What Author is a glorified pseud?

What do you disagree with?

> “unconscious mind” predates and is in fact the origin of language
I don't think he said that. He compared it to a virus. Something external. He said that the unconscious at least understands language, which is why it can solve for the scientist his problems in dreams and all.
>that unconscious mind is the orgin of everything human
Again, the words are that it is an operating system for a machine. I mean you don't have conscious control over your feelings. They seem to respond to external phenomena, or sometimes internal memories. There is more going in the head than we are consciously in control of. Something's making it work and we call it unconscious. You should specify what exactly do you disagree with here.
>My issue with the essay in this context is that it’s just sort of Reddit pop science. It’s sheer speculation attempting go basically explain some thing through unfounded assertion, sort of like a layman’s take on “quantum mechanics” which McCarthy also thinks has incredible explanatory power apparently. The method of the argument is just bad as well. It’s presented as a profound discovery but what it really asserts is something that everyone more or less accepts as a possibility albeit not in the same way or in the same terms with the same implications.
Okay, this maybe subjective but the delivery and tone in the essay are very colloquial. I think you are projecting this impression of profoundness on it. I thought it was just McCarthy presenting some of his speculations which were a result of lot of talk with his Scientist friends. He is pretty sarcastic throughout, even poking some fun at Chomsky. Almost everything about the mind beyond physical biology is purely speculation so I don't reckon it is right to disregard everything without specifying anything that you may have a problem with.

For my money, I don't see the virus comparison but it is an interesting idea.

>I disagree that we even have a “unconscious”
Elaborate. This is pretty damn stupid, maybe your problem to begin with.
>He said in that one interview he did something like “there has never been a theory that was more accurate in explaining things”
He is correct though. So far we don't have a better one that hits most of the points as well. I don't think he ever suggested that it will explain the world wholly. The two books beat that point home, that no human paradigm will ever entirely simulate reality in its equations.

>But while you might actually sort of agree with this, McCarthy literally does think it explains reality.
I think you have invented some other McCarthy for yourself. Please post the quote where he says this because his two new novels are literally 600 pages of saying the exact opposite.
>he’s correct regarding that claim about quantum mechanics then you probably haven’t thought that deeply about it. If you invent a theory that explains things, using as your measure of its truthfulness that it explains things, then all you’ve done is told yourself a story that you accept as true simply because you think the details fit
Read my post properly. I have said the exact same thing. You talk about thinking deeply yet you can't read posts properly. There will never be a wholly accurate simulation, but some simulations empirically work better than all others. Only newbies cracking their first book on postmodern theory would disagree.

>what’s far more stupid is believing in the existence of some non-material thing without any logical justification simply because it’s useful in explaining some other phenomena, independent of whether it’s even really true or false.
You have invented a whole damn story to convince yourself lol. Unconscious simply means the part of your mind that you can't consciously perceive. You can perceive the screen right in front of you, you can perceive the thoughts you are currently having and you can perceive the words when you begin typing them. But you aren't conscious of your breathing or even what next sentence you are going to write. Hell, take dreams. If you were consciously inagining them they would have absolutely no power to surprise you. Nightmares won't exist. Dreams would be no different then imagining while awake.

Now because all the state above are facts which you can verify from common experience, there must be part of our mind that is beyond immediate perception. We call it the unconscious, it's just a name.

But atleast address the unconscious claim. I am sorry but what you are saying is genuinely stupid and basically kills any legitimacy of this post

I’m same person. I have the same critique. To be clear, just because it would’ve been novel in 1950, doesn’t mean it would’ve been true. But that doesn’t actually matter because it wasn’t presented in 1950. It was presented in 2017. I think given the intellectual currents of 2017, it was not only wrong but actually stupid and kind of embarrassing, not because it’s been widely refuted by 2017 but because I don’t see any excuse for still being caught up in the currents that might make you think such a thing was novel or profound by 2017. I think other guy was right when he pointed out that it reads like something a first year undergraduate would present. It’s only more embarrassing in 2017 is all.

It can only be embarrassing if the person calling it embarrassing doesn't have a stupid unjustifiable opinion. Then it is just petty.

>both your position and McCarthy’s worldview are fundamentally unjustified and indeed unjustifiable by default
>I would suggest you just think about whether things can be said to be true or false merely because they “work” or fit phenomena and how you would know that’s the case.
Just a meta-comment, you clearly don't understand the word irony or you would see how stupidly ironic your adjacent sentences are.

One piece of wisdom. Postmodern theory doesn't deny empirical truths. It criticizes narratives that disguise as empirical truths. My write up on unconscious is empirical truth with no assumptions whatsoever. I can't think deeply to deny something that convinces me completely. The change has to be external. You need to provide a smart argument.

>it's not though
Think deeply before you say for sure what is and what is not correct. You are telling yourself otherwise where it is incorrect only because you don't want to believe in it

>because I can construct a cosmology which appears to explain empirical phenomena, that it’s not objectively and literally true simply because it explains empirical phenomena and it’s certainly not empirically true lol.
Nothing can be said then, literally. Sit in silence because this whole evening maybe an illusion of your mind while you die in an asylum, or maybe it's aliens assraping you while you hallucinate. Speculationssss maaan, could be anything. No empirical phenomena exists, all fantasy.

