Joefromchicago wrote: Perception: You came late to the debate just to fling a gratuitous insult at rufio.
Wrong Joe---I have been regularly keeping up with the thread but not feeling really qualified to participate in this particular discussion except with the occassional question or comment. I was particularly incensed by Rufio's constant unwarranted attacks on JL. It is obvious that Rufio is no more qualified to participate in this discussion than I but continued to make contentious statements and to denigrate the efforts of all participants even when all participants responded with what I would consider academically correct answers. Even though I have great regard for your intellect I don't appreciate your comments and I suggest that in the future you resist the urge to be prosecutor, jury and judge. Your defense of Rufio is admirable but in this case you are just "flat wrong".
Joefromchicago wrote: If there is any justice in this world you should be feeling ashamed of yourself
There is---I don't ----and furthermore to respond to your distorted sense of justice----I would do it again in a heartbeat.
truth
Joe, you have accused us, the Unholy Trinity, of "relentlessly patting each other on the back" in our near shunning of Rufio. I must tell you that I think we have refrained from that relentlessly. There have been no "pms" (as far as I know) between us about "the problem of Rufio." I have no recollection of outright insults. You called he immature; that's about as harsh an "insult" as we have leveled at her. I did not call her an immature BRAT, but only with great effort. She tells me that if I did not like her abuse, I SHOULD LEAVE the thread. Doesn't that amaze you? Kuvazs left, but not until he levelled some well aimed insults (which I did not condone but understand). I told her that she was being a bully and, given her aggressive personality drives, she chose to interpret that as an expression of my fear of her. Argh! I greatly appreciate Perception's defense of me. I didn't want to lower myself to aggresive self-defense against a young brat. Now Perception is a good model for Rufio. I would recommend she study Perceptions posts, especially the disagreements he and I have had. In such disagreements he has always maintained a posture of maturity and restraint.
Regarding your insistence that if Fresco, Twyvel and I had just admitted that we were taking a metaphysical position on the nature of the Self all would have gone better, I don't think we were quite sure what you mean by "metaphysical." I tend to think of it as the study of philosophical problems not subject to empirical treatment, but, more importantly, the study of fundamental assumptions, of the often tacit presuppositions underlying philosophical constructions and paradigms. In my case, at least, I was trying to share my experience with a level of experience that when TALKED ABOUT amounts to metaphycial discussion. But my goal was not to argue about my perspective at such a metaphpysical level, but to try to just point to the perspective. To be suggestive rather than argumentative. But it turned out that this wasn't possible. Also, the topic of this thread, as I understood it, was simply the nature of the Self. This could have been approached in the three ways that were addressed to varying degrees: The psychological self (psychoanalytic ego), the sociological self (identities and roles) and the epistemological (or mystical) ego-self. I don't think either one was inappropriately/irrelevantly addressed.
Perception,
I have not as yet commented on Joe's handling of rufio but what amounts to his advice "go away and read something" was given many pages back. As for "insult hurling" she has certainly inititated this herself, and there is an argument which says response in kind is the most effective.
Well lets see if Joe's advice is taken, or whether we are all left wondering how to deal with a ....(IS there there any word here that would not be derogatory ?)
I was going to suggest a few posts back that joe be given the title of "Moderator" in a not-so-serious hint.
Rufio wrote:I'm not being argumentative. I genuinely want to figure out what the hell JL is talking about. I'm trying to expland my limited knowledge, but unfortunately I'm being impeded by people who seem to be even less secure about their ideas than me - they won't even discuss them.
Actually, I am a sophomore in a logic class. I can't take philosophy classes all the time, so I'm forced to read up on my own, or discuss outside of class, which I actually find more useful.
Fresco
It's a damn shame she/he didn't have the humility to write this earlier---if she/he had,none of this unpleasantness would have developed to such a ridiculous level.
Would you agree with me that a course in logic prior to a good grounding in philosophy has contributed greatly to Rufio's problem? To my simple way of thinking, logic and philosophy can only be reconciled by the greatest of minds
Best regards Fresco to you and the other participants
perception
Perception,
My own introduction to Philosophy was also through logic classes but (fortunately) I was going to parallel psychology and physics lectures which showed up the limitations of logic. In particular as we have discussed on previous occasions , I was influenced by Piagets genetic epistomology whereour concepts of "logic" and "causality" are seen as end products of the maturation process and therefore cannot be evoked as an "explanation" of that process. My later work on "pattern perception" raised many philosophical problems including those of "identity theory", active perception, and the relationship between the whole and its parts.
