Practicality or madness?

[Fisherman]

I am currently in the process of reading "Sapiens", by Yuval Noah Harari. It is the perhaps most eyeopening book I have ever read, and I throroughly recommend it to anybody with any sort of interest of understanding who we humans are, where we came from and how we became what we are.
Interestingly, Harari also writes something that has a huge bearing on our dispute about whether we have one or two killers. He writes that what tells us apart from the animals is first and foremost our ability to create myths. And myths are anything that does not objectively exist. For example, a tree in a forest objectively exists, but the American declaration of independence does not. A stone on the ground exists, but the car manufacturer Peugeot does not.

The explanation for this is how the tree and the stone will be there regardless of what we think about them - but the declaration of independence and Peugeot are inventions that are present only as inventions of human fantasy. Like the game of football. Like the laws. Like the constitution of any country. Like any country.

Hararai divides matters up in three categories, objectively existing things, subjectively existing things and collectively subjective existing things. The objectively existing things are not influenced by any idea, they are simply there and they do not go away should we not like them. The subjectively existing things are matters that individuals choose to think, like how Michael Richards thinks that my suggestion of a common killer is a crackpot suggestion. It is subjective in the meaning that it is his own take on things. Others may agree or disagree, but the deciding matter is that he and he alone can choose to abandon or uphold the idea. If he wakes up tomorrow and at long last realizes that I was probably right all along, or if evidence surfaces to prove me right, then he can erase his take and it will go away. Fortwith he will nurture another idea about it.
The collectively subjective existing things are things like the declaration of independence, Peugeot, the laws, the constitution etcetera. If Michael wakes up tomorrow and denies these matters, it will not matter, they will remain in "existence" because they are collectively accepted and one guy changing his mind about them will not make them go away. However, if everybody working with Peugeot stay home and noone replaces them, then Peugeot will disappear. If the americans as a collective denounce the declaration of independence, it will go away and be replaced with something else.

The concept is mindblowingly fresh and revealing. And, as I say, it applies to what we discuss.

How does it work in the errand of the lone killer versus the twin killer duo? Well, the objectively existing matters are the cuts to the abdomens, the taken out uteri, the stolen rings, the cut away abdominal flaps etcetera - the recorded evidence concerning the damage done.
The subjectively existing things are the ideas of differing mindsets behind the murder series, the suggestions of how the torso killer had a private abode, the notion that the Ripper went through a frenzy in Millers Court and a fair few other things. And being Ripperology, collectively subjective existing things are hard to come by.

Itīs the difference between basing our respective takes on facts as opposed to basing them on hunches, or as Harari would have worded it: myths.

It is a thoroughly worthwhile read, I can say that much. But of course, such a recommendation is a subjectively existing truth ...

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Quite concur Fisherman, 'Sapiens' and 'Deus' are highly recommend reading. Really interesting, thought provoking and very accessible.

[Michael W Richards]

"The subjectively existing things are matters that individuals choose to think, like how Michael Richards thinks that my suggestion of a common killer is a crackpot suggestion. It is subjective in the meaning that it is his own take on things. Others may agree or disagree, but the deciding matter is that he and he alone can choose to abandon or uphold the idea. If he wakes up tomorrow and at long last realizes that I was probably right all along, or if evidence surfaces to prove me right, then he can erase his take and it will go away. Fortwith he will nurture another idea about it.

The collectively subjective existing things are things like the declaration of independence, Peugeot, the laws, the constitution etcetera. If Michael wakes up tomorrow and denies these matters, it will not matter, they will remain in "existence" because they are collectively accepted and one guy changing his mind about them will not make them go away."

Interesting that you chose to use me to further your own objectives Fisherman, in this case as the incorrect version of events of course.

