No Reality Outside Our Own Existence

JLN

Ditto your points on Craven's abilities and style.

For me the most significant stylistic issue is that the three of us offer generally tentative solutions to genuinely difficult but real epistemological problems, but the detractors variously take "difficult" to be an insult, deny the existence of "the problems" (in defiance of current trends) or reject the offered paths to solutions as plain "wrong" without appreciating the origin or nature of such paths. Such stylistics would certainly be considered at best "unworthy" in a British philosophy debate. I noted with interest that fellow countryman kitchenpete upgraded his style of contribution when he realized (from the references) the essential nature of the material.

0 Replies

fresco,

The concepts you expressed are not difficult at all. I understand why you'd like them to be considered difficult as opposed to absurd but that doesn't make it so.

It's just another attempt to try to mask inability to support the position with a lacking understanding on everyone else's part. This is just intellectual dishonesty.

0 Replies

Craven wrote:

Quote:

JLNobody
Your method of breaking up our posts into portions to be addressed out of context is clearly a debate strategy

Quote:
Craven
Your method of lying is simple dishonesty. I break them up to address salient points and you are lying yet again and this time about my intentions.

One cannot lie about someone else's intentions; other folks intentions are a guess. JLNobdy is not lying about your intentions, he is making a guess.

Taking your attitude in regards to your above "you are lying yet again and this time about my intentions.".I would say that that is an utter lie.

You have a chip on your shoulders Craven.

Quote:

I understand you perfectly. That I think your positions are almost always sheer idiocy is why you like to label it as misunderstanding.

I try to be as clear as possible and I have only so much control over other peoples understanding, as you and everybody else does.

Having said that it's not only about understanding. For example you think, if I remember correctly, that the mind is in the brain and I think it is the reverse. If you are calling my position sheer idiotic which it appears you are, then you are a blatant hypocrite for admonishing JLNobody for name calling etc.

Quote:

This is understandable, because it is likely more compelling for you to believe that others simply don't understand you as opposed to understanding you perfectly and thinking your position is absurd.

False.

I know there are many folks who think my position absurd, some of whom understand it and some of whom do not, And certainly there is a tendency to believe that those who do not understand are more likely to think it absurd, though it could also be the other way around, and even more so.

I

Quote:

Even fresco and JL do a far better job, I have to give them that.

0 Replies

Craven,

If the best you can do is offer insults then you are obviously content to downgrade A2K to the level of Abuzz.

0 Replies

Helitrope,

I really wouldn't bother if I were you. Even Niels Bohr failed to get some fellow physicists to understand the role of the observer in observation.
What chance do you think you've got here ?

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

One cannot lie about someone else's intentions; other folks intentions are a guess. JLNobdy is not lying about your intentions, he is making a guess.

False. An acceptable definition of the verb to lie is to convey falsehood.

Quote:

Taking your attitude in regards to your above "you are lying yet again and this time about my intentions.".I would say that that is an utter lie.

Perhaps you would, but you would say a lot of things..

Quote:

You have a chip on your shoulders Craven.

No, I do not. Laughing

Quote:

I try to be as clear as possible and I have only so much control over other peoples understanding, as you and everybody else does.

You are deliberately insisting on calling disagreement lacking understanding.

Quote:

If you are calling my position sheer idiotic which it appears you are, then you are a blatant hypocrite for admonishing JLNobody for name calling etc.

No I am not. JL calls people idiots while I call arguments and concepts idiotic. I think JL is a smart guy, I do not think he is idiotic. I think his arguments herein have been idiotic.

There is a difference, even if you have not appreciated it.

Quote:

Quote:
This is understandable, because it is likely more compelling for you to believe that others simply don't understand you as opposed to understanding you perfectly and thinking your position is absurd.

False.

No, twyvel it is not false.

Quote:

I

twyvel, quite frankly I think you do unto yourself grave insult with that phrase even though it might have the opposite feeling to you (recognition of one's own flawed perspective perhaps). But yes, I know your position well.

Quote:

Quote:
Even fresco and JL do a far better job, I have to give them that.

Well I'm glad your giving them something, as your directness in manner is far more offensive then is warranted if offensiveness is ever warranted.

This is lame twyvel. You three have no qualm with being insulting but complain about it most vociferously.

