The highest dialogical struggle.

[Atla]

I find this empty apodictic blather. The problems are obvious and every thinking person admits them. Whether from the obvious standpoint of all of our immediate life experience, where we have ourselves alongside the things available to us, or in the forms of the current academe, the "mind body problem" and the study of so-called "consciousness."

This is also, more interesting a problem in the form of the gradual separation in the west over two thousand five hundred years, of two forms of causality. That which stems from voluntary actions informed by the understanding, and that which stems from supposed laws of the simple or non-animate particles. There is no reconciliation of the difficulty except, perhaps, as your existence suggests by its example, in the mind of the unthinking or sub-scientific public.

You don't get it do you, that just because you couldn't solve the hard problem, that doesn't mean that no philosophy can.

After dismissing the illusion of the I vs not-I dichotomy (thus leaving Western philosophy, I mean that distinction is vital but not fundamental), it becomes pretty easy to see that the mind-body problem exists in the first place because the mental realm and the physical realm were posited to be two not one. These are two different conceptualizations of the same one thing that's neither physical nor mental nor 'neutral' between them because ther is no dichotomy to speak of.

And the childish idea of voluntary vs involuntary action is totally dependent on the I vs not-I dichotomy, there is no "I" that could take voluntary actions that would depend on or could cause a fundamental division.

You clearly are also part of the sub-scientific public as science never found a mind-body dichotomy.

[Atla]

You suspect wrong again. The ideas that there are any fundamental dichotomies, and fundamentally separate things, were refuted in the sense that there never was any evidence ever that would support these views. ...

Well apart from our whole sodding experience that is.

There is evidence for the fundamental non-separateness of things however. ...

Such as?

Who cares about how things 'seem like' initially.

As for non-separateness, physics is now arguably non-local, things are unseparable across spacetime. Also, you won't be able to give me an example where we can see that the known universe somewhere "stops" and gets separated into say two parts.

[Atla]

There are many Eastern philosophies, probably the majority are also dualistic there. Yeah pure nondual thinking is perhaps most closely approached by Zen buddhism and Advaita, and most Easterners don't understand it either. Human mind is roughly the same everywhere, and needs substantial effort to get to nondualism, which is a pretty alien form of cognition.
There is NO equivalent philosophy in Western philosophy, but Easterners usually don't realize this.

I fail to see the value of non-dualistic thinking. Why would one want to spend substantial effort to get there? I admit that I have an aesthetic approach to philosophy. There is an erotic object there that I desire. I am a theist. Many gods, many beings that turn me on. And with me it's all homoerotic. Charismatic shamanism. Hindu, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist - it's all there. I tremble at his approach. Your non-dualism strikes me as empty rationalism, so unattractive.

Theism-sexuality? I prefer women, but well then I would indeed avoid truth-seeking if I were you. I would recommend multiverse theory though because a multiverse implies infinitely many godlike beings.

Well I guess there is that popular, rather perverted form of nondualism where we posit that we are 'God' in a rather literal sense where God is the absolute being.

[tapaticmadness]

There are many Eastern philosophies, probably the majority are also dualistic there. Yeah pure nondual thinking is perhaps most closely approached by Zen buddhism and Advaita, and most Easterners don't understand it either. Human mind is roughly the same everywhere, and needs substantial effort to get to nondualism, which is a pretty alien form of cognition.
There is NO equivalent philosophy in Western philosophy, but Easterners usually don't realize this.

I fail to see the value of non-dualistic thinking. Why would one want to spend substantial effort to get there? I admit that I have an aesthetic approach to philosophy. There is an erotic object there that I desire. I am a theist. Many gods, many beings that turn me on. And with me it's all homoerotic. Charismatic shamanism. Hindu, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist - it's all there. I tremble at his approach. Your non-dualism strikes me as empty rationalism, so unattractive.

Theism-sexuality? I prefer women, but well then I would indeed avoid truth-seeking if I were you. I would recommend multiverse theory though because a multiverse implies infinitely many godlike beings.

Well I guess there is that popular, rather perverted form of nondualism where we posit that we are 'God' in a rather literal sense where God is the absolute being.

