What is the sound of one hand clapping

@Setanta,

What hobby horse is that ?.....Non-duality?...Merely a term which includes the whole range of thinking in which many thinkers have realized that observer variables cannot be divorced from the meaning of "reality". The fact that such a term may have "spiritual connotations" amongst its applications does not detract from its general functionality. In the same way, I don't think you would argue that we should throw the term "causality" out on the basis that it has implications for "a prime mover". I might !...and there might be significant consequences for my attitude to what I might call one of your "hobby horses" - history.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Tell me again how you don't sneer. I have not once mentioned history in this thread--but you couldn't resist dragging it in. It is only at the sub-atomic level that science seems to validate the claim that what is observed is affected by observation, and physicists, at least, are honest enough to point out that they don't know enough about particle physics yet to explain the phenomenon. You, however, are ready to charge in on your philosophical charger to claim that your boys have known it all along.

You are, at least, entertainiong.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

"Only at the sub-atomic level" is a classic piece of understatement even for physics, and the word "explanation" begs a multitude of epistemological and ontological questions. And the spectacular failure of the concept of "independent reality" in AI research has curtailed the squandering of money in that direction, and has led to the establishment of so-called "second order cognitive science" which involves holistic approaches to perception. The fact that one of the key names in such developments, Varela, was also a Buddhist, is perhaps an interesting side issue (as indeed was Niels Bohr's interest in Taoism).

What "my boys" have known all along is that "knowing" cannot be restricted by the simplistic concept of "independent reality". That is all.

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

...Quine (the logician) came to the conclusion that the meaning of a sentence depended on the context of its usage, not its constituent parts.

Hi-yah fresco, where did Willard Van Orman Quine say words to the effect that: "the meaning of a sentence depended on the context of its usage, not its constituent parts"? Just curious is all, and how're you keeping?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Tell me again how you don't sneer. I have not once mentioned history in this thread--but you couldn't resist dragging it in. It is only at the sub-atomic level that science seems to validate the claim that what is observed is affected by observation, and physicists, at least, are honest enough to point out that they don't know enough about particle physics yet to explain the phenomenon. You, however, are ready to charge in on your philosophical charger to claim that your boys have known it all along.

You are, at least, entertainiong.

It does seem that pop culture mysticism likes to mix it up with pseudo science; quantum mysticists like Deepak Chopra get a lot of attention. And how're keeping this rainy early evening? I see you are not acerbically challenged, that's fine by me given the alternative.

0 Replies

He's handicapped.

0 Replies

I would very much love to learn how is it that whatever I observe is not a reality in itself (whatever right or wrong might intend to refer to) once experience is the prime condition for assuming a reality, and from there, to learn whatever else reality if real it is, is any different or any less real just because an observer is not present, and I am not talking about knowledge or proof, but just to what is the case...more then that, to refer to the problem of free will seams crucial to determine a source in the "observer" to which the "I" is no more of an assumption then the assumption of a reality in itself...white elephants jigsaws, modern or not, wont change the matter...it seams quite easy to understand if a fixed reality it is not assumed any denial of its existence is equally meaningless and gratuitous, as I've always said, following such path is shot in the foot of those who indulge in it...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

That's basic philosophy. It seems that your participation on able2know proves you have "some" reality in your life.

The only constraints we have are biological, environmental, language, culture, educational, and experience. Beyond those constraints, you choose whatever you wish to make your reality.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

...while I would accept the terming that I do make "choices" I would not just as easily admit the coining of those choices as "free" choices...as for the "I" we have many "I's" and in permanent mutation, being the assumed continuity of such "I" as an entity, as a source, part of the very illusion we aim to disable in the concept of "reality"...you right, its basic philosophy...and that's precisely where the danger for easy mistakes and assumptions starts off...

0 Replies

...in the end all we are left with is experience itself as there is no point in trying to address a source or a causer or any responsibility...yes, indeed what else but reality in itself ?

...now, I would enjoy to see Fresco tackle that, I mean to honestly tackle it without subterfuge...

0 Replies

If anything Philosophy as never moved beyond the basic, nor it needs to...the basic is at the very heart of what philosophy aims at...when we use the terming "fundamental" basic is what we intend to go for !

