What we think, is wrong?

What we think, is wrong?

A Gnostic vision of reality

What do we do when we think; essentially we break things up into pieces and make a knowledgeable composition concerning how those things arrange themselves. it’s a bit like cooking, we break things down to their ingredients [math is probably the ultimate example of this] then put them together as we think they should go to make a dish.

This is fine as to describing the main part of existence, of the thing-ness, though I have noticed that we often already know the answer we were seeking to understand cognitively. In asking a question there is always - if I may, the implied answer with which we formulated or otherwise understood what the question means in the first place [otherwise we would have no idea what the question means].

To arrive at knowledge about a thing we have to bring the already ‘known’ truths about that thing into the cognitive process, such that ‘we know it’. seems pointless, yet we are ever building and increasing our database by such processes, and as I say this is adequate for understanding reality on a ‘blocky’ level. We arrive at a load of bits ‘n’ pieces with which we form our ideas about the world and what’s in it.

So is that the truth, can we ever know the truth via such methods of thinking? I’d say no.
We cannot understand reality by thinking the way we do;
We can say what objects ‘are’ but cannot denote that there are absolute objects, or what they truly are. We can say what informations ‘are’ in terms of its relationship to objects or ideas, but we cannot say what info in and of itself is.
We can say how relationships form communications between objects and informations [or object/object, info/info], but we cannot say what communications or relationships ‘are‘.

What we have to do to understand reality is not deconstruct it, or fulfil the process of that so as to reach a place where our questioning demands a greater sophistication. By that I don’t meant that we have to know everything, but just enough about our chosen field that we can stand back and view it all as a whole. The informations, objects and processes of our thoughts can be taken in and at once known.

In simplistic terms we may visualise this as a box full of objects, then once we know all the contents we may consider them as an entirety. Let us now say that the box is existence, god and all the things we think we may know about reality, does that describe reality? No. we still have a bunch of things which ultimately don’t describe themselves, a box which holds all the contents but cannot ever compose the whole. Generally we have in our minds eye a reality map that’s left wanting, and it doesn’t matter how much stuff we add.

Reality cannot be the same as existence, our thought processes cannot compose it, though naturally thought can reach it in some way otherwise I wouldn’t be able to understand this position ~ even though I cannot do it cognitively. In much the same way existence can only conceive itself conceptually, you cannot have a physical infinity or whatever, hence there can only be information concerning the conceptualisation of existence as set against an idea* of reality [hence it* is informational].

A way to visualise this further is that; ‘existence realises itself as compared to reality, and in doing so becomes’, and that is itself a false realisation.

------------- | 0 | --------------

Conclusion; everything that is real about you now, is its own reality. Everything you know about you is no more than an idea about that and hence is not what is real about you. Same applies to things.

The reality about someone else or some given thing once ‘known’ [in this Gnostic sense], supersedes all facts [knowledge] about that person or thing.

Life/death; what is real cannot be anything other than that, an idea or an existence is not that reality.

_

That much, that part of the conclusion, I can agree with.
The rest… naa.

What part? The rest for me concerned intuition at the conceptual level. Or was it the part about existence and everything we can think of [god inc] as being illusory ~ in that they may allude to a reality, but as seen in and of their own explanations they are transient rather than absolutes. You would describe god would you?

I often wonder why conceptions at this point in history are so primitive.

Languages are methods of mapping. The map is not the territory, but a decent maps helps one get to where they are going.

How many people would go to a gas station, get a map, and then drivel over it claiming they were leaking philosophy.

The ultimate self referential fallacy, using a map to invalidate the very same map. Why, Huck, if it be a map, why don’t it look like a map?

I could describe, sure, but that is beside the point.

We see something and give it a name, a word/label for its concept. We do that for both internal and external communication. By definition such initial labels cannot be incorrect. We become incorrect when we assume that something similar is identical merely because we use the same category label. But the category label wasn’t wrong. A dog is a dog. It doesn’t mean that every dog is identical to every other dog. That is a false presumption. Category labels aren’t to be used in that fashion. So don’t misuse the language and you will not be incorrect in what you think or say.

If I say, “that is a box”, I might well be right. You have proclaimed that I am always wrong. If such were true, you wouldn’t be able to make any statement about me being wrong without you also being wrong in your statement. What would be the point.

The object is not the label. The category concept is not the object.
Words are merely category concepts within which many things exactly fit even though they are individually different.

Social engineering. Confuse their language by confusing their concept categories and words with the items to which they refer.
They pulled the same thing on Babylon.

And who is they? Using an in situ definition with an empty set? That is not even the start of grammatically correct.

It was written a long time ago, someone would come in history to cast the truth to the ground. i.e. the principles of language are not taught today, but they will be.

You don’t even want to know.
…or you would already.

Damn, I tried to acid clean my tin foil hat, and well, it did not survive.

