The symbolic world

[Mad_Man_P]

@felix dakat

Yours is the humanist myth. (Myth not in the sense of a fiction but rather a grand narrative.) Man creates himself. He freely generates theoretical models out of the thin air of formless experience. The all powerful “I” thinks therefore he is! The autonomous self-created man! The foundation of modernity! Self-deluded he imagines that he engineered his own emergence!

So let me present to counter-proposal. Being "I"s (I’m using I as a verb here). And Being “worlds”. Thus being -in- the-world precedes and structures the theoretical modeling of which you speak.

I would love to give you a scathing retort, but I’m afraid you’ve straw manned me, as I have no trouble agreeing with the above.
In fact it seems so tangential to my post that I’m not even sure that was meant as a response to me…

Of course “I” did not create myself…
I do not even (at least not consciously) generate my own thoughts, they merely present themselves.
I have observed, however, that I am capable of learning… that is to say adjust my mental “model” of the world and even myself.
When my expectations do not match my experiences and I fail to avoid causing myself or others needless suffering… that’s usually when I know I there’s stuff I need to learn.
If I am lucky and studious, I might yet get to know myself and the world better, so as to more intelligently navigate this existence.
A great aid in that effort is attempting to understand the nature of what “I” even am… currently the theory of evolution seems to be the most useful model for understanding how I came to be, what my nature and failings may be.
I expect neuroscience will one day shed a great deal more light on the matter.

So no, felix, I have no trouble whatsoever agreeing to your “proposal” that was counter to nothing I’ve said.
But I would argue it’s healthy to question our assumptions and presuppositions. Evaluate them as though anew, to refine and shore up whatever errors there may be in what nature and nurture instilled in us.
Odin knows, neither forces add up to perfect designs, as the entire process relies on producing vast amounts of random waste and then killing off the most maladapted ones… until a lucky few remain only to do so again.
I’d rather not be the maladapted kind… if I can help it.

[felix_dakat]

@Mad Man P

@felix dakat

Yours is the humanist myth. (Myth not in the sense of a fiction but rather a grand narrative.) Man creates himself. He freely generates theoretical models out of the thin air of formless experience. The all powerful “I” thinks therefore he is! The autonomous self-created man! The foundation of modernity! Self-deluded he imagines that he engineered his own emergence!

So let me present to counter-proposal. Being "I"s (I’m using I as a verb here). And Being “worlds”. Thus being -in- the-world precedes and structures the theoretical modeling of which you speak.

I would love to give you a scathing retort, but I’m afraid you’ve straw manned me, as I have no trouble agreeing with the above.
In fact it seems so tangential to my post that I’m not even sure that was meant as a response to me…

Of course “I” did not create myself…
I do not even (at least not consciously) generate my own thoughts, they merely present themselves.
I have observed, however, that I am capable of learning… that is to say adjust my mental “model” of the world and even myself.
When my expectations do not match my experiences and I fail to avoid causing myself or others needless suffering… that’s usually when I know I there’s stuff I need to learn.
If I am lucky and studious, I might yet get to know myself and the world better, so as to more intelligently navigate this existence.
A great aid in that effort is attempting to understand the nature of what “I” even am… currently the theory of evolution seems to be the most useful model for understanding how I came to be, what my nature and failings may be.
I expect neuroscience will one day shed a great deal more light on the matter.

So no, felix, I have no trouble whatsoever agreeing to your “proposal” that was counter to nothing I’ve said.
But I would argue it’s healthy to question our assumptions and presuppositions. Evaluate them as though anew, to refine and shore up whatever errors there may be in what nature and nurture instilled in us.
Odin knows, neither forces add up to perfect designs, as the entire process relies on producing vast amounts of random waste and then killing off the most maladapted ones… until a lucky few remain only to do so again.
I’d rather not be the maladapted kind… if I can help it.

Instead of a straw man, let’s just say I misread you. And in the above I see a phenomenological description of being in the world from your point of view and some common ground. The theory of evolution can be read as model or origin myth that indeed at least partially explains why we are the way we are and do the things we do. From the angle of Genesis we have original sin from that of evolutionary psychology we have our primate nature.

