Meta-Philosophical Theoretic (unedited section of my book)

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
21

Pinnacle of Reason,

The point was to deal with everything in the abstract so that even the examples serve to develop the abstract. In doing this I cannot use examples because this would be empirical and thus ruin the whole point of the writing which was to be purely theoretical.

I have not read “a philosophers toolkit” because I would think that an compotent philosopher should be able to discover on his or her own the path to truth. I put not trust in those with recognition nor faith in the past I doubt everything and take nothing for granted. Since, this is my attitude and this leads me not to read similar material to my writing I cannot honestly tell you how my writing is original. I know that the concepts and scheme are valid but as to their significance to the philosophical community I am not sure if what I have achieved has already been achieved. All I can say is that this writing was important for me and in writing I learned alot, learned of many sucesses and of many failures and this process continues still with our discussion.

22

I see. is it possible to convey abstract concepts with plain English? I am becoming interested in you book. can you summarise using plain English the section of your book?

23

Isn’t possible. Language is spatiotemporal, it cannot express the aspatiotemporal (Rorty Philosophy as a kind of writing)

If you aren’t referring to this world then to what are you referring?

This is individualistic bullshit. Thoughts take place in language, which is social, not private (Wittgenstein, Private Language and Private Experience)

You’ve presumed far more than you’ve demonstrated in the two threads on which you’ve attempted to explain your pretentiously titled book.

For starters you’ve presumed that there is such a thing as conscious as prior to the world (though you conceded at one point that one needs a world in order to experience it, thus contradicting yourself) without demonstrating how you know this. You take so much for granted, while saying so very, very little, that your text barely even counts as philosophy.

Well, you’ve made most of the same mistakes the now-discredited Sartre once made. He of course reconciled many of his mistakes in Being and Nothingness in his Critique of Dialectical Reason

You really should read the stuff that directly contradicts yours and work out why you think it is incorrect - the biggest task of academic philosophy is the defense of the theory, rather than the invention of the theory.

Of course I don’t have a huge amount of time for academics, but if you want to make any impact on the philosophical community then I advise you to work much much harder.

All I can say is that I know much more about philosophy than you seem to, and you’ve made a lot of claims you cannot substantiate logically or empirically. You’ve also made a series of presumptions about language which are simply indefensible. I advise you strongly to read Hume, Wittgenstein and Derrida very closely. Compared to them Sartre is a squashed melon

edit - I’ve found a passage you should read, in Sartre’s Critique of Dialectical Reason called ‘The Individual and History’ where Sartre ties the two together and while he admits he cannot prove it strictly, he says it just seems necessary for the enquiry to be at all feasible.

24

Someisatthedoor,

You are saying that Space and Time which are things of my awareness and words which are things of my awareness are relative to each other when there is an all the more fundamental relation in the fact that they are objects of my awareness. Certainly, without regard for awareness as something more fundamental we see certainly the seeming relativity of words to Space and Time but relativity cannot exist between mere phenomenon whose actuality lies unknown outside our awareness. By this the phenomenon as not being actualities find themselves with their only objectivity in their pure subjectivity which subjugates all phenomenon both words, Space, and Time to awareness and never to each other. As the creation of the “thing-in-itself” by Kant certified a unity for all things real I have done much the same for the unreal. I have provided a unity to phenomenon which resolves the processes Kant developed to dintinguish the transcendental from the empirical.

Obviously, you do not understand the nature of thoughts. Throughts manifest themselves from purely emotions which babies communicate in the natural body langage such as crying, screaming, and giggling. When experience of speech and others forms of communication such as gestures they are able to associate the forms of communication to their feelings. The feelings thus gain a form which allows the division of meaning into something more comprehensible or really more particular and definitive. Thoughts do not arise out of forms they arise out of emotions and words like all forms of communication are merely means to communicate the meaning of emotions in a more particular and comprehensive way. Also forms of communication ultimately owe their dues to the more primitive things full of meaning lacking definition such may be emotions, the forces of nature, or will itself which is the source of all forces and forms.

It is no that I presume to much is that most people already presume to much and in denying these presumptions I myself who go against these presumptions am assumed presumptious. You cannot apply anything of ones awareness to be outside it or to be the cause of awareness itself. Things you experience are relative to what you are experiencing and therefore to posit anything before or outside awareness is asumptionary. Only the will as established by Schopenhauer can be said to be outside awareness and the source of awareness and all that we are aware of. I am not sure if I should take the Ficthean Idealism route which posists all that we are aware of is created by the individual or that merely context is provided subjectively and content objectively. With placing Will before awareness it concides with either as it may be that the content of our experience and thereby the “thing-in-itself” is will or that the “thing-in-itself” does no exist and there is only the transcendental and no empirical at all.

Philosophy is not meant ot give you the answers nor even the means to any answers it simple is responsible for making you think. Nietzsche understood this and took a literary form to achieve this I understand this and take an abstract non-empirical form to achieve this. I make statement without providing cooresponding definitions, explanations, and proof but this is just addition and just not determine the truthhood of my statement. The point is to remove the laziness of people so that they actually think instead of relying on logic and systems of thought which are not superior to thought but make it easier for us because we rely moer on memory this way and less an understanding. With understanding any given knowledge is judged accordingly to it with memory given knowledge is compared to other knowledge and connected logically and then judged. The first is obviously correct because it is no prejudice while the second is prejudice and intellectual deficient and plainly lazy.

Academic philosophy is for fools, it tooks knowledge and compares it to others all the while neglecting actual understanding. Academic philosophy relies on systems and logic to find valid means to compare knowledge and thus arrive at rules of which to follow to arrive at knowledge. Our natural factulties are the most valid means to truth and through them understanding can form so that knowledge be established accordingly. The only reason people need demonstration is because they lack understanding and if we develop natural faculties instead of doubting them they becoem much more powerful than any system or logic. Herder was one of the first major philosophers to understand this and this rubbed off on Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, and many others. Nietzsche understood the stupidity of the philosophy that was arising one which went on inspite of German Romanticism headed by Schelling. The majority of philosophers mainly empiricists doubting their faculities relying on things which were relative to their faculties althought denying this fact built systems, relied purely on formal logic, and set-up rules to follow. Philosophy for them is just a consumption of memory and gaining of knowledge. Consumption of memory is stupid and obviously a waste and a fruitless measure to overcome quality with quantity and knowledge without development of understanding becomes equally in quality thus making any quantity useless.

You may have more knowledge about philosophy but this is useless when your understanding lacks. I in all my time in philosophy did not want to become one of those stupid people who think that reading hunderds of books gathering massive quantities of knowledge makes them smart. They think that quantity is better the quality. I did not read that much philosophy but I read only what was most important and left out irrelevant writings. I developed understanding so that the quality of my understanding who better than anybody elses and which it is and so that whatever knowledge I encounter I can make piecemeal of it. In this I present little demonstration and lack anything empirical because I am able to reduce data down to its pure objectivity while you and others are still stuck with the seeming problematics of arriving at objectivity. I will never be able to satisfy your demands for demonstration anyways because you lack the understanding that I have.

25

This is an empirical connection, not a logical one. I can observe any number of things but that doesn’t mean they are logically connected

I never said they did exist outside our awareness

You think you’ve done this, that doesn’t mean you’ve done it. Actually, according to your sophistry it probably does mean just that.

If it were that obvious someone else would have pointed it out. They haven’t. The preponderance of empirical evidence is on my side.

Nope, this is a physicalist reading masquerading as a total reading. This is nothing more than your assertion.

Kindly stop butchering the English language. One associates ‘with’ not ‘to’.

Only someone who was as poor with language as you would make such an ignorant claim. The precision of ones use of language is the precision of ones thought, the two are one and the same. If one uses language carelessly, one thinks carelessly. Language isn’t a passive means of expression, read Wittgenstein and Derrida.

Read Derrida, he shows that this understanding of language is the result of cultural mores rather than sincere grammatology. No offence, but you clearly do not know your stuff on this topic.

That’s it, retreat into ‘it’s because I’m so special that people don’t understand me’

You are arrogant and ignorant

Funny, you were doing just that when you said of consciousness that it preceded experience, even though you couldn’t point to one observation of this or any logical proof.

You are also a hypocrite.

This directly contradicts your previous claims.

Sort it out.

Nietzsche understood philosophy much better than you do. Kindly show me where he offers this reading of philosophy.

I think defining the terms of your statement is a crucial part of demonstrating whether or not it is true. So do most logicians, not that I’m one.

