What, Why & How do we Know ?
I’ve cited (for example only) C J Werleman and Anne-Marie Waters as activist-commentators who undoubtedly “get it” and are undoubdtedly committed to making change for the better for all of us, however flawed their individual approaches. Helping to escape the mess we’re sliding into. And I say that even though both engage in the kind of … Continue reading “Israel & the Middle-East Problem”
One way or another “scientism” is at the core of many of my conversations in recent years, and in fact several in recent days too. In the last decade and a half I’ve also become quite a fan of Wittgenstein; initially suggested by Sam Norton a theologian-philosopher on a discussion-board we both frequented in the early … Continue reading “Joining up some Dots of the Day on “Scientism””
I’ve been using fetishisation and addiction as characterisation of the roots of PC attachment to accepted modes of thinking. (Frankie Boyle calls it “Weary Rationale”.) Competition is one of those accepted (PC) modes. Critical thinking seen as the ability to undermine interlocutors as if they were opponents. After all, the ultimate test of science is … Continue reading “Competition – Another Addictive PC Fetish of Weary Rationale.”
A theme of mine when people are banging on about humour as a “weapon” is that is does matter how it’s used. There’s no simple right to offend, sarcasm can be cheap, and the context matters. In days of old, the court had a jester so everyone knew it was the “fool” who spoke the … Continue reading “Boris – Court Jester or Politician. He can’t have his cake and eat it.”
Frankie Boyle sums it up nicely most recently here, most magnificently here: “it’s difficult to explain why an ingrained assumption is wrong in a soundbite” Contrasted with Margaret Beckett patiently explaining the labour party review of its post-Ed-defeat policy problems on BBC R4 Today – resisting the demand for a single “thing” to “blame”. The point … Continue reading “Memetics – the real bogeyman?”
Amidst the flurry of social media debate around the Charlie Hebdo massacre, I created this set of three more carefully considered posts: #1 There Is No “Right To Offend” http://dlvr.it/835pwf Freedoms of expression are protected in law, but the nature of expressed content is not objectively defined as “rights” in law. #2 The Court Jester http://dlvr.it/84rSXv Defence … Continue reading “Pulling Charlie Together”
This is the second of a three related posts. The first was #1 There is No Right to Offend. No-one has the right not to be offended, but any restraint on the freedom to offend is a matter of cultural tolerance and moral motivation, and categorically not any objectively-defined “right” with statutory limitation to giving offense. There … Continue reading “The Court Jester”
Interestingly, one of the BHA’s “Thought for the Commute” posters is Peter Tatchell saying: “The Beatles were right, All you need is love.” I couldn’t agree more. One of my long-running threads here on Psybertron goes by the tag #whatsofunnybout (peace, love and understanding). It’s at root behind my three rules of dialogue – (Respect, … Continue reading ““All You Need Is Love” – a profoundly religious statement of faith in humanity @bhahumanists”
Hat tip to David Gurteen for the link. [Post Note Update April 2015 see Charlie Hebdo, see Hebdo Twist, see Freedom Regained.] Been thinking about people like Ricky Gervais and Frankie Boyle, and “rights” concerning insult and offence generally. If you are the court jester and your audience recognizes you as such, then being offensive … Continue reading “Well Said”