Philosophy Now Forum

Greta wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 11:54 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 11:31 pmThe question of pleasure takes hold through reason: Is the sex-drug induced rockstar receiving more pleasure than a man sitting on a bench in the park watching birds?

Nice question. Again, this seems to come down to time.

Note that rock stars tend to have extreme highs and lows anyway due to the nature of their work and passions, so I'd like to use the example of two office workers - a wild partygoer and a mellow bird watcher.

You might expect that over a period of years, with all other things being even (which they never are), the bird watcher would be more stable, and with an overall higher aggregate pleasure, while the socialite would tend to experience more soaring highs and searing lows.

"Searing lows" is a very good way of putting it. If one were to look at the nature of "searing" and "low" one can reduce a lot from there definitions.

Searing is synonymous to burning or a form of chaos in structure where any perceived order effectively evaporates through a disunity of sorts. The person who experiences the extreme high feels a corresponding seperation from the extreme low where a process of fracturing occurs in the individual as both extremes of high and low, as phenomena which give both memory and identity to the same individual, necessitate a form of separation through time in which the person is present in one moment but not the next. The highness of awareness is torn by the lowness of ignorance where both high and low represent metaphorical, if not literally at times, vantage points through which we perceive reality. The high represents an above view where everything is observes in clarity or lucidity while the low point observes a very limited awareness in which the little being viewed becomes all encompassing and obstructs the vision of the individual.

Under these terms pleasure has an inherent element of perception tied in with it where awareness is the focal point from which all pleasure occurs as a form of knowledge. This alternation between a high degree of awareness and a low degree again presents problems of extremes where awareness is effectively separated through a form of dualism causing awareness itself to be a practice of division under these extremes and a form of disunity in perspective again occurs.

Considering the nature of pleasure is premised in this element of awareness the nature of pleasure again comes down to a question of unity where an awareness that is more unified, is inevitably more structured, hence having a fuller degree of pleasure. In these respects pleasure stemming from a balance through a focusing on a specific task or person effectively causes a greater degree of pleasure as the individual again acts as a mediator which instead of being swept up with any one extreme, and losing awareness because of it, effectively embraces both extremes at once and in a third respect maintains a greater "high" by effectively acting as a point of origin in the change itself.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 11:57 pm

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 11:46 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 11:31 pm In the simplest terms possible, pleasure is the loss of self towards a specific end which may be other transcendental or destructive with pleasure being the medial limit through which this rising or falling occurs.

Does that actually mean anything?

Yes, pleasure can either be transcendental of the self, effectively maintain the self through the appropriate pleasures as subject to the balance and appropriate nature of the (ex: there is an appropriate time for everything. Sexual activity out of lust rather than love causes eros to be effectively formed and given structure hence a fuller degree of pleasure. Competition for survival rather than ego gives a fuller degree of pleasure in victory. Etc. In both examples pleasure has meaning in the respect it connects and unifies many different aspects of reality under the nature of life as a medial force of constant high frequency change...I may have to elaborate further on this point) time and place at hand.

In simpler terms again pleasure is a loss of self through unity.

Well if that works for you, that's fine. But for me it is meaningless.

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 6:26 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 11:57 pm

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 11:46 pm

Does that actually mean anything?

Yes, pleasure can either be transcendental of the self, effectively maintain the self through the appropriate pleasures as subject to the balance and appropriate nature of the (ex: there is an appropriate time for everything. Sexual activity out of lust rather than love causes eros to be effectively formed and given structure hence a fuller degree of pleasure. Competition for survival rather than ego gives a fuller degree of pleasure in victory. Etc. In both examples pleasure has meaning in the respect it connects and unifies many different aspects of reality under the nature of life as a medial force of constant high frequency change...I may have to elaborate further on this point) time and place at hand.

In simpler terms again pleasure is a loss of self through unity.

Well if that works for you, that's fine. But for me it is meaningless.

And what is meaning to you?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 5:44 am Emotion, its etymological origin is 'emote' i.e. to move.

Really.
I never looked into it, but that's interesting.

Karma means action.
Action requires movement.