I therefore concur that reliance on "binary logic" as a foundation for intellectual understanding is essentially flawed.
truth
I quite agree, Focus, on the limitations of logic as a research tool. I've always thought of logic, rather simplistically, as something to be used as we use grammar. When thinking or talking (when stringing thoughts and words together) I'm sensitive to whether or not a "logical fallacy" is invoked or when a grammatical rule has been broken. But I never begin a sentence with the rules of grammar or the principles of logic consciously in mind. I also agree that we should consider logic as a cultural invention (culture in the largest sense of the term). There is or was, you may have heard, an anthropological journal called Ethnologic. It publishes papers on the logical systems of exotic cultures. I was once asked to review an article submitted for publication. I told the editor that I had no preparation to judge work in that area and was informed that very few people do. It was a nascent field and in desperate need of non-specialists who would at least try to respond to the general competency of the submissions. I do not know if the journal prevailed, but it is interesting to note that their existence indicates that "logic" is a culturally variable invention, not something conveyed to us by the gods because it mimics the structure of nature.
I would be perfectly happy to accept criticisms, Joe, except that every time I post, someone just says "rufio you're wrong, go get laid" or just doesn't answer at all. If you think you see any faulty logic I'd like to know about it. Just find any of the many, many unanswered posts on the thread and feel free to add your input. I'm sure I've missed things - that's why I'm discussing things with other people - so maybe they can point out where I've gone wrong.
But since no one's going to respond to this post anyway, I don't see the point.
Philosophy is not irrelevant just because you don't agree with it. Anthropological theory is very much philosophy, and anything that was strictly material was a response to something incredulously ideal. But of course, none of those ideals were ever backed up in response to my criticism....
I've read Descartes. I was unimpressed. I've read Hume, and was less impressed. I wrote essays on both of them about their philosophies and did pretty well on them. If you think they can make my ideas more "sophisticated" the burden of proof is on you. Although by sophisticated you probably mean "just like your own". Incidentally, I've also read Kant, and I loved it, though I don't follow his reasoning exactly.
Just as a little disclaimer here, I'm grateful to Joe for attempting to calm things down, and none of this is an insult purposefully directed at anyone - if you interpret it as one, you probably deserve to be insulted.
Perception, not only are you vulgar and rude, but also suprisingly (or not so surprisingly) unoriginal. We are trying to use our brains, and all you can think to do is sling mud. If you're just going to live vicariously through people who are smarter than you, than I give you kusav's advice - go get laid.
Another disclaimer - that WAS an insult. Enjoy.
JL - my "insults" have been no worse than your outright slander. Grow up and stop bitching. If you don't want other people to respond to your posts, than don't post. I was not "attacking" you, I was asking you questions about parts of your posts that did not make sense to me, which you very rudely ignored.
Percpetion, I have mentioned that before, but clearly, no one reads my posts. I don't talk about my past experience in every post because unlike you, I don't use it as part of my arguments.
If you guys are really that interested in my history with this, here you go:
Intro to Philosophy - Plato, Descartes, Hume, Kant, Neiszche. Tecnically I didn't read Nietszche, but I paid attention in lecture and wrote an A paper on him anyway.
Symbolic Logic
Theories of Culture - too many theorists to name here, many of which had some kind of philosophy on human nature or culture in general. Most philosophical I would say were Marx and Engels, Claude Levi-Strauss, Emile Durkheim, Edward Burnett Tylor...probably others, but I can't think of them all now. Perhaps this isn't metaphysical enough for Joe, but I happen to like the philosophy of human nature.
Intro to Linguistics - Stephen Pinker, same boat as those above.
Outside of class - I have a collection of books about anthropological/linguistic philosophy, including some theorists that were mentioned but not discussed in my anthro class. I am also reading The Mind's Eye, and I've read Ayn Rand and some other more contemporary authors as well.
Next spring I am taking Philosophy of Language along with an anthro linguistics course - I would be taking Ethical Theory, but it conflicts with my archaeology class.
There you have it. Read carefully, I will not post it again.
That's interesting JL - can you remember how the magazine described the logic of cultures to be different? Since grammatical structure is fairly universal, I'd assume that logic was the same way.
