Perspectivism for me:

Perspectivism for me:

1: Things and thoughts seem to exist.
To all peoples, there is something. There is a sensation of something, instead of a sense of nothingness. Also thoughts from the appearance of one human can appear to compliment or agree with the other, so that the appearance of a mutual world exists. Most people are sure that there is something. They are fairly convinced in reality, things, events, time, etc. This is something that seems to be very convincing. But it is not reality which talks to us and convinces us, but it is instead our members which feel then it is us who convince ourselves, even if we do not know that we are convincing ourselves of things. Our proof is only necissary if we first say that proof is necisssary for things. We can choose to either demand proof or not want proof. It is again us whom judge what proof is. The proof of the wetness of a cup of water, for example, is class and experience, but the water says and does nothing at all. It is us who say this is wet. This is the human quality of affirmation. Affirmation has many, many forms, and it is not seen as itself. Itself appears to be real and pure, but it runs by many names, such as truth, solidity, stability, living, etc.
The perspectivist tries to be cautious with affirmation, so that he does not build roots into faulty soil. There must be some amount of affirmation before thought and beliefs can exist, otherwise all thoughts would arise then pass away without being applied.

2: The thing in and of itself cannot be.
If I am correct, all things are compounds. There can be no pure object. The thing must be with other things, and when we observe the object, we are a part of that object. It does not touch us directly, but our energies pass through one another. Whenever a soul and a body, a man, whenever they view an object, their energy passes through it, and its energy passes back through that person. This is an occult secret, and people will mostly disagree. But the thing in and of itself is not there. Instead we have the thing and I. The two of them share existence.

Some persons whom happened to be called philosophers, aswel as some non philosophers, have claimed that objects have unknowable qualities. They have said that we can deduce things, that we can know there are unknowables. Rationalism in this case, means that we can know not through experience but through estimation and wisdom that these unknowables exist. According to rationalism, we can acquire truth without having to experience it. So from deduction and thinking alone, without seeing it, they conclude the unseeable object exists. According to this same thinking, someone could also say: “There is so many things in the universe. They must have been made. Therefor God made them.” And then the rationalist could also say: “God must be very advanced, to be able to create so much. God must be very wise, but if he is wise, then he must be good, because wisdom is enlightenment, and enlightenment is good. Good behavior is enlightened behavior.” And through this rationalism people develop theories about God while not having even a tiny experience with God or being able to touch God.

Other persons will say that if we can’t experience something, we can’t know it. Therefor we cannot know God.

3: On the nature of thoughts.
Thoughts of living are not the same as living, just like thoughts about a rock are not the same as the actual rock. We think we are living. But as for the actual living, I am guessing we do not have a sense for it. I am guessing that if we did have a full sense for it, we would be able to feel our cells digesting things and collecting air. For most of human history, what we are was a mystery. All we had was our appearance. But later we learned that we couldn’t not see all that we are.

What are thoughts?
Although we have many thoughts, the thoughts that we do have, as human beings, appears to me to be not all that well designed. It is a shotty work. There is surprising success amoungst constant error. I can comfortably posit that human thought is imperfect. At this time, although i think thoughts of humans are not all that great, I cannot say what they truely are. However, I can say what they appear to be. Thoughts appear to be calculation and motion. Not any motion, but a whole vast motion which the many cells and parts, and the chemicals and the spirit, all moves and flows and it comes out as our behavior. This motion of great complexity roosts in a series of modes that we can call perspectives. We can feel that we have thought, or that thought has us, but that may not entirely even be the case. Despite this, our mind “holds” certain types of thought and experience. We can try to hold an object in our mind, but this is much different than holding the hidden truths of the object. If we had a powerful enough microscope that could sense and portray every energy to us, we would gain a great insight. But even this may not be the truth of an object. All of nature is a secret, so well hidden that for millions of years even a simple thing will go on being unknown.

If God made the universe to be beautiful, then would not it add to the beauty that it would also be understood? Instead it is all a secret, and if a man were to be near it he would die. It makes us ignornat apes that we must live in a giant secret. We do not reflect godliness. We reflect the most foolish and blind of barely living things.

To me thoughts are a natural secret which is barely known. If we take our half truth and start to rationalize with it, we will end up with yet another incomplete religion.

4: Humility and caution of thought.
We must remain as humble as possible with knowledge, remembering how we live for a very short time and learn very few things in our life. Perspectivism is a form of humility in that we admit all we have is our views, not our truths, because truth is far greater than what our views actually are. Humility of thought is a virtue which manifests as caution, care, thoroness, responsibility, doubt, etc. What we have in our life may feel big or small, but from experience we can posit aswel that compared to the universe and the life on earth, we are next to nothing. All beings are at the edge of nothingness. The fly you may squash is at the edge of nothingness even more terribly than you are. This is a great problem. The will resists the problem as best it can by seeking power of every kind and trying to reproduce itself instead of letting itself simply die. This may be right or it may not, but I will not say too much more about this.

