The Ontological Tyranny

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby d63 » Thu Jul 14, 2011 10:32 pm

Approaching 50, I come up against this question a lot. You get tired and wonder:

Why am I even doing this? Why is it that important?
Humble yourself or the world will do it for you -it was either Russell or Whitehead. I can't remember which.

When I was young, I use to think the world was a messed up place so i was pissed off a lot. But now that I'm older, I know it is. So I just don't worry about it. -John Lydon (AKA Johnny Rotten).

Anarchy through Capitalism -on a flyer thrown out during a Kottonmouth Kings concert.

First we read, then we write. -Emerson.

All poets are damned. But they are not blind. They see with the eyes of angels. -William Carlos Williams: in the introduction to Ginsberg's Howl.

You gotta love that moment when the work is done and all that is left to do is drink your beer and sip your jager and enjoy what you've done. It's why I do and love it.

I refuse to be taken seriously.

Once again: take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru. Just someone to jam with.

:me
User avatar
d63
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5432
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby without-music » Thu Jul 14, 2011 10:58 pm

Apologies for the lack of responses: I'm on a short vacation and won't be able to dedicate any significant kind of time to this forum until I return in a week. Until then, I'll try to make the odd post. I'd also like to state here, definitively, that I am far from dogmatic regarding any of the views I express: I am still in my undergraduate years, and my posts here reflect my experimental development of a positive philosophy. That said, I'd like to take this post to briefly revise the view I expressed regarding interpretation and reality. This is addressed, then, primarily to Only_Humean: I appreciate your counters to my sloppy points.

I believe, at bottom (which is, to be sure, only as far as we can see; for we suppose the limits of our vision to be the island's shore), the world is a fluid, constant play of appearances, a theater of change. To locate "things" behind the appearances is to take them as signs for something more basic -- to read these signs, to induce from them. This is the task of metaphysics: it is a reading of the apparent as if it were sign. But no two signs are the same; no two snowflakes, no two grains of sand can ever be identical, and so the metaphysical concept "being/thing" is but one more appeal to Platonism. To suppose that the infinity of different snowflakes are but different appearances for the "thing", snowflake, is to locate a uniform essence behind all appearances to the contrary. Indeed, logic itself depends upon such suppositions. In Human, All Too Human 11, Nietzsche declares that "logic.. .rests on assumptions that do not correspond
to anything in the real world, e.g., on the assumption of the equality of things, the identity of the same thing at different points in time." Reality, then (and again, supposing that the boundaries of our "sight" are more than just human limitations) is a thingless, formless chaotic flux, a ceaseless play of appearances. To such chaos, truth is nothing, logic unintelligible, language senseless. All truth, all logic, then, can apply only to the world we've invented for ourselves: the world of unified "things" and fixed "beings". Such a world, however, is nothing if not false. But since to such chaos, truth is meaningless, any attempt to characterize the flux is but interpretation -- indeed, to speak of it at all is to interpret. And so: what does it mean to say that his Dionysian monster of formlessness, of ceaseless change and becoming is real, is reality? What can it mean?

To begin: logical axioms like the law of non-contradiction and self-identity cannot be said to apply, nor can conceptual thinking even begin to. Thus: is it any-thing at all? No. Then it cannot be real.

In short: if we cannot speak of this flux of becoming in terms of true and false, if any attempt to speak of it at all is necessarily to interpret, then my position that there is no reality behind interpretation should be slightly clearer.
...how miserable, how shadowy and transient, how aimless and arbitrary the human intellect looks within nature.
User avatar
without-music
 
Posts: 469
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 3:11 pm
Location: Canada

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby finishedman » Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:38 am

d63 wrote: So you're probably right in suggesting that our best bet would be to accept things as is (to find peace with ourselves) as compared to thinking "things would be better if".

In that process we will find that there is no problem with our present life. For thought there seems to be one because it makes comparisons. But for the comparisons that thought makes there is no problem with our life as it is; and there is no other life. It is precisely our thought of a better state that prevents us from coming to terms with our life as it is.

At the same time, isn't our trying part of it all? Would it really be better if we just quit trying?

After all, there is nothing that can be done. But we can't accept that, because the instrument that we use for that trying is the thinking, and the thinking can't accept that because it has always gotten results for us.

An individual is what he is because of all the things that thinking has produced for him, and that have cost much time and effort. Therefore, there's also the assumption that every result achieved by means of thinking necessarily requires time. And it is this principle that shifts the whole business away from him and says: 'this situation is hopeless, I need time', because time has helped to reach results in all the previous situations.

To be yourself requires extraordinary intelligence. You are blessed with that intelligence; nobody need give it to you; nobody can take it away from you. To be an individual and to be yourself you don't have to do a thing. But to be something other than yourself you have to do a lot.

Whatever pursuit is being indulged in, somewhere along the line it has to be realized that it is not leading anywhere. As long as there is a want of something, whatever it takes to achieve it will be done. That want has to be clear. What is wanted? Is to be at peace wanted? That is an impossible goal because everything being done to be at peace is what is destroying the peace that is already there. The movement of thought has been set in motion which is destroying the peace that is there. It's difficult to understand that all that is being done is the impediment, is the one thing that is disturbing the harmony, the peace that is already there in you.
finishedman
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3177
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 12:32 am

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby finishedman » Fri Jul 15, 2011 1:22 am

w-m

We are not yet in a position to admit that there is absolutely nothing we can do to experience being still and 'see' the movements of life. We seem to rely on the movement of thought to achieve stillness and so called clarity. How the heck can being still be achieved through the efforts of thought?

