Heidegger

[Jakob]

@Sauwelios

@Jakob

@Sauwelios

@Heidegger

Creation needs what is fixed, first, in order to overcome it, and second, in order to have something that has yet to be fixated, something that enables the creative to advance beyond itself and be transfigured.

The All is one, and for that reason has nothing to struggle with. And it would itself be nothing if it were Being, for the All is a struggle, is Becoming. Therefore error - perspectivism - is necessary for the All to exist at all. It is this that I discovered in my thought experiment.

Apologies for the mud-slinging. Old habits die hard.

Do you not mean that for the All to be aware of itself, it has to err, to divide itself in to perspectives?

Yes.

@Jakob

For the all to ‘be’ instead of te become, it has to position a reflection of itself outside itself to become self aware, and to struggle.

“To position” here meaning “to imagine”, yes. But not to ‘be’ instead of to become, but to be becoming (phusis, dynamic) instead of to ‘be’ (to remain the same, to be static). If the all were static, it would not exist, for existence is becoming, not “being”.

@Jakob

It is not said that the All does not exist if it is only becoming, just that noone would ever know about it. For humanity to exist, there must be error. As you say yourself, animals can exist without it.

Yes, but that is if you suppose there is objective existence. If only experience exists - and that is all we know that exists -, then error is necessary for existence itself.

Note that an animal, or a person not thinking (but only directly experiencing), still experiences only by virtue of an imagined ‘being’, a subject. But he, or it, does not use signals to refer to any phenomena - not even to refer to “itself”, to the subject. If anything, it refers to the total experience by that experience itself.

@Jakob

It seems to be that your explanation of thought, which I can for the time being agree with, does not explain why it necessitates language. It just explains how thought exist only through separation of being and becoming. Language doesn’t play any part in this per se.

I stand by the explanation of the primate figuring out how to make fire. You’veonly stated that there is language involved, elaborated a bit about the fact you think this, but not demonstrated that it is necessary.
As far as I’m willing to go to accept thoughtforms as language, ‘figuring things out’, connecting situations to create a third situation, does not always involve representations in my mind. Not when a thought follows a direct observation.

My point is that the primate must refer to the phenomena it combines in its thought. It must symbolise these phenomena by whatever signals.

By this rationale, everything is language, except the interplay between the All and the subjective experience. (no use of signals.) Yet that exeption is exactly what I’d call thought.
The signals transmitted are an extra layer of positioning on the reality of thought. A real ‘being’ where the All and the subjective expeirencer are becoming. A third element in the equation, a means for experience to communicate to itself of experience - a luxury to increase the depth of experience - but not a necessity. Language is not necessary for communication and learning; Demonstration is the direct transferring of knowledge. Language is indirect, can only summon new images - metahpysical realities.

Language is a means to create outside oneself, the participation in the procreative universe of the mind. A luxury - the Alls response to experiencing himself as separate. Language is poetry, poetry is the expression of the experience of becoming. - the imposing of being on becoming. But I guess that’s what you’re saying. I’m just saying it isn’t necessary to the interaction between the all and the subject that I call thought.
I think I have just linked thought and telepathy. Erratic motivations drive me.

[Sauwelios]

@Jakob

By this rationale, everything is language. Do you concur to that?

No. Language is in referring to a phenomenon by another phenomenon.

[Jakob]

@Sauwelios

@Jakob

By this rationale, everything is language. Do you concur to that?

No. Language is in referring to a phenomenon by another phenomenon.

But these phenomena wouldn’t exist if not for language - do you concur to that?

[Jakob]

@Jakob

@Sauwelios

@Jakob

By this rationale, everything is language. Do you concur to that?

No. Language is in referring to a phenomenon by another phenomenon.

But these phenomena wouldn’t exist if not for language - do you concur to that?

Whay I mean is that existence only exists in this referring - according to your experience is all model. In this way you equate language with experience, and with all.

[Jakob]

@Faust

I have asked myself that same question many times. Try reading only every other sentence. It helps.

lol

@Sauwelios

@Jakob

By this rationale, everything is language. Do you concur to that?

No. Language is in referring to a phenomenon by another phenomenon.

But these phenomena wouldn’t exist if not for language - do you concur to that?

Wha(t) I mean is that existence only exists in this referring - according to your experience is all model. In this way you equate language with experience, and with all.

it would be completely illogical and incmprehensible if the type of sound you make to indicate something did not influence your experience of that thing. That would mean that language exists outside of experienced reality.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=152687

Have we reached an agreement?