No Reality Outside Our Own Existence

twyvel: Given that you have accused me of "trolling" -- specifically with regard to your posts -- I don't understand why you'd want to engage me in any kind of discussion. Until you retract your previous accusation, I see no good reason for me to endure further insults by responding to anything you write.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere

Quote:

What you guys are running into is what I call philoso-babble. Hiding behind non-sensicaly couched sentences.

Yes, this is what craven says when craven doesn't understand.

It is you Craven who is hiding behind your word/term/phrase philoso-babble, which by the way is not very becoming, Smile

0 Replies

joefromchicago

I did not, repeat, I did not accuse you of trolling, I merely suggested it in reference to behavior on your part in which you asserted you do not give any credence to what I write yet continue to respond to it.

I do not believe you are trolling now or in the past, but you puzzle and confuse people well when you make such statements.

I mean, really, You're in discussion with someone over a period of time and then they say something which amounts to, "I have no interest in anything you have to say,"

What the hell is that?

Either you are full of **** and your participation demonstrates it, or it's a defense or whatever.

Anyway, As I did not accuse you of trolling I see no apology is warranted.

I hope that is cleared up joefromchicago.

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

Craven de Kere

Quote:
What you guys are running into is what I call philoso-babble. Hiding behind non-sensicaly couched sentences.

Yes, this is what craven says when craven doesn't understand.

It is you Craven who is hiding behind your word/term/phrase philoso-babble, which by the way is not very becoming,

No, this is what I say when I understand it very well and recognize that the person is masking nonsense behind jargon.

I do not hide behind this phrase. I explain my positions and carp the philoso-babble.

Others, like yourself, can't do so and have to resort to the nonsensical philoso-babble in lieu of supporting their positions.

See, there's a tendency on the net for wannabe philosophers to simply speak in vague terms and hope it passes muster.

You are a perfect example of this and this is a case of a pond trying to be murky because it's not deep.

0 Replies

kitchenpete,

No U-turn implied ! I also agree with Heliotrope. I was merely trying to draw him out, and save myself the job of possible repetition from other threads.
I apologise if you find some of this obscure. Perhaps try this commentary on Maturana (one of the contributors to structural dynamics) which highlights some of the difficulties in exposition.

http://www.oikos.org/vonobserv.htm
I'd be interested to know what you think. (JLN too)

Sorry Joe, I can't help you further. You indulge in personal flak but when you get a little back yourself by way of playful sparring you seem to take exception. Despite the challenge you have not come up with any views about "reality" or even a synopsis of your cited sources. Your Canute like stand against the tide of the zeitgeisst would make an interesting subject for a painting, but little else. If you think my own position or that of JLN is incoherent why bother to respond at all - merely to play at courtroom theatricals and exercise your Latin?

We are genuinely interested in these the questions and we stretch for answers in the light of the failure of dualistic systems to provide them. Of course "speculation" and "imprecision" plays a part in this stretching. It would be foolish to think otherwise. Every paradigm proceeds from tentative flimsy platforms from which a higher or more comprehensive vantage point is sought. Bohr's original crude model changed the face of atomic physics. Piaget's cognitive schemas changed the study of developmental psychology. etc all to be refined and superceded. The claim is that some of the cited references will perform a similar function.
If my exposition of such ideas is inedequate I invite you to examine the material yourself.

0 Replies

twyvel,

(apologies - I missed your post whils't composing mine - I'm reading it now)

0 Replies

Craven de Kere

Quote:

No, this is what I say when I understand it very well and recognize that the person is masking nonsense behind jargon.

You have such penetrating eyes.

Quote:

I do not hide behind this phrase. I explain my positions and carp the philoso-babble.

I suspect your explanations wherever they may be are couched in naïve realism, and you don't even know it.

Quote:

Others, like yourself, can't do so and have to resort to the nonsensical philoso-babble in lieu of supporting their positions.

It's unfortunate that you don't know what you are talking about, but fell free to continue.

Quote:

See, there's a tendency on the net for wannabe philosophers to simply speak in vague terms and hope it passes muster.

Sound pretty vague to me. Are you your own parody?

Quote:

You are a perfect example of this and this is a case of a pond trying to be murky because it's not deep.

You wouldn't know murky from deep if you fell in.

0 Replies

truth
Ah, Tywvel, you're back. And you've returned with a wonderful gift. Thanks.

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

You have such penetrating eyes.

Thanks.

Quote:

I suspect your explanations wherever they may be are couched in naïve realism, and you don't even know it.

This is just another variation on your frequent emperor's new clothes arguments.

It's especially transparent here because I've not said a single thing about non-dualism on this website and you are grasping at straws and men made from them.

Quote:

It's unfortunate that you don't know what you are talking about, but fell free to continue.

What don't I know about what I am talking about here?

