The Problem of Self

I might add that Christianity is not "dualistic" in nature. Although many preachers have erroneously proposed this as good vs evil and God versus the devil but in the heart of Christianity God is the creator and the devil is a parasite feeding off of God The devil cannot create or invent. The devil pretends/counterfeits to be light to pervert the light of God. But good is not equal to evil. Light expels darkness, darkness cannot expel light.

0 Replies

Taliesin181 wrote:

Frank:

Quote:
Fresco....where have I ever "accused" anyone of "self-delusion?"

HINT: I have NEVER...in thousands upon thousands of posts here and over in Abuzz...EVER done that.

How about right here:

Quote:
Belief systems competing with one another...and absolute stone-headedness in refusing to come to grips with the truth...even when offered up on a silver platter.

C'mon, Taliesin...let's try to be real.

I am not accusing anyone of being self-deluded here. I am accusing them of being "stone-headed"...and they are.

The "self-delusion" comment came up under VERY SPECIFIC circumstances...and Fresco knew he was wrong in claiming I had accused him or anyone else of self-delusion.

When Christians claim God speaks to them and reveals "himself" to them....when others claim they are able to "be one with the all" and see the world as a non-dualistic certainty...

...I have often asked: How do you know you are not deluding yourself?

That was the context of the self-delusion comment. (And it has not been answered yet!)

Quote:

Not only are you accusing them of "stone-headed" self-delusion, but you also claim to know the "truth"( going against everything I've ever heard from you) and that you are offering it up on "a silver platter."

Yes...the "truth" is that I DO NOT KNOW the nature of existence...nor DO I KNOW the nature of REALITY. That is the TRUTH. And I have offered that up on a silver platter.

My guess is: Neither do they.

They can take advantage of that...or they can continue to insist they have some special knowledge of what the REALITY actually is.

Quote:

I'm not trying to be an ass...

I think I will leave this comment alone...other than to note my personal experience. I cannot think of a single time when I have made an ass of myself....where I was actually trying to do so!

Quote:

..., but not only have we strayed from the original topic by a large margin, but we've also degenerated into insults...and condescension.

Yeah, we have.

Sorry about that...but Fresco and I have a very long history on this issue...and our conversations often end up this way. I am insisting that I did not start that crap this time.

Quote:

...where we should be debating the point like reasonable adults. Now, I love hearing people's theories on things, but not their pettiness. You're both better than that.

In a perfect world...

...ahhh...never mind.

(AND THIS IS NOT TRYING TO BE NASTY...JUST SAYING WHAT I HAVE TO SAY BLUNTLY!)

If it is bothering you that much, Taliesin, perhaps it would make more sense to simply avoid the thread..or our comments in the thread...than to try to micro-manage what others have to say.

0 Replies

Sorry to everyone.

I didn't read what everyone else wrote prior to responding to Taliesin...and I see I echoed some of the stuff that was already said.

In any case:

joefromchicago wrote:

fresco wrote:
Thats the point Joe, he's not ! On previous threads when I define what I mean by "know" (as a degree of confidence about predicted interactions) Frank rejects it on "naive realist" grounds as "lacking objective evidence". Yet he also claims he doesn't "know what reality is" implying he cannot define what constitutes such "evidence".

I don't know of everything that you and Frank have discussed in previous threads. I have previously expressed my dissatisfaction with Frank's claims of knowledge.

Indeed you did, Joe. And let's be sure we understand what it was that you were expressing dissatisfaction with...namely that I said I know 2 + 2 = 4 ... and that the name on my birth certificate was Frank Apisa.

I can understand that a sophists argument can be made that I do not know those things...but....

Quote:

I'm still not entirely sure how his questions regarding your claims of knowledge constitute a "straw man," but perhaps if I pay closer attention to this thread I'll see.

I made no such claim...and that was not the basis of my strawman comment.