Karma is given form through emotional attachment.
Teachings eventually lead to the cessation of creating new karma, through loss.
Then, it's a matter of living out old karma, like a merry-go-round still spinning after the motive power is cut.


“Your body, the society, the forest, and the ways are all in you; you are not in them. You are the body also, but not this body exclusively. If you remain as your pure Self, the body and its movements need not affect you.”
- Sri Ramana Maharshi

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:58 am

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 6:26 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 11:57 pm

Yes, pleasure can either be transcendental of the self, effectively maintain the self through the appropriate pleasures as subject to the balance and appropriate nature of the (ex: there is an appropriate time for everything. Sexual activity out of lust rather than love causes eros to be effectively formed and given structure hence a fuller degree of pleasure. Competition for survival rather than ego gives a fuller degree of pleasure in victory. Etc. In both examples pleasure has meaning in the respect it connects and unifies many different aspects of reality under the nature of life as a medial force of constant high frequency change...I may have to elaborate further on this point) time and place at hand.

In simpler terms again pleasure is a loss of self through unity.

Well if that works for you, that's fine. But for me it is meaningless.

And what is meaning to you?

Something that makes sense or is interesting in some way.

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 9:32 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:58 am

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 6:26 am

Well if that works for you, that's fine. But for me it is meaningless.

And what is meaning to you?

Something that makes sense or is interesting in some way.

And what makes some have "sense" or is "interesting"?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 3:42 pm

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 9:32 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:58 am

And what is meaning to you?

Something that makes sense or is interesting in some way.

And what makes some have "sense" or is "interesting"?

It fits in with what I know or at least has the potential to do so.

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 9:12 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 3:42 pm

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 9:32 pm

Something that makes sense or is interesting in some way.

And what makes some have "sense" or is "interesting"?

It fits in with what I know or at least has the potential to do so.

So what does it mean for you to know?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 9:16 pm

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 9:12 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 3:42 pm

And what makes some have "sense" or is "interesting"?

It fits in with what I know or at least has the potential to do so.

So what does it mean for you to know?

It means I have a belief that is as good as I can reasonably expect.

For further details of the logic of how this works you can read my book: "The Pattern Paradigm... the science of philosophy."

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 3:12 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 9:16 pm

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 9:12 pm

It fits in with what I know or at least has the potential to do so.

So what does it mean for you to know?

It means I have a belief that is as good as I can reasonably expect.

For further details of the logic of how this works you can read my book: "The Pattern Paradigm... the science of philosophy."

So the belief, as an extension of a rational argument, effectively observes belief extending from some form of symmetry (either through abstract logical or mathematical argument or empirical phenomena)? With the reflective qualtity of belief about be belief being its own form of rational argument?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 3:59 pm

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 3:12 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 9:16 pm

So what does it mean for you to know?

It means I have a belief that is as good as I can reasonably expect.

For further details of the logic of how this works you can read my book: "The Pattern Paradigm... the science of philosophy."

So the belief, as an extension of a rational argument, effectively observes belief extending from some form of symmetry (either through abstract logical or mathematical argument or empirical phenomena)? With the reflective qualtity of belief about be belief being its own form of rational argument?

Not at all. It is based on a logical analysis of sense data.

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 8:24 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 3:59 pm

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 3:12 am

It means I have a belief that is as good as I can reasonably expect.

For further details of the logic of how this works you can read my book: "The Pattern Paradigm... the science of philosophy."

So the belief, as an extension of a rational argument, effectively observes belief extending from some form of symmetry (either through abstract logical or mathematical argument or empirical phenomena)? With the reflective qualtity of belief about be belief being its own form of rational argument?

Not at all. It is based on a logical analysis of sense data.

So does logic give meaning to sense or does sense give meaning to logic?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 7:28 pm

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 8:24 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 3:59 pm
So the belief, as an extension of a rational argument, effectively observes belief extending from some form of symmetry (either through abstract logical or mathematical argument or empirical phenomena)? With the reflective qualtity of belief about be belief being its own form of rational argument?

Not at all. It is based on a logical analysis of sense data.

So does logic give meaning to sense or does sense give meaning to logic?

Neither.

You can play around with words like a philatelist playing with stamps, that is fine with me. Or if you really want to understand epistemology you will read my book and try to refute it (shouldn't be too hard.)

