Something Instead of Nothing

The absurd does appear to be more a subjunctive reaction. On the other hand, a first person subjunctive frame of mind revolves around moods and moods are always particularly problematic. The universe seems absurd to some because there does not appear to be a way in which to capture it either rationally or viscerally. There are simply too many aspects of existence that are mind-boggling.

There it is…but then what? To me It seems equally absurd to exist and to not exist. Then for those of us more comfortable with the word “absurd”, it’s just a matter of how far removed things seeming absurd are from things seeming ridiculous.

Sure, “contradictory” can work too. But, to me, this denotes a frame of mind in which existence is either one thing or another. And that connotes the sort of precision that seems beyond the reach of “mere mortals”.

Though no less an “existential contraption” when we go out this far on the metaphysical limb.

Yes, some do. And I tried to address that here:

[b]Identity is ever constructed, deconstructed and reconstructed over the years by hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of variables—some of which we had/have no choice/control regarding. We really are “thrown” into a fortuitous smorgasbord of demographic factors at birth and then molded and manipulated as children into whatever configuration of “reality” suits the cultural [and political] institutions of our time.

On the other hand:

In my view, one crucial difference between people is the extent to which they become more or less self-conscious of this. Why? Because, obviously, to the extent that they do, they can attempt to deconstruct the past and then reconstruct the future into one of their own more autonomous making.

But then what does this really mean? That is the question that has always fascinated me the most. Once I become cognizant of how profoundly problematic my “self” is, what can “I” do about it? And what are the philosophical implications of acknolwedging that identity is, by and large, an existential contraption that is always subject to change without notice? What can we “anchor” our identity to so as to make this prefabricated…fabricated…refabricated world seem less vertiginous? And, thus, more certain.[/b]

But we will still need a context in which to explore the extent to which any individual narrative is as a result of indoctrination or as a result of acknowledging the indoctrination and then moving on to one’s own more “thought out” frame of mind. Utilizing both the tools of philosophy and [where applicable] science.

And then the part that revolves around objectivism. The belief that however one has derived his or her own moral and political agenda, it is deemed to be that which all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to share.

I agree. But that only takes us back to the extent to which logic and reason can be properly distinguished from emotional satisfaction. In other words, what may well be the limits of logic and reason relating to both the is/ought world and to questions as big as the ones being explored on this thread.

My point is only to suggest what appears [existentially] to be clear connection between objectivism and a soothing psychological font for “I”.

Sure, if the nihilist is convinced that “here and now” her argument reflects the most reasonable set of assumptions about the “human condition”, a sense of satisfaction can be had. But this nihilist sees that as just another “existential contraption”.

And there is still plenty of room for dissatisfaction:

1] the hole on this side of the grave
2] oblivion on the other side of it

Sure, “contradictory” can work too. But, to me, this denotes a frame of mind in which existence is either one thing or another. And that connotes the sort of precision that seems beyond the reach of “mere mortals”.

That is really the fine point encapsulating the theme here. Being or Nothingness. And the tension between Husserl and Descarts here manifests. Sartre acutely picked it up in his Being AND Nothingness.

The sustaining (bracketing) of the question as to ,which is which , is existence the nothingness or is Being? - if existence proceeds the essential, it may have preceded it, but in as , defined as the one prceeding? A nothing, or a some thing. As existence as a dream manufactured by an evil genius?

Then doubt enters in as to the primary mode of appreception,

Or maybe both are needed (To eliminate doubt, for the sake of certainty?)

But then the Kantian synthetic bursts forth, not as an existent, but a possible mode of eliminating doubt.

If so, a new logic is assumed to subsist, (Dennett)as a contingent but necessary transcendence.

Maybe absurdity has more then an emotional connotation to it, maybe the subjunctive aspects are washed, incrementally, and intentionally at times, to overcome by an act of will the looming gaps.

Letting go, and declaring all to be prevy to nature’s fallacy, is , maybe just a moment’s fancy, passing like bad weather.

ref:

The Logic of Appearance: Dennett, Phenomenology and Psychoanalysis

Iambiguous- this may be an intellectual contraption big time, but absolutely necessary to construct an evolving meaning out of present life-time as existence , rather then a mere reconstruction from previously staged appearance.

Revivals always tend to have short duration.

How does such transcendence work?
The transfer content change relationships to the extent that the gaps’ distance change.

Interpenetribility or through mutual permeability is a probable description of the effect.