[Mad_Man_P]

@felix dakat

Instead of a straw man, let’s just say I misread you. And in the above I see a phenomenological description of being in the world from your point of view and some common ground. The theory of evolution can be read as model or origin myth that indeed at least partially explains why we are the way we are and do the things we do. From the angle of Genesis we have original sin from that of evolutionary psychology we have our primate nature.

I believe I understand now why what you’re saying sounds insane to me.
You’ve redefined words like “myth” and “story” into such broad categories that history, science or even memory would qualify, any accounting of an event is story, if it spans a great amount of time it’s “myth”…
I’m not sure why you’ve done this… the cynic in me can think of a few reasons, but let’s not be too cynical… so I’ll just voice the same warning I did a few posts ago, which you misread and consequently never addressed.

Clear, precise language and models are the tool to use if you wish to avoid confusion and actually comprehend, impart or merely record insight and understanding.
When you paint with as broad a brush as you have elected to do, even if you don’t mean to, you run the risk of confusing yourself or others, by way of a false equivalency, where genesis is the same as the theory of evolution, as an example…

What’s more, I imagine if we ever did have to recreate our mental models from scratch, our perception would be that existence is all one amorphous thing, until we take the time to sort it out… to understand it.
So trying to explain everything through a simple lense like “everything is just a story we tell” seems like a regression to ignorance… It’s trivial to create such a lense and shoe-horn all the known world through it.
And while it might seem profound at first… It’s actually completely devoid of any useful insight… it’s no different than when a stoner, blazed out of his mind says “we’re all one with the universe and eternity, man”
Which, in his defense, he probably thinks is profound due to a significant part of his brain not working…

[felix_dakat]

@Mad Man P

@felix dakat

Instead of a straw man, let’s just say I misread you. And in the above I see a phenomenological description of being in the world from your point of view and some common ground. The theory of evolution can be read as model or origin myth that indeed at least partially explains why we are the way we are and do the things we do. From the angle of Genesis we have original sin from that of evolutionary psychology we have our primate nature.

I believe I understand now why what you’re saying sounds insane to me.
You’ve redefined words like “myth” and “story” into such broad categories that history, science or even memory would qualify, any accounting of an event is story, if it spans a great amount of time it’s “myth”…
I’m not sure why you’ve done this… the cynic in me can think of a few reasons, but let’s not be too cynical… so I’ll just voice the same warning I did a few posts ago, which you misread and consequently never addressed.

Clear, precise language and models are the tool to use if you wish to avoid confusion and actually comprehend, impart or merely record insight and understanding.
When you paint with as broad a brush as you have elected to do, even if you don’t mean to, you run the risk of confusing yourself or others, by way of a false equivalency, where genesis is the same as the theory of evolution, as an example…

What’s more, I imagine if we ever did have to recreate our mental models from scratch, our perception would be that existence is all one amorphous thing, until we take the time to sort it out… to understand it.
So trying to explain everything through a simple lense like “everything is just a story we tell” seems like a regression to ignorance… It’s trivial to create such a lense and shoe-horn all the known world through it.
And while it might seem profound at first… It’s actually completely devoid of any useful insight… it’s no different than when a stoner, blazed out of his mind says “we’re all one with the universe and eternity, man”
Which, in his defense, he probably thinks is profound due to a significant part of his brain not working…

The stories that matter are never created from scratch. They follow archetypal patterns which are embedded in the human psyche. If you think I redefined myth and story then there’s a large body of work in phenomenological study of mythology and narrative that you’re apparently unaware of. Have you ever heard of Carl Jung or Joseph Campbell? Or how about James Frazier? And now we have the contributions of Jordan Peterson and Brett Weinstein ,the archetypal psychologists and more. Not to mention Husserl and Heidegger and the existential phenomenologists. Scientific models appear within the scope and structure of human consciousness not vice versa.

[Mad_Man_P]

yet again… you did not address my post and instead “misread” it and went on this tangent…
At this point I have to wonder if perhaps there’s a miscommunication or if perhaps you have no interest in a discussion

There is no archetypal story for the theory of nuclear decay rates, or the formulas for how to achieve a geosynchronous orbit with a satellite…
Yet they a perfectly comprehensible models, adopted and treasured by virtually every culture across the world and no force needed to be applied to make it so.

