For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Yes! Yes! And as I expound in Section 3, Subsection 5-6 of The Course, many intelligent birds (magpies, crows & ravens, parrots, etc.) do seem to recognize at least some metaphysical truths. I expound in that illuminating section a curious interaction I had for weeks with a magpie in the patio of the Starbucks at 120th and I-25 in Thornton, CO.
Will you clarify what all of what you say and claim here is in reference to, exactly?Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2024 6:46 amOh, it confirmed that what seemed to you, early in this specific interaction, wasn't really the case, even from your perspective, once one goes into the details, rather than staying with the generalized reaction/potential judgment.
No, I am done adapting to your way of having a conversation, which has included adapting to your inability to remember things, including things that you have said. I have done this quite a bit in the past, and it does not lead anywhere. You'll have to do your own work, if you are interested.
Why not! Because you have to do your own nobody home work, just like everyone else has to do theirs.
So, what was actually meant here was closer to the term "myself", instead of.the term "ourselves", because the word 'our' or "ourselves" implies, means, or refers to more than one, right?Self-Lightening wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2024 8:18 amNo, not necessarily. Here's what I wrote there:Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2024 5:04 amSo, like previously when you said and wrote 'any of us' and what you actually meant was there is only just 'One', also when you say and write 'ourselves' what you actually mean is that there is only 'One', right?Self-Lightening wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2024 2:40 am
It means more than one, yes, and was meant to be referring to more than one in case there is more than one. Methinks you're focusing too much on form and not enough on content, though, if you didn't get that from what I said.
'The least far-fetched supposition, then—if "we" suppose there's anything beyond "ourselves" at all—, is that only such mutable beings exist.'
If "we" suppose there's nothing beyond "ourselves", then '"ourselves"'—and '"we"', for that matter—means only one: namely, the concoction (instrument) "me".
But why 'suppose' either of these things when just 'looking at', 'seeing', and 'expressing' only 'that' what is actually irrefutably True and Right instead could be done just as easily, and if not, then even easier?Self-Lightening wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2024 8:18 am But if "we" suppose there is something beyond "ourselves", then '"ourselves"' means more than one: namely the perception instrument "me" and all other such mutable beings.
But I am not so-called 'so pedantic' because I want to put the onus for not understanding the other on there other, for a couple of reasons:Self-Lightening wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2024 8:18 amSo pedantic. And yeah, I meant here in the Philosophy Now Forum.Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2024 5:04 amDo you mean here, in a 'philosophy forum', where absolute accuracy in order to obtain absolute clarity and understanding is needed, only, or in other places as well?
Also, notice how 'these people', back then, rarely, if ever, actually answer and clarify the clarifying questions that I ask/ed them.
What I will also be showing and exposing is the very actual reason why these people would not 'just clarify'.
1. 'Aren't I' what, exactly?Self-Lightening wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2024 2:40 am And aren't you because you want to put the onus for not understanding the other on the other?
Is this an absolute accuracy?Self-Lightening wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2024 8:18 am There's no such thing as absolute accuracy in language;
But, there is no, actual, 'mind of ...'.Self-Lightening wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2024 8:18 am and as for clarity and understanding,
"By a Magus is this writing made known through the mind of a Magister. The one uttereth clearly, and the other understandeth; yet the Word is falsehood, and the Understanding darkness. And this saying is Of All Truth." (Aleister Crowley, "The Book of the Magus".)
Yes, this true. you human beings do have views and perspectives of things, which seem to be accurate or true, but which are not, or are not necessarily so at all, or partly so.Self-Lightening wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2024 8:18 amSomehow, you very much do seem to have a judgmental view to me and, so it also seems to me, to others as well...Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2024 5:04 am2. Why do some of you posters here presume or believe that I am putting some sort of 'onus' for 'not understanding' onto 'the other'?
3. I am just asking clarifying questions so that I can gain a better understanding, only. Why would me doing this, be mistaken, or seen, as me ' putting 'an onus' for not understanding 'the other', 'on the other' '?
How else, or what better way, could one obtain a better understanding of another if not through just asking Truly open clarifying questions, without any 'judgmental view' at all being had nor made?