5:What perspectivism isn’t:
Perspectivism isn’t the answer, it isn’t the truth. Perspectivism is a state of mind in which we treat thoughts as thoughts, instead of treating thoughts as true representations of the world. This is an act of humility. We stand still and consider, instead of rushing forward and forcing out absolute statements about facts of the world. Most men think they know exactly what they are doing, when they do not. They know just-enough. So many factors must be ignored when we are isolating a “truth” which is often less than what theoretically is. For so long in human history men have thought that they knew what other men are. Only very recently did we learn that we are cells, amoung other things. Now it is considerably probable that we still know very little about what we actually are. So a perspectivist remembers this and can say “we think that we know, yet all we have so far is our limited experience and estimation, which in the passed was not all there was, and in the future will also be simply a part, not a whole.” How small our knowledge is. All that we have is a few perspectives. To claim more is probably a lie.

This is excellent man. Well said.

I think your last paragraph kind of leads into why science is so damn important. We are able to model certain principles of nature in such a way that they do not depend on a particular point of view. They must be true from any frame of reference. And, as you said, those principles are still only pieces - fallible pieces at that. They aren’t restrictions on nature, or matter, so much as they are restrictions on how we think about and describe nature.

I’m interested to hear more about this–

Good post. I have to please go into why the rock and the thoughts about the rock are necessarily different?
This is the crux of the OP, and it deserves further detail.
Since the Academy implies more of an expository
Content, I will not bring in any of my own ideas, as far as that goes, because if there is any disagreement, it is one of kind, and not of substance. By that I mean, differences of opinion are a matter of degree, when it comes to interpretation of original stuff, since appeal to authority implies an a posteriori rather than an a-priori reservoir. By reservoir I mean content, but I used the former to imply a more dynamic approach, in the sense of an energy system.

Science to me is the art of causing and recording experiences in the finest of ways possible. There was science in ancient societies, but in modern times I feel that the western culture looks up to science and has made much use of it. One big factor is the printing press, so that we can record our experiences and how to repeat those experiences. Some bools of knowledge are able to be useful for almost any perspective system. It’s like giving a house maker some bricks. He doesn’t exactly always need or use bricks, he could just use wood, but he can usually use them.

As regards hearing more about that little quote, it is just a theory, or a little tiny paradigm we can possibly entertain. All things seem to have emanations, and the emanations of all objects diverge with eachother. The sun’s emanations are light and heat and such. The emanations of rocks are much more subtle but they are still releasing their energy too. The idea is that all of reality is subtly passing through itself on all levels. The ‘waves’ flow and reality is a giant fluid, not a static “fact”, but it moves slow enough that it can appear static. As we view all of this motion, our mind is also a complex fluid, which takes and relocates bits and bites. The occult secret is that we are a part of all that we experience. We are a component in a pantheism, and eventually we will reach the godlike core of it all.

It seems clear to me that a rock is an object, and the thoughts about the rock are thoughts.
If I could make bricks of gold simply by thinking about them, I would, but I can’t.
I am not sure what is so unclear about what I’ve stated.
Do you mean that you disagree with my writing in only a certain degree and type, but that there are common substances that we both describe?
I’m not sure what you mean in your reply. If you’d like to say more feel free.

 Dan: Perhaps I was reading into your OP. My interest is  much abut connexions between the natural world and the "modelling" of natural processes indicated by the last comment.
 If a rock is of a different substance than a thought about a rock, there is a separation substantially, but not in kind, because they can be both said to be "thing"Thought is  a mental thing.  The objects of thought (material) are of what we think of as material things.  Reversely, thought of objects,imply immaterial things.
 Where is the difference, where is the connexion?

 This linguistic reversal implies  a difference of arrangement of what we mean.  Material and immate rial have a logically necessity to define each other . I cannot define immateriality apart from understanding what materiality implies.  There is a common structural "sameness" making this possible. The tautological nature of this "sameness" is implied in adding Im to material to arrive at a negation.  So the negation of the tautology material=material, becomes totally different by changing the wording.
 What is the implication? That a negation in meaning, is only a conceptual device, since we have never really seen "immaterial things",seems to give credence to the idea, that immaterial things don't exist.  
 Jung said, at one point, at a time when he was very young, that sitting on a rock, he wasn't sure he saw the rock. Or saw himself sitting on a rock.  This implied a consciousness of  a more unified stream of consciousness, where the rock, and his thoughts of the rock were more unified.  
 Perhaps the distinctions we make between the scientific "models" we study, and the process of studying them, are no longer one of substance, but one of a categorical (definitional) expediency.

I would like to add to the above an observation, that both the original perception of the rock, and then subsequent representations, are on a continuum from pure perception (the original viewing of the rock) ,through various re-viewing (increasingly complex representation)- to the most complex metaphors of the object.
All of this process is probably without “breaks” except brought on by a lack of focus, where the seeming breaks occur.
However, all of this process of forming concepts from basic visual clues, are produced by All of the brain’s faculties, since even when we talk in the sublimest metaphor, we are internally imagining (to some degree) the complex visual clues that made that metaphor arise. (We may not be aware of this process in toto, because, of the self subscribed breaks in understanding).
So neurologically, visually, and figuratively, this process leads to the conclusion that a “rock” and a “thought of a rock”. Are only dissimilar categorically. That is not to say that the substantial differences are mistaken necessarily. But categorically implies a logical certainty, and no one ever said that scientifically truths can be discovered by absolute logical certainty.