Philosophy Now Forum

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2019 4:25 pm I am asking you HOW you are going to identify an arbitrary atom as being an "Oxygen atom" without taking any measurements.

Show me one and I'll identify it for you without taking any measurements.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:10 pm Show me one and I'll identify it for you without taking any measurements.

I'll get you a photo. In the mean time - describe the process for us.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 8:13 pm Ontology is the branch of metaphysics which deals specifically with the nature of material existence.

Material existence is all that exists independently of anyone's knowledge or awareness. "Independent of" does not mean separate from, but, "whether or not anyone knows or is aware of that existence." Material existence includes what is usually referred to as, "physical existence," which is all that we can directly perceive and is the subject of the physical sciences. It also includes life, consciousness, and the human mind, which also exist independently of anyone's knowledge or awareness, but are not physical. (Of course no consiousness or mind exists independently of the one whose conciousness and mind they are.)

People don't have knowledge.

No body knows what it is. How can you know yourself? You would have to split yourself up in two, the knower and the known...

Who am I ? to disagree?

Knowledge is information informing the illusory nature of the knower in that IT is in no body. And no body has knowledge of itself.
Information is not a physical object, the physical object is the information as concieved in this conception known by consciousness the only knowing there is.

Knowing consciousness is not some-thing to be known by someone. IT is the knowing that cannot be known. In essence you are that Knowing.

While it's true that only concepts are known, ie: material things. Material things know nothing of their existence, because they are not separate from not-knowing consciousness in which they are known.

.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2019 2:50 pm

PeteJ wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2019 12:34 pm I suspect you're wasting your time. Your point is basic, ontology 101, but on this forum there seems to be a great deal of dogmatic incomprehension. I don't really underrstand it, and don't see nearly so much of it on other philosophy forums.

The fucking irony in this post.

The taxonomy of ontology/metaphysics/epistemology is dogma. It's 2500 year old dogma at that.

To insist that it needs to be 'understood' hints at your own inability to comprehend any other philosophical position or epistemic foundation. Perhaps you reject perspectivism?

My case is made for me.

How can anyone conclude that metaphysics is about dogma? I'm utterly baffled as to how anyone could think this.

PeteJ wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2019 11:36 am My case is made for me.

How can anyone conclude that metaphysics is about dogma? I'm utterly baffled as to how anyone could think this.

And my case is made for me.

I didn't say metaphysics is about dogma. I am pointing out that YOU are dogmatic ABOUT metaphysics.

How can somebody talking about 'metaphysics' and preaching Perennial philosophy be so ignorant of linguistic relativity?

Your dogma is the very language, vocabulary and conceptual schemes you are using to speak about metaphysics.
Your dogma is your metalanguage.

All of it - plagued by the symbol-grounding problem

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:08 am People don't have knowledge.

Well a lot of people don't as you have just proved, but really you ought only to speak for yourself. Otherwise you are insulting other people, or doesn't that matter to you?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2019 2:14 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:08 am People don't have knowledge.

Well a lot of people don't as you have just proved, but really you ought only to speak for yourself. Otherwise you are insulting other people, or doesn't that matter to you?

Life doesn't speak, or ask questions, or have any known knowledge of itself, it is tacit silent not-knowing - knowing one with itself all alone.
Known conceptual language is secondary knowledge, it's a fictional overlay upon what is already life living itself...language is dual by nature, so any speaking and asking questions can only arise to the sense of a separate I ..which manifests when mind which is an empty mirror identifies with the artificially conceived conceptual image it creates of itself because it has no image of itself. So the sense of separate I is when the mind misidentifies with the wrong I

The MIND which has no image of itself is the one looking in the mirror and that is the right I ....but the seen image in the mirror is the wrong I

The MIND doesn't have an image of itself, so it's only focus is to take on the image in the mirror as being itself...but there is no actual self in a mirror image, the real self is the one looking at, in, and through the mirror.

No body knows knowledge...knowledge is known by no body. A body doesn't know anything, a body is a concept already being known by the only knowing there is which is mind/consciousness that is in no body. The body is in it, as a known concept.

You can't insult a body, which is just a conceptual label for a person..no,the body just like the mind ..it has no concept of itself either, so as to know it is being insulted. You can curse your hand or your head all day long, but trust me, it will not get offended. You can try to comb the hair of the head in the mirror the opposite way to how you like it, but it will matter not to the image in the mirror, a mirror image cannot get offended for one very good reason.

It seems you are identifying with the image in the mirror here, and not paying attention to the imageless awareness of the image ..awareness is your only true and real identity.

When what is looking is looking for what is looking inside of what it's looking at ..it's in big trouble. Test it yourself, try the mirror trick and see for yourself.