And if there is the expectation that something marvelous will happen from what is then called 'clarity of thinking', or 'meditation' or something similar, then this is an impediment and not clarity.
finishedman
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3177
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 12:32 am

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby felix dakat » Fri Jul 15, 2011 2:33 pm

without-music wrote:Apologies for the lack of responses: I'm on a short vacation and won't be able to dedicate any significant kind of time to this forum until I return in a week. Until then, I'll try to make the odd post. I'd also like to state here, definitively, that I am far from dogmatic regarding any of the views I express: I am still in my undergraduate years, and my posts here reflect my experimental development of a positive philosophy. That said, I'd like to take this post to briefly revise the view I expressed regarding interpretation and reality. This is addressed, then, primarily to Only_Humean: I appreciate your counters to my sloppy points.

I believe, at bottom (which is, to be sure, only as far as we can see; for we suppose the limits of our vision to be the island's shore), the world is a fluid, constant play of appearances, a theater of change. To locate "things" behind the appearances is to take them as signs for something more basic -- to read these signs, to induce from them. This is the task of metaphysics: it is a reading of the apparent as if it were sign. But no two signs are the same; no two snowflakes, no two grains of sand can ever be identical, and so the metaphysical concept "being/thing" is but one more appeal to Platonism. To suppose that the infinity of different snowflakes are but different appearances for the "thing", snowflake, is to locate a uniform essence behind all appearances to the contrary. Indeed, logic itself depends upon such suppositions. In Human, All Too Human 11, Nietzsche declares that "logic.. .rests on assumptions that do not correspond
to anything in the real world, e.g., on the assumption of the equality of things, the identity of the same thing at different points in time." Reality, then (and again, supposing that the boundaries of our "sight" are more than just human limitations) is a thingless, formless chaotic flux, a ceaseless play of appearances. To such chaos, truth is nothing, logic unintelligible, language senseless. All truth, all logic, then, can apply only to the world we've invented for ourselves: the world of unified "things" and fixed "beings". Such a world, however, is nothing if not false. But since to such chaos, truth is meaningless, any attempt to characterize the flux is but interpretation -- indeed, to speak of it at all is to interpret. And so: what does it mean to say that his Dionysian monster of formlessness, of ceaseless change and becoming is real, is reality? What can it mean?

To begin: logical axioms like the law of non-contradiction and self-identity cannot be said to apply, nor can conceptual thinking even begin to. Thus: is it any-thing at all? No. Then it cannot be real.

In short: if we cannot speak of this flux of becoming in terms of true and false, if any attempt to speak of it at all is necessarily to interpret, then my position that there is no reality behind interpretation should be slightly clearer.


On what basis shall we accept your arguments against logic? Surely not the basis of logic. Without the law of non-contradiction, your contradictions cannot be challenged, but then, neither is there any justification for accepting them.

User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8102
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby Jakob » Fri Jul 15, 2011 3:28 pm

Felix, I think I've refuted much of what you've proposed... I can see you dont want to address that but to prevent this thread from becoming a home for statements without justification, let me repost some of it:

When one scientist corroborates the findings another, and those findings support of a tested model, then it strengthens confidence that the model more closely corresponds to reality.

All we can know is that a working scientific model creates a reality.

As Hawking and Mlodinow point out in "The Grand Design", a model is good if it meets four criteria:

It's elegant;


Subjective valuation, negation of objectivity, of "reality"

It contains few arbitrary or adjustable elements;

Because we must be certain that we understand everything about something before we can accept that it exists

It agrees with and explains all existing observations;

This has never been the case for any scientific law, so this is an empty point

and it makes detailed predictions about future observations that can disprove or falsify the model if they are not borne out.

Pertaining strictly to observations of occurrences of which the favored model allows interpretation

We select the best models based on their validity, reliability, predictability, and perceived match to reality.

But it has to be the reality that we want to be real, the reality over which we can exert the maximum control. Our measure of control over reality determines what is its "true nature".

Even though there is no POV outside of our brains, we are justified in believing in reality, and that we can come closer to knowing it through science even though our models aren't perfect.

And we refuse to draw conclusions from the fact that this reality we think we are gaining understanding of seems to suffer, change and even perish under our attempts to understand it. Apparently, reality is just not significant to itself for us - only our control is.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5713
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby finishedman » Fri Jul 15, 2011 4:56 pm

Even though there is no POV outside of our brains, we are justified in believing in reality, and that we can come closer to knowing it through science even though our models aren't perfect.


I myself don't know Reality. But here's a thought on the above:

To me, the human organism is extraordinary in the way the trillions of cells have a closed sytem of cooperation, predictability and (physical) problem solving. These are some fine ingredients of a type of reality. A reality that operates despite our intellectual understanding and without our intervention. It does not work at our will and pleasure. It acts spontaneously to respond to a challenge. It is innovative and it operates in a clearly defined fashion.

Now, perhaps it is a natural neuronal activity in the brain to form groupings of cooperation from sensory input in an effort to create 'reality phenomena' that brings together the body with its surrounding environment in order to 'live' in harmony with what the senses detect. This, of course, is not the Reality we are talking about though.

The problem with man is that he has been subjugated by the thought culture which has an immense hold on him and which has created the notion of the self in him. This precludes the living organism's interacting with nature. That is to say that the self has separated man from nature and the natural scheme of things. Thus man with his self-centeredness leads a duplicate life as a hypocrite, leading himself eventually to diminish in quality.
finishedman
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3177
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 12:32 am

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby felix dakat » Fri Jul 15, 2011 5:18 pm

Jacob---Sorry i missed you.

All we can know is that a working scientific model creates a reality.


Does your statement correspond to something in the real world or merely to a reality of your own creating? If it is the latter than it is self refuting.

