back to the beginning: the limitations of language

A Cave, in the Western tradition of the genesis of self counsciousness

The myth of Sysiphus illustrates the vast domain that preoccupies imagination with that view which tries to understand, without the emerging limitations which hinder the conscious birth of the concept of the self from the evolutionary cognitive sense of binding imaged to thought, by unbinding the substantial organization of pre-lingual understanding.

Buddhism it’s self starts this binding -unbinding process that George Orwell realized in double think. as Buddhism sets the stage where the very totally deconstructed self can be understood as an absolute imminance, a pre conscious state that follows a double course all through both individual and culturally defined-determined way of understanding.

Th r culturally defined formative developing ‘soul’ becomes the way that leads one way to religiously transcended way of realizing reality, and science begins a different path.Aristoteles and Plato exemplify this, and the Platonic course exemplified the earliest recorded parting of the imminent of transcendental progression in Western classical times.
What relationship dies Buddhist notions with the Western modes if development?
One precedes the other to be sure , based on the Western model’s temporal invention from Greco Roman and Egyptian sources, but with the necessary thought if some interralation between the East and the West which had some level of correspondence in a relative, non spatial/temporal way that happens in an esoteric realm of non conscious manner.

The early Egyptian language is composed of both of signs and signals of phonetic and abstracted relating mechanisms and do represent later focus on magic and it’s association with the evolution of certain kinds of beliefs like for instance the coming to be of Magi, who came to witness the Birth of the Redeemer.

These by now images, coincide with the deconstruction of the objective world as theu reimmerse themself willingly into the sea of the subconscious.

Ironically, the more science tries to get nearer to the Source, the more disassociation occurs with the ‘retro-projection’ of images unto the concept of the esoteric self, and the modern sense of angst replaces the quiet serenity befire quantum dispersion of understanding happens.

That is why we push the thought if that dispersion to the usual receding horizon of Being, nit willing to dace a more General Mode of Relating, that has already come up the ranks ( of conscious-ness)with a specially related organization.

What happens, is that as Jesus tries to explain in parables, way ahead in time, realizing what amounts to energy bound spaces of the self ars always the mirror through which the corpus seed it’s self in a mirror of partly his own devise, projects the fear if deconstruction that language’s
disassociation always delimits, concurrently as a shadow sub-stance
The Corpus Christi is a projected quasi magical system as how the two can be unified.
That will for all time be the simplest, quickest way to be in a substantial reality that Orwell knows but because of the limitations that the IS-OUGHT sorld, must go along with the reduced, one dimensional, albeit digitalized under standing.
death.now.will release or approach the limit of feared states if perfection of absolute dispersion, that such states are being intuited but very advanced computers
But most will prefer Big Brother.

This in particular is a gem!

And though, in my view, it has absolutely nothing to note substantively about the limitations of language, it tells us something about the use of language for those who may or may not have a “condition”.

Note to others:

Admittedly, I stopped reading here. So, it’s possible that what follows and the stuff he noted on his next thread, actually are a coherent examination of how he connects the dots between the limitations of language and thinking double.

Given a particular context.

It’s a judgment call. Do I waste even more of my precious time here reading further or do I ask for volunteers to take on that task for me.

Do what you can please.

Exactly. That ‘condition’ is aptly called double talk, where communication fails, because it is dropped to contextual agreement.

Some call it the democratic dispensation of recognizing the difference between entangled situations and one where even next door neighbors fail to take minimum steps necessary to communicate

But philosophy nowedays is so broadly defined that most people fail to see any connection.

Or we may both be wrong

Note to others:

Was I wrong not to read this? :sunglasses:

I am another and I say yes you were.

But it’s ok even if other others think you were right.

The Tractatus
“The world is all that is the case”
José Zalabardo investigates which problem Wittgenstein is trying to solve.

It’s still tables, but he wrote the article not me.

On the other hand, when the word “table” was invented in the English language, my guess is that this was done in order to encompass particular tables with an accumulation of particular combinations of properties. How much thought was given to tables “ontologically”?

Instead, where things get problematic is that, in the English language, the word “table” also came to be used to describe things that were not “pieces of furniture with flat tops and one or more legs”. There’s the Periodic Table. Or “a set of facts or figures systematically displayed”. Or another word for postponing. Or you can “turn the tables” on someone.

Are there Platonist ontologies for them too?

Universals would seem to be located less in space and time “out there somewhere” and more “in your head”. You think up the idea of an ontological table. Maybe you connect the dots between this table and God once you vacate the cave.

But the Platonic ontological table?

This table:

“Platonic realism is the philosophical position that universals or abstract objects exist objectively and outside of human minds.” wiki

Something perhaps that only a philosopher could think – think – up?

The Tractatus
“The world is all that is the case”
José Zalabardo investigates which problem Wittgenstein is trying to solve.

Now, admittedly, from my own “technically” deficient mind this is precisely the sort of thing that Will Durant’s “epistemologists” dwell on at great depth. Largeness that one grapples with once out of the cave becomes hopelessly ensnared in these “intellectual contraption” assessments in which no actual large things explored out in a particular context make any appearance at all. Largeness per se and the manner in which certain “serious philosophers” can take the word “large” up into these technical clouds of abstraction.

