No Reality Outside Our Own Existence

JLNobody wrote:

Despite my current disagreements with Craven, I think we must all acknowledge our gratitude for his excellent management of A2K.

JL, I appreciate the ncie words but must say that I am opposed to getting compliments about my position with A2K as I am to getting the insults (e.g. fresco's 'big brother' implications on this thread).

In your case you mean well but I do not like compliments in general and especially not those about A2K. Chalk it up to a weird ego and gracelessness in reception of compliments but that's how I feel.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

No, unless I've missed something I don't think you've engaged any of my points which start from an (unsaid) assumption that you are familiar with (a)the problems of the applicability of traditional set theory with respect to the interaction of observer and observed and (b) the fact that "logical thinking" is an outcome of the maturation of cognitive processes and
hence cannot be evoked to explain that process.

fresco, I can't begin to tell you how weary I am of the incessant rejoinder that I do not exhibit enough "understanding" for you.

But to begin to address this all-too-convenient charge:

While logical thought might be held to be an evolution of our cognition I disagree with the associated implication that logic itself is.

I see them as speratate things and the best way I can explain it at the moment is that I do not think mathematics evolved but merely our understanding of it.

Thusly I do not think the precepts of logic itself are called into question by the fact that our use of it as a deductive mechanism is a result of our cognitive maturation.

Quote:

So the fact that you still speak in terms of "veracity" rather than "internal coherence" implies you are

unfamiliar with/reject on some grounds/ dont understand

my starting point (delete accordingly).

fresco, this choices you have constructed seem to be:

"You are either wrong or not right."

And I get the feeling that this is going to summarize our pridian exchange on this subject, and if nothing changes, our future exchanges.

0 Replies

As reluctant as I am to interpose myself in this imbroglio, I must say a word or two in defense of Craven. I haven't seen him engage here in any kind of personal attack; if his remarks concerning the positions that some hold may have been incisive, they have also, in my opinion, been free from personal animosity.

Of course, I also agree with him, so my perception may be directly influenced by my own biases. Nevertheless, I'd like to think that I'm fair enough to recognize when someone who shares my opinions crosses the line from impersonal argument to personal invective.

But the downward spiral of this thread is not surprising -- it seems this is the usual denouement of every dualist-nondualist debate in this forum -- which is why I left a couple of days ago. I return now merely to note that the calls for more civil discourse should be heeded by both sides equally: no one here has a monopoly either on offending or on being offended.

0 Replies

It gets a bit tricky, I mean I acknowlege and appreciate if people point out to me that my verbiage has created a tone through which I have offended, as offense is not necessary to my arguments and should be avoided when possible but by the same measure if the criticism of me should offend me should that too be avoided?

I agree with avoiding offense and will try harder to do so.

My personal criteria is usually to avoid any and all derogation of the individual but not to withold drogation of the arguments and positions.

I understand that derogation of positions can be taken as derogation of the individual through proxy and while I can try to mitigate this through the use of different verbiage I'm unsure that it can be entirely avoided without the cessation of strident dissent altogether.

0 Replies

Craven,

Don't you see I cannot use the words "wrong" or "right" ! I can only talk in terms of "range of applicability"

I note you did not mention my middle option of "disagreeing on some grounds" which is the path you actually took when you gave your version of the status of mathematics in general. This could be a substantial issue since it is certainly the case for example that development of "group theory" has changed physicists views about elementary particles and hence the directions of their subsequent "observations". This would indeed impinge on a discussion of reality.

However having understood the nature of your objection I am content to let the matter rest.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Don't you see I cannot use the words "wrong" or "right" ! I can only talk in terms of "range of applicability"

To be honest I can't say I 'see'this if that is held to mean that I 'see' a self-evident truth. The reason being that I do not consider this a truism. I do think that you should be able to weigh your opinion and your position for it's veracity.

And if we assume that I do 'see' that with which I do not agree and that we both accept that it can't been seen in those terms my follow-up question is to ask what mechanisms you've used to differentiate this position from other positions you might reject.

Quote:

This could be a substantial issue since it is certainly the case for example that development of "group theory" has changed physicists views about elementary particles and hence the directions of their subsequent "observations". This would indeed impinge on a discussion of reality.

We might need to define our uses of 'reality'. I consider perceived reality and reality to be a different kettle of fish.

For example, I've been told that my perceived reality of being the most benevolent, warm and thoroughly likable person on the whole planet is a perception that conflicts with the perceived realities of others, leading me to believe that reality is somehwere in between.

I do not think reality is changed through the discovery of the incongruity of perception but merely the perception itself.

Quote:

However having understood the nature of your objection I am content to let the matter rest.

Should you decide to do so I will, of course, respect that but if you feel so inclined I'd like to get to the root of the charge that I've not understood you. I'm still trying to discover what criteria you think I should meet to demonstrate said understanding.

0 Replies

Craven,

You are not being charged with anything. You are merely not "communing" with my view that "truth is negotiable". That is your right but in my opinion it then limits your options at least in the region of what we might call "tentative proposals". Interestingly some "esoteric schools" start with the proposition that we should neither accept nor reject their "material"...just listen, and observe the "self".
I can certainly say the experience is at the very least "interesting".

0 Replies

Is the offered truism that "truth is negotiable" negotiable?