Subjective valuation, negation of objectivity, of "reality"


Yes there is a subjective element to that. But, the simplicity prescribed by the ever popular Occam's razor is part of that criteria. It is the quality that evokes the response, "I should have thought of that! Why would you prefer inelegant theories?

Because we must be certain that we understand everything about something before we can accept that it exists


This appears to be an unjustified assertion. We don't necessarily know everything about anything. We can subject our observation to other tests of validity, reliability, predictability, and perceived match with other observations.

It agrees with and explains all existing observations;

This has never been the case for any scientific law, so this is an empty point


It has been enough the case to make predictions upon which the internet functions via which we are communicating to name but one example.

Pertaining strictly to observations of occurrences of which the favored model allows interpretation


Favored models do change based on empirical support viz,. Newton's=>Einstein's for example. Thomas Kuhn has denied the more radical subjectivist interpretations of his theory of scientific paradigm shifts. He admitted that scientific development is a "unidirectional and irreversible process," which means that later scientific theories do make improvements on previous ones.

We select the best models based on their validity, reliability, predictability, and perceived match to reality.

But it has to be the reality that we want to be real, the reality over which we can exert the maximum control. Our measure of control over reality determines what is its "true nature".


Has science never uncovered what we don't want? Model dependent realism doesn't claim that any model perfectly capture the true nature of an object. It admits our understanding of object is no better than the model or models that produce the most valid reliable results. "True nature" is an ultimate goal toward which observations approach via mutliple measures and refinement and/or replacement of the model.

Even though there is no POV outside of our brains, we are justified in believing in reality, and that we can come closer to knowing it through science even though our models aren't perfect.

And we refuse to draw conclusions from the fact that this reality we think we are gaining understanding of seems to suffer, change and even perish under our attempts to understand it. Apparently, reality is just not significant to itself for us - only our control is.


I agree science may be described as controlling knowledge. As such, it has had postive and negative consequences according to my POV. However, science is a self-critical process that can lead to course corrections.

User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8102
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby finishedman » Fri Jul 15, 2011 6:07 pm

Some dispute the scientific idea that the ability of a theory to predict and control nature proves its truth. It merely proves that we can turn this crank and get the right answers in a certain area. If you restrict yourself to these areas, your theory naturally appears unassailable.

So, science looks at the idea of Reality, then seeks a ... what? ... unity with it? Understanding of it? Okay, lets say we attain that, then what? All the build up and excitement is over. We're back to square one ... now what do we do to satisfy this endless thinking that there has to be something more purposefull and meaningful with our lives than what there is?

It's as if we want change (reasons for which may include something to happen to consciousness to bring about high levels of enlightenment), but the traditional approach of scientific investigation says, 'We have to capture within the analyzation process constituent parts and examine methodically.' The scientific approach puts a hold on the flow of energy that is also part of the life of the human functioning.

It's not all thought, knowledge, intellect, .... abstractions that have no element of life energy in them. That energy is something that cannot be captured or understood. It defies methodical examination. All we can do is link certain independent events that we can sense, group and test and call this a theory, a philosophy, or a story of some imposed significance.
finishedman
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3177
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 12:32 am

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby Jakob » Fri Jul 15, 2011 10:04 pm

felix dakat wrote:Jacob---Sorry i missed you.

All we can know is that a working scientific model creates a reality.


Does your statement correspond to something in the real world or merely to a reality of your own creating? If it is the latter than it is self refuting.

I mean that scientific testing and verifying includes bringing into existence of occurrences, not just active interpretation of [...] as occurrences.

Subjective valuation, negation of objectivity, of "reality"


Yes there is a subjective element to that. But, the simplicity prescribed by the ever popular Occam's razor is part of that criteria. It is the quality that evokes the response, "I should have thought of that! Why would you prefer inelegant theories?

Because science, as all systematic thought, is based on a strict sense of aesthetics, of observable value. The judgment is purely human, nothing to do with a hypothesized "world-in-itself". If such a world exists at all, then science draws us further away from it by our deepening projection of our aesthetic sense into it.

Because we must be certain that we understand everything about something before we can accept that it exists


This appears to be an unjustified assertion. We don't necessarily know everything about anything. We can subject our observation to other tests of validity, reliability, predictability, and perceived match with other observations.

It is putting it a bit strong, but in general, observed phenomena are rejected as illusions when there is no scientific ground to explain them. This tells us only that we trust our aesthetic sense to reveal to us what can exist.

It agrees with and explains all existing observations;

This has never been the case for any scientific law, so this is an empty point


It has been enough the case to make predictions upon which the internet functions via which we are communicating to name but one example.

I don't think that the science behind the internet agrees with all existing observations.
It is an establishment of relations of certain types of observations isolated in a created context.

This is what I meant when I said that all that can be said with certainty about science is that it creates reality. The existence of the internet is not a proof of any postulated nature of the universe, it is just a proof that establishment of certain isolated contexts allow for certain manipulations of to bring about new realities.
What we may learn from this only pertains to the nature of our own observation - that it allows us to change things when we concentrate it on artificially isolated contexts.

Pertaining strictly to observations of occurrences of which the favored model allows interpretation


Favored models do change based on empirical support viz,. Newton's=>Einstein's for example. Thomas Kuhn has denied the more radical subjectivist interpretations of his theory of scientific paradigm shifts. He admitted that scientific development is a "unidirectional and irreversible process," which means that later scientific theories do make improvements on previous ones.

But that is only logical, since what we call science is always based on what has before been called science. Einstein used Newton to arrive at his own theories.

There are plenty of knowledge-systems that do not corroborate, or are not corroborated by what we call science, and to these, the above does not apply. They are dismissed as quackery even if overwhelming empirical evidence supports them - they cannot be considered true because they do not rely on the favored premises.