So now you are debunking logic because you don’t have the discipline to use it properly? Great. A philosopher you are not.

Also you are one of the laziest thinkers on this forum, you just hash out long waffling paragraphs, refuse to explain your terms or justify your claims, then accuse everyone else of being at fault for not understanding your ungrammatical, illogical bilge.

You are very arrogant

This is ungrammatical, and I fear it is also nonsensical.

No, it’s for academics, fool

How old are you? Is English a second language for you?

Just because you say ‘this is false’ and ‘this is actual’ doesn’t make it so.

Non academic philosophy also does this. In fact I think I’d go as far as to say all thinking does this. What’s your point?

Saying something is obvious doesn’t make it so

Are you going to defend any of your ideas or are you just going to keep up this tactic of diverting onto other things whenever anyone questions you?

If so, I’ll leave you to it

True, but my understanding is a whole lot more complex and subtle than yours, which is superficial at best, arrogant at worst.

No, precision of thought (and therefore of use of language, since this is what thought is) makes you smart. Oh, look.

How the fuck do you know whether they were relevant or not unless you read them? You are hilarious! No wonder you’ve never published anything

I can’t even take this sentence seriously unless you rewrite it so it makes sense grammatically. I do believe you are joking, that this is some sort of hoax you are trying to play, trying to bait me (and others) into taking this nonsense seriously.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You are really arrogant given my grammar, logic, knowledge of philosophy, understanding of language and sense of humour are superior to yours. Nevermind, you just keep telling yourself you are so much smarter even though you can’t even write properly, let alone philosophically.

26

Someoneisatthedoor,

“This is an empirical connection, not a logical one. I can observe any number of things but that doesn’t mean they are logically connecte”

The are connected by the fact that I am observing. What is universal between one thing I observe and another thing I observe is the fact that in both cases I am observering them. It is no an empirical connection nor a transcendental one but infact a phenomenological one, it is is the reality of all things subjective despite whatever conjurings one can come up with.

“I never said they did exist outside our awareness”

Does not matter you cannot apply anything of your awareness to exist outside it (that is seperate of your awareness).

“You think you’ve done this, that doesn’t mean you’ve done it. Actually, according to your sophistry it probably does mean just that.”

I did it in the sense that I realized what was always there. You just have not realized this yet and I cannot help you until your understanding change because all I can present to use is knowledge which you have to understand right in order to understand the truth I know.

“If it were that obvious someone else would have pointed it out. They haven’t. The preponderance of empirical evidence is on my side.”

All experience is phenomenon because all experice is relative to the faculty responsible for experiencing which is one awareness.

“Nope, this is a physicalist reading masquerading as a total reading. This is nothing more than your assertion.”

It may be my assertion but the fact that is an assertion means nothing as to its truth-value. Invalidate as true and then we can get to truth unless this is not your aim as your sentence gives the impression of.

“Kindly stop butchering the English language. One associates ‘with’ not ‘to’.”

Either works it has the implication which to link. With “to” I provide a sequence and with 'with" I provide merely an attachment. “to” is appropriate for what I stated because it does not mash together “feelings” and “forms of communication” and demonstrates a seperation by process. My language use is correct and intended to be such a way to emphasize my believes which naturally in destroying the stupid dogmatic conceptions of the human race in consequence lead to changes in language appropriate to the now correct concepts.

Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 1:00 pm Post subject:

isis77 wrote:
Someisatthedoor,

You are saying that Space and Time which are things of my awareness and words which are things of my awareness are relative to each other when there is an all the more fundamental relation in the fact that they are objects of my awareness.

This is an empirical connection, not a logical one. I can observe any number of things but that doesn’t mean they are logically connected

Quote:
Certainly, without regard for awareness as something more fundamental we see certainly the seeming relativity of words to Space and Time but relativity cannot exist between mere phenomenon whose actuality lies unknown outside our awareness.

I never said they did exist outside our awareness

Quote:
By this the phenomenon as not being actualities find themselves with their only objectivity in their pure subjectivity which subjugates all phenomenon both words, Space, and Time to awareness and never to each other. As the creation of the “thing-in-itself” by Kant certified a unity for all things real I have done much the same for the unreal. I have provided a unity to phenomenon which resolves the processes Kant developed to dintinguish the transcendental from the empirical.

You think you’ve done this, that doesn’t mean you’ve done it. Actually, according to your sophistry it probably does mean just that.

Quote:
Obviously, you do not understand the nature of thoughts.

If it were that obvious someone else would have pointed it out. They haven’t. The preponderance of empirical evidence is on my side.

Quote:
Throughts manifest themselves from purely emotions which babies communicate in the natural body langage such as crying, screaming, and giggling.

Nope, this is a physicalist reading masquerading as a total reading. This is nothing more than your assertion.

Quote:
When experience of speech and others forms of communication such as gestures they are able to associate the forms of communication to their feelings.

“Kindly stop butchering the English language. One associates ‘with’ not ‘to’.”

In using “to” I provide a sequence thus demonstrating a process and a seperation. I seperate “forms of communication” from “feelings” thus emphasizing the fact that they are not together but merely joined by consequence through processes. Using “with” would not let me to communicate and would ruin the truth I meant to communicate because it would imply “feelings” are one with “forms of communication” which is incorrect. My language is correct it is just that conventional language se emphasizes the common prejudice in believes, that is why one should not adopt the priniciples of conventional English. Indirectly it may shape your mind to fit the ignorance of which the convention was born under.

"Only someone who was as poor with language as you would make such an ignorant claim. The precision of ones use of language is the precision of ones thought, the two are one and the same. If one uses language carelessly, one thinks carelessly. Language isn’t a passive means of expression, read Wittgenstein and Derrida. "

Thoughts take basis in emotions therefore langage owes it dues in practice and in origin to emotions. Follow the line of reduction do not stop where demonstrable evidence stops because then you can never get past demonstrable evidence and thus you can never ultimately determine wheter such evidence is valid or not. In questioning the nature of expericing I forget all things empirical and thus put doubt on experience thus coming to an understanding of the validity of that experience. I have done this but it requires to remove your dogmatic belief in experience just as much as it requires a person of faith to doubt his faith in order to understand that it is wrong.

“Read Derrida, he shows that this understanding of language is the result of cultural mores rather than sincere grammatology. No offence, but you clearly do not know your stuff on this topic.”

All cultures fundamentally take there basis in emotions therefore all words take there basis in emotions. Even operationally excluding the the history it requires from birth emotions to comprehend and emotions to want to comprehend and thus from emotions coems language. Our experience serves not to gives forms to us but merely content and all context is provided by the individual and the most primitive contexts are emotions. Operationally therefore emotions are the source of language alone with languages historical development. I may not know my stuff by my understanding is superior and it does not matter what quantity of knowledge you have if you do not have a superior understanding it is worthless the face of an individual with superior understanding.

"That’s it, retreat into ‘it’s because I’m so special that people don’t understand me’

You are arrogant and ignorant"

I am explaining the problems you can be critical and fix my reasoning if you see an error or I guess you can do what you are doing and complain and call “names”. Such activities that you are demonstrating get us nowhere so be critical not lazy.

"Funny, you were doing just that when you said of consciousness that it preceded experience, even though you couldn’t point to one observation of this or any logical proof.

You are also a hypocrite. "

You cannot have experience without consciousness therefore I am not presuming anything. It is no a presumption but it is clearly false to consider otherwise. The fact is that in order to experience I need something to experience with and that I am experiencing (as to that which I am experiencing with) before any experience comes to me. The process of expericiencing precedes the experience and the ability which causes the process precedes the processes and therefore the product of the process rather the experience. It may also be that thing arrive purely transcendentally as to being of the individuals creation but this is in as much doubt as the believe in having a empirical/transcendental reality.

"This directly contradicts your previous claims.

Sort it out."

I meant to say in the sentence: "Things you experience are relative to what you are experiencing “with” ".

“Nietzsche understood philosophy much better than you do. Kindly show me where he offers this reading of philosophy.”

You will have to read samples from various works in order to graps his attitude because he never presents his attitude directly in any given place or even in general throughout a single book. This is what is great of Nietzsche and what makes him not only a good philosopher but a good writer. I cannot demonstrate my understanding only a knowledge you may yourself understand but you cannot doubt the validity of my understanding but only the inability with which you are inable to grasp it.

