I don't know what the Semantic Apocalypse is, but I feel like I just fell victim to something like it. This blog is written extremely opaquely. I had to read it twice even to get the sense that I...
I don't know what the Semantic Apocalypse is, but I feel like I just fell victim to something like it. This blog is written extremely opaquely. I had to read it twice even to get the sense that I might be understanding it - and I'm still not sure that I do.
It seems to be a warning against transhumanism: don't mess with human brains, or we won't be able to communicate with each other any more.
I don't know why this person couldn't use plain language to convey their message, unless there's a meta-message here, and form is meeting function: the writer is demonstrating what the world will feel like when we stop being able to communicate with each other.
This person is worried that all of our words will come to mean different things to different groups of people based on their exposure to their communities, both in the big blue room and online....
This person is worried that all of our words will come to mean different things to different groups of people based on their exposure to their communities, both in the big blue room and online.
Someone should tell him we already have this, it's called 'different languages.' It was far worse in the past than it is today - at least we can translate with ease now.
I'm sure Merriam-Webster will weep for the future of their printed bible. Meanwhile, lexicographers are loving it. Language is finally free from the limits of dusty old tomes and stale academic classrooms. You'll also note he doesn't mention you can find the meaning of a word and the correct spelling now with a couple simple clicks. That's also progress, and it's more of an anchor than we've had for most of human history on the concept of meaning.
Yes, but that doesn't stop people using words to create a new phrase - like, for example, "the big blue room", which I assume refers to some metaphysical concept I'm not familiar with. It also...
you can find the meaning of a word and the correct spelling now with a couple simple clicks.
Yes, but that doesn't stop people using words to create a new phrase - like, for example, "the big blue room", which I assume refers to some metaphysical concept I'm not familiar with. It also doesn't stop people doing what this blogger has done: each word is spelled correctly and strung together grammatically, but phrases are created because they look nice together, without regard to communicating an actual message, ultimately creating a sort of word soup.
I've also seen quite a few people on the internet who take the same approach as Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty:
I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
It looks like this is a post from the blog of RS Bakker, a philosophy professor and the much-celebrated author of The Second Apocalypse. I haven't read any of his novels (though I own one) but he...
It looks like this is a post from the blog of RS Bakker, a philosophy professor and the much-celebrated author of The Second Apocalypse. I haven't read any of his novels (though I own one) but he is famed for his exceedingly dense prose.
I think the title of this piece "Semantic Apocalypse," is relating more to the meaning of life than words. From the second paragraph:
The result of this heterogeniety is a society lacking any universal meaning-based imperatives: all the ‘shoulds’ of a meaningful life are either individual or subcultural. As a result, the only universal imperatives that remain are those arising out of our shared biology: our fears and hungers
It seems Bakker is commenting on his observation that, in the absence of a state-enforced ideology (e.g. religion, philosophy), a society will generally fragment into several groups with their own beliefs regarding the Meaning of Life (TM).
In such a society, the only unifying trait of these disparate philosophies will be those tied to fundamentally human desires/fears. For example, someone who subscribes to a Hedonistic philosophy might propose the purpose of life is the pursuit of carnal pleasure and the avoidance of pain. Meanwhile, a financially-driven person might claim the meaning of life is to acquire capital.
In this example, the only thing that links these two philosophies is that the goal of both is to pursue human desires (carnal pleasure for the Hedonist, money for the capitalist).
This where RS Bakker mixes philosophy and speculative fiction (as he has done in his fiction in the past).
If we were to alter the human brain, the notion of "human desires" or "human fears" would cease to exist. Because all desires/fears would be engineered by the neurosurgeon, there would no longer be any unifying feature for these disparate philosophies attempting to identify a Meaning of Life (TM).
The brain could be re-worked such that pain becomes a cause for pleasure and pleasure a source of pain. In such a state, there would no longer be any reason for different philosophies to share even the most meager commonalities.
I'm not sure how I feel about this piece personally (I'll have to think it over a little longer) but this is my take on what Bakker is saying.
That makes more sense. Are we still arguing about the 'meaning of life' as if it's something more than a silly subjective notion with no basis in reality? I'm rather rusty on my philosophy, it's...
That makes more sense. Are we still arguing about the 'meaning of life' as if it's something more than a silly subjective notion with no basis in reality? I'm rather rusty on my philosophy, it's been a while. I tend to lean hardcore materialist.