My strawman comment had to do with Fresco's comment that I accused him or others of "deluding themselves"...when in fact, I had merely asked the question: How do you know you are not deluding yourself?

You will acknowledge that there is a difference between asking if a person knows if he is deluding himself...and accusing him of deluding himself.

He may have been able to furnish a satisfactory answer to the question...but I guess I'll never know. He...as with most people I've asked the question...offers no answer.

Joe...answers to Ultimate Questions...answers to questions about the nature of REALITY and the nature of existence...are difficult to obtain. I am willing to give anyone who suggests he/she has reasonable answers an opportunity to share the information with me.

Rex has!

And I reject what he has to say...because the information he supplies simply does not sustain his claim of particular knowledge.

The kind of thing JL and Fresco talk about seems every bit as much a stretch as what Rex offers.

And we discuss it!

Boy, do we ever discuss it.

And have for three or four years now.

I am interested in where your inquiry ends up.

0 Replies

Rexred: "I might add that Christianity is not "dualistic" in nature."

You refer to the notion held by others that Christianity is dualistic because of its opposition between the God and the Devil.
Would you say that the opposition between good and evil is dualistic? In either case, this refers to an ontological dualism, regarding the nature of the world; to me the issue is really epistemological, regarding the nature of one's mental perspective.
It is my perspective that the Abrahamic religions are dualistic (except at their mystic cores) BECAUSE of the separation they make between the individual (self, soul) and God. Mystical religion is nondualistic in that it acknowledges a unity between the individual (self) and God (Cosmos). But this is misleading; in a sense there is no you (no ego) and no separate God. There is only the God above god (what Hindus call Brahma) and the You above you (what Hindus call Atman). In Hindu thought Brahma equals Atman, and the unity is fundamentally unthinkable. I'm not a follow of Hinduism, but its metaphors are convenient for purposes of communication.

0 Replies

Frank: I love your use of the Family Guy: "C'mon" argument. Quality.
I can see your distinction between accusing someone of deluding them selves and asking if they are, but that's a fine line that's been toed a bit.

Quote:

They can take advantage of that...or they can continue to insist they have some special knowledge of what the REALITY actually is.

Hmm. Do you mean that they can 'follow your lead' and admit that they don't know, or...something else?

Quote:

I think I will leave this comment alone...other than to note my personal experience. I cannot think of a single time when I have made an ass of myself....where I was actually trying to do so!

While this comment would usually make me sigh, you did it so well that I'll give you a bow. *bow.*

Quote:

If it is bothering you that much, Taliesin, perhaps it would make more sense to simply avoid the thread..or our comments in the thread...than to try to micro-manage what others have to say.

But then I'd miss out on the fun...I truly enjoy listening to both your viewpoints; it's just that every once in a while there won't be viewpoints, just insults. All I was really asking for was a modicum of self-restraint.
Again: I truly respect and enjoy all of your views, even when I disagree, just calm down every once in a while. Thanks for the reply.

0 Replies

Taliensin. Right on.

0 Replies

Taliesin181 wrote:

Quote:
They can take advantage of that...or they can continue to insist they have some special knowledge of what the REALITY actually is.

Hmm. Do you mean that they can 'follow your lead' and admit that they don't know, or...something else?

Well...I don't conceive of it as being something one must "admit"...but it would be nice if people who truly do not know the nature of REALITY and the nature of existence...to simply acknowledge that they do not know it...and that anything they offer about it is simply a sharing of guesses.

Quote:

Quote:
I think I will leave this comment alone...other than to note my personal experience. I cannot think of a single time when I have made an ass of myself....where I was actually trying to do so!

While this comment would usually make me sigh, you did it so well that I'll give you a bow. *bow.*

With a huge grin on his face he bows back...ever so happy that his little attempt at humor was accepted as such!

Quote:

Quote:
If it is bothering you that much, Taliesin, perhaps it would make more sense to simply avoid the thread..or our comments in the thread...than to try to micro-manage what others have to say.

