I am not interested in revisiting the “COVID moment,” but the COVID moment might be interested in revisiting us. I am reading that there is a new wave with a new variant. In response, new mask mandates are being reinstalled in a few places. I last wrote about the COVID moment using the “principle of charity,”
Wow, this is taking me back to the deep early pandemic phase, when I began to notice how weird many people were becoming, in the face of a new hyperobject. I discovered Rebel Wisdom and then, through them, your good self. It was a turning point in my intellectual life and this seems as good a moment as any to thank you for your part in that.
Like the presidential debates in America. Biden and Trump both refuse to debate. We need space to let the light in on both sides of the thesis antithesis divide but both sides are moving towards vacuum. Your questions you pose at the end of the article would be great scaffolding for constructing presidential debate questions though.
People who are strong in both "reasoning appreciation" (aka can map arguments from "all sides") and "emotional integration" (aka can quickly process their emotional triggers), do not need an anti-debate; assuming they are coming from a "good faith" place, aka oriented toward "the good."
If debating someone who is not oriented toward the good, and oriented toward something else (power, status, victory, spite, mommy/daddy issues in the existential sense), aka "bad faith," and/or has poor reasoning appreciation and lacks emotional integration, hence constantly misunderstands their interlocutors arguments while getting emotional triggered, then an anti-debate is needed to have ethical guard rails so the truth has a chance.
Aug 29, 2023·edited Aug 29, 2023Liked by Peter N Limberg
I enjoyed the read. During a significant chunk of the pandemic, I worked as a Postdoc in a fairly prestigious lab/university. It was disturbing to see how we polarized into Covidians and Covidiots (admittedly, I polarized toward the latter). Late into 2021 and 2022, many of these folks would wear cloth masks outdoors, even when it seemed unnecessary.
I have to agree that the major fault line is trust. Some of us became religiously trustful or blasphemously distrustful of these institutions. In these cases, each side would react with knee-jerk reactions, becoming increasingly polarized. This polarization wasn't just a social phenomenon; it affected our scientific discussions, collaborations, and even the types of questions we felt comfortable asking in research settings.
The article's philosophical questions—What is truth? Who can source truth? How is truth sourced?—resonate deeply with me. They are questions that we, as a scientific community, also need to grapple with. If we don't address these fundamental issues, we risk undermining the very foundations of scientific inquiry and public trust.
This is the oldest clash. And it seems we are getting closer and closer to the unavoidable realisation that nobody can claim truth. It is shared. It arises in between.
When you like Less Foolish, I think you'll also like my playful post on String Theory:
Your contributions to the immensity of the dilemmas that emerged with the pandemic were profoundly illuminating and helpful to me. I also want to thank you Peter, for what you offered.
I think the general public definitely needs to get better at truth-seeking, individually and together, which I see as more about probabilities, and handling the annoying negative emotion their uncertainty comes with, rather than absolute certainties. In my humble opinion, and I only have public information, I think I understand more about what's going on with why covid happened and why its resurging than the vast majority of people, but I find no use in talking to them at the moment.
If I told them everything I know they simply can't emotionally handle entertaining the ideas, and would think I've lost touch with reality, including friends and family. But I'm not worried about another covid resurgence even though I won't be complying with any vaccines, nor am I worried about the general future of humanity. I'm only currently worried about another Maui scenario, but to end on a positive note, I don't see that as being a lifetime worry either, and I think some criminals are going to rightfully get their asses handed to them by the military.
Too tired to elaborate, but just caught your conversation with Patrick Ryan earlier today.
As I don't know how to reach him, I would assume that any effort to that end would be under a spotlight for which would only have me reconsider the premise in the end anyway.
The presentation fleshed out what I was just discussing with a friend last night, based in some part, on the facets of Bob.
Wow, this is taking me back to the deep early pandemic phase, when I began to notice how weird many people were becoming, in the face of a new hyperobject. I discovered Rebel Wisdom and then, through them, your good self. It was a turning point in my intellectual life and this seems as good a moment as any to thank you for your part in that.
