There are infallible documents

[Dr Faustus]

Utility functions are based on the users of reality, not on reality.

Reality of “users”, “users” are part of reality. there is no such thing as absolute knowledge. knowledge is the work of concrete beings, not of a universal consciousness floating in the air.

If there is no absolute knowledge, then the knowledge that there is "no absolute knowledge" is not absolute thus relative and as relative is sometimes true and sometimes false thus necessitating absolute truth as relative as absolute truth is contextual.

logolatry is one idolatry among others.

At a certain stage, a choice must be made between the confusion of thought and reality on the one hand, and difference between them on the other

[Skepdick]

At a certain stage, a choice must be made between the confusion of thought and reality on the one hand, and difference between them on the other

Reality of “users”, “users” are part of reality.

At what point do we come to recognize that having your cake; and eating it too is what you really want?

Unification of the users with reality.
Distinction between the user's knowledge and reality.

[Dr Faustus]

At a certain stage, a choice must be made between the confusion of thought and reality on the one hand, and difference between them on the other

Reality of “users”, “users” are part of reality.

At what point do we come to recognize that having your cake; and eating it too is what you really want?

Unification of the users with reality.
Distinction between the user's knowledge and reality.

The part is not identical to the whole. The subject is not identical to object.
Human knowledge has its limits, limits of human kinds.

[Skepdick]

The part is not identical to the whole. The subject is not identical to object.
Human knowledge has its limits, limits of human kinds.

Obviously... so I have no idea why you insisted on the unification when there's clearly a limiting function at play.

Reality of “users”, “users” are part of reality.

Meanwhile the subject/object distinction isn't all that useful when the subject is the object of inquiry.

In the domain of meta-cognition the subject is, in fact, identical with the object.

[Dr Faustus]

The part is not identical to the whole. The subject is not identical to object.
Human knowledge has its limits, limits of human kinds.

Obviously... so I have no idea why you insisted on the unification when there's clearly a limiting function at play.

Reality of “users”, “users” are part of reality.

Meanwhile the subject/object distinction isn't all that useful when the subject is the object of inquiry.

In the domain of meta-cognition the subject is, in fact, identical with the object.

"Unification of users with reality"

I am not sure I understand what that means.

As i interpret it, is it what I was pointing out ? In a way yes, there is a sort of common sense for "users" yes, even if I don't like this term. I think that this has been the inquiry of philosophers at least since the 17th century.

How can we conceive any dialogue and live among the others without any common sense ?

Meta-cognition is not really meta. This is just cognition of cognition. So, we can't really say that subject is really identical to the object here. We can say that there is a subject who analyses himself, his consciousness as an object, as if it is not him. That reminds me The transcendance of ego of Sartre. He hypostasized consciousness in some way. This is weird when we think about it seriously.

[Skepdick]

Meta-cognition is not really meta. This is just cognition of cognition. So, we can't really say that subject is really identical to the object here. We can say that there is a subject who analyses himself, his consciousness as an object, as if it is not him. That reminds me The transcendance of ego of Sartre. He hypostasized consciousness in some way. This is weird when we think about it seriously.

Ohhh. Are we going to play stupid language games now? There are no such things as subjects/subjectivty. Objects and objectivity is all there is. Some objects have self-awareness. And they've labeled this objective fact about themselves as "subjectivity". It's just a misnomer.

Hypostasized consciousness is indeed weird. From a reductionist point of view.

From my point of view there are no such things as emergent entities. There are simply irreducible entities destroyed by reduction. Consciousness being one of them.

Reductionism is simply what reductionists do. It's a method. When applied to oneself - it becomes a self-destructive method.

Reducing the reductionist results in nonsense.

We can say that there is a subject who analyses himself, his consciousness as an object, as if it is not him.

Sounds like you are agreeing that there is no separation of identities. Irrespective of the vocabulary being used.

[Eodnhoj7]

I think the "anti-paradox" mentality of the west has been a self defeating mindset.

The west isn't anti-paradox. The west is anti-contradiction.

The west can't tell the difference.

One of the definitions of paradox is contradiction, making the definition of paradox more of a paradox.

