No Unperceived Things Exist

At some point our thoughts must be described in the shape and form they present themselves.

That’s the point prior to language - naturally, because language is not primary but descriptive, ergo after!

to me visual thoughts are before linguistic ones?

_

I sit uncomfortable in my case between the Theoria/Theosis axis… doesn’t always relate to form or language, and the product of this thought can hold the place of a name for a thing linguistically without being verbally represented by a word.

A lot of people think you either must have word or image for thought, or a synthesis of the two, but I experience more than this.

For example, I am a very awkward balance between OCD and Apraxia, especially Ideo-Kenetic Apraxia.

In Idea-Kinetic Apraxia, especially in my youth, I would completely fail in processing word commands. You could say "go get my purse (mom) and I would hear the verbalization, but the meanings would come a bit off in terms of having meaning, and slightly distant. So I wouldn’t stand there, I would do something. Something important enough to be commanded, something worthwhile of a command, hopefully that command. Basically, I was guessing… and failing. I might grasp Purse, and know I needed to do something to purse. Perhaps she wanted her purse secured? Or a G.I. Joe soldier sticking his gun and upper body our of the pocket and placed somewhere, or maybe she wanted me to check on her money, or get something out of the purse and not the purse itself.

Constant questioning. One step foreword at a time… and something of consequence will occur.

I have no idea how many times I fucked everything I was ever asked to do up in my youth.

I also was a klutz, not paying attention to my body, and would run after the stuff I think I was told to get, and smack something off a object. Apraxia. We all get it, but I really had it.

Add to this, I had OCD. Intense attention to details to the point I would be driven to nonstop tantrums till incapacity in trying to force a motor function. All my attention would be thrown into it. It wasn’t just my motor functions, but also my imagination. I had so many nights I couldn’t sleep because I would start imagining a idea, such as a mechanical motion, and could increase its repetitions, but never decrease. It would go on for days. The Ideo-kenetic side of me was unaware of how to control both aspects.

It wasn’t until I was three I became fully aware of the phenomena, and started having success in controlling my imagination, and years later my motor skills. My 20s my ability to coordinate my apraxia issues.

Why? The theorist that has the highest understanding of INTJs isn’t much aware of this phenomena, I asked him about it a while back, was stumped. Its not that it doesn’t fit, just undermined some assumptions. Here is a basis, dumbed down version of his idea (not specific to the above)

He is aware of the very large amount of neurological networking that the personality type is based upon:

I would fall under Contributor INTJ in his system. But my exact contrast between OCD and Ideo-Apraxia does not.

Why? Cause his theory, like Arius Didymus, presumes a drive to link up Virtues/regions of the brain. Unlike Arius Didymus, he is damn well aware it isn’t all triggered in a coordinated flood at once, but as a christian typologist who inherited a tradition descended from Didymus (and isn’t aware of it, I never told him) he carries the presumptions it must for some reason be unified.

My personality type doesn’t have to unify itself. I could still be sitting here in my 30s having people screaming into my ears thinking I was deft, despite hearing just fine, giving blank stares in return of confusion. I could be crashing into walls, or hyperfocusing my attention on things to the point of madness, closing the outside world incidentally (but not intentionally).

I’ve seen guys go through life like this, some pass themselves off as autistic, as it seems similar… until they loosen up and very apparently come off as not autistic.

I more or less just had to get used to unifying enough aspects of myself at a very early age that I could put my OCD and absurdly active imagination into use in controlling my body. I was a “soldier” always, well past the point kids grow out if that… mechanized movements, ridgid and boring. As being different, and obtusely militant as a kid, it caused school yard issues, and fights. Discovered I was quite the coward in one on one confrontations, and fell apart. Also found I could imagine myself as something hard, and slam the SOB like a rock or log… but not much follow up, and one on one fights usually failed. But I did very well in lopsided fights against me. Why? Stumped me for the longest time. I went from an inept regimented child into a creature of beauty, full of flexibility and finesse. I could see where I had to be, and several steps ahead of everyone else… and had a overwhelming drive to overcome and succeed. Against many, a lion, against one, a coward. I thought I was unique, but later on found out it was a shared trait of the type.

Over time, you just learn to rope aspects together. I found I was always projecting ideas into language, could never recall their names, but could define them in exacting detail. I couldn’t visualize them always either. Just reference… I knew it was there, just didn’t know the word or his to coin it. Heck, I couldn’t even talk right, took me forever to learn to do that… no thanks to any tutor I ever had. Rote memorization doesn’t create awareness.

So in my mind, I have things… they very much fall in the things category, that are void of thought or image. As a philosopher of my type, I can gravitate towards this awareness. I can see a civil war battle, and see the OCD effects on unit discipline, but also the Ideo-kenetic inefficiencies on a scale of detail no one else can see. I can point (the invisible thingness) to the visual and geometric aspects, specify and point logically to the breakdown in orders and SOP, and military doctrine equally, using both aspects in both hemispheres of my personality, but what is unconscious to most everyone else. I know from my failures in training the inherent difficulties in training others, but am also I tuitively aware of how to make it work in impossible cases… cases others can’t solve. Its unconscious for them, but I’ve always consciously experienced it.

More or less realigns everything you do. I’ve completely dropped mist of the imaginative pretense (did become a cynic, its what they do, hyper analyze such things) as I discovered simple ways to walk… much more efficient and secure than the average person… and can logically scale security and avoidance of risk and defence into it on a scale, from the individual to the macriscake, such as traveling overwatch to mass movements in a city. Refugee migrations are a interest to me on a theoretical scale. To understand this phenomena, you would go to a writer like Miyomoto Musashi.