Yes JLN, despite Steven Pinkers recent attack on linguistic relativity (Eskimos "types of snow" etc) in favour of linguistic/perceptual universals, he fails to acknowledge that such universals are derived by an "academic exercise" where linguistic fragments are taken out of context, and where resolution of so called "ambiguous utterances" is the key to the analysis. In running communication such "ambiguity" rarely arises, or if it does is it is resolved by additional communication. Had Pinker used Hallidays "grammar" which is "communication based" rather than Chomsky's, which is "sentence based" he might well have reached a different conclusion. Irrespective of the mythology or otherwise of "Eskimos snow", I'm not aware that Pinker manages to deal with numerous other examples like Hopi "lack of past or future tenses", or Zulu "one word for blue and green" etc etc.
joefromchicago wrote:Thus, light shift is evidence of distance, not a measurement of distance. Cosmological distances are still measured in light-years, not "light-reds" or "light-yellows."
Since physical distance cannot be measured directly for distant objects, redshift is used as a relative scale. The conversion to light-years depends on the value of Hubble Constant, the age of the universe, and the rate of expansion (which seems to be accelerating). You must also specify whether you mean the distance to where it was, where it appears to be, or where it is now. Several quasars have been discovered with Z larger than 6.
Quote:Z , commonly referred to as "redshift", measures the distance of a galaxy in relation to the earth. The higher the redshift value, the more distant the galaxy.
twyvel wrote:Point was it seems obvious that everything one knows, observers, perceives etc. is mental. ...
Well it's quite amazing that most don't know. I think I can honestly say that I have never experienced, observer, perceived anything other then what we call 'mental events'.
The result of perception may be mental, but the objects that are perceived are physical. They can be seen, heard, touched, or tasted. I don't think we are using the same definitions here. Would your answer be any different if you used Merriam-Webster's definitions?
Quote:perceive: 2 : to become aware of through the senses
perception: 1 a : a result of perceiving : OBSERVATION b : a mental image : CONCEPT
3 a : awareness of the elements of environment through physical sensation <color perception> b : physical sensation interpreted in the light of experience
rufio wrote: Terry, there is a sense that could be used to determine color - we just don't happen to have it. It's objectivly sensible through other means than simple sight. What makes lines more real than color? Really, they are just delightful mental interpretations of a series of dots placed in a particular proximity.
What sense don't we have that determines color?
Lines are edges of physical shapes. As far as I know, all types of eyes can perceive boundaries, but many animals (and some people) cannot see color.
rufio wrote:Does the term "human universals" ring any kind of bell?
Yep, I just finished "The Blank Slate" which appends Donald E. Brown's list. I find it more credible that millions of years of evolution have hard-wired our brains with traits conducive to survival in society, than the idea that our perception of reality is a delusional product of culture.
JLNobody wrote:Gurdieff, as Focus points out, sees normal man as asleep in his normal perception--culture is a kind of sleep-walking: we live in a culturally constituted world, a socially constructed world, and we do so as if it were the most natural thing. And it IS for us: We are cultural beings. Buddhism helps us to transcend our cultural conditioning (not to make us pre-cultural), to see through it, to wake up, to "dehypnotize" ourselves; to see reality more as it is.
How do you know whether you are waking up or going deeper into a trance? How is the experience of non-dualism any more "real" than the equally mystical religious experience described by Derevon, who is absolutely certain of the reality of a belief system that includes God as a separate entity?
Derevon wrote:I am quite sure it's scientifically impossible to prove God's existence or nonexistence, but true religion is not about logical deduction and reasoning (therewith not said that it's incompatible with these). If a person wholeheartedly and persistently chooses to accept God and his ways, and really tries to know him and to be led by him, God will eventually reveal himself to this person, through faith. This kind of faith is nothing like mere belief; it's more like some kind of mystical insight which lets one know with absolute certainty that God is real and that he is your father, and you his son/daughter and many other things. This insight is (to me at least) so strong that it not only transcends belief, but also common memory knowledge. To me God is more real than anything or anyone else.
What faith really is I do not know. It's totally incomparable to anything I had previously experienced. I doubt a person who hasn't experienced it could have even a vaguely accurate idea of what it's like. Once one has faith, though, it doesn't matter in the slightest what it is, because one knows within oneself that it is a gift from God; a gift of hope, purpose and love.