"I think defining the terms of your statement is a crucial part of demonstrating whether or not it is true. So do most logicians, not that I’m one. "

Proof does not make something true. You think by taking a statement and adding soem more words that now the message the statement now magically becomes true. It was already true inspite of the extra words only know you belief in it where before you either do not know or were unsure. To many cultural prejudices that I have fought against and overcome but nw I forced to deal with individual who have not fought against them and adopt in philosophy the common-stance of what one was taught.

"So now you are debunking logic because you don’t have the discipline to use it properly? Great. A philosopher you are not.

Also you are one of the laziest thinkers on this forum, you just hash out long waffling paragraphs, refuse to explain your terms or justify your claims, then accuse everyone else of being at fault for not understanding your ungrammatical, illogical bilge.

You are very arrogant"

Understanding is the basis for logic so really any validity in logic is due to understanding and since understanding is more primary I would think it much more valid. I use understanding and logic only arises due to it but I never shape my understanding according to logic because this leads to a dogmatic reliance on external things which I in failing to doubt lead myself to error many possible errors. Firstly, you cannot know I am a lazy in thinking unless you can read my thoughts. Secondly, you may presume that I am a lazy writer but you mistake my intentions. My intentions are to make people think instead of feeding people the answers and all things leading up that so they do not have to think themselves. People calling themselves philosophers seemingly do not want to think without the aids of have the path absolutely described to them. It would seem without the aboluste description they would get lost and then blame the supposed pathmaker (me). I accuse you people of but one thing not understanding.

“This is ungrammatical, and I fear it is also nonsensical.”

The only error that makes it no understandable is I forget to put a “t” on the “no” at the end of the second last line. Otherwise, the concepts are perfectly presented but I guess not to the boundaries of convention.

“How old are you? Is English a second language for you?”

It was a typo.

“Just because you say ‘this is false’ and ‘this is actual’ doesn’t make it so.”

True but it is true even inspite of me saying it to be true. I never intended to say that may belief in something determines it to be true and infact I denied this previously.

“Non academic philosophy also does this. In fact I think I’d go as far as to say all thinking does this. What’s your point?”

Nietzsche never got wrapped up in convention and only presents various understandings, he never attempted any system building nor any development of logic. Herder did much the same as well to a lesser degree Schopenhauer.

"Saying something is obvious doesn’t make it so

Are you going to defend any of your ideas or are you just going to keep up this tactic of diverting onto other things whenever anyone questions you?

If so, I’ll leave you to it"

That true it is true or false inspite of me saying so or inspite of any justification, explanation, demonstration, or prove. I never intended to believe that my believe is good enough but that my understanding is quite sufficient and that I will demonstrate my understandign and that you judge it my gaining the same understanding. My understanding ad your understanding are different therefore we cannot compare them or else we will disagree all the time. In reading you seek to understand my understanding and in reading you I seek to understand your understanding. In doing so I provide that one sought not distract oneself with demonstrations, proof, and explanation but seek to understand because this improves ones understanding. When provided with knowledge plainly one never develops the understanding but merely changes on believes which is pointless for finding and determining truth. Hopefully, now you understand that you should really try to understand.

“True, but my understanding is a whole lot more complex and subtle than yours, which is superficial at best, arrogant at worst.”

I was careful in my wording see: “is useless “when” your understanding lacks.” I never implied you lacked understanding but that “when” you do not understand knowledge becomes useless for you.

“No, precision of thought (and therefore of use of language, since this is what thought is) makes you smart. Oh, look.”

I was not trying to be precise, I was precise in what I intended and the results I got reflect that. I was trying to state it plainly and simply which is what I achieved.

“How the fuck do you know whether they were relevant or not unless you read them? You are hilarious! No wonder you’ve never published anything”

Be careful you know you can look up authors and read about their philosophy and then from this determine the validity of their writings through various summaries of important writings and concepts. You are getting a bit hasty you really should be a bit more patient you now I can wait for your response if you take more time on it.

“I can’t even take this sentence seriously unless you rewrite it so it makes sense grammatically. I do believe you are joking, that this is some sort of hoax you are trying to play, trying to bait me (and others) into taking this nonsense seriously.”

I have those glitches but if you switch the “who” for “was” then it is fine. I am a few errors like that but nothing to serious and seriously man do not take reading so seriously. Its like your going to burst a blood vessel or something. I guess you like everything nice and neat for you that when a little bit a chaos is thrown at you that your knowledge cannot deal with you get fustrated. I used to get fustrated because I used to be a hardcore perfectionist but realized that putting an emphasize on understanding versus knowledge allows me to adopt to whatever circumstances. I can read writings with numerous errors and I do not need specific conditions under which something is written to understand. I can live in chaos for I am in control of myself. It would seem you have to control the things around you because you cannot handle chaos. Mere speculation but nonetheless interesting.

"HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You are really arrogant given my grammar, logic, knowledge of philosophy, understanding of language and sense of humour are superior to yours. Nevermind, you just keep telling yourself you are so much smarter even though you can’t even write properly, let alone philosophically"

I never said I was smarter nor do I think or even feel so. I have taken a path outside convention that allows me to do certain things least of which is suceed in society with all its dogmatic groundless believes and conditions. I can write properly and I do and most of the problems comes frommy typing, my failure to proofread. I write in the moment my thoughts come and I let them flow. Anybody, who has imployed such will gain an understanding of others who write the same but I do not believe you understand so I presume you have never practiced writting this way critically at least.

27

It isn’t a matter of conjurings, there is no logical connection between the events therefore no logical proof that all events are necessarily subject to being observed. Indeed a certain Bertrand Russell would argue certain facts are true irrespective of their being observed. What would you say to him? Would you tell him his work was irrelevant and therefore not worth reading?

I haven’t. You have. Your description of consciousness flaunts the rules you yourself have set down.

right…

All experience is phenomenon? You have stopped making sense again

Again, your grammar is appalling. You would be laughed out of clown college, let alone philosophy.

You’ve made a leap from a physicalist reading to a total reading based on nothing more than your own assertion. This doesn’t strictly invalidate your claim, but it leaves us in an aporia, where we simply cannot say anything meaningful about the truth value of your claim. It is a claim, nothing more, nothing less.

No, you’ve simply ridden roughshod over grammar in trying to say something Kant and Sartre said far more clearly (i.e. something unoriginal which will overturn no dogmatic conceptions) and then dressed yourself up as an intellectual revolutionary to pardon your lazy use of language. Again, I am reminded of the Sokal Affair.

28

Furthermore

That’s it, it’s all language’s fault that you can’t express yourself sensibly or grammatically. It’s not like English is the most widely-spoken language in the world, which sort of indicates it is quite adaptable and capable of working in lots of different contexts. Blame it all on conventions you are apparently overturning in your hasty, lazy, philosophising.

You can’t. Full stop. I don’t care how long you spend reducing and reducing you’ll never, ever reach the end.

This is patently untrue, in questionning you use words, words are learnt through habitual empirical experience. This is simply a lie you are telling yourself to reassure the nagging doubt that all of what you’ve ‘built’ is on swampland. No matter how many times you rebuild the castle…

Faith is neither right nor wrong, it is the only solution to the infinite regress. We take almost everything on faith. You yourself use faith to tell yourself you have got the answers when you haven’t.

‘their’ not ‘there’ - another ‘typo’?

Not all cultures ‘take their basis’ (what?) ‘in emotions’ unless you are now going to claim that everything is a matter of emotional experience. You can do that, but if you do then you’ve relativised your own claims, which makes your castle come crashing back down into the swamp, again.

You ain’t an individual and your understanding is far from superior. Everything you’ve said here treats language as nothing more than a referential tool. Wittgenstein demonstrated about a hundred situations where this doesn’t apply, which would have to be accounted for if your claim were to be valid.

I’m not ‘calling names’ I’m describing your tactic, which is to say “Yes, but I’m smarter than you” or “Yes, but my understanding is superior” every time you are faced with a question you cannot answer.

None of this answers the issue of the connection between events.

Right, so you think it is critical and demonstrative of a ‘superior understanding’ to put words in the mouths of philosophers then refuse to cite references when asked?

Christ, you a presumptuous, arrogant person

Perhaps not, but it can make it valid.

Now you’ve turned tail and become a sceptic, thus invalidating your every claim up until this point. Hilariously bad tactics. I think that’s about 5 own goals you’ve scored.

That’s it, keep telling yourself you are a special individual just because other people can’t understand you. Breath into the paper bag

Nope, this is sophistry. Your assertion that you have a superior understanding and that this superior understanding is ‘more valid’ than logic is utterly nonsensical. Logic is the art of working out what is valid and what isn’t, nothing transcends its validity.