Let me assuage any fears you may have in this regard, Ive seen or read nothing that would make me "wake up" tomorrow with a new perspective on your arguments, they are based on your subjective impressions you have about certain aspects that are found within some victims of 2 series. Should you discover actual evidence that supports the ideas, then Ill be happy to read them. But if the evidence is simply something you feel is important, not some factual discovery, then well still be here where we are today. The contemporary investigators almost uniformly dismissed the idea you put forward, and considering they were faced with the same questions and had better access to the documentation for all the cases, one would think recognition of heir perspectives might have deterred you from taking this path.

But you obviously choose to believe in things rather than trying to prove them, so I suppose their perspectives, like mine, have no value to you. Belief is a strong intoxicant. Perhaps suspension of that belief as a foundation for a theory might reveal just how unlikely said belief actually is.

You have all the contemporary investigators suggesting that the Ripper series and Torso seriess' were not connected, almost everyone who has studies the cases and who study the cases here... including me...agreeing with that conclusion. Not to say were all correct and your wrong, just that it would take evidence to change those perspectives, and your "hunches" don't constitute evidence.

[Abby Normal]

I am currently in the process of reading "Sapiens", by Yuval Noah Harari. It is the perhaps most eyeopening book I have ever read, and I throroughly recommend it to anybody with any sort of interest of understanding who we humans are, where we came from and how we became what we are.
Interestingly, Harari also writes something that has a huge bearing on our dispute about whether we have one or two killers. He writes that what tells us apart from the animals is first and foremost our ability to create myths. And myths are anything that does not objectively exist. For example, a tree in a forest objectively exists, but the American declaration of independence does not. A stone on the ground exists, but the car manufacturer Peugeot does not.

The explanation for this is how the tree and the stone will be there regardless of what we think about them - but the declaration of independence and Peugeot are inventions that are present only as inventions of human fantasy. Like the game of football. Like the laws. Like the constitution of any country. Like any country.

Hararai divides matters up in three categories, objectively existing things, subjectively existing things and collectively subjective existing things. The objectively existing things are not influenced by any idea, they are simply there and they do not go away should we not like them. The subjectively existing things are matters that individuals choose to think, like how Michael Richards thinks that my suggestion of a common killer is a crackpot suggestion. It is subjective in the meaning that it is his own take on things. Others may agree or disagree, but the deciding matter is that he and he alone can choose to abandon or uphold the idea. If he wakes up tomorrow and at long last realizes that I was probably right all along, or if evidence surfaces to prove me right, then he can erase his take and it will go away. Fortwith he will nurture another idea about it.
The collectively subjective existing things are things like the declaration of independence, Peugeot, the laws, the constitution etcetera. If Michael wakes up tomorrow and denies these matters, it will not matter, they will remain in "existence" because they are collectively accepted and one guy changing his mind about them will not make them go away. However, if everybody working with Peugeot stay home and noone replaces them, then Peugeot will disappear. If the americans as a collective denounce the declaration of independence, it will go away and be replaced with something else.

The concept is mindblowingly fresh and revealing. And, as I say, it applies to what we discuss.

How does it work in the errand of the lone killer versus the twin killer duo? Well, the objectively existing matters are the cuts to the abdomens, the taken out uteri, the stolen rings, the cut away abdominal flaps etcetera - the recorded evidence concerning the damage done.
The subjectively existing things are the ideas of differing mindsets behind the murder series, the suggestions of how the torso killer had a private abode, the notion that the Ripper went through a frenzy in Millers Court and a fair few other things. And being Ripperology, collectively subjective existing things are hard to come by.

Itīs the difference between basing our respective takes on facts as opposed to basing them on hunches, or as Harari would have worded it: myths.

It is a thoroughly worthwhile read, I can say that much. But of course, such a recommendation is a subjectively existing truth ...

yup great book. finished reading a couple of months ago.

[harry]

Depends on how one defines'Exist'. The American 'Declaration of Independence' is not a myth.Though it was in the form of speech,it was real .It did exist.

[Kattrup]

How does it work in the errand of the lone killer versus the twin killer duo? Well, the objectively existing matters are the cuts to the abdomens, the taken out uteri, the stolen rings, the cut away abdominal flaps etcetera - the recorded evidence concerning the damage done.
The subjectively existing things are the ideas of differing mindsets behind the murder series, the suggestions of how the torso killer had a private abode, the notion that the Ripper went through a frenzy in Millers Court and a fair few other things. And being Ripperology, collectively subjective existing things are hard to come by.

