![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Last Sunday I gave my presentation on "Pantheism: Beyond Theism and Atheism", which seemed to go fairly well with a pretty good turnout and excellent discussion. An MP4 audio-video recording is also available. There was a hint that perhaps I will do a follow-up presentation on "unverifiable ontologies", that is metaphysics, metaideals, metasymbols some time in the future, and also a reminder to self to put on paper (so to speak) thoughts about Spinoza's rational pantheism and the nature of the infinite, as twice now I have presented primarily on subjective experientiality. As pointed out in the presentation there was a little twist, namely if the universe is considered to be divine in the pantheistic perspective then the secular transcendentals (Truth, Justice, Beauty) must be considered, in some sense, "holy".
It is with this in mind one can think of the "freedom" rallies held in Sydney, Melbourne, and Brisbane over the weekend. Now here's a curious thing; I support the choice of people not to undergo vaccinations on the basis of personal preference, even if I think they are completely ignorant in doing so. However, their "freedom" is also balanced an obligation to respect the safety of the rest of the public. This means movement restrictions and masks in public are valid, as are vaccination requirements for workplaces etc, even to the French method where a health pass is required for restaurants, trains, planes, and some public venues. . If people don't like this they find themselves their own special community to live in, a sort of quarantine from everyone else, or a big 'flu party if you like. I am prepared to take suggestions from Australia's currently uninhabited islands where this should be. Proper shelters can be constructed and food drops arranged. We won't need them for long, right?
It's all part of that difficult balance between truth and freedom, and the challenge when practices and expressions become objectively harmful. I have written about this before in the context of political advertising, suggesting that voters deserve the same protections from politicians as consumers. Of course, in the scientific world, there is a well-established practice of hypothesis-making and hypothesis-breaking where facts trump feelings as a matter of professional competence. "Science is not a democracy", as they say. Sometimes that can lead to surprises; I only recently became aware that the clinical results of the curative properties of aloe vera are mixed at best, regardless of subjective experiences. The most difficult confirmation bias is one's own opinion, experience, and iatrogenic memories, which is why corroborative and external evidence is requisite. But how many are going to believe external evidence against their own feelings and thoughts?
It is with this in mind one can think of the "freedom" rallies held in Sydney, Melbourne, and Brisbane over the weekend. Now here's a curious thing; I support the choice of people not to undergo vaccinations on the basis of personal preference, even if I think they are completely ignorant in doing so. However, their "freedom" is also balanced an obligation to respect the safety of the rest of the public. This means movement restrictions and masks in public are valid, as are vaccination requirements for workplaces etc, even to the French method where a health pass is required for restaurants, trains, planes, and some public venues. . If people don't like this they find themselves their own special community to live in, a sort of quarantine from everyone else, or a big 'flu party if you like. I am prepared to take suggestions from Australia's currently uninhabited islands where this should be. Proper shelters can be constructed and food drops arranged. We won't need them for long, right?
It's all part of that difficult balance between truth and freedom, and the challenge when practices and expressions become objectively harmful. I have written about this before in the context of political advertising, suggesting that voters deserve the same protections from politicians as consumers. Of course, in the scientific world, there is a well-established practice of hypothesis-making and hypothesis-breaking where facts trump feelings as a matter of professional competence. "Science is not a democracy", as they say. Sometimes that can lead to surprises; I only recently became aware that the clinical results of the curative properties of aloe vera are mixed at best, regardless of subjective experiences. The most difficult confirmation bias is one's own opinion, experience, and iatrogenic memories, which is why corroborative and external evidence is requisite. But how many are going to believe external evidence against their own feelings and thoughts?
