Tag: philosophy

NYC woman declined to press charges against subway shover ‘because she didn’t want to put another black man in jail’… weeks later he allegedly killed retired teacher, 76, at station

~ ABN ~ 2 Comments

A young woman in New York City said she declined pressing charges against a violent suspect because she didn’t want to put ‘another black man in jail,’ weeks before he allegedly killed a 76-year-old retired teacher. 

The 23-year-old woman anonymously detailed how she and a friend narrowly escaped Rhamell Burke, 32, after he allegedly attacked them while riding the subway on April 2.

The straphanger told the New York Post she now completely regrets her decision not to work with prosecutors after Burke was charged with murder on Friday for allegedly shoving 76-year-old Ross Falzone down a flight of stairs to his death at a subway station Thursday night.

‘Maybe a part of me was just like, I don’t want to put another black man in jail, but, you know, at some point, if you are a criminal, you’re a criminal, and he was scary, he was a scary guy,’ the unidentified woman told the outlet.

Police say Rhamell Burke was released from Bellevue Hospital roughly five hours before the deadly subway attack on Ross Falzone (Pictured) on Thursday

Falzone suffered catastrophic injuries, including a traumatic brain injury, fractured spine, and broken rib. He died shortly before 3am Friday

link

__________

Unwise compassion — Buddhism warns against this. The highest virtue in Buddhism is wisdom, not unwise anything. ABN

Alan Wallace on consciousness

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

Video prompted to start at 33:03

Dharmadhatu (Buddhist Concept)

Dharmadhatu (Sanskrit: धर्मधातु, “realm of phenomena” or “realm of ultimate reality”) is a central concept in Mahayana Buddhism denoting the ultimate, all-encompassing nature of reality. It represents the infinite, empty, and interdependent expanse in which all phenomena—both samsaric and nirvanic—arise, abide, and dissolve. Often equated with emptiness (śūnyatā), suchness (tathatā), and the Dharmakāya (the body of ultimate truth), the Dharmadhatu is the fundamental ground of existence and consciousness. 

In Tibetan Buddhism, it is associated with the primordial purity of mind and is accessible through the mindstream. When fully realized, it is inseparable from buddha-nature (tathagatagarbha). The Dharmadhatu is also linked to Vairocana, the cosmic Buddha, and is one of the Five Wisdoms—specifically Dharmadhatu wisdom, which perceives the equality and interconnectedness of all things. 

The Huayan school of Chinese Buddhism developed the concept into the “Fourfold Dharmadhatu,” describing increasingly profound levels of reality, culminating in the mutual interpenetration of all phenomena. 

Alan Wallace

B. Alan Wallace (born 1950) is an American Buddhist scholar, author, and meditation teacher renowned for his work in Tibetan Buddhism and the dialogue between contemplative practices and Western science. Ordained as a Tibetan Buddhist monk by the Dalai Lama in 1975, he trained for 14 years in India and Switzerland before earning a B.A. in physics and philosophy of science from Amherst College and a Ph.D. in religious studies from Stanford University. 

Wallace is a prominent advocate for integrating first-person contemplative inquiry into scientific study, critiquing materialist reductionism in science. He founded the Santa Barbara Institute for Consciousness Studies and the Centers for Contemplative Research in Colorado, Italy, and New Zealand. He led the landmark Shamatha Project, a scientific study on the effects of long-term meditation. 

A prolific writer and translator, his works include The Attention Revolution, Dreaming Yourself Awake, and Meditations of a Buddhist Skeptic. He has served as a translator for the Dalai Lama in Mind and Life dialogues with scientists since 1987. 

NASA scientist who ‘died three times’ saw the same thing every time… and it wasn’t the pearly gates of Heaven

~ ABN ~ 2 Comments

A NASA scientist has claimed she did not just die once, but three times, and saw the exact same thing each time.

Ingrid Honkala, 55, an oceanographer who has worked with NASA, said she had near-death experiences at the ages of two, 25 and 52.