Trivia: anon's argument is why post-structualism became a den of idiots and all smart philosophers distanced themselves from it.

>undergraduate this undergraduate that
>empiricist this empiricist that
You will say everything except any argument against the unconsciousness. Phony as frick. Enjoy listening to your own voice. It's funny being patronized for not being an intellectual by a stupid person lol.

Because he didn't tell himself consciously?
How thick are you moron? This is so simple and straightforward. Whatever isn't part of your conscious imagination is still obviously coming from somewhere otherwise you wouldn't perceive it and we wouldn't have this dilemma. He calls it unconscious. What the frick are you talking about cosmologies? He didn't invent any system where he assumed an entity called unconscious. It's just a signifier for something that sits outside his conscious perception. Your moronic ass is arguing about narratives while saying that the color blue is actually read. This is the pseudest shit ever. Needless shitting up the thread with garbage posts.

Annoy somebody else. I might as well go explain it to a lamp post.

>i had this dream
>you were imagining it
>i wasn't aware of imagining it
>must be the unconscious
>hence proved
You are stupid as hell. Read the article again. You are arguing against some fantasy article you have invented as nemesis.

No arguments again by the designated moron. If it is so dumb why don't you stop beating around the bush and put it to bed. Your posts are worthless.
>that unconscious is older than language
You are moving the goalpost again, moron. I have already said the essay is speculative, as almost all essays on the mind are. This is like complaining that Einstein's argumrnts about general relativity were speculation and hence moronic. That's dumb as hell. Science is first and forrmost speculation born of observation, then conclusion and verification.

Stick to the matter at hand. Your non-existent argument ostracizes him for believing in the unconscious, but you are too moronic to explain why except "oh you are stupid in believing what's empirical true because it isn't..... because because it just isn't". Dumbass.

Why would I care what linguistics allegedly think? That’s just an appeal to authority.

It’s a fallacy. This is literally scientism. Thanks for finally exposing yourself and refuting your own argument.

That’s fine. Your whole worldview rests on a logical fallacy so I don’t care what you think about mine.

Did your experts tell you that?

No, you’re too steeped in scientism to convince here.

You’ve made several claims here for which no empirical evidence exists.

You have invented a moronic cosmology where this "empirical evidence" doesn't exist. Except it only doesn't exist within your cosmology which refuses to see anything but what suits your narrative. This is circular reasoning. If you could think deeply, you would see how moronic your claim about something being true or false is.

Show me the empirical evidence which proves that the unconscious provides language or even exists.

Oh wait. There isn’t any.

> prove it exists
> it’s a given there’s you proof
Lol ok anon

I said I don’t agree that exists. Obviously, I don’t have empirical proof that it doesn’t but why would I need empirical proof for something that does not exist? That doesn’t make any logical sense. This unconscious is essentially supernatural phenomena for which no natural evidence exists. Normally, we call that religious belief but you don’t think it is religious belief simply because you dress it up in scientific terminology. You’re a pseud. Sorry to break it to you.

Read a book illiterate homosexual. Knowledge and evidence aren't fricking pancakes that get cooked up in your brain.

Okay don't read a book. Eat a dick. You deserve that more. The author of that book deserves better too.

>Whatever isn't part of your conscious imagination is still obviously coming from somewhere otherwise you wouldn't perceive it and we wouldn't have this dilemma. He calls it unconscious.
>He didn't invent any system where he assumed an entity called unconscious.
McCarthy moment

Your word salad strawman isn’t a refutation. He is putting forward a theory about how some phenomena occurred and his only justification for that claim is that it attempts to explain. That’s incoherent. Period.

How is it his failure to realize its speculative? You are projecting with that. Nothing he says in the essay is with an iron fist that it can only be this way. He even keeps poking fun at himself sarcastically with "my scientist friend thinks it is correct which pleases me greatly as he is very smart".

No, he’s not an intellectual. He’s a novelist and prose stylist. There’s nothing particularly intellectual about any of his books or essays. For example, He is writing pop science cosmology in a very nice almost biblical prose style in Blood Meridian. If you want to consider him an intellectual for asserting some Neil DeGrasse Tyson stuff, go ahead. I don’t.

>He is writing pop science cosmology in a very nice almost biblical prose style in Blood Meridian.
What? What the hell are you talking about? Please post an example.

And please read my posts with a cool head. You are getting agitated for no reason whatsoever.

If you think that is pop science cosmology then I assume you have no idea what that means.
>the hermit in the story even asserts that this primal sort of world is only ended by the machine world of modernity
Blantantly wrong. Hermit says that machine world will automate the evil and keep the vicious cycle going. Where did Degrasse Tyson say any of what you said? After arguing that McCarthy's primary concern is aesthetic you are trying to sell us one of 100 interpretations of the book as if it was the objective one, and a wrong one at that.

