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 » Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:24 am

We believe in things like higher powers, afterlifes, and higher principles. But point A to point B is pretty much a given.
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: 5467
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby Jakob » Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:28 am

without-music wrote:
Jakob wrote:The barely understandable imagery-logic would be generated in the few second leading up to awakening to conceptual consciousness, and the changes of charge in in the nerve system can at any point in time translate themselves to consciousness as dream-image. Dreaming is interpreting - interpreting dreams is interpreting interpretation -

Brilliant! Then, as he might be wont to ask: Is interpreting interpretation a making something out of nothing?

Via an ancient analogy we can solve this: a phased system of transmutation of no-thingness to thingness.

1 - Energy (being)
2 - Conceptual limitlessness (positive subjectivity)
3 - No-thingness (negative objectivity)

4 - Electrical discharge in to no-thingness (establishment of dream-environment, suggestion of suggestion)
4+ - Generating dream-content, suggestion of logic, thingness - waking up to physical environment.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5903
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby d63 » Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:32 am

Please forgive my drunken indescretions here.
Last edited by d63 on Tue Jul 12, 2011 11:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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: 5467
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby d63 » Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:35 am

Once again. I didn't even think I came on here.
Last edited by d63 on Tue Jul 12, 2011 11:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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: 5467
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby Jakob » Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:47 am

d63 wrote:We believe in things like higher powers, afterlifes, and higher principles. But point A to point B is pretty much a given.

what is the A and what is the B?

For philosophical context we are bound to uninspiring matter, I see that as the main problem. We agree unspokenly or so I assume that what is happening to nature by it turning upon itself by means of the tooled up ape that is proud to call itself man is unpleasant to behold and the awareness makes us if only slightly uncomfortable at times, that it is an issue, that it breaches what we experience as natural values. We must either change values or evolve through a very dangerous passage. So far, it is more economical to not care - values are declining. Or dedicate our life to change it, even a small bit, just to ease our conscience - values are exaggerated. Bi-polar. Clearly this creature called "man", who is supposedly one kind but use tools in different kinds and ways, and distinguishes himself from ape in various, not always obvious ways, is not really able to deal with his drives as far as his environment is concerned.

He has been disciplined regionally, oppressed, maimed brutalized and killed, and become better at what he does. He won't stop. But now he has become a monster, a being made out of millions of beings at once - billions, some day soon.

You cannot blame governments for trying to contain people - they are maniacs. But the government is made of maniacs as well, just of a more sublimated mania. Mans power holders are entrenched in their self-serving mania - they can not bring into focus the full extent of their influence.

I wonder if Nietzsche could have pulled off the ER after the twentieth century. I wonder how we will pull off the twenty-first century.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5903
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby Jakob » Tue Jul 12, 2011 1:06 am

d63 wrote:but how would any of you play along with the system that we face now(

that thing that makes things work in ways that are beyond them.

I agree, it is time we address the beast.
I have been aiming at the position that we must project a value to him.

Now, the beast is tamed by a red flag -
terror-horror (fear of fear) tames us, exhausts us.
we become docile, and are sleeping, and wise men take over the Earth,
starve continents and then rebuild them, as docile economies of useful talent.

Nietzsche: useful to what?

This ultrapowersuperhypermanipulation is the only way we could immediately conceive of mass-survival without shedding all hereditary beliefs. Method: reduction to the most common denominator in groups - apathetic insanity. The only thing philosophy has to determine is whether or not this beast will have a value or not, whether it projects itself out of the vicious circle of drives prior to a positive logos. Is the world just aimless chaos of self-exploiting energy, or is there an 'essence'? Essence, understanding of value, culture - how long and to what extent of damage will we remain a slaves of our bad conscience - is there a thing in our hands that we may use to justify this frenzied outburst of weird and not necessarily benevolent powers to increase our power to manipulate and interpret it as good?

What are our most advanced means of of manipulation? How are we manipulated into organs of the beast? Can we not manipulate the beast?
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5903
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby finishedman » Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:11 am

Jakob wrote: Is the world just aimless chaos of self-exploiting energy, or is there an 'essence'?