[Eodnhoj7]

If there is no absolute knowledge, then the knowledge that there is "no absolute knowledge" is not absolute thus relative and as relative is sometimes true and sometimes false thus necessitating absolute truth as relative as absolute truth is contextual.

You are committing the same error as godelian.

You are treating assertions/judgments about knowledge (e.g meta-knowledge) as being in the same category as the knowledge being asserted/judged, and confuse that the claim as self-referential, and thus - self-defeating.

It isn't.

There's a difference between direct knowledge claims (first-order statements) and claims about knowledge itself (meta-statements). You are manufacturing the paradox by erasing the distinction.

This distinction you provide is an assertion, as all are distinctions.


All distinctions are both composed of and come from further distinctions...so relatively speaking there is no distinction that is in some way shape or form a meta distinction. This meta quality of distinctions necessitates the act of distinction being a perpetual loop of connection/seperation.

[Eodnhoj7]

Reality of “users”, “users” are part of reality. there is no such thing as absolute knowledge. knowledge is the work of concrete beings, not of a universal consciousness floating in the air.

If there is no absolute knowledge, then the knowledge that there is "no absolute knowledge" is not absolute thus relative and as relative is sometimes true and sometimes false thus necessitating absolute truth as relative as absolute truth is contextual.

logolatry is one idolatry among others.

At a certain stage, a choice must be made between the confusion of thought and reality on the one hand, and difference between them on the other

All use of symbols can be argued as logolatry as language is fundamentally symbol manipulation and we interact with reality through symbols. And what is not a symbol as all things become concepts, due to memory and thought, and conceptualization is how we mediate experience.

Anyhow, let's argue from your perspective and let the issues of language drop:

And where do you pinpoint the exact choice being made? And what does choice even mean? Is there a choice about the the defined nature of choice and if so how does this avoid the paradox of it being a predetermined loop by nature of its bootstrapping?

[Eodnhoj7]

At a certain stage, a choice must be made between the confusion of thought and reality on the one hand, and difference between them on the other

Reality of “users”, “users” are part of reality.

At what point do we come to recognize that having your cake; and eating it too is what you really want?

Unification of the users with reality.
Distinction between the user's knowledge and reality.

The part is not identical to the whole. The subject is not identical to object.
Human knowledge has its limits, limits of human kinds.

The subject cannot observe without the object and the object could not exist without experience of it by the subject. You can say the rock exists outside of our experience but that observation would effectively put it in the realm of experience and a paradox ensues.

[Skepdick]

The subject cannot observe without the object and the object could not exist without experience of it by the subject. You can say the rock exists outside of our experience but that observation would effectively put it in the realm of experience and a paradox ensues.

https://youtu.be/PGNiXGX2nLU?t=60

[Eodnhoj7]

The subject cannot observe without the object and the object could not exist without experience of it by the subject. You can say the rock exists outside of our experience but that observation would effectively put it in the realm of experience and a paradox ensues.

https://youtu.be/PGNiXGX2nLU?t=60

Such is the cyclical nature of existence.

[Skepdick]

The subject cannot observe without the object and the object could not exist without experience of it by the subject. You can say the rock exists outside of our experience but that observation would effectively put it in the realm of experience and a paradox ensues.

https://youtu.be/PGNiXGX2nLU?t=60

Such is the cyclical nature of existence.

No, it's just the nature of language. Get off the hamster wheel.

[Eodnhoj7]

https://youtu.be/PGNiXGX2nLU?t=60

Such is the cyclical nature of existence.

No, it's just the nature of language. Get off the hamster wheel.

Binary code as a language proves otherwise, same with mathemathetics as all natural numbers are merely 1 compounding on itself.

And why do these language prove reality to beotherwise, because these languages are integrated into it.

All reality can be taken as conceptual symbols, thus reality can be equivalent to a language.

Wake up, pure asymmetry does not exist.

[Skepdick]

Binary code as a language proves otherwise, same with mathemathetics as all natural numbers are merely 1 compounding on itself.

And why do these language prove reality to beotherwise, because these languages are integrated into it.

All reality can be taken as conceptual symbols, thus reality can be equivalent to a language.

Wake up, pure asymmetry does not exist.

No, that's just logocentrism. Get out of Plato's cave already. It's such a Western faux pas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logocentrism