>He might not ever insist “this is 100% the case without a shadow of a doubt” but he is still making claims about what is the case.
Yeah, have you ever read an essay in your life? An essay has to make some claim otherwise why would it even be written? That's stupid as hell. I guess speculative essays don't exist and everytime some archaelogist relays what might have happened based on his findings, he is being an arrogant prick who clearly knows nothing about the business.

>The Judge is the one that admits that the world with the potential that he represents through his actions and monologues is the one that’s ended by the machine world.
Where? You are misquoting and misconstruing the hermit and even the implication within the Judge as a symbol. If he is the dark part of human psychology, the shadow Jung called it, he is the personage of evil and in the hermit's conception he is the true automator. He creates "a machine that can build a machine and evil that perpetuates itself for a thousand years no need to tend it".
>literally an argument that Neil DeGrasse Tyson has made many times
Lmao. The argument existed way before Tyson was born. If quoting something he read somewhere in some non-fiction makes it pop science then I guess Shakespeare is also pop sci because Tyson quoted him once. This is such a moronic argument.

Nothing to say about the interpretation which frankly looks nonsense. Please point me to the Judge's monologue that proves you right. I am all for learning new things and this is a book that rewards different readings. But please reassess your use of Degrasse tyson in your opinions lol.

TL;DR

Seems a load of waffle. You are saying McCarthy believes in some pseudo science comsmology because you have a (wrong) interpretation of the book? While also implying that he is making no overt commentary on anything beyond aesthetics? Okay, whatever floats your boat. I lost interest, I thought this will be a learned conversation.

His concern is aesthetic. Blood Meridian is basically just an aesthetic portrayal of the potentialities and “realities” of that world I described. It makes no moral judgements, there’s no social commentary, not political commentary, no logical arguments, no mythology, no confession, nothing like that all. He’s just saying “this is what was the case, and here’s a pretty picture of it”.

>But that wouldn't explain the objectivity with which you are implying pop science cosmology claims.
I’m having a hard time following this statement. What are you saying? Are you saying it doesn’t explain the objectivity of my assertion that McCarthy’s claims are this sort of pop science cosmology?

Why should I assume the hermit is McCarthy’s self-insert? He’s just a hermit. “The way it is” is something I’m gathering from the story in its totality, not the subjective views of any one character in the story. The Judge and the hermit are at odds, for example. So it couldn’t possibly be right to just assume either one of reflects the author’s views. If either did, how could we know that? We can’t obviously.

I mean, if you want me to admit that my take on his worldview is speculative then sure. It’s something I gathered from the book. He never outright says “this is what I think about reality”. It’s only implied.

I actually didn’t provide any quotes at all.

I didn’t quote anything. I summarized what the judge said and what the hermit said. But neither one, I think, can be said to be MCarthy’s own views. His views are taken in the totality I think. I thought I was clear about that. In my view, the hermit makes moral judgements because he’s a man. The Judge is not merely a man. He’s more like something that man has inside of him, and that’s why the judge doesn’t make any moral judgements. Does McCarthy make moral judgements? Maybe, but I think if he did, he wouldn’t write the Judge the way he did. If he thought the judge was morally good or evil, he probably wouldn’t be able to write the judge saying what he says. Is that objective? No, it’s not. But I never said it was.

The hermit indeed explains that the epoch I described comes to an end with the machine age. Do you disagree? Whether the hermit agrees that the machine age is “good” or “bad” is irrelevant.

You have a point. While I was reading it I was (in denial) saying to myself “well he’s old” and “there must be something deeper here” it struck me as something an undergrad would write after first learning about Jung

Well, this is the thing. He was born in 1933 so you might have otherwise been forgiven in my mind for writing something like that. It would’ve been really novel in 1940 you know. But he wrote that essay in 2017.

How? I don’t see how their reaction matters at all. “Scientists” (social scientists) squabble over totally infantile shit all the time.

I’m the same person. So no, I don’t agree with his speculations in either case. But I don’t see why some credentialed “experts” being invested in this or that aspect of the essay has anything to do with my critique of the essay. I don’t really care what these linguistics thought. They could believe some pseud shit and be squabbling over that too for all I know, in which case, it wouldn’t make a difference that they disagree with him, would it? That experts agree/disagree is not a justification of an argument you know.

I’m same person. I have the same critique. To be clear, just because it would’ve been novel in 1950, doesn’t mean it would’ve been true. But that doesn’t actually matter because it wasn’t presented in 1950. It was presented in 2017. I think given the intellectual currents of 2017, it was not only wrong but actually stupid and kind of embarrassing, not because it’s been widely refuted by 2017 but because I don’t see any excuse for still being caught up in the currents that might make you think such a thing was novel or profound by 2017. I think other guy was right when he pointed out that it reads like something a first year undergraduate would present. It’s only more embarrassing in 2017 is all.

tommy does it for free : )

No, he’s not an intellectual. He’s a novelist and prose stylist. There’s nothing particularly intellectual about any of his books or essays. For example, He is writing pop science cosmology in a very nice almost biblical prose style in Blood Meridian. If you want to consider him an intellectual for asserting some Neil DeGrasse Tyson stuff, go ahead. I don’t.