Okay.Self-Lightening wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2024 8:18 amNo, nor am I now.Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2024 5:04 am
you adding this link here seems like, to me, you just trying to deflect, not intentionally but because you are completely missing and misunderstanding what I am actually doing here.
Were you not yet aware that 'this' absolutely contradicts your previous claim above here?
you said and claimed that you were only meaning 'one' only, but then you, again, went on to use terms that, literally, mean 'more than one'.Self-Lightening wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2024 8:18 am Please quote both supposedly contradictory claims below.
So, is there more than one, or, just One, to you?
I think what that term refers to need not exist—but may, and therefore the term does need to exist. [/quote]Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2024 5:04 amBut, responding on, and with, 'a term', which you do not even think needs to exist.Self-Lightening wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2024 2:40 am
Well, the word "instrument" was not mine, but Alexis Jacobi's. I simply did him the courtesy of responding on his own terms.
That's just a rephrasing, not an explanation. Why would anything but "consciousness" or "perception" have to exist for "consciousness" or "perception" to exist? [/quote]Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2024 5:04 amFrom the very Fact that some thing would have to exist for 'consciousness', or 'perception' itself, to exist.Self-Lightening wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2024 2:40 am
I disagree. Where did you get this "would have to"?
Self-Lightening wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2024 8:18 amIf you say so.Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2024 5:04 amI already answered, and thus clarified, this below.Self-Lightening wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2024 2:40 am Isn't that itself a perception (or guess, or concoction), that it would have to?
For those of you who have not yet 'seen' 'It', yes.
In any case, I suppose we do agree that the some sort of "instrument" there would have to be for the existence of "consciousness" or "awareness" or "perception" to happen and/or occur, might itself just be the "perception", guess, or concoction of the "I" or "this one" (in quotes because the "I" or "this one" is then itself a "perception", guess, or concoction).
Okay.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2024 2:53 pmYes! Yes! And as I expound in Section 3, Subsection 5-6 of The Course, many intelligent birds (magpies, crows & ravens, parrots, etc.) do seem to recognize at least some metaphysical truths. I expound in that illuminating section a curious interaction I had for weeks with a magpie in the patio of the Starbucks at 120th and I-25 in Thornton, CO.
LOLIwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2024 6:09 amNo, I am done adapting to your way of having a conversation, which has included adapting to your inability to remember things, including things that you have said. I have done this quite a bit in the past, and it does not lead anywhere. You'll have to do your own work, if you are interested.
Actually, it is 'once again Age expects others to keep track of what he says and what has happened in the interaction' and it's no surprise that someone else on this very page has the same kind of reaction to your habits/patterns. So, you can stick that LOL back in that mouth, a mouth that I doubt actually, literally, laughed.Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2024 11:09 amLOLIwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2024 6:09 amNo, I am done adapting to your way of having a conversation, which has included adapting to your inability to remember things, including things that you have said. I have done this quite a bit in the past, and it does not lead anywhere. You'll have to do your own work, if you are interested.
Once again this one will not just clarify.