But then I'd miss out on the fun...I truly enjoy listening to both your viewpoints; it's just that every once in a while there won't be viewpoints, just insults. All I was really asking for was a modicum of self-restraint.
Again: I truly respect and enjoy all of your views, even when I disagree, just calm down every once in a while. Thanks for the reply.

Okay. Done.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Rexred: "I might add that Christianity is not "dualistic" in nature."

You refer to the notion held by others that Christianity is dualistic because of its opposition between the God and the Devil.
Would you say that the opposition between good and evil is dualistic? In either case, this refers to an ontological dualism, regarding the nature of the world; to me the issue is really epistemological, regarding the nature of one's mental perspective.
It is my perspective that the Abrahamic religions are dualistic (except at their mystic cores) BECAUSE of the separation they make between the individual (self, soul) and God. Mystical religion is nondualistic in that it acknowledges a unity between the individual (self) and God (Cosmos). But this is misleading; in a sense there is no you (no ego) and no separate God. There is only the God above god (what Hindus call Brahma) and the You above you (what Hindus call Atman). In Hindu thought Brahma equals Atman, and the unity is fundamentally unthinkable. I'm not a follow of Hinduism, but its metaphors are convenient for purposes of communication.

JL...please consider everything I say here to be said with "a modicum of self-restraint"...and in a calmed down way.

Quote:

But this is misleading; in a sense there is no you (no ego) and no separate God.

Could you tell me how you know that...or is this just a guess?

Quote:

There is only the God above god (what Hindus call Brahma) and the You above you (what Hindus call Atman).

Could you tell me how you know that...or is this just a guess?

0 Replies

RexRed
There is another way to find dualism in Christianity. It is the dualism of body and soul.

0 Replies

Joe,
the difference between "guess" and "predict" lies in their semantic associations...the first implying a laymens generalism, the second implying a paradigmatic history and a level of measurement above the nominal. To equivocate is to ignore such normal semantic contexts. Saying that "knowledge" is concerned with "prediction" also encapsulates our cognitive urge to "control" and it is within such narrow confines that "explanation" is normally evaluated.* As aspiring philosophers we need to make such issues transparent and by doing so it may be that words like "delusion" cease to have general epistemological import. i.e. such "dog bites" may not need a physician...only a band-aid.

*(NB At the most trivial level "Knowing" Henry VIII had six wives is "predicting" what you might find in a history book. It is also "controlling" within a hypothetical testing of knowledge situation)

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

I can understand that a sophists argument can be made that I do not know those things...but....

And a sophistical argument can also be made that you do know these things -- such as the argument that you know them because you know them.

I have no doubt that you know that 2+2=4 or that you know your own name. You have, however, given no basis for knowing those facts aside from your own assertion that you know them. In its essentials, this kind of "sez me" (ipse dixit) is no different from the faith-based knowledge that you correctly denigrate. You can understand, therefore, why some people here have little patience with your claims that they have no basis for their claims of knowledge when you show as little basis for your own claims.

Frank Apisa wrote:

My strawman comment had to do with Fresco's comment that I accused him or others of "deluding themselves"...when in fact, I had merely asked the question: How do you know you are not deluding yourself?

You will acknowledge that there is a difference between asking if a person knows if he is deluding himself...and accusing him of deluding himself.

Indeed, and I believe that you've asked a worthwhile question (it's a question that I've asked of the non-dualists on a number of occasions as well). You may want to ask it of yourself.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Joe,
the difference between "guess" and "predict" lies in their semantic associations...the first implying a laymens generalism, the second implying a paradigmatic history and a level of measurement above the nominal.

No, that's not the difference at all. A prediction is merely an informed guess: I can guess that there is at least one Ethiopian restaurant in London (based upon nothing more than the fact that there is at least one Ethiopian restaurant in Chicago); I can predict that there is at least one Ethiopian restaurant in London (based upon studying immigration patterns, social trends, population statistics, etc.). The difference, then, is not between general and specific (since both have the same level of generality), but of confidence in the correctness of the guess/prediction.