What does “infinite regress” even mean for the Theory of Forms when the forms themselves revolve around the assumption that largeness in the physical world that we live and interact in is inferior to the “timeless, absolute, unchangeable idea” of largeness.

The Tractatus
“The world is all that is the case”
José Zalabardo investigates which problem Wittgenstein is trying to solve.

Anyone here ever cut their losses? Note the context please. Or, again, does this sort of thinking not really have much to do at all with the world we live and interact with others in. What particular universal reduced to what particular particulars and vice versa. Even when the focus is strictly on the either/or world.

That’s all I ask. Really.

Well, this and that eventually the universals/particulars be explored in regard to human interactions in the is/ought world.

Instead, we pretty much always get this:

Tables!

What I would have pointed out to Plato is that “thinking up” ideas of this sort is no where near the same as demonstrating that they are actually true empirically, materially, phenomenally. And thus able to be made applicable to the lives we live from day to day. The Theory of Forms is just another mere mortal rendition of God. You can think Him up too. But that doesn’t make Him the real deal. I’m sure that God “lives” independently of us as well. If you think that He does.

The Tractatus
Wittgenstein, Tolstoy and the Folly of Logical Positivism
Stuart Greenstreet explains how analytical philosophy got into a mess.

Here we go again: dasein.

What, did you think it skipped those like Wittgenstein altogether.

He walks into a small shop, buys the book and those who read The Tractatus today are reading a collaboration between him and Tolstoy. How would he have been different had he not walked into shop, hap he not bought it?

And how is that not true over and over and over again regarding many of your own experiences in life. It’s just that few think this through as I do. Why? Because, in my view, to do so can take you down the road to a fractured and fragmented “I” when the language that we come to use revolves around value judgments.

So, Wittgenstein’s close encounter with the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein brought Christianity itself into his life. But even here it is a Christianity derived from Tolstoy who derived his own understanding of it from dasein.

In any event, one thing does not change here: that the language we use in discussing the facts that intertwine Wittgenstein and Tolstoy and Christianity historically are very, very different from the language we use in discussing the authenticity of the actual existence of the Christian God. And the Christian rendition of the One True Path. Spiritual and otherwise.

The Tractatus
Wittgenstein, Tolstoy and the Folly of Logical Positivism
Stuart Greenstreet explains how analytical philosophy got into a mess.

Here we go again: dasein.

What, did you think it skipped those like Wittgenstein altogether.

He walks into a small shop, buys the book and those who read The Tractatus today are reading a collaboration between him and Tolstoy. How would he and the book have been different had he not walked into shop, had he not bought it?

And how is that not true over and over and over again regarding many of your own experiences in life. It’s just that few think this through as I do. Why? Because, in my view, to do so can take you down the road to a fractured and fragmented “I” when the language that we come to use revolves around value judgments.

So, Wittgenstein’s close encounter with the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein brought Christianity itself into his life. But even here it is a Christianity derived from Tolstoy who derived his own understanding of it from dasein.

In any event, one thing does not change here: that the language we use in discussing the facts that intertwine Wittgenstein and Tolstoy and Christianity historically are very, very different from the language we use in discussing the authenticity of the actual existence of the Christian God. And the Christian rendition of the One True Path. Spiritual and otherwise.

The Tractatus
Wittgenstein, Tolstoy and the Folly of Logical Positivism
Stuart Greenstreet explains how analytical philosophy got into a mess.

Next up: all of those particularly important the things that pop up on the news that language cannot picture. Those things Wittgenstein later suggested we remain silent regarding.

Unless, of course, as an moral objectivist you insist that not only can language paint a picture even pertaining to conflicting goods, but unless your picture is a reproduction of their picture, you will never be become a true artist. Let alone a true philosopher.

For example, when the moral objectivist asks you to picture “John eating the flesh of pigs” and then to picture in turn “John eating the flesh of pigs as evil”, to him they are no less equally a picture of reality itself. Perhaps even a priori?

In other words, unlike other philosophers, he elected to stay in the cave.

Ah, but then…

My own “game” focusing on human interactions at the existential intersection of identity, value judgments and political economy.

If largely in the is/ought world. Language in the either/or world is still considerably less…subjective?

The Tractatus
Wittgenstein, Tolstoy and the Folly of Logical Positivism
Stuart Greenstreet explains how analytical philosophy got into a mess.

And suppose Wittgenstein had been persuaded to attend? How might our understanding of Logical Positivism today have been much the same…or considerably different? But that’s how these things unfold: existentially. They unfold as they do and we get what we’ve got. But they might have unfolded in some other manner given the intertwining of all the individuals and variables involved. And we’d have something else. Well, assuming some measure of human autonomy of course.

Unfortunately [or, perhaps, for most, fortunately] the human brain is hard wired such that actual verification is never really necessary at all. Propositions relating to religion and spirituality and morality and politics are made all the time…and the only verification needed to confirm their truth is that you believe them.