All thought takes place in language, all thought necessitates ‘external’ things

So now we’re back to 'I’m not writing what I’m thinking, it is the fault of the language which… is… enslaved… to… me"

‘you people’ - get over yourself. Nothing individual can be expressed in language.

So I’m being conventional am I? Given you don’t even know what the conventions of philosophy are because you refuse to read them because they are irrelevant I consider it pretentious and stupid of you to call me conventional and assert your cliched, illogical philosophy as radical.

Fine, but there are much more serious abuses of language in your posts

Yet you rest on this very fact time and again because you can’t prove your claims logically (or empirically)

Nietzsche was wrapped up in conventions, much of his writing on ethics is derived from Aristotle, a lot of his work is basically an extension of Heraclitus, he talks about almost every philosopher under the sun at some point in one of his books…

You’ve told me explicitly that I lacked your understanding, that yours was/is superior.

No, you didn’t. By common consensus your use of English isn’t ‘plain’ or ‘simple’ or ‘clear’.

This doesn’t explain how you can assess the work of a philosopher without reading it

Glitches? Let me guess, you are one of those AI programs designed to produce text that is meant to be meaninful that keeps messing up?

Now I know you are joking, taking the mickey, playing a game unseriously.

I’m not angry in the slightest, I’ve remained calm throughout this conversation. You don’t anger me, I know you are wrong about all of this. Not because I’m smug, self-satisfied or somesuch, but because I’ve been through all this before and been taught by smarter people than you or I.

Not at all. I’d just prefer you to not blame your faults on language.

I assure you I can handle chaos. You are the one banging on about pure consciousness and the thing in itself. You are the one who is desperately trying to come up with some way of reassuring yourself that your understanding is superior because it is misunderstood.

Let’s just say I’ll add that to the list of presumptions you’ve made and I’ll be on my merry way

29

Someoneisatthedoor,

“It isn’t a matter of conjurings, there is no logical connection between the events therefore no logical proof that all events are necessarily subject to being observed. Indeed a certain Bertrand Russell would argue certain facts are true irrespective of their being observed. What would you say to him? Would you tell him his work was irrelevant and therefore not worth reading?”

The fact is that what I a experice with allows the possibility of all further then, allows the arrangement of all phenomenon by whatever faculties according to whatever standards. This implies that all the phenomenon of my awareness are homogeneous at their basis. Hmmmm…I wonder why this is? It is the fact that they all enter into my awareness becoming of my awareness and thus becoming relative to it. Thee the homogenous actuality lies in my awareness which is the first and foremost of all things for me because it denotes the possibility of experience itself. Inclusive in this possibility of experience is the possibility of all latter things and in this possibility of all latter things being made possible such as knowing, imagining, reasoning, or whatever else comes some conditions under which the universality is achieved. By this all things of my awareness are relative to it and submit it conditions. It requires that in order for me to be aware of all the thing I am aware of that they all have some at their basis in common and this would be those conditions provided by awareness. Following causality foward and backward the logical connection is bound to necessity as I have demonstrated many a times but I guess you ignore this fact.

“I haven’t. You have. Your description of consciousness flaunts the rules you yourself have set down.”

The only rule I set down is the Priniciple of Sufficient Reason. Awareness is unchanging and only the things I am aware of change according to my unchanging awareness. This is the only way to explain the fact that all the things of my awareness having seemingly nothing alike are intimately joined by some standard. The standard I found can only rest in our awareness alone for this is what is most immediate and allows for the possibility of experience. If consciousness were changing there would be no logical order to things everything wouls be chaos of which it is not. The conditions under awareness stasify the most primitive kind of order that being merely “presence”. Surely, we can have disagreements about all things about reality but you canot deny “presence” which is everything in everytime always.

“right…”

You getting lazy or what or are you just having a stroke.

“All experience is phenomenon? You have stopped making sense again”

Experience is phenomenon meaning that it is accountable to certain conditions that differentiate from an actual object existing seperate of those conditions. The conditions of experience are a priori which make it phenomenon versus the “thing-in-itself” which exists seperate of those conditions of experience and thus we do not experience it.

“You’ve made a leap from a physicalist reading to a total reading based on nothing more than your own assertion. This doesn’t strictly invalidate your claim, but it leaves us in an aporia, where we simply cannot say anything meaningful about the truth value of your claim. It is a claim, nothing more, nothing less.”

You can determine it right or wrong by thinking it through. Do not rely on the dogmatic measures of external conditions because these were formed from thinking and all that thinking requires to be effective is understanding. If you rely on external measure your understanding is passive to the conditions thus making then useless and dulling them into futility. Think! Philosophy as Science cannot rest in copying Science but going beyond it realizing the stupidity of system building and realzing that all along the source of any sucess for us rests in our faculties nor in our created devices and conditions.

“No, you’ve simply ridden roughshod over grammar in trying to say something Kant and Sartre said far more clearly (i.e. something unoriginal which will overturn no dogmatic conceptions) and then dressed yourself up as an intellectual revolutionary to pardon your lazy use of language. Again, I am reminded of the Sokal Affair.”

Where as the foundations or such inferences? Your experience which is merely phenomenon and relative to conditions that seperate it from reality of things outside our consciousness of them. Not only this but is even farther away from my consciousness because we have this unknown reality seperating us.

“That’s it, it’s all language’s fault that you can’t express yourself sensibly or grammatically. It’s not like English is the most widely-spoken language in the world, which sort of indicates it is quite adaptable and capable of working in lots of different contexts. Blame it all on conventions you are apparently overturning in your hasty, lazy, philosophising.”

I am not blaming anything but the fact of the matter is that english is far to bound to convention because it requires such in order for the common masses with undeveloped understandings to communicate.

“You can’t. Full stop. I don’t care how long you spend reducing and reducing you’ll never, ever reach the end.”

How can you know if there is an end if you have no reached it. I think the problem is that you have just stopped based on the assumption there is no end but if you continued inspite of this uncertainity you will find there is an end. I believe this is what Kant refering to when in his quote he stated we should make more room for “faith”. I see your problem now and it rests in intellectual uncertainity in which you can either overcome like me or revert to a dull cynicism like yourself. Cynicism gets us nowhere where overcoming always get somewhere even if the efforts end up failing. This is why empiricists make horrible philosophers because they cannot get pastthe need to have things directly given to them so they just stick to experience never doubting it. In order to overcome and get to truth it requires you to doubt your cynicism and the foundations for it.

“This is patently untrue, in questionning you use words, words are learnt through habitual empirical experience. This is simply a lie you are telling yourself to reassure the nagging doubt that all of what you’ve ‘built’ is on swampland. No matter how many times you rebuild the castle…”

Questioning occurs in thinking such that it is possible to question myself and thus through establishing proper limitations arriving at an answer. All things we are aware of are phenomenon relative to our awareness and therby awarenes always having a priority over it. You present the belief that experience is not phenomenon which is false. You present the belief that there is somehow conformity between one thign one is aware of “words” and another thing one is aware of “habitual empirical experience” are relative to each other when they relativity is to awareness which formed the possibility of even considering there awarenes to each other. Both being “present” they are according to the condition of awareness which gives them a homogenous quality which is exactly why they are relative to awareness and exactly why you can even think they are relative to each other. To think phenomenon are relative to each other is really very shallow thinking.

“Faith is neither right nor wrong, it is the only solution to the infinite regress. We take almost everything on faith. You yourself use faith to tell yourself you have got the answers when you haven’t.”

There is no infinite regress and you can never no that it is either wrong or right unless you reach the end in which case you would find that there is no infinite regress. If you take an attempt at reduction like me you will find that there is no infinite regress but of course since you have never tried you will not understand until you have achieved it yourself. The believe in truth only provides that we recognize something truely or falsely to be true or false. Truth and falsehood rest inspite of believe but our believe in it establishes the necessary connection to truth to reflect upon it and bring it into represenation and thus achieving an understanding of it.

"‘their’ not ‘there’ - another ‘typo’?

