Reality - thing or phenomenon?

@Fil Albuquerque,

Eating is not subjective, but what we eat is - unless food is scarce and choice is out of the question.

Is eating what is served by the mother subjective or objective?

0 Replies

Tangents coming; tangents coming.

Look, the people arguing that they KNOW what the REALITY is...are off base...way off base.

Their guesses may be correct, but they are guesses nonetheless.

Tangents are the only way to go now.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

So big deal ...you have a word that might represent something about which we can all "get a similar picture". Here's an interesting thought...Do we eat soup or drink soup ? Or how about "what's eating him ?" as an interesting ( English ?) cliche'. And even if we can agree on "common pattern" does this not boil down to "common physiology" or species independent biological necessity.

Okay. So I need an axiom like "common physiology" as a starting point. But that is exactly what the deflationists of "language and thought" do such as Maturana, (For whom "languaging" becomes simply "a behavior" and "thought" is subsumed under "cognition" ...the general life process for all species. I can take that axiom and run with it and see where it leads. And it is certainly not an intuitive "reality" by any means!

4 Replies

@fresco,

Do you eat food or do you eat the word "food"?

This is a simple question. Even a three year old could answer that. The fact that you can't proves how intellectually dishonest you are.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

So big deal ...you have a word that might represent something about which we can all "get a similar picture". Here's an interesting thought...Do we eat soup or drink soup ? Or how about "what's eating him ?" as an interesting ( English ?) cliche'. And even if we can agree on "common pattern" does this not boil down to "common physiology" species independent biological necessity.

Okay. So I need an axiom like "common physiology" as a starting point. But that is exactly what the deflationists of "language and thoughe" do such as Maturana, (For whom "languaging" becomes simply "a behavior" and "thought" is subsumed under "cognition" ...the general life process for all species.

WARNING...WARNING...SERIOUS DIVERSIONS IN PROGRESS. PROCEED WITH CAUTION.

0 Replies

@fresco,

We eat soup; unless it's pure liquid. Most soups have some sort of "solid" ingredient.

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

So big deal ...you have a word that might represent something about which we can all "get a similar picture". Here's an interesting thought...Do we eat soup or drink soup ? Or how about "what's eating him ?" as an interesting ( English ?) cliche'. And even if we can agree on "common pattern" does this not boil down to "common physiology" or species independent biological necessity.

Okay. So I need an axiom like "common physiology" as a starting point. But that is exactly what the deflationists of "language and thought" do such as Maturana, (For whom "languaging" becomes simply "a behavior" and "thought" is subsumed under "cognition" ...the general life process for all species. I can take that axiom and run with it and see where it leads. And it is certainly not an intuitive "reality" by any means!

Again in all scenarios you present the pattern is there as for drinking or eating you can do both although you cannot drink hammers you can drink wisdom because it flows drinking either water or wisdom requires "nourishing" and "flowing" in a dynamic conjugation..REAL patterns with REAL foundation Fresco !!!

0 Replies

Here in New Jersey...we "consume" our soups...so that we don't get diverted by discussing "eat" or "drink" when it really doesn't mean beans.

Except for bean soup...which we "enjoy."

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Now that was a great bit of reading Frank ! Excellent ! Wink

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Here's some food for thought..... Wink

Does the 3 year old know the difference between eating "food" and eating" grass"? After all, cows eat grass. So is grass "food" or not . Specific contexts are required for the meaning of "food" . The fact that I can answer that I eat food and not the word "food", says nothing about the range of meanings/contexts that "food " can imply.

3 Replies

@fresco,

When you're starving, grass has been eaten.

0 Replies

Grass is food--it's just not of much value to humans, other than millet, rye, wheat, barley and oats. In those cases, of course, it's grass seeds that are of value to us. Nevertheless, it is food.

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Here's some food for thought.....

Does the 3 year old know the difference between eating "food" and eating" grass"? After all, cows eat grass. So is grass "food" or not . Specific contexts are required for the meaning of "food" . The fact that I can answer that I eat food and not the word "food", says nothing about the range of meanings/contexts that "food " can imply.

Yes you can ingest/eat grass not that it will work for you very well as eating also implies nourishment...and the reason why a child wont be able to differ is because the child doesn't know, it lacks EXPERIENCE and not because the "eating" is not there to be made !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

The pattern of "eating" is a complex dynamic pattern involving several intersections not a 1 function linear operation like moving a bit of information left to right, but the fact that it is complex does not mean the pattern is not there...

0 Replies

Here we go ! ....dogs, worms , ants, snakes, placenta.....its all REALLY "food" subject to social context of course and that is the key issue about the word"reality" !

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Okay. So I need an axiom like "common physiology" as a starting point.

Yes indeedy . . . the "whence" of so much of your nonsense. That common physiology seeks nourishment, and will settle for less and less nourishing sources, as it faces starvation--including grass, or insects or snakes. (Snake is not bad, although i still prefer beef and pork.) Maundering about context is about all you've got going for you. You've already acknowledged that you a working from an axiomatic assumption. Therefore, any argument you advance is little more, or no more convincing than that advanced by anyone working from a different or an equivalent axiom. In short, you pose as an authoritative speaker when your authority is as questionable as that of anyone else here.

0 Replies

Dog is not bad--a little stringy, but it has a good flavor. The Koreans raise puppies for the pot from their birth--they aren't all that stringy. It's adult dogs whose meat is stringy--from the exercise, one assumes.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Its not subject to social context like if it was dependent on free interpretation rather is subject to REAL social practice depending on factual sociological behaviour bound into the species aptitude to what it can eat, which in turn hasn't got a dime to do with consciousness other that you have to know what is nourishing to perform the factual function of eating...you don't see anyone from here to China eating hammers Fresco...the thing about "what works" you forgot to mention is that it really WORKS !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

I have never observed a god damned alien species eating but if I see one alien eating things like hammers and growing fat then I will say the function is there and that aliens can eat hammers...if it WORKS then the function is there, if it doesn't then it doesn't, if the pattern doesn't get a "lock on" it doesn't complete ! Freaking objective simple !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Objectively simple. LOL Some people just have good imagination. I think their reality is based on their creativity. They've read too many philosophy books. LOL

0 Replies

Reality - thing or phenomenon?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know