I repeat the now long forgotten post, that you still have not addressed…
If it does not impart predictive power… it’s not knowledge.
And giving us predictive power, is the purview of models… not stories.
Stories serve a different function… one of greater interest to the humanities than to scientists.
If you’re trying to change people’s behavior and perceptions… stories are powerful tools.
If you want to know why they are such potent tools… you need a model for how our minds work.

[felix_dakat]

Can something be metaphorically true but literally false?

“Where do your beliefs come from? There’s a school of thought that sees religion as a mind virus that wastes the time and effort of human beings, but evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein offers a more reasonable explanation: “belief systems have flourished because they have facilitated the interests of the creatures involved,” he says. Religious people are evolutionarily fitter than non-believers, not because they are protected by a deity but rather because religion is a form of adaptive evolution. Religion is so widespread because it has massive survival advantages beneath the supernatural elements—that’s what Weinstein refers to as “literally false and metaphorically true”. For example, believing in heaven is literally false—there is no such place—but believing in it keeps your descendants in good standing in the religious community after you’re gone, thus setting your lineage up to continue. The thought itself may be untrue, but the result of the thought is evolutionarily effective. “Despite the fact that human beings think that they have escaped the evolutionary paradigm, they’ve done nothing of the kind, and so we should expect the belief systems that people hold to mirror the evolutionary interests that people have,” Weinstein says.”

[Mad_Man_P]

@felix dakat

Can something be metaphorically true but literally false?

“Where do your beliefs come from? There’s a school of thought that sees religion as a mind virus that wastes the time and effort of human beings, but evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein offers a more reasonable explanation: “belief systems have flourished because they have facilitated the interests of the creatures involved,” he says. Religious people are evolutionarily fitter than non-believers, not because they are protected by a deity but rather because religion is a form of adaptive evolution. Religion is so widespread because it has massive survival advantages beneath the supernatural elements—that’s what Weinstein refers to as “literally false and metaphorically true”. For example, believing in heaven is literally false—there is no such place—but believing in it keeps your descendants in good standing in the religious community after you’re gone, thus setting your lineage up to continue. The thought itself may be untrue, but the result of the thought is evolutionarily effective. “Despite the fact that human beings think that they have escaped the evolutionary paradigm, they’ve done nothing of the kind, and so we should expect the belief systems that people hold to mirror the evolutionary interests that people have,” Weinstein says.”

A false belief can be behaviorally advantageous… if I think there’s a tiger in the bush and run away, I might not get stung by the snake that was there.
Don’t know that I’d call that “metaphorical truth” though, that seems a lofty title for a false belief.

Also, felix, seriously… what’s going wrong in our communication, do you think?
What do you think I’ve said, to which the above is a counterpoint?

@Me

Don’t get me wrong, stories are tools… very potent tools.
But their utility is far from restricted to conveying truth… nor are they even the best means of conveying truth.
They may well be, however, the best means we have of distorting truth… which we most often use to fool ourselves…

The sugar coating of what is effectively social engineering, in the language of “symbolism” or “spirituality” does nothing to change which loss is being lemented and renewal is wished for.
That of human behavior as when gripped by fabricated stories.

I cannot help but think that you cannot muster reasons that appeal to others, as to why they ought behave that way, when you are reduced to pushing the import of stories beyond all reason.

Where do you detect an incompatibility between what Bret uttered and what I’ve said above?

[felix_dakat]

Could Life be a game with winners and losers? And dialogue could be a game within that game: a contest with point --“counterpoint”. Each contestant could think of himself as a hero standing for the truth. The one who thought of himself as a winner might even get a serotonin boost. Or maybe that’s already a story you’re embedded in. Perhaps you’re playing the game even when you’re not conscious of it. What do you think?

[Mad_Man_P]

@felix dakat

Could Life be a game with winners and losers? And dialogue could be a game within that game: a contest with point --“counterpoint”. Each contestant could think of himself as a hero standing for the truth. The one who thought of himself as a winner might even get a serotonin boost. Or maybe that’s already a story you’re embedded in. Perhaps you’re playing the game even when you’re not conscious of it. What do you think?