Quote:

I don't think the problem is the words in which you couch your position. I think their positions themselves are less absurd.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Craven,

If the best you can do is offer insults then you are obviously content to downgrade A2K to the level of Abuzz.

fresco,

Pull the beam out of your eye. Your only stock and store herein has been intellectual dishonesty and patronage. I have not once delivered an insult to you that was not the exact replica of what you'd tried to say to me.

For an example see the top of this page where you try to imply that I am not "qualified" to discuss this with you. I simply turned it around.

You have initiated every insult to the person that I have returned to you. Your post above is transparent hypocracy.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Helitrope,

I really wouldn't bother if I were you. Even Niels Bohr failed to get some fellow physicists to understand the role of the observer in observation.
What chance do you think you've got here ?

I may be wrong about everything I've thought about Helio, but I think you have misunderstood him.

0 Replies

truth
Gentlemen, I will not reply to Craven. His last barrage was SO distasteful and cruel in its thrust that it warrants no response at all. My refernce to his behaving as a debater rather than a philsopher made reference to his obvious desire to win rather than to share (teach and learn) something of value. My refusal to respond in kind seems to have upset him to the point that he resorted to direct insult. I don't feel I have to take that, and I hope you do not either. Oh how I miss Frank!

0 Replies

Craven,

Of course I'm going to return insult with insult! I havn't got the patience of JLN or twyvel to whom quite frankly you owe an immediate apology. However I also claim that unlike you I have put some real input and effort into debating "reality" on this thread, to which you have responded with the mindless slogan "intellectual dishonesty".

The forum is your baby. Look after it or lose it !

0 Replies

JL,

And I suppose you still think you are not being insulting? Sigh. Hypocrisy is ugly JL.

fresco,

Incorrect, you initiated the insults, you were not returning them. And I have debated here, while you choose instead to imply that those who do not agree with you are not qualified to discuss things with you.

0 Replies

Craven

Quote:

One cannot lie about someone else's intentions; other folks intentions are a guess. JLNobdy is not lying about your intentions, he is making a guess.

Quote:
False. An acceptable definition of the verb to lie is to convey falsehood.

Of course. But you are wrong Craven.

You cannot know the intentions of someone else.

When JlNobody says, "Your method of breaking up our posts into portions to be addressed out of context is clearly a debate strategy"

it is a guess, as he cannot "know" what your intentions actually are or were. He is not purposely spewing a falsehood.

Quote:

Taking your attitude in regards to your above "you are lying yet again and this time about my intentions.".I would say that that is an utter lie.

Quote:
Perhaps you would, but you would say a lot of things..

No. YOU would and do. You call a guess a lie.

I would never say this statement of yours: ""you are lying yet again and this time about my intentions." Is a lie. I have in fact never used that word on this site, except, in this case, as an example.

You say, "but you would say a lot of things".

Bull. You don't know me. You are saying that for effect. But it's just another insult.

Quote:

You have a chip on your shoulders Craven.

Quote:
No, I do not.

Bullhorns.

Quote:

I try to be as clear as possible and I have only so much control over other peoples understanding, as you and everybody else does.

Quote:
You are deliberately insisting on calling disagreement lacking understanding.

Someimtes I do. Sometimes I am correct, sometimes it is a lack of understanding, on their part, on my part. In fact a lack of understanding is probably the main reason for disputes.

Frankly I do not understand the whole of the nondual position and neither do you, joefromchicago, fresco, or JLNobody. We learn from each other.

You and joefronmchicago probably understand the least, if understanding is enhanced by experience; meditation, contemplation etc., I could understand the color red without having experienced it, but once experienced, the understanding changes completely. As with having a nondual experience.

Besides you do the same so you are being hypocritical.

Quote:

If you are calling my position sheer idiotic which it appears you are, then you are a blatant hypocrite for admonishing JLNobody for name calling etc.

Quote:
No I am not.

NO?

What's this: "I understand you perfectly. That I think your positions are almost always sheer idiocy is why you like to label it as misunderstanding."

What kind of person has a position that is "sheer idiocy"?

The differences are miner. YOU are name calling. Period.

Quote:

JL calls people idiots while I call arguments and concepts idiotic. I think JL is a smart guy, I do not think he is idiotic. I think his arguments herein have been idiotic.

I do not know if that is correct. I cannot recall JLNobody calling someone an idiot.

Quote:

There is a difference, even if you have not appreciated it.

I can see it. But it's all ad hominem.

