(via via metafilter)
"A Pavane for Grothendieck
Gray sheaves, their zodiac;
red mathoms from Cathay.
Or a place beyond words
they almost remember.
Hesitant counting stilb
even with the cloud plague.
Nothing from this charade
durable: all is sand.
Incest as cicala
emitting in a jar
Change paths; theremin vugg
keeps watch like a grackle
It seems pejoratives never simply condemn (except in Lojban, which has MABLA, otherwise semantically-empty), but have to map out a culture’s shadow-obsessions, whether excremental or sexual, adscititiously. So now we are starting to talk about “the R-word” (analogous to "N-") 'retarded' --& looking askance at such perennials as 'stupid' (JMIBLE 'understand-weak'—which is not pejorative in Lojban) & 'insane' (FENKI--ditto) as well. Though that may make it problematic, in the heat of the moment, to have to actually think about what it is you are condemning, I say that that is a good thing.
In politics, for example, which is another kind of team sports, I am angered by—what, the opposing team behaving like they always do? (We need a verb for this--. JIKPRO?) Them acting out their fantasies about how the world works (XLALI 'bad' by standard of x3: FATCI 'the facts')? Their hypocrisy? (PALCI 'immoral' covers this--.) Their refusal to acknowledge what I consider to be the real problems? (Something with 'refuse' CPAPRO. 'Problem' NABMI, probably.) These can all be specified, & when they are, I am a bit closer to understanding the motives of my enemy. (And maybe, after all, there might be something they have in common with me.)
Other typical human behaviors, I might as well call: ignorant (TOLDJUNO), denialist, selfish (SEZYSE’U), malicious, materialistic, foolish BEBNA (which is making bad choices that are known to be bad), short-sighted, or mistaken TOLDRA in some other way (causality, anyone?)… If somebody nearly hits me in traffic, I can say they’re not paying enough attention to other cars, or else maybe they expect me to get out of their way (this—entitlemented—accounts for a lot of things that aggravate me). (DUSLEBNA 'excessively-take'?)
Somehow when we want to be extremely condemnatory, or dismissive, it’s always the thinking-ability of the other that is called into question. –Not, say: the poorly chosen assumptions/ misleading worldview/ lazy application of reasoning which might have led to this debacle. It’s like I don’t want to argue, because they won’t be capable of hearing it anyway. The problem, not between two humans, but removed to a location inside the head of one of them.
But if I am turning this interpersonal disagreement into a matter which my very own culture regards as definitely not something blameworthy--indeed, a defense to its highest condemnation, the charge of murder--, isn’t this making my assigning-blame into an empty gesture? What I would want to have said, rather, is more like: "You should be prevented from doing that, even by coercive means if necessary." Because that’s what we do with crazy people: we disregard their words.
Mirrored by the other side, who also disregard these words.
Part one. To believe is not in neurotypicals intellectual assent so much as it is an affirmation of solidarity with other believers; in this sense even to consider the question of "proofs" would already be impolitic. (For saktra the feeling of solidarity--sobernost--has no compelling force, thus it hardly matters whether anyone else is "onboard" with them or not.) So the fact of tribes of believers itself is important to human society; the putative content of dogmas of belief is not. The former, however, defines itself as "not-politics" in order to nullify the effect of dissent, for no one but unbelievers will pay heed to those arguments (however conclusive). The history of atheism is a story that ever repeats; & ever accomplishes nothing. (Except maybe: establishing a brand.)
Part two. The word "God" is used for an abstract idea comprising various superlatives, an agent without observable activity, a feeling with unspecific antecedents, but most of all as the subject of predicates that are meant to sound loud. It is quite feasible to discuss any aspect of existing religious practices without having recourse to such blurry words (or "fnords"--good only for muddying the discourse), but the greatest incitement to their retention must be simple nostalgia for the tradition of similar arguments. It is one of those venerable games that only those fascinated by the game are still playing. Unfortunately a core part of their conception of the game is that everyone else should be compelled to play.
Part three. Cosmopolitanism was a brief, unstable construct at the best of times. One can hope it is not yet completely over. In fact the vast majority of each tribe of believers does not yearn for global victory so much as for local peace. Nor are most of the people who insist on having a non-secular vocabulary, inherently intolerant. I imagine we would not have arrived at the present revival of internecine warfare without the simultaneous conditions of overpopulation, resource depletion, & general weather contrariness. (America's latter-day imperialist blunders being only the match to that tinderbox.) It does not bode well either for sustained rational discourse or disciplined problem-solving, for the great strength of religious tribal formations has always been their relative indifference to the survival of individual members.
Cosmopolitanism must offer something more than the mere absence of persecution; in order to prevail, it needs to hold on to the humane vision of a world in which everyone, equally, matters. And equality (NU PREDUNLI) is something they should all have been able to agree on, if they but read their book.
Feeling that one is outside (BARTU) the process & should be, somehow, included; the desire to be helpful; even, imagining you can fix (CIKRE) something (whether or not it actually can be fixed)--these are illusions or impulses saktra is prone to, & suffers from. Which is not the same as reciprocity. Thus, one philosophizes: when admonishment received would have better served.
A haggard kind of hipster grace inheres in bystanderness. Among, but not belonging to. The cool that is attained, not attributed. Fulcanelli (attributing it to Zoroaster, bad Latin & all) names the Sphingid powers as: scire 'to know', potere [=posse] 'to be able' (oft altered to "velle"--to will--per Uncle Aleister), audere 'to dare', tacere 'to keep silent'--which suggests Joyce's "silence, exile, cunning"-- these saktra mostly purely can imagine. How often must one bite one's tongue, or (most usually) risk the exposure of a ridiculous blurt...