For the sake of better understanding I wonder if you might offer an example of what Nietzsche could have been referring to?Self-Lightening wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2024 9:36 pm If I am a perceiving instrument, and any and all other existing things are also such perceiving instruments, then what I filter, embellish, or dress up is only my fellow perceiving instruments. This is precisely what Nietzsche says in that external post I linked to (at the beginning of part 2):
"[…]
4) questions, what things 'in-themselves' may be like, apart from our sense receptivity and the activity of our understanding, must be rebutted with the question: how could we know that things exist? 'Thingness' was first created by us. The question is whether there could not be many other way[s] of creating such an apparent world—and whether this creating, logicizing, adapting, falsifying is not itself the best-guaranteed reality; in short, whether that which 'posits things' is not the sole reality; and whether the 'effect of the external world upon us' is not also only the result of such active subjects…
[…]
As to the tangible, physical world, I don’t see how. But definitely to the interpreted world.The question is whether there could not be many other way[s] of creating such an apparent world
It doesn't really make sense to ask for examples. And I don't see what any of what you just said has to do with it. Let me try again.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2024 1:24 pmFor the sake of better understanding I wonder if you might offer an example of what Nietzsche could have been referring to?Self-Lightening wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2024 9:36 pmIf I am a perceiving instrument, and any and all other existing things are also such perceiving instruments, then what I filter, embellish, or dress up is only my fellow perceiving instruments. This is precisely what Nietzsche says in that external post I linked to (at the beginning of part 2):
"[…]
4) questions, what things 'in-themselves' may be like, apart from our sense receptivity and the activity of our understanding, must be rebutted with the question: how could we know that things exist? 'Thingness' was first created by us. The question is whether there could not be many other way[s] of creating such an apparent world—and whether this creating, logicizing, adapting, falsifying is not itself the best-guaranteed reality; in short, whether that which 'posits things' is not the sole reality; and whether the 'effect of the external world upon us' is not also only the result of such active subjects…
[…]
While I do certainly grasp that those descriptions of the world, our world, can be fantastic over-impositions and embellishments — projections, inventions — that are superimposed on ‘reality’, I tend to try to focus on the quintessence of what is implied by a given fantastic story, if that makes sense.
When the essence is identified, then the story reveals the meaning, which is actually distinct from the elements of the story.
Thus in my own case, I regard the real meaning as being real. I.e. as “existing” except in no sense comparable to physical existence. Which is why I always use the term metaphysical.
It is the metaphysical that really determines the human world.
Well, what do you mean by "tangible"? Touch is a sense, like sight or smell. There may be actual sensations occurring, but to categorize those as touch, sense, smell, etc. is already interpretation.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2024 1:24 pmAs to the tangible, physical world, I don’t see how. But definitely to the interpreted world.The question is whether there could not be many other way[s] of creating such an apparent world
What Nietzsche and I are basically saying is that all existence is a kind of magpie bird-war, and nothing besides.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2024 1:24 pm(I hope I am making sense. There is a magpie bird-war going on in my neighborhood as I write this. Rather distracting.)
Well, the only such "Truth" is the following, though I'm quite sure it's not what you mean:
Yes and no.Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2024 11:06 amIs this an absolute accuracy?Self-Lightening wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2024 8:18 am There's no such thing as absolute accuracy in language;
If you say so.
No, the whole point was that I neither claimed that there was one only, nor that there was more than one. There may be none, or one, or more than one. But if there's one—myself—, and I suppose there's more than one—others—, then it's less far-fetched to suppose those others are (somewhat) similar to me than that they're completely different.
To "me", there's either one mind—"mine"—, or many minds—"mine" and "others'". I usually hold the latter, for if the former is true, the latter is what the former dreams up, anyhow.
Right, and yes, in that order. However, it's most improbable that you do know for sure what the actual truth is.
Right, so you're still all the way back there... You may want to note that I adopted Alexis Jacobi's terms "guess" and "concoct" as possible synonyms of "perceive", and also used (scare) quotes around words like "consciousness" and "perception". There need not be a perceiver or a perceived for there to be "perception", because it may really be a concoction or a hallucination.Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2024 11:06 amBecause of the simple fact that if there was nothing else but 'consciousness', or 'perception', itself, then there simply would not be any thing to 'perceive', nor to be 'conscious' about. As well as, if there was no other thing than 'consciousness' or 'perception', only, then how could it even be theoretically possible, let alone actually possibly be?Self-Lightening wrote:That's just a rephrasing, not an explanation. Why would anything but "consciousness" or "perception" have to exist for "consciousness" or "perception" to exist?
Why do 'you', the one known here as "self-lightening", believe, absolutely, that this is the only Truth?Self-Lightening wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2024 1:19 amWell, the only such "Truth" is the following, though I'm quite sure it's not what you mean:
"Nothing is easier to perceive than reality's emptiness.
So, if any other 'view', besides the one/s "self-lightening" has, then 'those views' are not so-called 'genuine philosophy nor science', right?Self-Lightening wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2024 1:19 am Genuine philosophy or science is the realization that nothing, no divine or natural order, endows anything with a non-arbitrary being, an identity not subject to radical change at any moment.