.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 11:11 am No body knows knowledge...knowledge is known by no body. A body doesn't know anything, a body is a concept already being known by the only knowing there is which is mind/consciousness that is in no body. The body is in it, as a known concept.

woo-woo.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2019 11:50 am

PeteJ wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2019 11:36 am My case is made for me.

How can anyone conclude that metaphysics is about dogma? I'm utterly baffled as to how anyone could think this.

And my case is made for me.

I didn't say metaphysics is about dogma. I am pointing out that YOU are dogmatic ABOUT metaphysics.

Oh dear. Where was I dogmatic?

Simply being confident is not dogmatism. Afaik I am never dogmatic. Metaphysics is about what can and cannot be demonstrated, so dogmatism is usually pretty obvious when it appears.

You said "The taxonomy of ontology/metaphysics/epistemology is dogma. It's 2500 year old dogma at that."

So what has this got to do with me, and what justifies your remark except dogmatism? It appears to be utter nonsense but perhaps you meant something you didn't say.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 2:26 pm
woo-woo.

How does knowledge of anything come about ?

There would have to be
A “Knower” and the “Known”

There cannot be “knowns” without a “knower”

Now

Both knower and known are one in the same instantaneous moment...this has to be.

Now
Knower and known is impossible to separate.

So what is duality?

Answer is...as follows.

Is the knower in the known? - Or - is the known in the knower?


You’ll see that the known has to be in the knower not in the known because the known can’t know because the known is already being known by the knower...for example: a concept is known, the concept “Human” is known by the knower....so the concept “human” is already being known...and a concept known can’t know...so the knower is not the known it knows, the knower is not the concept human. The knower is not HUMAN

Therefore ALL knowledge known comes from the same one source only ...that knower being consciousness.


Consciousness the only One source of ALL knowledge = one knower = no knower of knowledge.

= knowledge is a fictional overlay upon one without a second... = ONE KNOWER

So yeah, knowledge is woo...reality for the human is a living woo woo land of imagination.

Including all this...

PeteJ wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2019 3:43 pm Simply being confident is not dogmatism. Afaik I am never dogmatic.
Metaphysics is about what can and cannot be demonstrated, so dogmatism is usually pretty obvious when it appears.

Good! Lets work within your own definitions/framework.

Not all confidence is dogmatism. Dogmatism is 100% confidence.

How confident are you that 'metaphysics is about what can and can't be demonstrated'?
Could you suggest an alternative conception of metaphysics?

Furthermore. It cannot be demonstrated that the universe exists. Would you say that the existence of the universe is about metaphysics?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2019 3:57 pm So yeah, knowledge is woo...reality for the human is a living woo woo land of imagination.

Including all this...

Well, I can't argue with that.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2019 5:56 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2019 3:57 pm So yeah, knowledge is woo...reality for the human is a living woo woo land of imagination.

Including all this...

Well, I can't argue with that.

The real breakthrough will come when you "feel" the nature of existence.

The nature of existence is not spoken, it's speaks silently, silence speaks louder than any word, feeling is auspicious seeing.
It's an inside job.

Knowledge is the land of woo.

Silence is the land of the free.




.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2019 4:00 pm

PeteJ wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2019 3:43 pm Simply being confident is not dogmatism. Afaik I am never dogmatic.
Metaphysics is about what can and cannot be demonstrated, so dogmatism is usually pretty obvious when it appears.

Good! Lets work within your own definitions/framework.

Not all confidence is dogmatism. Dogmatism is 100% confidence.

How confident are you that 'metaphysics is about what can and can't be demonstrated'?
Could you suggest an alternative conception of metaphysics?

Furthermore. It cannot be demonstrated that the universe exists. Would you say that the existence of the universe is about metaphysics?

Dogmatism is not confidence. The two may be confused, of course.

I'm completely confident that metaphysics is ab9out what can and cannot be demonstrated. The process is called 'abduction'.

That the (metaphysical or fundamental) existence of the world cannot be demonstrated is a well-known result. If it were possible to demonstrate the independent existence of anything (any thing) then it would be possible to falsify the Perennial philosophy.

PeteJ wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2019 12:57 pm Dogmatism is not confidence. The two may be confused, of course.

Your black-and-white world-view isn't really helping us get anywhere.

PeteJ wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2019 12:57 pm I'm completely confident that metaphysics is ab9out what can and cannot be demonstrated.

Completely confident you say? How complete is your confidence?
Sufficiently complete that nothing can convince that you are wrong? e.g your confidence is unfalsifiable?

That's called dogma.

PeteJ wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2019 12:57 pm If it were possible to demonstrate the independent existence of anything (any thing) then it would be possible to falsify the Perennial philosophy.

So you take existence as being undeniably true e.g unfalsifiable.

dogma. noun. a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

So I guess by the process of abduction, it is a true claim to say that you are dogmatic about metaphysics then?