If I had to choose between perspectivism and literalism, I’d choose perspectivism.
It seems to be that by default, mankind trusts his own sensation. Therefor he is a literalist in this way. He does not believe that he lives in a world of symbols and information, but instead considers that symbol and information to be a true expression of the thing in and of itself. Although philosophers have made many mistakes, at least some of them have moved to the point where they consider the thing in and of itself difficult to apprehend. Go farther and we may see that the thing in and of itself is non-existent. All we have is our human truth. No other truth is there for us. But human truth = perspectivism. It means that truth is a style of experiences, not an actual thing free from perception.
Even the wise philosophers are at least partially creatures of habit. They go back to a single thought or paradigm many times instead of finding more new ones. Sometimes this is a good thing, but other times it is not. Literalism is a very popular habit. In science and occult both, each in their own way, we have discovered that the conscious human sense only picks up on a small fraction of the energy that we live in and are effected by. We only perceive far less than 1% of reality, time, space, energy, etc. Now out of the natural hubris of mankind, some rush forward as ‘knowers’, and this term was brought up by tentative in another thread. It seems to me that knowers and literalists are of similar kin. Knowers take their little fragment of symbols, and consider it to be a world capturing pure truth. This is miss-judgement.
Should we take the OP literally? And if not, if it is not describing the things in themselves - which would include we readers, what does it do for us?
Ideally no. I’m actuating myself. That isn’t a literal fact, it’s a process.
The readers aren’t things in themselves, they are - inside - human experience. The conscious cannot feel the unconscious. We are life not objects.
I made this post to differenciate between perspectivism and literalism [with a hint of absolutism, or the belief in absolute facts].
I realize that I am of the minority by prefering perspectivism over and above literalism, but I think my position is basically a good choice.
Volchok is an example of one of those people who believe in ‘solid truth’, instead of limiting it to ‘relative experiences’.
On the other hand, I think faust is a good example of a more relative perspectivist.
We have both types of thinkers on the forum. But I’m thinking the majority is literalist.
I think perspectivism is at the same time “literal” and perspectival, and precisely for that reason superior to “literalism”. As all we know is perspectivality, it’s more reasonable to postulate that there is only perspectivality than to postulate that there is also “literality” (“knowers”, “pure minds apprehending the eternal Forms”, “revelation”). This induction from perspectivality to “literality” is the closest a perspectival being can get to “literality”.
Perspectivism can not be both : of perspectivism and literaliism, they do have a relational aspect, The key may be the inductive principle of reducing one from the other. What does such reduction consist of? Is perspectivism a result of such a reduction, or is the reduction a result of perspectivism as a cognitive process? If it’s a cognitive process, does it entail principles of will, or is it a process of a built in automatic response?
What I mean is the view that reality exist solely of perspectival beings. A perspectival being can arrive at this view without attaining to some “outside” perspective, but by solely inductive reasoning from its own “inside” perspective.
Yes, that makes sense, however, such consistency has to become known to the individual being. So, perspectivism factually, is the result of cognitive inductive reduction, even if it's inherently a given.
Could you tell me a bit more about that? What is the communication - actuating - to you?
‘Fact’, here referring to ‘your actuating yourself’ or the OP?
Could you describe more, here, about what you are experiencing or mean?
And, I guess, what are you referring to when you write about everyone one? Are you referring to your experience of others (only)? And given that you are addressing others in communication that seems to assume a commonality, how are others to take this communication?
Are there any objects at all? And why do you, at this point, bring up the issue of the conscious and the unconscious?
Since you used the word relative here, could you distinguish your perspective from relativism - I realize there are a few relativisms, but let’s pretend, if it works, that we can kinda treat them as one position.
That the map is the territory is vastly more common.
I think literalist might not be the best word, here. The Umwelt goes beyond language - though humans have words and grammar digging into the Umwelt all over the place.
I suppose another way of phrasing some of this would be: how does your OP, here, differ from a literalists OP? In the OP ideas there are implicit ideas about what humans are (like). If a literalist presented those same ideas, how would it be different and how would the act of presenting them be a different act (if it was)? What is at stake here?