Quote:

This is understandable, because it is likely more compelling for you to believe that others simply don't understand you as opposed to understanding you perfectly and thinking your position is absurd.

Quote:
False.

Quote:
No, twyvel it is not false.

Quote:

Quote:
twyvel, quite frankly I think you do unto yourself grave insult with that phrase even though it might have the opposite feeling to you (recognition of one's own flawed perspective perhaps).

Quote:

But yes, I know your position well.

That's one of the problems Craven. You keep saying that but give no demonstration to that effect, even after being asked repeatedly to do so.

Quote:

Even fresco and JL do a far better job, I have to give them that.

Quote:
Well I'm glad your giving them something, as your directness in manner is far more offensive then is warranted if offensiveness is ever warranted.

Quote:
This is lame twyvel. You three have no qualm with being insulting but complain about it most vociferously.

You are the most insulting person on this thread Craven. You don't have a pot to piss in.

You, next to Frank, right side by side, are the most offensive person (in terms of word use) I have come across on this site.

Quote:

Quote:
I don't think the problem is the words in which you couch your position. I think their positions themselves are less absurd.

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

When JlNobody says, "Your method of breaking up our posts into portions to be addressed out of context is clearly a debate strategy"

it is a guess, as he cannot "know" what your intentions actually are or were. He is not purposely spewing a falsehood.

One does not have to have the intention to lie. One of the meanings of lying is to simply state falsehood.

Quote:

Quote:
There is a difference, even if you have not appreciated it.

I can see it. But it's all ad hominem.

twyvel, attacking an argument, no matter how unfavorably, is the anti-thesis to ad hominem.

Quote:

Quote:
But yes, I know your position well.

That's one of the problems Craven. You keep saying that but give no demonstration to that effect, even after being asked repeatedly to do so.

How would you like me to demonstrate it twyvel? I don't think I can satisfy what I suspect is a standard that is constructed in a manner that can't be reached.

Quote:

You are the most insulting person on this thread Craven. You don't have a pot to piss in.

Thank you for your kind words devoid of insult.

Quote:

You, next to Frank, right side by side, are the most offensive person (in terms of word use) I have come across on this site.

Thank you for your kind and unoffensive words. I would that I were as kind as yourself.

twyvel, I have yet to do what you have done here, which is to label someone with a pejorative superlative. The irony is apparently lost on you too.

Do you think your words are not insulting here? Do you think your pejoratives and negative superlatives are not insulting?

I will, with all due respect, allege that your accusation is hypocritical. Your own insults take on lesser weight, as I am sure mine do in my mind. You have taken that particular insult much further than I would have. I have never once said something like that to a member here.

0 Replies

Craven wrote:

Quote:

When JlNobody says, "Your method of breaking up our posts into portions to be addressed out of context is clearly a debate strategy"

it is a guess, as he cannot "know" what your intentions actually are or were. He is not purposely spewing a falsehood.

Quote:
One does not have to have the intention to lie. One of the meanings of lying is to simply state falsehood.

It is JLNobody's opinion, his understanding of your behavior. It is not a lie.

Quote:

There is a difference, even if you have not appreciated it.

Quote:
I can see it. But it's all ad hominem.

Quote:
twyvel, attacking an argument, no matter how unfavorably, is the anti-thesis to ad hominem.

***
Main Entry: 1ad ho·mi·nem

Pronunciation: (')ad-'hä-m&-"nem, -n&m
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

***

It's ad hominem.

You don't think you attack character? You don't think JLNobody, fresco and myself are upset?

Wake up Craven to the reality of how your behavior and words effect others.

Quote:

That's one of the problems Craven. You keep saying that but give no demonstration to that effect, even after being asked repeatedly to do so.

Quote:
How would you like me to demonstrate it twyvel?

That's up to you.

Quote:

You, next to Frank, right side by side, are the most offensive person (in terms of word use) I have come across on this site.

Quote:
Thank you for your kind and unoffensive words. I would that I were as kind as yourself.

Quote:

twyvel, I have yet to do what you have done here, which is to label someone with a pejorative superlative. The irony is apparently lost on you too.

I have not nearly come close to surpass what you have written, so the irony is not there.

Quote:

Do you think your words are not insulting here? Do you think your pejoratives and negative superlatives are not insulting?

Yes, and I still feel the sting of yours.