Not all cultures ‘take their basis’ (what?) ‘in emotions’ unless you are now going to claim that everything is a matter of emotional experience. You can do that, but if you do then you’ve relativised your own claims, which makes your castle come crashing back down into the swamp, again"

Not a typo but a mix-up. All I am saying is emotions form the basis of what we pay attention to because emotions give us that sense of meaning on the most basic level. It is by certain emotional keys that language can or cannot develop and it is by certain emotional keys that I learn and eventually imploy language as I am growing from an infant, to youth, and so on. Not only thig but emotions have some form and much meaning which certainly given our intiative to pay attention to certain things given emotional keys that emotions form the basis of thought and thereby in consequence language. Experience does not provide any forms but only content, that is purely will which when entering our consciousness is given form on the most primitive level as anger, sadness, or happiness. The dynamics of the will granted by experience I am working on to understand through my Metaphysics which I now see possible. We could speculate that Will has certain level of strengths so that given the strength I respond accordingly. What strengths are what forms? This is the question I need a way to answer so that I can actually develop a Metaphysical outlook on the world.

“You ain’t an individual and your understanding is far from superior. Everything you’ve said here treats language as nothing more than a referential tool. Wittgenstein demonstrated about a hundred situations where this doesn’t apply, which would have to be accounted for if your claim were to be valid.”

Language is meaningless it but a form of which represent a meaning that lies within the individual. You would have to carry out reduction in order to understand this but since you wont you will never get the oppurtunity to understand what I am talking about. Sorry, Wittgenstein but you are wrong suffered from to much “Bad Faith” I guess.

“I’m not ‘calling names’ I’m describing your tactic, which is to say “Yes, but I’m smarter than you” or “Yes, but my understanding is superior” every time you are faced with a question you cannot answer.”

No…you are taking actions and inferencing on what my motives are. It is predjudice because you have no foundation to certify you understanding thus you judgements are prejudice and thereby mere “name calling”. That is really fruitless words which demonstratea believe in something which is no actually there and demonstrates no reason even to believe it is there.

“None of this answers the issue of the connection between events.”

I am aware of one event and the other my connection lies in my awareness of the events not in or between the events themselves. The possibility to look in or between events in because of my awareness itself thus in all logical circumstances all things that I am aware of reduce themselves to my awareness.

"Right, so you think it is critical and demonstrative of a ‘superior understanding’ to put words in the mouths of philosophers then refuse to cite references when asked?

Christ, you a presumptuous, arrogant person"

I cannot demonstrate my lies within me, which is my understanding which has basis in no thing you can look at because it rests in my ability to look at the writing at the correct perspective in understand. I cannot give you my perspective or my understanding. I can only give things in a way as I understand them but such a presentation is impossible to make you change your understanding and perspective to fit mine. That is why people have to gain understanding instead of satisfying there already closed and fixed understanding based in an already closed and fixed perspective. My argument follows in the lines of Bergson who understood that it is intuition that is the key because only when your understanding matches mine and not in what you understand can you understand what I understand in the same way I understand it.

“Perhaps not, but it can make it valid.”

No quality attached to a certain thing can change that thing in and by its nature. It is valid or true inspite of whatever you assign to it or whatever belief one has in it. This all relates to the fact that phenomenon are not relative to each other. The truth of something is not relative to proof and proof is not relative to truth. If you take this some example here and extend it you will found that nothing we experience is relative to any other thing we experience but only to the things which all things of experience are experienced with.

“Now you’ve turned tail and become a sceptic, thus invalidating your every claim up until this point. Hilariously bad tactics. I think that’s about 5 own goals you’ve scored.”

Actually, I am far more skeptical than you. You do realize that I beleive all of our awareness is merely phenomenon relative to our awareness and not to each other. This is quite a bleak outlook and quite a skeptical and even nihilistic one. You think I am taking ad leaps of faith when actually I am trying to destory all leaps of faith and conslidate what can be held only be absolute necessity.

“That’s it, keep telling yourself you are a special individual just because other people can’t understand you. Breath into the paper bag”

Judgements come a little prices and are worth little but perhaps a critical showing of understanding an analysis of that understanding althoght costing far more could be worth alot more.

“Nope, this is sophistry. Your assertion that you have a superior understanding and that this superior understanding is ‘more valid’ than logic is utterly nonsensical. Logic is the art of working out what is valid and what isn’t, nothing transcends its validity.”

Nothing is valid in-itself we merely attach that quality to things and in doing so we lead yourselves from reality into illusion. Understanding forms logic and logic affirms validity therefore understanding affirms validity. Yet, nothing is valid in-itself and determining the validity of things and thus whether or not would should care to understand them is dogmatic. If one removes the dogmatic assignment of validity and takes the time to understand what another is saying then one can get to the truth. Logic makes people lazy and makes understanding passive to logic, it makes it serve it as a slave his master. Some times the slave wakes up and relaxes his state and wants to be free and wants the truth. In this the slave reasserts his understanding destroying his master logic and making logic a slave for him. The belive in logic is dogmatic that is why Scholastic loved it so much and that is why Idealists and Existentialists hated it so much because it kept them from truth and intellectual freedom. You really ought free yourself unless you like being a slave and all.

“All thought takes place in language, all thought necessitates ‘external’ things”

All thoughts have a directedness to external things but it is to bad those external things do not exist.

“So now we’re back to 'I’m not writing what I’m thinking, it is the fault of the language which… is… enslaved… to… me”"

I write what I think but for you the writing can only be related to your thinking and never mine. Unless of course you would have me believe that writing can think itself…lol.

“‘you people’ - get over yourself. Nothing individual can be expressed in language.”

Langauge cannot express anything anyways it is a mere means of representation for others and reflection for myself.

“So I’m being conventional am I? Given you don’t even know what the conventions of philosophy are because you refuse to read them because they are irrelevant I consider it pretentious and stupid of you to call me conventional and assert your cliched, illogical philosophy as radical.”

You are being conventional as you hold many empiricists beliefs in common with the masses.

“Fine, but there are much more serious abuses of language in your posts”

How can I abuse language? I think you are confusing you conception of language with reality which I guess is excusable for you empirical type thinkers make those kind of mistakes all the time.

“Yet you rest on this very fact time and again because you can’t prove your claims logically (or empirically)”

Logic=phenomenon
Experience=phenomenon

“Nietzsche was wrapped up in conventions, much of his writing on ethics is derived from Aristotle, a lot of his work is basically an extension of Heraclitus, he talks about almost every philosopher under the sun at some point in one of his books…”

That is not convention. Convention as to do with the “how” of philosophy not the “what”. It is in “how” you write, “how” you think, “how” you build your philosophy etc. Philosophy is but a grouping of processes the product of those processes is not philosophy but something of philosophy’s creation always relative to it. I wrote my “Meta-Philosophical Theoretic” to establish the proper “how” in philosophy because this is what leads to the “what” in philosophy. If the “how” is incorrect then the “what” is also incorrect. My “Meta-Philosophical Theoretic” establishes the proper “how” so that one can get to the proper “what”. It is no accountable to questions of “what” but only criticism that adress the “how” of philosophy. Logic cannot be used for the determination of “what” but only understanding.

“You’ve told me explicitly that I lacked your understanding, that yours was/is superior.”

That post which you responded here with your above quote was not about that it was about the fact that without understanding knowledge is useless and that the better understanding you have the better the use one can make with knowledge. It was not about my claims to greater understanding.

“No, you didn’t. By common consensus your use of English isn’t ‘plain’ or ‘simple’ or ‘clear’.”

It is or is not inspite of all things except itself.

“This doesn’t explain how you can assess the work of a philosopher without reading it”

If there work I can see is no generally good and may have only small jems in it then it is is not really worth buying is it. I will spend my money only if the author’s book presents for me in general a good amount of useful ideas.

“Glitches? Let me guess, you are one of those AI programs designed to produce text that is meant to be meaninful that keeps messing up”

It was a glitch.

“Now I know you are joking, taking the mickey, playing a game unseriously.”

I was just trying to say be patient.

“I’m not angry in the slightest, I’ve remained calm throughout this conversation. You don’t anger me, I know you are wrong about all of this. Not because I’m smug, self-satisfied or somesuch, but because I’ve been through all this before and been taught by smarter people than you or I.”

Well, I will take your word that you are no angry but you do seem frantic in the sense that your at least no very patient and you are very quick to judge. Your quickness to judge however probably arises from your blind faith in logic and your doubt in the natural human faculties. How can a creation of a faculty be superior to the faculty itself?

“Not at all. I’d just prefer you to not blame your faults on language”

Where do you get “blame” my reference to langage was purely etiological.

“I assure you I can handle chaos. You are the one banging on about pure consciousness and the thing in itself. You are the one who is desperately trying to come up with some way of reassuring yourself that your understanding is superior because it is misunderstood.”

I hang unto reality and embrace the chaos that often comes with it.