Forget the world. That's too big. Each man has to be his own savior. It is man's thinking that tells him his life appears to have absolutely no meaning so he goes searching for a meaning, he searches for a goal. As long as man is searching for a goal, and as long as he is searching for meaning he will remain wandering around restlessly.

For some reason or another he wants to be at peace with himself. Why can't he be at peace with himself? That's the very first question that I ask. Why does it always have to be tomorrow or the day after tomorrow? The same is true for his neighbor and for his neighbor; that's the world, do you understand? Every individual is seeking certainty for himself and therefore there can be no certainty in this world. It is not that I am pessimistic or cynical, but that is the reality of the world. What man has tried up to now has done him no good at all!
finishedman
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3177
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 12:32 am

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby felix dakat » Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:53 pm

without-music wrote:
felix dakat wrote:
There is no reality underlying the interpretation.


How do you know?

I don't. All we know is interpretation; why posit anything besides?


That's correct, we don't know. But , interpretations are always interpretations of something. Thus we intuit that there is reality to which our interpretations refer. Even your above statement implies that the fact that all we know is interpretation is the case. The case refers to the real situation, hence it implies reality, a true state of affairs.

User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8116
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby without-music » Tue Jul 12, 2011 5:33 pm

felix dakat wrote:That's correct, we don't know. But , interpretations are always interpretations of something. Thus we intuit that there is reality to which our interpretations refer.

You're still positing something extra, though. When all we know are interpretations, why suppose, why "intuit" that there must be some-thing behind them? On a different forum, Sauwelios proposed the following line of reasoning (toward a different end, an end we disagreed on, as it were; but it will serve its purpose here as well):

1. All we know are views of the world, and not the world itself.
2. All views of the world are interpretations.
3. All we know are interpretations. [from 1 and 2]
4. "Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities." [A formulation of Occam's razor by Russell.]
5. All there is is interpretations. [from 3 and 4]

This problematic finds its roots back in Lockean epistemology. Locke proposed the "veil of ideas" separating man from objects-in-themselves, for all man has are his ideas of those objects and so can never hope to access them directly. Locke, a confused philosopher if ever there was one, initially questioned whether we had any reason to suppose the existence of these objects behind our ideas of them at all, but eventually appealed to God's benevolent grace to conclude that these objects do, in fact, exist.

The point is, we have no reason to suppose the existence of something behind our interpretations -- perhaps all there is is further interpretation. To claim that definitionally speaking, the term "interpretation" implies "something to be interpreted" recalls, of course, Nietzsche's criticism that our philosophy finds its footing in an age-old faith in grammar.

felix dakat wrote:Even your above statement implies that the fact that all we know is interpretation is the case.

Indeed, I do imply this. However, I am making no claim to fact; just the opposite, actually. I am proposing that all there is is interpretation. This too, then, is interpretation! For how could it be anything besides?

felix dakat wrote:The case refers to the real situation, hence it implies reality, a true state of affairs.

But surely we can't so radically re-conceptualize the way we understand the world (that it is interpretation, and nothing besides) while still holding onto that out-dated definition of reality. Philosophy need not weigh itself down with word games: grammar enjoys no privileged claim to the world itself.
...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 Only_Humean » Tue Jul 12, 2011 10:02 pm

without-music wrote:The point is, we have no reason to suppose the existence of something behind our interpretations -- perhaps all there is is further interpretation. To claim that definitionally speaking, the term "interpretation" implies "something to be interpreted" recalls, of course, Nietzsche's criticism that our philosophy finds its footing in an age-old faith in grammar.


With respect, that particular criticism backstep but thorough fling doing or climb.

"Interpretation" is not my choice of words, or the Realist's choice of words, but yours/Sauwelios's. Pick another one, an intransitive verb, at least so you can't be accused of appropriating the propriety of objects grammatically to your argument because it would sound weak without it. "Interpret" describes an action that a subject performs on an object. That's not my rigid fascination with grammar, it's just how the word is always used. There are plenty of sensory actions that a subject can do without any reference to an external world - dream, say, or hallucinate. But interpret gives that comforting ring of being grounded in something, doesn't it?

