15
   

The Void and the Absolute Oneness of the Universe

 
 
JLNobody
 
  2  
Reply Sun 8 Mar, 2015 10:05 am
@fresco,
I'm off to the funeral of a friend, but let me insert for the moment that I believe, like many "meditators," that humans, rocks and flowers are among the myriad phenomena that were made in God's image.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Sun 8 Mar, 2015 10:33 am
As far as the REALITY of existence is concerned...

...whatever actually is...IS.

The fact that humans may be unable to communicate accurately about REALITY...to the point where the statement above is conditional...

...does not impact significantly on that.

Whatever is going on here...IS what IS.

Whether humans are a significant part of "what IS" or are merely an insignificant intrusion on an insignificant speck of dust circling an insignificant energy force...

...does not change that.

Fresco is confusing REALITY with comprehension of and descriptions of reality.

No getting through to him on that…and he will continue to insist that people who do not agree with his take are simply not intelligent enough to understand the argument.

In that, I think he is just stroking his own ego.

But I love him. He seems to be a decent guy...who is posting his stuff here so the stroking goes a bit easier.
fresco
 
  3  
Reply Mon 9 Mar, 2015 02:45 am
@Frank Apisa,
No Frank. It's not "ego". My fault (if any) is taking the mission statement of A2K in providing "subject expertise" too literally. So I tend to wear my lecturer's hat and attempt to educate participants in the established positions of "great thinkers" of our time. My activities may fall on deaf ears here, but appear to be well received (and even at times applauded) in face-to-face open meetings. That is not to say everybody at such meetings agrees with some of my conclusions, but they certainly seem to respect my presentations of the essential references.

So I don't need A2K to bolster my ego. I tend to use it as an exercise for keeping on my mental toes. It's pleasant to find fellow travelers, but I am now used to the flak from those who don't want to know, or resent my style of trying to point to where "answers" might lie.
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Mon 9 Mar, 2015 06:07 am
@fresco,
I suspect if you could get past your considerable ego, Fresco (nothing wrong with ego, by the way; we all here seem to have our fair share)...you would see that you are rationalizing your actions here.

But even giving you the benefit of the doubt on that...while you may indeed find it "pleasant to find fellow travelers" (you really don't find that many here)...you honestly do not seem to be trying to point to where "answers" might lie. You seem, to me and to many others, to have determined that you KNOW the answers...and are interested in telling others why the reason they do not arrive where your guesses about REALITY take you...is a lack of intelligence and diligence in study. You lament that if only they would read the writings of your authorities...and if they were by some miracle to understand those works as well as you...they also would "see" what you "SEE."

I've come closer to "trying to point to where answers might lie"...by suggesting they might lie outside the ability of humans to fathom. You never seem to concede that point...and try to avoid it by talk about the function of human language...and the difficulties of its usage in "communicating" about REALITY. I have never seen you allow that the problem may not be language at all...but that the scope of the problem may well be that humans may be less able to comprehend the REALITY than an ant is able to comprehend cosmology or quantum mechanics.

But I'm happy you are here, because you give me a sounding board to say what I have to say on the subject.

We'll talk more.





fresco
 
  2  
Reply Mon 9 Mar, 2015 07:33 am
@Frank Apisa,
Sorry Frank, but any "answers" I point to cannot take for granted lay conceptions of terms like "guess","know", "reality" or "truth". Failure to appreciate that means failure to be able to participate in "modern philosophy".

I may have cited these clips before but they capture the flavor of what I mean by the term "modern philosophy". Note in particular Rorty's reference to "appearance" and "reality" at the end of the first clip.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzynRPP9XkY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyx0rNyxFrk
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Mon 9 Mar, 2015 07:57 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Sorry Frank, but any "answers" I point to cannot take for granted lay conceptions of terms like "guess","know", "reality" or "truth". Failure to appreciate that means failure to be able to participate in "modern philosophy".

I may have cited these clips before but they capture the flavor of what I mean by the term "modern philosophy". Note in particular Rorty's reference to "appearance" and "reality" at the end of the first clip.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzynRPP9XkY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyx0rNyxFrk



You just don't get it, Fresco.

The only question that remains is: Are you incapable of getting it...or are you just being ego-driven stubborn?

I think the latter. That would be my guess.

Oh...and I think if I had been able to discuss these issues with Rorty...I suspect he would have acknowledged what I was saying is closer to what he is suggesting than what you saying. But maybe that is my ego at work.


fresco
 
  2  
Reply Mon 9 Mar, 2015 08:14 am
@Frank Apisa,
No Frank. Listen carefully to the start of the second clip about "objectives of modern philosophy". It basically discounts any concept of "ultimate reality" as a pipe dream with religious overtones. Rorty is not against religion per se but he sees it as "functional" for particular purposes. So "existence of God" is not an epistemological or ontological issue. It is merely a construction for some in order to satisfy social and psychological needs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjhVk-0Vhmk

Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Mon 9 Mar, 2015 08:29 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

No Frank. Listen carefully to the start of the second clip about "objectives of modern philosophy". It basically discounts any concept of "ultimate reality" as a pipe dream with religious overtones. Rorty is not against religion per se but he sees it as "functional" for particular purposes. So "existence of God" is not an epistemological or ontological issue. It is merely a construction for some in order to satisfy social and psychological needs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjhVk-0Vhmk




One...unless Rorty is GOD...there is no way he has the final say on whether or not there is an ultimate reality or not.

"Modern philosophy" will one day give way to 'modern philosophy"...and they may well wonder how people like you bought into the nonsense of today.

My guess still is that Rorty would come closer to my take in this discussion than yours.