...now Politics for instance is more about decor...politics is complex and often complicated ! Wink

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Complicated? It's downright dumb-founding!

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Very much indeed !

0 Replies

Quote:

Object permanence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Object permanence is the understanding that objects continue to exist even when they cannot be seen, heard, or touched. This is a fundamental concept studied in the field of developmental psychology, the subfield of psychology that addresses the development of infants' and children's social and mental capacities. There is not yet scientific consensus on when the understanding of object permanence emerges in human development. Some researchers contend that it is acquired within the first two years of life, while others believe that it is an innate or built-in understanding present at birth.

Jean Piaget, the Swiss psychologist who first studied object permanence in young infants, argued that object permanence is one of an infant's most important accomplishments, as without this concept, objects would have no separate, permanent existence. In Piaget's theory of cognitive development infants develop this understanding by the end of the "sensorimotor stage," which lasts from birth to about 2 years of age.[1] Piaget thought that an infant's perception and understanding of the world depended on their motor development, which was required for the infant to link visual, tactile and motor representations of objects. According to this view, it is through touching and handling objects that infants develop object permanence.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_permanence

I figure it fits the mood of the thread... Very Happy

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Yes, it does. That's the reason I mention biology as one of the constraints of our "real" world experience.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I don't know how to make my point here, but let me start, C.I., with the notion that the purpose of koan study is to render one "dumbfounded" in a sense. Thought comes to rest and only the experience of being exists, a prereflect awareness that contains no bifurcation between "in here" (subject) and "out there" object--vis., no "independent reality" (Fresco). I love every opportunity to use the phrase "tat tvam asi" (that art thou). I happily suspect that Fil Albuquerque is coming, or has come, to that realization.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

You,

Quote:

a prereflect awareness that contains no bifurcation between "in here" (subject) and "out there" object--vis., no "independent reality" (Fresco).

I disagree; I've had too many experiences where I'm aware of "in here" and "out there" in the same instance. Otherwise, I'd be lost, and that rarely happens - even when I'm in a foreign place.

Put another way, I know I'm sitting in my computer room while I type this post - even while listening to the tv at the same time.

1 Reply

@Chumly,

Hi Chumly !

Quine is so paraphrased in Rorty:Philosophy and The Mirror of Nature (A seminal work iconoclastic with respect to traditional philosophy).

There is a key issue in the approach to non-duality speculation and that is to ask what constitute the fundamental aspects of "a satisfactory explanation". I think it was Fritjof Capra who pointed out that what we normally call "scientific" was largely about "prediction and control" which is a dualistic picture.(in The Web of Life). This implies that "explanation" is at best anthropocentric and at worst "cavalier". The antithesis of anthropocentricity is essentially non-dualistic because it gives no preference to species specific interactions with their "world". It is precisely because quantum physics is counter intuitive with respect to human "prediction" that traditionalists are wary of calling it "satisfactory" even though its "control" aspects are fulfilled at the human macro-level. This sets the scene for the battle ground between traditionalists who denigrate non-duality literature as "popularist" and the more open-minded who appreciate that non-duality is a difficult but alternative paradigm.

Alb Take this to be one attempt at your "tackling challenge". Reading of my references here (+ Maturana elsewhere) is probably a pre-requisite to get the full flavor.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

I know I'm sitting in my computer room while I type this post - even while listening to the tv at the same time

Consider this: What you report as "you knowing" is a function of this particular communicative context. Some have argued (Heidegger for example),
that for most of the time that "reporting you" is absent from your interactive "reality"...you do not normally go around reporting to yourself that "this is a doorknob I am turning..." etc. In other words, that communicative "you" is evoked by circumstance.....it is "thinged" and its properties are negotiable.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Whatever that means, it's beyond my simple mind to comprehend. I make my own decisions to do what I wish within the constraints I have mentioned earlier. Beyond that, I know I am communicating with you on the WWW. Whether you wish to accept that simple truth is your problem, not mine.

I travel the world frequently. You can see my travel blog at www.travelpod.com/members/c.i.222

Tell me I wasn't at all those places taking those pictures; that it's all imagined without reality.

You guys are nuts!

1 Reply

What is the sound of one hand clapping

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know