I have spent a lifetime studying the New Realism that came out of Cambridge a little over a hundred years ago. I do analytic philosophy. It's funny that you tell me to avoid truth-seeking - so snarky. Actually I like Everett's Many-world theory. I just finished reading Sean Carroll's new book on that. I would never posit that we are God. I don't even know what that would mean. In Hindu philosophy I rather like Vaisheshika, a type of direct realism. I'm sure it's not your thing at all. I also like to learn about the old ideas of the yogi, which are so different from today's Yoga meditation. And you, as a heterosexualist, surely would not find much of interest in the great amount of homoerotic mystical literature written by males in every religions. I obviously have nothing against your attempt at a non-dual view of things. I just look at it as something I would not want to do myself. Good luck with that.

[Skepdick]

I have spent a lifetime studying the New Realism that came out of Cambridge a little over a hundred years ago. I do analytic philosophy. It's funny that you tell me to avoid truth-seeking - so snarky.

Have you considered Quine's perspective? If he is correct, then the entire notion of analyticity is circular.

Then it's not so much a warning to avoid truth-seeking, it's a warning to avoid truth-seeking using an analytic approach.
And that does not imply the continental/synthetic way is the "right way" either. Continental and analytic philosophy are birds of a feather - yet another false dichotomy.

If truth is to be found anywhere, it's the middle way between analytics and synthetics.

[tapaticmadness]

I have spent a lifetime studying the New Realism that came out of Cambridge a little over a hundred years ago. I do analytic philosophy. It's funny that you tell me to avoid truth-seeking - so snarky.

Have you considered Quine's perspective? If he is correct, then the entire notion of analyticity is circular.

Then it's not so much a warning to avoid truth-seeking, it's a warning to avoid truth-seeking using an analytic approach.
And that does not imply the continental/synthetic way is the "right way" either. Continental and analytic philosophy are birds of a feather - yet another false dichotomy.

If truth is to be found anywhere, it's the middle way between analytics and synthetics.

Yes, of course I know Quine, He and the philosopher I follow were always debating. He is a nominalist and Bergmann is a realist. Quine is the opposite of my philosophy and he, like you, looked to undo the analytic synthetic division. Quine is also a holist. I can see why you might like Quine. He represents one of the two great streams of thought that came out of early analysis. I actually take Bergmann's realism and make it more extreme. I would say more about that but I think you are probably not interested. Like Plato I unite the mathematical and the erotic. Also I am a Christian and I consider Christianity to be extreme Realism, a type of Platonism. Madness.

[tapaticmadness]

I have spent a lifetime studying the New Realism that came out of Cambridge a little over a hundred years ago. I do analytic philosophy. It's funny that you tell me to avoid truth-seeking - so snarky.

Have you considered Quine's perspective? If he is correct, then the entire notion of analyticity is circular.

Then it's not so much a warning to avoid truth-seeking, it's a warning to avoid truth-seeking using an analytic approach.
And that does not imply the continental/synthetic way is the "right way" either. Continental and analytic philosophy are birds of a feather - yet another false dichotomy.

If truth is to be found anywhere, it's the middle way between analytics and synthetics.

" ... a warning to avoid truth-seeking using an analytic approach." I want to say a word or two about analysis. To analyze is to take something apart into its fundamental ontological elements. It is to cut it to pieces, thus it is sacrifice, a killing. Analysis is violence, intellectual/spiritual violence. Popular philosophy today hates analysis because it is just that impersonal killing. And it preaches morality at analytical cutting, killing, blood-letting. I am a priest in the cutting ritual. And I am its victim.

After the cutting is finished, the element is lifted up, ana-thema. It is holy. And you eat it. the body and blood of Christ.

Ontological things hang on the cheek of night in perfect stillness. In Eternity. The movement of life is gone. We are here on the other side of death. Everything stops.

[TheVisionofEr]

I find this empty apodictic blather. The problems are obvious and every thinking person admits them. Whether from the obvious standpoint of all of our immediate life experience, where we have ourselves alongside the things available to us, or in the forms of the current academe, the "mind body problem" and the study of so-called "consciousness."

This is also, more interesting a problem in the form of the gradual separation in the west over two thousand five hundred years, of two forms of causality. That which stems from voluntary actions informed by the understanding, and that which stems from supposed laws of the simple or non-animate particles. There is no reconciliation of the difficulty except, perhaps, as your existence suggests by its example, in the mind of the unthinking or sub-scientific public.