Is his/her transcendent and indescribable experience any different than yours? If so, whose reality is "right"?
Fresco, except in the case of multiple personalities, I think that there is a core "I" which plays many roles rather than a committee. I would not consider desires, urges, and thoughts to be "I"s, but rather factors that are weighed (consciously or otherwise, such as neural networks) by the "I" when deciding on a course of action.
rufio wrote:I've read Descartes. I was unimpressed. I've read Hume, and was less impressed. I wrote essays on both of them about their philosophies and did pretty well on them.
It is time, then, for you to read Berkeley. And then re-read Hume -- you clearly missed something.
rufio wrote:If you think they can make my ideas more "sophisticated" the burden of proof is on you.
No, there will be no burden-shifting here. Your philosophical sophistication can only be demonstrated by your own progress.
rufio wrote:Although by sophisticated you probably mean "just like your own".
It is good to see that you have set such lofty goals for yourself.
Rufio
Glad to see you didn't sulk for long-----you may learn something from these good people. Too bad you didn't pay more attention to Descartes----you could use some of his humility. About your advice----I do and will get laid quite often
Terry,
when you wrote ....
" I think that there is a core "I" which plays many roles rather than a committee."
.....Gurdjieff would have said that the I which wrote it was "asleep" and it is that "mistake" which prevents you from realizing your" full potential."
Now whether you go along with this at present or not, my own experience is that actual attempts to observe "the self" usually provide disconcerting support for this view. So as in other esoteric traditions only those who speak "from actual experience" and not "from opinion" are deemed qualified to judge.....and for those who cry "self hypnosis" the answer is "try it" and then see what you think.
truth
Terry, you compare the mystical insight into the nature of ego-self to the religious faith of Deveron. I agree there are some similarities, e.g., the feeling of certitude in the absence of PUBLIC evidence. One can only confirm one's faith PRIVATELY. Others must do the same. But my perspective is not based on the hope Deveron gains from his faith; my experience does not give me hope. If anything it frees me from the need for hope. I've given up hope for any kind of after life. There is no self (e.g., soul) to survive this experience. But, then, I see no reason to assume a self NOW. But you're right that I cannot prove the validity of my perspective to you. You have to WORK to someday share it. And since you lack the motivation. There's no problem as far as I'm concerned. If you WERE to meditate, say in the very popular vipassana manner, you would eventually recognize that you cannot find any experiential evidence for a "core 'I'", as you expressed it to Fresco. You WILL have the experience minute to minute of sensations of self, that come and go--for me it is usually a physical sensation around the sinus area, just above and behind my eyes. Then it evaporates only to come again when I try to feel it. Then, in the plurality sense of self, my self identification changes from situation to situation. That's fine. But the core self--the very much attached-to idea of a permanent self--is the fiction that I find pernicious; it is what makes you feel separate from the rest of the world. When Jesus allegedly identified himself with God, the father. I prefer " the genitor" in the sense of the ground of our being, meaning our life experience now. It is, to my mind, possible that Deveron's God is a grand metaphor for this ground and that the father status of God is the generator of Dev's being. I do not presume to know this for Deveron, but I think it is true for Theresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross. Their descriptions of their mystical experiences were couched in theimagery of their culture. When I read some of them I tried to read behind their lines, and there I found familiar territory, even being an atheist of different time and culture. I guess the experience of non-dualism is more real (for me) than is the experience of dualistic thought because I can compare them. I have them both throughout the day--and the former is without doubt more "real" than is the latter. You'll just have to take my word for it, or not. I wish I could give you a pill, but I can't. I'm sure Deveron, in his generosity, would like to give me a pill that would infuse me with the faith he enjoys. But he can't. I don't feel any need for it, just as you don't feel any need for a non-dualistic perspective.
Terry
Quote: The result of perception may be mental, but the objects that are perceived are physical. They can be seen, heard, touched, or tasted. I don't think we are using the same definitions here. Would your answer be any different if you used Merriam-Webster's definitions?
Quote: Would your answer be any different if you used Merriam-Webster's definitions?
I don't think so. I think our definitions are roughly the same at a general level, though I could be wrong. It's what they are definitions of, that's under dispute.
fresco
".....Gurdjieff would have said that the I which wrote it was "asleep" and it is that "mistake" which prevents you from realizing your" full potential."
I agree. And in addition, I would say there is as such no "sleeping I", or any oneindividuals.