I must admit that my suspicion, though the possibility now seems quite remote, was that there’s a miscommunication and we’re simply talking past each other.

It’s possible, since in your hypothetical I’m not aware of mere competitive point scoring being my motivation, that you might be correct… that lack of awareness is consistent with my experience.
Though it’s worth noting that this hypothesis seems unfalsifiable shy of a sudden shift into agreement on my part.

But if in fact you suspect that’s what’s happening, that certainly might explain why you would be dismissive or flat out ignoring the critiques of the perspective you’ve expressed.
You know… because the motivation for their presentation is point scoring, it’s not really worth engaging with the arguments…

It just seems like there are easier and more honest ways of expressing “I don’t wanna listen to you if you disagree with me”
The gaslighting and armchair psychoanalysis just seem functionally superfluous… but granted, make for a creative flourish.

[felix_dakat]

@Mad Man P

@felix dakat

Could Life be a game with winners and losers? And dialogue could be a game within that game: a contest with point --“counterpoint”. Each contestant could think of himself as a hero standing for the truth. The one who thought of himself as a winner might even get a serotonin boost. Or maybe that’s already a story you’re embedded in. Perhaps you’re playing the game even when you’re not conscious of it. What do you think?

I must admit that my suspicion, though the possibility now seems quite remote, was that there’s a miscommunication and we’re simply talking past each other.

It’s possible, since in your hypothetical I’m not aware of mere competitive point scoring being my motivation, that you might be correct… that lack of awareness is consistent with my experience.
Though it’s worth noting that this hypothesis seems unfalsifiable shy of a sudden shift into agreement on my part.

But if in fact you suspect that’s what’s happening, that certainly might explain why you would be dismissive or flat out ignoring the critiques of the perspective you’ve expressed.
You know… because the motivation for their presentation is point scoring, it’s not really worth engaging with the arguments…

It just seems like there are easier and more honest ways of expressing “I don’t wanna listen to you if you disagree with me”
The gaslighting and armchair psychoanalysis just seem functionally superfluous… but granted, make for a creative flourish.

Yes well we’re still playing the game aren’t we? And how can we engage in dialogue and not? A game is a kind of story, and the dialogue is a kind of game. I’m sure you’re aware of that the art of dialogue came from the Greeks. And the Greeks did love their games. Plato’s Socrates was the supreme hero of the dialogue who defeated many an opponent with his claim of knowing nothing.

And what are the special sciences in this kind of story/game? In the game of games they are tools to be used for winning. But often in that game and more particularly in dialogue they’re specialized tools–weapons for defeating one’s opponent. The sciences serve the story/game not the other way around. And that’s true both for the dialogue and for the meta-story which is life.

[Mad_Man_P]

@felix dakat

Yes well we’re still playing the game aren’t we? And how can we engage in dialogue and not? A game is a kind of story, and the dialogue is a kind of game. I’m sure you’re aware of that the art of dialogue came from the Greeks. And the Greeks did love their games. Plato’s Socrates was the supreme hero of the dialogue who defeated many an opponent with his claim of knowing nothing.

And what are the special sciences in this kind of story/game? In the game of games they are tools to be used for winning. But often in that game and more particularly in dialogue they’re specialized tools–weapons for defeating one’s opponent. The sciences serve the story/game not the other way around. And that’s true both for the dialogue and for the meta-story which is life.

These are merely thoughts that you enjoy, for whatever aesthetic reason… and you’re welcome to them, felix.
I don’t begrudge you yet another hermetically sealed perspective… they have this pleasing quality of being tautological and never wrong.
But If it can’t be wrong that also means it conveys no predictive power… which in turn means it’s of no consequence to navigating life…
If or when you decide to speak on something consequential, like the import of religious stories to human life… maybe then there’d be cause for a dialogue in a shared language.

[felix_dakat]

@Mad Man P

@felix dakat

Yes well we’re still playing the game aren’t we? And how can we engage in dialogue and not? A game is a kind of story, and the dialogue is a kind of game. I’m sure you’re aware of that the art of dialogue came from the Greeks. And the Greeks did love their games. Plato’s Socrates was the supreme hero of the dialogue who defeated many an opponent with his claim of knowing nothing.

