I was recently looking into Epistemology which contains of Internalism and Externalism.
Internalism holding belief in validation arising from one’s Self alone.
Externalism holding belief in an outside source as a means of confirmation.

This confirmation may be linked to any idea.
I thought one determined the factuality of an idea through himself, however does he not have to use outside sources to confirm his thoughts?
What exactly has the most influence?

Of course the environment in which we have grown and the facts surrounding the confirmation pay a great deal to our end confirmations. However, what persuades us in the end is what got to me.

It gave way to the Exclusion Principle.
One is influenced to do anything through his mind FIRST. His body, in other words, would respond to his Mind.

An inverse theory, called Epiphenomenalism, or Type-E Dualism, states that each action is separate from the thought. They are two independent properties.
However, physical states do affect mental states. Not at all conversely.
The only way I could understand this is a mental state would come into AFTER something in existence is conceived. However, only if that which is currently in existence occurred without one’s happening.

In other words: Qualia. The state of feeling something. BEING in it. But can this not also apply to the Exclusion Principle?

If speaking of the Exclusion Principle, suppose one were to undergo a certain pain - he would be experiencing Qualia as well. But is that a separate form or is it not the Exclusion Principle at all. For that which caused the pain must have been an outside source. Pain cannot come from within. There has to be a cause and that cause has to arrive from Elsewhere. Not one himself.

Yet, the pain is from within. There is no definite reason that it should arrive. It is not definite that it should arrive at all. Yet it does.

There was a book printed in 1923, by the name of The Meaning of Meaning.
This book contained of three ideas:
The conceptual domain - thoughts that are in our minds
The symbolic domain - words and symbols that we use to communicate with others
The real world - things in the real world that we refer to in our thoughts and with symbols

The Conceptual Domain and The Real World of what is being spoken of in this book is what would refer well to Internalism and the Exclusion Principle MOST.

What exactly is the beginning or end of semantic reactions at all?



De dicto, de re, and de se.

de nina, de pinta, de santa maria were bigger


And how do we know that?

the shadow said that… and of course, the shadow knows…


Does he know it de se, and let us know it de dicto? Would it be possible for him to have knowledge de re of it?

Conception and the male child.

I don’t see how you can make a clear division between the first and second domains mentioned, and since those are merely reflections of the third domain, shouldn’t they all fit within that particular category? Assuming the third category exists, of course.

Could you make it a bit clearer as to what you are speaking about, Xunzian.
I am somewhat confused.

Yangming argued (I think successfully) that the mind and the world are coextensive. If that is placed within the understanding that the world is a hermeneutic process, the first (the world of the mind) and the second (the world of symbol) collapse into a single entity. How do you divide the world of the mind from the world of symbols since the mind understands/creates reality symbolically? Now if you believe that these symbols represent something (that is, reject solipsism), then it follows that these constructs are ultimately mirrors or reality, right?

In this thread I discussed this issue with Anon, though that is actually a response to an earlier discussion Anon and I had had, which is also linked in that thread. Sorry, a bit of digging is required, but the links are there so it shouldn’t be too hard. Actually, both threads that I linked in that particular one should elucidate my position on this issue as clearly as I can.

Basically, my position boils down to an “imaginary force” argument where the frame of reference that the question is being approached is flawed, so a whole bunch of slop has to be thrown on to account for that flawed perspective. A few different things can happen because of this, on the one hand it can become overly grandiose because extra “imaginary forces” have to be thrown on to account for the initial “imaginary force” until the whole system becomes this unwieldy gobbledegook, but one that can still be used more-or-less accurately in a predictive/useful manner. The other alternative is to try and strip everything down, often just to a particular “imaginary force” at play and create a system that, while logically rigorous is not predictive/useful. The former is bad because eventually the exceptions become so pervasive that the system collapses (often sped along by deconstruction), and the latter is bad because it doesn’t work/achieve what it set out to do, so why bother discussing it at all?

But something has to begin each process, does it not? Meaning, if an event is to occur, it is either stemmed at first to the mind or the worldly surroundings.

Now if your stating the world to be an illusion in itself, I do trust this. Yes, your argument was somewhat confusing. I skimmed over the thread a bit, though.

I do not know if you hold belief in any God or not, but for a few months, I considered Atheism. However, that is when I came to realize that my current being would no longer contain Reason afterwards. Everything would simply exist because it Did. Because it Was. I never turned for then I would replace God with an ‘Imaginary Force.’
It makes things so much more complicated than necessary. Heh.

What I believe is He is the Force behind Everything.

Imagine that on this day you happened to become agitated over a completely absurd idea. You may become upset with those around you, which may cause them to become angry with you and say something cruel to you. You may at first criticize them for their cruel behavior. But you may then reflect upon yourself and feel guilt for your own attitude throughout the day and towards those around you. Well is it not the fault of whatever made you upset that caused you to have a negative attitude? Or is it the fault of whatever caused the thing which upset you, to take place? Ultimately, all becomes the fault of some incredible force. This Force, in this way, becomes the cause of all causes. It also becomes the solution to every cause of every problem.

