Wordless Wonder

[Guest guest]

Lewis wrote:

What actually is an event if we admit

that

> a selection of contemporary occurences

are

> not causally connected?

 

There would be no understandable events or

events as they are conceived.

Just random happenings, this and that.

 

 

Hi Lewis,

First Law of Coincidence:------- If no

contemporary event is causally connected

then all contemporary events are

coincidental.

 

That seems true but is it a paradox i.e.

correct reasoning that leads to a

conclusion we are reluctant to give assent

to. Jack meets Jill: a coincidence but

not 'what a coincidence' because they

both like free range eggs and country

butter and they're in the market. Voila!

 

So what are the roots of coincidence?

Here's a story which I caught last night

on the local Gaelic channel. Eddy

Linehan the folklorist and storyteller is

on his way down the road near Limerick

where major roadworks are going on. He

sees that the motorway is going through

the Fairy Thorn which is one of the great

markers of the path of the hosts of the

Shee. Extraction of this thorn tree would

bring bad luck to everyone both motorists

and digger driver. He gets on to the

local radio, Clare FM, and talks about it.

Heap bad ju ju, baraka al keff keff

kefach. A reporter from a national radio

current affairs show happens to be

listening and they feature it. A

reporter from New York is listening to

that show. He writes it up. From there a

Belgian magazine gets to know about it.

Before long Clare County Council is

getting a lot of enquiries about the

threatened thorn. After consultations

with the road designer they landscape the

motorway around this tree. So there it is

today in its enclosure its branches

festooned with favour rags.

 

So: Second Law of Coincidence ----All

lokas are not contemporary so

simultaneous causal efficacy is not

impeded.

 

Ramana discussed how you could be the

reincarnation of someone who had not died

yet!

 

Predestination: You shall have already

been saved;

or not, as the case may be.

 

Michael.

[Guest guest]

ombhurbhuva wrote:

> Lewis wrote:

> What actually is an event if we admit

> that

>

>>a selection of contemporary occurences

>

> are

>

>>not causally connected?

>

>

> There would be no understandable events or

> events as they are conceived.

> Just random happenings, this and that.

>

>

> Hi Lewis,

> First Law of Coincidence:------- If no

> contemporary event is causally connected

> then all contemporary events are

> coincidental.

>

> That seems true but is it a paradox i.e.

> correct reasoning that leads to a

> conclusion we are reluctant to give assent

> to. Jack meets Jill: a coincidence but

> not 'what a coincidence' because they

> both like free range eggs and country

> butter and they're in the market. Voila!

>

> So what are the roots of coincidence?

> Here's a story which I caught last night

> on the local Gaelic channel. Eddy

> Linehan the folklorist and storyteller is

> on his way down the road near Limerick

> where major roadworks are going on. He

> sees that the motorway is going through

> the Fairy Thorn which is one of the great

> markers of the path of the hosts of the

> Shee. Extraction of this thorn tree would

> bring bad luck to everyone both motorists

> and digger driver. He gets on to the

> local radio, Clare FM, and talks about it.

> Heap bad ju ju, baraka al keff keff

> kefach. A reporter from a national radio

> current affairs show happens to be

> listening and they feature it. A

> reporter from New York is listening to

> that show. He writes it up. From there a

> Belgian magazine gets to know about it.

> Before long Clare County Council is

> getting a lot of enquiries about the

> threatened thorn. After consultations

> with the road designer they landscape the

> motorway around this tree. So there it is

> today in its enclosure its branches

> festooned with favour rags.

>

 

Here, Mike you have made selections in a sequence of time. Coincidence

as exemplified is not a paradox. It is simply you juxtaposing events in

time. In anthropology we do the same story making. As a graduate

student, I did regression analysis for a professor who firmly believed

that the advent of Christianity in Zambia had profound economic effects

on household heads in remote rural villages who believed or belonged to

one of several Christian denominations. He gave me his data and asked

me to run a statistical analysis on it with an eye towards finding

correlations between religion and maize production. There was no

correlation whatsoever given the data. He could not accept it. It was

his experience that religion had something to do with it a la Max Weber

of whom he was a fan. So I told him that the significant

non-agricultural event (seed type, soil fertility, fertilizer, acreage,

farming skill, etc.) in the data facts points to tin roofs and that

these are an exceptionally clear and better predictor of maize

production than religion or the agricultural factors. He said he could

not write about that. I asked him why not after all tin roofs clearly

predicted greater maize production. The correlation was nearly .90 and

the regression analysis supported the correlation after accounting for

all covariances in the relevant variables inputted. So the coincidence

of the appearance and existence of tin roofs signaled greater annual

maize production over a number of years. This worked. He did not like

it. It offended his sensibilities and he worried that it would make him

a laughingstock if he wrote about.

 

Later, I poked him by saying that his data was insufficient and that

that is the reason why he did not find his expected finding. So, I made

the explanation more appetizing by selectively demonstrating the

correlations between tin roof and fertilizer, fertilizer and cash

income, cash income and civil service jobs, civil service jobs and

education, education and English language learning and religious

affiliation, so that he could make the story that Christian beliefs

increased maize production of those households over non-Christian ones.

He liked that. His data did not directly support this in any way

whatsoever. I just made it up. As you made up yours.

 

There is no reluctance necessary for anyone, Michael, unless there is

timidity. These are stories and beliefs that satisfy some use, whatever

that may be. It is selective and made up. The whole of jnana yoga,

Advaita Vedanta, Monism, spiritual or material, Monotheism, Pantheism,

Panenthesim, Atheism, Buddhism, Science in all its forms are all, all

made up and used for whatever the use is served and there are many

usefully served.

 

 

> So: Second Law of Coincidence ----All

> lokas are not contemporary so

> simultaneous causal efficacy is not

> impeded.

>

> Ramana discussed how you could be the

> reincarnation of someone who had not died

> yet!

>

> Predestination: You shall have already

> been saved;

> or not, as the case may be.

 

> Michael.

 

These are beliefs, stories. And they can be construed in any way

whatsoever. They mean only what is put into them. I could be the

reincarnation of my great, great, great, great, great, granddaughter. I

can believe it and be happy or not. There is no reason not to believe it

or to believe it, and there is no way to prove or disprove it, if there

is any concern with that. Ultimately all beliefs have no particular

meaning other than that given by the believer and what they can be used

for in life and the value placed on them is simply preferential, it

works well or it does not. The presence of a tin roofs as a predictors

of maize production for several villages was indisputable on the surface

by using the data well analyzed with better than the standard

procedures used in anthropology, but it was not satisfying as an

explanation for that professor and most likely his readers. Something

more relevant, something that would fit into the ontologies proffered

and reiterated in anthropology was sought to make their world go round

or to prop it up, or whatever the case may be.

 

These stories and beliefs, that is, every single thing written in this

place, are no more than that. All serve the purveyors and some serve the

receivers. Is this not understood? Whatever comes in language and

concept is a story, a belief, a representation taken in as many ways as

there are other beliefs and stories and representations that differ. So

one storyteller disagrees with another storyteller in all the many ways

that is done. What else could there be? Story telling is fun and

interesting and one experiences many things.

 

The story that all is stories and beliefs is a story, is it not?

 

Whose story is best?

 

I have not the faintest of an idea, for it does not matter.

 

What matters has not been much of a subject of discussion here. Timidity

rules here in that.

 

Lewis