And what are the special sciences in this kind of story/game? In the game of games they are tools to be used for winning. But often in that game and more particularly in dialogue they’re specialized tools–weapons for defeating one’s opponent. The sciences serve the story/game not the other way around. And that’s true both for the dialogue and for the meta-story which is life.

These are merely thoughts that you enjoy, for whatever aesthetic reason… and you’re welcome to them, felix.
I don’t begrudge you yet another hermetically sealed perspective… they have this pleasing quality of being tautological and never wrong.
But If it can’t be wrong that also means it conveys no predictive power… which in turn means it’s of no consequence to navigating life…
If or when you decide to speak on something consequential, like the import of religious stories to human life… maybe then there’d be cause for a dialogue in a shared language.

A predictable response in the context of our dialogue/game/story. Reality unfolds for us in patterns. Stories are composed of patterns. The story of stories-- the meta-story-- is the pattern of patterns. And a story unfolds in time. The basic pattern of lived time is past, present and future. But even every present moment has the past and the future within it. Our sense of identity depends on that fact. Without it we wouldn’t have a sense of the continuity of being. And the sciences which make predictions depend on that fact. The sciences are subsets of how patterns unfold to consciousness not the other way around.

[Mad_Man_P]

@felix dakat

A predictable response in the context of our dialogue/game/story. Reality unfolds for us in patterns. Stories are composed of patterns. The story of stories-- the meta-story-- is the pattern of patterns. And a story unfolds in time. The basic pattern of lived time is past, present and future. But even every present moment has the past and the future within it. Our sense of identity depends on that fact. Without it we wouldn’t have a sense of the continuity of being. And the sciences which make predictions depend on that fact. The sciences are subsets of how patterns unfold to consciousness not the other way around.

You’re teaching me words to a language, in which you’re not saying anything… “Stories are composed of patterns” is a tautology, it’s how story is defined in this language. The past and the future being within every present moment, is merely a tautology, our identity depending on it, yet another tautology… these things are true, because they have been defined as true. All you’re doing is trying to teach me an alternative version of english, but why you think I, or anyone else, needs to learn that language, is what seems suspect.

My criticism, since realizing what it is you’re doing has been a warning… a warning that you’ve since demonstrated.
It’s trivial to shoe-horn everything through a simple lense… it only costs you the ability to notice nuance and complexity…
What’s more, it leads to well evidenced human errors in critical thinking… false equivalence, chiefly among them.
I have no doubt that life is made simpler, by this process… that the world is made to seem more manageable and less daunting… ignorance does have those perks.

Demonstrably, you keep interpreting what I’m saying to fit through your narrow lense… because you’ve left no room for nuance or complexity, it’s a simple filter with which you read what I write, so I can only ever say simple things, stupid things.
Consequently you’re not hearing what I’m trying to communicate, you only ever hear what you already expect… you’re deaf to me and at this point continuing to speak to you is a waste of my time.

[felix_dakat]

@Mad Man P

@felix dakat

A predictable response in the context of our dialogue/game/story. Reality unfolds for us in patterns. Stories are composed of patterns. The story of stories-- the meta-story-- is the pattern of patterns. And a story unfolds in time. The basic pattern of lived time is past, present and future. But even every present moment has the past and the future within it. Our sense of identity depends on that fact. Without it we wouldn’t have a sense of the continuity of being. And the sciences which make predictions depend on that fact. The sciences are subsets of how patterns unfold to consciousness not the other way around.

You’re teaching me words to a language, in which you’re not saying anything… “Stories are composed of patterns” is a tautology, it’s how story is defined in this language. The past and the future being within every present moment, is merely a tautology, our identity depending on it, yet another tautology… these things are true, because they have been defined as true. All you’re doing is trying to teach me an alternative version of english, but why you think I, or anyone else, needs to learn that language, is what seems suspect.

My criticism, since realizing what it is you’re doing has been a warning… a warning that you’ve since demonstrated.
It’s trivial to shoe-horn everything through a simple lense… it only costs you the ability to notice nuance and complexity…
What’s more, it leads to well evidenced human errors in critical thinking… false equivalence, chiefly among them.
I have no doubt that life is made simpler, by this process… that the world is made to seem more manageable and less daunting… ignorance does have those perks.