While each incident unfolded differently, she said the outcome was identical: she entered a state of complete calm, with no fear, no sense of time, and a feeling of separating from her physical body.

Honkala described becoming ‘pure awareness,’ immersed in what she calls a vast, interconnected consciousness filled with light, clarity and peace.

She claimed this was not a fleeting hallucination, but a consistent experience she returned to every time she came close to death.

The scientist now believes these moments offered a glimpse into what lies beyond human life, challenging the idea that consciousness ends when the body shuts down.

link

__________

The highlighted paragraphs above describe a samadhi state, which the Buddha said is available to virtually all human beings. Samadhi, or the training for it, is the Eighth Path of the Noble Eightfold Path. To use Honkala’s words, the fourth and highest samadhi state in Buddhism is an experience which transforms human consciousness by ‘immersing‘ us in ‘a vast, interconnected consciousness filled with light, clarity and peace.’ ABN

A challenge to the cognitive model of the mind: Paul Cisek questions the dominant scientific paradigm and the current theory of artificial intelligence

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

…human language is a tool for communicating our thoughts, but is separate and distinct from thought itself. Evelina Fedorenko, a neuroscientist at MIT and lead author of the paper laying out the empirical evidence for this claim, was kind enough to let me interview her. Her basic argument is that we know language must be separate from thought because (a) people who lose language ability can still think and reason, and (b) different parts of the brain activate when we engage in different types of thought, and often the “language part” remains idle when we’re thinking. In my view, this evidence deals a serious blow to the hopes of achieving “artificial general intelligence” through the scaling of large-language models since, after all, they are language tools (it’s in the name).

Enter now stage left Dr. Paul Cisek, a neuroscientist at the University of Montreal, to throw some gasoline on that fire. Cisek first came across my radar last year when a pithy observation he made about LLMs started making the rounds on social media. You can read his full comment here, but to summarize:

  • We know that humans in general can falsely impute intelligence and agency to complex events that take place in the world, as we’ve seen humans do this in the past when interacting with a chatbot such as ELIZA, or claiming the gods make volcanoes explode.
  • But although modern-day LLMs are complex, researchers know quite a bit about how they function, through pattern-matching and use of mathematical theories (among other things).
  • Thus, although the public may be inclined to attribute sentience and agency to LLMs, scientists should know better. Cisek: “We are like a bunch of professional magicians, who know where all of the little strings and compartments are, and who know how we just redirected the audience’s attention to slip the card in our pocket…but then we are standing around backstage wondering, ‘Maybe there really is magic?’”

There isn’t any magic. But a big challenge we face is that the companies that produce LLMs are willfully trying to convince us otherwise, and are working to take advantage of the human impulse to ascribe agency to these tools.

Cisek’s main claims as I understand them:

  1. The simple model of the mind as an information processor that takes input and produces output is mistaken.
  2. We should instead see minds as control systems that guide behavior as part of a continuous process, like a circuit.
  3. Over hundreds of millions of years, biological evolution has expanded the range and depth of behaviors that our minds can control.

…

link

__________

I have taken several excerpts from the essay above to provide a sense of the overall discussion. It’s an interesting read, not very long, not hard to follow. Well-worth reading. ABN

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

‘Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.’ ~ Max Planck

Gödel’s logic and Buddhism

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems demonstrate that any sufficiently powerful formal system contains truths that cannot be proven from within the system, implying that complete understanding requires a perspective outside the system.

In philosophical and theological interpretations, this limitation is often mapped to the distinction between immanent knowledge (within the system) and transcendent awareness (outside the system).

1. The Structural Limitation

  • Internal Incompleteness: Gödel proved that a system cannot prove its own consistency or grasp all its own truths; there are always statements that are true but unprovable within the system’s axioms.
  • The “Outside” Perspective: To comprehend the complete picture or verify the system’s consistency, one must step outside the logical framework, accessing a higher order of intelligibility or a “super axiom.”