We select the best models based on their validity, reliability, predictability, and perceived match to reality.

But it has to be the reality that we want to be real, the reality over which we can exert the maximum control. Our measure of control over reality determines what is its "true nature".


Has science never uncovered what we don't want?

It has never explained something over which it did not subsequently have control.
That is it's way of uncovering - isolating a context in which it can predict and bring about predictable results.

Model dependent realism doesn't claim that any model perfectly capture the true nature of an object. It admits our understanding of object is no better than the model or models that produce the most valid reliable results. "True nature" is an ultimate goal toward which observations approach via mutliple measures and refinement and/or replacement of the model.

I personally do not think that "true nature" has a connection with power to predict very specific events in a hermetically isolated context. If there would be such a thing as true nature it would be found by not isolating contexts, but keeping the context for interpretation as wide as possible.

Even though there is no POV outside of our brains, we are justified in believing in reality, and that we can come closer to knowing it through science even though our models aren't perfect.

And we refuse to draw conclusions from the fact that this reality we think we are gaining understanding of seems to suffer, change and even perish under our attempts to understand it. Apparently, reality is just not significant to itself for us - only our control is.


I agree science may be described as controlling knowledge. As such, it has had postive and negative consequences according to my POV. However, science is a self-critical process that can lead to course corrections.

I don't think that it knows how to be self critical, because for that it would have to understand that it is not observing and describing objectively, but is projecting and manipulating.

It is corrective of itself in terms of content, but not of perspective. It has never included its perspective in its findings. It is impossible to scientifically theorize like that. Which seems to be why it has been in a deadlock for a hundred years now - on a certain level, nature simply doesn't corroborate this perspective anymore.

Based on its powerful belief in its own objectivity, science assumes that the contradictions it runs into are embedded in reality, instead of allowing the simple and quite feasible thought that the assumptions on which scientific method is based may at one point conflict with what we actually observe.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5713
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby finishedman » Fri Jul 15, 2011 10:53 pm

The demand for repetition of the same thing over and over again is the demand for permanence. Such permanence is foreign to nature and its unique creations. Thought's demand for permanence is choking life and distorting perception. That kind of thinking sees itself as not just the protector of its own continuity, but also the continuity of how the life interacts with nature. Both are utterly false.
Has science never uncovered what we don't want?

Scientific thought is an interloper, which thrusts itself into the affairs of nature. It has a profit motive, directing the activity of nature's creations to get something.

It seems that some sort of radical change must take place, but without the interference of will.

If the realization (that we are disturbing nature) occurs through no volition of yours, then that's the end of it. You will have no need of stopping it, of changing the situation at all. You don't want to. You just go through it and what comes of it is the natural expression of life and reality. It does no good to question reality. Question, rather, your goals, your beliefs, and assumptions. It is from them, not reality, that you must be freed. These pointless questions you are asking will disappear with the automatic abandonment of your goals.
finishedman
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3177
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 12:32 am

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby Jakob » Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:55 pm

It seems that some sort of radical change must take place, but without the interference of will.

I'd say with a greater conception of will.
A wider, less lineair/singular type
a net of will spanning the globe, providing coordinates for balanced all round growth of humanities self-conception.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5713
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby Jakob » Sat Jul 16, 2011 12:31 am

I see this web as the spirit of music. In the spirit of Nietzsche's earliest work, which was pointing into a different direction than his latest, I would not hesitate long to identify this Form as the ultimate, the only objective science I believe in.

All arts are related in lesser ways to the same kind of objectivity - aesthetics without the aim of usefulness. A science far purer - because more honest as to what it is - than what we normally call science.

It is a different use that follows unintended from an aesthetics that is established for the sake of it being aesthetic, than what is aimed at by aesthetics for knowledges sake.
Music can be interpreted as useful, but it will be useful to a different purpose than knowledge of the workings of matter.

No science has proven to be as powerful an inducer of both exalting and uniting drives as music. Most exalting drives are isolating, most uniting drives are abasing, but music is able to exalt beyond this dichotomy. This comes with a price - introspection. Listening to it, we have to recognize our experience as a reality. Science allows us to ignore this up to a certain point. (A point at which we invented string-theory...)

What beautifully simple creatures we are. There is hope for us.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5713
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby lizbethrose » Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:07 am

What about rhetoric? Is rhetoric not aesthetic? Isn't rhetoric tonal and fluid? Doesn't it have direction? Or is it not an art with usefulness? Or is rhetoric an art at all?

What about poetry? Literature? Theatre? Are these art or are they aesthetics "without the aim of usefulness?"
"Be what you would seem to be - or, if you'd like it put more simply - never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise."
— Lewis Carroll
lizbethrose
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3535
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 6:55 am
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby Jakob » Sat Jul 16, 2011 9:00 pm

lizbethrose wrote:What about rhetoric? Is rhetoric not aesthetic? Isn't rhetoric tonal and fluid? Doesn't it have direction? Or is it not an art with usefulness? Or is rhetoric an art at all?

It is an art, in as far as it is aesthetic.
But it is not of the same order as music - to begin with it needs language, which is not only selective to culture but more importantly conceptual, therefore indirect, misleading. Music can not mislead - it is what it is, it does not signify something else than the experience of hearing it.

I think that Aristotle approached rhetoric as certain producers approach music as a product, making it so that it works on the absent minded listener. It is a low artform.

What about poetry? Literature? Theatre? Are these art or are they aesthetics "without the aim of usefulness?"

Actually I said that music is aesthetic without the aim of usefulness, aesthetics for aesthetics sake. Art. Art can be useful to a purpose, but if the purpose is prior to the sense of aesthetics, it doesn't work.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5713
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby felix dakat » Sat Jul 16, 2011 9:38 pm

Due to time constraints I can only respond briefly.