I would also argue with both you and Rorty...that if there is no ultimate reality...then THAT WOULD BE THE ULTIMATE REALITY.


fresco
 
  2  
Reply Mon 9 Mar, 2015 08:46 am
@Frank Apisa,
So, as a die-hard agnostic, all you are saying is that you cannot accept the pragmatists view that talking about "ultimate reality" is futile, and that talking defines "is-ness". That is where you fail to understand or be able to communicate with Rorty.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Mar, 2015 08:53 am
@fresco,
Quote:
...talking defines "is-ness". That is where you fail to understand or be able to communicate with Rorty.


Heh, who would even want to communicate with some candy ass who uses words like "is-ness?" Probably not Frank.
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Mon 9 Mar, 2015 08:55 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

So, as a die-hard agnostic, all you are saying is that you cannot accept the pragmatists view that talking about "ultimate reality" is futile, and that talking defines "is-ness".


I not only do not have a problem with accepting that talking about "ultimate reality" is futile...I am a champion of it.

All indications are that we cannot know the true nature of the REALITY of existence. I've actually mentioned that in the past...several thousands of times.

But you continue to tell us that you KNOW that reality is dependent upon language (used to be human language until Setanta finally pounded the nonsense aspect of that through your skull)...and now it is some nebulous language of all things.

YOU DO NOT KNOW THAT about REALITY.

You are the one not able to accept that talking about REALITY is, in a sense, futile. You want to talk about it...and define it for us.

And you are doing a terrible job of it.

No matter how futile, however, whatever ultimately IS...IS.



Quote:

That is where you fail to understand or be able to communicate with Rorty.


No, Fresco. No matter how many people "applaud" you for your guesses...YOU are the one not getting Rorty.

Whatever is...IS.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Mon 9 Mar, 2015 08:56 am
@layman,
There are times I think Fresco is channeling Bill Clinton in that regard.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Mar, 2015 08:58 am
@Frank Apisa,
There are times I think Fresco is channeling Bill Clinton in that regard.

Well, Frank, ya know, that would all kinda depend on what "is" is.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Mon 9 Mar, 2015 08:59 am
@layman,
Quote:
Heh, who would even want to communicate with some candy ass who uses words like "is-ness?"

So what are you doing here then ? Laughing
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Mon 9 Mar, 2015 09:06 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Quote:
Heh, who would even want to communicate with some candy ass who uses words like "is-ness?"

So what are you doing here then ? Laughing



I know I've asked you versions of that question many times, Fresco...but I hope the answer from everyone is: Just enjoying myself...and learning something if there is actually something to learn.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Mon 9 Mar, 2015 09:09 am
My use of the term "is-ness" is a low key pointer to the movement in semantics and philosophy resulting in "Eprime".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime
That topic has significance to both "existentialism" and "post-structuralism".

Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Mon 9 Mar, 2015 09:28 am
@fresco,
As regard to the “Ultimate REALITY”…or “whatever the hell is going on here”…

…my position is and always has been:

I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence.

I certainly do not know the impact (or lack of impact) on the Ultimate REALITY of human (or any other kind) of language on it.

I understand and acknowledge that language may not be adequate to comprehend anything meaningful about REALITY…and just as inadequate to communicate anything meaningful about it.

But whatever the true nature of the REALITY of existence is…THAT IS WHAT IT IS.

Without the filibuster double-speak, Fresco…what is your position?

layman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Mar, 2015 09:37 am
@fresco,
Quote:
Many authors have questioned E-Prime's effectiveness...These authors observed that a communication under the copula ban can remain extremely unclear and imply prejudice, while losing important speech patterns, such as identities and identification. Further, prejudices and judgments that are made are more difficult to notice or refute...

...the Office of English Language Programs of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs in the State Department of the United States[asserts] "Requiring students to avoid the verb to be on every assignment would deter students from developing other fundamental skills of fluent writing."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime

Exactly.

I got your E prime right here.

Ya want "is-ness?" Here ya go: E prime is crap.

layman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Mar, 2015 10:13 am
@fresco,
Quote:
Disallowed words in E prime:
be
being
been
am
is; isn't
are; aren't
was; wasn't
were; weren't
Contractions formed from a pronoun and a form of to be: I'm
you're; we're; they're
he's; she's; it's
there's; here's
where's; how's; what's; who's
that's

E-Prime likewise prohibits contractions of to be found in nonstandard dialects of English, such as the following: ain't
hain't (when derived from ain't rather than haven't)
whatcha (derived from what are you)
yer (when derived from you are rather than your)


Just like someone who thinks language is the whole of reality to then want to dictate language by "prohibiting" words they don' like, eh?

Can you say PC? No judgments are allowed (except MY judgment that YOU can't judge).



0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Mar, 2015 10:21 am
@Frank Apisa,
My position is that like Rorty, I understand that references to "reality" are only meaningful in everyday scenarios between communicators with mutual needs. What matters, pragmatically, is not so much an assertion of "what is" as how does that existential statement inform subsequent action (or the abstention of action).
To get back to the OP (which would be courteous), a concept of "oneness" may for example, inform everyday actions like "eco-promotion". On the other hand, it may also inform decisions not to act, perhaps by the additional consideration of a "gaia hypothesis".
Statements about "reality" are never "right" or "wrong" in the absolute sense of those words for that would require access to an "absolute criterion" which we cannot have. All we can do is agree on whether they either work or otherwise in terms of expected outcomes or the fulfillment of psychological needs.

Okay, so I've now indulged your "drawing out" request, hopefully without resorting to "doublespeak". You might reciprocate by telling me whether you have learnt anything from either me or Rorty. But after many years, I'm not holding my breath !

 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/23/2022 at 02:50:59