Modern philosophers- jukeboxes...

Quote:

Pegasus, first, "rock" is a mind construct, through language. It is an idea. You, Nobody and Medium see a dark think in the water and immediately integrate that thing in the concept of rock. Because, your interaction with the thing gives you only a visual impression of something dark, and if you touch it, sharp and heavy.
When you say "there is a rock" you are saying: there is something that seems to have the properties included in the concept of "rock". But the concept of rock doesn't refer to that specific thing you are seeing. It refers to itself, as definition, within a coherent system of relations called language.

If 'rock' is a mind construct, that which refers to it- this object on the beach- is mind-dependent, and that which is mind-dependent falls under the broad classification of "idealism." So then, if 'rock' is something "...that refers to itself, as definition, within a coherent system of relations called language...," this resembles a form of idealism. Not Berkeley's idealism...

0 Replies

pegasus

There is something in the beach. You interact with it. It is in your field of experience. The thing in the beach does not depend on you to be there.
But the way you perceive it, is within your experience conditions. You don't perceive that thing the same way a fly does.
Now: why is your perception of the thing better than the fly's perception? It isn't. You both have different perceptions of that thing within the conditions of your experience.

When you say: it is a rock, we are not in the field of experience. You leave your interaction with the thing in order to think a concept. "Rock" is an abstract idea that applies to an infinity of things. "Rock" has definitions, is part of a coherent system - language - and, although it refers to your experience is not in your sensorial experience. In that sense, it is a mind construct.
You can learn what "rock" is, even if you never had any sensorial experience of it.

0 Replies

Val and pegasus, forgive me if I sound rude, but what is the gain of this conversation? What can be gained from deciding what parts of an experience belong where?

I'm not saying that if there's no purpose it's all stupid. I don't think that. I am a great enjoyer of wantonness. I am just curious to hear why you think it is important to determine what is concept and so on.

Myself, I can think of a few purposes, the least "noble" of them is simply to kill time, or stifle curiousity. Not bad reasons in my book, but lately I've been wondering about philosophy. Is it a means or an end?

0 Replies

Cyracuz, I just came across your:
I am just saying that the thread has taken a turn towards it's origin. Concious thought is fallible, since it is controlled by the fleeting and unconstant ego. The waking "I" knows nothing but limitation. It is how it defines itself. Thus it is impossible to realize your true nature if every thought you think is a concious effort, based on a concious want to solve a problem you have conciously identified. "
Very much appreciated.
By the way, I think philosophy is (as is basic Science) an end in itself. Engineering (or applied Science) is a means to ends.

0 Replies

cyracuz

For those, like me, that reject any kind of reality that is not our experience in a physical world, the different levels of that experience
- verbal, sensorial, intentional - are the essential purpose of philosophy.

0 Replies

Glad to be able to contribut JL Smile

I too have come to think of philosophy as an end in itself. After all, it means "love of wisdom", and wisdom comes of experience, wich can only be gained through life. So I have come to think of philosophy simply as living. It is the evolution that takes place within me as I make my way through the physical world. That's why I think it's sometimes better to "listen" rather than to think.

Val, can you name any kind of reality that is known to you and that is not your experience in a physical world? Isn't everything we experience, awake, asleep, intoxicated or sober, equally a part of our experience in this physical world?

0 Replies

Val and Cyracuz, you both speak of reality as experience in a physical world. Note your dualism: you speak of two things, subjective "experience" in an objective "physical world". I personally prefer to think of that "physical world" as my experience. I do not deny an objective reality, but that which is not perceived cannot be part of my existential reality. I grant the theoretical existence of the Noumena (as I do of Brahman). But apart from Phenomena (and Atman), I can imagine no existence of which to speak.

0 Replies

I see your point JLNobody, but these two things... "subjective "experience" in an objective "physical world".".. are they not one and the same?

This is a tricky subject, I find, but I have a sneaking suspicion that if I ever get to the end of it all I'll get is Omm.