Likewise, I’m much better at moving aspects of myself. I come off as stiff, due to my efficiency (and resistance to reinjuring my knee) but oftentimes surprise people by how quick and complex my motions get. I once dragged a safe across a room alone that 4 much stronger guts failed to do, using just my body. I understood its center of gravity, and scooted it by corners little by little away from this, tilt it on its axis, swing, wobble walk it…

I can also create things from my environment, a natural artistic creative impulse. Doesn’t always translate to skill to execute, but its always inventive and unique.

Ah-ha
Eureka
Ahhhhhhhhh
Eaaaaaahhhhhh
Ahhhh

These are all non words, highly expressive, resulting from neither image or linguistic thought. Same for 'tsk sounds. Linguists just recently discovered English users heavily saturate the English language with these near inaudible sounds, so much to the point we only thought tribes in aftrica had languages built around them… now we know were deeply dependent too, its a invisible aspect of our language. Why invisible? Shouldn’t we of been more consciously aware of this before, especially given the interest in language philosophers? I’m always aware of the space a word holds in the sentence, even if not aware of the word. Has that invisible spot.

And Zoot, the incomprehension lies on your end, as I obviously am aware of what I am saying, and can define it to minutia of infinite scales, and explain how the parts depositionally relate.

I am neither too smart, or not smart enough to understand myself, I am right at my level.

Your inability to understand me doesn’t translate to a lower level of intelligence as a result, just means your unable to track and meaningfully assemble all the parts of me thoughts, or maintain your attention span long enough to figure out all the aspects needed for comprehension.

This isn’t wrong, or something to be ashamed of, as this is a state that exists at times in all of us. I simply don’t write in a manner aimed at facilitating your approach to knowledge.

Its okay, as there is a trickle down effect… people respond and focus on a aspect of my ideas that need clarification, or comparison to their own, we follow suit, and the familiarity and need for technical details decrease… or the formal complexity and rigidity of thought. We go from this:

to this

to this

Each personality type emphasises inductive and deductive reasoning differently (see my gold chart above).

I can bounce around over a wide swath of that naturally, and do all kinds of freaky shit with it. As your not my type, your bound to get only some of the information. Furthermore, as you smoke the chronic while viewing the forum (sometimes, not only) even less than normal.

I suppose we can break down you inability to understand me to this formula:

(A) If a understandung exists, then it can be proven to understood.

(B) If a understandung is unrealized, then it can’t be proven to exist.

Given: A Understanding x is not understood.

Prove: x isn’t understood.

  1. x is not understood (Given)
  2. x can’t be proven to be understandable. (Modus Ponens on (B) and (1))
  3. x can’t be understood. (Modus Tollens on (A) and (2))

Therefore by universal generalization, (C) if a thing is not understood, then it doesn’t exist.

As far as your mindset is concerned Zoot, this is the case. I cannot prove to you that I am comprehending my own ideas, and understand them, as you can’t. However, you are projecting your own operating features upon mine.

How does this give us information about unperceived things, as far as cognition is concerned?

I provided the answer in the icon above, the song literally states the answer, the chart explains it variations.

How much easier do I gotta make it without outright stating it. We can’t do science without this.

Come on…

No unperceived things exist? Tell us all something we don’t know already.

The premise of this post is simply answering the age old question of “If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a noise?”. I believe the author of this post is trying to say that existence is dependent on an observer.

This must be what is called “being in the zone” where there is absolutely nothing but the present moment and sensation.

Either that, or the Earth must simply be a spot of soil and nothing more.

If a thing is unperceived, ONLY possibly it cannot be proven to exist. But why deal in certainties?

But there are other ways besides our senses in which to perceive something. We have our imaginations which can bring forth the concept of it, and in so doing, we find a way through our intelligence and reflection, to bring into “our” existence what always existed but hadn’t been revealed to us.

A star in a far away galaxy waiting to be revealed cannot be perceived but with the aid of a strong Hubble telescope we now know that it exists.
But for someone engaging in certainties, even that is ludicrous, considering what we now know and despite what we now know.

Especially, when discovered galaxies may be perceived existing, only as remnants of mere light rays originating billions of years ago , with the galaxies no longer there.

But aren’t those remnants of light still beautiful to behold?
That star whose light has burned out - does it still not exist if we are seeing its light coming to Earth - until that final flicker dies.

Logic can prove or disprove an existence without sensory perception.

First I saw that 10 pennies were alone in the jar when
The lid was closed on the jar such that nothing could escape.
I can’t see the contents of the jar, yet still
I know that the pennies are still there.

More exacting detail can be included into that scenario/syllogism such as to make it impossible that the pennies are not still in the jar, but the point should be clear. Knowledge (and even perception) comes only through reasoning.

By logical thought(s), yes.

I agree. Perception at it’s apex is the greatest of overcomers.Existence is merely a definition of cumulative perceptions, labeled nominally. We can never KNOW what existence is, what it means, that is why it comes before it’s essential quality. The essence of existence is it’s being in the world, and the fading star, which has long been dead, in the metaphoric sense, will never really fade away, as the energy which carries it’s phenomenal light, will for ever in the non temporal time of eternity, is forever like the shining beacon, lighting up eternities corners, appearing transcendentally limitless, for it would take as millions of lifetimes got bear witness to it’s appearance, as it’s disappearance in real time.

This is why all unpercieved things exist, as well.

Arminius: only 0.0000000000000000000000000000-000000000001 percent of reality is logical. Therefore existence can never be thought of even conceptually.
Reality cannot be captured.

You are a subjectivist, I know.

Naaaa…
The universe is exactly 100% logical.
You just have to know the logic. :sunglasses:

You are an Objectionist, I know.

The universe as …?

I am an Ontologist. :sunglasses:

The universe as … all physical reality - all that has physical affect - all that physically exists.

James,

Oh, sweetie. Thank you for saying that I am 100% logical as per your statement above. Would you care to rescind it? :-"