[Vision2020] PR - Final Lecture in Series, Psychiana

Tue Jun 14 15:45:01 PDT 2011

This is very nice, Ted. I agree with most of what you say, though I
might bicker with some of the terminology. Just a few comments to note
what I mean.

First, "meta" in "metaphysics" does not mean "above" or "beyond." It
means "after." METAphysics is what comes AFTER physics, after we do
some investigating of the world. The word entered the lexicon when
folks came upon some works of Aristotle about space, time, and
causation that followed his work on physics. Similarly, once we find
things out about the world, various questions come up, no matter what
science we use. Science talks about causes in space and time, and
tries to provide explanations in terms of those causes. (It does more
than this, of course, but it does at least this much.) Metaphysics
considers the various commitments that arise from scientific
investigation and explanation. What is time? What is space? What is
causation?

Second, suppose we want to make a distinction between what you call
"strong metaphysics" and what we might call "level-headed
metaphysics." We can all agree that question about time, space, and
causation -- maybe even questions about free will -- are OK but what
about questions about the soul, or God, or the afterlife, or meaning?

The question is, how do we delineate strong metaphysics from
level-headed metaphysics, the good from the bad? I should be honest
and note that I loath drawing the distinction along "area" lines. The
reason is that lots of folks want to put free will on the bad side, as
one of those fuzzy issues that are unimportant and not worth talking
about. Of course, the view that free will is strong metaphysics is
itself a philosophical view, a metaphysical view on the way we're
thinking of things, since it is just a fall out of our general
attempts to talk about and understand the world. I'm suspicious about
philosophies that try to silence their competitors.

Another way to delineate strong metaphysics from level-headed
metaphysics is by appeal to naturalism. We might claim that
speculation about supernatural entities is idle and identify strong
metaphysics with questions about the "supernatural order." I can wrap
my head around that. I'm a pretty pragmatic guy and try to limit my
speculations to ones that are based on our collective experience of
the natural world and logical inferences from those experiences. In
that way, I'm not too far from Ayer -- or you. One difference is that
I think that naturalistic views of free will, the soul, and God can be
given.

Lastly, when it comes to personal beliefs, any philosophy goes. I'm
all for keeping philosophical questions alive and open, even though I
have my own views. If someone wants to believe in the supernatural
order, all the power to them. I'm inclined to do so myself at times.
But when it comes to our public beliefs, the kinds of beliefs that
should guide us in policy decisions, your endorsement of level-headed
metaphysics is sound advice. Here science has proven to be our most
objective form of justified belief and we err always when we advocate
strong metaphysics over the scientific method.