2. Application to Buddhist Epistemology

  • Samsara vs. Nibbāna: In this analogy, the “system” represents Samsara (the cycle of existence and conventional logic), while the “outside” represents Nibbāna (the unconditioned state).
  • Transcendent Awareness: A being within the system (a sentient being) cannot cognize the ultimate truth of the system from within. Only by transcending the system—achieving Arahanthood or Buddhahood—can one “see things as they are” from the outside.
  • Greater vs. Lesser: Consequently, the “lesser” cognition (bound by internal logical limits and dualistic perception) cannot fully comprehend the “greater” transcendent awareness (which encompasses the total system from a non-dual, external vantage point).

3. Philosophical Implications

  • Limits of Human Reason: This aligns with the view that human reason and formal logic are inherently limited and cannot grasp ultimate reality without intuitive or transcendent insight.
  • God and the Super Axiom: Similarly, in theological interpretations, Gödel’s work suggests the existence of a higher intelligence (God) or “super axiom” that exists outside the created system, sustaining it from a position of complete knowledge that finite beings cannot access internally.

Thus, Gödel’s logic provides a formal mathematical basis for the idea that ultimate truth is inaccessible to the system itself, requiring a transcendent standpoint for full comprehension.

link

__________

I would add that FIML practice allows us to step outside of the psycholinguistic system we use to communicate with our partner, and others. There is some chance FIML partners could become lost in a folie à deux, or shared psychosis, but odds of this are very low, imo, especially if partners frequently refer to philosophies, thoughts, ideas, and evidence outside of their world as a couple. FIML provides a kind of parallax for both partners psycholinguistic systems as well as the two systems working together as one. FIML cannot completely solve the inherent ambiguousness of interpersonal communication but it can improve our understanding (or resolution1) of our communications by at least one order of magnitude, or more. ABN

  1. the process or capability of making distinguishable the individual parts of an object ↩︎

Orthodox Pravda: Christ Is Risen — On the Judaization of Western Christianity and the Orthodox Witness Against It

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

OpenAI Text Summary

The ongoing debate surrounding the relationship between Christianity and Jewish scripture has grown increasingly complex over recent decades, with critics like Laurent Guyénot arguing that Christianity did not merely absorb Jewish texts but was, in its very essence, molded by them. This perspective suggests that the core tenets of Christianity—such as notions of divine election and messianic expectation—reflect a deeper Jewish influence that has shaped Western civilization. Guyénot posits that Christianity became the primary conduit through which Jewish metaphysical concepts were disseminated to Gentile cultures. This appropriation, he argues, led to a civilization that, while claiming to worship a universal God of love, effectively organized itself around Jewish messianic aspirations. Such claims, while provocative, warrant careful scrutiny, particularly in the context of differing interpretations within the Christian tradition itself.

Guyénot’s analysis operates on two levels: one historical and one theological. He outlines a historical trajectory wherein the Latin Church gradually compromised its original theological foundations, becoming increasingly intertwined with the Jewish tradition it initially sought to transcend. However, he also asserts that Christianity inherently bore the Jewish imprint from its inception. Critics argue that this latter claim lacks sufficient evidence, suggesting instead that the issues Guyénot raises are symptomatic of a divergence within Christianity itself, particularly between Western and Orthodox traditions. The Orthodox Church, they argue, has consistently maintained a distinct theological identity that diverges from Western Christianity’s post-Filioque developments, and it has preserved the apostolic inheritance against various historical assaults.

The crux of the disagreement lies in the differing interpretations of salvation and grace between Orthodoxy and Western Christianity. While Orthodoxy emphasizes the transformative aspect of salvation as theosis—union with God through divine grace—Western traditions, particularly post-Filioque, have tended to frame salvation in more legalistic terms, akin to a change in legal status before God. This theological divergence has far-reaching implications, leading to fundamentally different understandings of the relationship between God and humanity. The Orthodox perspective maintains that the ultimate aim of Christian life is the restoration of communion with God, contrasting sharply with Western thought, which has often conceived salvation as a transactional relationship governed by legal categories.