Again, there’s all the stuff that we think we know about being and/or nothingness and all the stuff that can be known.

We seem to exist in a somethingness such that “I” has a being that may or may not be obliterated when that somethingness is swallowed up in the oblivion that clearly seems to accompany death.

But:

We have no way of grasping – grasping for certain – if “I” here is instead only a character in one or another’s Sim world. Or in one or another’s dream world. Or if all of what is presumed to be reality is merely the embodiment of solipsism. Or if reality [however it is derived] is something that we have some capacity to choose freely.

But “something” seems to be all around us and in us and between us. “I” presumably was nothing at all, was conceived, was shaped and molded by others; and then more or less acquired his or her own “sense of identity”. And then becomes nothing at all again.

Unless you count God or reincarnation or “star stuff”.

But who among us has ever been able to demonstrate which one it will in fact be?

And all that speculation from Husserl and Descartes and Kant and Dennett is appreciated by folks like me because, well, they did at least take a stab at figuring “reality” out.

Unfortunately for me, nothing from them gets me up out of the hole that I have myself thought myself into; nor the oblivion that keeps getting closer and closer and closer.

Here is a classic example of just how mind-boggling it can be for the “serious philosopher” to consider something rather than nothing:

Colin Brookes from Philosophy Now

Now, imagine taking an analysis of this sort “down to earth”. Noting how in a particular context these “four types of causes” are applicable to the things that we actually choose to do!

Or like talking about going out into space from planet earth as though planet earth is not already out in whatever space happens to be.

Or like asking what Stephen Hawking actually “is” now. Is his own “I” gone forever?

Of course one supposes that all of us “here and now” will know nothing of that. But we still have no way in which to actually demonstrate that this is true.

Let alone for all of us.

Sorry Iambiguous, in transit, will try reading and answering tonight or tomorrow.

Internet is gloating in and out, like consciousness and in/sub consciousness. Quick read: impressive

The notion of I can be some or all of these : your physical body / your individual person / your individual mind / your self awareness

We can rule out solipsism because we cannot create mind dependent external reality as the one that we experience is the same for everyone [ with obvious caveats ]

When we die we immediately cease experiencing consciousness even though the body still exists. After cremation / burial it will still exist albeit in a different form
But the I will have died with the body as it is this that gives us our sense of individual being or self awareness and which can only be experienced when we are alive

I do not accept the notion of soul as a part of I that carries on after death as it is simply a means to grant us immortality so as to conquer our irrational fear of death
Like many religious ideas it is conveniently [ for its believers ] non testable and therefore incapable of ever being disproven. But this does not actually mean it exists

So the I is only in existence between birth and death and nowhere else. Like every other life form we are only passing through and once we are dead there is nowhere else to go. Indeed the desire for Paradise is entirely unnecessary as the end of suffering in all of its forms [ physical / psychological / philosophical ] comes with death
So there is no need to go creating imaginary Utopias when one already exists in reality

Notion: a conception of or belief about something.

Sure, the notion of “I” can take us anywhere. It is something that is thought up in our head based on certain assumptions we make about what the ontological/ontic parameters of “I” out in a particular world understood from a particular point of view.

Nothing would seem able to be entirely ruled out until we have the capacity to connect the dots between our ontic interactions and an ontological understanding of existence iteself.

And then there is the “external reality” that the brain/mind creates for “I” embedded in dreams. That is literally all in our head, isn’t it? And yet while in the dream it seems to be anything but. At least in my dreams.

Unless you have died and were able to document the experience for all the rest of us, what can you really tell us definitively about “I” after death?

As with phenomenal_graffiti, one can create an argument “in his head” and call it “invincible”; but that doesn’t make it any less just an argument. He basically abandoned an exchange with me because there apparently was no actual demonstration forthcoming to document that particular world of words.

But, psychologically, I suspect he is no less comforted and consoled by it.

Or she if that is the case.

But this is just another “notion”. Like me, I suspect you have no way in which to ascertain the whole truth about death and dying. In fact, if any mere mortal among us was able to grasp our fate after death – to demonstrate the whole truth about it – he or she would be on every newscast around the globe.

We just don’t know what is to become of “I” then. There is only being able or not being able to connoct a narrative that is more or less soothing.

On the other hand, one might ponder how this…

…can possibly be soothing for you to believe.