All I can do is actuate myself. I can only actuate what I am. Thoughts are a part of that. Words are a part of that. It’s not so much about me talking, as it is about me actuating myself. “Talking” in this case means that I am doing one thing. One thing alone. But it seems more true that I am doing my whole self, and these chunks and pieces aren’t isolated. “Talking” is not separate from the self. Talking instead is part of the self. Therefor, when I make a post, or when you post a reply, we are actuating the self. That is, as far as it appears to be.
I was saying that self actuating is different than facts. Self actuating is not all about facts and truth. It’s about the human process of the human being.
My reply was meant to be a whole idea, it wasn’t meant to be so sliced up, but I’ll try to respond anyways.
“The thing in and of itself” is an absolutist idea. I’m saying that the people who read this, aren’t absolute things. Also they are living inside the world of consciousness. That is the mind. They are within the mind, and through it they can learn. But what they learn is very relative to their own mind. The experience is not separate from the experiencer. That is one of the reasons why I think perspectivism is more true than literalism.
I’m actuating categorization. That is part of what self actuating is about. When we think, we categorize. My whole first post in the thread was about categorizing two things, literalism and perspectivism.
Does it really need to be an absolute yes and no answer? What if sometimes there was, and sometimes there wasn’t?
It’s very human to objectify experience. I sort of do it, but I try to not over-do it. In perspectivism we try to perspectivize, instead of objectify. Literalists objectify.
The world of the unconscious knows nothing. The rock does not know it is a rock. Meanwhile, in the world of a perspective, in the world of consciousness, we can’t experience being unconscious, and if we do, we don’t remember it.
How is perspectivism not relative? It’s all about relative degrees of thought and the lenses and the paradigms.
Perspectivists talk about experiences, wheras literalists talk about what is, thinking that it truly is, while a perspectivist, when he talks about what is, he is referring to what appears, not what is.
I though to myself that it would be obvious what perspective is compared to what the literal is.
A literalist wouldn’t even call it ideas. He’d call it facts of nature. To him everything is based on, or moving to and from the object.
I think I understand what you are saying. But let me triangulate. You are expressing yourself. What you say comes out of who you are in the moment.
How is this different from the literalist? (and note: I understand that there is a different perspective, but it seemed like actuating was connected to being a perspectivist, when it seems universal, given what you say above.) Because the literalist thinks the talking/language/map is not a part of himself. OK, get that, to some degree.
So when you say X is Y, this is not positing a fact about X or Y but being yourself?
But I would be missing something if I looked at the above as basing a perspectivist perspective on a literalist take on ‘what humans are’?
No, I can deal with what are often taken to be contradictions. But I asked because it seemed like humans were something special as opposed to other objects or opposed to objects.
Frankly I think Buddhism, or really, some Buddhists deal with this kind of stuff very well by AVOIDING saying certain things. Here you could have said Mu, for example. I think there can also be a problem with the OP because of saying that should be avoided, given the perspective being presented. About other ‘things’ sure, perspectives can be given in language that is very similar to literalist language. But once an overarching position is being posited, things get ookie.
I mean, I guess, perhaps one could see the irony of that last statement in context? or? I mean, I don’t know what to do with that statement, as a reader, but take it as literal. Which is not me saying I choose to believe it.
Let’s look at what you said above about objects. Does it really have to be an absolute yes or no answer? To me a perspectivist is riding on the back of literalism or there is little point. Are their any perspectivists? Doest it really have to be a yes or no answer?
I am still not sure how this was relevent. I can follow it, but I don’t know how it relates to the point in your post it came from.
(process note: I don’t expect you to answer all my questions or statements. Just skip to the heart of things if you think you can or if you think something is a dead end or whatever)
I meant, how is it not relativism. Say, something like, there are simply different view of reality and none of them is better or worse than any other. How is your perspectivism different from that.
OK, but the OP appears to be doing more than that. I realize this can be an attitude, so the language can look very much like literalist language, however sometimes your posts…no, often, usually, have a perspectivist feel to me. I get more clearly that you are describing your experience. Here it seemed otherwise.
This would be relativism, I think.
