1
   

Noumenon and Phenomenon

 
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Feb, 2011 03:30 pm
@Dasein,
Quote:
I say that the individual 'observer' creates and has his own 'reality' and 'agreement' or 'non-agreement' with other observers doesn't create reality, it creates society.

That's because you are taking self (aka Dasein) as a priori whereas I am taking self as an epiphenomenon of social language. (Dennett)
Quote:
Each “particular version” in the “dispute” has to exist prior to the “dispute” occurring otherwise the “dispute” could not exist.

No. The inter-relationship of observers creates the "dispute" when each seeks to impose their own "language game". That is exactly what is happening between us now ! I put you in state1 who shifts me to state 2 etc etc, and none of those states had "existence" prior to our exchange.

And "knowing" is about confidence in the outcomes of inter-relationship. "Proof" is about the support for such confidence.

As for the "self" having continuity, see the thread on the committee nature of self.
http://able2know.org/topic/167517-1
Dasein
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Feb, 2011 04:26 pm
@fresco,
If you refuse to see that you create your reality before the dispute can take place then I'm not going to stand here and attempt to 'duke' it out with you. Not wanting to 'duke' it out with you means that the effort it would take to get someone who refuses to see past his nose isn't worth it. You can be right - whereever you are.

Notice you had nothing to say about the second half of my post . . . where I spoke of accountability and responsibility. Keep pulling the wool over your eyes. It's your life.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Feb, 2011 05:09 pm
@Dasein,
Accountability and responsibility are usually inculcated into the socially acquired self (or some of the committee of selves). You are merely adopting a bottom up paradigm (selves->society) whereas I am adopting the reverse. What's the big deal ? You want me to see farther than my nose, and I might want you to figure out who the speakers are in your internal conversations. This isn't "duking it out"....it's pointing out that philosophy might be more than regurgitating an entrenched position.
realist phil
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Feb, 2011 06:43 pm
@Dasein,
You really are an Existentialist!

You wrote,"I say that the individual 'observer' creates and has his own 'reality."
Can any two humans have the same reality?


Dasein
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Feb, 2011 12:23 pm
@realist phil,
realist phil wrote:
You really are an Existentialist!

You wrote,"I say that the individual 'observer' creates and has his own 'reality."
Can any two humans have the same reality?

I don't think so! I think humans can agree to allow other realities to be but you don't see the same red I see no matter how much we agree to agree or how much we agree to disagree.

My peave was aimed at the 'game' of domination/subjugation of 'self'. Domination/subjugation of 'self' is the coward's way out and does a dis-service to all humanity. Domination/subjugation of 'self' also happens when humans represent Be-ing with concepts (a combination of characteristics) instead of uncovering Be-ing.

BTW - I am not the label "Existentialist", I am Be-ing - LMFAO. I really don't have time for anything else.

Also, I don't have the "internal speakers" Fresco referred to. I may have an internal dialog occasionally but I'm very clear that it is "I" having the dialog and not some "dialog" having me. On occasion when somebody drives too close to me while I'm riding my bike I will mumble or shout a derisive comment, but I end the dialog somewhere between 20 and 50 feet and I go on my merry way. I also have a little "internal dialog" when I read a post from someone posting something before doing their due diligence. (They don't know that they don't know what they're talking about). I set those aside pretty fast too. Pretty much my time is mine and nobody can put a "trojan horse" on my "hard drive".
Dasein
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Feb, 2011 12:48 pm
@fresco,
The bottom-up paradigm you mentioned allows you to create who you are Be-ing. With the reverse you give the world and society the right to eff with you (which is part of the 'distraction' I mention below). You end up Be-ing your agreements instead of having agreements and Be-ing you!

Accountability and responsibility are not a set of agreements you make with society. Your set of agreements with society can only happen because humans Be-ing are accountability and responsibility.
Quote:
"philosophy might be more than regurgitating an entrenched position"
is man's way of creating 'wiggle' room instead of coming face-to-face with who he is and Be-ing. Conceptualization of Be-ing (curiosity) is our way of distracting our 'self' from Be-ing accountable and responsible.

There is no way out. You are Be-ing no matter how many concepts you use to explain it.
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Sun 13 Feb, 2011 01:25 pm
@Dasein,
Bravo for mantras like "Be-ing" ! It's a pity we can't chant them in our sleep or get those dream selves to conform ! Wink
0 Replies
 
realist phil
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Feb, 2011 04:31 pm
@Dasein,
Dasein wrote:

realist phil wrote:
You really are an Existentialist!

You wrote,"I say that the individual 'observer' creates and has his own 'reality."
Can any two humans have the same reality?

I don't think so! I think humans can agree to allow other realities to be but you don't see the same red I see

Does another human see the same chair you do?
Dasein
 
  0  
Reply Mon 14 Feb, 2011 09:27 am
@realist phil,
Quote:
Does another human see the same chair you do?
The question you ask is a trap. Apparently, one you're already in.

When I speak of seeing, I am speaking of perspective. Where you stand.

If you are a 'subject' standing and looking out at the world (object) and using the world, society, up-bringing, language, etc. to determine who you are i.e., create an identity, then you are at effect of the world and everything around you.

If, however, you recognize that prior to your learning to categorize and memorize guttural sounds (vowels & consonants) and the development of concepts (combinations of characteristics) you were Be-ing, then you have opened up the possibility of having some say in who you get to be during your time on the planet.