“Let’s just say I’ll add that to the list of presumptions you’ve made and I’ll be on my merry way”

You presume that I am presuming without any reason to belive that I am presuming. That I understand something you do not or that you think I do not and do not present it would mean prehaps that it is no a presumption. Just because I do not present certain things that make make an assumption not an assumption does not mean that what I am saying is an assumption. You make the assumption all the time that I am assuming and in this I can be certain that your assumption is unfounded where my assumption I know to be founded in my understanding but merely not always presented to you. I present only as much as needed and will not give it all unless one demonstrates that he or she is worthy of such a presentation. I would only make such a presentation if I felt that individual to be at a level that the presentation would lead the person already understood as I. Those I feel do not understand I make a minimal presentation and they have to prove to me their understanding before I show my understanding fully. In this I ensure that individuals individually attempt to work to get to the truth themselves instead of just memorizing what one said and just repeating it. That is why I hate Academic philosophy because that it what occurs and that is why I limit my arguments to you is because your academic and do not present a high enough understanding to be entrusted with such knowledge.

Trust me I have another two section of my book that set the foundation for my philosophy, then build my philosophy, and finally I deal with all opposing of ideas of concern. I sealed it shut and make is absolute. It is masterful indeed something far better than I present here but you are not worthy of it.

30

I’ll stick to a few key things because most of your post is the same unjustified waffle you’ve offered elsewhere.

Awareness adapts to the world, it changes. This is demonstrable by the fact that we can have new experiences.

I was having a stroke, but not in the sense you mean, but in the sense of

“A flasher exposed himself to two nuns in a railway carriage. One of the nuns fainted and the other one had a stroke.”

If language were the passive tool you claim it is then it would be entirely your fault that your expression is so poor. How funny that in your false claims about language you actually make more problems for yourself!

You are a barrel of laughs

I’m not cynical, I’m a utopian novelist. How can that be cynical? I have a lot of faith, perhaps somewhat foolishly, but I’m aware it is faith. You on the other hand genuinely think you’ve reasoned your way to the answers when you haven’t. Who is the more cynical?

No, it isn’t. There is no private language, there are no idiomatic singularities. Language precedes our birth, we are born into it, not the other way round. It makes no sense to speak of the language of an individual, because if there were only one person there wouldn’t be language.

Guessing is all you are doing. Wittgenstein wasn’t perfect, but he was a far better philosopher than you will ever be. I suggest you read his work.

Doesn’t answer the issue of the necessary connection between events needed for your ‘phiolsophy’.

Things are simply a bundle of momentary qualities.

I understand the pessimism inherent in your view, which is yet another reason to reject your view.

You’ve failed once more

Writing is thinking. If you write what you think, and what you write is nonsense then what you think is nonsense. Thanks for clearing that one up. You’ve admitted that you do write what you think.

Language is never simply a means. If you’d read any of the stuff you should have read you’d know this.

Which ‘masses’?

By common consensus your writing is at best difficult to understand and at worst simply nonsensical. Language is social, you cannot blame others for your own failure to write clearly.

Fishsticks! You claimed to have a superior understanding

How do you know what ideas the book presents if you haven’t read it?

You are talking nonsense again

Thankyou for confirming that

To let your programmers sort out the mess they’ve made?

I don’t have blind faith in logic, I just maintain that if you cannot explain something clearly, defend it logically or empirically then you may as well be repeating the story of Cinderella over and over.

Why should I trust that any of your book is better than the section you’ve posted? The section you posted was terrible. It was as boring and drawn out as Sartre, but without the attention to detail and precision of language.

31

Someisathedoor,

“Awareness adapts to the world, it changes. This is demonstrable by the fact that we can have new experiences.”

New experiences are new things we are aware of while our awareness never changes it only presents “things” to us of which particular character is determined by combinations. One “thing” we call an emotion can appear to react to some outside ourselves but the emotions themselves as we experience them do not effect our awareness but the fact that we are both aware of the emotion and the object we suppose to be the cause of the emotions is due to our awareness which is constant. You are mixing the phenomenon for the thing that makes phenomenon possible. You look at an animal and sensations come the sensations do not represent our awareness but another thing we aware of through which by our senses our awareness can through the various things it is aware of present for our awareness a total awareness of a “thing” in which if we wanted to we can change our awareness and focus on more particular things or more general. We can see in our awareness prehaps the mere colours and then we focus on the colours seeing red, greed, violet etc. Then we focus on the spatial arrangement of those colours seeing various constructs such maybe a tree, a blade of grass, a fellow human being. Awareness as to be active and the thngs we are aware of have to be passive in order to explain the phenomenon of our experience and experiencing.

"If language were the passive tool you claim it is then it would be entirely your fault that your expression is so poor. How funny that in your false claims about language you actually make more problems for yourself!

You are a barrel of laughs"

Yes it is my fault but it is still your responsibility despite my fault to with effort and patience understand inspite of the difficulties. To take on a challenge and overcome it and thus improving yourself and your understanding. That is your problem you are so focused on others blaming them in such that you do not focus on yourself facing your own challenges and improving yourself. Due your inability in this you blame others trying to make them lesser than yourself or at least make it seem so. It does not matter if you are right or wrong in your accusation it does not change the fact that you take on challenges and improve yourself althought it does distract you from that responsibility which of course is your ego’s fault and your intellects and wills failing.

“I’m not cynical, I’m a utopian novelist. How can that be cynical? I have a lot of faith, perhaps somewhat foolishly, but I’m aware it is faith. You on the other hand genuinely think you’ve reasoned your way to the answers when you haven’t. Who is the more cynical?”

I follow one thing necessity and nothing else. Nothing could be more cynical. I proved my work necessary but obviously you do not care about necessity you care about other lesser things such as explanation, demonstration, logic, and proof. Necessity is at the basis of those things and all those things merely abstractions from it and your criticism based in those thigns abstracted from necessity illudes the bounds of necessity which are all the more finite and all the more real. Necessity alone you must judge and nothing else you distract yourself from truth you will and if you were to judge by necessity you would find necessarily my work to be true.

“No, it isn’t. There is no private language, there are no idiomatic singularities. Language precedes our birth, we are born into it, not the other way round. It makes no sense to speak of the language of an individual, because if there were only one person there wouldn’t be language.”

Communication is possible because of the universality of our facultities of of our faculties creations. Our creations such as language are empty and mere representation and it is due to our faculities that a certain context relating meaning to those empty forms can be comprehended by our faculties on a metaphysical level. I am aware of in context the arrangements of things according to some logic and through there is a supposed arrangement of meanings. I cannot pick up the meanings because they are not there but I can according to the context associate the meaning in me to the context of the language. It is the universality of my faculities that allows me to replicate the connection either by expericing the meaning’s in myself through reflection or by experiencing the context in myself through representation. The processes that connect meaning to context and context to meaning are of a faculty that is universal. Universality means that my faculty must be constant and unchanging as if it were not then we would explain phenomenon by joining meaning and language as one unit which is false. It is false on an Ontological level as Plato understood and on an Epistemological level as Kant understood in his Critique of Pure Reason.

“Guessing is all you are doing. Wittgenstein wasn’t perfect, but he was a far better philosopher than you will ever be. I suggest you read his work.”

Wittgenstein did not follow necessity there is work is not neccesary to read unless I want to stimulate my imagination.

“Doesn’t answer the issue of the necessary connection between events needed for your ‘phiolsophy’.”

It is necessary to have awareness precede events in order for those events to be made aware of and as such the events are relative to my awareness by logical order epistemologically and by their “being” as “entities” ontologically.

“Things are simply a bundle of momentary qualities.”

Relative to our awareness not to each other and thus mere phenomenon. Kant in making the distinction between Object and Subject set for us the fact that there is no relativity between to things we know and things outside our knowledge that exist in reality but set that things we know are relative to the a priori. I state that no things we know are relative to each other and thus eliminate the a priori (although I use to often to deal with empiricism)and make everything relative to our awareness.

“I understand the pessimism inherent in your view, which is yet another reason to reject your view.”

Possibly but I do not think it is a very good reason.

“You’ve failed once more”

No! You did! LOL

“Writing is thinking. If you write what you think, and what you write is nonsense then what you think is nonsense. Thanks for clearing that one up. You’ve admitted that you do write what you think.”

You think what you think and you write what you write. Writing what you think only comes when you coordinate thinking and writing. You can either fail and thinking and thus writings is crap conceptually or you can fail in writing and thus writings may be conceptually good but the representation of the concepts is crap. It is a presumption to assume that the case is one or the other therefore since there is no logical reason for your choice we must revert to egotistical intentions you hold as the only reasonable explanation unless you have a better one.

