Is,
not bound to the reality of the objective and subjective experience
What they are not bound to is your description, or your conception of possible descriptions.
Dunamis
Is,
not bound to the reality of the objective and subjective experience
What they are not bound to is your description, or your conception of possible descriptions.
Dunamis
Dunamis,
Do you agree that with every thought, action, and experience we in all our responses are characteristically Idealistic or Realistic?
Is,
Do you agree that with every thought, action, and experience we in all our responses are characteristically Idealistic or Realistic?
Not if you mean “characteristically” as in “essentially”, or “ultimately reducible to”. The division you propose is only one of quite a number - theoretically infinite - possible descriptions. It holds no court. I would also suggest that the “or” in your very description is misleading, for the ascribable beliefs to which this would correspond can always be turned in either direction, depending on how you would rather frame the interpretation. The intention though “behind” every “thought, action and experience” is only an interpretation of agency, even if that interpretation is being carried out by the agent as an observer him/herself.
Dunamis
Jerry,
There is one thing all people truly know that in order to get to truth one must achieve objectivity but this means overcoming subjectivity. One must overcome desire or ego in order to arrive at objectivity. In acheiving objectivity we do know the truth but only begin to know the truth in an uncorrupted context. In essence once we achieve objectivity we can only wait for truth to come to us and maintain our objectivity in this waiting. This understanding is purely Spiritual signifying “The Path To Enlightenment”.
There is only therefore a path to objectivity which is the path to enlightenment and the path away from objectivity which sustains and grows subjectivity which is the path of ignorance. Science naturally makes the path of ignorance easier. Philosophy can only be what is left for it to be and that is to make the path to enlightenment easier. Philosophy is about understanding the path to enlightenment by actually following it. The only value of this understanding is to me to keep my mind on this path and for others to help others follow the path and keep their mind on the path. We have to beware of those who claim themselves to be philosophers who claim they present an understanding of this path. Most philosopher now adays are just Scientists in disguide who justify their lifestyle instead of actively trying to overcome their subjectivity and achieving objectivity and hence in this manner following the path to enlightenment.
Dunamis,
You are still speaking theoretically. I am not talking about definitions or conceptions I am talking about Reality. I am speaking about how everything you do has a particular characteristic. I am apeaking about how these particular characteristics themselves share in a general characteristic and that the most general is represented by my explanations of Idealistic and Realistic.
These general characteristics are nothing more than accumlation of experience’s which overlap in their similarities. Whenever a similarity comes a thought appears. I am wondering if you have reached a point in experience where the thought I am representing, with my terms and explanations of Idealism and Realism, has come to your awareness. It is only when I am assured of this that I can actively seek to define those terms properly based on my understanding and yours.
It may be the approach of others to define their understanding and present it without any assurance as to whether or not a person understands what you define or not. This is a inadaquate method. One must gain trust then use this trust to actually get somewhere. We cannot assume the trust is there or else we become dogmatic and obviously there is a far greater chance of getting lead astray rather than achieving any objective process. It is best to be assured that we can actually achieve an objective process and be sure that we can get to the truth rather than taking a risk in being lead astray and down a wrong path. Even one process in which is certain to be fruitful is better than many processes in which preclude many failures although many more possible sucesses.
Is.,
You are still speaking theoretically. I am not talking about definitions or conceptions I am talking about Reality.
Oh, why didn’t you say so! I thought you were talking about non-Reality. By the way, what are all those words, concepts and descriptions you used that followed the sentence above, more “Reality” I suppose.
Dunamis
You don’t understand, Dunamis. He’s Egyptian.
If you are familiar with the phenomenon of philosophical hilarity that is the collection; ‘proofs that p’, you will perhaps appreciate the following at this juncture;
Goldman:
Several critics have put forward purported “counterexamples” to my thesis that p; but all of these critics have understood my thesis in a way that was clearly not intended, since I intended my thesis to have no counterexamples. Therefore p.