On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:51 AM, Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't want to overstate what I know about these issues, which is
> rather limited.  And to clarify, ever since reading Bertrand Russell's
> wonderful book, "Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits," which
> presents five postulates of scientific inference (given lower down)
> necessary for scientific knowledge to be possible, that are arguably
> metaphsyical statements, I have not been opposed to all metaphysics,
> although I think it is a necessary beast that must be chained and
> caged lest it run amok in the wishful passionate unbelievably
> inventive dreamworlds of human speculation.  I put statements about
> the Second Coming in the same category as statements about beings from
> the Pleiades being channeled on Earth: metaphysical nonsense:
> http://childrenofhtepleiades.ning.com/
> http://earthmoonfire.com/ChannelARIAANN.aspx
>
> But I think that Ayer's general aim was to undermine what might be
> called strong metaphysics (my terminology), as implied in the
> following discussion of Ayer's "Language Truth and Logic," which would
> include (my interpretation) statements about "God" (depending on
> definition, of course), "souls" leaving the human body after death to
> exist in some other mysterious realm, et. al.  The verification
> principle may indeed be a metaphysical statement, as you claimed, but
> I think it can be argued it is not about "a reality transcending the
> world of science and common sense."
>
> Ayer on the criterion of verifiability
>
> http://www.nd.edu/~jspeaks/courses/old/2007-8/43904/_HANDOUTS/ayer-verification.pdf
>
> "Central to this aim, as Ayer conceived of it, what the demolition of
> traditional metaphysics, where this was thought of as the attempt to
> say something about "a reality transcending the world of science and
> common sense."
>
> Quoting "Language, Truth and Logic:"
>
> "For we shall maintain that no statement that refers to a "reality"
> transcending the limits of all possible sense-experience can possibly
> have any literal significance"
> ------------------------------
> Info below on Bertrand Russell's "Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits"
>
> http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/H/James.A.Hawthorne-1/Hawthorne--Giving_Up_Judgment_Empiricism.pdf
>
> Giving up Judgment Empiricism: The Bayesian Epistemology of Bertrand
> Russell and Grover Maxwell
>
> "The postulates are metaphysical in that they express basic contingent
> facts about the makeup of the world, they must be known if any
> empirical knowledge beyond immediate experience is possible, and they
> cannot themselves be known empirically (i. e. on the basis of
> experience and logic alone)."
> ----------------
> From a different source:
>
> Russell called such inferences nondemonstrative inferences and, in
> order to justify these inferences, he set out 5 postulates that he
> thought were necessary:
>
> (1)     The postulate of “quasi-permanence”
>
> (2)     The postulate of “separable causal lines”
>
> (3)     The postulate of “spacio-temporal continuity”
>
> (4)     The “structural postulate”
>
> (5)     “the postulate of analogy”
> -- Human Knowledge, Its Scope and Limits, p. 487-493
> ------------------------------------------
> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>
> On 6/13/11, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com> wrote:
>> If the debate is between logical positivism and metaphysics,
>> metaphysics has won! Here is the trouble with logical positivism. Take
>> the verification principle: nothing is meaningful unless it is (a) an
>> analytic truth (true by definition) or (b) a matter of fact about the
>> physical world. Now we can ask: Is the verification principle true by
>> definition? No. Is it a matter of fact about the physical world? No.
>> Thus, it too is a piece of metaphysics (to use Ayer's understanding of
>> the term).
>>
>> Still, my own training is in analytic philosophy, which tends toward
>> the study of concepts (conceptual analysis) and arguments. In other
>> words, when I write professional philosophy, much of my work is very
>> consistent with metaphysics done in the spirit of Ayer and David Hume.
>> I just don't think, personally, that this exhausts all there is to
>> know and say.
>>
>> I think one can be both an existentialist and a logical positivist.
>> Wittgenstein comes to mind.
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Ayer's statements during his finals days regarding a "near death
>>> experience" are possibly compromised by the aging process.
>>>
>>> Ayer's "Language Truth and Logic" was published in 1946.  I'm not an
>>> expert on the history of contemporary philosophy, but I recall
>>> Existentialism and Sartre et. al. being a major focus of interest in
>>> the 1960s.  Anyone studying Logical Positivism and Existentialism in
>>> depth at the same time is inviting cognitive dissonance:
>>> http://www.jstor.org/pss/185565
>>>  "The two most antagonistic schools in contemporary Western philosophy
>>> are Existentialism and Logical Positivism.  They have nothing in
>>> common but the name of philosophy, and even that they deny each
>>> other."   Philosophy of Science:  Vol. 18, No. 4, Oct., 1951, Walter
>>> Cerf
>>>
>>> I suspect that if Ayer did not find major objections to the
>>> philosophizing of the "Moscow Metaphysicians" he would assert they
>>> were not really doing "metaphysics."  How do I know this?  I
>>> questioned a spirit channeler, who contacted Ayer in the beyond:
>>> http://www.thespiritchanneler.com/SpiritChanneling.html
>>> Trust me!
>>>
>>> From "spirit channeler" website:
>>>
>>> "Our planet is three dimensional and as such it takes a great deal of
>>> energy in order for information to be received by the person
>>> channeling it.  The purpose of trans-dimensional channeling is to
>>> enable communication between deceased loved ones and their families.
>>> As time evolves spirit channeling is becoming a much loved way of
>>> receiving validation of an afterlife that many skeptics fail to
>>> envisage.   The question on everyone’s minds is where are these
>>> dimensions that we hear so much about?  Each of the three dimensions
>>> overlap in a parallel manner and rotate in a clockwise motion.  The
>>> third dimension is where we live, the second dimension is a sanctuary
>>> for people who have left this life before moving on to the next one
>>> and the first dimension is where most people call home after this
>>> life."
>>> -------------------------
>>>
>>> Anyway, I posted that comment on Ayer mostly because of the amazing
>>> story about Ayer in Washington with the Kennedys; and also to
