Arbitrary Reality?

i imagine that all of us experience those brief periods in the, otherwise arduous, task of piling thought upon thought to make a shape out of the apparent facts when--suddenly everything seems to make sense! Let's call it "inspiration". One moment, one is struggling to support an argument, and then in another the entire structure of our various opinions seems to be self-supporting. For days, our every interpretation seems infallible, and deeply connected with another erstwhile and seemingly meaningless opinion. We seem wise to ourselves, and trustworthy in our judgments. But then...inevitably, reality intrudes. A seeming irrelevance has grown to present an unavoidable obstacle to our increasing omniscience. As suddenly as everything seemed comprehensible, everything requires revaluation. Sometimes, this happens because of some mistake on our part, but sometimes it is because reality itself has only made some hitherto undiscover-able portion of herself available to us, but only those of us willing to open ourselves up to that very portion of reality.

Section 3 on Bergson's intuition versus that of Kant. It is also in chapter 12 of The Creative Mind

Ding an Sich wrote:

Premises
1. If our knowledge comes from experience and neither of us have experience "the universe", then we have no knowledge of it.

2. That of which we have no knowledge must be rendered into a form comparative to that of which we do have knowledge, which becomes a metaphor.

Conclusion

3. You can say X part of the universe, which has been experienced, is, but you cannot say the universe "is".

This is what you said correct? I want to make sure before we step any further.

Yeah that works. Although it was somewhat presented tongue in cheek to play with the quote you gave. It is a nice enough argument for the need to use metaphor in regards to the nature of the universe, or the whole of the universe, or really anything in which we have experience in part but not the whole yet feel that we need to synecdochally extend the part to the whole.

I will argue that the first premise of the argument is unsound; the reason being is that just because all of our knowledge begins with experience, does not necessarily mean that it ends with it. I know that Paris is in France, which is in Europe, but I have never exeprienced Paris, nor for that matter France or Europe. If we are to go off your first premise, then I could never know of Paris in the first place, because I would first have to experience Paris. By extension of the first premise, I could never know anything about Paris (or Paris for that matter).

The second premise seems a little silly; if I say that something is like something else via metaphor, it does not always have to remain a metaphor. I can tell someone something of which they know nothing about by means of a metaphor, but that is to make sure they understand a resemblence, so that they may come to understand what it is that needs to be known. Once they know of a subject, thing, concept, etc., then what is the use of metaphor? It is useless in this case.

Ding an Sich wrote:

I will argue that the first premise of the argument is unsound; the reason being is that just because all of our knowledge begins with experience, does not necessarily mean that it ends with it. I know that Paris is in France, which is in Europe, but I have never exeprienced Paris, nor for that matter France or Europe. If we are to go off your first premise, then I could never know of Paris in the first place, because I would first have to experience Paris. By extension of the first premise, I could never know anything about Paris (or Paris for that matter).

1) Knowledge may not end with experience, but according to the quote we are using it must begin with it. If there is no beginning we cannot skip straight to the end.
2)You have experience of Paris insomuch as you have the experience of Paris being in France. You have experience of cartography, media, education, witnesses etc... The conclusion that Paris is in France does not require your direct experiential physical presence in Paris. You are relying of geopolitical experience, the same as you would if you were physically in Paris itself. To even know that paris exists as Paris is to rely on the same set of geopolitical sources andexperiences as you do when you read about it. There are signs when you enter and leave, and governmental boundaries and border etc... the same things used to make maps. If it were not for these experiences you would simply be in a populated area, not in Paris, or in France.

Ding an Sich wrote:

The second premise seems a little silly; if I say that something is like something else via metaphor, it does not always have to remain a metaphor. I can tell someone something of which they know nothing about by means of a metaphor, but that is to make sure they understand a resemblence, so that they may come to understand what it is that needs to be known. Once they know of a subject, thing, concept, etc., then what is the use of metaphor? It is useless in this case.

I agree. Yet you are not countering the premise or misinterpreting it, or I wrote it sloppily. The premise is for something that cannot be experinced in a way in which someone could make a credible claim to understanding. The universe metaphor or other metaphors in this vein are useful because we can only experince parts of the whole and synechdotally extend the part to the whole through metaphor, otherwise we could not even make a rude credible metaphor. There is no one around that can aquaint me with the nature of the universe through metaphor (as per your example), and thus unless I have means to experience the nature of the universe (or the universe in its entirety) metaphor cannot progress to understanding and knowledge.

I have come to see reality as meaningless and therefore a wonderful playground for all imaginable thought.

Have you come to this conclusion that there is no meaning in the universe?

Why or why not?

was this a sarcastic reply?