My take on it is that it's misphilosophising, the grammar more reminiscent of Wittgenstein's fly-in-the-flybottle than any claims of Nietzsche.

But surely we can't so radically re-conceptualize the way we understand the world (that it is interpretation, and nothing besides) while still holding onto that out-dated definition of reality. Philosophy need not weigh itself down with word games: grammar enjoys no privileged claim to the world itself.


Stronger: philosophy must rid itself of word games wherever it can. And I believe that a word game is what this is, ambiguity and metaphor covering the weaknesses in the argument and a Brave Nietzschean Disrespect for Grammar covering the ambiguity and metaphor.
Image

The biology of purpose keeps my nose above the surface.
- Brian Eno
User avatar
Only_Humean
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6194
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:53 am
Location: Right here

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby felix dakat » Tue Jul 12, 2011 10:44 pm

without-music wrote:
felix dakat wrote:That's correct, we don't know. But , interpretations are always interpretations of something. Thus we intuit that there is reality to which our interpretations refer.

You're still positing something extra, though. When all we know are interpretations, why suppose, why "intuit" that there must be some-thing behind them? On a different forum, Sauwelios proposed the following line of reasoning (toward a different end, an end we disagreed on, as it were; but it will serve its purpose here as well):

1. All we know are views of the world, and not the world itself.
2. All views of the world are interpretations.
3. All we know are interpretations. [from 1 and 2]
4. "Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities." [A formulation of Occam's razor by Russell.]
5. All there is is interpretations. [from 3 and 4]

This problematic finds its roots back in Lockean epistemology. Locke proposed the "veil of ideas" separating man from objects-in-themselves, for all man has are his ideas of those objects and so can never hope to access them directly. Locke, a confused philosopher if ever there was one, initially questioned whether we had any reason to suppose the existence of these objects behind our ideas of them at all, but eventually appealed to God's benevolent grace to conclude that these objects do, in fact, exist.

The point is, we have no reason to suppose the existence of something behind our interpretations -- perhaps all there is is further interpretation. To claim that definitionally speaking, the term "interpretation" implies "something to be interpreted" recalls, of course, Nietzsche's criticism that our philosophy finds its footing in an age-old faith in grammar.

felix dakat wrote:Even your above statement implies that the fact that all we know is interpretation is the case.

Indeed, I do imply this. However, I am making no claim to fact; just the opposite, actually. I am proposing that all there is is interpretation. This too, then, is interpretation! For how could it be anything besides?

felix dakat wrote:The case refers to the real situation, hence it implies reality, a true state of affairs.

But surely we can't so radically re-conceptualize the way we understand the world (that it is interpretation, and nothing besides) while still holding onto that out-dated definition of reality. Philosophy need not weigh itself down with word games: grammar enjoys no privileged claim to the world itself.


According to Occam's razor everything should be made as simple as possible. But as Einstein noted, not simpler. Your proposition that all there is interpretation is too simple for adequate understanding of the situation. It is, in fact, a self-defeating tautology. If all is interpretation, then interpretation can say nothing definitive about the all. You can't help but refer to an objective world you seek to deny. Ironic that you would accuse me of word games when that is what you seem to be stuck in. You unwittingly demonstrate that objective reference is indispensible to conceptualization.

User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8116
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby d63 » Wed Jul 13, 2011 12:01 am

Jakob wrote:
d63 wrote:but how would any of you play along with the system that we face now(

that thing that makes things work in ways that are beyond them.

I agree, it is time we address the beast.
I have been aiming at the position that we must project a value to him.

Now, the beast is tamed by a red flag -
terror-horror (fear of fear) tames us, exhausts us.
we become docile, and are sleeping, and wise men take over the Earth,
starve continents and then rebuild them, as docile economies of useful talent.