>>> highlight the online philosophical/theological offerings from Dr.
>>> Wildman at Boston University:
>>>
>>> http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/WeirdWildWeb/courses/wphil/lectures/wphil_theme21.htm
>>>
>>>> "Story about Ayer in Washington, with Kennedys:
>>>>
>>>> Invited to lecture at Schlesinger’s house while visiting professor at
>>>> City College (1961-2), for one of President Kennedy’s series on the
>>>> social sciences. Though the President couldn’t attend, Robert and
>>>> other Kennedies there. Ayer summarizes the analytic tradition, gets
>>>> fairly "silent" reception. Then Eunice Shriver whispers: "Is it
>>>> possible this man doesn’t believe in God?" Ethel asks Ayer why he
>>>> didn’t talk about Aquinas, and Ayer replies he doesn’t know much about
>>>> him. Ethel seems triumphant at this, but Ayer then suggests that she
>>>> probably hasn’t read much Aquinas either, but rather knows of the
>>>> neo-Thomist tradition, which he, Ayer, did know something about. They
>>>> then discuss Maritain, Ethel gets confused at one point, and Robert is
>>>> heard to say quietly from the back of the room, "Drop it, Ethel."
>>>> (More, 208-9)."
>>>> ------------------------------------------
>>>> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>>>
>>> On 6/6/11, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ayer might not mind after all!
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._J._Ayer#Near-death_experience
>>>>
>>>> Actually, metaphysics had a revival after the days of logical positivism
>>>> in
>>>> the 1960-70s. But even the strictest positivist would be fine with most
>>>> of
>>>> what counts as metaphysics these days, which is nothing more than the
>>>> conceptual analysis of various terms used in the sciences: "causation,"
>>>> "space," "time," "disposition," etc. The Moscow Metaphysicians is just a
>>>> small group of local professors who are interested in these and other
>>>> issues. Each meeting centers around a particular paper that one of us is
>>>> writing.
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Moscow Metaphysicians?!"
>>>>>
>>>>> A. J. Ayer turns in this grave!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/WeirdWildWeb/courses/wphil/lectures/wphil_theme21.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> Excerpts below from website above, courtesy of Dr. Wesley Wildman (
>>>>> http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/main_about.html
>>>>> http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/WeirdWildWeb/index.htm ) at Boston
>>>>> University:
>>>>>
>>>>> "But Ayer and the positivists said that metaphysics was actually
>>>>> meaningless."
>>>>> ----------------
>>>>> "Story about Ayer in Washington, with Kennedys:
>>>>>
>>>>> Invited to lecture at Schlesinger’s house while visiting professor at
>>>>> City College (1961-2), for one of President Kennedy’s series on the
>>>>> social sciences. Though the President couldn’t attend, Robert and
>>>>> other Kennedies there. Ayer summarizes the analytic tradition, gets
>>>>> fairly "silent" reception. Then Eunice Shriver whispers: "Is it
>>>>> possible this man doesn’t believe in God?" Ethel asks Ayer why he
>>>>> didn’t talk about Aquinas, and Ayer replies he doesn’t know much about
>>>>> him. Ethel seems triumphant at this, but Ayer then suggests that she
>>>>> probably hasn’t read much Aquinas either, but rather knows of the
>>>>> neo-Thomist tradition, which he, Ayer, did know something about. They
>>>>> then discuss Maritain, Ethel gets confused at one point, and Robert is
>>>>> heard to say quietly from the back of the room, "Drop it, Ethel."
>>>>> (More, 208-9)."
>>>>> ------------------------------------------
>>>>> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6/3/11, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > Psychiana, Moscow's first and only philosophy. Very cool!
>>>>> > Unfortunately
>>>>> I'm
>>>>> > meeting with the Moscow Metaphysicians that evening.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Jun 3, 2011, at 6:09 PM, Stephanie Kalasz <skalasz at ci.moscow.id.us>
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> City of Moscow
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> 206 E Third Street
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Moscow, ID 83843
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Contact: Gary J. Riedner, City Supervisor
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> p     |  208-883-7006
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> e     |   griedner at ci.moscow.id.us
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> w    |  www.ci.moscow.id.us
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> PRESS RELEASE
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> History of Psychiana in Moscow Subject of Final Lecture in Series,
>>>>> Special
>>>>> >> Guest to Attend
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> June 3, 2011 (Moscow, Idaho) – The final lecture in the series
>>>>> >> commemorating the 100-Year anniversary of the construction of the
>>>>> building
>>>>> >> now known as City Hall, will be held on June 7th at 7 p.m. in City
>>>>> >> Hall
>>>>> >> Council Chambers, 206 E. Third Street.  Keith Petersen, State
>>>>> >> Historian/Associate Director for the Idaho State Historical Society
>>>>> >> will
>>>>> >> present, “Psychiana: The world’s largest mail order religion and a
>>>>> >> small
>>>>> >> town post office.”
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Peterson will be discussing the history of Frank Bruce Robinson, a
>>>>> Moscow
>>>>> >> resident, who founded Psychiana in the 1930s which went on to become
>>>>> what
>>>>> >> is recognized as possibly the world’s largest mail order religion.
>>>>> >> Additionally, Petersen has arranged for a special guest to join the
>>>>> >> lecture that evening, Robinson’s son, Alfred Robinson.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> This lecture is free and open to the public.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> ###
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Story Contact: Jen Pfiffner, Assistant to the City Supervisor
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Phone: 208.883.7123
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Email: jpfiffner at ci.moscow.id.us
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> The City of Moscow delivers quality municipal services while ensuring
>>>>> >> responsible use of resources. We anticipate and meet the needs of our
>>>>> >> diverse population in order to build public trust and enhance a sense
>>>>> >> of
>>>>> >> community.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>