Where would the objectivists among us be without that particular proposition itself. Whole “Coalitions of Truth” have been invented to sustain objective moralities of this sort. And of course, Gods and Goddesses.

Nonsense! Right, Mr. Objectivist? If the sentences you use to assert your own dogmatic/authoritarian moral and political agenda have been verified by you “in your head” as in fact true, then in fact they are.

In your head.

Proof!

The Tractatus
Wittgenstein, Tolstoy and the Folly of Logical Positivism
Stuart Greenstreet explains how analytical philosophy got into a mess.

Of course for me this pertains to my own distinction between I in the either/or world and “i” in the is/world. You might say something about yourself out in the world with others. Someone asks you to demonstrate why they should believe that what you say is true or not true. You either can or you cannot. On the other hand, it’s one thing to suggest that moral, political and spiritual value judgments are subjective, and another thing altogether to argue that they encompass meaningless nonsense.

After all, those in the Circle are no less entangled in the gap between what they think they know about “ethics, aesthetics, and religion” and all that can be – must be – known in order to definitively rule out what either can or cannot be demonstrated.

On the other hand, talk about metaphysical!!

Also, as soon as you choose to interact with others, ethics, aesthetics and religion are necessarily bursting at the seams with existential meaning.

Arrogant, even dogmatic. And the beauty of it all is that when you take this dogmatic arrogance up into the stratosphere of intellectual contraptions like these, no one is ever able to effectively rebut it. Except with their own arrogant even dogmatic intellectual contraptions.

Biggs check this out. The whole analytical movement in philosophy was a response to the nonsense produced by continental philosophy all the way back to Grease. The analytical guys were all terminators, you might say, sent from the future to kick some ass and take names.

Wittgenstein’s role… well what ended up being his role after the tractatus period, was to show that yes, so much philosophy was nonsense… but this does not mean we can’t speak meaningfully about subjects that fail the verifiability principle. Instead, we need only recognize what kind of language game we are playing… and not get this one mixed up with that one. For example, we can’t speak of values being true in the same way we speak of facts being true… but we can still speak of values!

It was the continentailist philosophers who tried to systematize ethics into objective forms of thought, and as a result, created all kinds of confusion. We are in fact still recovering from platonism… now in the form of modern Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

The Tractatus
Wittgenstein, Tolstoy and the Folly of Logical Positivism
Stuart Greenstreet explains how analytical philosophy got into a mess.

See, didn’t I tell you? His very own Song Be Syndrome.

You think one way. And you use language that, to the best of your ability, allows you to convey to others what you do think, what you do believe.

But then you have an extraordinary experience – and being in a war is certainly up near the top there – and you find yourself thinking something else, believing something else.

Then over time Wittgenstein began his own sojourn from I in the either/or world to “I” in the is/ought world. The extent to which the tools of philosophy themselves come to be thought of in a very different way.

Whatever that means. From my frame of mind this basically revolves around The Gap, Rummy’s Rule and dasein. Linked to however the relationship between genes and memes works insofar as human language can actually capture this. It just seems patently obvious that the ambiguities and uncertainties are most clearly seen in regard to value our judgments at the intersection of identity and political power.

Mystical in the sense of how exasperating it can become when that which seems utterly clear to us is completely mangled by others. Which, of course, happens all the time here. It’s as though there is something inexplicable in their brains that prevents them from doing the right thing: agreeing with us.

We’ll need a context…of course.

=D>
#-o
:wink:

The Tractatus
Wittgenstein, Tolstoy and the Folly of Logical Positivism
Stuart Greenstreet explains how analytical philosophy got into a mess.

Your guess is as good as mind in regard to how this might be translated given the existential parameters of human value judgments in conflict out in the world as we all know it to be. Most here are familiar with my own attempt to connect the dots between language and values. So, naturally, I would be curious to explore how someone here who thinks he or she understands what Wittgenstein means above would translate it given a set of circumstances in which our values come into conflict.

How might Wittgenstein react to the points I raise in my signature threads? Any advocates of his philosophy care to take a crack at it?

How about this? What down here out of the ofttimes obtuse/abstruse intellectual clouds would you assess this to mean at the existential juncture of identity, value judgments and political economy?

Given a moral and political value judgment near and dear to you.

Especially one that, as an objectivist, you’d defend from the perspective of “one of us” vs. “one of them”.

Again…

Note to anfang, Æon, Impulso Oscuro, apaosha, Jarno, Kvasir:

Explain to her how here she is the context!!! =D>

Wiggle, waggle, wiggle, waggle…

Straight up into the skyhooks.

Note to God
See what you’ve done to the dead?

Really, try to imagine Wittgenstein himself reacting to the Lyssa’s posts here!

With others on other threads, however, she actually does try to come off as a “serious philosopher”. It’s always up in the sky-high clouds, sure, but at least she doesn’t allow herself to be reduced down to the buffoon that I bring out in her.

On the other hand, she is only here during the festive holiday season. And this time she claims it’s her last. So, her humiliation at least has a light at the end of the tunnel.

Now, does the festive holiday season end on Christmas…or will she stretch the embarrassment out all the way to New Year’s Day?

Stay tuned.