Regards,
James
Dunamis
Dunamis,
My presentation is unideal to your ideal therefore you consider it to be unreal. Could you not accept that it is real inspite of your ideal and therefore what you consider unideal prehaps is real. Unless… you consider my ideal unreal.
We get nowhere unless one of us accepts the others vision as possibly being real. We need a little open-mindedness unless you want to hold on dogmatically that possibly is unreal.
Is,
My presentation is unideal to your ideal therefore you consider it to be unreal. Could you not accept that it is real inspite of your ideal and therefore what you consider unideal prehaps is not real.
I consider anything that has an effect to be real, so your presentation most definitely is real, despite your insistance that I don’t consider it such. Since you do not understand the way I use these terms, perhaps it is best for you not to tell me what I think.
Dunamis
Dunamis,
This isn’t the first time you’ve been confronted with a black/white explanation. Do you really need another scab on your forehead?
JT
Scab? I have the forehead of a battering ram - and the body of a dragon - if you haven’t noticed.
Dunamis
Dunamis,
My post is about how people think not about what people think about. There is two ways ot thinking: Realistically or Idealistically. We either think strictly about what we are immediately experiencing (realistic thinking) or we think not only about the immediate experience but about past experiences and thoughts from those past experiences (idealistic thinking). Realistic thinking pertains to only one possibility where as idealistic thinking pertains to an infinite amount of possibilities.
We have to rule out the realistic way of thinking before we explore any of the idealistic ways of thinking. I mean we have not even resolved the division between Idealism and Realism and we have trotted off dogmatically into those infinite possible ways of idealistic thinking.
The efforts of Philosophy like I said should be directed toward works in Transcendentalism. We must develop a method by which we can adress the division between Realism and Idealism. This method of course needs to be able to adress the fact that whatever we think will be thought about idealistically or realistically so that in this adressment we may be able to overcome such prejudices in such ways of thinking. Thus with such a method we can determine if Realism or Idealism is correct.
Is,
My post is about how people think not about what people think about.
No. Your post is about your description of how you think people think. Your description makes interpretive assumptions about beliefs and intents based on behaviors that lead you to conclude as you do. Or, you are are talking about “Reality” and everyone else is talking about theory.
We must develop a method by which we can adress the division between Realism and Idealism.
It already done. Its called Pragmatism and Immanent Monism.
Dunamis
Dunamis,
would there be somwhere a nice summary for dummies of Pragmatism and Immanent Monism ? Google does not help very much, halas…
Marc
marc,
Really the easiest way to brief-up on pragmatism would be to google it. There are two forms of pragmatism: that advocated by Dewey and Williams James, each of whom you can google easily, and then Neo-Pragmatism, whose most extreme proponent is Richard Rorty, which does not really deviate from the earlier version, but employs the consequences of the Wittgenstein, Neo-Darwinism, and Kuhn. Other than Rorty there is no reader friendly access that I know of. As to “Immanent Monism”, this is simply my titled summation of the braiding of philosophical positions, that are inherently non-dualist and non-transcendent. The richest systematic form of this kind of thinking is Spinoza, but he is hard to access directly, due to a very dry, geometric, style of argumentation. There is no one source though for this position alone. Dennett’s theory of the mind and work on artificial intelligence would be an interesting place to start, for instance his Consciousness Explained which is quite popular. Deleuze is quite insistant on his Immanence. But as far as I know these threads are not woven together in a “for Dummies” way, other than making yourself familiar with the philosophers that share certain characteristics and tendencies.
Dunamis
That is correct. But a bit incomplete, there is another part.
What you speak of is nonlinguistic sense perception- which can be summed up roughly as the five senses. Recall the example of the Indians and the ship. The “ship” existed in two ways- one as the descriptive physical data recieved by it; its general shape, color and size. These parts require memory which is processed to compare and contrast, producing the present familiarity, therefore the descriptive data is purely empirical. You are correct.