Either way I am done with this conversation.

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 7:38 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 7:28 pm

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 8:24 pm

Not at all. It is based on a logical analysis of sense data.

So does logic give meaning to sense or does sense give meaning to logic?

Neither.

You can play around with words like a philatelist playing with stamps, that is fine with me. Or if you really want to understand epistemology you will read my book and try to refute it (shouldn't be too hard.)

Either way I am done with this conversation.

Isn't a book just another way to "play around with words like a philatelist playing with stamps"?

If you cannot provide an abstract or portion of your argument...then obviously you do not know what your book is about and it is not worth reading.

Provide a quote, abstract or section of am argument and I will address it. If your book is strictly a collection of quotes by other people or is strictly cherry picking laws of physics....save the stamp collection for yourself.

If you cannot provide an argument of 1 paragraph to 3 pages you are wasting my time....and your book is meaningless....



In regards to my premise question the original meaning is simple: Does either sensory data or logical analysis take precendence over the other or do they exists as extensions of eachother?

Considering neither...extensions?

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 7:38 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 7:28 pm

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 8:24 pm

Not at all. It is based on a logical analysis of sense data.

So does logic give meaning to sense or does sense give meaning to logic?

Neither.

You can play around with words like a philatelist playing with stamps, that is fine with me. Or if you really want to understand epistemology you will read my book and try to refute it (shouldn't be too hard.)

Either way I am done with this conversation.

Yeah I read the first five pages....to save you the trouble...considering premise is everything.

Yeah if you are going to take a strict empirical approach premised upon sensory data which is inherently probabilistic in nature a form of vagueness occurs due to the premise. Materiality is relativity and effectively is a approximation of any constant truth with the laws of physics inevitably being probabilistic given any length of time.

To argue from a premise of sensory data and move to logical analysis as an extension of it still observes a directive quality of empiricism to abstractness, which is inherently subject to choice as empiricism and abstract logical analysis are axioms in themselves which can be directed towards each other and is not limits to a strict starting point.

Also the premise of ambiguity as cause for the argument is ambiguous and is subject more to an emotional appeal rather than pure reason...and yet you necessitate the premise from pure reason when saying all evidence is strictly scientific and empirical in nature....Hence the premise contradicts where your argument is headed.

Add the fact you pick the brain as the local empirical source of knowledge in light of evidence where heart transplant patients receive memories from the original owner, a long with the heart having a higher degree of electromagnentic activity than the brain....and we cycle back to the emotional root of the argument without the correct premise being addressed.

Considering the brain is rarely understood in its full nature, to argue from a premise of the brain effectively is to argue from a variable that is not only "not" universally axiomatic but effectively is open to a further progression of data that leaves your presentation inevitably probabilistic.

The material foundations you argue, at best lead to a strict form of probabilism where all knowledge exists as not just through aa relativistic particulate nature but one which effectively is approximation, conducive a the very vagueness you argue against.

Relativity through atomic is subject to an infinite regress and mirrors a form of the munchaussen dilemma. This regressive nature of not just the arguments but empirical phenomena itself leads to an inherent absence of meaning as "all is flux" when relegated to a strict standard of empiricism alone. To argue the necessity of logical analysis effectively leads a a necessary system of metalogic to occur as all logic is not premised in strictly empirical means and needs a pure form of logic to give the logical analysis a framework of interpretation. So for example one may quantitify a phenomenon and gain evidence of it through math as a form of analysis, the question of number requires a strict abstract means which while probabiliatically may be proven over time with scientific discovery is still necessary for the scientific discovery to begin with....

Should I continue reading or do you really want a polemic argument against your work....

What was a real turn off was the brain as a premise for truth considering it is the abstract interpretation of data which gives credit to the brains nature and activity.


If you want to argue meaning is a balance between empirical and abstract data then we are left with a question of meaning as effectively being one of limits, not patterns considering patterns are composed of various limits, as the directive capacity of empirical and abstract data necessitates a form of linear alternation or circularity which gives form and function to the argument....Hence we are led to geometry as spatial limit which composes physical and abstract phenomenon.