Ultimately, the historical and theological complexities surrounding Christianity’s relationship with Judaism raise important questions about the nature of religious identity and the interpretation of scripture. While Guyénot’s thesis regarding the “Judaization” of Christianity has garnered attention, it is essential to recognize the diversity within Christian thought itself. The Orthodox tradition, with its emphasis on theosis and the uncreated divine life, offers a counter-narrative to the claims of inherent corruption within Christianity. The ongoing dialogue between these perspectives highlights not only the historical intersections between Christianity and Judaism but also the broader implications for understanding the evolution of religious thought in Western civilization. This discourse challenges adherents to critically engage with their theological foundations, ensuring that they are rooted in a coherent understanding of their faith that honors both tradition and scripture.

link

__________

The AI summary above is a feature of the site on which the article is posted, Unz.com. ABN

BUDDHISM: The Three Signs, or Trilakṣaṇa — All things are anitya ‘impermanent’…. All things are duḥkha ‘unsatisfactory, imperfect, unstable’…. All things are anātman ‘without an innate self-identity’

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

Three Signs, or Trilakṣaṇa: All dharmas are anitya ‘impermanent’…. All dharmas are duḥkha ‘unsatisfactory, imperfect, unstable’…. All dharmas are anātman ‘without an innate self-identity. (dharmas means ‘things’)

By basing meditation practice on the Three Signs, we can achieve nirvana.

This is the simplest or shortest way to describe Buddhism. It appears to also be the most ancient way to describe Buddhism. This basic description is historically attested to within approximately 100 years of the Buddha’s passing.

The Noble Eightfold Path is also an excellent way to describe and understand Buddhist practice. It is not historically attested until several centuries after the Buddha’s passing.

Buddhism is a living tradition which develops and responds to new information and societal differences. Something that is true and helpful, like the Noble Eightfold Path, is good Buddhism. Buddhism is not based on sacred texts but on mind-to-mind teaching and insight, both philosophical (the Three Signs) and experiential (samadhi/ nirvana).

The Three Signs include duhkha, which is often misleadingly translated as ‘suffering’, or worse, ‘lifelong suffering’. The much better translation of duhkha is ‘badly standing’ or ‘unstable’. With this in mind, the Four Noble Truths may be considered slightly misleading since the First Noble Truth is often called the Truth of Suffering. The Four Noble Truths are not attested historically until several centuries after the Buddha’s passing.

Nirvana and deep meditative states are something we experience.. There is no substitute for this experience. All of Buddhist practice is aimed at experiencing nirvana. Nirvana can be attained in this life. ABN

A profound connective insight sent by an alert reader

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

An opinionated observation:

Bayesian belief or perspective in some respects possibly co-relates with FIML as both are able to update expectation based on accumulating data insight, particularly as a kind of Thomas Kuhnian or Zen insight.  The more reductive method of scientific expectation cognizes realization, reality, as statistical summaries across repeated events.  These two types correlate, in degrees, to Kantian Noumenon and phenomenon, and to his notion of categorical decisions.

Beginning with Cantor’s Uncountability and Power Set Theorems, then Godel’s two Incompleteness Theorems, and Tarski’s Undefinability of Truth Theorem, it is presently accepted proof in logic-mathematics circles that there is no earth-touching mudra Truth gesture within “Human, All too Human” ratiocination.  Cf Wittgenstein’s “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.” Both Gautama’s mudra and Jesus’ comparable “mudra” of Silence standing in the “What is truth?” Biblical scene witness to a Truth-claim of Mind re which human inquiry thereat Cantor, Godel, Tarski, et al. have satisfactorily shown to be  coincidentally incomplete and therefore indefinite.