More importantly, there can be no predicting (and no guessing) without knowing. I can no more guess at a fact than I can predict one if I have no basis for knowing what I am guessing or predicting. As such, any definition of "knowledge" that relies, in part, upon a notion of "predicting" is begging the question: one knows because one can predict, and one can predict because one knows. It's a definition that proves itself, and thus it is no definition at all.

fresco wrote:

To equivocate is to ignore such normal semantic contexts. Saying that "knowledge" is concerned with "prediction" also encapsulates our cognitive urge to "control" and it is within such narrow confines that "explanation" is normally evaluated.* As aspiring philosophers we need to make such issues transparent and by doing so it may be that words like "delusion" cease to have general epistemological import. i.e. such "dog bites" may not need a physician...only a band-aid.

I don't know how you can strip "delusion" of any epistemological import and yet load "prediction" with so much epistemological baggage. Frankly, I see no epistemological difference between the two: if one can predict, based upon some sort of "knowledge," then one can also be deluded, based upon a mistake in some sort of "knowledge."

fresco wrote:

*(NB At the most trivial level "Knowing" Henry VIII had six wives is "predicting" what you might find in a history book. It is also "controlling" within a hypothetical testing of knowledge situation)

This is a good example of why "prediction" is such a flawed basis for any kind of claim of knowledge. Predicting that the fact of Henry VIII's marriages will be found in a history book presupposes the knowledge of history books. The question, then, would be: how do you know that? And if one's knowledge of history books is based upon a prediction, then one is quickly faced with an infinite regress of predictions.

In short, a prediction based upon no prior knowledge is not a prediction. It's not even a guess. It's a nothing. Predicting presupposes knowing. Consequently, predicting cannot be the basis of knowing.

0 Replies

Joe,

I agree I missed discussing "confidence" above. I normally do. I also did not discuss "time" which (a) is deemed to be a "psychological construct" and (b) gives a framework for "the control cycle" or as you would like to put it "the infinite regress".

The problem you and I have now in discussing this further is that you have to be prepared to take on board my a-temporal /a-control picture as at least
a tentatative step "out of the box". Evaluations like "infinite regress" from inside the box are futile. Godels proof implies such objections will always arise from within a system.

One more key issue seems to be "satisfaction". If you are satisfied with traditional concepts of "objective reality" you will be reluctant to step out of the box. I am not, and the challenge for me is to seek alternative coherent structures some of which have been outlined on other threads.
You have shown reluctance in the past to consider such alternatives (warts and all) in this light (e.g. Kosco) but I think you miss the point.

0 Replies

Joe

.....I've remembered Einsteins celebrated "explanation of radio"

<<You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. Do you understand this? And radio operates exactly the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there. The only difference is that there is no cat>>

If you substitute "signals" for "facts" and "objective reality" for "cat" this may go some way towards where I want to come from.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
I can understand that a sophists argument can be made that I do not know those things...but....

And a sophistical argument can also be made that you do know these things -- such as the argument that you know them because you know them.

I have no doubt that you know that 2+2=4 or that you know your own name. You have, however, given no basis for knowing those facts aside from your own assertion that you know them. In its essentials, this kind of "sez me" (ipse dixit) is no different from the faith-based knowledge that you correctly denigrate. You can understand, therefore, why some people here have little patience with your claims that they have no basis for their claims of knowledge when you show as little basis for your own claims.

Frank Apisa wrote:
My strawman comment had to do with Fresco's comment that I accused him or others of "deluding themselves"...when in fact, I had merely asked the question: How do you know you are not deluding yourself?

You will acknowledge that there is a difference between asking if a person knows if he is deluding himself...and accusing him of deluding himself.