Quote:

that which is not perceived cannot be part of my existential reality.

I agree completely. But I think I should mention that I hold most thoughts to be perceptions rather than impulses generated by the concious mind. We are not so much engines for great ideas as we are prisms, bending and reflecting the light into countless patterns and colors.

0 Replies

Prism Cyracuz, yes, that's my point; they are the same. We can say that everything (for little us) is subjective or we can say that everything (for big us) is objective. It's the dualism that is troublesome, that there is a subjective being (ego) within, but not inherently of, an objective material world.
Prism JL

0 Replies

A rock is concept yes, but that concept in itself, mean something. When I am talking of a rock, I am talking of something that is commonly found in nature that is hard, irregular, and is not attached to the earth. Yes, our brain make this concept arise, but it is an identification of some things found in nature and thus real.

One could argue that the world as it appears might not be as it is, but that is an argument that leads nowhere, for the only way we could sense the world is through our human capabilities, and therefore it is a reflection of something real.

0 Replies

Yes, I agree, the dualism is troublesome. But I think it is only there to confuse us. In actuality I have come to doubt that this ego is really that subjective at all.

When it comes to physical things, can we really say that we own our bodies? You have told me earlier that in the course of seven years our body replaces every cell, so we're not the same material now as we were when we were born.
When we die our energies redistribute to other things, same as when we are born energy is suddenly gathered by a focuspoint and turned into what will become a person. So what is this person?

Is it the flesh and blood, or is it the "magical incantation" than binds them together that is the essence?

I'd say that I am not my physical shape. I do not own these lungs of mine, nor do I own the air in them. Only the breathing is mine.

I am a part of the world, and nothing without it. I think this dualism comes from a distorted and inflated sense of self. The notion of the individual that there is an objective and a subjective world when there is just Atman, wich everything are merely subdivisions of, myself included.

0 Replies

Cryacuz, I always stress that dualism has been essential to human survival, but that it is, when taken as absolutely so, a great obstacle to human spiritual fulfillment. But no-one or nothing is attempting to confuse us by means of the ego illusion. We confuse ourselves and it is the price we pay in order to construct and maintain a worldview that we can share with others. A non-dualistic world view is one, I think, in which each of us would exist with a strong "spiritual" awareness of our unity with the Cosmos but functionally separate from our fellow beings (except, of course, insofar as they are manifestations of the Cosmos).

0 Replies

cyracuz

Quote:

Val, can you name any kind of reality that is known to you and that is not your experience in a physical world? Isn't everything we experience, awake, asleep, intoxicated or sober, equally a part of our experience in this physical world

Yes I can. All metaphysics. All mystical "experience". That covers the perspectives of most of mankind.

0 Replies

How is it, val, that you have knowledge of such things as metaphysics and mystical "experience" if it did not come from the living of life. If it's in you it's part of reality.

I agree that we fool ourselves JL, and the irony is that we do so in the good faith that we are actually pulling aside the veil. But I do not think we should aim to rid ourselves of this dualism. I think it is just a by-product of our perspective. It's like looking at a rubix cube. No matter how you look at it you will never be able to see more than approximately half the colored squares at once. Twist and turn all you will, but half the squares are always hidden. This is true of everything, but in this particular example it is clear that it is due to perspective.

0 Replies

Cyracuz and Val, I think that experience is not OF reality; experience IS reality. This is central to the mystical experience. We ARE our experience and the content of experience is the content of our being.
Cryacuz, I repeat that I do not want to put aside or away our dualism; it is critical to our functioning as social beings. The same applies to ego, which is an experession of dualilsm. But for our spiritual fulfillment we must see them for what they are: useful delusions--delusions of limited value.

0 Replies

Cyracuz

There is a difference between the idea of God and the reality of such an entity. The idea of God like all ideas, is part of our experience, our physical experience. The fact that you think about a non-physical entity is a physical fact.