__________

I completely agree with paragraph one above. That is precisely what FIML does and it is in line with both ancient and modern philosophy and modern mathematics and science. As for paragraph two, I also agree with it but want to add that Buddhist practice provides a fundamental experience, which is typically lacking in Western philosophy. That experience is the experience of the samadhi states, including nirvana which is the purest of the samadhi states. If we use words to describe nirvana, we might say it is the experience of pure awareness of pure consciousness. It is the knowable and observable ‘going out’ of delusion, leaving the experiencer with nothing but pure awareness. This is an attainable state in this life, achievable through meditation. ABN

solipsistic circus

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

all the world is a solipsistic circus with no way out. all cultures are self-referential solipsisms. all speech is hopelessly entangled in definitions that go nowhere. we ourselves don’t know what we mean. one thing defines another. actions prove words only because nothing else does, and neither does that. this is caused by words making no sense except through their connections to other words ABN

In early Buddhism, Buddhists believed that nirvana is achievable in this life

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

It has been shown conclusively that in the earliest sutras Buddha is shown as having attained nirvana in this lifetime, and did not lose it during the decades before his death. Hundreds of years later, in Normative Buddhism, the early picture of Buddha’s enlightenment as nirvana had become increasingly modified, to the point that many came to consider it impossible to attain nirvana in one lifetime. Nevertheless, this must not mislead us into thinking that such was the view of the Buddha’s followers in his lifetime, or soon after his death. It is logically necessary for the Buddha to have achieved nirvana and for his followers to have believed that they could do the same thing if they imitated him, in order for such later ideas to have developed in reaction to it. If the Buddha had not achieved his remarkable, heroic breakthrough, there would have been no Buddhism.

Beckwith, Christopher I.. Greek Buddha: Pyrrho’s Encounter with Early Buddhism in Central Asia (pp. 42-43). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.

__________

In early Buddhism, it is also true that no one thought of the Buddha as a god. The Buddha himself, even in ‘Normative Buddhist’ texts, claims that he is ‘just a man’ and that anyone can achieve nirvana if they do the work (karma). It would probably be a good thing for Buddhists today to emphasize these points; and by so doing, remind Buddhism of its deepest roots — Nirvana is a real state that anyone can achieve if they do the work; and all dharmas (things) are characterized by the Three Signs, or Trilakṣaṇa: “All dharmas are anitya ‘impermanent’…. All dharmas are duḥkha ‘unsatisfactory, imperfect, unstable’…. All dharmas are anātman ‘without an innate self-identity’.” ABN

Pyrrho’s thought and practice was a form of Early Buddhism which he learned during his years in Bactria and Gandhāra

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

The conclusion to be drawn from the evidence about Pyrrho’s thought and practice is that he adopted a form of Early Buddhism during his years in Bactria and Gandhāra, including its philosophical-religious and pragmatic elements, but he stripped it of its alien garb and reconstituted it as a new ‘Greek Buddhism’ for the Hellenistic world, which he presented in his own words to Timon and his other students.

Beckwith, Christopher I.. Greek Buddha: Pyrrho’s Encounter with Early Buddhism in Central Asia (pp. 54-55). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.

The earliest attested philosophical-religious system that is both historically datable and clearly recognizable as a form of Buddhism is Early Pyrrhonism, the teachings and practices of Pyrrho of Elis and Timon of Phlius, as shown in Chapter One. Its central features correspond exactly to some of the central features of the traditional putatively “early” form of Buddhism presented in Pali canonical texts.

However, the latter tradition of Buddhism also contains many elements—beliefs, institutions, devotional practices, and so on—which developed at the earliest in the Saka-Kushan period, three centuries after Pyrrho. They spread throughout the ancestors of the attested forms of Buddhism, creating Normative Buddhism. The elements that are attested only from approximately the Saka-Kushan period on—the exact time remains to be established—are far from trivial. They include the Saṃgha, the community of monks; the idea of the bhikṣu ‘monk’ per se, as well as of the bhikṣunī ‘nun’; the vihāra or monastery; the Vinaya, or Buddhist monastic code; worship of the Buddha;4 development of the idea of reincarnations of the Buddha, both human and godlike; abhidharma or “Buddhist scholasticism”; and many others. They are now considered to be essential elements of traditional Buddhism, yet there is no historically sound evidence that they existed at all5 (and some evidence that they did not yet exist) until long after the visit of Pyrrho in 330–325 BC and that of Megasthenes in 305–304 BC. The lateness of the development of devotion for the Buddha and Buddha incarnations, as well as reverence for the Buddha’s teachings (the Dharma) and the community of monks (the Saṃgha), means that the invention of the Triratna (‘Three Jewels’) formula is even later (perhaps as a “popular” substitute for the difficult Trilakṣaṇa1 ‘Three Characteristics’ formula, which is phonetically similar.