0 Replies

Russells paradox (or similar) is one of the problems of "internal coherence" in binary logic and is discussed by Kosco vis-a-vis "fuzzy sets".
Your example could therefore be interpretated as evidence for a nondualist position. (Kosco is fond of Zen thinking).

0 Replies

I don't think that was an example of 'binary logic', I am however certain that the actual question was not answered so much as responded to.

0 Replies

Good game ! On the basis that you were not using "binary logic" my answer is "possibly" !

BTW I liked your Wittgensteinian points about different usages of the word "reality". Try that with "truth", you might get some interesting results.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Good game ! On the basis that you were not using "binary logic" my answer is "possibly" !

Ok, and if this possibility of dubious authenticity is recognized what mechanisms do you use to discern whether or not the truism is.

Quote:

BTW I liked your Wittgensteinian points about different usages of the word "reality". Try that with "truth", you might get some interesting results.

It has the exact same results. The perception of truth can change without the truth itself changing (with the caveat that the change in perception can also result in the truth being changed in much the same way that any change can).

0 Replies

To take the first issue. My answer of "possibly" is to be taken as an "in-joke" with respect to fuzzy sets. However the "mechanism" you call for is one of "utility" or "functionality". E,g, in a "battle command structure" scenario "negotiation" may not be functional.

To take the second, at this level I cannot commune with your notion of a separate "truth" from the perceptual process per se because I have rejected naive realism. I of course use phrases like "he didn't see the truth" in everyday parlance but I am merely disregarding "a covert consensus" which is carried by the context in which such a phrase might be uttered. More precisely I should perhaps have said "he didn't see what we considered to be the truth".

We should perhaps note also that these type of arguments tend to end up with linguistic infinite regresses and my call for a "pragmatic" mechanism is a possible way out.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

To take the first issue. My answer of "possibly" is to be taken as an "in-joke" with respect to fuzzy sets. However the "mechanism" you call for is one of "utility" or "functionality". E,g, in a "battle command structure" scenario "negotiation" may not be functional.

Ok, but that still seems like you are describing and commenting on my question rather than answering it. Could you please answer it?

Quote:

To take the second, at this level I cannot commune with your notion of a separate "truth" from the perceptual process per se because I have rejected naive realism. I of course use phrases like "he didn't see the truth" in everyday parlance but I am merely disregarding "a covert consensus" which is carried by the context in which such a phrase might be uttered. More precisely I should perhaps have said "he didn't see what we considered to be the truth".

If he didn't see what you consider to be the truth another way of putting it is that he didn't see the truth at all and that said perception he has of truth is his own delusion.

That's just a different way of wording what I'd said except that it gives less consideration to the subjective nature of truth by not allowing a perception of truth to be called as much. I'd note that this isn't a variance I'd object to as long as there is a truth and multiple alledged truths.

0 Replies

Sorry Craven I simply don't know what would satisfy as "an answer" on the first, and we are I think heading for word salad on the second (and I do mean "we")

I havegenuinely tried to converge with you by using the word "truth" as best I can, but I feel a bit like an atheist talking about "God" in conversation with a theist. Having said that, some of your second argument sounded faintly like nondualism to my biased ears but I'm not sufficiently motivated to pursue that angle.

Regards fresco.

0 Replies

Maybe I can help get past the language issues with a differently worded question:

How do you differentiate nondualism from concepts that you do not personally place credence in?

0 Replies

Craven,

I'm heading for bed over here so I'm going to give you an end of day answer subject to more alert revision.

All concepts have potential utility depending on context. They would not have arisen otherwise. Speaking as an atheist for example I have often said that "God" has "reality" because by talking about "it" I am in relationship with "it" thereby evoking "its existence". The difference between myself and a theist lies in the nature of the relationship. So for me "fact" and "fiction" are merely distinguished by my expectancies of the outcomes of the relationship. "Nondualism" reflects the view that "I" am nothing more than at least one pole in a dynamic flux of such relationships. A "transcendent self" is an idealistic position which rises above the flux and "sees" the contradictions within and between the minor relationships (the vain "me" versus the "humble me" etc) and by extrapolation there may even be a total negation of "self" or the dissolution of the self/ not self dichotomy together with all other dichotomies that such a self interactively evokes.

By contrast the essence of dualism is the maintenance of dichotomies e.g. self/world as separate "entities". Hence "credence" from this position is about independent existence of observer and observed...of passive perception...of impingements of "sense data" in a centripetal direction ....of "common sense" without realizing the epistemological significance of the word "common".

I hope this clarifies more than it confuses.

0 Replies

Yes, I remember you saying that merely discussing a god reifies it.

Thing is, by saying that all concepts have poitential utility you still don't say what you use to differentiate the concepts that you believe in versus the concepts you do not believe in.

For example, you said that you are an atheist.

So upon what basis do you accept your position on dualism in contrast to the rejection of the theistic positions?

0 Replies

Very clearly expressed, Fresco. I wish you had said that months ago.
BTW, Craven, my compliment was intended in the spirit of giving credit where credit is due, not as flattery. I would have nothing to gain by flattery, and I too find it at least mildly repulsive.
Good night guys.

0 Replies

Oh it's not that I think it's flattery, I'm just not keen on compliments. Chalk it up to gracelessness.

0 Replies

No Reality Outside Our Own Existence

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know