High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 10:29 am
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:
....I'm thinking now of the zen approach to facing reality as it is primorially given by means of an absolutely passive (i.e., prereflective awareness) posture (meditation).....

Anybody can mess up definitions - no need to check into your neighborhood asylum just yet, simply review your understanding of your terms.

Starting with the Chinese character for "ZEN" >
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen
> which literally means "empty" or "no-thing". The posters here insisting you and Cyracuz have been discussing "nothing" agree with you.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 10:37 am
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

george wrote:
Quote:
That is simply untrue. The real issue here is that he .. and you .. have not discussed anything at all.


In all fairness, doesn't this statement reveal more about your capacity to collect information from a text than the writers intent in writing it? I do not mean to offend by saying this. It's a fair question in my opinion.

The way I see it, after establishing the value of the concept random, we (JL and myself) are now considering how concepts relate to eachother and how we as observers are more entangled in the interplay of "natural forces" than scientific method tends to assume. If you are still thinking within the boundaries of science I can see how it appears we are discussing nothing.

What "natural forces" are these? Please define them.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 12:09 pm
High Seas
Any relationship percieved in nature in which the observer is seen as irrelevant for the outcome of the observation. For instance the observation that water boils around 100 degrees celcius.

And you are right, Joe, that the idea of objective existence isn't very useful in regard to our concepts themselves. The idea that empirical observation cannot prove anyting may be universally accepted, but it seems to me that most people still think in terms of absolute reality in which concepts have their own meaning independent of our perception. The observation may be superfuous in relation to our science, but it is my opinion that if we see all this as an extension of self exploration that situation changes.
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 12:46 pm
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

The observation may be superfuous in relation to our science, but it is my opinion that if we see all this as an extension of self exploration that situation changes.

And if we saw this as a seventeenth-century Restoration-era comedy the situation would change even more.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 03:54 pm
@High Seas,
Ha Ha, very funny, High Seas.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 03:29 pm
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:

Ha Ha, very funny, High Seas.


Thank you so much, "Nobody" - and btw, you'd be called "Outis" in ancient Greek: meaning nobody, no such person.

It does sound to me much better than "zen", but then I'm trained in the Western scientific tradition. Odysseus chose the name "outis" for himself, in an effort to confound communication protocols (other places known as "speech") among a race of unfriendly one-eyed giants, one of whom he had just blinded. It may well be, as you say, that great truths can be found in the arts that cannot be found in the sciences ..... Smile
JLNobody
 
  2  
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 07:01 pm
@High Seas,
Outis, I wish I knew that when I was coming with a handle. Thanks.
I'm "no such person". I am an entity (a social person) from the outside, but when I reflect (perceptually, not conceptually) from the so-called inside I am not. I'm Nobody. And so are you--from my perspective. Notice that my language contradicts my assertion. "I" am built into our grammar.
But no more of this. Joe has chastised me and others of my persuasion for hijacking threads with our perspective(s) on dualism.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 08:32 am
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:

Outis, I wish I knew that when I was coming with a handle. Thanks.
I'm "no such person". ...


Glad you liked "Outis" - and you can always change your name to it, as you know. I know pitifully few Chinese characters, but I looked up the word in the ancient Greek original text of the Odyssey - don't worry, I'll post the translation also - and discovered it's usually translated as "No man":
Quote:
με κτείνει δόλῳ οὐδὲ βίηφιν.’

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0135%3Abook%3D9%3Acard%3D360
Quote:
...in a frenzy of rage and pain, shouting as he did so to the other Cyclopes who lived on the bleak headlands near him; so they gathered from all quarters round his cave when they heard him crying, and asked what was the matter with him.

"‘What ails you, Polyphemus,’ said they, ‘that you make such a noise, breaking the stillness of the night, and preventing us from being able to sleep? Surely no man is carrying off your sheep? Surely no man is trying to kill you either by fraud or by force?

"But Polyphemus shouted to them from inside the cave, ‘Noman is killing me by fraud! Noman is killing me by force!’

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0218%3Abook%3D9%3Acard%3D6
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 05:02 pm
@High Seas,
I know this from one of Kirk Douglas' movies. Thanks anyway.
JLNoman
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Mar, 2010 12:02 pm
The time at which I write this post is random. I hadn't planned it, but now I am writing it on an impulse I had no way to predict.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Mar, 2010 03:06 pm
@Cyracuz,
Now you ARE using "randomness" in the more existential psycho-phenomenological sense, as opposed to the mathematical sense of the physics-types among us.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Mar, 2010 03:13 pm
@JLNobody,
Yes. But if I said why, would it still be randomness?
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Mar, 2010 11:46 pm
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

The time at which I write this post is random. I hadn't planned it, but now I am writing it on an impulse I had no way to predict.


Hari Seldon may well have planned it that way.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Mar, 2010 10:59 am
@Eorl,
Then Hari knows something I don't.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  2  
Reply Mon 8 Mar, 2010 12:07 pm
@Cyracuz,
It could be, perhaps, a post factum imposition of order on a "randomish" phenomenon, which, I suspect, is what we do all the time. Metaphorically, when I present an abstract painting to viewers, they often try to see something in it, as if it were just a failed effort at representational art.
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Mar, 2010 07:30 pm
@JLNobody,
Freud would say it was! Smile
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Mar, 2010 07:38 pm
@Eorl,
I agree. Life can be a large Rorshak, or Thematic Apperception, Test. We are constantly projecting ourselves onto ambiguous phenomena--attempting to render things familiar.
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Mar, 2010 07:52 pm
@JLNobody,
Pffft. Rorschach tests. The doctor accused me of terrible things, but HE was the one with all the dirty pictures!
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Mar, 2010 07:04 pm
@JLNobody,
Hm.. perhaps art, the creation of a painting, is a good example of a deterministic process that cannot be expressed mathematically.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Mar, 2010 08:46 pm
@Cyracuz,
Or even logically.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
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
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Randomness
  3. » Page 7
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/17/2019 at 01:25:04