Itīs the difference between basing our respective takes on facts as opposed to basing them on hunches, or as Harari would have worded it: myths.

It is a thoroughly worthwhile read, I can say that much. But of course, such a recommendation is a subjectively existing truth ...

I too love finding those books that put a new (to me) perspective on things.

However, I think you should consider Harari’s categories a bit further. The facts you mention are not objectively existing and are not comparable to the tree or the stone. There are several layers to be constructed first!

[Fisherman]

Yes, there were things leading up to the damage caused. But trees and stones also have a history, a creation process. The damage I listed did objectively exist, whereas any ideas about WHY it existed was always gonna be subjective myths.

[Kattrup]

Yes, there were things leading up to the damage caused. But trees and stones also have a history, a creation process. The damage I listed did objectively exist, whereas any ideas about WHY it existed was always gonna be subjective myths.

Yup, everything has a history! Very important point - I just wanted to point out that a stone in your backyard objectively exists - the damage you listed does not. The two things have different categories of existence.
You may contend that the damage objectively existed but already there are a large number of assumptions to deal with in that statement.

So it’s a very interesting discussion

[Fisherman]

Yup, everything has a history! Very important point - I just wanted to point out that a stone in your backyard objectively exists - the damage you listed does not. The two things have different categories of existence.
You may contend that the damage objectively existed but already there are a large number of assumptions to deal with in that statement.

So it’s a very interesting discussion

First: have you read the book? I donīt think you have grasped what Harari speaks about, and reading the book really helps.

Of course, the damage described does not exist today, but the same goes for many trees that existed alongside the damage. Back then, both nevertheless existed objectively.

The subjectively existing things and the collectively subjective existing things are things that only "exist" because one or more people uphold that idea about them. A tree exist regardeless of whether or not somebody upholds the idea that it is there.
The exact same applies to the damage done to the victims in the series we discuss - it did not exist as a construction in somebodys mind, it existed regardless of such things, and it would not go away on account of somebody not believing in it.

The idea that there were different reasons for how the flaps were cut from the abdominal walls of Kelly, Chapman and Jackson, however, is only a construction of the mind, and it will dissolve the second nobody believes in it.

Itīs facts versus myth, just as I said. The damage was factual and in existence. Different underlying reasons for why the flaps were cut away is not factual and cannot be claimed to ever have been in existence.

If you by "a large number of assumptions" mean that we only think the damage existed because we have it on record, but the record may be wrong, then I agree. But that is more of a metaphysical and philosophical discussion, and such a discussion could also rule out the stone in your back yard being in existence, so it is by and large more or less only interesting from a basically non-scientific perspective.

[Fisherman]

Depends on how one defines'Exist'. The American 'Declaration of Independence' is not a myth.Though it was in the form of speech,it was real .It did exist.

Yes, it depends on how one defines "exist". And Hararis definition says it never existed - other than as a social construction, a myth. Of course, he is correct, otherwise we should be able to touch it. Once you try, you touch a sheet of paper, not the declaration of independence itself.

[harry]

So Hararis's definition is in itself a subjective opinion? A myth,to me,is something that was never created.A piece of paper is only a represention of something that was created.So no myth.

[Fisherman]

So Hararis's definition is in itself a subjective opinion? A myth,to me,is something that was never created.A piece of paper is only a represention of something that was created.So no myth.

A few explanations and an encouragement are due, the latter first:

Read Hararis book. It helps immensely.

Explanations:

So Hararis's definition is in itself a subjective opinion?

No, it is what you say: a definition, part of a model that sets out to explain the world. The model can be right or wrong - meaning that we can have subjective opinions about it.

A myth,to me,is something that was never created.

