computer.
Anyway, Everything is connected, Dominick’s view
notwithstanding. He has to come around, because he’s highly intelligent and
holding a view that things (everything!) are not connected is too
intellectually plebian that it doesn’t deserve the airing I’m giving it.
RR
posted by RRRGroup at
Saturday, August 24, 2019
25 Comments:
Confirmation and question:
That "everything is connected" is posited philosophically by Spinoza (with fateful consequences for subsequent European thought...), and is commonplace in "magical" views of the cosmos, e.g., the Hermetic philosophy (I'm pretty sure), as well as the poetry of the anglophone Metaphysical School (John Donne, et al.). Other examples are extant, I'm sure (Luhmann's systems theory? Ecology?...).
That being said, what exactly counts as a "thing"? Is a river a thing? Water? A causal relationship? Etc.
Regardless of how we answer that last question, IF we can answer that question in a sensible way, maybe the thesis is ultimately more of a Regulative Idea, one that can't be proven, but that is no less necessary for thinking about things (!) in a certain way....
By
Bryan Sentes, at Saturday, August 24, 2019
Doesn't Kant define a "thing"?
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Saturday, August 24, 2019
Kant never did define "thing", but Heidegger (in)famously lectured on the question in the Winter semester of 1935-6: translated by Reid and Crowe as _The Question Concerning the Thing: On Kant's Doctrine of the Transcendental Principles_.
https://www.rowmaninternational.com/book/the_question_concerning_the_thing/3-156-ff1db30f-969d-46af-bef7-909f9b3a6fc1
There's an earlier version of the same lecture course, translated by Barton and Deutsch, published as _What is a Thing?_ (Gateway, 1967). I can still hear the saleswoman in the used bookstore when I bought my copy: "Do people still ask such questions?!".
By
Bryan Sentes, at Saturday, August 24, 2019
Burke is absolutely correct in his theory about the "connections" involved in the development of innovations. As a professional economist, I recognize and accept as legitimate the notion that individuals pursuing their own self interest can end up creating an outcome or matrix that is complex beyond what any one mind could have imagined or predicted. Individual self interest leading to a spontaneous order or development is absolutely basic to classical economic thinking; indeed, some see it as the core organizing principle.
BUT, none of that means that "everything is connected" in any meaningful way or that, as Tam Hunt and Schooler argue in the articles you reference, that "all things are conscious to a degree" and that this theory establishes the wider theory that everything is connected. No way. First, I don't accept that all things are conscious to a degree and the "grain of sand" example that they use is, I hold, an example of philosophical sophistry. "Conscious", for me, implies some degree of self-awareness and the grain of sand just does not pass the smell test regardless of all of the prattle about "vibrations". If I'm correct and they are not, then, two, the entire argument for any wide ranging meaningful inter-connectedness collapses; i.e., I am simply not meaningfully connected to that grain of sand on some beach off of the coast of Africa. It cannot influence my thoughts or my behavior in any meaningful way and can be safely ignored.
Finally, what people may feel about some UFO encounter (or about some movie that they have just seen or about sex or anything else)has nothing to do with the unique radar signature in the recent Navy pilot disclosures or the impressions left in the ground in several classic ufo cases. The Florida scoutmaster (1951) might have been a nut (and nuttier after his encounter) but the charred grass roots below where the UFO hovered were a real physical event and have never been satisfactorily explained. And the fact that Zoam is "connected" to that poor sap (how can this be denied since everything is connected after all ) has nothing to do with reality!
By
Dominick, at Saturday, August 24, 2019
Ah, Dominick...
You have no idea how much I luv ya!
We are in agreement about Sonny Desvergers, as you know.
Zoam may not be connected to him in any noticeable way but there is a connection.
Can you guess what it is?
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Saturday, August 24, 2019
Let me guess - is it that Sonny's encounter happened in the early 1950s and that's where Zoam's grasp of what constitutes 'scientific fact' begins and ends? :)
By
DrDee, at Saturday, August 24, 2019
@Dominick - If we could 'see' our reality at the atomic or sub-atomic level, all we would arguably perceive is a seething mass of innumerable, minuscule particles with no discernable 'objects' or 'space' between them - much like pressing your nose to an old-fashioned newsprint picture made from thousands of black & white dots.