Up to a point, I am able to convince myself of the same. After all, like nothing else, death takes away every and all manifestation of the pain and the suffering that mere mortals endure on this side of the grave. Indeed, the pain can become so severe that, however much you love your life, you might find yourself begging to die: youtu.be/0B0sFtRTlx4

And then the part where you congratulate yourself for having understood all of this better then those who don’t. You have the intellectual integrity and courage to face oblivion squarely.

Or something like that.

Have a few minutes between planning eternal moving about here.

The eternal contraption is AS necessary as its opposite nothingnessp(in the sense that as a lack of contraption) Aristotlian vise as its appearent diminution into nothingness. Ill work this out in conjunction with the above, in an effort to ‘make sense’

Because literally and figuratively we are constantly in search of sense


'can possibly be soothing for you to believe.-------

I believe this is a fragment , a partial truth. A soothing feeling may be appreciated as registering an associative idea differential in aspect of reducing stress, uncertainty. It is leveled both universally and situationally, trying to find a progressively repetitive state, where such can be re-played- experienced…
The idea begins its mindedness on the archaic idea via association . This level is unfathomable, the abyss of the basic unavaible minima of conconsciousness. Here form and function are the basic as baseline into future epoche states to be, undifferentiable and fixed as a full nothingness as something.

Again merely the basis upon to conjecture.hopefully developed further, assuming the previous to be partial truisms.

Now, at this level it can , flip, hopefully using its more literal connotation and seek a reduced form of historically staged epochs of interpretation as the ’ evil genius, simulating all this, and necessating the construction(contraption) as a way to exit in its Sartrean future would like to have it, in a more sense of trying to 'figure or in his sense of configuration (pattern)

Here the beginnings of dread through Descarte’s doubt germinate as a sense of duplicity, -what if THEY, the evil genius and his assistants are staging this absolutely, in order to find the philosopher’s stone of an absolute certain redemption? What may be the case, that a linear logic can be transcended within the scope of an absolute revival? What if Descarte’s doubt, leading to Nietzche’s transvaluation can literally evade the modern and tragic forms of fear, and angst, which certainly will lead to the only real historical remedy and cure, WAR? Social fear can only be held at bay only for so long, without the beginning of social ostracism, intolerance.

The Nitzchean revolt against this absolute sense of EVIL, is negated, by the superman who can do it, by placing his self above it.

But does it work? And if it does, how long can that go on?

We are living proof of that issue.

Polanyi has a flip side to, before breaking up the idea of fixed (embedded) truths, the basic assumptions may transfer to more different spheres, where they may functionally distort this whole ‘contraption’? In other words, how long before super duper man may return to doubt the reality of A1, the Big Brother? In real political terms, Uncle Sam)

now the most basic exit in the sense of including all sets within that set which includes its own sense of itself, is the sudden drop to the either,/ or of -AND the either , and , simulteniousy, with Jung’s Simultaneous occurance, within this backdrop.
At this point, the existential lunge / leap , becomes manifest, again in the sense of an either or, and it is here where Sartre’s LOOK states, contrasts singularly into the eye , and contrasts the 2 differing logics.

The either or/or//and at this point it transferred to substantiality/insubstantility of this transfer -to an IN/OUT, via pattern grouping. On this level the patently reduced content is proof PARTIAL of an almost obsessive phobic need to escape the totally absurd reduction ( that some feel more comfortable with rather then a new contradiction qua negation toward a mystical participation as a simulated epoch of a veritable foundation.

Here in the Phillippines the familial organization can may be described in terms of relatively overlapping circles or even spheres of relevance, where the degree of set overlap spaced out by variously expressed signs of relative value attempt to define, situationally, a state of being.
Here if we were to fathom the relative focus to being locked into these formal states of being, versus giving reign to allowing the appearance of less focus on being free, the former is vastly more veritable then the later.

Up to now , the above comments are ment to be more suggestive then definitive in line with IT’S self, as some kind of formal argument, and here also to be noted the fact, that an informal integration of either this , or that, more , much more often then not, may become a futile attempt.

And all that speculation from Husserl and Descartes and Kant and Dennett is appreciated by folks like me because, well, they did at least take a stab at figuring “reality” out.

Unfortunately for me, nothing from them gets me up out of the hole that I have myself thought myself into; nor the oblivion that keeps getting closer and closer and closer.

This is clearly understandible, but really very hard to refute, and the length of this forum is a clear indication of that. But an absolute impossibility is never an accepted state, as is an absolute possibility. And that pretains not only to the realm of an individual being like Descartes, but to a modern philosopher like Dennett, working primarily from the sphere of social positions of perceived value.

