The Paradox of "Trying to Make Sense"

[Eodnhoj7]

1. The intent contradicts the observation. If I am looking for a contradiction I am looking for the boundaries of what makes sense...these boundaries makes what is sensible clearer as they are its limits. A contradiction is the limits of sense thus allowing sense to be what it is...sense is dependent on nonsense.

It's interesting, in this formulation. But again, I think one is looking to see IF there is a contradiction OR NOT. The intent is open. I'm also not sure if it is 'nonsense' we find. We think there is X always where there is Y. We look to see if this is true. But then we find Y without X. Our intention is met. We find something that contradicts our hypothesis. It's not nonsense, it's just reality, in this case, was more complicated than our hypothesis. We succeeded in finding out if our hypothesis held. It didn't. We also found Y without X. We know more.

2. You misunderstand...if one is trying to make sense of the world then the world does not make sense, otherwise they would not be trying to make sense of it if it already made sense.

1) You're shifting a relation to a fact about the world. People do not formulate and test hypothesis' if sense is already made.
Yes, you can phrase it as 'the world doesn't make sense'. But really this means 'the world doesn't make sense to me (yet)'
'I don't understand some facet of the world.'
But you've shifted the meaning to 'the world doesn't make sense.' Which implies or actually states that the world doesn't make sense.

It's an equivocation. The verb 'to make sense' means to find out something, perhaps something that we find hard to understand.

You're sliding from that to
The world is such that it doesn't make sense - it has built in contradictions (even if no observer what there).

There can also be a conflation between someone understands something and something is logically unsound.
There is also the meaning of communicating in a way that is intelligible.

It might be better to use 'understand' as the verb because I think these various meanings of 'make sense' are not helping.

We have limited understanding. We create hypotheses about the world. Some seem to hold and also predict stuff well. We move forward.

3. I sense that there is nonsense and this nonsense does not make sense thus what I sense is nonsense and the duality between the two is a paradox that leads to the acceptance of nonsense for what it is or is not.

I don't think 'nonsense' is a necessary part of the learning process.

1. If what we find contradicts our hypothesis, or intent for that matter, then knowledge is dependent upon contradiction.

2. "Yet" is a belief and a belief it an attempt to make sense without knowing what we are trying to make sense of.

3. That fact that something is founded, sense in this case, requires that fact that it was not found before it was found. This absence of being found is the absence of sense. Considering we are continually trying to find things, and finding them, means the world always has a senseless element to it.

4. Our limited understanding necessitates the world we know to be founded on what is not sensed, i.e. "non-sense".

[Iwannaplato]

1. If what we find contradicts our hypothesis, or intent for that matter, then knowledge is dependent upon contradiction.

Yes, we can learn from counterevidence. And we can learn from supporting evidence. We can make sense of things in both cases.

2. "Yet" is a belief and a belief it an attempt to make sense without knowing what we are trying to make sense of.

Yes, there's something new when we learn things and make sense of things. And we do make sense of things, just as you are trying to here.

3. That fact that something is founded, sense in this case, requires that fact that it was not found before it was found. This absence of being found is the absence of sense.

There are things we don't know and some of these we learn. That isn't an absence of sense.

Considering we are continually trying to find things, and finding them, means the world always has a senseless element to it.

That's not the way 'senseless' is generally used, but sure, there are things we don't know. There is an element of not knowing everything. But that's not a paradox.

4. Our limited understanding necessitates the world we know to be founded on what is not sensed, i.e. "non-sense".

We get curious about things and try to figure them out. Sometimes we do, sometimes we don't.

[Eodnhoj7]

1. If what we find contradicts our hypothesis, or intent for that matter, then knowledge is dependent upon contradiction.

Yes, we can learn from counterevidence. And we can learn from supporting evidence. We can make sense of things in both cases.

2. "Yet" is a belief and a belief it an attempt to make sense without knowing what we are trying to make sense of.

Yes, there's something new when we learn things and make sense of things. And we do make sense of things, just as you are trying to here.

3. That fact that something is founded, sense in this case, requires that fact that it was not found before it was found. This absence of being found is the absence of sense.

There are things we don't know and some of these we learn. That isn't an absence of sense.