You don't get it do you, that just because you couldn't solve the hard problem, that doesn't mean that no philosophy can.

After dismissing the illusion of the I vs not-I dichotomy (thus leaving Western philosophy, I mean that distinction is vital but not fundamental), it becomes pretty easy to see that the mind-body problem exists in the first place because the mental realm and the physical realm were posited to be two not one. These are two different conceptualizations of the same one thing that's neither physical nor mental nor 'neutral' between them because ther is no dichotomy to speak of.

And the childish idea of voluntary vs involuntary action is totally dependent on the I vs not-I dichotomy, there is no "I" that could take voluntary actions that would depend on or could cause a fundamental division.

You clearly are also part of the sub-scientific public as science never found a mind-body dichotomy.

You don't get it do you, that just because you couldn't solve the hard problem, that doesn't mean that no philosophy can.

It depends on how we understand philosophy. In Heidegger the view is that philosophy or science started with the suppressed presupposition that being is something available to human beings. And claims to overcome this attitude by giving up philosophy or science.

After dismissing the illusion of the I vs not-I dichotomy (thus leaving Western philosophy, I mean that distinction is vital but not fundamental), it becomes pretty easy to see that the mind-body problem exists in the first place because the mental realm and the physical realm were posited to be two not one. These are two different conceptualizations of the same one thing that's neither physical nor mental nor 'neutral' between them because ther is no dichotomy to speak of.

It’s not clear how we derive the sense of the distinction between illusion and reality. If we start from common sense we start from some form of the division. It’s not clear what the standard for convincing ourselves that our common sense view is wrong or has been improved upon, and correspondingly climbing up to reality, is supposed to be.

And the childish idea of voluntary vs involuntary action is totally dependent on the I vs not-I dichotomy, there is no "I" that could take voluntary actions that would depend on or could cause a fundamental division.

We’re seemingly compelled to make that distinction from the common sense attitude, or from our daily lives. Whether someone does a thing on purpose or accidentally matters a great deal to us in daily life. Also, the distinction between animal reflexes and complex actions based on pondering or thinking over a situation has a great practical meaning. When Newton came out with his calculus they asked him how did you do it? He answered, I did nothing but think about the universe for 20 years. The combination of thinking and action is very compelling form the ordinary point of view. It’s not obvious how we get the ground to assert that life is simply an illusion. It seems to make more sense to regard such a pronouncement as a helpful or useful way of modeling the world, or a working hypothesis that is not true.

You clearly are also part of the sub-scientific public as science never found a mind-body dichotomy.

Only through a selective understanding of the word science until it means not science, not understanding of reality, but external observation of how an object moves. This observation can only be carried out by the “subject.” The division creates itself. Otherwise when we speak of illusions we have to go back to the common sense understanding of illusion which is supposed to be the low ground of opinion out of which one is meant to climb to the peak of knowledge.

[tapaticmadness]

I have spent a lifetime studying the New Realism that came out of Cambridge a little over a hundred years ago. I do analytic philosophy. It's funny that you tell me to avoid truth-seeking - so snarky.

Have you considered Quine's perspective? If he is correct, then the entire notion of analyticity is circular.

Then it's not so much a warning to avoid truth-seeking, it's a warning to avoid truth-seeking using an analytic approach.
And that does not imply the continental/synthetic way is the "right way" either. Continental and analytic philosophy are birds of a feather - yet another false dichotomy.

If truth is to be found anywhere, it's the middle way between analytics and synthetics.

Please tell me more about that middle way you are referring to. I find this topic very interesting. And I do have quite a bit to say about it.

[Atla]

It depends on how we understand philosophy. In Heidegger the view is that philosophy or science started with the suppressed presupposition that being is something available to human beings. And claims to overcome this attitude by giving up philosophy or science.

Being (existence) isn't something available "to" human beings, it just is. Human beings are part of / one with existence.

It’s not clear how we derive the sense of the distinction between illusion and reality. If we start from common sense we start from some form of the division. It’s not clear what the standard for convincing ourselves that our common sense view is wrong or has been improved upon, and correspondingly climbing up to reality, is supposed to be.