Indeed, and I believe that you've asked a worthwhile question (it's a question that I've asked of the non-dualists on a number of occasions as well). You may want to ask it of yourself.

Deluding myself about what?

In fact, why don't you ask it of me?

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Joe,

I agree I missed discussing "confidence" above. I normally do. I also did not discuss "time" which (a) is deemed to be a "psychological construct" and (b) gives a framework for "the control cycle" or as you would like to put it "the infinite regress".

Do you know that time is a psychological construct, or is that merely a working assumption?

fresco wrote:

The problem you and I have now in discussing this further is that you have to be prepared to take on board my a-temporal /a-control picture as at least a tentatative step "out of the box".

Why should I?

fresco wrote:

Evaluations like "infinite regress" from inside the box are futile. Godels proof implies such objections will always arise from within a system.

What is this box of which you speak?

fresco wrote:

One more key issue seems to be "satisfaction". If you are satisfied with traditional concepts of "objective reality" you will be reluctant to step out of the box. I am not, and the challenge for me is to seek alternative coherent structures some of which have been outlined on other threads.

If you are dissatisfied with traditional concepts of objective reality, then you must have a reason. What is it?

fresco wrote:

You have shown reluctance in the past to consider such alternatives (warts and all) in this light (e.g. Kosco) but I think you miss the point.

I see no reason to consider the alternatives, since my current view of reality is perfectly satisfactory.

fresco wrote:

.....I've remembered Einsteins celebrated "explanation of radio"

<<You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. Do you understand this? And radio operates exactly the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there. The only difference is that there is no cat>>

If you substitute "signals" for "facts" and "objective reality" for "cat" this may go some way towards where I want to come from.

I have no doubt that you want to come from there. But I want to know how you got there -- and why you went there -- in the first place.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Deluding myself about what?

Reality.

Frank Apisa wrote:

In fact, why don't you ask it of me?

OK Frank, how do you know if you're not suffering from a delusion?

0 Replies

Joe.

My lack of satisfaction has its academic origins in Quantum Physics and Philosophy of Language and is fuelled by frustration at the continued proliferation of perrnicious religious belief systems.
You are already aware of my scepticism of the utility of applying "normal logic" in these areas based to some extent on my reading of genetic epistemology.

I'm sorry but I dont think your other Q/A's are significant from this position. The old adage "What do they know of England who only of England know ?" might make my comments on "the box" self explanatory. (I would cite Wittgensteins rejection of his own Tractatus on conventional logic in support of my own claim that I am not wishing to be condescending to you)

Later edit:
Sorry I did mean to reply to your first Q.
"Time as a Psychological Construct" is an accepted concept in quantum physics.

0 Replies

Frank, I think I know your answer to Joe's question of how you know you are not deluding yourself. You don't know. You are guessing.
To answer your question to me. I AM guessing in a way. It's a conclusion based on experience--often the experiences amount to "soft" evidence, "facts" that move me subjectively, but not "hard" enough to move a sceptic or embarrass one with a closed mind. But I do not think people can do without knowledge, whether based on hard facts (this is usually the case with relatively trivial knowledge) or soft facts. We must speculate because of tne need for meaning and the pragmatic need for a theoretical basis for practical action (cf. John Dewey). That's why you've elevated your "I don't know" to the status of divine truth.

Fresco, I enjoyed how you called the thesis about Henry VIII a "prediction". I would have called it a "postdiction." But you DID say you were predicting what you would find in a history book. Very Happy

BTW, Joe, would you not say thats prediction "turns out" to be knowledge when it is affirmed by experience? Prediction is one way of determining knowledge. There is no question of whether a hypothesis is knowledge BEFORE it is affirmed (or not falsified). Knowledge is a state of mind more than it is a condition of the world which we mind.

0 Replies

JLN,

Yes...state of mind....propensity to act....all "knowledge" is concerned with action/interaction is it not?

0 Replies

The Problem of Self

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know