I understand, I am pretty sure, both from Nietsche and elsewhere what is meant by perspectivism. But this is perspectivism in dialogue. In dialogue I think it gets very tricky. Perspectivism is neither a pure (postmodernist, say) relativism nor it is literalism. Once a dialogue takes place and a perspectivist says to someone, Hey, X is Y, I am not sure what they are doing socially. It is not simply relaying phenomenology - or, at least, it doesn’t seem like phenomenology, that would elicit other words, it would seem - nor is it stating ‘the truth’.
Nicely worded. They begin with the object and even, these days, deny the experience it is based on. Not just the specific experience, but even experience in general. Fruit of the poison tree to me.
Here you sound like a phenomenalist - not phenomenologist, just to be clear.
Let me jump on a tangent. The opposite, to me, of literal, is metaphorical. But metaphors need literal meanings to work.
And on other jump.
That’s why I think perspectivism is better.
What you meant was, then, I like perspectivism better.
or I works for my purposes better.
Or?
And last 'how can you tell a perspectivist from a literalist? I only ask because you said F is one and V is not. I assume it isn’t simply saying one is a perspectivist.
Yeah. In literalism, we are individuals and objects. The perceiver-individual is considered an object, and the perceived thing is considered an object.
In perspectivism, the perceiver is a big part of the perception, and the two are at one. In literalism, perception is also a thing, an object, they call it the brain’s cellular communication. In perspectivism we would call it the appearance of a brain’s cellular communication.
Perspectives = appearances.
Literal things = objects.
“Humans” again, is a concept. It’s words and ideas. It’s a class. We push all the perspectives of humanness into the concept of the human being. We could have just as easily called them something else, or pushed all the human perspectives of humanness into two or three concepts, calling one a human major, the next a human minor, and the third a human football.
A perspective take on what a literalist is is still itself considered to be a perspective, not the absolute truth about what every literalist is.
I mean, I guess, perhaps one could see the irony of that last statement in context? or? I mean, I don’t know what to do with that statement, as a reader, but take it as literal. Which is not me saying I choose to believe it.
[/quote]
That is part of why so many people are literalists. It’s easier and more human to be literalistic.
You’d probably like it to be reduced to black and white.
The “none of them is better or worse than any other” is allot like saying dog shit and sandwiches are equal. I’d choose the sandwich. It’s very human to practice favoritism.
This is exactly what is not taught in schools. That this is not understood (generalized, of course) is exactly the source of most of the errors in ontology, in logic and in philosophy as a whole. If everyone could only learn to understand this very thing, philosophy would happen, even here on ILP.
I mean, I guess, perhaps one could see the irony of that last statement in context? or? I mean, I don’t know what to do with that statement, as a reader, but take it as literal. Which is not me saying I choose to believe it.
[/quote]
I sort of agree. And I appreciate your saying ‘you do it’ but try not to overdo it. It seems inevitable that it would be a portion of what one does. Unless one moves away, via some contemplative tradition, from communication in this area.
Actually precisely the opposite. I wasn’t trying to corner you into a black or white answer, but actually to move you away from what seemed like a black and white answer on your part.
When I asked about objects, in a sense you refused to weigh in with an answer. I think that stance could be extended and what you are doing would be clearer to others. If you are writing for yourself, only, then whatever you feel actuates you, would be the best to write. If part of it is to communicate with others, then not giving a digital description to them/us, might be clearer.
You’ve used a taste metaphor. Is it a taste thing? (as in preference only)
REallly Dan, I am not trying to catch you out. I am trying to understand what you mean, yes, but even more what you are doing. What it means for you to communicate with others that would be different from a literalist, what you get out of this, etc.
If it feels bad, like I am critiquing you in some predatory way, that’s not my intention.
You could take the statement literally, or consider it merely my finite self expression, a perspective I’ve had which you could possibly also have, in your own way.
We come from a literalists’ culture. Also I believe it is a matter of human nature to be literalist.
We can’t ask a cat or dog about objects. Maybe they don’t realize it is an object, or think it is an object, but when they go after food, for example, there is definitely some kind of realization and classification. Only certain things classify as food. Other things don’t. Also they remember the scent and appearance of human beings, and avoid the ones which hurt them, or are attracted to the people which are kind to them or give them something that they like.