If 'you' say and believe so, then this is the one and Only, real and true, view, here, right?Self-Lightening wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2024 1:19 am There is nothing in (or behind or above) things to make them more than empty experiences, impressions as Hume called them. Reality and everything in it is nothing but empty impressions, experiences, bigotries, dreams whose dreamer is himself a dream." (Harry Neumann, "What is Bigotry?")
Okay. Would you like to elaborate on this, or do you believe that this will suffice how it 'stands', here?Self-Lightening wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2024 1:19 amYes and no.Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2024 11:06 amIs this an absolute accuracy?Self-Lightening wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2024 8:18 am There's no such thing as absolute accuracy in language;
Do 'you' believe that there is not only One Mind, only?
I thought that when I asked you to clarify what you actually meant when you said and wrote, 'any of us', above here, and that when you replied that it meant; 'that 'the One' is perceiving, (guessing, or concocting), that there is more than just 'this One'.Self-Lightening wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2024 1:19 amNo, the whole point was that I neither claimed that there was one only, nor that there was more than one.
Well this is obviously impossible, ant thus False.
The word and term 'myself' is an oxymoron, a contradiction in term, and thus is self-refuting.
Okay. But, one has to start off with the actual Truth, to end up with the actual Truth.Self-Lightening wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2024 1:19 am and I suppose there's more than one—others—, then it's less far-fetched to suppose those others are (somewhat) similar to me than that they're completely different.
Okay.Self-Lightening wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2024 1:19 amTo "me", there's either one mind—"mine"—, or many minds—"mine" and "others'". I usually hold the latter, for if the former is true, the latter is what the former dreams up, anyhow.
Why, to 'you', would this be so-called 'most improbable', exactly?Self-Lightening wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2024 1:19 amRight, and yes, in that order. However, it's most improbable that you do know for sure what the actual truth is.
Where is 'back there', exactly?Self-Lightening wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2024 1:19 amRight, so you're still all the way back there...Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2024 11:06 amBecause of the simple fact that if there was nothing else but 'consciousness', or 'perception', itself, then there simply would not be any thing to 'perceive', nor to be 'conscious' about. As well as, if there was no other thing than 'consciousness' or 'perception', only, then how could it even be theoretically possible, let alone actually possibly be?Self-Lightening wrote:
That's just a rephrasing, not an explanation. Why would anything but "consciousness" or "perception" have to exist for "consciousness" or "perception" to exist?
Did 'you' inform 'us' before what so-called 'scare quotes' mean, or denote to, exactly, to 'you', when used, 'by you'?Self-Lightening wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2024 1:19 am You may want to note that I adopted Alexis Jacobi's terms "guess" and "concoct" as possible synonyms of "perceive", and also used (scare) quotes around words like "consciousness" and "perception".
But, 'now' 'we' are 'back to' 'you' explaining to 'us' how it could be logically and physically possible for a 'concoction' or 'hallucination' to exist, exactly, if there was no other thing existing?Self-Lightening wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2024 1:19 am There need not be a perceiver or a perceived for there to be "perception", because it may really be a concoction or a hallucination.
Okay. This is just another one, to add to the continually growing list.Self-Lightening wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2024 1:19 am I think you're just a proselytizer caught in a web of language.
Self-Lightening wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2024 1:19 am "I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar." (Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols.)
I didn't say I believed it absolutely. It's just that, as Neumann says there, "[n]othing is easier to perceive". In fact, as he exclaims in the same book,Age wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2024 6:33 amWhy do 'you', the one known here as "self-lightening", believe, absolutely, that this is the only Truth?Self-Lightening wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2024 1:19 amWell, the only such "Truth" is the following, though I'm quite sure it's not what you mean:
"Nothing is easier to perceive than reality's emptiness.
What perceived things? All "I" know are "perceptions", impressions, experiences.