I believe that is where the illusion of this world comes in. We are ultimately not in control. It is like a stage. He is the puppeteer and we are the puppets.
We have no say in what we do. It is already planned out. I feel REALITY comes into play when we progress after this life. Wherever to it may be…

Mencius thought that thought was the beginning of a particular thing and action was its completion and that decoupling them doesn’t work. Yangming expanded upon this. If there is no outward action, can the thought truly have been said to exist at all? What is the purpose of thought, how is it connected to action, ect. As for stemming from either “the mind” or “the world”, I’ll call shinnanigans on that one, since they are both engaged in that process. What starts what? Where do you draw the line in the chain of causality? That isn’t to say that cause and effect are one-and-the-same in any particular instance, but since we are already engaged in the process of being in the world, we have to recognize that our causes are the effects of other causes and that our causes lead to effects that become causes. Right? So I’m not so sure that the initiator and the initiated can be distinguished as easily as you might initially think.

I don’t think the world is an “illusion” in the way you probably mean. I do think the world is impermanent, but it is the self that I am considering illusory. Which is why and how the system I’m describing works.

I think you need to elaborate on “Reason” here. I do think things exist because they are. I think that trying to add on extra layers, especially given gross human ignorance, is a very tricky proposition. Your notion of god seems rather amorphous, which I think cases some problems of language, if nothing else. The term “god” is bound to be conflated with “God” in the modern, western mind. We can’t really help it. So the Aristotelian god, the “unmoved mover” thingy can’t exist simply in isolation. Instead we throw all sorts of other attributes onto this construct and end up with a horse of a different color entirely. You did that when you anthropomorphized the concept and described it as “He”, the capital “H” is particularly telling in this degree. On top of that, I’m not convinced how well the formal concept of the “unmoved mover” actually solves the problem. To me it just begs the question as opposed to solving it and on top of that it throws all sorts of value statements alien to the question at hand. Now, if someone already agrees with those value statements (as in, is a practitioner of a theistic revealed religion), it is convenient to throw the concept of “unmoved mover” into the mix.

The line you seem to be arguing is vaguely Augustinian, or at least it seems that way to me. While it is ironic for an ardent monist to suggest this, but I’m not sure that collapsing all causes into a singularity is an effective means of approaching the problem. Whitehead argued that there were four variables for any given truth, and one of them is “vagueness”. When a truth becomes too vague, it can be applied to everything, but at the same time it doesn’t actually tell us anything of significance. The other extreme is triviality, where the truth is so incredibly specific that it can’t be applied to any other concept. Ideally a balance is found between these elements. To me it is a problem of going from generals to specifics, where you can have this very broad, all-encompassing formal concept that isn’t bad, per se, but then when you try and apply this concept to specific instances it becomes problematic. Again, within the confines of revealed religion I think a lot of these problems solve themselves because god is no longer an amorphous concept but instead is able to knowingly control a lot of these issues with intent.

So are you arguing for a specific brand of theism, or a more broad deism?

Very well put, Xunzian.

What is FATE? Does it too deserve to contain REASON - or is it simply the way it IS?

I believe that All and Everything - every action, word, event, etc. - occurs do to a Reason. And that Reason is the way it IS and the way it Will BE. Here is where Fate comes into play. What exactly is Fate? If it cannot be man made, there must be some Force behind it. This force is what we name to be God.

Blame is a part of each and every given REASONING. It is what we all look for.
If we were to Blame all on one who would neither care, but rather was in control of us Ourselves, the Blame becomes simply a form of Enlightenment.
Why find Significance in Everything? When simplicity and Acceptance would be so much easier on ourselves. We make everything too complicated.


I argue several different points. Whichever I feel I can support well, I feel to be Truth. Others which are simply rules and regulations within texts, which I am not free to question, I find to be controversial.

I think we need to draw a line between fatalism and determinism here. You seem to be arguing for fatalism, which is fine but something that many people reject – rather off-handedly. Fatalism only works if there is some sort of god as you’ve described, but absent of any god there is no reason to accept fatalism. That is to say, there is nothing wrong with it given proper presuppositions, but I don’t think it can be used to justify those presuppositions.

If you are just talking about determinism, why bother adding in that ultimate force when perfectly ordinary and local ones will do? I think there is an identity problem here, since they would be caused by both the local force and the ultimate force which unnecessarily complicates the problem. Additionally, it renders the omnipresent force rather moot, which I don’t think is what you are intending.

I might be misreading you, but are you familiar with the Augustinian argument against Pelagianism? While the notion of Original Sin is most likely an academic concern from where you are standing, your thinking seems to be in line with Augustin. Putting another element in control as a means of release.

I think most people misunderstand how dogma works. While there are groups that fervently believe in X and Y, there have also always been dissenters. The tension between the believers and the dissenters allows for progress within a common narrative. The modern tendency to stand outside a particular narrative due to minor disagreements in dogma seems self-defeating to me.

