Philosophy Now Forum

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.



Ron, I've said this before, we are so lucky to have you participate within this forum.


You bring a unique philosophical system to us that you have developed yourself and it works!



I am still working to better understand Constructive Recollection.


Your examples and explanations help a lot.

You are humble and respectful in your postings.

You are an excellent person and I respectfully call you a true philosopher.



All good to you.



Keep up the GREAT work!



.

chaz wyman wrote:
Except that I am expressing the problem through Derrida.

Ron de Weijze wrote:

That is what we have hypotheses for that we can test, or values that we can try.

Value is what we found out to be good and want to hold on to.
Im sorry: I cannot let this lay. this is a definition that gains creedence only in a non-reflective subject. Such non-reflection does gain a subject, but it does so in reflection of the object: you propose that the subject is an object amoung objects. You argue from the perspective that the subject came about from a knowable apriroi universe
I call it Constructive Recollection. The subject does reflect upon itself. Intuition is the subject and reality is the object:
It is obvious that you are attempting to 'construct' an 'proper' way of coming upon the universe so as to achieve some ethical ideal. What is recollecting? The subject: the given. The reflection you propose is limited in that it takes objectivity as the standpoint from which to propose truths. The subject then may reflect constructively. The subject may 'value' as a apirori category that we 'find out' from what? From some empty nilthat is the subject when viewed from the object. When did we 'find out' our value? How or in what way do we or can we 'hold on to' that value that we found? How can I have a condition of myself that is capable of 'finding out' what I value?
The only way for this to happen if if the subject, the individual, stops investigation and orients it in a particular direction. Thus your system argues itself, as I have indicated in my above post. Because the previous statement is true (the sentence just before this), that the subject may stop (that is: may choose), this stopping is evidence that we might 'find value', since at the point of stopping, we have allowed for a uninvestigated given, and thus this given informs what we may know, grants us the Subject as an essential thing in-itself from which to posit truth.

Yet this condition does not set well with those who are oriented upon the object, because the scheme itself would argue back to the vicious circle of contingency of condition and nullify what it proposes. Thus, what occurs is exactly what you have done: you have 'stopped' the cycle in order to gain a truth of the mater, a philsophical system, which only gains its truth by denying the very process by which it is supposed to have come about.

http://crpa.co/CRPA-Philosophy-Special.htm#16

If there is any 'ideological engineering' it is postmodernism for which independent confirmation doesn't seem to exist.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Hey Ron, I checked out your site and have found some parallels in my reasoning. Of course I won't profess to being as comfortable with larger words as some of those that frequent this forum, but this has nothing to do with the sensing of that which defines them. All my life I have been extremely observant, not quick to project my thoughts upon that which I've witnessed. And while I haven't been able to put my finger on it as of yet, it would seem that your education and attention has paid off. It's interesting how Psychology and Philosophy merge with perception. I will continue to explore your mind. Thanks for your contribution!

Now back to something that I'd previously written several days ago in response to Chaz:

The idea that any particular dictionary is incorrect is absurd, ridiculous and in fact undermines the very language that it should support.


What is absurd is to claim that I accounted any dictionary false. You really need to read more carefully what I actually said. The point is that there are no absolute and unchanging definitions no matter how hard dictionaries try to make it so. And no dictionary can attribute meanings due to the diversity of contextually.
What I found so amusing was the lengths you were going to justify the use of a dictionary as if words were pure Platonic Forms.


This then is concrete evidence that capitalism and free enterprise undermines the very foundation of civilization.

WTF?

For clarifications sake I propose that a law be drafted that it be illegal for anyone to profit from the creation of books used to define words, this way there will be no monetary compensation to create the better definition thus allowing it to once again be purely academic.

If there was an emoticon with a head with a revolving finger pointing to it, eyes to heaven I'd use it.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:Over 500 post upon this thread and I ask, are you any closer to the truth? Are you any closer to sincerity? To understanding?

I have the feeling that truth is a matter of scales.

The truth for a mite that is latched upon the antenna of an ant is different that the truth of that ant itself.

The truth for a human is different that the truth of the earth.

The truth of the earth is different that what the truth would be for the milky way or for that matter, the cosmos.

What's stopping us from seeing our truth is the same thing that spurs us to even ask the initial question. What's stopping us from seeing the truth is human nature.

The tether that is our minds limits our vision yet allows us to formulate and express a potion of our vision.

The thread, What's stopping us from seeing the truth? started off with that simple title and just one image.

Some of you have been on this thread from the start. God bless you!

There is a truth that you have as you read this for the first time. A philosophical truth. You, at this moment...

Although you cannot see me, feel what I feel, see what I see. And I cannot see or understand you. We are connected by our words. The formulated human nature that we share.

Philosophy today, this moment, has nothing to do with dead philosophers or their dead philosophies.

Truth is now. Truth is here. Truth is contained in pain. Truth is just beyond our human nature.

Estranged and at times, formulated in the discipline of philosophy or the discipline of science.

We just will never be able to speak it.

Trudat.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:You are most quoted when not saying a thing...