02-25-2024, 11:29 AM
I too invested some time in this video... but was a bit confused at first. Due to my own hasty inferences, I expected Prof. Madden's interview to address UFO phenomena, or perhaps the theory of "Alien Intelligence."
While it did mention those things, the substance of the discussion was Prof. Madden crafting an argument highlighting the manner in which humans "tokenize" their reality for discussion. How perspective frameworks approached from a presumptive aim of 'settling and communicating" understanding can be inconsequential and inappropriate because of our lack of understanding, and perhaps even our very inability to understand.
His own "tokenization" of understanding includes the use of terminology. "Umwelt" is a transplant of a biological concept developed to accommodate the operation of capabilities within the physical limitations of any creature ... for this case, in humans, "perspective" or "perceived zeitgeist" might have sufficed.
I note, without apology, that his presence accompanies the publication of a new book. I do not begrudge him that fact. Perhaps it serves in his mind as a primer to the work, which I expect is a well-crafted expansion of the notion that some of mankind's most difficult challenges in the future may have to do with embracing change and accepting that there are some things we simply cannot understand... until we collectively learn more as a species.
However, there are arguments (not necessarily dissent) that must have a voice in the discussion... some of which will be uncomfortable for a host to offer a guest speaker during a 'marketing' effort. The host mase a valiant effort to support the author's contribution; but offered no challenges... which I find noteworthy.
While I appreciate his message, and the fact that he pursues a valuable discussion, I felt his message was somewhat overtly determined to rest upon the notion that people simply "can't" understand that which they haven't experienced. Philosophy, and the accumulation of perspectives of many well-regarded speakers can lead to excellent explanations of the nature of life. Examples abound to demonstrate the concept. But I have difficulty embracing any perspective that deterministically describes accepting any aspect of human reality as "beyond understanding."
Humans, if no other species, have a drive and need to consolidate and resolve 'gaps' in understanding. The drive is so deep, and the need is so pressing that we actually 'cooperate' to eliminate them...
He makes a good case that we should continuously reassess our tendency to imbue all mystery with "human terminology and paradigms" that simply may not apply. This seems wise. But I feel he is making a case to "find the endpoint of our understanding" and simply accept that as a permanent limitation. I feel that is where we must focus and apply more of our intellectual energy to that "endpoint."
With all respect to our friend and member, jaded, in my opinion this is more 'philosophical' content than it is about UFOs and aliens. I thank jaded for making this thread. That doesn't detract from the content itself, by any means.
It's an interesting take on how people struggle with meta-information, including about UFOs and aliens... but it is just as valid to apply to other paradigm-challenging topics.
While it did mention those things, the substance of the discussion was Prof. Madden crafting an argument highlighting the manner in which humans "tokenize" their reality for discussion. How perspective frameworks approached from a presumptive aim of 'settling and communicating" understanding can be inconsequential and inappropriate because of our lack of understanding, and perhaps even our very inability to understand.
His own "tokenization" of understanding includes the use of terminology. "Umwelt" is a transplant of a biological concept developed to accommodate the operation of capabilities within the physical limitations of any creature ... for this case, in humans, "perspective" or "perceived zeitgeist" might have sufficed.
I note, without apology, that his presence accompanies the publication of a new book. I do not begrudge him that fact. Perhaps it serves in his mind as a primer to the work, which I expect is a well-crafted expansion of the notion that some of mankind's most difficult challenges in the future may have to do with embracing change and accepting that there are some things we simply cannot understand... until we collectively learn more as a species.
However, there are arguments (not necessarily dissent) that must have a voice in the discussion... some of which will be uncomfortable for a host to offer a guest speaker during a 'marketing' effort. The host mase a valiant effort to support the author's contribution; but offered no challenges... which I find noteworthy.
While I appreciate his message, and the fact that he pursues a valuable discussion, I felt his message was somewhat overtly determined to rest upon the notion that people simply "can't" understand that which they haven't experienced. Philosophy, and the accumulation of perspectives of many well-regarded speakers can lead to excellent explanations of the nature of life. Examples abound to demonstrate the concept. But I have difficulty embracing any perspective that deterministically describes accepting any aspect of human reality as "beyond understanding."
Humans, if no other species, have a drive and need to consolidate and resolve 'gaps' in understanding. The drive is so deep, and the need is so pressing that we actually 'cooperate' to eliminate them...
He makes a good case that we should continuously reassess our tendency to imbue all mystery with "human terminology and paradigms" that simply may not apply. This seems wise. But I feel he is making a case to "find the endpoint of our understanding" and simply accept that as a permanent limitation. I feel that is where we must focus and apply more of our intellectual energy to that "endpoint."
With all respect to our friend and member, jaded, in my opinion this is more 'philosophical' content than it is about UFOs and aliens. I thank jaded for making this thread. That doesn't detract from the content itself, by any means.
It's an interesting take on how people struggle with meta-information, including about UFOs and aliens... but it is just as valid to apply to other paradigm-challenging topics.