I mean that scientific testing and verifying includes bringing into existence of occurrences, not just active interpretation of [...] as occurrences.


That is, no doubt, part of it.

Because science, as all systematic thought, is based on a strict sense of aesthetics, of observable value. The judgment is purely human, nothing to do with a hypothesized "world-in-itself". If such a world exists at all, then science draws us further away from it by our deepening projection of our aesthetic sense into it.


I agree it's systematic, and human but it is also objective, just as your statement above purports to be. As far as drawing away from its object, it wouldn't work or would work less well if it did.

It is putting it a bit strong, but in general, observed phenomena are rejected as illusions when there is no scientific ground to explain them. This tells us only that we trust our aesthetic sense to reveal to us what can existIt agrees with and explains all existing observations;.


No disagreement here.

I don't think that the science behind the internet agrees with all existing observations.
It is an establishment of relations of certain types of observations isolated in a created context. This is what I meant when I said that all that can be said with certainty about science is that it creates reality. The existence of the internet is not a proof of any postulated nature of the universe, it is just a proof that establishment of certain isolated contexts allow for certain manipulations of to bring about new realities.
What we may learn from this only pertains to the nature of our own observation - that it allows us to change things when we concentrate it on artificially isolated contexts.



I don't know about this. Got any examples?

But that is only logical, since what we call science is always based on what has before been called science. Einstein used Newton to arrive at his own theories.

There are plenty of knowledge-systems that do not corroborate, or are not corroborated by what we call science, and to these, the above does not apply. They are dismissed as quackery even if overwhelming empirical evidence supports them - they cannot be considered true because they do not rely on the favored premises.


Again, can provide examples. I may agree with you.

It has never explained something over which it did not subsequently have control.
That is it's way of uncovering - isolating a context in which it can predict and bring about predictable results.


I agree with this.

I personally do not think that "true nature" has a connection with power to predict very specific events in a hermetically isolated context. If there would be such a thing as true nature it would be found by not isolating contexts, but keeping the context for interpretation as wide as possible.


That makes sense. The true nature would be the thing as it is in itself anyway. That may potentially inexhaustible anyway and therfore never fully disclosed.

I don't think that it knows how to be self critical, because for that it would have to understand that it is not observing and describing objectively, but is projecting and manipulating. It is corrective of itself in terms of content, but not of perspective. It has never included its perspective in its findings. It is impossible to scientifically theorize like that. Which seems to be why it has been in a deadlock for a hundred years now - on a certain level, nature simply doesn't corroborate this perspective anymore.




I think there is recognition of perspective in quantum physics.

Based on its powerful belief in its own objectivity, science assumes that the contradictions it runs into are embedded in reality, instead of allowing the simple and quite feasible thought that the assumptions on which scientific method is based may at one point conflict with what we actually observe.


Hawking seems to recognize the limitations of objectivity in his formulation of MDR. No model is perfect or final. I think a realism which recognizes it's limitations is at least as good as other world views.

User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8102
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby Jakob » Sat Jul 16, 2011 11:03 pm

Felix - no problem in being concise. I just have a lot of time on my hands and I take some comfort in the idea that philosophy requires unrestricted leisure...

I mean that scientific testing and verifying includes bringing into existence of occurrences, not just active interpretation of [...] as occurrences.


That is, no doubt, part of it.

I'm claiming that everything that is done to come to know scientific law is manipulation. Either only teleologically based selection of ones own perception and interpretation or that as well as manipulation of the observed matter.

Because science, as all systematic thought, is based on a strict sense of aesthetics, of observable value. The judgment is purely human, nothing to do with a hypothesized "world-in-itself". If such a world exists at all, then science draws us further away from it by our deepening projection of our aesthetic sense into it.


I agree it's systematic, and human but it is also objective, just as your statement above purports to be.

I agree that I am doing the same (I am trying to establish fact), but not that I am objective. Just consciously subjective. A fact is a fact to someone, not to itself or to "existence itself", neither of which seem to exist.

As far as drawing away from its object, it wouldn't work or would work less well if it did

But it's object is not objectivity, but control. More precisely: the the type of understanding that amounts in a certain kind of control over a certain kind of object: one of the ones that can be understood in strictly physical terms, literal objects.

"Existence" is not an object. Since "The Universe" and "Existence" are mutually inclusive, we can not understand the universe as an object either.

Still we try and scientists comes up with a lot of nifty inventions. We like our tools so much that we try not to observe that the laws we used to make them turn into fictions when we use the tools to look deeper.

Technology contradicts the subject matter. We are trying to catch a tiger with a pair of spectacles, sorry for the awkward metaphor - discrepancy between reach and expectation. What do we think we are studying? We can't be seriously thinking that w're studying anything but the context of our perspective.

I don't think that the science behind the internet agrees with all existing observations.
It is an establishment of relations of certain types of observations isolated in a created context. This is what I meant when I said that all that can be said with certainty about science is that it creates reality. The existence of the internet is not a proof of any postulated nature of the universe, it is just a proof that establishment of certain isolated contexts allow for certain manipulations of to bring about new realities.
What we may learn from this only pertains to the nature of our own observation - that it allows us to change things when we concentrate it on artificially isolated contexts.



I don't know about this. Got any examples?

Behavior training, weaponry, the state, banking, mass-production machines, wheels on rails, conception of past and future, nucleair fission and fusion, whiskey, cigarettes, strawberry-syrup, genetical engineered caviar, cars, digital chat-rooms... I think you probably misread me there.

But that is only logical, since what we call science is always based on what has before been called science. Einstein used Newton to arrive at his own theories.

