On Karl Popper's solution to his own paradox of tolerance: Every now and then a proponant of 'tolerance' will cite political philosopher Karl Popper's 'paradox of tolerance' to justify their suppression of the 'intolerant'. Shame Karl Popper didn't see it as much of a paradox, then.
Full article at bottom of email
Autopoeisis as the origin of thought: The complexity of our world determines the complexity of our actions. Simple enough to say, and perhaps to understand, but the implications are quite incredible and it all hinges on one concept: autopoiesis.
New project on nutrition: Nutrition is a field of science plagued by very similar problems to brain science. You're trying to make sense of a system that's enormously complicated. So complicated in fact that it's almost impossible to figure anything out at any level of detail, let alone how to perfect nutrition for every single person. But, just like brain science, there are a few very useful rules of thumb.
On the [merits of existential therapies]/articles/existential-therapy): Existential therapy seems like an ideal way to go about psychological healing, given the philosophy it grew out of. Unfortunately, like existentialism it suffers from 'great man' syndrome—a huge number of idiosyncratic practices that make it difficult to know how good it really is.
Highlights from the scholia:
The capitalist mindset lures us into the trap of thinking that unless we are positive, happy and moving we must be condemned as ‘negative’. But why would ... paying attention to ... sadness ... grief ... anger ... be called ‘negative’?
Emotion is informational and the ceaseless movement towards productivity does us no favours by ignoring the information space of negativity.
Sedentary and hierarchical hunter-gatherers are not unusual. If anything, it’s the profusion of mobile, egalitarian bands that might be the historical outlier.
On the convenient origin myth of the egalitarian hunter-gathering past of humans. Atavism isn't the answer.
Adding to the point of Genetics is Nurture, this article suggests the same thing but the other way around. An environment is specified often by the preferences of the organism (in this case that of the child by the parent). Thus, the environment is an extension of the genetic predisposition. Either way you argue it, the distinction between nature and nurture really doesn't exist in a meaningful way.
On the Stages of Change: In the early 80's, somewhere between 1-5% of the U.S. population would die from smoking-related disease. Today, we have the internet, and the percentage of the population getting sick, physically or psychologically, from various ideologies is unquantifiable. Now, as then, people could benefit from the Stages of Change Model which shows why good advice falls on deaf ears.
You can find links to all my previous emails to you here.
That's all from me! Enjoy.
This week's article selection: Solving the Paradox of Choice
You're reading this on the site, so you can just go to the article.
Ideologies you choose at btrmt.