I do not know which or what specifically you refer to be local/ultimate/omnipresent here. Whatever it may be, I can sum it up as the following. This force can be described as our own making. Of course those he may believe in God can blame all on Him. However, this so-called God or omnipresent and Ultimate force is within us also and has impowered us in ourselves to control our lives - although overall he may control it in the end.

The thoughts we ultimately project into the space - objects, persons, environment, etc. - around us is what creates our Fate. Or whatever you wish to call it.

I have ultimately found our thoughts to the source of understanding of that around us. Thoughts come before our perceived surroundings or the such. For before we perceive anything, we choose how to do so. If one were to walk into an art museum, his emotions and current thoughts would effect the paintings and sculptures he perceived.
However, this can be countered by saying that when a child is raised, he is raised in an environment in which everything that he experiences from his surrounding is what builds his character, personality, and thoughts.

You are Your thoughts.

I suppose the answers are limitless.
I am simply brainstorming.

I am not putting any other element in control. Acceptance is simply renunciation. To tolerate all that is with sanguinity.

Several religions claim to know everything and beyond. However, one is forbideen to questions its texts or beliefs.

“The power to question is the basis of all human progress.”
-Indira Ghandi

It all beats down to one answer. The point is to discover it. Not stand aside and wait for someone else to do the job.

The first paragraph in your response still seems to have an identity/category error. How can a decision rest with both us while ultimately resting with god? This is an old problem of free will, but in this case I don’t think it has been fully fleshed out. That is, unless you perceive causality in a non-linear manner? While that does get around the problem, deconstructing causality in that manner usually yields a system that is non-predictive and ultimately non-functional, so I’m not sure that represents a viable path unless you want to establish a theistic nihilism.

As for religions claiming to know everything and beyond, I’m not sure that actually works in practice. While at various times sects of revealed religions have made the claim you are suggesting, those sects themselves have bifurcated, suggesting that questioning the dogma is both possible and something that occurs. More tellingly, though slightly less sexy, is the fact that revealed religions that have made that particular claim have also changed over time which tells us that the acts of questioning and challenging have occurred within them as well. For example, the Christian literalist fundamentalism of today is a different animal than it was in the 1880s.

This works with a sort of pantheistic view were God and the individual are really one. When we act, it is also God acting, and when we are in control, it is also God who is in control. However, if we are being pantheists, then there are times when God thwarts our control, but in those cases He would also be necessarily thwarting his own will.

Could you please explain this a bit more.

In many ways, yes. They’ve even proven this neurologically. But are you saying this extends to things so basic and “raw” such as seeing blatantly obvious lines and shapes and objects that we could believe physical objects into existence? I can see this tying right into your questions over sensations of pain.

I am sorry, but I will not specify my beliefs, my friend.

Of course it has occurred, Xunzian. However, it is, in a way, condemned in most religions.

God in my opinion, does not contain will, exactly. God is one we look upon to be Perfection in its utmost form of being, isn’t that? He does not will nor wish. He simply knows and does accordingly. However, that is only my opinion. We each believe our thoughts and actions to be our own when, in actuality, this God lays out our life before us. We do not have any say. When one claims to see his own fate or experiences a deja vu, he knows it is due to the fact that this event MUST happen under all circumstances. If we perceive life in this way, we can easily blame, or in other words, allow God to do as he wishes. Nothing can become of us if we have done nothing to begin with. Karma only exists when one believes actions committed by his body are his own. When he realizes that God is in control, Karma ceases to exist.

The way in which I have come to understand my view of this is I found that children put under horrible circumstances always turn out differently.
Of course there is a majority, but there are differences yet.
For example, if two children in separate households were to be abused their entire lives, it is possible that one may grow to become a positive person, avoiding doing the same with his family and children. The other may become increasingly negative and abuse his spouse and children as were the circumstances in his own household when he was but a child.
I believe that one does not form a personality or Come to see things a certain way (or view them), he already is what he is when he is first born. However, his characteristics take time to develop. They may develop more as he grows, yet what he is from the beginning, that is what he becomes. One does not change. That is where I believe Fate kicks in. Now you may take change as being, for example, the change from a positive to a negative personality. I believe that one is born with this change. This change has always existed. He has only to develop into it.

now when one is to perceive a certain drawing, for example, he understands it only through his own eyes.
Now this is me simply brainstorming for when I spoke of how thoughts come before one perceives something, I was not completely sure of my argument - as I stated.
How is one to know that what I call the color blue is the same as what another calls to be the color blue?
I believe that when something is set before a child - a drawing, for example - his brain first adjusts to the fact that something is before him. If something is before the him, the child must make something of this thing - what exactly it is.
His thoughts than adjust and decide what to make of this thing before it becomes a drawing.

It is true that the child would not have to adjust his thoughts into understanding the drawing if the object/item were not placed in front of him in the first place, however his thoughts - or brain - I believe, were the first to understand that he must realize that something were set before him.

Again, this is simply my brainstorming. I have not yet come to a strict conclusion.

I did not understand your second question, my friend.