Common sense is irrelevant. If we actually look for that special autonomous "I", for "ourselves", we won't be able to find it anywhere, we can only find thoughts in the head stating that they are the "I".
Since that "something extra" was not found, the autonomous "I" is illusory, it has no special status. It's a psychological structure in the head.

We’re seemingly compelled to make that distinction from the common sense attitude, or from our daily lives. Whether someone does a thing on purpose or accidentally matters a great deal to us in daily life. Also, the distinction between animal reflexes and complex actions based on pondering or thinking over a situation has a great practical meaning. When Newton came out with his calculus they asked him how did you do it? He answered, I did nothing but think about the universe for 20 years. The combination of thinking and action is very compelling form the ordinary point of view. It’s not obvious how we get the ground to assert that life is simply an illusion. It seems to make more sense to regard such a pronouncement as a helpful or useful way of modeling the world, or a working hypothesis that is not true.

Common sense is irrelevant.
I did not say that "life is an illusion", only that the distinction between voluntary and involuntary action is fundamentally an illusion. But of course it's an extremely important everyday psychological distinction.
How do you propose to make progress in philosophy if we keep mixing the fundamental issue with the important/necessary everyday convention.

Only through a selective understanding of the word science until it means not science, not understanding of reality, but external observation of how an object moves. This observation can only be carried out by the “subject.” The division creates itself. Otherwise when we speak of illusions we have to go back to the common sense understanding of illusion which is supposed to be the low ground of opinion out of which one is meant to climb to the peak of knowledge.

That's just simple circular reasoning. You define observation as requiring a subject, and you define a subject capable of making observations.
There is no subject-object dichotomy in the first place. Again, very useful/necessary everyday conventions, but when we get down to fundamental philosophy, such circular reasoning is to be discarded.

[tapaticmadness]

Existence is a thing. Some things have it and some things don't. Non-existence is a thing. Some things have it and some things don't. There is no such thing as "the whole of existence". Thingness is a thing and some things have it. The "whole of existence" does not have thingness. It is an unthing and it has non-existence. Here at the limits of analysis the magicians prowl.

[TheVisionofEr]

It depends on how we understand philosophy. In Heidegger the view is that philosophy or science started with the suppressed presupposition that being is something available to human beings. And claims to overcome this attitude by giving up philosophy or science.

Being (existence) isn't something available "to" human beings, it just is. Human beings are part of / one with existence.

It’s not clear how we derive the sense of the distinction between illusion and reality. If we start from common sense we start from some form of the division. It’s not clear what the standard for convincing ourselves that our common sense view is wrong or has been improved upon, and correspondingly climbing up to reality, is supposed to be.

Common sense is irrelevant. If we actually look for that special autonomous "I", for "ourselves", we won't be able to find it anywhere, we can only find thoughts in the head stating that they are the "I".
Since that "something extra" was not found, the autonomous "I" is illusory, it has no special status. It's a psychological structure in the head.

We’re seemingly compelled to make that distinction from the common sense attitude, or from our daily lives. Whether someone does a thing on purpose or accidentally matters a great deal to us in daily life. Also, the distinction between animal reflexes and complex actions based on pondering or thinking over a situation has a great practical meaning. When Newton came out with his calculus they asked him how did you do it? He answered, I did nothing but think about the universe for 20 years. The combination of thinking and action is very compelling form the ordinary point of view. It’s not obvious how we get the ground to assert that life is simply an illusion. It seems to make more sense to regard such a pronouncement as a helpful or useful way of modeling the world, or a working hypothesis that is not true.

Common sense is irrelevant.
I did not say that "life is an illusion", only that the distinction between voluntary and involuntary action is fundamentally an illusion. But of course it's an extremely important everyday psychological distinction.
How do you propose to make progress in philosophy if we keep mixing the fundamental issue with the important/necessary everyday convention.

Only through a selective understanding of the word science until it means not science, not understanding of reality, but external observation of how an object moves. This observation can only be carried out by the “subject.” The division creates itself. Otherwise when we speak of illusions we have to go back to the common sense understanding of illusion which is supposed to be the low ground of opinion out of which one is meant to climb to the peak of knowledge.