Considering we are continually trying to find things, and finding them, means the world always has a senseless element to it.

That's not the way 'senseless' is generally used, but sure, there are things we don't know. There is an element of not knowing everything. But that's not a paradox.

4. Our limited understanding necessitates the world we know to be founded on what is not sensed, i.e. "non-sense".

We get curious about things and try to figure them out. Sometimes we do, sometimes we don't.

1. But that "making sense" in the matter of a failed hypothesis is grounded on the contradiction between the hypothesis and that which is sensed.

2. Contradiction does not make sense always, these arguments unsensify things as they point to the contradictions. The fact that we do make sense of things, and do this continually, always necessitates a first absence of sense (other wise we would not have to make sense of things if they already made sense) but furthermore the fact that we do this continually necessitates a continual absence of sense.

3. If there are things we don't know this is an absence of sense.

4. We only know what we sense, whether it be empirical or abstract sense, and under these terms a distinction between sense and knowing cannot be entirely made.

5. And when we "don't" we have an absence of sense.

[Iwannaplato]

1. But that "making sense" in the matter of a failed hypothesis is grounded on the contradiction between the hypothesis and that which is sensed.

Sure. The hypothesis was disconfirmed. That's great. Now you know something.

2. Contradiction does not make sense always, these arguments unsensify things as they point to the contradictions. The fact that we do make sense of things, and do this continually, always necessitates a first absence of sense (other wise we would not have to make sense of things if they already made sense) but furthermore the fact that we do this continually necessitates a continual absence of sense.

Or we're full of curiosity and look around to find out stuff. In any case there's no contradiction. I don't think the curious state is the absence of sense. I think you are befuddling yourself with overgeneralizations and taking parts for wholes.

3. If there are things we don't know this is an absence of sense.

No, not knowing everything is not the absence of sense.

5. And when we "don't" we have an absence of sense.

You lecture a lot for someone who thinks he has no sense. You disagree with certain states despite thinking you have/are an absence of sense.

On what grounds do you disagree?

[Eodnhoj7]

1. But that "making sense" in the matter of a failed hypothesis is grounded on the contradiction between the hypothesis and that which is sensed.

Sure. The hypothesis was disconfirmed. That's great. Now you know something.

2. Contradiction does not make sense always, these arguments unsensify things as they point to the contradictions. The fact that we do make sense of things, and do this continually, always necessitates a first absence of sense (other wise we would not have to make sense of things if they already made sense) but furthermore the fact that we do this continually necessitates a continual absence of sense.

Or we're full of curiosity and look around to find out stuff. In any case there's no contradiction. I don't think the curious state is the absence of sense. I think you are befuddling yourself with overgeneralizations and taking parts for wholes.

3. If there are things we don't know this is an absence of sense.

No, not knowing everything is not the absence of sense.

5. And when we "don't" we have an absence of sense.

You lecture a lot for someone who thinks he has no sense. You disagree with certain states despite thinking you have/are an absence of sense.

On what grounds do you disagree?

1. Because the hypothesis contradicts what was observed.

2. If one is curious about something then that mean they do not know what they are curious about otherwise they would not be looking for answers. The fact that one is looking for answers means one does not know the answers. This absence of knowing answers is an absence of sense.

3. We only know what we can sense empirically or abstractly as the act of sense is the impression of forms upon an unknowing state. To be impressed upon by something results in the act of it being sensed.

4. You lecture alot about lecturing others. If I disagree with someone, while claiming I have an absence of sense, then all I am doing is stating that what the other claims is not giving me an form of 'sensicality', or the ability to make sense, and this only points to the absurdity of the other's claims.

[Iwannaplato]

1. Because the hypothesis contradicts what was observed.

And now you have one that isn't. Forward motion. I'd probably also say the observed didn't fit the hyposthesis.

2. If one is curious about something then that mean they do not know what they are curious about otherwise they would not be looking for answers.

I always know what I'm curious about. I don't know what this curiosity will lead to.

The fact that one is looking for answers means one does not know the answers.

Yup.

This absence of knowing answers is an absence of sense.

You have a very negative way of seeing things. Curiosity is a very full experience for me. No part of me is empty. Not one cell. No vaccuum anywhere. Your finding ways to make up negatives with the great creativity that is offered by language.

