4 ms·

normative: establishing, relating to, or deriving from a standard or norm, especially of behavior (ie: what is(!) true/proper/etc is what seems to be (or is sai

normative: establishing, relating to, or deriving from a standard or norm, especially of behavior (ie: what is(!) true/proper/etc is what seems to be (or is said to be) true). strict: following rules exactly knowledge: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/#KnowJustTrueBeli https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/#KnowJ... (Justified True Belief) Simply: it is the difference between one's opinion of what is true, and what is actually true. But, it is even further complicated by the "truth" (colloquial) of the unknown being evaluated (by the mind, according to cultural/ideological conditioning, generating "is") as equal to the "consensus" opinion/theory (of the dominant metaphysical ideology of the era or geographical region one exists in), ie: "the reality is". > If the latter is the kind that involves formal proofs, how do you account for the difficulty in applying those methods to normative considerations? Others have tried and failed. Does your theory equip you to explain how? Yes: acknowledge that which is unknown. But this is very taboo in the culture we live in, people (once properly conditioned) get extremely emotionally worked up if one points out that certain(!) cultural "truths" are actually unknown (despite that being the explicit technical standard of the ideology's scriptures, and an argument in favour of its superiority). This can be difficult to realize, but comparing the effect ideas have on adults compared to on children in various stages of development makes it quite easy to see the phenomenon[1]. Or another approach: by default the mind thinks in binary (true /false), and according to its training set - forcefully override this intuition and think in more complex forms of logic, and forcefully re-resolve all truths (recalculate reality). tl;dr: "Row row row your boat, gently down the stream...." Full disclosure: this topic is far too complicated to do justice in casual comments on a text message board, not to mention I am in no way qualified to explain it. I am just doing my best. [1] Which you'd think would set off some ideas related to the topic of discussion in people's heads....but alas, we are stuck in a bootstrap paradox.

throwanem 2y ago
If you mean to distinguish the normative and the positive, doing so in those well-known terms may save both your time and that of future interlocutors. The ignorant mind finds binary distinctions most facile to draw. The clever but ungrounded one unfortunately tends most easily into more complex modes of error.
- mistermann 2y ago
  > If you mean to distinguish the normative and the positive, doing so in those well-known terms may save both your time and that of future interlocutors. I'm not sure what you mean, could you explain please? > The ignorant mind finds binary distinctions most facile to draw. The clever but ungrounded one unfortunately tends most easily into more complex modes of error. Is this an accusation directed towards me? If so, please provide more detail so I can realize my error.
  - throwanem 2y ago
    I had occasion to describe the distinction in some detail here the other day: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40860651 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40860651 I wouldn't precisely call it an accusation. If it's anything beyond me being a bit bitchy on a hot and unpleasant day, it's a suggestion from one autodidact, perhaps to another, to bear in mind that the moment of "I have a great idea!" is best followed by a moment of "I wonder who's had something to say about it before."
    - mistermann 2y ago
      Oh my was my read wrong (backwards!) (and perhaps also my comments above?). So there are others I see...it's a shame there's no way for anomalous agents to locate each other in this simulation. :(
      - throwanem 2y ago
        I suppose a simulationist would say there might be a lot of reasons for that, or none. But I suspect my simulation of a simulationist has not that much fidelity. In either case I rarely regret meeting unusual people, though make no promises a priori of taking any particular example very seriously; it depends a lot on the vector sum of the distinction.
47282847 2y ago
“Belief systems arise because there is a certain convenience to them. It is a solace. Only those who are lost and disturbed need solace. Unfortunately a large part of humanity has been kept in this state for a long time, and now it has become necessary to peddle solace. All you need to tell them is, “Do not worry, God is with you.” That is all they need. Whether God is with you or not with you is not the issue. You feel someone is with you. This is keeping a lot of people sane. Otherwise they would break up. Religion has filled the gap between that absolutely blissful state that one can achieve in his own nature, and one’s present level of instability. If you are looking for solace, it is definitely needed. Most people are looking for solace, not liberation. Solace is like a tranquilizer – it puts you to sleep.“ https://isha.sadhguru.org/en/wisdom/article/spirituality-vs-religion https://isha.sadhguru.org/en/wisdom/article/spirituality-vs-...
- mistermann 2y ago
  For broader coverage/accuracy (minimization of misinformation), I think "religion" should be replaced with something like "the symbol representing the the metaphysical framework the individual subscribes to"....this way it also covers the science crowd as well. For science I guess the symbol would just be "science"? Not sure what one would use for mystics. Are there more than these three? > Religion has filled the gap between that absolutely blissful state that one can achieve in his own nature, and one’s present level of instability. Interestingly, this is a faith based belief: "X has Y" ("has" varies...."explains", "is caused by", "is the fault of", etc are some other variations) is reductive, and speculative. If it is presented as fact rather than opinion/belief, then it is belief without adequate supporting evidence, aka Faith. Or it could also be propaganda, misinformation, etc. This is probably in violation of the dominant metaphysical framework of the era/region though, in which case how about we attach a "That's pedantic" or "Just joking!" label and call it even. I'm actually a big Sadhguru fan, but he himself admits that he avoids reading too much so as to avoid contamination by ideological frameworks (like in this case, say...Set Theory, Semantics/Semiotics, Taoism, etc). And presumably he is optimizing for personal peace and comfort. That is all well and good, but I personally have great concern for others suffering around the world, and brushing things under the carpet (to achieve solace, ironically) with Meme Magic like his is a big part of what causes those problems to persist across generations and centuries, even though it is (presumably) not necessary. When COVID was on the scene, the well being of others was a big deal...but now that it's largely gone, we are back to "every man for himself", or "that's just the way it is". Disgraceful imho.