I am saying that to mask a lacking depth you go for murky. You are just responding with examples of said murkiness with unsunstantiated comments about my position and, worse yet, lame attempts to use the jargon used on Joe's position on me. Disregarding that I've never once taken up that position here.

So feel free to demonstrate where I do not know what I am talking about. Remember that I am talking about your penchant for vagueness as a crutch.

Quote:

Quote:
See, there's a tendency on the net for wannabe philosophers to simply speak in vague terms and hope it passes muster.

Sound pretty vague to me. Are you your own parody?

LOL! Nice example of a nonsensical reply to a direct point. That is little better than "I know you are but what am I".

Remember twyvel, that it's very easy to see when a pond is simply murky and not deep.

Quote:

Quote:
You are a perfect example of this and this is a case of a pond trying to be murky because it's not deep.

You wouldn't know murky from deep if you fell in.

Thank you for illustrating my point. In your reply you simply use the "I know you are but what am I" approach and the usual emperor's new clothes argument.

See, when you can't bring the depth you resort to simply claiming that everyone who doesn't take the murkiness for depth simply can't see and ascribe some nonsensical reason for it (e.g. "naive realisim").

It doesn't matter to you that I've not once spoken about "naive realism" or non-dualism on this site, but that doesn't stop you from trying to feign depth from the murky waters that is the use of unrelated jargon.

It has the intellectual level of a bad sci-fi show. "And the reason for this is your poorly calibrated flux-capacitor that has polarized the circuits in the quantum thingie."

0 Replies

twyvel,

The dialogue is an excellent example of self versus Self etc.

Reading James I feel I need to go first to Kant to do it justice, but at first reading I would say that unlike the dialogue above it lacks " credible context". In other words it seems to follow the "philosophy seminar approach" whereby "fragments" are put up on a blackboard for analysis out of normal context. (I'm particular fond of attacking fragments like "Peter has a pain" as being vacuous except in "real life circumstances") . The Maturana reference cited above discusses nonduality in terms of an ecological and biological perpective. I think specificity of "semantic field" such as this may be necessary for coherence, and I'm not sure yet where James lies with respect to this...working on it.

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

joefromchicago

I did not, repeat, I did not accuse you of trolling, I merely suggested it in reference to behavior on your part in which you asserted you do not give any credence to what I write yet continue to respond to it.

I do not believe you are trolling now or in the past, but you puzzle and confuse people well when you make such statements.

Here is what I said: No, I "don't get it" because I have never seen any cause to give credence to your argument. Since you deny concepts such as "subjectivity" and "awareness," there's simply no compelling reason to accept any statement that you might make regarding "subjectivity" or "awareness." In other words, when you deny the bases for human knowledge (which, I contend, is dualistic in nature), you deny the bases for your assertions regarding such things as "subjectivity" and "awareness." Such arguments are not worthy of credence, then, precisely because they are based on a rejection of that which would make any argument worthy of credence. And if I continue to discuss these subjects with you despite my firm belief that your own statements are self-contradictions, it is, in part, because I'm curious to learn how such a seemingly insoluble paradox can be resolved -- or even defended.

In the spirit of collegiality and amity, however, I will accept your non-apology, on the understanding that such non-apologies will not be necessary in the future.

As for the content of your recent posts, I will need some time to read them (and the related link) before I can adequately respond.

0 Replies

Craven,

In defense of twyvel I think she represents one extreme of the nondualist position which can irrevocably follow once several steps along the path are taken. I tend to keep one foot on the ground whilst she floats by and says "what are you messing about for ?" This raises difficulties with those who do not even see the pool or have not experienced the buoyancy.

0 Replies

truth
Craven, I'm surprised and not a little disappointed by your attack on Twyvel (and Fresco and me?). As far as I'm concerned, Twyvel's ideas are difficult (because they are exotic), but his words are free of jargon. I never have to look up a term. I just have to re-read his phrases to extract his meaning. Again, it's rarely because of his writing; it's because of the ideas. Eventually I do understand them and then realize the essential clarity of his expression. Fresco does present his ideas and information in rather sketchy form. It would involve a tremendous amount of time and effort for him to talk down to us--to educate us from scratch--so that we may conveniently grasp all his points. But he does give us many links so that we may catch up with the materials he presents. If we choose not to read all those links it's our problem not his. If anyone is vague it tends to be me. I try to write and edit my expressions so that they are clear to me. I do use "technical" language from the mystical literature, i.e., Atman and Brahman. I would not present such writings to a publisher for review. Nevertheless, it's the best I can do under the circumstances of the forum.
Kitchenpete has degrees in the social sciences yet considers my use of the term. paradigm and/or inter-paradigmatic, to be (I forget his phrase) obscure and jargonistic. If anyone should understand the terms it would be a student of the social sciences.
My God, if you were to try to explain to me how you do programming you would have to start from scratch. I am totally ignorant in the technical language--notice I did not say jargon. There would be no way, I suspect, for you to "translate" the technical language into convenient everyday speech. I just hope that Joe and Pete will someday cease to act like the ignorant yahoos that I know they are not.

