The Void and the Absolute Oneness of the Universe

@layman,

As I pointed out before, it is screamingly obvious that "vulture mode" gives you a keen eye for the criticism paragraphs. The fact that you have nothing original to say of your own, or that you have no conception of the philosophical zeitgeist which drives these movements in the first place, assigns you to the beginners class in philosophy. Whether you have the brains to move on from there remains to be seen.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

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" for that would require access to an "absolute criterion" which we cannot have.

We CAN have access to the absolute criterion that whatever IS...IS.

Apparently the answer to my earlier question is that you are determined not to get it, Fresco...and I am going to continue to remind you of that.

Quote:

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 !

I cannot imagine you have anything to "teach", Fresco...except for the guesses you make. For sharing those guesses, however, I say thank you.

2 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

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).

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.

I hope there are others reading who see your repeated recitations of these mantras as similar to Catholics using a Rosary. This really has become religion-like with you, Fresco.

See that. Acknowledge it. You are more than intelligent enough to do so. And you will move yourself philosophically to a better place if you do.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I hope there are others reading who see your repeated recitations of these mantras as similar to Catholics using a Rosary

Trust me, Frank, there are.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

We CAN have access to the absolute criterion that whatever IS...IS.

Not we...you might believe that assertion is meaningful or useful, but I'm going with Kant and the post-Kantians on that one. So the impasse remains as usual, with you hiding behind your biblesque pseudo-cryptic pronouncement.

2 Replies

@fresco,

A is A! (Ayn Rand)

Who can dispute that?

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I hope there are others reading who see your repeated recitations of these mantras as similar to Catholics using a Rosary

Come on Frank ! You know that you have the well earned title "Monarch of the Mantra"! At least I change my references and examples once in a while !
I've recently introduced Habermas for example on the issue of "communicative action". You would have a bit of a problem with him as you are the epitome of inaction !

2 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

At least I change my references and examples once in a while !

Who doesn't? Sometimes I use Muddy Waters. Other times Howlin Wolf. Robert Johnson is a perennial favorite. John Lee Hooker....I gotta million of em!

Here's a little quote from Sonny Terry:

Ya can't plant cotton, and expect to gather corn....
Ya can't take right, Baby, and turn it into wrong....
That's why I'm walkin....walkin my blues away.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

...you a keen eye for the criticism paragraphs.

Something I notice that you always omit, eh?

You present these guys like they have God-like pronouncements to make. As if, if only one would hear and heed their words, he would become enlightened and know the TRUTH.

That method of presentation may be sufficient with the chumps you deal with in your personal life to convince them of your superior knowledge and insight, I dunno. But it don't fly in these here parts.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Quote:
We CAN have access to the absolute criterion that whatever IS...IS.

Not we...you might believe that assertion is meaningful or useful...

Don't start with the straw men, Fresco. I didn't say anything about the tautology being useful.

You had written, "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. "

I said we can...and then offered my tautology.

Frankly, that tautology is of much greater value than most of the nonsense you spout, although I will still acknowledge that it is not particularly "useful." Yours is just less useful.

Quote:

... but I'm going with Kant and the post-Kantians on that one. So the impasse remains as usual, with you hiding behind your biblesque pseudo-cryptic pronouncement.

Do you ever tire of appeals to authority...or to babble?

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Quote:
I hope there are others reading who see your repeated recitations of these mantras as similar to Catholics using a Rosary

Come on Frank ! You know that you have the well earned title "Monarch of the Mantra"! At least I change my references and examples once in a while !
I've recently introduced Habermas for example on the issue of "communicative action". You would have a bit of a problem with him as you are the epitome of inaction !

Ya think???

Nothing inactive about me, Fresco! I'm right here for ya.

0 Replies

@layman,

The fact that you have nothing original to say of your own, or that you have no conception of the philosophical zeitgeist which drives these movements in the first place, assigns you to the beginners class in philosophy. Whether you have the brains to move on from there remains to be seen.