throwanem 2y ago

If you mean to distinguish the normative and the positive, doing so in those well-known terms may save both your time and that of future interlocutors. The ignorant mind finds binary distinctions most facile to draw. The clever but ungrounded one unfortunately tends most easily into more complex modes of error.

mistermann 2y ago
> If you mean to distinguish the normative and the positive, doing so in those well-known terms may save both your time and that of future interlocutors. I'm not sure what you mean, could you explain please? > The ignorant mind finds binary distinctions most facile to draw. The clever but ungrounded one unfortunately tends most easily into more complex modes of error. Is this an accusation directed towards me? If so, please provide more detail so I can realize my error.
- throwanem 2y ago
  I had occasion to describe the distinction in some detail here the other day: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40860651 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40860651 I wouldn't precisely call it an accusation. If it's anything beyond me being a bit bitchy on a hot and unpleasant day, it's a suggestion from one autodidact, perhaps to another, to bear in mind that the moment of "I have a great idea!" is best followed by a moment of "I wonder who's had something to say about it before."
  - mistermann 2y ago
    Oh my was my read wrong (backwards!) (and perhaps also my comments above?). So there are others I see...it's a shame there's no way for anomalous agents to locate each other in this simulation. :(
    - throwanem 2y ago
      I suppose a simulationist would say there might be a lot of reasons for that, or none. But I suspect my simulation of a simulationist has not that much fidelity. In either case I rarely regret meeting unusual people, though make no promises a priori of taking any particular example very seriously; it depends a lot on the vector sum of the distinction.

47282847 2y ago

“Belief systems arise because there is a certain convenience to them. It is a solace. Only those who are lost and disturbed need solace. Unfortunately a large part of humanity has been kept in this state for a long time, and now it has become necessary to peddle solace. All you need to tell them is, “Do not worry, God is with you.” That is all they need. Whether God is with you or not with you is not the issue. You feel someone is with you. This is keeping a lot of people sane. Otherwise they would break up. Religion has filled the gap between that absolutely blissful state that one can achieve in his own nature, and one’s present level of instability. If you are looking for solace, it is definitely needed. Most people are looking for solace, not liberation. Solace is like a tranquilizer – it puts you to sleep.“ https://isha.sadhguru.org/en/wisdom/article/spirituality-vs-religion https://isha.sadhguru.org/en/wisdom/article/spirituality-vs-...

mistermann 2y ago
For broader coverage/accuracy (minimization of misinformation), I think "religion" should be replaced with something like "the symbol representing the the metaphysical framework the individual subscribes to"....this way it also covers the science crowd as well. For science I guess the symbol would just be "science"? Not sure what one would use for mystics. Are there more than these three? > Religion has filled the gap between that absolutely blissful state that one can achieve in his own nature, and one’s present level of instability. Interestingly, this is a faith based belief: "X has Y" ("has" varies...."explains", "is caused by", "is the fault of", etc are some other variations) is reductive, and speculative. If it is presented as fact rather than opinion/belief, then it is belief without adequate supporting evidence, aka Faith. Or it could also be propaganda, misinformation, etc. This is probably in violation of the dominant metaphysical framework of the era/region though, in which case how about we attach a "That's pedantic" or "Just joking!" label and call it even. I'm actually a big Sadhguru fan, but he himself admits that he avoids reading too much so as to avoid contamination by ideological frameworks (like in this case, say...Set Theory, Semantics/Semiotics, Taoism, etc). And presumably he is optimizing for personal peace and comfort. That is all well and good, but I personally have great concern for others suffering around the world, and brushing things under the carpet (to achieve solace, ironically) with Meme Magic like his is a big part of what causes those problems to persist across generations and centuries, even though it is (presumably) not necessary. When COVID was on the scene, the well being of others was a big deal...but now that it's largely gone, we are back to "every man for himself", or "that's just the way it is". Disgraceful imho.