But this is again tentatively,is an attempt to make arguable sense.

Your problem, again arguably, may only begin to make sense when even the most probable possibility approaching the absolutely probable, or even infinitely probable~necessarily begins to enlighten some sense of escape through self delivering a notion through the least crack in the universal door , through the entrance of the slightest sliver of light, into the darkness within.

Don’t know a better way to describe it it’s application down to earth is not a contraption , nor an effort of candywrapping, it is by way of necessity that the universe not play games, and can eternally exist, through infinitely repeated simulations, so it’s BEING can lay its own sensible foundation.

Now how to do this? Well this is the most improbable act ever attempted: that is bound up with reflection, the Myth of Sysiphus, and finally the recreding feeling of dread with invisibility. The fear associated with believing only in those things that are visible. ref: ’ The visible and the invisible, which is very difficult to read, but worth a try. I hope to read this sometime when the higher powers allow me.

But the difference begins to notice , that when you may go ahead with it, some sign starts to make sense of this difference()between them.(visibility/invisibility as contradiction or/and an absurd notion.

Ref: nupress.northwestern.edu/con … -invisible

I cannot be separated from the body in the same way that the the mind cannot be separated from the brain
And since there is precisely zero evidence of any [ permanently ] dead body surving death then logically the I ceases to exist upon point of death

Have never congratulated myself as it is not my reason for doing this and also ego affects rational thinking so is something always to be avoided
Instead I favour my position simply because it has logical consistency to it and so it will be the default position unless a better one is discovered

This sort of speculation – abstruse? obtuse? – will only make sense to me given the extent to which you are able to intertwine it in a context in which flesh and blood human beings actually interact. And then speculate about how their understanding of those interactions might be applicable to their understanding of nothing at all. Or something other than what they think they understand here and now. In, say, a parallel universe. Or in a world created by God. Or in a dream world or a sim world.

And then [of course] that gap between our own existential search of sense and a sense that might be grasped by a being in sync with an understanding of existence itself.

And that might be perfectly clear if you were then able to connect the dots between what you think in your head here and now about it and all that can be known – must be known – about existence itself in order to confirm that it is beyond all doubt and in fact true.

I’m with you in that until others like phenomenal_graffiti are able to connect those self-same dots between an argued for life after death for “I”, and an ontological understanding of existence, things are looking bleak for any particular “I” that topples over into the abyss.

But given that logic is an invention of the human species and that the human species is no doubt but an infinitesimally insignificant speck in the vastness of what way well be the multiverse, well, what does that tell us about logic itself?

Also, what if logic too is but an inherent manifestation of the laws of matter? Matter encompassed in minds encompassed in brains that are among nature’s most sophisticated set of dominoes “set up” – by what? by who? – to topple over only as they ever could have?

Imbigious, having technical problems, so I can only comment on Your reply here, in this manner.

I do understand Your point of view, and the point of view is not arguable as such, because, it appears, that we are operating in a feedback system. By ‘we’ I mean You and I and anybody reading this now, or in the future, including the structural build up of all the prior constructed analysis, reasoning, and tentative conclusions of it with tentative reification, epoches and inquires, fed back repeatedly within the scope of noticeable and in-noted material.

This material, is, as a down to earth examplefecation is obtuse/obstruct, within or without specifications deemed for assignment.

Moral applications can be bracketed within, for general specification, or without, whete particular case by case analysis need to exemplify any substantial qualification.

Whenever a jury of 12 suffices to adjudicate an agreed upon moral justification, it is deemed ethically right, even if the content of which is mistaken, or even wrong morally.

In case of that being down to the realms of agreed upon understanding, the doubt can never be transcended, and Your point is totally agreeable.
For that reason, the categorical imperative must over come the naturalistic fallacy , even if ’ by fiat’.
Otherwise this argument fails S well, by appeal of the hypothetical Absolute, which must, necessarily be, pre-supposed.

For me, no two ways about it.

Michael Brake from Philosophy Now.

And what might “metaphysical necessity” be contingent upon? Sooner or later the words that we can connect to actual “things” must give way to the words that we can only connect to other words.

No, any number of us are far more fascinated with the question “why is there something that we can grapple with in order to explore how it came to exist at all?”

One way or another the part about science is going to bump into the part about metaphysics.

He describes it. Maybe even “proves” it mathematically. But where are these universes actually observed?

On, say, youtube?

Unless of course this part is just way over my head.