Only once the image is removed to a sensible distance is your gaze able to discern 'objects' in this previously indistinguishable mass.
If you 'go down' far enough - anything and everything is composed of these 'quantum particles' of varying character and complexity, thus our macro-world of 'space' and apparently separate, discrete 'objects' is no more than a convincing (though very much necessary) illusion.
By
DrDee, at Saturday, August 24, 2019
@Dominick, I agree with you.
By
Phil, at Monday, August 26, 2019
"that's where Zoam's grasp of what constitutes 'scientific fact' begins and ends"
Says the moron who first comes to us with the Vallee's harebrained interdimensional hypothesis, no seriously and laughably, and now is on to quantum quackery from the 1980s.
As if that has something to do with "UFOs." It Doesn't!
And where did you get your PhD, "Dr Dee?" What a FN joke!
"Dee" you're not fooling anyone. I said from the start, are you a retarded adult or just a twelve-year-old?
I haven't heard a thing from you that's not ridiculous nonsense and most of it has nothing to do with why people make "UFO" reports.
Try to address the subject instead of persons and then maybe someone will pay attention to your dumbass. But I doubt it!
And it's as if you think constant gratuitous insulting is going to make "UFOs" more real somehow. Can anyone really be so stupid?
People fail to identify things they see in the sky, but that doesn't create some category of new "things," much less some extraordinary thing. Dumbo!
Funny video though. Thanks! We live in the Matrix, huh? I doubt it!
And Dom, still dwelling one some "UFO" story about supposedly charred roots of grass or something in Florida.
Apparently Dom has never heard of the game "Florida or Not Florida." Dom, if it's really stupid it most probably came from Florida.
Is that your best evidence?
As the great one said, there are lots of stories but never the things themselves.
Interesting stories, purely human stories, but really crummy evidence of anything other than naive wishfulness.
And all of this is about what?
Nothing but false beliefs about the world.
"Save Us! Jesus! Save Us!"
By
zoamchomsky, at Monday, August 26, 2019
How much coffee have you sipped this morning Zoamer?
Take it easy...it's a new week, and I'm hoping for a respite in the nasty zeal.
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Monday, August 26, 2019
Can I get an amen from the congregation on that post Zoam! As far as the remarks about Dom and Dr Dee not withstanding, I agree with the rest of it...
By
Phil, at Monday, August 26, 2019
Thanks, Phil!
Maybe not my best since I've been up half the night but still it manages to encapsulate the distinctly Zoam style of Internet "UFO" discussion skepticism that I've practiced since the early 1990s.
With help from other great skeptics, friends dead and living whose names I'm sure you know, I've made it an art in its own right, as attested by the love shown to me by "UFO" people across the spectrum.
Can I get a Witness!
May I give real big shout outs to Claude and Curt, Printy and Roberto, JimO and Hebert, Gilles and Lance, Paul and Kevin, I love you all so much. I could go on and on....
For Bryan; My new best friend:
Say in a paragraph what others say it books, say what others do not say in books.
Name the philosopher.
Love you so much!
By
zoamchomsky, at Monday, August 26, 2019
Wait a minute...I don't see my name in your comment and I give you more leeway than anyone.
Luv ya, nonetheless.
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Monday, August 26, 2019
Well, after all we´re just cosmic recycled material, same atoms used over and over again. So we´re certainly all connected, one way or another.
By
Jerry Cornelius, at Monday, August 26, 2019
-> certainly all connected, one way or another.<-
Interesting, Jerry. In a sense, everything & all life forms on earth, come from the stars, in the beginning..in that sense.........
By
Daniel, at Monday, August 26, 2019
Rich; We were just speaking minutes before, and I told you that I luv ya!
So don't think you're forgotten in the least.
By
zoamchomsky, at Tuesday, August 27, 2019
I was just feeling a little insecure. Zoamer.
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Tuesday, August 27, 2019
@Zoam - Do fuck off Zoam back to your 'cast iron' echo-chamber (and take your gigantic ego with you) you ludicrous numpty. Not even worth dignifying with a response.