But the other way in which the “ship” existed was in its metaphorical and instrumental use, in language. Those terms that are not terms of description, but rather function and utility, including valuations as well, create the thematic meaning of the object with “such and such characteristics.”
Unless the indians knew what the object was used for, the definition would not be fully understood in both ways. Part of the conceptual definitions require also that the Indian knows about slavery, or floating transportation devices for goods or people, etc. So no, the Indian does not see a “ship,” as far as what we language users agree to mean “ship.”
But this does not diminish the fact that withstanding new unfamiliar experiences, most if not all awareness is the last result of a hierarchy of distinct brain states and functions. It would be foolish to assume that when we are aware of ourselve speaking a language, we are the last word in a series of effects. That we “speak” about things has made us believe that what we are saying determines what happens, and so meaning can come from language. This is only a half truth.
A metaphor such as “he is as smart as a whip and from the old school” has a several layered meaning that quite literally, through the influx of perspectives, causes an ideal to occur, which encourages or encites language to create meaning from its elements of valuation and description. We indeed experience a certain understanding of the man, although it is after these metaphors collect their intersubjective meanings.
“As a whip” suggests of force and quickness, a sudden and painful blow, such as a whip. In combination with “smart,” these attributes work to put a direction and disposition to the intelligence- it is authoritative, confident, stern, and formidable.
“From the old school” suggests a seniority. A sense of traditional discipline, mastery, a sense of orientation and experience. One who has “been around the block,” to further the metaphor a bit more.
You see that without these associations, we wouldn’t acknowledge the metaphor as a description- we wouldn’t accept that a man was like a whip or that if he was from an old school it would make a difference. Alone and unconnected, we make no sense of the metaphor and it cannot be descriptive. This second part is the intersubjectivity. The dealing with valuation and qualities, rather than sensual, familiar description, such as size, shape, color, etc. Essentially this is how language makes use of personages, or creates them, rather.
But with the memory- you will notice that you get better at certain things and that it becomes habitual to do them- while formally it was complicated and you had trouble. Being “used to” doing something makes things easier only because your mind has aligned itself with the repetition of your methods, you’ve become agile, and you don’t have to “try” any more. This is all because of the memory and the training of the mind. This non-positional consciousness, which means that you aren’t having to focus directly on your efforts, is a skill aquired through memory and repetition. A similiar context means everything. I would say that the first, and perhaps larger degree, of conceptualization is purely empirical and memory based. It is the mind reading its own synapse combinations and binary sets like one would listen to a recording of Sly and the Family Stone.
Boom-shaka-laka-laka
Boom-shaka-laka-laka
Dunamis,
You claim it is unreal but have no evidence to claim it is therefore it is merely unideal for you. I claim that it is real but have no evidence to claim it is therefore it is merely ideal for me. Any evidence in-itself can be thought of as ideal or real so evidence is not even a test of truth nor a way for resolution. Like I stated people are making Philosophy into a game of politics in which ego battles in which victory is nothing but a test of will and no longer a test of wisdom and intelligence.
How can you gap this barrier? All efforts fall into dogma if you cannot find a means to cross and you cannot truly say you have crossed unless you understand how you crossed and are able to effectively communicate it to yourself and to others, for, that is when you truly can belief.
When everything seems to fall into nothingness and you are caught in the midst of it, it is a futile effort to continue. Stop the desire and the truth will come to you as you embrace the nothingness.
Is.
You claim it is unreal…
I’m going to hope that you are responding to detrop’s post, and not mine.
I have very clearly stated that it is real. Either you have a reading comprehension problem, or you simply ignore how others present their ideas and just make things up.
Dunamis
detrop,
As soon as something leaves me it does not enter nothingness nor does it cross to another being but it falls into nothingness because independent of me it as no existence. As soon as it does not exist all I have is my Bad Faith and I cannot be assured that what rises from nothingness is the same as what fell into nothingness.
You know nothing until you know nothing.