Quote:

I will, with all due respect, allege that your accusation is hypocritical. Your own insults take on lesser weight, as I am sure mine do in my mind. You have taken that particular insult much further than I would have. I have never once said something like that to a member here.

"all due respect"..spare me the pretence.

It is your comments herein Craven that are the measure of insult, offensiveness and lack of respect.

0 Replies

I haven't had time to follow all the arguments here but I suspect that there's a lot of quoting and cross-fire unrelated to the actual topic in hand.

It's a pity to have so much animosity generated by an intellectual disagreement. I'm not much further to understanding the perspective of frecso, JLN and twyfel...though I'm glad to have had my eyes opened to an alternative viewpoint.

Whether or not I accept/understand that viewpoint, I stand by my signature line, and it's successor, often wrongly attributed to Voltaire:

"I may not agree with what you say but I will defend, to the death, your right to say it".

KP

0 Replies

On the one hand we have a theory (the universe is real, predated and caused our own separate consciousnesses, and will continue to exist after we die) that agrees with our own perceptions, is logically consistent, makes useful predictions and can even account for the experiences of the few people who claim that reality does not exist outside of our minds.

On the other hand we have a theory (no material universe exists and/or consciousness is not separate) that is contrary to our perceptions, is completely illogical, has absolutely no practical value, and cannot account for the apparent reality that is consistently reported by 6 billion people.

Of course it is possible that reality as we perceive it is just an illusion, but unless you can give us some idea of who created the illusion, how and why, your non-dualism theory remains nothing more than a speculative hypothesis unsupported by facts or logic. So is there any reason non-dualism should be given serious consideration?

0 Replies

truth
Terry, I agree that non-dualism is not logical in the same way that dualism is. Indeed, dualism and (Western-style) logic are interdependent. But that just shows that we cannot penetrate into the recesses of reality by means of Western (Aristotelian?) logic alone. Indeed, non-dualism denies the hegemony of logic and dualism (logical dualism or dualistic logic). Naive Realism (which someone here has misinterpreted as an accusation of naivete) is the epistemological doctrine that the world IS as it is perceived. I have already noted, a number of times, that it is the most USEFUL epistemolotical model for the living of everyday life, but that it is philosophically deficient. Everyone is a naive realist in their everyday life. But some people cannot see beyond it. Some theoretical physicists do--in their theoretical work at least--and mystics do much, if not all of the time. I appreciate your return to the substance of this thread, as I do KitchenPete's attempt to reintroduce us to intellectual civility. The scariest thing that has happened in this otherwise successful thread (with thanks to Child of Light) is a horrible step toward the "abuzzification" of Able2Know.

0 Replies

Hello again Pete amd Terry,

With respect to "normal viewpoints" I see the problem to be one of (a) limits and (b) a concept of "progress". Allow me to explain with apologies for repetitions.

(a) "Cutting edge" research in both physics and neuro psychology cannot resolve/explain the nature of interaction between observer and observed in terms of traditional "logical/causal" models. Instead two way interaction is implied in the sense of Piagetian "assimilation-accommodation".
Piaget's model is based on a biological non- reductionist substrate in which "perception" is merely another aspect of an organic interaction. The key "items" in such a models are "structures" or schemata not "energy" or "particles". These "normal" concepts hopefully emerge as secondary items within the course of consentual interactions (agreement between "observers" mediated by a common language).
So in a similar manner that Einsteinian physics DELIMITED but did not eliminate the applicability of Newtonian physics, the claim is that mutual interaction (nondual) models will do the same for the dualistic models of "naive realism". What matters in such a claim is the "metalogical" nature of the mechanisms for the emergence of "structure" (ref Prigogine).

(b) Irrespective of the claim for a superior explanatory adequacy of models from which "logic" or "naive reality" might be derived, there is a secondary claim that normal ideas of "progress" by the accumulation of "useful facts" is "morally bancrupt". Our confidence in a reality which is "factually based" is boosted by our insatiability for control over our creature comforts. Factual knowledge is about "successful" prediction - and here we note two problems 1. "success" is relative and usually short term and 2. physicists tell us that "time" is an illusion - a psychological construct.

Thus "progress" from a narrow anthropocentric point of view needs to be questioned as an evaluation dimension of "factual reality" and "sustainable life mechanisms" are re-advocated as an alternative substrate. (See Capra).

