Soon we shall contrive to be born somehow from an idea.

Or an Idea.

I think Notes From Underground was a very entertaining and original novel. It is basically a rant by a crazy old drunk- about his own life and experiences (all of which are pathetic and borderline insane)- but he tells the stories as if they are extremely significant occasions.

The book begins with this:

“At the time I was only twenty-four. My wife was even then gloomy, ill-regulated, and as solitary as that of a savage… At work in the office I never looked at anyone and I was perfectly well aware that my companions looked upon me not only as a queer fellow, but–I always fancied this– with a sort of loathing.”

Since the whole book is a rant and includes many of his personal stories and experiences it reads more like a crazy poorly written memoir then an actual rant would sound- which it is supposed to come off this way because it playing on all different kinds of perspectives and ideas. It is really sort of a “psychedelic” read in certain ways.

There is philosophy, and then there is just the common stories and what they are meant to teach and mean- and there is what you yourself read into the apparent mild psychosis of the speaker- which manifests itself though obvious contradictions and paradoxes that are dark but amusing.

At times you think it is just an aimless rant and then you see that Dostoevsky is really trying to tell the reading something- in a sort of subliminal way- backhanded or roundabout way.

It is very original. I remember reading it and laughing a lot, thinking about how crazy it was. Dostoevsky was a literary genius by common standards for sure, and his writings definitely reach that grey-middle ground between philosophy and fiction.

The end of the book is very good. Allow me to quote:

“As for what concerns me in particular, I have only in my life carried to an extreme what you have not dared to carry halfway, and what’s more, you have taken your cowardice for good sense, and have found comfort in deceiving yourselves. So that perhaps, after all, there is more life in me than in you. Look into it more carefully! Why, we don’t even know what living means now, what it is, and what it is called? Leave us alone without books and we shall be lost and in confusion at once. We shall not know what to join on to, what to cling to, what to love and what to hate, what to respect and what to despise. We are opressed at being humans, humans with our own real bodies and blood; we are ashamed or it, we think it a disgrace, and we keep trying to be some sort of fairy-tale universal beings. We are stillborn, and for generations past have been begotten, not by living fathers, and that suits us better and better. We are developing a taste for it. Soon we shall contrive to be born somehow from an idea. But enough; I don’t want to write any more from “Underground.”

[The notes of this paradoxicalist do not end here, however. He could not refrain from going on with them, but it seems to us that we may stop here.]“

What it all means is sort of left up to the reader- but clearly he is exploring the human consciousness in action- its divinity and its flaws- its coherence and its obvious unavoidable contradictions- its selfishness and its “attempted” selflessness- and this is all indeed done, in sort of an existentialist way.

Typographical error on my part. The last statement should have been “Do you find common cause with him?” The rest of the statement was intended for another response to an unrelated matter. Could the mishap have been “designed”?

Speaking of Dostoevsky, this may interest you on the subject of free will…

http://afterall.net/papers/491347

Do you agree with Gould’s viewpoints stated in that book? Do you find common cause with him as he was also Catholic?

Um, Stephen Jay Gould was an atheist from a Jewish family. Or were you joking?

Im feeling you. But I think the Nazi’s were the main thing. And Einstein played his role in altering Roosevelt that the Nazi’s were nearing the bomb and we needed to act- and obviously Churchill was the one who stood up to the pacifist liberals- and helped get support for stopping Hitler. If the Nazi’s had gotten the bomb and kept moving across Europe it would have been a lot worse because they were killing everybody. I have an very old neighbor who is a long retired neurologist who escaped from the Nazis in Austria- and he has told me about how crazy it was.

“Whatever the source of Churchill’s or Einstein’s accomplishments, they certainly go down as some of the outstanding minds of recent times- times which desperately needed brilliant independent minded thinkers, due to the severe world turmoil that came with Nazism. Their value is measured though by what they did.”

But they paid a steep price in terms of close personal relationships. And your view seems a bit Eurocentric. Nazism was not the only source of turmoil during that time.

Do you agree with Gould’s viewpoints stated in that book? Do you find common cause with him as he was also Catholic?

My point about perversion is that to define intelligence as a sociological thing- outside or beyond the significance of the individual undermines their unknown potential.

Frost,
there surely is hope for you because as outlined in Matthew 5,3 God definitely will not care about your IQ :

Beati pauperes spiritu.

Let me quote a passage from your book The Spiritual Brain (which I own)on page 119-

You are actually quoting Popper but the quote is very interesting…

“We shall be talking less and less about experiences, perceptions, thoughts, beliefs, purposes, and aims; and more and more about brain processes, about dispositions, to behave, and about our behavior. In this way mentalist language will go out of fashion and be used only in historical reports, or metaphorically, or ironically. When this stage has been reached, mentalism will be stone-dead, and the problem of mind in relation to the body will have solved itself.”

Very Kantian, and very incomplete.

I am with you and your advocated view that this kind of reductionist account of intelligence is very inadequate. When I argue for the importance of the individual IQ- or “personal intelligence” (however it is best qualified and or quantified). I am NOT merely referring to the structure of their brains – or the natural balance of their nero-chemicals- or their hardware and mainframe- (whatever role they play) – but more importantly, the value of their spirit or soul which facilitates the measurable aspects of their potential.

Einstein’s quote is about spirits being opposed by minds- Not minds beings opposed by minds.

And I would ask materialists,

“How do you test for or quantify the size of an individual’s heart?”

You cannot. But you can observe some of it’s effects. These inner driving forces make themselves manifest only after they act though- which is why I am arguing not to underestimate the unquantifiable potential of the individual- or sell short the inner driving forces for metrics defined by exterior results.

My point about perversion is that to define intelligence as a sociological thing- outside or beyond the significance of the individual undermines their unknown potential. Individuals often act more or less independently and in opposition to flawed societies (hence the Einstein quote)- and history is filled with individuals like Einstein and Winston Churchill who did great things because they opposed cultural memes which they knew were wrong. That is, they challenged and changed the world around them and saw a little further.

“A man does what he must – in spite of personal consequences, in spite of obstacles and dangers and pressures – and that is the basis of all human morality.”

“Continuous effort – not strength or intelligence – is the key to unlocking our potential.”

-Winston Churchill

Whatever the source of Churchill’s or Einstein’s accomplishments, they certainly go down as some of the outstanding minds of recent times- times which desperately needed brilliant independent minded thinkers, due to the severe world turmoil that came with Nazism. Their value is measured though by what they did.

So the question is “is it the soul within us that guides us to change and leads to the actualization of our potential, or is it material chemical/physical changes of bodies that make the ultimate consequences happen?”

This is much like the question of origins and evolution which is “what guides the changes and development of life?” The questions of origins are ones concerning motivation- what motivates change- what makes the atom move- the proximate and ultimate causes. Simply put “what makes a potential a reality?”

“In the realist, faith does not arise from the miracle, but the miracle arises from faith.”

-Dostoevsky

The mind/body, or soul/body, interface is definitely one of the most interesting questions and topics there is. I can certainly say that when it comes to the “reality” of human consciousness though, nothing is more revealing than the uniqueness of personal experience.