There are plenty of knowledge-systems that do not corroborate, or are not corroborated by what we call science, and to these, the above does not apply. They are dismissed as quackery even if overwhelming empirical evidence supports them - they cannot be considered true because they do not rely on the favored premises.


Again, can provide examples. I may agree with you.

Every racial region has at least one control oriented system of ontology. The question is what they seek to control. If I understand anything relevant at all, Western sciences most serious competitor pertaining to fields that are relevant to Westerners is the Oriental understanding of energy. This is experience-based. Man is used as the measure, we study the universe according to man, and man according to the universe so revealed. It is an honest feedback loop, and it works. Energy can be generated by intention breath and motion, and can be known and manipulated by introspection. Telepathy is extremely common to many, and know well to me, and many a science exists on how to exploit this. Voodoo, for example.

Of course this is all quackery if one is not a voodooist, but this does not mean that one cannot be voodooed into a depression, or astrologically understood and thereby successfully manipulated by the ones in control of this science.

I personally do not think that "true nature" has a connection with power to predict very specific events in a hermetically isolated context. If there would be such a thing as true nature it would be found by not isolating contexts, but keeping the context for interpretation as wide as possible.


That makes sense. The true nature would be the thing as it is in itself anyway. That may potentially inexhaustible anyway and therfore never fully disclosed.

We can either say that or that it doesn't exist at all. We know that it is constantly suggested anew as perspectives are born.

Or - and this is the only possibility to redeem science without calling it subjective, the universe is actually created or coincidentally come to be shaped according to the measure of man, so that we may know it. But even if this is the case we would do best to study our own energy, experience and perspective to come to know the cosmos and it's true laws. If the universe is formed in a way that can be understood by man, then we have been looking in the wrong direction when we were seeking objectivity.

I think there is recognition of perspective in quantum physics.

What I'm saying here suggested by a lot of people these days, but nobody seems to know how to draw any consequences from this or make any scientific progress. I've been hearing this quantum-processor rumor for 15 years, but not recently anymore. I am curious - I think that we should be able to influence the processing telepathically. Or actually that this is unavoidable and that may be what's causing the delay.

Based on its powerful belief in its own objectivity, science assumes that the contradictions it runs into are embedded in reality, instead of allowing the simple and quite feasible thought that the assumptions on which scientific method is based may at one point conflict with what we actually observe.


Hawking seems to recognize the limitations of objectivity in his formulation of MDR. No model is perfect or final. I think a realism which recognizes it's limitations is at least as good as other world views.

I applaud Hawkins realism. Of course he has to consider how useful a model is as well - this seems a reasonable compromise between intellectual clarity and usefulness.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5713
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby felix dakat » Mon Jul 18, 2011 7:27 pm

I'm claiming that everything that is done to come to know scientific law is manipulation. Either only teleologically based selection of ones own perception and interpretation or that as well as manipulation of the observed matter.


Yes. It seems we can’t get around the possible contaminating effect of our own inquiries. Our speculation about a world free of our manipulation seems to be useful. So an objectivity that recognized it’s own tentativeness would pass the pragmatic test.

I agree that I am doing the same (I am trying to establish fact), but not that I am objective. Just consciously subjective. A fact is a fact to someone, not to itself or to "existence itself", neither of which seem to exist.


The problem is how to combine the perspective of a particular person inside the world with an objective view of the same world with such person and viewpoint included. While we do not wish to deny our own particular viewpoint, we are also aware that our particular POV is limited and we aspire to conceive of the world as a whole. This tendency has resulted in untenable metaphysics on the negative side, but it seems to be necessary as an impetus to truth seeking.

But it's object is not objectivity, but control. More precisely: the type of understanding that amounts in a certain kind of control over a certain kind of object: one of the ones that can be understood in strictly physical terms, literal objects.


If that is true of scientific investigation per se, it doesn’t have true of scientific investigators or those who reflect on science. I’m not saying that science strictly defined is the only kind of knowledge or the only path to it.

"Existence" is not an object. Since "The Universe" and "Existence" are mutually inclusive, we can not understand the universe as an object either.

Still we try and scientists comes up with a lot of nifty inventions. We like our tools so much that we try not to observe that the laws we used to make them turn into fictions when we use the tools to look deeper.

Technology contradicts the subject matter. We are trying to catch a tiger with a pair of spectacles, sorry for the awkward metaphor - discrepancy between reach and expectation. What do we think we are studying? We can't be seriously thinking that w're studying anything but the context of our perspective.


What I want is a unified world view be it subjective or objective. What I get is an interplay of the two, popping back and forth like the gestalt of a visual optical illusion. As unsatisfactory as this may be, it seems to be the only way I can take into account my entire field of sensibility and understanding without foreclosing in extreme subjectivism or objectivism.

Every racial region has at least one control oriented system of ontology. The question is what they seek to control. If I understand anything relevant at all, Western sciences most serious competitor pertaining to fields that are relevant to Westerners is the Oriental understanding of energy. This is experience-based. Man is used as the measure, we study the universe according to man, and man according to the universe so revealed. It is an honest feedback loop, and it works. Energy can be generated by intention breath and motion, and can be known and manipulated by introspection. Telepathy is extremely common to many, and know well to me, and many a science exists on how to exploit this. Voodoo, for example. Of course this is all quackery if one is not a voodooist, but this does not mean that one cannot be voodooed into a depression, or astrologically understood and thereby successfully manipulated by the ones in control of this science.


I don’t know much about your examples but I get your general point. The arts, music and literature are modes of rationality and knowledge, broadly speaking as well.

We can either say that or that it doesn't exist at all. We know that it is constantly suggested anew as perspectives are born.