While you're fucking off - do take this back with you to peruse (you won't of course since YOU already KNOW it's ALL BULLSHIT!!!) - Astrophysicist, cosmologist and Nobel Prize winner George Smoot's 'You are a Simulation & Physics Can Prove It'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Chfoo9NBEow
where the two theses are:
1.'Reality' is so weird certain phenomena will always be beyond our comprehension (as Stephen Hawking suggested)
2. Its multiplicity of weird & inexplicable inconsistencies coupled with quantum 'fuzziness' means we are in a Simulation.
By
DrDee, at Thursday, August 29, 2019
I love how he always puts "DrDee" in pejorative quotes - like he's called 'ZoamChomsky' and looks like Patrick McGoohan hahahahahaha :D
What a numpty.
By
DrDee, at Thursday, August 29, 2019
wow, I love this!!! I never realized that when we dabble with conjecture we can tell everyone to "fuck off" when there is a disagreement.
Hey Rich, does "fuck off" get you closer to understanding the reality of UFOs...I thought not.
By
Tim Hebert, at Thursday, August 29, 2019
@Tim Hebert - well it's Rich's blog, and it is indeed, as you point out, entitled 'UFO CONJECTURES' where presumably posts/comments on UFO-related theories & concepts are encouraged and debated.
How does repeatedly & invariably insisting that literally EVERYTHING relating to the subject is 'ALL BULLSHIT' while steadfastly refusing to engage with any viewpoint or theory that opposes that stance, (other than condemning it all as 'Bullshit' and denigrating/insulting anyone who proposes or agrees with such theories as 'idiots' and 'crackpots', irrespective of their professional experience and/or academic credentials) contribute anything worthwhile to a blog named UFO Conjectures?
We know Zoam's one and only viewpoint and he admitted he refuses to even look at most of the material cited, never mind 'engaging' with it (cos, of course, he already KNOWS it's all BULLSHIT) so what really is the point of coming on here other than to shore up his own fragile ego in some desperate need to prove himself 'Right' all the time and seemingly attempting to close down all discussion/debate/conjecture relating to the topic?
Why would any individual who regards the very subject of a blog itself as 'ALL BULLSHIT' have a continual need to post comments asserting this? It's 'troll' behaviour par-excellence and essentially no different to persistently visiting a Justin Bieber fansite just to repeatedly say 'He's Shit!' and 'You're a bunch of idiots' for showing any interest in him. *Sad*
He literally has nothing to contribute to the subject (cos it's ALL BULLSHIT) nor any desire to get to 'a closer understanding of the reality of UFOs' as you put it (since he already KNOWS it's ALL BULLSHIT) so what else do you do with someone whose sole aim appears to be to shutdown and silence the very reason a blog exists - other than tell them to fuck off?
By
DrDee, at Friday, August 30, 2019
He has a lot to contribute it's just that many believer's do not want to hear it...The UFO community has brought this roof down on itself...Maybe this post will get posted unlike the last one.
By
Phil, at Saturday, August 31, 2019
What precisely is 'this roof' the 'UFO community' has supposedly 'brought down upon itself'?
And to whom are you referring when you say 'UFO community'?
Hopefully not the ETH & 'Ancient Aliens' numpties? (with whom neither I, Rich nor many others on here agree despite Zoam's repeated attempts to lump us all in together!)
What is it exactly that Zoam 'contributes' exactly? All he ever does is denigrate & condemn everything and anyone opposed to his rigid belief system, which is all it is at the end of the day.
He 'believes' it's 'all bullshit'.
Personally, I choose to believe credible, verified and corroborated sources endorsed by respected 'defence-tech' & serious political journalists alike as well as former high-ranking Defence Intelligence staff.
All our supposed 'knowledge' rests on the belief in the veracity of the information & the credibility of the source(s).
If NASA say we went to the Moon - I choose to believe them. They're the experts & I've no reason to doubt them but equally, I don't have the means or resources to actually verify this for myself at first-hand.
