It makes me think of the placebo effect and how readily we use it to dismiss spontaneous reactions and cures. It always strikes me as odd and counter logical. If even a tiny percentage of individuals are able to affect a cure through nothing other than what appears to be the power of the mind wouldn’t that be a logical direction to take with our research? Or at very least the source of much curiosity? The narrow-mindedness with which we dismiss it always strikes me as a great loss of potential.

Interesting blog.

Reason is incapable of distinguishing between truth and game rules. This can probably be deduced from Godel’s work, but as such a deduction would itself constitute a game rule, why even bother? Just believe whatever pleases you. Further discussion on this subject will not advance my objectives for this martial arts website, and I would prefer to allocate my limited blogging time to topics that interest a larger audience.

My definition of research has nothing to do with chatting up historical figures. “Sitting quietly” cuts a few levels of abstraction, and hence a few sources of error out of the equation. While sensory input can be inaccurate and imprecise, it cannot be led into the distractions of meaningless symbol manipulation. Hopefully, the significance of this point is clear. If not, you can sit quietly for a few dozen hours to gather the necessary data. None of my propositions here are anti-intellectual or unscientific, nor should they require an enlightened reader. They did not have an enlightened writer, after all.

If Confucius disagreed with this–do you have a citation?–then Confucius was wrong. Hey, nobody’s perfect.

Furthermore, even assuming that our sensory organs are fool-proof, if we restricted ourselves to that, wouldn’t we completely lost all of the scientific and technological development over the course of human history. I don’t know your opinion on the subject, but I personally am quite fond of not living in fear of rampant infant mortality, disease, and other inconveniences.

Your assumption is incorrect as I see it; I am not relying on fortune or luck to see me through, I’m relying on my reasoning ability. I researched both Socrates and Reich (the former being already quite familiar to me), but in your definition of research, I won’t gain anything of value unless I sit down and have a chat with them myself. If you know a way I can do this, I would love to hear it.

We are having this discussion, as I understood it, because I am trying to understand your position on knowledge-creation and knowledge-acquisition. From what I’ve read, you believe that knowledge can only be gained from personal investigation using our own senses. The “sit quietly and wait” method is a bit difficult for me to understand as well, for I believe it was Confucius who said that sort of behavior was pretty useless. I lack the enlightenment you speak of, perhaps that is why I don’t understand it?

I beg your pardon for being so direct, regarding the scope of your personal investigations; but this is not an incorrect “assumption”, is it? Otherwise, we would not be having this discussion.

How could anyone hope to learn anything without being told? I find the question backwards–but the standard answer is to sit quietly and wait, to utilize both reason and “formless awareness”. One who does this is not easily fooled.

Some philosophers find Lao Tse to be elitist, patronizing, and hateful.

You are right, that I am not very interested in Mesmer’s research. I don’t know if he was really mistreated, or whether he served the role that he had (inadvertently) created for himself. This is precisely the scenario that Kongzi and Zhuangzi warned against–so maybe a degree in philosophy is quite practical after all?

What would you define as investigation or research? Does taking a class in astronomy count as “an independent study of planetary movement?” What if that class was taught by a world-class professor, who was researching black holes and background cosmic radiation at a top-level university? In the end, I suppose it’s still learning something “just because someone told you so.” I’m not sure how you feel about education or learning, but just about ALL knowledge is derived from humans teaching one another. I’m sure you wouldn’t be where you were if you didn’t learn things from people telling you them.

How could anyone hope to learn anything there is about the world without eventually going to hear it from someone else, whether it’s from a book or from a teacher. There’s that whole Newton bit about standing on the shoulders of giants and all that. I suppose I’m beginning to understand the what Lao Tse meant when he wrote of abandoning the schools and education. If we lived in a world where nobody cared about learning or knowledge, I suppose it could certainly be a peaceful one. Unfortunately, we do not live in such a world, and I’d say it’s human nature to be curious, to learn. And, since we are social creatures, it only makes sense to learn from each other. Of course, there is that risk that the person you learn from will be wrong, which is why I think we have such credibility systems in place.

Yes, these credibility systems are flawed–after all, they are only human. Yes, humans are after their own selfish interests, you’re right about all that. It seems like you’re more upset about Mesmer being unfairly stopped than you are about his research. This is justified, the power was abused, just as it was against Galileo, Socrates, and Dr. King. However, I don’t think this invalidates the centuries of scientific progress since then.

While studying sociology (from another person, I admit), we went over the process by which knowledge was created and science was advanced. It is (still) a patriarchal system, marginalizing women, people of color, and non-Western ways of thinking. It has been used to fuel genocide, racism, wars, religious intolerance, and all sorts of horrible things in this world. And yet, even after all that, this does not invalidate the powers of reasoning and thorough investigation and experimentation. After the eugenics movement, the civil rights movement, and others, the search for “objective truth” eventually overturned what was claimed as “truth” by the majority opinion and ruling powers. Is this not proof that their rule is not so absolute? Sure, we still have people that believe in white superiority, but I believe they have regressed to a minority, rather than a majority in our country. And the sheer fact that both a woman and a man of color are running for presidential office speaks of how far we’ve come from a hundred years ago.

Okay, to sum up. I’m afraid I have a bad habit of being long-winded, and I apologize. hopefully, this will make me more clear.
- Knowledge cannot be completely generated by oneself, nor should it. “Independent study” would not only limit us from learning anything beyond what we learn as babes, but there would be no way of verifying our own discoveries, since to do so would involve someone telling them so.
- Knowledge generation in our world is difficult, flawed, and biased. However, despite this, searching for an objective truth is possible, and has overturned the majority ruling party on more than one occasion.

With these two premises, I argue that while Mesmer was unfairly persecuted by the majority ruling party, the findings of contemporary psychology and sociology would have come to a similar conclusion about his research.

(I suppose this is a bit backwards for an academic writing, if you would like me to list all my premises and theses before my big block of text, let me know and I’ll be happy to oblige.)

The remaining 80% believe the Earth revolves around the Sun. Not because they undertook an independent study of planetary movement, but again, because someone told them so.

I am not alleging any conspiracies here. Investigation is hard, ignorance is easy, and everyone knows it.

I’ve given you two names thus far; are you investigating them? Or are you rather hoping that luck and fortune find you on the right side of the facts, without any great effort on your part?

If you would deny that people seek their own interests rather than objective truth, or that this trait shapes “common sense” and social behavior in a fundamental way, then I would question your knowledge of modern psychology.

I have nothing new to say regarding the placebo effect (right now). As for animal magnetism and uke magic, are you waiting for me to endorse them? Ha ha. Instead, I will answer the question with which I started this discussion.

When Mesmer subverted the power of the Church, he was celebrated;
When his own power grew troublesome, Mesmerism was liquidated;
Don’t be a tool like Franz Anton Mesmer!

Are you skeptical of the findings of modern psychology? You have yet to reject the claims I made regarding animal magnetism, the placebo effect, and uke magic.

Public health is thus secondary to “public order”–a particular order, in fact, known as the status quo. Compared to Socrates, or to Wilhelm Reich, Anton Mesmer got off easy!

Meanwhile, people like Yan Xin enter the White House via the back door.

Of course, this also is the basis for “uke magic;” because someone believes the technique will work (the student), it will.