But when you accept the existence of God, you are accepting the existence not only of your idea, but the existence of a non-physical entity that cannot, by definition, be part of your experience.
A metaphysical theory is not only the definition of God, Objective Truth, Soul. It is the belief that they exist. It is all the reasoning trying to prove their existence.
In one word: it is the use of experience to create the illusion of a reality external to all experience.

0 Replies

Val, an interesting perspective.

0 Replies

Quote:

There is a difference between the idea of God and the reality of such an entity. The idea of God like all ideas, is part of our experience, our physical experience. The fact that you think about a non-physical entity is a physical fact.

Or is the physical world a part of our spiritual experience? If everything is an idea, a thing of the mind, then that idea lies on top of the world like MSwindows on top of DOS. By only hearkening to only one of them you are negating parts of your own existence. I am beginning to think that "physical" is a word as apt in explaining the world as "grace" is when describing a stork on rollerblades.. Smile

Here are some more facts: Your god is non-physical and impossible, or so it seems from your post. But remember that god is just a word. What you put in it is what matters, and many seem to have adopted the word to apply to all the things they consider impossible in this world. "By definition not part of their experience".

Do you think of the world as a strictly physical thing val? Is that why a non-physical being is by definition impossible? It is possible to argue that we humans are non-physical beings, and that manipulation matter to form bodies is one of our attributes or skills, rather than our identities.

I do not understand how it is so difficult to accept god and so easy to accept this reality that we know neither beginning, end nor purpose of. Both ideas are ideas of limitless possibility. For my part, I will not presume to know that god is non-physical. My idea of god is of an entity that is everything. The idea of everything as one. In that sense we are as alike to god as one drop of water to the entire sea. Not precicely different, but not at all the same.

I have great respect for those who wield the sciences in search for enlightenment and progress, although I do not always agree that their discoveries are indeed progress.

If I misunderstood you val, then feel free to vent your displeasure Smile

JLNobody wrote:

Quote:

Cryacuz, I repeat that I do not want to put aside or away our dualism; it is critical to our functioning as social beings. The same applies to ego, which is an experession of dualilsm. But for our spiritual fulfillment we must see them for what they are: useful delusions--delusions of limited value.

It's hard to come up with a progressive reply when you agree completely... I concur, is all Smile

0 Replies

Cryacuz, regarding your statement--"My idea of god is of an entity that is everything. The idea of everything as one. In that sense we are as alike to god as one drop of water to the entire sea. Not precicely different, but not at all the same"--I concur.

0 Replies

Cyracuz

Quote:

Or is the physical world a part of our spiritual experience?

Since you are assuming that there is a spiritual (non-physical) experience, then you have already answered your question. But since you and JLNobody always deny dualism, I am surprised to see your effort to restore the old dualism body/soul of Descartes.

As for me, I don't accept that spiritual (in the sense of non-physical) experience.

Quote:

Do you think of the world as a strictly physical thing val?

Yes.

Quote:

Is that why a non-physical being is by definition impossible?

Yes, impossible within the limits of our possible experience.

Quote:

It is possible to argue that we humans are non-physical beings, and that manipulation matter to form bodies is one of our attributes or skills, rather than our identities.

Yes, it is possible to say that. In fact, many philosophers have said that. But I don't agree. We can be everything. It is a matter of imagination. But, like Kant said, all our ideas are the product of the possible experience. And your argument is a good example: in fact you didn't say what we are. You just said what we aren't. "Non-physical" doesn't identify anything, is not an attribute. It is as if you described a tiger saying that it is something that doesn't fly.

Quote:

I do not understand how it is so difficult to accept god and so easy to accept this reality that we know neither beginning, end nor purpose of. Both ideas are ideas of limitless possibility. For my part, I will not presume to know that god is non-physical. My idea of god is of an entity that is everything.

I accept this reality because I am part of it.
About your notion of God: as Christians and Jews noticed, about Spinoza, to say that God is everything is the same to say he is nothing.

0 Replies

Modern philosophers- jukeboxes...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know