tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post3314523681828959853..comments2024-03-28T21:32:26.550+00:00Comments on Bruce Charlton's Notions: The System and piecemeal reform - the unholy alliance of the sexual revolution and bureaucracyBruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-75998212408638263832018-12-03T06:17:06.412+00:002018-12-03T06:17:06.412+00:00Ah, but what is "better"?
If we were ab...Ah, but what is "better"?<br /><br />If we were able to see the whole path at once, as God does, then we would be in Eternity, and our consciousness would transcend Time, <i>not</i> being contained by it. But as long as our consciousness is contained within Time, how can we really <i>compare</i> present satisfactions of our current desires against our mere memory of past satisfactions or our likewise imperfect premonition of future ones?<br /><br />Must we break free of Time? Oh, God commands it, of course. That is what <i>He</i> considers good. But if you prefer to remain confined to the present moment, and avoid serious thinking about the past or future, why then isn't that what <i>you</i> desire?<br /><br />Sure, that may turn out 'badly' in the future, but why think about that if you don't <i>want</i> to think about it?Chiu ChunLinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03519192610708043962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-10695855588165114672018-12-01T16:59:37.593+00:002018-12-01T16:59:37.593+00:00@CCL - "The problem is that you are going to ...@CCL - "The problem is that you are going to adopt a series of increments one way or another. They are called "paths", a coherent series of increments which lead in some direction." <br /><br />Yes, because everything happens in Time. Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-65589696294049429362018-12-01T16:55:20.015+00:002018-12-01T16:55:20.015+00:00@CCL - Another way of putting it is that increment...@CCL - Another way of putting it is that increments are not truly incremental; they don't build towards better. Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-72015637040561380852018-12-01T16:53:41.279+00:002018-12-01T16:53:41.279+00:00@Luther - My understanding is that new species, ge...@Luther - My understanding is that new species, genus and low level divisions can come into existence gradually by natural selection - but the major divisions of living things originate from separate forms:<br /><br />https://thewinnower.com/papers/3497-a-teleological-metaphysics-for-biology-hierarchical-purposive-conscious-governing-entities-direct-evolutionary-processesBruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-50422056034271823622018-12-01T16:34:13.069+00:002018-12-01T16:34:13.069+00:00The point is not that increments are bad in and of...The point is not that increments are bad in and of themselves, but they are dishonest (and thus bad) if they do not advertise themselves as increments. When you are sold a series of increments one at a time, as if they are not all part of a ongoing scheme, then you are losing your freedom because you have lost your ability to make an informed decision about whether to participate in the overall scheme or not.<br /><br />Salvation, like damnation, is an endless series of increments. But those offering salvation are quite clear that each increment is part of an endless series and if you aren't interested in the series as a whole you have no real reason to accept any of the increments.<br /><br />The problem is that you <i>are</i> going to adopt a series of increments one way or another. They are called "paths", a coherent series of increments which lead in some direction. Some paths do have clear starting points and end points...but nobody gets to the end of a path and just stays there. If you were such a homebody, you wouldn't have embarked on a path in the first place, you embarked on one, you'll embark on another eventually.<br /><br />Every finite path is just a larger increment composed of smaller increments. They are all part of one infinite path...or some other infinite path.<br /><br />Of course, rest stops are also a part of every infinite path. They are built into nearly every increment, if you analyze things carefully. Sleeping is part of life, it is different from death because you only sleep a short time and then you get back up again.<br /><br />Mortal 'death' is a sleep as well, as was birth. You get up again. The real death is when you don't get up again and never will.<br /><br />It takes a while to get there. But those who have chosen that path don't find it easy to leave, the way back to life is filled with pain, every other path (and they are quite diverse in particular series of increments, though not outcome) is ultimately leading to death.Chiu ChunLinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03519192610708043962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-92020693932174996802018-12-01T14:51:52.528+00:002018-12-01T14:51:52.528+00:00Oh ok, thanks. I had the idea of 'irreducible ...Oh ok, thanks. I had the idea of 'irreducible complexity' in mind with regards to new species coming into existence abruptly rather than gradually. I searched your blog but couldn't find any references to it.Luther Burgsvikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09006577997909446494noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-30602394864704796032018-12-01T14:33:36.330+00:002018-12-01T14:33:36.330+00:00@Luther I don't think this is correct: "d...@Luther I don't think this is correct: "drastic change is (usually) positive". <br /><br />The way I would phrase it is that the only positive change is drastic. <br /><br />Also, I don't think that 'new species evolving' only happens in drastic steps - nearly always it is by incremental steps, because drastic change is usually lethal. <br /><br />Not sure about phase changes either - usually 'drastic', but I think there can be gradual change too...<br /><br />Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-47398874704069427832018-12-01T14:22:10.032+00:002018-12-01T14:22:10.032+00:00"piecemeal change can only be destructive&quo..."piecemeal change can only be destructive"<br /><br />If incremental change is (usually) negative and drastic change is (usually) positive, do you think this is why new forms of matter (e.g. solid changing to a liquid) and life (e.g. new species evolving) only happens in drastic steps instead of incremental ones?<br />Luther Burgsvikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09006577997909446494noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-41393898635358564822018-12-01T04:04:25.247+00:002018-12-01T04:04:25.247+00:00@William - Ha! It is a question that is actively e...@William - Ha! It is a question that is actively evaded whether change 'within the system' ever can amount to overall improvement of the system. My adult experience of several decades is that it can't - or, at least, doesn't. Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-82365075527738449842018-12-01T02:47:28.652+00:002018-12-01T02:47:28.652+00:00As the synchronicity fairies would have it, a few ...As the synchronicity fairies would have it, a few hours before reading this post I had been answering a student's question about the difference in meaning between the English words "reform" and "revolution," and the core of my answer was that reform meant making changes "within the system."Wm Jas Tychonievichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07446790072877463982noreply@blogger.com