“Language is never simply a means. If you’d read any of the stuff you should have read you’d know this.”

Language is a means and at that a means of thought and both thought and language a means of emotions and emotions plus language and thought a means of will which is “meaning” and emotions, thoughts, and langauge particular “meaning’s” objectified due to there innate forms giving it a qualtiy of “knowability” (able to know).

“Which ‘masses’?”

The everyday people that follow each other conforming to whatever the can.

“By common consensus your writing is at best difficult to understand and at worst simply nonsensical. Language is social, you cannot blame others for your own failure to write clearly.”

Language is personal only the empty symbols that we connect the certain meanings to is objective but of course it is not important for us unless it is connected to some sort of meaning.

“Fishsticks! You claimed to have a superior understanding”

Not in the particular section we are talking about.

"How do you know what ideas the book presents if you haven’t read it?

You are talking nonsense again"

Ussually, in an overview of the author and his books they present his ideas and provided a general analysis with some particular examples to explain the analysis. This is sufficient to in general to determine whether I should waste my money and time to buy a book and read it. I rule out of Empiricists and only read Transcendentialist, Existentialist, Stoic, and Taoist writings. These two me are the most important philosophical doctrines and all others are of a meeker brand not worth reading. In this I am very selective. Besides most of the time I will not need to read because I can just think out some problems and overcome the same difficulties faced by many philosophers. I only go to read for ideas into something which gets me closer to progressing toward the unification of philosophy under one system of thought.

“To let your programmers sort out the mess they’ve made?”

Where you see chaos I see order. See my point.

“I don’t have blind faith in logic, I just maintain that if you cannot explain something clearly, defend it logically or empirically then you may as well be repeating the story of Cinderella over and over.”

Necesity is my only rule and all else is abstraction. The problem is you cannot see necessity and you want all these other abstractions which are invalid in relation to necessity of which thoese abstraction came from and are bound to themselves. I cannot demonstrate or prove necessity but you will have to develop your understanding to comprehend necessity in things for I cannot present a knowledge of a thing which lies in the heart of knowledge itself but I alone rely on your understanding of this fact which as of right now you lack.

“Why should I trust that any of your book is better than the section you’ve posted? The section you posted was terrible. It was as boring and drawn out as Sartre, but without the attention to detail and precision of language.”

Why should you not trust me?

32

This will be the last time I say all this to you, I’m bored of repeating myself even if you aren’t

Bull. Sartre directly contradicts you when he describes consciousness as exhausting itself everytime it is aware of anything

The two are inseperable. I’ve argued this all along. You’ve never managed to separate consciousness from the thing of which it is conscious, despite your claims to have done this. I’m not mixing anything, there aren’t two things.

On the contrary, the thing has to be active AND consciousness has to be active. Both are in flux. Read your Hume.

You cannot blame your constant syntactical errors on me. They would be errors whether I was reading them or someone else was reading them. I blame you for your poor use of language. You are the one using language poorly, it’s not that I’m not understanding you because I’m too thick to understand nonsense like ‘I am adaptability’ and mistaking ‘to’ for ‘for’.

You can try to blame me all you like (and then claim you weren’t blaming anything) but ask yourself why it is only me that has stuck with you thus far. Everyone else gave up trying to make sense of your jargon filled, syntactically suicidal text some time ago. Apart from a few perfectly fair requests for clearer English no-one has bothered to respond.

No, you proved nothing of the kind. You asserted it was necessary.

You are having a giraffe, surely? Demonstration and proof are the linguistic ballparks of philosophy. You can blather on and on about how something we can never perceive directly (consciousness as prior to experience, consciousness as a thing in itself) but without demonstrating it your claims are no better than those of a idiot. Your metaphysical baggage is no better, no worse, no more or less meaningful than any other metaphysical baggage.

There is no necessary connection between events. I can keep telling you this, you can keep ignoring it or launching into sophistry, you remain incorrect.

Ah, now you are building a castle around what you think is necessary. In other words you, like Descartes, are turning the boundaries of your understanding and imagination into the actual boundaries of possibility and necessity. Your ego must be wafer thin from being spread so wide.

No, communication simply is. It makes no sense to talk of the possibility that communication is impossible, because if it were impossible it would be impossible for this sentence to make any sense. That’s necessity.

Prove there is anything meaningful outside of language. Go on. Oh sorry, that would be one of those ‘lesser things’ demonstration

This is totally ignorant of Derrida’s essay ‘Signature Event Context’ where he takes apart this rather ordinary, but incorrect, model of language.

This is just nonsense, isn’t it? You are just jabbering because you cannot actually answer ANY of the questions I’ve posed. Most of the questions I’ve asked could be answered effectively in one or two sentences (per question). You’ve written a lot more than that, and been totally ineffective. You need to become more efficient and specific in your writing. Clarity is always the aim of language. As a famous author put it ‘murky waters might appear deep, but you just can’t tell’

Balls! Wittgenstein understood that all your metaphysical jabberings were a hawk’s head

Nope. As I’ve said a few times it is only necessary for awareness to exist at any given moment, it doesn’t need to exist between moments or before or after them. You’ve leapt from ‘every time I’ve been aware of something my awareness has existed’ to ‘therefore my awareness must necessarily exist prior to all those experiences’ without explaining the in-between stage. This is where Hume comes in, but you’ve conveniently ignored his writing on this. Now Imp understands it better than I do, but he’s been pretty patient in explaining it to me and I’ve learnt a lot because of it. You might want to take a leaf out of his book.

No, see above. You’ve made the leap without qualifying it.

I think that rejecting a metaphysical model because it is depressing is utterly correct. You have read Nietzsche, haven’t you?

You are either an AI programme, a child, or autistic.

No, because the two are one and the same. You cannot say ‘my thinking is perfect but I cannot put it into language’ because if you haven’t put it into language (albeit silently) you haven’t actually thought it. You just think that you have, but when you come to put it into language you find you can’t. Which means you never actually thought it clearly in the first place. An inkling you cannot put into words isn’t worth much philosophically. Philosophy is a public, language-based activity. Your ‘private’ inklings, hunches, feelings, are not of any use.

Someone’s been reading Chimpsky, haven’t they? Good old neo-platonism, it provides us with so many laughs. Derrida knocked down that ivory tower nearly half a century ago yet they persist, usually sweating and gibbering like a baboon.

Right, so you are a Kantian, but you aren’t conforming. I’m a poststructuralist (of sorts) but I am conforming. I don’t understand.

Nothing personal, individual, unique etc. can be expressed in language. Language is inherently repeatable. Two people can think the same thing at the same time. What does that tell you about thoughts and whether or not they are private?

You’ve not thought this through because you simply don’t have the knowledge. You need to read a few more books. I don’t mean to sound patronising, but you are making rash assertions, claiming they are born of necessity, then refused to answer the questions posed by the established discourse on these topics.

Yes you did.

‘I am right because I have a superior understanding’ is something you’ve rested on several times in this conversation. It isn’t worth a fig.

Right, so you ignore anything which asks questions which frighten you because you can’t answer them. This apparently blesses you with a superior understanding. Right…

I’d sure like to see an example of you doing that. I haven’t seen one yet.

So unless it offers you answers you can string together easily, rather than is truly sceptical, you won’t read it?

No. Your terrible use of language isn’t because you are saying something radical. Like I said, Sartre and Kant have argued for this, and explained it in much better language than you have used. It is possible to explain your arguments clearly, despite their logical flaws. But you can’t even be bothered to do that. You claim some radical, leftfield, ‘language can’t explain what I’m trying to explain’ position when you are utterly conventional, without even being aware of the conventions. I couldn’t have written it better myself.

I repeat, if you can’t demonstrate it or prove it, you haven’t got it. You can claim you’ve got it, but without being able to show it somehow you only think you’ve got it.

Because you’ve been incapable of even acknowledging that your text is unoriginal and poorly expressed. Also you’ve failed to answer even the most fundamental questions posed by other philosophers, repeated by me. You’ve just made claims on the hoof and when asked for proof you say ‘necessity, but I can’t demonstrate it in any way, you’ve just got to trust me’.