For those of you who may have a hard time understanding this article, this is what the semantic apocalypse is in laymens terms: Those of us in Western society have always had differences-...
For those of you who may have a hard time understanding this article, this is what the semantic apocalypse is in laymens terms:
Those of us in Western society have always had differences- political, religious, economic, etc- but, as a society, we have always had a common thread. A base line, if you will.
The problem is that, over the past couple of decades, this has really begun to break down- to the point where we now can't even agree what reality is anymore.
Basically- some people used to believe the sky was baby blue; others believed it was periwinkle. But we all agreed it was blue- we simply argued about what type of blue it is. Now this base line has broken- some people think it's purple, some people think it's green, and an ever shrinking number of people still believe it to be blue.
So the article asks this question:
So what happens when we inevitably leave that shared neurophysiology behind?
What happens when we, as a society, can't even agree on what reality is?
This is a very important question to ask. I'll read the article and update this comment with my thoughts afterwards.
Also, IMO, this article reads... pretentiously. Like, the language used in this article is unnecessarily complex. So if you're having trouble understanding, don't worry- it's not you.
Edit- I finished the article
So basically, OP is saying: if we don't find a solution to this, then mass madness- or, as I interpret it, mass chaos- will occur.
Then they stop speculating, state that the best solution is for a government enforced culture of some sort (state run religion, for example) and then they end the post. So allow me to begin where OP left off-
(Note- this is my personal opinion, NOT OPs)
While there is no place for the average, "static" human in a world of madness, the fact of the matter is, they will not have a choice but to stay put here on Earth, for where else would they go? Thus, because reason, as a species, will have escaped us, the world as we know it will change dramatically- perhaps even within a generation or two. Combined with the threat of a significantly warmer Earth, madness will, over time, create ever expanding conflicts that, to the "static" human, would be relatively simple to solve- but to the mad, such solutions will be impossible, resulting in the destruction of the current political status-quo and the erosion of the power of independent states. Humanity then may eventually devolve in to such a state wherein the idea of the modern state will simply no longer exist, and instead we will be organized in to hundreds of thousands of smaller groups- maybe we will revert to the old idea of city-states, or maybe, through sheer madness, a new system will arise. This is the true "apocalypse"- the destruction of the human race as we know it, by our own hands.
Thanks for that clarification. I'm having a hard time seeing the doom and gloom angle to all of this. Those who stick to facts, logic, reason, and the scientific method will kick the everloving...
Thanks for that clarification. I'm having a hard time seeing the doom and gloom angle to all of this. Those who stick to facts, logic, reason, and the scientific method will kick the everloving hell out of every other group that doesn't. Reality doesn't change just because we all get confused. It's out there, and so is 'right' and 'wrong' (math, not ethics). It seems like natural selection will simply allow the sane to out-compete the mad, and probably even exploit them. If you don't know what's 'real' you can't begin to compete with those who do.
I don't know what the Semantic Apocalypse is, but I feel like I just fell victim to something like it. This blog is written extremely opaquely. I had to read it twice even to get the sense that I might be understanding it - and I'm still not sure that I do.
It seems to be a warning against transhumanism: don't mess with human brains, or we won't be able to communicate with each other any more.
I don't know why this person couldn't use plain language to convey their message, unless there's a meta-message here, and form is meeting function: the writer is demonstrating what the world will feel like when we stop being able to communicate with each other.
This person is worried that all of our words will come to mean different things to different groups of people based on their exposure to their communities, both in the big blue room and online.
Someone should tell him we already have this, it's called 'different languages.' It was far worse in the past than it is today - at least we can translate with ease now.
I'm sure Merriam-Webster will weep for the future of their printed bible. Meanwhile, lexicographers are loving it. Language is finally free from the limits of dusty old tomes and stale academic classrooms. You'll also note he doesn't mention you can find the meaning of a word and the correct spelling now with a couple simple clicks. That's also progress, and it's more of an anchor than we've had for most of human history on the concept of meaning.
Yes, but that doesn't stop people using words to create a new phrase - like, for example, "the big blue room", which I assume refers to some metaphysical concept I'm not familiar with. It also doesn't stop people doing what this blogger has done: each word is spelled correctly and strung together grammatically, but phrases are created because they look nice together, without regard to communicating an actual message, ultimately creating a sort of word soup.
I've also seen quite a few people on the internet who take the same approach as Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty:
It's that strange big noisy place most people travel through on their way to work and back. :P
Oh. Thanks.