Right and that is valuable as a goal if nothing else.

Or - and this is the only possibility to redeem science without calling it subjective, the universe is actually created or coincidentally come to be shaped according to the measure of man, so that we may know it. But even if this is the case we would do best to study our own energy, experience and perspective to come to know the cosmos and it's true laws. If the universe is formed in a way that can be understood by man, then we have been looking in the wrong direction when we were seeking objectivity.


Right we don’t have an adequate anthropology yet.

I think there is recognition of perspective in quantum physics.

What I'm saying here suggested by a lot of people these days, but nobody seems to know how to draw any consequences from this or make any scientific progress. I've been hearing this quantum-processor rumor for 15 years, but not recently anymore. I am curious - I think that we should be able to influence the processing telepathically. Or actually that this is unavoidable and that may be what's causing the delay.

It seems that the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics i.e. that objective reality, independent of any observer, doesn't really exist, led to postmodern belief that theory isn't concerned with what is but solely with what we can say about it.

I applaud Hawkins realism. Of course he has to consider how useful a model is as well - this seems a reasonable compromise between intellectual clarity and usefulness.


Yes. Regardless of their theoretical preferences, reasonable people often end up at some form of pragmatism.

User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8102
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby Jakob » Mon Jul 18, 2011 9:58 pm

It seems we have found a lot of common ground. I would isolate this as the central issue:
Or - and this is the only possibility to redeem science without calling it subjective, the universe is actually created or coincidentally come to be shaped according to the measure of man, so that we may know it. But even if this is the case we would do best to study our own energy, experience and perspective to come to know the cosmos and it's true laws. If the universe is formed in a way that can be understood by man, then we have been looking in the wrong direction when we were seeking objectivity.

Right we don’t have an adequate anthropology yet.

Indeed, so that's what philosophy should be looking at. Let me rephrase the above:

IF the universe as a part of which man exists, happens to be of a nature that allows man to understand it completely, this says precisely as much about man as it does about the universe.
In order to attain such knowledge then, man can only expect to find it by studying his own cognitive power directly, as irreducible, and not to reduce the powers to products of these powers. Products such as conceptions of cognition-as-resulting-from things man has conceptualized by his cognition.

The above scenario applies equally if the universe does not happen to be of a nature that allows man to understand it completely. In either case, what man can know about the universe is determined by the limits of his cognitive powers. What should be studied to advance knowledge of thought, and indirectly scientific conception, is the limits of cognition as cognition, not as chemistry of the brain. Logic is so far the only terrain where the west has found a solid grip on this matter. But we would be stupid to think of this as the only form in which cognition can be modelled.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5713
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby felix dakat » Tue Jul 19, 2011 3:52 pm

Jakob wrote:It seems we have found a lot of common ground. I would isolate this as the central issue:
Or - and this is the only possibility to redeem science without calling it subjective, the universe is actually created or coincidentally come to be shaped according to the measure of man, so that we may know it. But even if this is the case we would do best to study our own energy, experience and perspective to come to know the cosmos and it's true laws. If the universe is formed in a way that can be understood by man, then we have been looking in the wrong direction when we were seeking objectivity.

Right we don’t have an adequate anthropology yet.

Indeed, so that's what philosophy should be looking at. Let me rephrase the above:

IF the universe as a part of which man exists, happens to be of a nature that allows man to understand it completely, this says precisely as much about man as it does about the universe.
In order to attain such knowledge then, man can only expect to find it by studying his own cognitive power directly, as irreducible, and not to reduce the powers to products of these powers. Products such as conceptions of cognition-as-resulting-from things man has conceptualized by his cognition.

The above scenario applies equally if the universe does not happen to be of a nature that allows man to understand it completely. In either case, what man can know about the universe is determined by the limits of his cognitive powers. What should be studied to advance knowledge of thought, and indirectly scientific conception, is the limits of cognition as cognition, not as chemistry of the brain. Logic is so far the only terrain where the west has found a solid grip on this matter. But we would be stupid to think of this as the only form in which cognition can be modelled.


What I want to do is think the horizon of my own understanding. From the subjective side "I" seem to be at once free and finite. From a more objective view I am embedded the very world I seek to know as it is in itself. What I am able to understand depends on the relation between myself and the rest of it. My capacity for understanding seems to be only partial because it depends on my constitution. Much of the way the world is may be constitutionally beyond my reach. I may be "self-perceiving, self-inventing, locked-in mirages that are little miracles of self-reference” as Hofstadler put it. But I could just as well be contained in a world at least some of which I may conceiving objectively as it is. If one of these ways are the case for all people on this planet, other intelligent beings with a different POV might presumably be in the position tell us how we are actually contained in the world.

User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8102
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby Jakob » Tue Jul 19, 2011 5:52 pm

felix dakat wrote:What I want to do is think the horizon of my own understanding. From the subjective side "I" seem to be at once free and finite. From a more objective view I am embedded the very world I seek to know as it is in itself. What I am able to understand depends on the relation between myself and the rest of it. My capacity for understanding seems to be only partial because it depends on my constitution. Much of the way the world is may be constitutionally beyond my reach. I may be "self-perceiving, self-inventing, locked-in mirages that are little miracles of self-reference” as Hofstadler put it. But I could just as well be contained in a world at least some of which I may conceiving objectively as it is.

We may perceive some of it trans-subjectively, that is not to say objectively. Objective understanding is hermetically sealed off from actuality, since we simply are built to interpret. No other perspective could provide us with objective understanding as this would imply that none of our subjective, bodily faculties of forming knowledge conceptions would be at work in creating this understanding. What we understand is necessarily a function of what we are. The more we are alike, the more we will understand in the same way.

