4 ms·
I have both been depressed and spent time with depressed people. The problem with this conversation is that the idea you unpack from the phrase "higher being"
by SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
I have both been depressed and spent time with depressed people.
The problem with this conversation is that the idea you unpack from the phrase "higher being" isn't really like the idea they compiled to that phrase. There's a fundamental translation problem in that things which are simple structures in one framework are hard or impossible to express in the other.
You have to understand what the reverse image of that phrase is in their model, not what the reverse image is in your model (ie, the idea they were trying to convey, not what you would have been trying to convey using those words). This is obviously extremely hard, as we only have access to our own model, not theirs.
For places where the models are similar, this is less of an issue, because the two reverse images are then similar. However, when the models substantially diverge, it leads to one of the most common breakdowns in communication we see (and we see it a lot, across topics).
I mean, modern mathematics happened because people had different internal models for what "function" meant, but you seem to think a concept like "higher power" is easy to translate.
For what it's worth, I don't think the two ideas are incompatible -- could you elaborate on why you do?
- robotresearcher 10y ago> you seem to think a concept like "higher power" is easy to translate. I have no idea why you think I have any position on the ease or otherwise of 'translating' this term. I've made no claim about that. I read the article in good faith. 'Higher being' is the term they chose. I assume it's the best term available to the author. I'm not arguing about it. I'm just not persuaded that depression is a call from a higher being, as far as I understand what they are getting at.
- SomeStupidPoint 10y agoBut my exact point is I don't think you understand what they're getting at if you think the two views are incompatible. (Which you said you were pretty sure of, up thread.) If you don't actually understand what they're getting at, you being pretty sure the views are incompatible results from misevaluating how well you understand what they're saying -- hence the discussion of why that communication is hard. Which is why I asked you to elaborate on why you think the views are incompatible. Which you declined to do. So I'm not really sure what else to say if you don't want to get in to specifics of how you interpreted the concept and why you think the two models are incompatible.
- robotresearcher 10y agoI didn't claim they were incompatible. Since nothing is incompatible with the existence of a supernatural higher being, that would be obviously wrong. I said they weren't equivalent, and earlier I asked which explanation is more likely.