--

Being (existence) isn't something available "to" human beings, it just is. Human beings are part of / one with existence.

There can’t be a science without an object. Science can take existing things for its object and then make laws about them. It can’t take being for an object of knowledge or action.

Common sense is irrelevant.

The point is we have a starting point. We are born into common sense (or, that could be called by another name). It's unreasonable to deny that. We later learn things, or imagine ourselves to learn things, as in classrooms.

If we actually look for that special autonomous "I", for "ourselves", we won't be able to find it anywhere, we can only find thoughts in the head stating that they are the "I".

That’s why they speak of consciousness. Consciousness isn’t an ego. In Dennett we find everything as his object, or the object of his theory, including consciousness. That is western metaphysics or object theory in a pure or extreme form.

How do you propose to make progress in philosophy if we keep mixing the fundamental issue with the important/necessary everyday convention.

The progress implies getting closer to the truth, or an improvement over the starting place. The everyday is the starting place. We can’t seemingly dispense with it. We live in it. Many problems arise from that. It’s not cogent to say a supposed “knowledge” that is destructive to our real lives is really knowledge. It’s questionable that knowledge that isn’t good for human beings is really knowledge at all. Knowledge seems to imply something that helps human beings.

You define observation as requiring a subject, and you define a subject capable of making observations.

I don’t see any sense to this. This is sophistry, or, put another way, it is unreasonable talk. We do observe. Observation is an action. An action must have something acted upon.

What sophists try to do is show that reason, or the reasonable account, is in error by the standard of some form of abstract intelligibility such as “logic.”

[Atla]

There can’t be a science without an object. Science can take existing things for its object and then make laws about them. It can’t take being for an object of knowledge or action.

Not sure what you are saying. Of course existence itself isn't a "thing", and science doesn't need separate things either.

The point is we have a starting point. We are born into common sense (or, that could be called by another name). It's unreasonable to deny that. We later learn things, or imagine ourselves to learn things, as in classrooms.

The progress implies getting closer to the truth, or an improvement over the starting place. The everyday is the starting place. We can’t seemingly dispense with it. We live in it. Many problems arise from that. It’s not cogent to say a supposed “knowledge” that is destructive to our real lives is really knowledge. It’s questionable that knowledge that isn’t good for human beings is really knowledge at all. Knowledge seems to imply something that helps human beings.

How did you write something that odd about knowledge? Basic "truth" has nothing to do with helping humans. Working out a good everyday philosophy that helps humans is a different matter.

In some issues, common sense gets eventually thrown out the window, doesn't really matter how things 'seem' to our human mind, which evolved for survival not understanding.

That’s why they speak of consciousness. Consciousness isn’t an ego. In Dennett we find everything as his object, or the object of his theory, including consciousness. That is western metaphysics or object theory in a pure or extreme form.

Dennett is arguably insane, he is denying qualia and possibly the constant 'subjective' first-person perspective.
There are no separate objects, and there is no objectivity without subjectivity, if we are to make that distinction.

I don’t see any sense to this. This is sophistry, or, put another way, it is unreasonable talk. We do observe. Observation is an action. An action must have something acted upon.

What sophists try to do is show that reason, or the reasonable account, is in error by the standard of some form of abstract intelligibility such as “logic.”

You are just insisting that an arbitrary circular reasoning has anything to do with "truth". Again, are you confusing "truth" with what's a useful convention for helping humans, isn't that more like what sophistry is?

Technically there is no special 'I', that could take that special action of observation, and there is no special 'something' that this would act upon. That's just circular nonsense.

[tapaticmadness]

[quote=Atla post_id=446452 time=1584056986 user_id=15497

Of course existence itself isn't a "thing",

[/quote]

If existence itself isn't a "thing", then how do you ontologically account for the fact that some things exist and other things don't. I don't think you can. I am not talking about "all existing things". I am talking about existence itself aside from existing things. I admit that we are here close to what cannot be thought or spoken and I should perhaps heed Wittgenstein's admonition to pass over all this in silence, nonetheless, ... .

[TheVisionofEr]

There can’t be a science without an object. Science can take existing things for its object and then make laws about them. It can’t take being for an object of knowledge or action.

Not sure what you are saying. Of course existence itself isn't a "thing", and science doesn't need separate things either.

