To Know

[finishedman]

When there is nothing wanted or needed, thought is not there for that. Knowledge isn’t there for it. The life goes on. Life functions with its own intelligence; it is aware of itself. It doesn’t need or care about what thought requires for its purposes when thought wants to control or manipulate the life.

Not that there aren’t times and instances where thought and knowledge are required to get results that are needed or wanted. What it is one wants should be perfectly clear so that the approach of thought can be deemed worthy or not. Or even needed.

[onto-bios]

Perhaps it’s worth distinguishing between analytic and synthetic truths. So, yes, you can state a truth that’s internal to the definitions of its own statement (i.e., James’ boxes), but that’s pretty uninteresting, no? If that’s the only hope we have of arriving at truth, then truth is either a useless concept, and we should look elsewhere for the proper positum of philosophical activity, or we are damned always only to speak in circles, defining truths into existence without any inkling of whether those propositions map in any verifiable way onto the vicissitudes of the real.

[Ben_JS]

@finishedman

[Life] doesn’t need or care about what thought requires for its purposes when thought wants to control or manipulate the life.

Your expression of thought clearly illustrates your lack of respect for thought.

As I said you Stuart543 in another thread -

Manipulate - To influence or manage shrewdly or deviously + To tamper with or falsify for personal gain

If one is completely open and honest to another of their intent, then they aren’t manipulating. They’re trying to influence.

The former involves tricking the other, or hiding vital information from the other. Doing something at the expense of the other.

---

The question is,

What motivates you to dismiss thought? How has it harmed you? Why are you bias against it? Why do you dismiss it?

Is it your own ‘bodily’ intelligence, that motivates you? Or thought itself?

[James_S_Saint]

@onto-bios

Perhaps it’s worth distinguishing between analytic and synthetic truths. So, yes, you can state a truth that’s internal to the definitions of its own statement (i.e., James’ boxes), but that’s pretty uninteresting, no? If that’s the only hope we have of arriving at truth, then truth is either a useless concept, and we should look elsewhere for the proper positum of philosophical activity, or we are damned always only to speak in circles, defining truths into existence without any inkling of whether those propositions map in any verifiable way onto the vicissitudes of the real.

You seem to presume that because you do not understand how to verify an ontology, no ontology is verifiable.

[onto-bios]

@James S Saint

You seem to presume that because you do not understand how to verify an ontology, no ontology is verifiable.

You misunderstand. What I mean is that if the only thing constituting the truth of a claim is the fact that it is definitionally demonstrable, then it doesn’t touch reality. If it is, then that contact itself is what’s at issue. I can say that, if Being is taken to be the sum of all events, then events are the proper objects of ontology, but I haven’t yet demonstrated why or how that maps onto reality. It’s precisely that mapping that’s at issue in truth. The definitions are perhaps the first step, but they don’t get you all the way there.

[James_S_Saint]

@onto-bios

@James S Saint

You seem to presume that because you do not understand how to verify an ontology, no ontology is verifiable.

You misunderstand.

It wouldn’t be the first time.

@onto-bios

What I mean is that if the only thing constituting the truth of a claim is the fact that it is definitionally demonstrable, then it doesn’t touch reality.

…“then you can’t know if it ‘touches reality’”
And, I take it that by “definitionally demonstrable”, you mean logically coherent in accord to the definitions? …as opposed to empirically or physically demonstrable.

@onto-bios

If it is, then that contact itself is what’s at issue. I can say that, if Being is taken to be the sum of all events, then events are the proper objects of ontology, but I haven’t yet demonstrated why or how that maps onto reality. It’s precisely that mapping that’s at issue in truth. The definitions are perhaps the first step, but they don’t get you all the way there.

The Angels of Truth are;
1) Consistency
2) Comprehensiveness
3) Relevance

As long as anything fits all of those stipulations, it is “true” (and relevant).

The only issue with an ontology is in choosing which elements will be most relevant and allow for consistency and comprehensiveness. I choose “Affectance” and that seemed to have worked out very well.