Demonstrably, you keep interpreting what I’m saying to fit through your narrow lense… because you’ve left no room for nuance or complexity, it’s a simple filter with which you read what I write, so I can only ever say simple things, stupid things.
Consequently you’re not hearing what I’m trying to communicate, you only ever hear what you already expect… you’re deaf to me and at this point continuing to speak to you is a waste of my time.

Of course. You have declared yourself intellectually superior and me too stupid to perceive your nuanced brilliance. That makes you the winner of the contest from your POV. The hero of the story. It’s the myth of the hostile brothers. Cain and Abel. Romulus and Remus. It’s origins are pre-human. It’s archetypal. It plays out over and over. It’s a common pattern on ILP.

[Mad_Man_P]

@felix dakat

Of course. You have declared yourself intellectually superior and me too stupid to perceive your nuanced brilliance. That makes you the winner of the contest from your POV. The hero of the story. It’s the myth of the hostile brothers. Cain and Abel. Romulus and Remus. It’s origins are pre-human. It’s archetypal. It plays out over and over. It’s a common pattern on ILP.

That’s not what’s happening… but you’ve made it clear you believe that’s what’s happening.
Since you like stories, here’s one:

A random guy on the internet listened to, let’s say a cat, found what he perceived as a flaw in what the cat was saying and because he’s kind of a dick who enjoys adversarial banter mixed in with his discussions, decided to bring that to the cat’s attention using his trademark combative tone, yet made the points he intended to. He then noticed that the cat was responding to an interpretation of what he had said, one quite different from what he tried to convey.

A few attempts later, he tried asking the cat what the cat believed was going wrong. The cat then told him this story of the random guy’s motivations… as is his way, the random guy noted the cat’s lack of good faith, in a mocking tone. The next part, you have expressed quite clearly, above… regardless of how often the guy was letting the cat know that he was being misread, the cat found ever more certainty, that the cat had in fact understood the random guy, what he was doing and why he was doing it, even if the random guy himself, was not aware… the more they spoke the more certain the cat grew.

The random guy, had grown tired of this process which had proved quite unrewarding… and had realized it didn’t matter what he said to the cat at this point.
The charge of arrogance leveled at him, from a cat who believes itself to have understood the random guy’s motives, a person with whom the cat was not that familiar, better than the random guy himself… was quite a funny thing.
That part was at least amusing to the random guy on the internet… with a chuckle he shook off the disappointment of having failed to have a fruitful discussion on an interesting topic with the cat. He wrote a funny story for his own amusement before finally saying goodbye to the cat and wishing the cat the best of luck in life…

He imagined what it must be like to be the cat and he thought “it’s not that bad”. The cat would pity the random guy, for having succumb to his more base instincts and being so unaware of having done so, but ultimately the cat would feel like he helped the random guy, by teaching him that merely arguing for the sake of arguing was a fruitless endeavor… the cat would likely hope the random guy learned from it. At least the cat’s heart was in the right place, the random guy thought to himself… and with that thought, he decided to leave.

[felix_dakat]

@Mad Man P

@felix dakat

Of course. You have declared yourself intellectually superior and me too stupid to perceive your nuanced brilliance. That makes you the winner of the contest from your POV. The hero of the story. It’s the myth of the hostile brothers. Cain and Abel. Romulus and Remus. It’s origins are pre-human. It’s archetypal. It plays out over and over. It’s a common pattern on ILP.

That’s not what’s happening… but you’ve made it clear you believe that’s what’s happening.
Since you like stories, here’s one:

A random guy on the internet listened to, let’s say a cat, found what he perceived as a flaw in what the cat was saying and because he’s kind of a dick who enjoys adversarial banter mixed in with his discussions, decided to bring that to the cat’s attention using his trademark combative tone, yet made the points he intended to. He then noticed that the cat was responding to an interpretation of what he had said, one quite different from what he tried to convey.