"Heidegger's 'Age of the World-View' rightly notes that 'world view' understood scientifically 'does not mean a view of the world, but the world understood as a view (or picture).[']" (op.cit., page 3.)Age wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2024 6:33 amSo, if any other 'view', besides the one/s "self-lightening" has, then 'those views' are not so-called 'genuine philosophy nor science', right?Self-Lightening wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2024 1:19 amGenuine philosophy or science is the realization that nothing, no divine or natural order, endows anything with a non-arbitrary being, an identity not subject to radical change at any moment.
See above.Age wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2024 6:33 amIf 'you' say and believe so, then this is the one and Only, real and true, view, here, right?Self-Lightening wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2024 1:19 amThere is nothing in (or behind or above) things to make them more than empty experiences, impressions as Hume called them. Reality and everything in it is nothing but empty impressions, experiences, bigotries, dreams whose dreamer is himself a dream." (Harry Neumann, "What is Bigotry?")
Yes.
I do tend to believe that, yes. "I" am one mind, "you" are another, and there is no overarching one.
Yes. "I" know that the mind "I" am—'am', not 'have', hence the scare quotes—exists. The question is whether other minds exist.Age wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2024 6:33 amI thought that when I asked you to clarify what you actually meant when you said and wrote, 'any of us', above here, and that when you replied that it meant; 'that 'the One' is perceiving, (guessing, or concocting), that there is more than just 'this One'.Self-Lightening wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2024 1:19 amNo, the whole point was that I neither claimed that there was one only, nor that there was more than one.
But, I must of been mistaken, right?
You mean, it's impossible that there are none? Well, what I meant there is that there may be no I, no thing, no substance. "Something" certainly exists, even if it's just a—single—hallucination.
So the terms "my" and "self" contradict each other? Please explain.
No, that's just your circular reasoning—typical of a believer.Age wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2024 6:33 amOkay. But, one has to start off with the actual Truth, to end up with the actual Truth.Self-Lightening wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2024 1:19 amand I suppose there's more than one—others—, then it's less far-fetched to suppose those others are (somewhat) similar to me than that they're completely different.
Because then someone, and in fact you of all people, would have to have had a divine revelation. I do believe people have had experiences that they—and/or their followers—have interpreted that way, but that's just interpretation, not revelation.Age wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2024 6:33 amWhy, to 'you', would this be so-called 'most improbable', exactly?Self-Lightening wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2024 1:19 amRight, and yes, in that order. However, it's most improbable that you do know for sure what the actual truth is.
Back where it's reasoned that, because a predicate requires a subject, an experience requires an experiencer. It doesn't. It merely requires the idea of an experiencer (and an experienced, for that matter).Age wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2024 6:33 amWhere is 'back there', exactly?Self-Lightening wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2024 1:19 amRight, so you're still all the way back there...Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2024 11:06 amBecause of the simple fact that if there was nothing else but 'consciousness', or 'perception', itself, then there simply would not be any thing to 'perceive', nor to be 'conscious' about. As well as, if there was no other thing than 'consciousness' or 'perception', only, then how could it even be theoretically possible, let alone actually possibly be?
Nope.Age wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2024 6:33 amDid 'you' inform 'us' before what so-called 'scare quotes' mean, or denote to, exactly, to 'you', when used, 'by you'?Self-Lightening wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2024 1:19 amYou may want to note that I adopted Alexis Jacobi's terms "guess" and "concoct" as possible synonyms of "perceive", and also used (scare) quotes around words like "consciousness" and "perception".
If yes, then where and when, exactly?
But, if no, then will you 'now'?
No, because there's no need to explain that whatsoever.Age wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2024 6:33 amBut, 'now' 'we' are 'back to' 'you' explaining to 'us' how it could be logically and physically possible for a 'concoction' or 'hallucination' to exist, exactly, if there was no other thing existing?Self-Lightening wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2024 1:19 amThere need not be a perceiver or a perceived for there to be "perception", because it may really be a concoction or a hallucination.
Yet another wrong-way driver!Age wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2024 6:33 amOkay. This is just another one, to add to the continually growing list.Self-Lightening wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2024 1:19 amI think you're just a proselytizer caught in a web of language.
