.

Dear David G

.

"What has Eisenstein's book brought to the table?"

Though I know it's a bit naughty, I can't resist giving you an honest reply from the bottom of my heart ...

It brings me joy to think that the primary school education I received in the Queensland bush shapes up quite nicely compared to the Yale graduate education of Eisenstein and his subsequent Chinese education in Taiwan.

Another thought which runs through my mind is that if it was I who had written that book instead of Eisenstein, there is no way anyone would ever accept to publish it.

Rightly or wrongly, I conclude that the true value of being a Yale graduate is that it provides access to the exclusive elite of a privileged class.

To think that I have been living under an illusion all these years ...

I have, at last, understood the payback of voluntary academic brainwashing.

Thank you, Mr Eisenstein, you have opened my eyes.

I hope it's not too late at my ripe old age to carry on to high school or whatever they call it these days.

.

All too true, Banjo. There is an academic class along with the monied classes, the political classes, the royal classes, etc,. Each class jealously preserves its own territory and, in most cases, has its own language and social norms.

Back to school for you, my fine fellow, and show them your academic potential.

Alternately, put together an account of your life history in your own words and don't try to emulate the academic jargon which permeates many of the comments on this thread.

People respond to simple honesty and what is even more important, they actually understand it. Some of the offerings on this thread are virtually unintelligible although don't tell anyone I said so.

Poor Eisenstein got buried on this thread, one way or another.

He deserved far better!

David G,
I'm sorry if some of the above is "virtually unintelligible" (which bits precisely?). I for one am always at pains to avoid jargon and write as lucidly as possible. Unfortunately not everything can be reduced to common idioms and understanding means an effort to transcend them has to be made.
As Banjo Paterson knows, I left school at fourteen as well, only coming to academia late after decades as a blue-collar worker. Like Banjo I'm self-educated. I'm not of the "academic class" (a nonsense anyway) and certainly not of the "monied classes"!
I hope to publish my research one day, which is very much to the purpose, and and even on OLO, in my small way I like to think I am making a real contribution towards the dispiriting process of changing consciousness sufficiently to break hegemony. I am not paid by the way to spend hours earnestly addressing threads like this one, only to be insulted and dismissed by scathing, albeit silly, rebukes such as yours.
What are you doing, btw, apart from discrediting the serious intent of Eisensteinian critique, by association, with your impassioned denunciations, which you don't even bother to elaborate for thoughtful consideration--the thrust of which, indeed, I've generously attempted to lend some respectability on your behalf. No need to thank me!
I know you'll respond positively to my "simple honesty".

Many thanks to all for a frank and interesting, if indeterminate, conversation.
I'm obliged to abstain again for the nonse though.
Ta ta for now.

.

Dear Squeers,

.

"I appear to have given offence ... I'm sorry."
You alone know if it was given. I alone know if it was received.
Not knowing what it was you gave, if, indeed, you did give something, I have no way of knowing if I received it or not.

.
" It's perfectly reasonable to continue to doubt; indeed it's unreasonable not to "
Then I am sure you will agree when I say I have my doubts on that.

.
" Have you studied phenomenology ... ?"
No. However, I am familiar with the concept, having taught and practised risk management for many years.

.
" Holding a position firmly 'until a better explanation becomes available' sounds reasonable but tends to ossify ..."
I prefer "ossification" to "liquefication" but hope to avoid both.

.
" I reject all forms of categorisation" ... these are hypothetically-imposed "method", to give a distinguishable semblance of order to intellectual chaos and prevent a fall into dilettantism."
It also gives some people a sense of identity and security, the feeling that they belong to a group. I have never felt those needs. On the contrary, I have always needed to feel free and autonomous.

.
" How do you define "freedom"?
Allow me simply to say that I consider that I dispose of free will and am responsible for my acts.

.
" What is the "I" that's prepared to share?"
I do not know what the "I" is but I know who it is. It's me, Banjo Paterson.

.
"... do you really think you can see sufficiently clearly on the specific issue of consciousness ...?"
Yes. But please let me know if you think I am mistaken..

.
"... a unity of consciousness materialism can't account for!"
Why do you consider that materialism can't account for "a unity of consciousness" whatever that is?

.
" Opinion is always arbitrary and ignorance should be cherished."
That sounds vaguely familiar. Perhaps an allusion to Plato's apology of Socrates. Outside that context, however, I could not disagree more.

.

.

Dear Squeers,

.

Biological computer science seems to be making some timid progress on creating artificial "mind":

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/358822.stm

http://www.technioniit.com/2012/02/biological-computer-1-billion-programs.html

.

Banjo Paterson:

<"... do you really think you can see sufficiently clearly on the specific issue of consciousness ...?"
Yes. But please let me know if you think I am mistaken..>

You are mistaken.

<Why do you consider that materialism can't account for "a unity of consciousness" whatever that is?>

This is not my "opinion". Both unity of consciousness and materialism's failure to account for it are rigorously argued in the analytic literature, i.e. using formal rather than rhetorical argument.

Why do you consider you are in a position to know when you know nothing of the arguments?

Opinion, btw, "is" always arbitrary (think about it) and ignorance should be cherished because it's what drives us on. You are "free" to differ of course. (I'm not indebted to Plato's Socrates btw; who, however, was deemed wisest because he alone knew he knew nothing. I imagine you see this as "liquefication" rather than open-mindedness).

Thanks for the pop articles on the "birth" of biological computers. It seems scientists have also found DNA might be the best way to store vast amounts of digital data. Scientific innovations are generally made by imitating nature. The consensus though is that science is a long way from imitating "mind".
I don't think they're against the idea, or clinging to notions of the soul, any more than I am; they just appreciate the difficulties, whereas articles like the ones you cite rely on the ignorance (common sense) of their readers.