A few attempts later, he tried asking the cat what the cat believed was going wrong. The cat then told him this story of the random guy’s motivations… as is his way, the random guy noted the cat’s lack of good faith, in a mocking tone. The next part, you have expressed quite clearly, above… regardless of how often the guy was letting the cat know that he was being misread, the cat found ever more certainty, that the cat had in fact understood the random guy, what he was doing and why he was doing it, even if the random guy himself, was not aware… the more they spoke the more certain the cat grew.

The random guy, had grown tired of this process which had proved quite unrewarding… and had realized it didn’t matter what he said to the cat at this point.
The charge of arrogance leveled at him, from a cat who believes itself to have understood the random guy’s motives, a person with whom the cat was not that familiar, better than the random guy himself… was quite a funny thing.
That part was at least amusing to the random guy on the internet… with a chuckle he shook off the disappointment of having failed to have a fruitful discussion on an interesting topic with the cat. He wrote a funny story for his own amusement before finally saying goodbye to the cat and wishing the cat the best of luck in life…

He imagined what it must be like to be the cat and he thought “it’s not that bad”. The cat would pity the random guy, for having succumb to his more base instincts and being so unaware of having done so, but ultimately the cat would feel like he helped the random guy, by teaching him that merely arguing for the sake of arguing was a fruitless endeavor… the cat would likely think he’d done the random guy a service and probably hope, the random guy learned from it. At least the cat’s heart was in the right place, the random guy thought to himself… and with that thought, he decided to leave.

I found that amusing and kind and it made me smile.

[felix_dakat]

“Mad Man P wrote: You’re teaching me words to a language, in which you’re not saying anything… “Stories are composed of patterns” is a tautology, it’s how story is defined in this language. The past and the future being within every present moment, is merely a tautology, our identity depending on it, yet another tautology… these things are true, because they have been defined as true. All you’re doing is trying to teach me an alternative version of english, but why you think I, or anyone else, needs to learn that language, is what seems suspect.”

Madman P read my phenomenological description as tautologies and a language lesson. So, where’s the problem? Both perceptions and apperceptions are either chaotic or patterns. Patterns played out in time are narratives. Thoughts are narratives we tell ourselves. Symbols are meaningful patterns. Myths are symbols played out in time. I’m describing the structure of consciousness. How is this a tautology or language lesson? What’s the alternative(s)?

[Mad_Man_P]

@felix dakat

Madman P read my phenomenological description as tautologies and a language lesson. So, where’s the problem? Both perceptions and apperceptions are either chaotic or patterns. Patterns played out in time are narratives. Thoughts are narratives we tell ourselves. Symbols are meaningful patterns. Myths are symbols played out in time. I’m describing the structure of consciousness. How is this a tautology or language lesson? What’s the alternative(s)?

What could a symbol be, but a meaningful pattern?
Can there be a symbol that does not qualify as a meaningful pattern?
What is a narrative defined as?
Can a perceived pattern play out in time without qualifying, by doing so, as a narrative?
How is myth, defined?
Can a myth fail to qualify as symbols played out in time?

Imagine if I had said:
“Married men are not bachelors. Bachelors are single. Single men are not wed, they cannot draw square circles and when they move their location changes”
To which I added “I’m describing the state of being single. What’s the alternative?”

These things are tautologies… they are true by definition.
Every one of those statements is NECESSARILY true whether or not anyone qualifies as being single.
You couldn’t say I was WRONG… merely failing to say anything informative or consequential about the state of being single.
But suppose you wanted to identify what it is I am being informative about… in this case it would be the english language.
It’s how those words are defined that makes those statements true, more so than any state of the world or anyone’s relationship status…

How would you bring this to my attention?
Obviously I am not well equipped for the task… as my failure here has demonstrated.

[felix_dakat]

@Mad Man P

@felix dakat

Madman P read my phenomenological description as tautologies and a language lesson. So, where’s the problem? Both perceptions and apperceptions are either chaotic or patterns. Patterns played out in time are narratives. Thoughts are narratives we tell ourselves. Symbols are meaningful patterns. Myths are symbols played out in time. I’m describing the structure of consciousness. How is this a tautology or language lesson? What’s the alternative(s)?

What could a symbol be, but a meaningful pattern?
Can there be a symbol that does not qualify as a meaningful pattern?
What is a narrative defined as?
Can a perceived pattern play out in time without qualifying, by doing so, as a narrative?
How is myth, defined?
Can a myth fail to qualify as symbols played out in time?