🙏 It's an honour to play a part of it.
Like the presidential debates in America. Biden and Trump both refuse to debate. We need space to let the light in on both sides of the thesis antithesis divide but both sides are moving towards vacuum. Your questions you pose at the end of the article would be great scaffolding for constructing presidential debate questions though.
Totally. I still think an anti-debate needs to be created: www.whatisemerging.com/opinions/the-anti-debate
People who are strong in both "reasoning appreciation" (aka can map arguments from "all sides") and "emotional integration" (aka can quickly process their emotional triggers), do not need an anti-debate; assuming they are coming from a "good faith" place, aka oriented toward "the good."
If debating someone who is not oriented toward the good, and oriented toward something else (power, status, victory, spite, mommy/daddy issues in the existential sense), aka "bad faith," and/or has poor reasoning appreciation and lacks emotional integration, hence constantly misunderstands their interlocutors arguments while getting emotional triggered, then an anti-debate is needed to have ethical guard rails so the truth has a chance.
Brilliant!
I enjoyed the read. During a significant chunk of the pandemic, I worked as a Postdoc in a fairly prestigious lab/university. It was disturbing to see how we polarized into Covidians and Covidiots (admittedly, I polarized toward the latter). Late into 2021 and 2022, many of these folks would wear cloth masks outdoors, even when it seemed unnecessary.
I have to agree that the major fault line is trust. Some of us became religiously trustful or blasphemously distrustful of these institutions. In these cases, each side would react with knee-jerk reactions, becoming increasingly polarized. This polarization wasn't just a social phenomenon; it affected our scientific discussions, collaborations, and even the types of questions we felt comfortable asking in research settings.
The article's philosophical questions—What is truth? Who can source truth? How is truth sourced?—resonate deeply with me. They are questions that we, as a scientific community, also need to grapple with. If we don't address these fundamental issues, we risk undermining the very foundations of scientific inquiry and public trust.
Those three questions...
the what, the who and most of all the how.
This is the oldest clash. And it seems we are getting closer and closer to the unavoidable realisation that nobody can claim truth. It is shared. It arises in between.
When you like Less Foolish, I think you'll also like my playful post on String Theory:
https://open.substack.com/pub/bertus/p/string-theory?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=fcm5o
Your contributions to the immensity of the dilemmas that emerged with the pandemic were profoundly illuminating and helpful to me. I also want to thank you Peter, for what you offered.
Note to”self avowed Christians “. “Perfect Love Casts Out FEAR “ John 4:18
I think the general public definitely needs to get better at truth-seeking, individually and together, which I see as more about probabilities, and handling the annoying negative emotion their uncertainty comes with, rather than absolute certainties. In my humble opinion, and I only have public information, I think I understand more about what's going on with why covid happened and why its resurging than the vast majority of people, but I find no use in talking to them at the moment.
If I told them everything I know they simply can't emotionally handle entertaining the ideas, and would think I've lost touch with reality, including friends and family. But I'm not worried about another covid resurgence even though I won't be complying with any vaccines, nor am I worried about the general future of humanity. I'm only currently worried about another Maui scenario, but to end on a positive note, I don't see that as being a lifetime worry either, and I think some criminals are going to rightfully get their asses handed to them by the military.
Too tired to elaborate, but just caught your conversation with Patrick Ryan earlier today.
As I don't know how to reach him, I would assume that any effort to that end would be under a spotlight for which would only have me reconsider the premise in the end anyway.
The presentation fleshed out what I was just discussing with a friend last night, based in some part, on the facets of Bob.
https://youtu.be/dD4W3GrcnJo?si=2aGbis8nSafV_ytC
As for your article, solid, but safe.
No mention of the importance of off ramps, or for that matter, the absence of same.
The channel we're watching shall become the channel we're in. I think you get that in arm's length way..
Thanks for the space and in advance , for the unsolicited graffiti.
My intentions are fair.
Truth is the expression of absolute knowledge.
It can be sourced by considering different points of views and cross-referencing