Nietzsche: useful to what?

This ultrapowersuperhypermanipulation is the only way we could immediately conceive of mass-survival without shedding all hereditary beliefs. Method: reduction to the most common denominator in groups - apathetic insanity. The only thing philosophy has to determine is whether or not this beast will have a value or not, whether it projects itself out of the vicious circle of drives prior to a positive logos. Is the world just aimless chaos of self-exploiting energy, or is there an 'essence'? Essence, understanding of value, culture - how long and to what extent of damage will we remain a slaves of our bad conscience - is there a thing in our hands that we may use to justify this frenzied outburst of weird and not necessarily benevolent powers to increase our power to manipulate and interpret it as good?

What are our most advanced means of of manipulation? How are we manipulated into organs of the beast? Can we not manipulate the beast?


In all honestly, Jakob, these posts were the result of me coming on here when I should have known better. While what I posted was the result of things I think about when sober, I have an unfortunate habit of bring them out at the worst time, in the worst possible places (I apologize to without music for even attempting to take this string totally off subject), in the worse possible shape to express it.

I sometimes wish I could find a way to hook a breathalyzer up to my computer and develop some programming skills in order set up an application that, once activated, will for a given amount of time prompt one every hour to blow, then once a certain BAC level is read, firewall out all access to social networking pages. I would appropriately call it The Face Saver.

But I really appreciate your willingness to turn my moments of silliness and embarrassment into something of some worth. In my own defense, given your generosity and that of the others who mercifully choose to ignore it, even sober, the affection I feel for you guys (as sloppily as it gets expressed in my more ecstatic moments) does not seem totally beyond reason.

That said, what I'm really glad to see is that are other people who recognize the emergence of some malignant thing that seems to be taking over our system. I came up with the concept of The Beast in the semi-facetious manner of recognizing how silly it was for our Christians to stand in most powerful country in the world and act as if the prophecied Beast could only emerge "over there". It's also based on the concept of systematic imperatives and the tendency of social systems to gravitate toward things that supports its needs even if those things work against the needs of the individual members of that system. It generally finds its most obvious expression through the higher ranking beneficiaries. The joke for me was if there ever was a candidate for this Beast, it would be the very system these Christians were embracing.

It's a subject I hope to discuss more, if not on this string, then on another.

Thanks again, guys.
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: 5467
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby d63 » Wed Jul 13, 2011 12:11 am

Jakob wrote:Nietzsche: useful to what?

This ultrapowersuperhypermanipulation is the only way we could immediately conceive of mass-survival without shedding all hereditary beliefs. Method: reduction to the most common denominator in groups - apathetic insanity. The only thing philosophy has to determine is whether or not this beast will have a value or not, whether it projects itself out of the vicious circle of drives prior to a positive logos. Is the world just aimless chaos of self-exploiting energy, or is there an 'essence'? Essence, understanding of value, culture - how long and to what extent of damage will we remain a slaves of our bad conscience - is there a thing in our hands that we may use to justify this frenzied outburst of weird and not necessarily benevolent powers to increase our power to manipulate and interpret it as good?

What are our most advanced means of of manipulation? How are we manipulated into organs of the beast? Can we not manipulate the beast?


I would also note Neitzche's distaste for those whose will to power finds expression through conformity.

But your point here about the hegemony involved hits the nail right on the head. It's what interests me most and it's why I find Semiology such an important tool. It was what I was getting at in The Semiology of Rock and Country.

But, once again, I really don't want to hijack WM's string here. I will try to start another one based on it.
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: 5467
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby finishedman » Wed Jul 13, 2011 3:31 am

felix dakat wrote: Your proposition that all there is interpretation is too simple for adequate understanding of the situation. It is, in fact, a self-defeating tautology. If all is interpretation, then interpretation can say nothing definitive about the all. You can't help but refer to an objective world you seek to deny. Ironic that you would accuse me of word games when that is what you seem to be stuck in. You unwittingly demonstrate that objective reference is indispensible to conceptualization.