It is the exact opposite, actually. Before a myth is created, there is no myth. You are probably reasoning that a myth is a created idea about something that is not objectively existing. And that is correct. But it is existence nevertheless, as either a subjectively existing thing or a collectively subjective existing thing.

A piece of paper is only a represention of something that was created.So no myth.

A piece of paper IS objectively existing, so just as you say, it is not a myth. Then again, nobody has ever claimed that it IS a myth. What I claimed was instead that the piece of paper on which the declaration of independence is written is an objectively existing item on which a myth is written. Ergo you have two things, one objectively existing thing, the piece of paper, and one collectively subjective existing thing, the declaration of independence. As I said, you can only touch one of them.

You need to understand that the term myth is used in a broader sense by Harari than we usually do when discussing myths as parts of folklore, more or less. As I said, read the book and you will see how it works in Hararis model.

[harry]

Do not need to read the book.What is more interesting are the critical remarks of some of those that have.Such as"He explores various theories,but none of them are very compelling",and that is one of the milder ones.

[Fisherman]

Do not need to read the book.What is more interesting are the critical remarks of some of those that have.Such as"He explores various theories,but none of them are very compelling",and that is one of the milder ones.

Oh, okay, then Iīm sure the book is no good, contrary to my own opinion.

Then again, it is a very highly acclaimed book overall, so maybe you are rather hideously misrepresenting it by picking and choosing a few sour grapes, Harry?

You could of course have a look at what the Guardian had to say, on https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...al-noah-harari

The review ends "Sapiens is one of those rare books that lives up to the publisher’s blurb. It really is thrilling and breath-taking; it actually does question our basic narrative of the world."

And 339 Amazon ratings has it 4,7 out of 5.

But of course, these are all subjective takes on the book.

Bye, Harry.

[Kattrup]

First: have you read the book? I donīt think you have grasped what Harari speaks about, and reading the book really helps.

Of course, the damage described does not exist today, but the same goes for many trees that existed alongside the damage. Back then, both nevertheless existed objectively.

The subjectively existing things and the collectively subjective existing things are things that only "exist" because one or more people uphold that idea about them. A tree exist regardeless of whether or not somebody upholds the idea that it is there.
The exact same applies to the damage done to the victims in the series we discuss - it did not exist as a construction in somebodys mind, it existed regardless of such things, and it would not go away on account of somebody not believing in it.

The idea that there were different reasons for how the flaps were cut from the abdominal walls of Kelly, Chapman and Jackson, however, is only a construction of the mind, and it will dissolve the second nobody believes in it.

Itīs facts versus myth, just as I said. The damage was factual and in existence. Different underlying reasons for why the flaps were cut away is not factual and cannot be claimed to ever have been in existence.

If you by "a large number of assumptions" mean that we only think the damage existed because we have it on record, but the record may be wrong, then I agree. But that is more of a metaphysical and philosophical discussion, and such a discussion could also rule out the stone in your back yard being in existence, so it is by and large more or less only interesting from a basically non-scientific perspective.

Hi Fisherman

I don’t think it’s very worthwhile to turn this into a discussion of Sapiens. Yes, it’s a good book, but it’s been a while since I read it so I don’t recall every argument. Generally I don’t feel that it’s a very relevant book to drag into a Ripper-discussion but I appreciate that it has given you a fresh perspective and that’s always interesting


The stuff about objectively and subjectively existing things was just a polite way of saying that you’ve slightly misunderstood it.

Objectively existing things like a stone or a tree exist regardless of humans.

The damage done to C5/torsos does not. You dismiss this distinction as metaphysical and philosophical but that ‘s what one gets when discussing such things. Harari’s point is that the ability to form language and discuss immaterial things is what enabled us to decide on large-scale collective assumptions and rules. These myths have then governed human history etc.

But the past no longer exists. A stone today exists. The 19th century paper from police investigation of the crimes exists. You simplistically assume that this means the damage to victims, which is described on the paper, also objectively exists. It does not.

So it was just a small comment: let’s not put the cart before the horse, the facts you presented as objectively existing are not in fact in that category but never mind it’s no big deal