0 Replies

fresco,

I've not raised a qualm with twyvel's positions here but rather what I see as an impediment to any discussion.

It's easy to say that others can't "see" something unless they accept it and the others here are spot on to compare this to a religious faith.

Such a premise has no place in anything but sycophantic debate.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Sorry Joe, I can't help you further.

Your help is neither necessary nor requested.

fresco wrote:

You indulge in personal flak but when you get a little back yourself by way of playful sparring you seem to take exception.

Playful sparring was it? Look, fresco, do me a favor: when you're indulging in a sportive jest, signify it in some fashion. Otherwise, I might just mistake everything you say as some sort of ornate, post-modernist joke.

fresco wrote:

Despite the challenge you have not come up with any views about "reality" or even a synopsis of your cited sources.

Nor have you asked for it. My previous remarks regarding my views on reality were met with nothing more than a dismissive comment about my sources. As I said before, I can't quite understand your total lack of interest in my position, except to surmise that you are so wrapped up in your own worldview that you have no room to consider anyone else's.

fresco wrote:

Your Canute like stand against the tide of the zeitgeisst would make an interesting subject for a painting, but little else. If you think my own position or that of JLN is incoherent why bother to respond at all - merely to play at courtroom theatricals and exercise your Latin?

You complain about my Latin in the same paragraph in which you misuse the term "Zeitgeist?" I guess non-dualists don't recognize the existence of irony either.

fresco wrote:

We are genuinely interested in these the questions and we stretch for answers in the light of the failure of dualistic systems to provide them. Of course "speculation" and "imprecision" plays a part in this stretching. It would be foolish to think otherwise. Every paradigm proceeds from tentative flimsy platforms from which a higher or more comprehensive vantage point is sought. Bohr's original crude model changed the face of atomic physics. Piaget's cognitive schemas changed the study of developmental psychology. etc all to be refined and superceded. The claim is that some of the cited references will perform a similar function.
If my exposition of such ideas is inedequate I invite you to examine the material yourself.

We've gone over this many times, fresco: if something supports your argument, it's your job to find it.

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

Craven, I'm surprised and not a little disappointed by your attack on Twyvel (and Fresco and me?).

JL, I'm surprised that you describe it as an attack. Thus far in this thread you simply decree that anyone not sharing your philosophy is attacking.

Quote:

As far as I'm concerned, Twyvel's ideas are difficult (because they are exotic), but his words are free of jargon. I never have to look up a term.

I've not ever had to look up a single one of her terms. I am not saying that their definitions are unknown I am saying that her very point is nonsensical and she sheilds this weakness with abiguity just like most wannabe-philosophers on the net.

Quote:

My God, if you were to try to explain to me how you do programming you would have to start from scratch.

And it would not be hard. See, I'm not faulting twyvel for "not starting from scratch".

Quote:

I am totally ignorant in the technical language--notice I did not say jargon.

Poor analogy JL, as I am not ignorant of the jargon. I am saying that the very position is non-sensical and the use of ambiguity is a way to cloud the waters and try to cover that weakness.

Quote:

There would be no way, I suspect, for you to "translate" the technical language into convenient everyday speech. I just hope that Joe and Pete will someday cease to act like the ignorant yahoos that I know they are not.

Why don't you pull the beam out of your eye first JL? That is as absurd a thing as I've heard in a long time.

You three are simply decreeing yourselves right and trying to fault those who disagree with you (not do not understand you) as needing enlightenment, trying to paint them as primitive.

You might as well just tell them they need salvation so that they can agree with you since you are not able to argue your position convincingly.

It's an intellectually bankrupt tactic JL and should be beneath you.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere

Quote:

You have such penetrating eyes.

Quote:
Thanks.

You're welcome. I'm glad you appreciate my sarcasm.

Quote:

I suspect your explanations wherever they may be are couched in naïve realism, and you don't even know it.

Quote:
This is just another variation on your frequent emperor's new clothes arguments.

It's especially transparent here because I've not said a single thing about non-dualism on this website and you are grasping at straws and men made from them.

Lets see, You have not said a single thing about non-dualism on this website and I am grasping at straws and men from what you did not say.

Is this an example of your knack for logic? Smile

It is not a guess; that your criticism of these issues are one liners(so far, on this thread).

Quote:

What don't I know about what I am talking about here?

Who knows, you haven't said anything.

Quote:

I am saying that to mask a lacking depth you go for murky. You are just responding with examples of said murkiness with unsunstantiated comments about my position.

Your phrase "philoso-babble" isn't a position it's a pseudo response.