We use the same word for a table, or object. The object is there and the known coresponding word, but still we do not know what the reality of the object is -- we do not know fully what it is. The word that exists in thought as an idea, having no physical or concrete existence, is what is interpreted.

How can anybody say anything about the 'state of not knowing?' We have necessarily to use words. Can we use words without indulging in abstract concepts. We can. But that doesn't mean that it's a non-verbal conceptualization. That's a funny thing -- there is no such thing as non-verbal conceptualization at all.
finishedman
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3177
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 12:32 am

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby felix dakat » Wed Jul 13, 2011 3:46 pm

We use the same word for a table, or object. The object is there and the known coresponding word, but still we do not know what the reality of the object is -- we do not know fully what it is. The word that exists in thought as an idea, having no physical or concrete existence, is what is interpreted.


I understand without-music to be saying that there is no object, only interpretation. I agree we don't fully know the object, we don't know a thing as it is in itself. All we can know is phenomena which we interpret via concepts.

How can anybody say anything about the 'state of not knowing?' We have necessarily to use words. Can we use words without indulging in abstract concepts. We can. But that doesn't mean that it's a non-verbal conceptualization. That's a funny thing --there is no such thing as non-verbal conceptualization at all.


We must infer the extent to which our thoughts correspond to things by our observations of phenonmena. We can acknowledge that we don't know everything about anything. An object may be nothing more than an object of inquiry.

User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8116
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby finishedman » Wed Jul 13, 2011 4:31 pm

felix dakat wrote:I understand without-music to be saying that there is no object, only interpretation. I agree we don't fully know the object, we don't know a thing as it is in itself. All we can know is phenomena which we interpret via concepts.


There must be an object upon which light falls so as to produce an image on the retina which, when stimulated, transfers signals to the brain. There must be things around you for there to be a "you' as a reference point, as a subject in relation to the objects.

Yet, 'you', the subject, has no existence without knowing (via interpretation of something in memory) what the signals are. Like being blind from birth and suddenly being able to pick up the signals -- everything would be an incomprehensible occurence incapable of being perceived by the mind. So, in a way, you could say the objects around you do not exist, until you, as the subject, as a reference point come into existence. But your existence in this scheme will not occur until a 'you' can project its knowledge (recognition) onto the things around it.
finishedman
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3177
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 12:32 am

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby felix dakat » Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:46 pm

There must be an object upon which light falls so as to produce an image on the retina which, when stimulated, transfers signals to the brain.
OK


There must be things around you for there to be a "you' as a reference point, as a subject in relation to the objects.

OK

Yet, 'you', the subject, has no existence without knowing (via interpretation of something in memory) what the signals are.

I don't follow this. It seems a subject could exist and might observe the signals without knowing what they are.

Like being blind from birth and suddenly being able to pick up the signals -- everything would be an incomprehensible occurence incapable of being perceived by the mind.


Again, the blind person might hear the signals and not know what they were.

So, in a way, you could say the objects around you do not exist, until you, as the subject, as a reference point come into existence.


Just because objects don't exist for me, it doesn't follow that they don't exist independently.

But your existence in this scheme will not occur until a 'you' can project its knowledge (recognition) onto the things around it.


It seems to me you are conflating existence with knowledge of existence. Knowledge of something depends on it's existence. But, something might existence independent of knowledge of it. If not, everything would have to be invented. Nothing new could ever be discovered.

User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8116
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby Jakob » Wed Jul 13, 2011 9:50 pm

finishedman wrote:
Jakob wrote: Is the world just aimless chaos of self-exploiting energy, or is there an 'essence'?

Forget the world. That's too big. Each man has to be his own savior. It is man's thinking that tells him his life appears to have absolutely no meaning so he goes searching for a meaning, he searches for a goal. As long as man is searching for a goal, and as long as he is searching for meaning he will remain wandering around restlessly.

What if he has a goal? Then he will not be "restless" but active and not wander but move.
These are not bad things - according to my personal valuation. And I do not think that everyone should agree with me.