Calling what we understand objective is to assume that all possible intelligences necessarily understand the way we do, if they would not be blind. This is indeed the assumption of science.

If one of these ways are the case for all people on this planet, other intelligent beings with a different POV might presumably be in the position tell us how we are actually contained in the world

They are in the position to give us ideas, to influence our personal interpretation of our being-in-the-world. That is all, I think. We all choose different models in the end, fitted to what we are.
I think that the "ultimate truth" as far as truth gets ultimate is to be seen if we observe the model of reality a given person develops to the backdrop of what we know of his life. In studying how subjectivity gives rise to notions of objectivity. In this sense we can also understand science. Disinterested subjectivity gives rise to mechanistic objectivity. A very particular, even odd perspective rises from it, powerful enough to annihilate the planet, not even close to powerful enough to explain the conditions of its own arising. It's just a technique, and an interpretation of the world aimed to make it accessible to that technique.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5713
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby felix dakat » Tue Jul 19, 2011 6:52 pm

We may perceive some of it trans-subjectively, that is not to say objectively. Objective understanding is hermetically sealed off from actuality, since we simply are built to interpret. No other perspective could provide us with objective understanding as this would imply that none of our subjective, bodily faculties of forming knowledge conceptions would be at work in creating this understanding. What we understand is necessarily a function of what we are. The more we are alike, the more we will understand in the same way.


Right trans-subjective agreement is a putative means of achieving greater objectivity. But I think trans-subjective view intends to point beyond itself toward ultimate objectivity.

Calling what we understand objective is to assume that all possible intelligences necessarily understand the way we do, if they would not be blind. This is indeed the assumption of science.


Yeah, it's the view from everywhere or nowhere.

They are in the position to give us ideas, to influence our personal interpretation of our being-in-the-world. That is all, I think. We all choose different models in the end, fitted to what we are.
I think that the "ultimate truth" as far as truth gets ultimate is to be seen if we observe the model of reality a given person develops to the backdrop of what we know of his life. In studying how subjectivity gives rise to notions of objectivity. In this sense we can also understand science. Disinterested subjectivity gives rise to mechanistic objectivity. A very particular, even odd perspective rises from it, powerful enough to annihilate the planet, not even close to powerful enough to explain the conditions of its own arising. It's just a technique, and an interpretation of the world aimed to make it accessible to that technique.


Perhaps ultimate objectivity "exists" only as the black background in a gestalt with every actual POV with which it is contrasted. As such the ulitimate is contentless. Even so it is phenomenologically like an encompassing ground or abyss from which known model or theory emerges. If nothing else, awareness of the ultimate in this sense shows up the limitations of every would-be totalizing model or theory.

User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8102
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby Jakob » Tue Jul 19, 2011 7:15 pm

felix dakat wrote:
We may perceive some of it trans-subjectively, that is not to say objectively. Objective understanding is hermetically sealed off from actuality, since we simply are built to interpret. No other perspective could provide us with objective understanding as this would imply that none of our subjective, bodily faculties of forming knowledge conceptions would be at work in creating this understanding. What we understand is necessarily a function of what we are. The more we are alike, the more we will understand in the same way.


Right trans-subjective agreement is a putative means of achieving greater objectivity. But I think trans-subjective view intends to point beyond itself toward ultimate objectivity.

I still say that it points to greater subjectivity, away from objectivity. Precisely because it points.

Calling what we understand objective is to assume that all possible intelligences necessarily understand the way we do, if they would not be blind. This is indeed the assumption of science.


Yeah, it's the view from everywhere or nowhere.

I'd say the view from a specifically human perspective, but understood as if it is from everywhere.
Thus, misunderstood, which means misleading us as to what it points out.

Disinterested subjectivity gives rise to mechanistic objectivity. A very particular, even odd perspective rises from it, powerful enough to annihilate the planet, not even close to powerful enough to explain the conditions of its own arising. It's just a technique, and an interpretation of the world aimed to make it accessible to that technique.


Perhaps ultimate objectivity "exists" only as the black background in a gestalt with every actual POV with which it is contrasted. As such the ulitimate is contentless.
Even so it is phenomenologically like an encompassing ground or abyss from which known model or theory emerges. If nothing else, awareness of the ultimate in this sense shows up the limitations of every would-be totalizing model or theory.

I think the model or theory emerges in the interplay between subjective desire to control, and the suggestion of an objectivity that may provide means to control. What is brought forward from the black backdrop (the unknown - the non-subjective) is that specific aspect of whatever may exist that answers to our subjective angle.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5713
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby felix dakat » Tue Jul 19, 2011 9:08 pm

Jacob--OK. So is your position that the objective way of looking at things is hypothetical or speculative and that it is a subset of our inescapable subjectivity?

User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8102
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby Jakob » Wed Jul 20, 2011 2:43 pm

felix dakat wrote:Jacob--OK. So is your position that the objective way of looking at things is hypothetical or speculative and that it is a subset of our inescapable subjectivity?

I think that the perspective is very real, but that it follows in all of its conditions from what we are capable of isolating.

It is nothing we should be calling objective, but rather a set of increasingly stable notions bound to deeply subjective conditions. Consider for example the imagination necessary to picture Earth orbiting the sun. How could a knowledge requiring imagination be objective?

Unless our imagination was given to us from God as an instrument that has nothing to do with our own animal, conditioned functions of survival, but is objective, a magic window of Truth, we could not think of any product of it as unconditioned, objective.

However:

-science is a consistent reality within the sphere of human imagination.
-science grants us certain powers of manipulation.

Therefore:

-the type of power which science grants us is inextricably linked to our imagination.
-the the aspects of nature over which science grants us control, are the aspects that have formed our imagination.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5713
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]