Quote:

So feel free to demonstrate where I do not know what I am talking about. Remember that I am talking about your penchant for vagueness as a crutch.

The question is will it be recognized when you decide to engage?

This murky---depth dichotomy of yours is simply unsupported accusations.

Quote:

LOL! Nice example of a nonsensical reply to a direct point. That is little better than "I know you are but what am I".

Remember twyvel, that it's very easy to see when a pond is simply murky and not deep.

I think you're drowning in your own pseudo critics.

Quote:

See, when you can't bring the depth you resort to simply claiming that everyone who doesn't take the murkiness for depth simply can't see and ascribe some nonsensical reason for it (e.g. "naive realisim").

Is this typical of you? Going around and around in circles but never getting to the point?

Focus Craven focus.

What is the criticism? What is your point?

Not the name calling or accusations.

What is your counter to nondualism or whatever. Lets hear it,.already.

Quote:

It doesn't matter to you that I've not once spoken about "naive realism" or non-dualism on this site, but that doesn't stop you from trying to feign depth from the murky waters that is the use of unrelated jargon.

Quote:

It has the intellectual level of a bad sci-fi show.

It's not bad it's just scary.

Quote:

"And the reason for this is your poorly calibrated flux-capacitor that has polarized the circuits in the quantum thingie."

I have a backup for the backup.

0 Replies

truth
Craven, I do not think that "the dualist camp" has grounds for comparing the "non-dualist camp" to a religious faith. On the contrary, it seems to me that the former view the non-dualist's request that they simply try to loosen their perspective a bit (a shift of point of view?) as menacing temptings from the Devil. In other words, their commitment to positivism and naive realism is SO deep, indeed religiously so, that they are threatened by alternative possibilities. I assure them that non-dualism is not sinful or painful. Twyvel, Fresco, and I have been raised as dualists, and we behave as dualists all the time. But we also have the advantage of being able to take the non-dualist perspective at times. AT LEAST WE ARE NOT AFRAID OF IT.

0 Replies

Craven,

If you are calling "transcendence of self" - "religious" I would argue that you are stretching the definition. The first seems to be a necessary but not sufficient aspect of the second. Indeed it is perhaps your very interpretation in this manner which produces "the impediment" since I would certainly "switch off" on matters of "pure faith". I have freely admitted indeed that although I am sceptical of Capra's "faith in ecology" which drives his epistemology I nevertheless condone it for its role in the coherence of a system which encompasses many interesting insights.

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

Lets see, You have not said a single thing about non-dualism on this website and I am grasping at straws and men from what you did not say.

Is this an example of your knack for logic?

Yes, I'll be happy to explain it to you.

See, you are trying to write off the criticism of your use of murkiness to feign depth through the "naive realism" rejoinder.

I've never espoused this position and as such you are constructing a straw man twyvel.

Yes, you are creating straw men from what I did not say. That is the epitomal exampel of a straw man.

So again for your edification:

You are grasping at straws. You resort to a quip you use against Joe for Joes position despite the fact that I've never espoused that position once on these boards.

Quote:

Quote:
What don't I know about what I am talking about here?

Who knows, you haven't said anything.

twyvel, thank you for illustrating another shoddy debate tactic. "You have said nothing".

This is belied by the fact that you are engaged in response twyvel and as such is a transparent tactic.

"When outmatched claim the opponent isn't even there."

This too, is reminiscent of playground debate:

"What? Did I hear an echo? Did a fly just land on my shoulder?"

Quote:

Your phrase "philoso-babble" isn't a position it's a pseudo response.

It's actually neither. It's criticism of your tendency to use logical fallacy in your arguments and ambiguity to mask your inadequacies insofar as your position is concerned.

Quote:

The question is will it be recognized when you decide to engage?

This murky---depth dichotomy of yours is simply unsupported accusations.

No it's not. It's supported right here. Murkiness is the substitute for substance yet again.

Quote:

I think you're drowning in your own pseudo critics.

That makes no sense twyvel. It would make more sense if you used the word critiques instead of critics but even then wouldn't make sense.

It's just another attempt to deflect through a nonsensical quip.

Quote:

Is this typical of you? Going around and around in circles but never getting to the point?

Focus Craven focus.

What is the criticism? What is your point?

The point is that you are engaging in wannabe-online-philosopher and to mask your inadequacies you use abiguity and logical fallacy.

The point is that this does not allow for any intellectual discussion above a sycophantic level.

Quote:

Hummm..and in bold at that.

Here's a good example. You resort to commenting on the font instead of the content. This is typical evasion.

Quote:

Back it up. Or back it down.

I have backed it up. Reducing you to things like commenting on the font and claiming nothing is there.

Your decision to debate at this level reinforces the point bringing out exactly what I'd accused you of doing.

0 Replies

No Reality Outside Our Own Existence

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know