Finally I would say that my cohorts JLN and twyvel focus on the traditional "wisdom" whose language enriches the formal systems I have described, and forms the basis for investigatory hypotheses amongst scientists we call "enlightened". It is easy to see how traditional meditational calm both reflects and suggests freedom from attachments to ephemeral "facts".

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

It is JLNobody's opinion, his understanding of your behavior. It is not a lie.

Given that it is a falsehood yes it is a lie.

Quote:

Quote:
twyvel, attacking an argument, no matter how unfavorably, is the anti-thesis to ad hominem.

[/quote]

***
Main Entry: 1ad ho·mi·nem

Pronunciation: (')ad-'hä-m&-"nem, -n&m
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

It's ad hominem.[/QUOTE]

Huh? Attacking an argument, no matter how stridently is the anti-thesis to an ad hominem.

Quote:

You don't think you attack character? You don't think JLNobody, fresco and myself are upset?

Those are two separate issues twyvel. Yes, I am sure you are upset about the opinion I hold of your arguments. But the truth is that I have never once lauched an attack like yours.

Quote:

Wake up Craven to the reality of how your behavior and words effect others.

Pull the beam out of your eye twyvel. You have delved to a depth I have not once delved to in your comments about me.

Quote:

Quote:
That's one of the problems Craven. You keep saying that but give no demonstration to that effect, even after being asked repeatedly to do so.

Quote:
How would you like me to demonstrate it twyvel?

That's up to you.

twyvel, I am suspecting again that you are not going to label anything except a positive perspective on your position as understanding. I'm not sure what you want to see and you seem unwilling to indicate what kind of criteria you've set up.

Quote:

I usually don't intentionally hurt feelings twyvel. And I never use the type of attacks that you used.

Different people have different standards and hot spots and forceful and blunt disagreement can always cause sparks but I do not ever do so to intentionally hurt anyone and I do not ever attack people in the specific manner that you have here.

I will call arguments absurd and such but refrain from using such pejoratives about people. Your standards are different and using a superlative pejorative is apparently something you think is fair.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

Quote:

Quote:
twyvel, I have yet to do what you have done here, which is to label someone with a pejorative superlative. The irony is apparently lost on you too.

I have not nearly come close to surpass what you have written, so the irony is not there.

twyvel, perhaps you migth think so, I certainly do not and you crossed a line that I'd never once crossed here. Given that we have different values we will likely not agree on this so if you think your attacks are fair I will not try to convince you otherwise.

I will however have a hard time accepting your criticism (which I think has some merit) of my tone and the inferences it may carry in regard to character in the face of your more blatant attacks on character.

But again, your attempts to be hurtful are something I will have to live with as you seem to consider them fair.

Quote:

Quote:
Do you think your words are not insulting here? Do you think your pejoratives and negative superlatives are not insulting?

Yes, and I still feel the sting of yours.

twyvel, I have no wish to cause you any sting and for that I apologize. I have never commented on your character, however.

Quote:

Quote:
I will, with all due respect, allege that your accusation is hypocritical. Your own insults take on lesser weight, as I am sure mine do in my mind. You have taken that particular insult much further than I would have. I have never once said something like that to a member here.

"all due respect"..spare me the pretence.

twyvel it's not pretence, though I don't see it as likely that you will believe me.

0 Replies

truth
Is it possible for us (all of us) to transcend this caustic style of interaction? It seems, as I review this back and forth bashing, that we are accusing one another (this includes me as well) of doing what we do ourselves. I don't think anyone here has logged onto A2K just to engage in such distasteful battle. So, for my part, I am going to try very hard to desist from saying things that will hurt the feelings of others. I can't guarantee total success because I do not have any more control over my drives, particularly my out-of-awareness drives, than anyone else does. But A2K provides such a wonderful opportunity to challenge and refine one's own views by means of the input of such formidable members ('foils"), that it would be such a shame to let this opportunity fall into shambles. Very honestly, I value the challenges of such bright "sometim adversaries" as Frank, Terry, Joe, Craven, Perception, Rufio, and others. And I hope that you all can occsaionally benefit from my challenge as much as I do from yours.
Oh, and I just realized that the most aggressive disagreements I have experienced have to do with philosophical (even airy epistemological) issues but not political ones. Most of my "adversaries" clearly share most of my pollitical values. The most obvious exception is Perception who, despite our political differences, has never attacked me with insulting labels. This shows, I believe, how LIVE is philosophy.

0 Replies

No Reality Outside Our Own Existence

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know