Imagine if I had said:
“Married men are not bachelors. Bachelors are single. Single men are not wed, they cannot draw square circles and when they move their location changes”
To which I added “I’m describing the state of being single. What’s the alternative?”

These things are tautologies… they are true by definition.
Every one of those statements is NECESSARILY true whether or not anyone qualifies as being single.
You couldn’t say I was WRONG… merely failing to say anything informative or consequential about the state of being single.
But suppose you wanted to identify what it is I am being informative about… in this case it would be the english language.
It’s how those words are defined that makes those statements true, more so than any state of the world or anyone’s relationship status…

How would you bring this to my attention?
Obviously I am not well equipped for the task… as my failure here has demonstrated.

I contend that my post involved more than mere tautologies and English definitions. I’ll develop a point you selectively ignored. Perception. When we look at a cube we see it from one angle from one perspective. We can’t see all the sides at once. Our perception of the cube is always partial with only one part being given directly at any moment. But as we see those sides we also intend the sides which are hidden. What can I call this experience wherein the sides missing to perception are supplied to experience that you won’t dismiss as a tautology or a language game?

[Mad_Man_P]

@felix dakat

I contend that my post involved more than mere tautologies and English definitions. I’ll develop a point you selectively ignored. Perception. When we look at a cube we see it from one angle from one perspective. We can’t see all the sides at once. Our perception of the cube is always partial with only one part being given directly at any moment. But as we see those sides we also intend the sides which are hidden. What can I call this experience wherein the sides missing to perception are supplied to experience that you won’t dismiss as a tautology or a language game?

It’s not abnormal for a post to contain more than mere tautology, so I failed to praise you for it, my bad.
What is abnormal is for a post to mainly contain tautology and yet more abnormal for it to be called a description or even a point about anything other than language.
One might say it’s a noteworthy error… so I made note of it being an error.

To answer your question: the name you give it is to do with language… how could it not be?
What if a french guy named it something different? is he wrong?

Here’s a good test to discover if you’re playing a language game or if you’re saying something informative:
If the thing you think you are describing was sufficiently different, would that render any of the statements you made false?
If the answer is no… you’re not talking about the thing, but merely the language.
So if the only way one of your statements could possibly be wrong, is if we redefined one of the words… it was a tautology or to do with language.

Here let me demonstrate:

“Both perceptions and apperceptions are either chaotic or patterns”
The principle of excluded middle makes this a tautology… chaos is the lack of patterns. All things are either patterns or they are not, and when they are not, they qualify as chaotic…
Consequently aliens and unicorns are either chaotic or patterns too. This is not informative about aliens or unicorns, either.

“Patterns played out in time are narratives.”
That’s the definition of narrative that you’re using… it really just is the only way this could be true in the first place. There’s nothing else here. Good to know though, we’re gonna need this later.

“Thoughts are narratives we tell ourselves.”
To qualify as a thought a subjective experience must at least be a pattern played out through time, so it must necessarily also be a narrative… this follows from the definitions.
But that it’s a “narrative we tell ourselves” might speak to where or by whom you think thoughts are authored…
Depending on how you define “self” the later half of this statement could prove false if “the structure of consciousness” was different. This one is not a tautology outside solipsism!

“Symbols are meaningful patterns.”
That’s the definition of Symbols you’re using.

“Myths are symbols played out in time.”
That’s the definition of Myth you’re using.

“I’m describing the structure of consciousness. How is this a tautology or language lesson?”
I’m hoping you can answer that question for yourself now…
Hint: You made five statements, the only description you did provide on the topic was “we think our own thoughts” which was only half of one statement.
Care to guess the topic of the other 90% of your statements?

I don’t know if we can salvage anything from the wreckage that has been our conversation felix…
But I hope you understand what I meant when I said:

@Mad Man P

You’re teaching me words to a language, in which you’re not saying anything…

There’s nothing wrong with you defining your terms and naming phenomena or even developing a specialized language to discuss something… but then I expect you at least say something of consequence with it.
Why else did you develop it? why am I learning it?