3. We only know what we can sense empirically or abstractly as the act of sense is the impression of forms upon an unknowing state. To be impressed upon by something results in the act of it being sensed.

Perception is not passive. We think we are not quite like bats, but we are much more like bats then we often realize. Spitting sounds at things, changing angles - and this even when we are not more actively interacting with things and affecting them as we perceive them. Then inside we are aiming predictive guesses out, using memories...it's all very active and creative. The old model of perception with photons entering the eye in impressionist painting globs is not how we perceive. We are not merely impinged upon.

4. You lecture alot about lecturing others.

I don't know if I do do it a lot, but it's consistent with my position. You keep arguing about communication as this contradictory, negative, not getting anywhere process. That does not fit with the behavior of lecturing.

I'd point out someone was talking a lot if they kept saying no one listens. I'd wonder if they are aware that what they are doing does nto seem to fit with what they are telling me. Their actions do not fit their words. You seem pretty clearly to think one thing and behave as if it wasn't true.

I think a Zen monk would have hit you with his keisaku. He might well agree with you about communication but wonder if you believe what you are saying and think it makes more sense to be silent.

If I disagree with someone, while claiming I have an absence of sense, then all I am doing is stating that what the other claims is not giving me an form of 'sensicality', or the ability to make sense, and this only points to the absurdity of the other's claims.

Ah, so you can communicate, but not others. You can make sense, but not others.

[Eodnhoj7]

1. Because the hypothesis contradicts what was observed.

And now you have one that isn't. Forward motion. I'd probably also say the observed didn't fit the hyposthesis.

2. If one is curious about something then that mean they do not know what they are curious about otherwise they would not be looking for answers.

I always know what I'm curious about. I don't know what this curiosity will lead to.

The fact that one is looking for answers means one does not know the answers.

Yup.

This absence of knowing answers is an absence of sense.

You have a very negative way of seeing things. Curiosity is a very full experience for me. No part of me is empty. Not one cell. No vaccuum anywhere. Your finding ways to make up negatives with the great creativity that is offered by language.

3. We only know what we can sense empirically or abstractly as the act of sense is the impression of forms upon an unknowing state. To be impressed upon by something results in the act of it being sensed.

Perception is not passive. We think we are not quite like bats, but we are much more like bats then we often realize. Spitting sounds at things, changing angles - and this even when we are not more actively interacting with things and affecting them as we perceive them. Then inside we are aiming predictive guesses out, using memories...it's all very active and creative. The old model of perception with photons entering the eye in impressionist painting globs is not how we perceive. We are not merely impinged upon.

4. You lecture alot about lecturing others.

I don't know if I do do it a lot, but it's consistent with my position. You keep arguing about communication as this contradictory, negative, not getting anywhere process. That does not fit with the behavior of lecturing.

I'd point out someone was talking a lot if they kept saying no one listens. I'd wonder if they are aware that what they are doing does nto seem to fit with what they are telling me. Their actions do not fit their words. You seem pretty clearly to think one thing and behave as if it wasn't true.

I think a Zen monk would have hit you with his keisaku. He might well agree with you about communication but wonder if you believe what you are saying and think it makes more sense to be silent.

If I disagree with someone, while claiming I have an absence of sense, then all I am doing is stating that what the other claims is not giving me an form of 'sensicality', or the ability to make sense, and this only points to the absurdity of the other's claims.

Ah, so you can communicate, but not others. You can make sense, but not others.

1. The fact that a further non-contradictory hypothesis is grounded in a contradictory hypothesis makes non-contradiction grounded in contradiction.

2. If you are curious about a thing then you do not know it.

3. Emptiness is only negative if one values it as negative as values are relative because of there subjectivity. Emptiness is neither positive nor negative. Your claim of continual curiosity necessitates an emptiness of the answers to that which you are curious about.

4. If perception is not passive then we would not be impressed by the things we are not looking for. To avoid going down a rabbit whole, or we can go down if you wish, perception is also active.

5. The behavior of lecturing is contradictory as many people have differing viewpoints that they lecture and as such not all lecturers agree. I am not lecturing however, I am debating and discussing on a forum. You don't have to read my threads, no one is forcing you.