You either think I’m a fool, or you are one yourself

33

“Bull. Sartre directly contradicts you when he describes consciousness as exhausting itself everytime it is aware of anything”

The “for-itself” is consciousnesses constant struggle for self-consciousness. Sartre adopted the concept of “for-itself” from Hegel who saw it has something finite, that is, not as infinite but something that can be ended and achieved definitively. Sartre made one principle but dogmatic change in that he established the pre-reflective cogito but this is such a stupid conception with no grounds whatsoever. Hegel actually borrowed the concept of the “for-itself” from Schelling whose saw the consciousness as “for-itself” as an infinite activity. Schelling however understood that the for-itself consciousness intuits itself as an object but at the same is the intuiter. It is both the limiting and the limited. The limiting occurs in self-consciousness and the the limited is what occurs when conscious activity which is naturally infinitely “for-itself”, that is again toward self-consciousness conflicts with self-consciousness. One activity of consciousness occurs and then a second one occurs in which conflicts with the firsts thus creating a negation and cancellation of both processes. In this am limiting because of my activities by I am also limited because my activities limit themselves. This is te nature of consciousness Schelling saw and Hegel adopted but did not go through all the explanation that Schelling did but merely formulated the Dialectic as a schemata of the concepts develop by Schelling. Sartre took Hegel’s concepts in ignorance of its relation to Schelling thus misunderstanding Hegel’s intentions and in doing so altering consciousness to account for freedom when Schelling had already achieved as much and it it was just that Hegel did not account for this in his works. Consciousness is infinite always “for-itself” it is only in the contradictory processes that the activites are stopped and the “in-itself” forms. Sartre in his stupid conception of consciousness that the “for-itself” some how comes from the “in-itself”.

Schelling adresses Sartre’s error (not meaningly) in this when he says "Since the self actually possesses none of the predicates that attach to things, we have an explanation of the paradox that one cannot say of the self that it exists. For one cannot say of the self that it exists, precisely because it is being-itself. The eternal, timeless, act of self-consciousness which we call the self, is that which gives all things existence, as so itself needs not other being to support it; bearing and supporting itself, rather, it appears objectively as eternal becoming and subjectively as a producing without limit. ".

I would not blame Sartre for even the individual who wrote the introduction for Schelling’s “System of Transcendental Idealism” made a mistake in comparing Hegel to Schelling. The introducer thinks that Hegel views consciousness as a unity where as Schelling views it as a eternity but the views are mutal and the concepts of eternity and unity are even mutual. It is through the eternity of activity that is consciousness that unity can be found but this unity does not stop the eternity and Hegel did not deny this fact but merely presented the concept of the “Absolute Spirit” which is this unity produced by complete self-consciousness. Hegel never thought of consciousness as something that would end as soon as this unity was completed but just focused on the unity as a product of this eternity of activity. Schelling concepts merely form the basis for Hegel’s Absolute Idealism.

You more knowledgable in Philosophy…I think not!

“The two are inseperable. I’ve argued this all along. You’ve never managed to separate consciousness from the thing of which it is conscious, despite your claims to have done this. I’m not mixing anything, there aren’t two things.”

The two things are one in the fact that consciousness is an activity and things we are conscious of are of this activity. I do not find mself in a dualism but explain it by ways of one ultimately to remove this passive view of consciousness in which the relativity of conscious activity is to its objects and put in its place the view of an active consciousnes in which the relativity of objects is to conscious activity. Objects are always subordinate to activity for an activity never is determined by the objects its own activity unless some how you suppose the activity lie in the objects themselves but if this occured we could be conscious of things all the time not matter if they entered our senses or not and this is simple not the fact. The problem for you your viewing it from it from the objects point of view exactly like your supposing objects are where the activity lies but viewing the activity of consciousness from the objects not really understanding that the activity of consciousness you see as an object is allowing you to see it as an object.

"On the contrary, the thing has to be active AND consciousness has to be active. Both are in flux. Read your Hume. "

Wrong! I already demonstrated the fact above. Read Schelling.

“There is no necessary connection between events. I can keep telling you this, you can keep ignoring it or launching into sophistry, you remain incorrect.”

The division of events is an act of consciousness striving infintely for self-consciousness. In this activities contradicting form “moments”, “points”, and generally as the Reist’s regard it “things”. Consciousness is an activity in which events are posited, the connection as I have already stated lies in the activity of which it owes its dues as to the possibility of even having events. The only empirical element is negatively defined as a “limitation” something occuring when conflicting activities meet and thus what is different from the activity of consciousness, what lies within the activity itself is this unknown element that is against the activity of consciousness. It is against consciousness and yet in it and what is in it is already of our consciousness but what is not in it cannot be be of conscious activity it lies inside it and therefore can only be be made aware of in a negative light. Thus it was on this basis that Kant formed the “thing-in-itself” representative of this unknown negative element. Only this negative element grants the content of which fuels consciousness and consciousness persists infinitely so long as this content is provided and it strive “for-itself” toward self-consciousness all the way positing things such being events and all other phenomenon.

“Ah, now you are building a castle around what you think is necessary. In other words you, like Descartes, are turning the boundaries of your understanding and imagination into the actual boundaries of possibility and necessity. Your ego must be wafer thin from being spread so wide.”

All I am saying is that a thing that is was meant to be or else it would not have been, this is necessity. The understanding of necessity arising if fulfilling the demands of how a thing came to be. The truth of the matter is all Empiricism fails because in its passive view of consciousness it cannot account for the universality of things in one consciousness and only Transcendentalism has been able to achieve this apodictically.

“No, communication simply is. It makes no sense to talk of the possibility that communication is impossible, because if it were impossible it would be impossible for this sentence to make any sense. That’s necessity.”

But communication is because of some which presupposes it and creates it thus this thing that presupposes it allows communication as a possibility of which has been fulfilled. I was talking theoretically where as you were viewing it purely practically that was the source of the misconception.

“Prove there is anything meaningful outside of language. Go on. Oh sorry, that would be one of those ‘lesser things’ demonstration”

How is demonstration valid if you cannot demonstrate demonstration to be valid? You cannot demonstrate demonstration because demonstration itself is a concept refering to actual things but the concept itself which is the ground of validity for all things demonstrated cannot be measured by the demonstrations and therefore defeats its own measure of validity. Thus all you are left to deal with his concepts for that is the only true level you can work on that is not an act of “Bad Faith”. You have to work from the level of consciousness activity and not using conscious activity to view consciousness (in its activity) as an object.

“Nope. As I’ve said a few times it is only necessary for awareness to exist at any given moment, it doesn’t need to exist between moments or before or after them. You’ve leapt from ‘every time I’ve been aware of something my awareness has existed’ to ‘therefore my awareness must necessarily exist prior to all those experiences’ without explaining the in-between stage. This is where Hume comes in, but you’ve conveniently ignored his writing on this. Now Imp understands it better than I do, but he’s been pretty patient in explaining it to me and I’ve learnt a lot because of it. You might want to take a leaf out of his book.”

The fact is that any moment in which there is nothing to be aware of means I am aware of nothing but nonetheless my awareness persists. It is not cannot be “for-itself” because it requires the content from experience and thus cannot even achieved self-awareness such occurs in the state of sleep. Your view of awareness uses consciousnesses activity to view from the point of view of a thing we are consciousness of toward consciousness and view consciousness as an object when in fact it is an activity that allowed you to view in that way in the first place. Such any error is your passive view of consciousness and Derrida’s dogmatic belief that awareness is relative to events whic his at best a hypothesis and inference and which is dependent in conscious of activity for its possibility.

“Right, so you are a Kantian, but you aren’t conforming. I’m a poststructuralist (of sorts) but I am conforming. I don’t understand.”

I am a Transcendentalist but I do not conform specfically to any particular philosher or doctrine but only generally the basic principles of Transcendentalism.

I think I have answered the points of which I have concern for and which are important and cleared up the issue I hope clearly. I guess it took a reading of Schelling to clear me up.

34

Since you’ve clearly not read Derrida why do you insist on putting words into his mouth? Derrida wasn’t a Humean empiricist, I think you are confusing the two. But since you’ve confused everything up until this point, this comes as no surprise.

You haven’t answered the questions asked. You think you have, but that makes no difference in a world where philosophy is a discourse and the thoughts of one person are neither here nor there. YOur understanding and use of language is paradoxical, your assertions about consciousness preceding experience cannot be demonstrated either logically or empirically and your understanding of philosophers is poor at best. I honestly can’t be bothered explaining all this to you again, if you didn’t get it the first 10 times I’ve no reason to think you will if I persist.

I’ve had a really nice conversation, this wasn’t it

35

Okay, thankyou anyway for the conversation.