RE: Community help for Non-Cognitive?
October 23, 2012 at 12:40 pm
(This post was last modified: October 23, 2012 at 12:47 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
There's a fairly hefty current of non-cog in the way I approach the subject. Some things are very easy to approach from that position, others are not.
Consider the statement;
-You have a soul-
From the cognitive approach (essentially granting them a laundry list of strange shit for the sake of discussion) I might say;
"Where? Why can't we find this thing? If you can't even demonstrate that you personally have such a thing how could you possibly begin to tell me that I do?"
From a different perspective I might ask;
"WTF does that mean? Without being able to even conceptualize what this "soul" is (and with no way to even approach verification-let alone refutation) how can we possibly proceed with this discussion? I suspect that by "soul" you mean something else entirely."
That's probably why I consider the whole "soul" business DOA. Any explanation or statement as to what we are discussing invariably leads to a long list of words that are synonymous with "soul" and yet offer no elaboration or description of the term (leading me to wonder if it has ever actually meant anything specific to begin with). I very quickly become frustrated with empty platitudes offered up as explanations or claims - I can see no way to proceed from the point that they are invoked. The community here hasn't struck me as a bad fit as I straddle this particular line.
Now, on the other hand. Consider the statement;
"An immensely powerful anthropomorphic entity created all that we see around us 6,00 years ago by way of magical incantations"
This statement would be very difficult for me to approach from the non-cog position. This is very clearly an attempt at something cognitive. I might mention that the underlying concept of god and magic appear to be meaningless, incomprehensible, but the event being proposed is of a cognitive nature. I can consider this proposition, I can assign metrics, I can conceptualize the event even if I cannot conceptualize the forces behind it. This statement "means" something....even if that something is inaccurate (and even if it assumes things which I suspect have no real meaning).
Consider the statement;
-You have a soul-
From the cognitive approach (essentially granting them a laundry list of strange shit for the sake of discussion) I might say;
"Where? Why can't we find this thing? If you can't even demonstrate that you personally have such a thing how could you possibly begin to tell me that I do?"
From a different perspective I might ask;
"WTF does that mean? Without being able to even conceptualize what this "soul" is (and with no way to even approach verification-let alone refutation) how can we possibly proceed with this discussion? I suspect that by "soul" you mean something else entirely."
That's probably why I consider the whole "soul" business DOA. Any explanation or statement as to what we are discussing invariably leads to a long list of words that are synonymous with "soul" and yet offer no elaboration or description of the term (leading me to wonder if it has ever actually meant anything specific to begin with). I very quickly become frustrated with empty platitudes offered up as explanations or claims - I can see no way to proceed from the point that they are invoked. The community here hasn't struck me as a bad fit as I straddle this particular line.
Now, on the other hand. Consider the statement;
"An immensely powerful anthropomorphic entity created all that we see around us 6,00 years ago by way of magical incantations"
This statement would be very difficult for me to approach from the non-cog position. This is very clearly an attempt at something cognitive. I might mention that the underlying concept of god and magic appear to be meaningless, incomprehensible, but the event being proposed is of a cognitive nature. I can consider this proposition, I can assign metrics, I can conceptualize the event even if I cannot conceptualize the forces behind it. This statement "means" something....even if that something is inaccurate (and even if it assumes things which I suspect have no real meaning).
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