Beckwith, Christopher I.. Greek Buddha: Pyrrho’s Encounter with Early Buddhism in Central Asia (pp. 61-62). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.

  1. The Buddha says, “All dharmas are anitya ‘impermanent’…. All dharmas are duḥkha ‘unsatisfactory, imperfect, unstable’…. All dharmas are anātman ‘without an innate self-identity’.”
     ↩︎

BUDDHISM: The original meaning of ‘duḥkha’ is most likely ‘badly standing, unsteady’ and not suffering

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

…although the sense of duḥkha in Normative Buddhism is traditionally given as ‘suffering’, that and similar interpretations are highly unlikely for Early Buddhism. Significantly, Monier-Williams himself doubts the usual explanation of duḥkha and presents an alternative one immediately after it, namely: duḥ-stha “‘standing badly,’ unsteady, disquieted (lit. and fig.); uneasy,” and so on. This form is also attested, and makes much better sense as the opposite of the Rig Veda sense of sukha, which Monier-Williams gives in full as “(said to be fr. 5. su + 3. kha, and to mean originally ‘having a good axle-hole’; possibly a Prakrit form of su-stha q.v.; cf. duḥkha) running swiftly or easily (only applied to cars or chariots, superl[ative] sukhátama), easy”. It would seem that there were two forms of each word; Prakrit and Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit chose the -kha forms instead of the -stha forms, which survived nevertheless in a much smaller way. The most important point here is that duḥ + stha literally means ‘dis-/ bad- + stand-’, that is, ‘badly standing, unsteady’ and is therefore virtually identical to the literal meaning of Greek astathmēta, from a- + sta- ‘not- + stand’, both evidently meaning ‘unstable’. This strongly suggests that Pyrrho’s middle term is in origin a simple calque.

Beckwith, Christopher I.. Greek Buddha: Pyrrho’s Encounter with Early Buddhism in Central Asia (p. 30). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.

__________

The First Noble Truth of Buddhism is usually translated as the truth of ‘suffering, unsatisfactoriness, or stress’. Beckwith presents a sound argument that it actually indicates a philosophical argument that untrained views are ‘badly standing, unsteady’ and not to be relied upon. Beckwith’s argument references Pyrrhonism because Pyrrho is known to have studied Buddhism in Bactria where he lived for ten years in Alexander’s court. During that time Pyrrho learned Buddhist philosophy and used it as the basis of Pyrrhonism, the earliest form of Greek skepticism. Beckwith is working with only attested documents. His argument that Pyrrhonism comes directly from Buddhism is very strong. I highly recommend his book Greek Buddha: Pyrrho’s Encounter with Early Buddhism in Central Asia. ABN

The Buddha is the only Indian holy man before early modern times who bears an epithet explicitly identifying him as a non-Indian, a foreigner

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

…it must be noted that the Buddha is the only Indian holy man before early modern times who bears an epithet explicitly identifying him as a non-Indian, a foreigner. It would have been unthinkably odd for an Indian saint to be given a foreign epithet if he was not actually a foreigner.

Moreover, the Scythians-Sakas are well attested in Greek and Persian historical sources before even the traditional “high” date of the Buddha, so the epithet should presumably have been applied to him already in Central Asia proper or its eastern extension into India—eastern Gandhāra.

There are also very strong arguments—including basic “doctrinal” ones—indicating that Buddhism had fundamental foreign connections from the very beginning, as shown below.