To me, the animal’s objectification is the starting point and then human objectification came after, in a more complex form, but still allot like it’s ancestor. Objects are like when we lock onto and recognize memories and patterns.
Now if we move away from objectification, it goes to reason that we should want to go into something better for us. At that point, perspectivism is one option. It means you move beyond and outside of objectification, to try to view the whole thought process, and realize it is more of a thought than a real thing. Objectification is simply one of many steps of the human mental paradigm. For some people, perspectivism is also a step in the mental paradigm.
The metaphor I had intended to be an example of why one opinion is not of equal worth and merit than another. “All things are of no value, or equal value, or beyond value, bla bla bla” is wrong. That’s nihilism. Conflict and co-operation of values is what life is about.
I don’t really see the first two as mutually exclusive. Not that this would mean that you think you have some non-embodied, from all angles (and times) perspective. Also feel the urge to separate out literal from total. I think the word literal is problematic. IOW Lakoff, as the first example off the top of my head. He is mr embodied mind, everything is metaphorical, but he’s not a perspectivist - unless he is and I missed it which now seems more possible. He knows perspectives are filtered, radically, but he is sure saying the way things are, out there. Just a browse of all the neuroscience he uses to demonstrate this give this away.
yes, you’ve said this twice. This is an angle I have taken with Iambiguous whose shares elicits some but not all of the reactions I’ve had here. I am not sure what a human is really saying about what they are doing when they say they are a perspectivist. What they expect it to mean to anyone else, since most people take other people’s perspectives as perspectives, unless they have them as certain specific kinds of authorities.
Here you are materializing for me Dan. It’s like you stepped out of the mist.
For me both seem useful. I am not sure I could replace objectification with perspectivism, but both are part of my ad hoc approach.
I did get that.
I suppose, without really thinking about it, I was seeing how much of a pragmatic element there was in this. Meaning as use, words as what they cause and or elicit in oneself and others. As opposed to containers of the truth - see REddy’s conduit metaphor - or as mirrors of reality or…
I am not sure I want to try to put a rule on which of the various uses of language or ways of describing things I am an -ist of. Any one of them seems limiting to me. But I do think I get a clearer picture of what you are experiencing and what you are trying to achieve - the wording of this last seems off to me, but there it is.
When someone presents a hierarchy and identifies with one part, it throws me. Are they really saying they don’t choose those other options? Are they really monads? Wouldn’t a not doing have conveyed this better, though it would have taken more time to notice what someone is not doing?
Let’s talk about “good form”. Literalism, in good form, would be a useful thing. Especially for humans. We would try to produce solid knowledge. Solid like objects. Solidity itself seems like a virtue. There at least seems to be literal things in the universe. However, in my OP, I am referring to literalism in common form, not in good form. In common form, every thing which is actually symbolic, and non-literal, is still considered to be a literal thing, and it is all objectified. I don’t think this is a good pattern to follow. I think that a good form of literal could co-exist with perspectivism, in the same way that religious and non-religious people can co-exist in relative peace and prosperity if they each keep to themselves and practice some sufficient amount of rationality.
When I am referring to perspectivism, I am trying to refer to its good form, or best form, not its common form, even though there isn’t much of a common perspectivism out there. Instead we’ve just got common literalists, which think their life is all a real thing, an object. They universalize it. Error becomes so common that it is invisible.
I’ll just post this much for now. If you have any other questions feel free to say them or repeat them if I missed one.
Not to oversimplify things, but the OP seems to state a false dichotomy.
People really perceive the aesthetic forms of literature. The ideal question is whether or not people judge esoteric meaning.
You might argue this is where induction versus deduction comes into play. A perspective literalist would acknowledge that no words necessarily follow other words, but that words tend to follow other words. Induction is applied to guess at the probable likelihoods of aesthetic sequences in grammar.
An esoteric literalist would acknowledge that words have proper definitions in order to represent necessary complete and consistent languages. Deduction is applied to ascertain that aesthetic sequences are reliable.