For some reason or another he wants to be at peace with himself.

I only agree with this if 'being at peace' means an active state of increase, of exploration, of building-creating, with at root the impulse to play (which is the undiluted form of activity).

Why can't he be at peace with himself? That's the very first question that I ask.

Life itself is an assimilative process. Homeostasis is an activity, a continuum of attainment. If one wants passive peace, there's always death.

Why does it always have to be tomorrow or the day after tomorrow? The same is true for his neighbor and for his neighbor; that's the world, do you understand?

I have to try hard, but I think so. Your thoughts seem highly transcendental. A poetic approach may be a possibility.

Every individual is seeking certainty for himself and therefore there can be no certainty in this world. It is not that I am pessimistic or cynical, but that is the reality of the world. What man has tried up to now has done him no good at all!

I disagree. I think that it has done quite a few people a great lot of good, and indeed a hard to justify amount of people unbearable misery. But, man has not yet been a whole. We have not even thought about beginning to try to understand the world as a whole. Nobody up until now has known enough.

"I imagine a future thinker, in whom the european-american restlessness is connected with the hundredfold inherited asiatic contemplativeness: such a combination brings the riddle of the world to a solution. For the time being the observing free spirits have their mission: they all throw out the barriers,that stand in the way of a melting together of humanity [Verschmelzung der Menschen]: Religions, states, monarchic instincts to wealth- and poverty-illusions, health- and race-prejudices - "

- Friedrich Nietzsche, Summer 1876
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5903
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby James S Saint » Wed Jul 13, 2011 10:09 pm

There is a critical distinction between the liveliness of harmony and the lifelessness of peace.
By obtaining the right meanings and therefore the right goals, one can arrange for the momentum of self-harmony (harmony inside and harmony surrounding) yet the peace is merely the lack of conflict, not the lack of motivation, action, and liveliness.
All Joy is by the perception of progress toward that goal.

1) What is it that you have always been attempting and by what means?
2) What are others attempting and by what means?

By learning those, one can then harmonize both inside and out.
That which remains in Self-Harmony, cannot perish.
Nothing can die until if fails to try.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby Jakob » Thu Jul 14, 2011 2:09 am

James S Saint wrote:There is a critical distinction between the liveliness of harmony and the lifelessness of peace.
By obtaining the right meanings and therefore the right goals, one can arrange for the momentum of self-harmony (harmony inside and harmony surrounding) yet the peace is merely the lack of conflict, not the lack of motivation, action, and liveliness.
All Joy is by the perception of progress toward that goal.

I think so too.

1) What is it that you have always been attempting and by what means?
2) What are others attempting and by what means?

I distinguish two things where you see one:
1) stability / homeostasis / an "okay" state of being - this occurs almost by all means
2) positively good feeling - this occurs only with very specific means - often it doesn't happen at all. Such speficic means, a particularily intricate activities valued by others of the same kind to create memetic change and thereby a following, tribes can come to exist because of a unique derivation in DNA of one specimen. (Shaman!)

such leads nature astray, which simply means creating different conditions - more radical differences than linearily progressive development of adaptability to environment account for.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5903
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby finishedman » Thu Jul 14, 2011 5:22 am

felix dakat wrote: Knowledge of something depends on it's existence. But, something might existence independent of knowledge of it. If not, everything would have to be invented. Nothing new could ever be discovered.


You have no way of knowing what is there without knowledge. We invent a 'reality' and imposed that on the next generation and so on.

Have you ever heard the term "reality?' I'm sure you have and have questions about it. if you had never heard of the term, then there would be no knowledge of it and questions about it would never arise.

Could you have invented a 'reality?' Perhaps ... and if you told me your version of it and claimed that is what it is where would that put me if I believed you? But that is not reality. If one cannot discover reality, then that puts him in a state of not knowing continually. From then on If you are really interested in finding reality, what has to dawn on you is that your very questioning mechanism is born out of the answers that you already have. Otherwise there can't be any question.
finishedman
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3177
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 12:32 am

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby Moreno » Thu Jul 14, 2011 2:52 pm

without-music wrote:
The point is, we have no reason to suppose the existence of something behind our interpretations -- perhaps all there is is further interpretation.