It is at any rate certain that Buddha has been identified as Śākamuni ~ Śākyamuni “Sage of the Scythians” in all varieties of Buddhism from the beginning of the recorded Buddhist tradition to the present, and that much of what is thought to be known about him can be identified specifically with things Scythian. Moreover, it must not be overlooked that we have no concrete datable evidence that any other wandering ascetics preceded the Buddha.

The Scythians were nomads (from Greek νομάδες ‘wanderers in search of pasture, pastoralists’) who lived in the wilderness, and it is thus quite likely that Gautama himself introduced wandering asceticism to India, just as the Scythians had earlier invented mounted steppe nomadism.

One way or the other, it would seem that the Buddha’s teachings were unprecedented mainly because they opposed new foreign ideas—the Early Zoroastrian ideas of good and bad karma, rebirth in Heaven (for those who were good), absolute Truth versus the Lie, and so on—which were previously unknown in “India proper”. He did this because he himself was foreign, and people actually understood and accepted that by calling him Śākamuni.

Beckwith, Christopher I.. Greek Buddha: Pyrrho’s Encounter with Early Buddhism in Central Asia (pp. 6-7). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.

Indeterminacy of translation and FIML

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

I betray my poor education by admitting that I had never heard of W. V. Quine’s “indeterminacy of translation” until last week1. My ignorance is especially egregious as I have worked as a professional translator for many years.

Maybe I had heard about it but had forgotten. I am being self-reflective because FIML practice is deeply, fundamentally concerned with the “indeterminacy” of translating one person’s thoughts into another person’s head.

Quine’s thesis is not just about translating from one language to another, though there is that. It is much more about the fundamental impossibility of determining what anything means well enough to “translate” it into another context, a next sentence, into another person’s mind, or even “translating” your own speech from the past into the context of your mind today.

If I had known about Quine, I probably never would have thought of FIML because his ideas and the slews of papers written on “indeterminacy of translation” surely would have made me believe that the subject had been worked through.

As it was, I have plodded along in a delightful state of ignorance and, due to that, maybe added something practical to the subject.

In the first place, I wholeheartedly believe that speech is filled with indeterminacy, which I have generally called ambiguity or uncertainty. In the second place, I have confined my FIML-related investigations mainly to interpersonal speech between partners who care about each other. I see no solution to the more general problem of indeterminacy within groups, subcultures, or linguistic communities. Until brain scans get much better, large groups will be forced to resort to hierarchical “determinacy” to exist or function at all.

For individuals, though, there is much we can do. FIML practice does not remove all “indeterminacy.” Rather, it removes much more than most people are aware is possible, even remotely aware is possible. My guess is FIML communication provides a level of detail and resolution that is an order of magnitude or two better than non-FIML.

That is a huge improvement. It is life-changing on many levels and extremely satisfying.

FIML does not fix everything—and philosophical or “artistic” differences between partners are still possible—but it does fix a great deal. By clearing up interpersonal micro-indeterminacy again and again, FIML practice frees partners from the inevitable macro-problems that micro-ambiguity inevitably causes.

Moreover, this freedom, in turn, frees partners from a great deal of subconscious adhesion to the hierarchical “determinacy” of whichever culture they are part of. Rather than trapping themselves in a state of helpless acceptance of predefined hierarchical “meaning,” FIML partners have the capacity to sort through existential semiotics and make of them what they will with far less “indeterminacy,” or ambiguity, than had been possible without FIML practice.

  1. first posted DECEMBER 7, 2014 ↩︎

UPDATE: Both indeterminacy of translation and FIML fit with Buddhism very well. The core Buddhist concepts of impermanence, emptiness, and no-self (or intrinsic self-nature) are in the same philosophical region as indeterminacy of translation and FIML. Indeterminacy provides a philosophical grounding for the emptiness, impermanence, and no-intrinsic-self nature of anything within the human realm. FIML addresses this overall area of indeterminacy/ emptiness with a technique which greatly improves resolution of what is indeterminable. As empty humans we are agglomerations of indeterminable thought and action, more or less floating in a thick Bayesian mist of probabilities which are likewise indeterminable, impermanent, and empty of intrinsic self-nature. ABN