The point is we have a starting point. We are born into common sense (or, that could be called by another name). It's unreasonable to deny that. We later learn things, or imagine ourselves to learn things, as in classrooms.

The progress implies getting closer to the truth, or an improvement over the starting place. The everyday is the starting place. We can’t seemingly dispense with it. We live in it. Many problems arise from that. It’s not cogent to say a supposed “knowledge” that is destructive to our real lives is really knowledge. It’s questionable that knowledge that isn’t good for human beings is really knowledge at all. Knowledge seems to imply something that helps human beings.

How did you write something that odd about knowledge? Basic "truth" has nothing to do with helping humans. Working out a good everyday philosophy that helps humans is a different matter.

In some issues, common sense gets eventually thrown out the window, doesn't really matter how things 'seem' to our human mind, which evolved for survival not understanding.

That’s why they speak of consciousness. Consciousness isn’t an ego. In Dennett we find everything as his object, or the object of his theory, including consciousness. That is western metaphysics or object theory in a pure or extreme form.

Dennett is arguably insane, he is denying qualia and possibly the constant 'subjective' first-person perspective.
There are no separate objects, and there is no objectivity without subjectivity, if we are to make that distinction.

I don’t see any sense to this. This is sophistry, or, put another way, it is unreasonable talk. We do observe. Observation is an action. An action must have something acted upon.

What sophists try to do is show that reason, or the reasonable account, is in error by the standard of some form of abstract intelligibility such as “logic.”

You are just insisting that an arbitrary circular reasoning has anything to do with "truth". Again, are you confusing "truth" with what's a useful convention for helping humans, isn't that more like what sophistry is?

Technically there is no special 'I', that could take that special action of observation, and there is no special 'something' that this would act upon. That's just circular nonsense.

“How did you write something that odd about knowledge? Basic "truth" has nothing to do with helping humans.”

Then it isn’t truth. It’s a cloudburst of meaninglessness in the form of a ginormous flush of information.

I mean, why is philosophy/science popular? It is because of the impression that it produces inventions that are conquering the environment, and, the human body. And that it is going to therefore hand the ability or techniques that improve human life and bring about happiness to humans. Otherwise it would be a childish intelectual game of collecting a kind of garbage heap of worthless information.

“Working out a good everyday philosophy that helps humans is a different matter.”

The two can’t be separated for thoughtful people. The biggest difficulty in our own time is the forgetfulness of where we stand in the evolution of our own concepts. Concepts in their tangible form are possibilities. When philosophy becomes technology it becomes the possibility of what I wrote above. As a suppressed instinctive belief about progress towards happiness for human beings.

“In some issues, common sense gets eventually thrown out the window, doesn't really matter how things 'seem' to our human mind, which evolved for survival not understanding.”

Is there supposed to be some other mind that understands the information linked to the technology creation?

Think of a mathematician who makes the generic claim that math is “the language of the universe,” never mind that he doesn’t likely know the origin of this statement in Galileo’s understanding of mechanics. When was there someone whose first language was math? Entirely impossible. Math exists only for someone with a common sense, which has been received in the first year of life, and is part of the reception of an evolution of thinking.

The mathamatical thinking can never replace reality in the way it is interpreted by ordinary understanding. It stands inside it as a sort of problem-solving tool in the service of ordinary understanding.

“You are just insisting that an arbitrary circular reasoning has anything to do with "truth".”

It’s not arbitrary so far as arbitrary means without reason. It is reasonable to start with the common sense meaning of truth. Truth is what if we know it we are better off. Any other definition is arbitrary or in the service of a specific limited project which itself is ultimitly meant to serve the first understanding.

We start from common sense meanings, but common sense sometimes has several meanings of the same terms. Then we may try to discern which is the main or core meaning. As in Aristotle in book 5 of the metaphysics with the term phusis or “nature.” The question we have to ask is if we are genuinely improving common sense through philosophy/science. Everything depends on that, and on discovering a standard there.

All reasoning is circular, by the way. The only issue that can be seriously raised is when someone does not find it elucidates some matter. If I don’t know what someone means by the phrase “term of art,” and I say, it means the same as “technical term” this might be all they need, provided they already know what technical term means.