No sign yet, so I'll put you on ignore for now, and review the situation from time to time. Its not all bad news though. You are doing quite well in the cutting and pasting class !

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

The fact that...

As always, you, and only YOU, have the "facts," eh, Fresco?

Rave on.

1 Reply

@layman,

Yo.

Been there, done that, got no t-shirt... Al Fresco's obsession with language is nihilist and self-destructive. He says nothing useful, nothing anyone can put to good use in life. Or to be more precise, the only possible use of his nihilism is to help him cast those disagreeing with him as 'bad students', with that pleasant, rightful sense of academic pomposity about it all.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

...pomposity about it all.

Hear that, Ollie!

A pretentious, pseudo-intellectual poseur, you might say.

1 Reply

@layman,

Yep. And he hasn't read half the authors he's name-dropping, mind you.

JLNobody is smarter and more intellectually honest, as monists go. He posts less often though. Generally, the level of philosophical discourse is pretty low across this board. Many people here have remained locked in that "layman is always wrong" meme typical of the early 20th century.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Thank you very much Oliver, that is very assuring. Let me qualify your praise with the sincere confession that I cannot match Fresco's level of philosophical sophistication. Fresco has the problem of being an obsessive intellectual and teacher. As I see it he sees that his obligation as an A2Ker is to learn what philosphy has taught and is teaching now and passing those teachings on to us--if we are willing to follow his lead. I have taught in a university for more than two decades (now retired), and my contributions to my students (undergraduate and graduate) have rarely matched the quality of Fresco's offerings in these forums. He seems to be doing his best to teach us ABOUT philosophy, and doing a great job of it. The problem for many of us is that we have not signed up for what he has to offer. We are here for intellectual recreation; Fresco is here to do intellectual work.
Frank, on the other hand, has never tired of reminding us of his great personal apotheosis, that Reality can be described only tautologically (it is what it is). I try not to criticize it because I can do no better. Sometimes I try, as when I propose to point to Reality with quasi-mystical utterances, even though I believe that I can do no better than refer to "It" with silence. But we might keep in mind that both Frank and I persist in our advocacies because of their psychological payoff. The same may be said of Fresco's enterprise which I hope will never cease.

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

You are of course as always "a gentleman".

You are correct that I am spasmodically engaged in philosophical research and limited publication (having retired from experimental psycho-linguistic research some time ago). And as discussed before, I tend not to "suffer fools gladly" especially when their "foolishness" constitutes failure to read for themselves. I'm afraid that may be the legacy of a former lecturer and tutor at graduate level who was once mildly "chastised" for marking too leniently !

As far as this thread is concerned, there have been few attempts to investigate the issue of "oneness" irrespective of whether we concur with the thoughts in the OP. It remains to be seen whether contributors are sufficiently interested or capable, to be be able to focus on the issue.

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

You give Al Fresco way too much credit. The guy is a fraud, while you are intellectually honest, from what I can tell.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

I should perhaps explain myself a bit better here. This may sound as a crude attempt to divide you from your teacher. All i am saying is: as far as non-dualists go, you debate better in my book, because you listen better and actually try to address the objections being laid to you. That's perhaps where Fresco's 'teaching posture' finds its limit: he's one of these teachers who never listen to anything their students say.

They're not the best teachers if you ask me, rather they are the most insecure of teachers...

In any case, I'm not here to be tought a particular type of philosophical posture. I'm not interested in monism. Or non-dualism. I'm interested in dualism, which I find a rather efficient and highly pragmatic worldview. And i don't see a mature critique of it from Fresco, just name-dropping. He seems to think his school of philosophy is superior to any other... Why? There are many modern realist philosophers, and they are not all "naïve". Let him stop the name-dropping, let him address some of the most glaring contradictions in his 'system'. Then I'll take him seriously.

0 Replies

The Void and the Absolute Oneness of the Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know