Fresco's spewing crap-oLa'

the use of begs the question beggars belief

otherwise fresco always makes perfect sense to me

oops that may or may not be as complimentary as was my intent

wellllllllll............U & fresco can be happy together if U both were the last peeps on earth.

if we were

we'd have been

feeling a tad tense?

hi philis lovely to meet you

wellllllllllll.....................now, that is better.

Apologies if my many years here of posting on the use of the word "existence" has rendered my current comments obscure to newcomers. I cite the 2002 thread for those like me who are interested in ontology.
http://able2know.org/topic/1119-1

Why? Fresco used the term correctly.

In a general sense, crap-ola and philosophy frequently go hand-in-hand.

Rosborne,

No doubt Wittgenstein would have agreed with you with his adage that much of philosophy was "language on holiday".

And here's a quote from Bill Lye,

"Don't LOOK at anything in a physics lab. Don't TASTE anything in a chemistry lab. Don't SMELL anything in a biology lab. Don't TOUCH anything in a medical lab. And, most importantly, don't LISTEN to anything in a philosophy department."

Or swung a poker at him, being Wittgenstein.

(or vice versa with Popper doing the swinging)

I'm lost here. What is Philis' point? Could it be that Cinco de Mayo has stimulated this discussion?

I dunno. I confuse ontology with ontogeny.

JLN,

Philis has cut and pasted my comment from here
http://able2know.org/topic/143543-14

There didn't seem to be much of a reason for starting a separate thread.

nothing more exciting than stepping up to bat

hello everyone, always enjoy your posts guys, mine may be an acquired taste

There seem to be two related issues in this thread .

1. Does "philosophy" in general amount to "word salad" ? ...to which my answer would be "yes" in accordance with Wittgenstein's views.

2. Do particular philosophical positions as espoused by fresco (et al) amount to "word salad" ? ...to which my answer is again "yes" for those unfamiliar with the argument that language shapes "reality".

Note that this second point leads in two directions.
(a) Either "reality" as we know it is a function of language - the product of "social systems" - and this includes reality of "the self" and "others". (Call this the "top down" view)
(b) Or "reality" as we describe it it is a function of languaging - a mechanism of the general "life process" (aka "cognition") which can manifest in complex lifeforms - one such observation being called "self-awareness".
(Call this the "bottom up" view)

There is finally a "transcendent view" in which "social systems" , "selves" and "life" can viewed as manifestations of "holistic consciousness" rather than products of a process (either top down, or bottom up). Such a view is perhaps involved in discriminating between "spirituality" and "religiosity" insofar as the first transcends "reality" but the second assumes some particular version of it.

transcend but watch your language