Philosopher8659

Sure, but I’d also say the territory is equally incorrect as the map which represents it ~ that’s exactly why we cannot describe things perfectly, because those things cannot describe themselves fully.

Reality is betwixt all things and yet remains whole, thus those things are not a reality.

James S Saint

What about a dog is real? Sure in labelling terms a dog is a dog, but if we then go on to describe it we fall down in the same way as any description of a thing and the thing itself is removed from its own reality.

Your holistic description ‘box’ is a valid description as far as descriptions go, but we are talking at a more sophisticated level about reality here. Is it a perfect cube, how do we define such a thing when one doesn’t exist in real terms ~ we can only have ‘a box’ that is something similar to a cube, but there is no reality which is either. Naturally I am always wrong in my statements, but we both know that you can see the reality beyond my terms, hence we both know what we are talking about.

_

But that doesn’t make any sense. How can the territory NOT be correct? What determines “correct” if not the territory itself?

Nope.

ALL of it.
What about an actual dog ISN’T real?!?

Then learn how to describe things properly. What is the issue?

If I had said, “that is a perfect cube”, then I would be certainly wrong. But as you just mentioned, we already know that the concept of “box” does not exclude imperfect cubes. Thus the item need not be perfect in any way. As long as it fits the general description that I specified, then my thought that it is a box is correct. What is the problem?

You seem to be injecting some notion of reality that isn’t there yet makes you feel that nothing said can be correct.

I think next time I will send my tin foil hat to the dry cleaners.

What brand of blender do you use to make your sentences?

There is no such thing as objects in and of themselves. All things are based in co-relation.

^^ YES! i tried to say something like that

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=178118

Nothing determines ‘correct’. the map describes itself as what it is just as well as the territory describes what it is. Then the territory describes itself only ever partially and so is equally vague.

Just on a tangent then, how would you envisage god? Or the absolute otherwise. Or indeed reality.

So the holistic object is real? What about you is real! You have reality - let us say, that much you know without the need to ascribe language to that meaning. Surely the dog has reality, but just as much as that cannot ultimately be defined within the context of an element therein, neither can your reality be defined by any element you’d otherwise seek it to be defined by.

It is not a matter of describing things properly, at best that will only ever be partial. Describe anything as more than partial?!

Why then would there be a perfect box? Just because we have some ideal we refer to as ‘perfect’ which we ascribe to geometric shapes, that doesn’t mean there is a distinction in real terms. A blob is as perfect or not as a cube, no?

No, its vaguely descriptive as concerns a vague thing. A generalism concerning something transient. Sorry I had no other way of putting it, I hope it didn’t sound impolite.

One which describes things on a level that for tin foil hats is acidic.

btw prior to the 14/15thc there was no grammatically correct as we see it, the dictionary didnt even include english. who says language needs such a degree of rules by which it is suffocated.

_

You have a very limited view of language.

Arithmetic is a language. Geometry is a language.

Language has two fundamental branches, logics and analogics.

Basket weaving is a language.

Then nothing can determine “incorrect”. So why do you keep saying that descriptions are incorrect?

No. They don’t. The map is a partial description of the territory. As it is intended to do merely that, it is accurately doing that. The territory doesn’t describe anything other than by the speculation of an observer as to perhaps how it got that way. But the territory didn’t say that, the observer did.

God (cap G) is the lack of alternatives. The alternatives, nature, is what stems from (created by), the impossible, the lack of alternative; ie. “it can’t be any other way”.

I don’t see why not. I have no trouble defining reality…?

I think that maybe you need to define what you are calling a “description” because you are making statments about what cannot be described that are not making any sense to me.

Emm… no. A “perfect CUBE” has a definition that happens to forbid it from physical existence. A “box” does not have such a constraint nor does a “blob”.

When I give a general description of something, that something need merely be generally describe by it in order for the description to be 100% accurate. Box does not mean cube. It means “generally cubical”. Such an entity can certainly exist.

I’m totally a description

Then you must be indeterminate.

Yes, you and I both are–at least, our language limits us to descriptives. And description is limiting–obviously.

I am an American female, born in Nebraska, with reddish blond hair, cut short, brown eyes and fair skin. This is all description–for at least thousands of us. So, let’s get a little more narrowing–I’m not quite 5’4", weigh about 120 lbs, am married, and have one child–a daughter. Still not me, though. I think this is what quetz is trying to get at. A label is only a generalized qualification of a ‘thing,’ it isn’t the thing itself. This is why I dislike labeling–and yet, with our language, what else can we do?

Can we limit our personal labeling to just one aspect of a thing and can we be very careful not to use our labels to arrive at conclusions?

If I said, “Liz is a woman”, would that be incorrect?
quetz has said that it is always wrong.
My point was that it is not wrong. It is merely not a total description. It wasn’t intended to be.
Is me thinking that Liz is a woman wrong? The thread title says it must be.
Thus Liz obviously is NOT a woman.