It looks like this is a post from the blog of RS Bakker, a philosophy professor and the much-celebrated author of The Second Apocalypse. I haven't read any of his novels (though I own one) but he is famed for his exceedingly dense prose.
I think the title of this piece "Semantic Apocalypse," is relating more to the meaning of life than words. From the second paragraph:
It seems Bakker is commenting on his observation that, in the absence of a state-enforced ideology (e.g. religion, philosophy), a society will generally fragment into several groups with their own beliefs regarding the Meaning of Life (TM).
In such a society, the only unifying trait of these disparate philosophies will be those tied to fundamentally human desires/fears. For example, someone who subscribes to a Hedonistic philosophy might propose the purpose of life is the pursuit of carnal pleasure and the avoidance of pain. Meanwhile, a financially-driven person might claim the meaning of life is to acquire capital.
In this example, the only thing that links these two philosophies is that the goal of both is to pursue human desires (carnal pleasure for the Hedonist, money for the capitalist).
This where RS Bakker mixes philosophy and speculative fiction (as he has done in his fiction in the past).
If we were to alter the human brain, the notion of "human desires" or "human fears" would cease to exist. Because all desires/fears would be engineered by the neurosurgeon, there would no longer be any unifying feature for these disparate philosophies attempting to identify a Meaning of Life (TM).
The brain could be re-worked such that pain becomes a cause for pleasure and pleasure a source of pain. In such a state, there would no longer be any reason for different philosophies to share even the most meager commonalities.
I'm not sure how I feel about this piece personally (I'll have to think it over a little longer) but this is my take on what Bakker is saying.
That makes more sense. Are we still arguing about the 'meaning of life' as if it's something more than a silly subjective notion with no basis in reality? I'm rather rusty on my philosophy, it's been a while. I tend to lean hardcore materialist.
For those of you who may have a hard time understanding this article, this is what the semantic apocalypse is in laymens terms:
Those of us in Western society have always had differences- political, religious, economic, etc- but, as a society, we have always had a common thread. A base line, if you will.
The problem is that, over the past couple of decades, this has really begun to break down- to the point where we now can't even agree what reality is anymore.
Basically- some people used to believe the sky was baby blue; others believed it was periwinkle. But we all agreed it was blue- we simply argued about what type of blue it is. Now this base line has broken- some people think it's purple, some people think it's green, and an ever shrinking number of people still believe it to be blue.
So the article asks this question:
What happens when we, as a society, can't even agree on what reality is?
This is a very important question to ask. I'll read the article and update this comment with my thoughts afterwards.
Also, IMO, this article reads... pretentiously. Like, the language used in this article is unnecessarily complex. So if you're having trouble understanding, don't worry- it's not you.
Edit- I finished the article
So basically, OP is saying: if we don't find a solution to this, then mass madness- or, as I interpret it, mass chaos- will occur.
Then they stop speculating, state that the best solution is for a government enforced culture of some sort (state run religion, for example) and then they end the post. So allow me to begin where OP left off-
(Note- this is my personal opinion, NOT OPs)
While there is no place for the average, "static" human in a world of madness, the fact of the matter is, they will not have a choice but to stay put here on Earth, for where else would they go? Thus, because reason, as a species, will have escaped us, the world as we know it will change dramatically- perhaps even within a generation or two. Combined with the threat of a significantly warmer Earth, madness will, over time, create ever expanding conflicts that, to the "static" human, would be relatively simple to solve- but to the mad, such solutions will be impossible, resulting in the destruction of the current political status-quo and the erosion of the power of independent states. Humanity then may eventually devolve in to such a state wherein the idea of the modern state will simply no longer exist, and instead we will be organized in to hundreds of thousands of smaller groups- maybe we will revert to the old idea of city-states, or maybe, through sheer madness, a new system will arise. This is the true "apocalypse"- the destruction of the human race as we know it, by our own hands.
Thanks for that clarification. I'm having a hard time seeing the doom and gloom angle to all of this. Those who stick to facts, logic, reason, and the scientific method will kick the everloving hell out of every other group that doesn't. Reality doesn't change just because we all get confused. It's out there, and so is 'right' and 'wrong' (math, not ethics). It seems like natural selection will simply allow the sane to out-compete the mad, and probably even exploit them. If you don't know what's 'real' you can't begin to compete with those who do.