DJUNO, KAKNE, VIRNU, SMAJI. Alchemy doesn't travel.
I would not say that saktra never feels loneliness, but that they experience both solitude & communion in a uniquely different way. Nirshsaktra-communion is based on a constant flow of subtle agreement-signals. Saktra communion can be triggered by as little as a single agreement (rated on a scale according to how significant the thing agreed-upon may be). If a space alien KESFANGE were also a chess player, i would count them kin.
Solitude for the one is default, as communion is for the other. Thus, as there is a word for the undesirable-solitude ("loneliness") of nirshsaktra, there should be a word for the undesirable-communion ("overcrowding" doesn't quite get it) of saktra. MALKANSA in Lojban, or even 'chaotic being-with' KALSA KANSA.
A principle which the two share: harmony (Lojban: KA SARXE). Even harmony, however, is defined in different ways. For saktra it is non-interference. For nirshsaktra it is single purpose. A group in which each member is in competition with the rest may seem to be defined by their mutual disconnection, but actually they all serve the same end, which is maximizing one's share (compare with a goal of only just having enough for each member).
Struggles for territory (TUTRA TE DAMBA), though often bloody, are universally considered an unalterable state of affairs--in an age of many dispersed groups ("blixen") this takes the form of policing membership-definitions; more radical, & therefore more threatening, is a heresy that questions the basis of the group (SE GIRZU). Here is where authority-basis-principles ("abskrelg" or TE CATNI JICMU) enter in. One can dispute the succession of a lineage-authority, the veracity of a leader-authority, the accuracy of an empirical-authority, or the worthiness of the beloved.
These heresiarchs, therefore, comprise the loneliest of nirshsaktra; & nothing can matter to them more, than to acquire followers. Saktra, adhering to the maxim "Neither a follower nor a leader be," often misunderstands this whole dynamic as a question of ascertaining the "truth." It is nothing of the sort. it is only the intolerable extremity of nirshsaktra in saktra's shoes. --Si eppur muove.
(pic by Robin Danar via Julee Cruise via Don Stitt via Brian Clements on Fb)
"What is truth? said jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an answer." --Francis Bacon
As in so many things, considering the Lojban expression of this reveals a hidden nuance. JETNU contains two arguments: 'x1 is true according to x2' is the whole of its meaning. Usually we think in terms of so-called "objective" (JETNU RODA, or 'true according to everyone') and "subjective" (JETNU DA, or 'true according to someone') truth, assigning one to hard sciences or other dogma, and the other to the arts or the man in the street. When one does not partake of the assumptions (hidden and overt) belonging to the group, one is liable to have a clearer sense of the truth, even as an individual of emotions and other biases, simply by virtue of having removed the sway of the others (the part which I am happy to now have the word "truthiness" for): this tendency to agree which is imperative in neurotypicals, and absent (or even contradicted) in aspergarians. Actually, of course, there is no mooting this RODA, there is only a ZU'I ('the usual') in that JETNU place; one might even say that 'the usual' consists of LO SIMSA PRENU, 'similar persons' who not only override the otherwise opinions of LO NARSIMSA PRENU JA NARPRE ('persons who are different, plus nonpersons'), they enjoy the privilege of not having to imagine whether these opinions exist.
One can still hope for a science that is JETNU ZI'O--true without regard to viewpoint--but that will hardly come about by the efforts of groupthink, nor by a more inclusive politics that carefully validates minority views without having to answer them. This is not to say that only saktra desires truth, but that the truth they desire resides in insight as well as systematic reasoning, nor does the result of mere reasoning force them to accept a truth they might well have reasons for knowing otherwise. Thus aspergian research--in the arts also, by the way--sometimes fails to be acknowledged (even as attempt) because it does not proceed from the body of established practice. It is not a answer to the questions everyone has been asking; it does not take part in the conversation, except to say: look at this. Hear me out.
It may take hundreds of years for that to happen. I suppose truthiness can accrue, little by little, as the air of strangeness that surrounds an unmooted truth slowly yields to familiarity. Looking back then, we wonder why so many people fought for so long not to acknowledge what seems obvious to us today. We wonder, that is, if we are not among those whose simple insights fall on deaf ears in the perpetual present of JETNU ZU'I.
(via cnn dot com)
at least the Jungian system has some ideas behind it. unfortunately, he was also overly fond of quaternities as an intellectual icon. that sort of handicaps the empirical side of post-Jungian typology. there have to be exactly four functions, & two have to be opposites of the other two. and of course, a person has to be this way consistently (if not invariably), so that it can make sense to talk about psychological types as if they were phenotypes. not to mention what factors one's personal history can contribute. none of this is entailed by consideration of the functions themselves, as a scientific theory would require. in that sense it's an ideology.
i think used with flexibility & a fair bit of intuition, they can help make sense of the infinite complexity of human personality. the truth is, it does have regularities. and i believe it is not only possible to recognize some of these particular patterns in individuals, the patterns even appear in fictional characters. unfortunately the use of this mapping-system has been taken over almost exclusively by a bunch of literal-minded people who think that to pigeonhole is to understand, & a lot more who never even bother to read the books before they start flinging the jargon around. maybe one day a more sensitive mapping (i like to say: "256 personality-types") will be devised, & that too will be a service to humanity--just as long as it isn't built into an app that types everyone you point your camera-phone at!