Similarly, when Navy officers and pilots, Pentagon officials & former Defence Secretaries confirm that unknown objects have been tracked and filmed off both US coasts - I choose to believe them. Again they're the experts, and I've no reason to doubt them (and neither do respected news and 'defence-tech' publications & outlets)
What would be the motive for 'inventing' such reports as well as presumably 'fabricating' the evidence and briefing multiple 'fake' witnesses on what to say?
It's neither rational nor logical to assume or assert this without 'extraordinary evidence' to back up such a bonkers 'conspiracy theory'.
Neither is it rational or logical to assert that multiple radars, weapons systems & cameras simultaneously malfunctioned to produce the same 'glitches' - a claim that the USS Princeton Senior Radar operator refuted since the radar systems were all deliberately re-booted in order to eliminate this possibility - the objects all reappeared in new locations on reboot.
He persistently parrots the same Sagan quote 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof' which former US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, Christopher Mellon (previously Staff Director of the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence) repeats, adding:
'Sagan was absolutely right - but now we have the proof'.
But Zoam refuses to accept/engage with (or by his own admission, even bother looking at) ANY of this proof since he KNOWS (via his own omniscience presumably) that it's ALL BULLSHIT.
Mellon held the third-highest ranking intelligence post at the Pentagon. I think by anyone's standards (except Zoam's of course) this is a man of senior (some would say 'elite') rank and a credible, expert source (& experienced judge of) the veracity of received Defence Intelligence data. These are indisputable FACTS and the majority of sane, rational individuals would accept these as such.
By
DrDee, at Saturday, August 31, 2019
When elite Navy pilots and senior radar operatives (as well as numerous other military witnesses) inform him (as well as filing official reports and going on public record) that unknown objects repeatedly encroached upon restricted airspace, were tracked by radar (for several days), locked onto as 'uncorrelated' & possibly hostile/enemy targets by air-to-air missile systems as well as being filmed by infra-red and visual camera systems, before F-18s were stood down from ongoing exercises to deal with these 'real world issues' - Mellon (quite rightly) regards such information (from credible military sources) to have potentially serious defence implications.
On what evidence or authority can Zoam then assert it's all 'bullshit'? Multiple systems all (coincidentally) suffering supposed similar 'technical glitches' simultaneously and the notion that all military personnel involved (many of whom are still on active service and are potentially jeopardising their careers by making such statements) are liars and/or deluded is an 'extraordinary claim' for which there is no evidence.
By repeatedly asserting this line, while absolutely & steadfastly refusing to engage with or accept ANY evidence or testimony of any description, despite coming from verified, credible and corroborated sources, and ignoring its endorsement by senior Pentagon Intelligence officers, respected 'Defence-Tech' journalists as well as senior political correspondents for 'Politico', The Washington Post, NY Times etc, etc. - then condemning (again with no evidence or authority to do so) current, accepted theories by renowned physicists, including a Nobel Prize-winning astrophysicist, as 'crackpot' and 'hare-brained' - he's the embodiment of the irrational, illogical and 'unscientific' notions he supposedly rails against.
He claims to be on the side of 'scientific rationalism' but merely cherrypicks those (often decades old) statements that mirror his own views whilst condemning outright more recent, acknowledged quantum & information theories as 'hokum'.
If repeating 'IT'S ALL BULLSHIT' is Zoam's 'contribution' then yes, I admit - I don't want to hear it - since it's about as 'useful' and welcome as a turd in a swimming pool.
By
DrDee, at Saturday, August 31, 2019
>> I never realized that when we dabble with conjecture we can tell everyone to "fuck off" when there is a disagreement.<<
And as if all his stupid hysterical straw-man ranting is effective in some way. It Isn't. It changes absolutely nothing.
Notice he's still repeating the long-debunked TTSA "UFO" TV-show versions of the 2004 Nimitz nonsense as if it were something other than the same old "UFO" myth silliness. The US NAVY has said it was all nothing: There were no real "UFOs" of any kind, only a cruise missile test, radar glitches on an unfamiliar system, sundogs, misidentifications and the same old "UFO" rumor and hysteria.
By
zoamchomsky, at Wednesday, September 04, 2019
Post a Comment
<< Home