6. If I am pointing to the emptiness of things then the emptiness of my words have the same meaning as silence. Besides the clunk of the monk's stick would break his vow of silence as his swinging of the stick at my head is a form of communication.

7. No, I am pointing out how my arguments result in non-sense. I am also pointing out how others result in non-sense. I am pointing out how everyone does not make sense upon further analysis....there is no favoritism.

[Iwannaplato]

1. The fact that a further non-contradictory hypothesis is grounded in a contradictory hypothesis makes non-contradiction grounded in contradiction.

Which doesn't matter, we find out stuff. And 'grounded' is misleading.

2. If you are curious about a thing then you do not know it.

Well, I know something and I want more.

3. Emptiness is only negative if one values it as negative as values are relative because of there subjectivity. Emptiness is neither positive nor negative. Your claim of continual curiosity necessitates an emptiness of the answers to that which you are curious about.

No, sorry. Curiosity is just fullness. There is no emptiness in me at all.

4. If perception is not passive then we would not be impressed by the things we are not looking for. To avoid going down a rabbit whole, or we can go down if you wish, perception is also active.

Yes, it is not just passive.

5. The behavior of lecturing is contradictory as many people have differing viewpoints that they lecture and as such not all lecturers agree. I am not lecturing however, I am debating and discussing on a forum. You don't have to read my threads, no one is forcing you.

I haven't said or implied someone is forcing me. I was pointing out that you don't seem to believe what you say.

6. If I am pointing to the emptiness of things then the emptiness of my words have the same meaning as silence. Besides the clunk of the monk's stick would break his vow of silence as his swinging of the stick at my head is a form of communication.

Sure and so would giving a student a koan or breathing. It's not so binary.

7. No, I am pointing out how my arguments result in non-sense.

Poorly then.

I am also pointing out how others result in non-sense. I am pointing out how everyone does not make sense upon further analysis....there is no favoritism.

Perhaps upon your analysis, and then in parallel, people go on making sense on many occasions.

[Eodnhoj7]

1. The fact that a further non-contradictory hypothesis is grounded in a contradictory hypothesis makes non-contradiction grounded in contradiction.

Which doesn't matter, we find out stuff. And 'grounded' is misleading.

2. If you are curious about a thing then you do not know it.

Well, I know something and I want more.

3. Emptiness is only negative if one values it as negative as values are relative because of there subjectivity. Emptiness is neither positive nor negative. Your claim of continual curiosity necessitates an emptiness of the answers to that which you are curious about.

No, sorry. Curiosity is just fullness. There is no emptiness in me at all.

4. If perception is not passive then we would not be impressed by the things we are not looking for. To avoid going down a rabbit whole, or we can go down if you wish, perception is also active.

Yes, it is not just passive.

5. The behavior of lecturing is contradictory as many people have differing viewpoints that they lecture and as such not all lecturers agree. I am not lecturing however, I am debating and discussing on a forum. You don't have to read my threads, no one is forcing you.

I haven't said or implied someone is forcing me. I was pointing out that you don't seem to believe what you say.

6. If I am pointing to the emptiness of things then the emptiness of my words have the same meaning as silence. Besides the clunk of the monk's stick would break his vow of silence as his swinging of the stick at my head is a form of communication.

Sure and so would giving a student a koan or breathing. It's not so binary.

7. No, I am pointing out how my arguments result in non-sense.

Poorly then.

I am also pointing out how others result in non-sense. I am pointing out how everyone does not make sense upon further analysis....there is no favoritism.

Perhaps upon your analysis, and then in parallel, people go on making sense on many occasions.

1. And finding out more requires contradiction....

2. But you do not know what you are curious about.

3. Curiosity necessitates an emptiness of answers.

4. Agreed.

5. If I am pointing to the contradictions of things then whatever results from the arguments/discussions will result in absurdity. I am pointing towards the act of unknowing.

6. Who said reality is binary or not? Reality is neither non-dualistic nor dualistic.

7. So my arguments do not end in non-sense?

8. All that makes sense is dependent upon a state that is beyond sense. I can observe a tree, analyze it continually, and eventually I have to stop the analysis on a point where I just believe 'the tree is composed of x'.