I think it is odd that this sentence is contructed in the second person plural. How can someone who believes this talk about 'we' since everyone else is outside him or her and thus interpretations. They are a part of we which is ding an sich for that person making the assertion.

Not only are you referring to them as if they exist, but you are making assertions about their epistemology, the limits of what they can know.
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby felix dakat » Thu Jul 14, 2011 4:52 pm

finishedman wrote:
felix dakat wrote: Knowledge of something depends on it's existence. But, something might existence independent of knowledge of it. If not, everything would have to be invented. Nothing new could ever be discovered.


You have no way of knowing what is there without knowledge. We invent a 'reality' and imposed that on the next generation and so on.

Have you ever heard the term "reality?' I'm sure you have and have questions about it. if you had never heard of the term, then there would be no knowledge of it and questions about it would never arise.

Could you have invented a 'reality?' Perhaps ... and if you told me your version of it and claimed that is what it is where would that put me if I believed you? But that is not reality. If one cannot discover reality, then that puts him in a state of not knowing continually. From then on If you are really interested in finding reality, what has to dawn on you is that your very questioning mechanism is born out of the answers that you already have. Otherwise there can't be any question.


Model Dependent Realism admits there is no theory-independent concept of reality. Our brains interpret the input from our sensory organs by making a model of the world. 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. We can never know with 100 percent certainty the true nature of that reality. But, even when two models appear to be equally supported by observations, over time we may be able to make more precise observations that show which model more closely matches reality. As Hawking and Mlodinow point out in "The Grand Design", a model is good if it meets four criteria:

It's elegant;
It contains few arbitrary or adjustable elements;
It agrees with and explains all existing observations;
and it makes detailed predictions about future observations that can disprove or falsify the model if they are not borne out.

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

User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8116
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby Jakob » Thu Jul 14, 2011 9:21 pm

felix dakat wrote:Model Dependent Realism admits there is no theory-independent concept of reality. Our brains interpret the input from our sensory organs by making a model of the world. 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. We can never know with 100 percent certainty the true nature of that reality.

Dramatic leaps of faith here... there is a reality to correspond to, this reality has a nature, this nature is "true"... and at the same time, it is hidden to us, who are supposed to be experiencing it! It would be absurd if it wasn't science.

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;

Clause: since this never actually happens, existing observations that do not agree with it must be swept under the rug, interpreted as not actually existing because, they aren't fitting...

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.

No matter of couse that this reality perishes under our attempts to understand it. Reality is just not significant to reality.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5903
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby d63 » Thu Jul 14, 2011 10:28 pm

finishedman wrote:
Jakob wrote: Is the world just aimless chaos of self-exploiting energy, or is there an 'essence'?

Forget the world. That's too big. Each man has to be his own savior. It is man's thinking that tells him his life appears to have absolutely no meaning so he goes searching for a meaning, he searches for a goal. As long as man is searching for a goal, and as long as he is searching for meaning he will remain wandering around restlessly.

For some reason or another he wants to be at peace with himself. Why can't he be at peace with himself? That's the very first question that I ask. Why does it always have to be tomorrow or the day after tomorrow? The same is true for his neighbor and for his neighbor; that's the world, do you understand? Every individual is seeking certainty for himself and therefore there can be no certainty in this world. It is not that I am pessimistic or cynical, but that is the reality of the world. What man has tried up to now has done him no good at all!


I think the idea that we are going to come up with a perfect system or intellectual construct that makes everything hum along like a fine-tuned machine is a form of Sartrean Bad Faith. Given the volitility of of what we choose to do as individuals within a system, there is no way we could possibly hope to control all this with the same precision of mathematics. There are just too many variables involved.

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".

At the same time, isn't our trying part of it all? Would it really be better if we just quit trying?
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: 5467
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users