What I'm talking about is a selfish choice and others won't understand it. It won't be for the betterment of mankind. It won't make you rich or popular or get you into heaven.

'Seeing' comes from where you stand and not from the object you're looking at. One person in 10 million recognizes this and the rest let the chair define who they are.
godwasahippie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2011 06:21 pm
@JLNobody,
Perhaps it is that we are Noumena, the thing-in-itself, using practical reason to understand pure reason. Pure reason, as I sometimes see it, is what 'forms' our the phenomenal experience for our noumenal selves.

does anyone see a very strong resemblance to pure reason and platonic forms (I think of it as one form giving us many, practical ones)?
0 Replies
 
godwasahippie
 
  2  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2011 07:06 pm
@Dasein,
you clearly enjoy your understanding, could it be in our/your self-interest to help others have the same taste? i'm guessing, because you 'know', ie., you have danced with understanding in the realm of knowing, is it possible for you to teach/show the way to such powerful understanding of 'being'

I think that is why you are on here writing, however, i have found that being around more 'beings' that have been to 'the realm of "knowing"' tends to be in one's self-interest--rather than reveling in the fact that you have been there, and clearly, no one else has the ability to duke it out with you.

i would only caution holding your understanding so high above others, it asks only to be humbled.
godwasahippie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2011 07:08 pm
@fresco,
but bravo. very much so. i learned quite the bit from your posts. please and thanks.
0 Replies
 
Dasein
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2011 07:36 am
@godwasahippie,
Thank you for the kind words. 'Helping others', teaching, and showing others implies that I am better off than someone else and that they should 'replace' their 'understanding' with mine. Give me a break. I don't think anybody is better off than any other and I don't think anybody is capable of setting their understanding aside. Man up!

The ancient Greeks didn't have a word for what we call 'thinking'. For them, the closest thing to what we call thinking was "let something lie there and take it to heart". Most people don't "let something lie there and take it to heart". They argue, challenge, dispute, question, and scramble in attempt to alter what is being said and 'fit' it into their way of thinking. It's as if they think 'understanding' is a territory to defend and something they could lose. 'Understanding' is who you are and happens in the background, like breathing.

What if what I'm saying doesn't fit into the territory they have conquered? Does that make me 'better' than another person or does what I'm saying just not fit? If what I'm saying doesn't fit, trying to make it fit would make it no longer be what I'm saying. Do I demand that you give up your understanding? (as if that were possible). Can really you expect me to give up mine? Isn't this the beginning of slavery?
Quote:
i would only caution holding your understanding so high above others, it asks only to be humbled.
My understanding is just that, my understanding. Your understanding is yours. Just because a person holds himself apart from the crowd in a clearing doesn't mean that he holds himself to be different or better than somebody else's understanding.

Ultimately, I have only 2 choices. I can try to make my understanding 'fit' into the understanding of others or I can post my understanding and let you do with it what you will.

I choose the latter.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2011 08:33 am
@realist phil,
realist phil wrote:

You really are an Existentialist!

You wrote,"I say that the individual 'observer' creates and has his own 'reality."
Can any two humans have the same reality?

I don't think we can have the exact same experience ("the same reality"), but in an important sense, we ARE the same reality.



0 Replies
 
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2011 09:21 am
@Dasein,
It seems like when one speaks/thinks it is merely commentary on what his/her 'self' had just recently perceived. Almost as if the collective him/her were just some sort of observer who ultimately has no control over their 'selfs' actions or perceptions but is there only to experience and be aware of.

I also think that when one uses words such as "I, me or myself" they are really meaning 'you'(Speaking to their 'self') The question is, which one is the great Self here? The one who is watching or the one being watched? Perhaps it could be said that 'it' is both.

Could existence itself be merely a relationship?
Dasein
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2011 12:15 pm
@JPLosman0711,
I, me, myself are indicators. They point to the 'I' in "I also think". Indicators don't point to the identity, they point to Be-ing. Thinking is something Be-ing can do.

Be-ing can also split Be-ing into the subject/object world by distracting one's self with "The one who is watching or the one being watched?"

Your second paragraph is a bundle of confusion. 'Con' -adverb is the argument against something and 'Fusion' is the melding together of many into one. I, me, myself, you, they, and "which one is the great 'Self' refers to the many characteristics of Be-ing. They are not Be-ing. They are only indicators.
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2011 02:17 pm
@Dasein,
It amazes me how much people(myself included) always want to be 'right', or make you think that they know more than you do.

What compels us to want to be 'right'?
Dasein
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2011 06:12 pm
@JPLosman0711,
I don't know that the answer to your question has any value. Although I find it valuable to notice you want to be right. Maybe what compels us that we are right but only our 'self' and for nobody else.
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2011 09:13 pm
@Dasein,
How's your book coming?
Dasein
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2011 06:47 am
@JPLosman0711,
3 or 4 rewrites so far. On the latest rewrite I had completed 4 chapters and realized that chapters 2 & 3 should be combined and made into chapter 1. So I'm rewriting chapters 2 & 3 and making them chapter 1. Great exercise in thinking. All synapses are firing.

Seriously though, everybody on this forum should write a book for themselves. As I said, great exercise in thinking. You write something, you read it, you realize your FOS (full of . . .) and you rewrite. The process doesn't allow you to lie to yourself. I understand why everybody doesn't write one. It's an exercise in accountability.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/18/2021 at 05:23:46