James S Saint

Why is that? Did he take a prolonged trip to India that we don’t know about?

sigh …just when I came across this…
sciencealert.com/physicists … modynamics

He would tell us we can’t know whether James is dead or not because the procedure that we use to decide so does not apply to woodfrogs.

ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi … 5#p2681525

Haha yeah I remember him.

Shit man that’s deep and hilarious also.

Zero_Sum

Death itself is I would say but who knows what else lurks within the Universe to affect a stay of execution so to speak…random or accidental?

Death was both subjective and objective in The Book Thief. Wonderful book. Death was the narrator and as such it was a wonderful medium in which to express both subjectively and objectively the characters portrayed. Many of Death’s lines were awe-inspiring and profound and sad.

Maybe. Technically as it were.

Still, what on earth does it mean to be logical about death? On the other hand, if James is dead he may well know more about the actual consequences of it than any of us here and now on this side of the grave.

For one thing, if there is an “afterlife” he may now grasp the extent to which it either is or is not in sync with the components of RM and the Real God. Or is it all just dasein, conflicting goods and political economy there too?!

Note to James:

Give us a sign.

All the signs/signals seem to point in the general direction of oblivion. And oblivion is either objective enough for you or it isn’t. James is still conscious of all this here and now or he will never be again.

Whatever that means.

As for dasein, that still revolves around this: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

Its relevance [for me] pertains to human interactions on this side of the grave. Interactions that revolve in turn around conflicting value judgments rooted in the philosophical components of a man still able to make a distinction between the either/or and the is/ought world.

Death itself would seem to be embedded in the former. We all do die. On the other hand, is it immoral that we all die? Ought this not to be the case?

Let’s ask James. In other words, if he is not dead and chooses to return to the forum.

Just don’t expect anything in the way of, say, specificity from him.

Pandora wrote:

The Genesis record implies that this is a young world, possibly less than 10,000. There is evidence that all life and non life processes obey the first and second laws of thermodynamics, therefore this world had a beginning and is “measurably” going downhill and there are other pieces of evidence to fit a young earth, such as the historical records and the population growth.

You just can’t be certain about anything, can you? :stuck_out_tongue:

I’m betting that you’re never a hit around parties either, just kidding of course and giving you a rough time. shakes head

Somehow if James was dead I think he would find it amusing that we’re all being philosophical about the meaning of death and life in what otherwise is a thread devoted to remembering him or finding about his whereabouts. This is all ingrained in ILP forum culture of course what we have here together being the odd bunch that we all are.

The last thing we need here is you starting a seance with the dearly departed. :-"

Are you kidding? Like most of us, I am reasonably certain the empirical world around me is in fact applicable to all of us. 24/7 as it were. In fact, the overwhelming preponderance of our interactions with others [here or elsewhere] appear to clearly revolve around demonstrable truths.

After all, it would seem that since the Big Bang [whatever that means] a staggering proportion of material interactions happened only as they ever could have. Immutably some suggest.

Where things get mysterious however is when matter evolved into brains evolved into a consciousness able to grapple with the “philosophical” implications of it all.

Then the part where minds react to all the either/or stuff only to bump into other minds who react quite differently. Then what is the truth? Let’s call this the is/ought world.

Here James [among others] constructed a frame of mind that somehow linked the two “in his head”. The is/ought world as [somehow] an adjunct of the either/or world intertwined [somehow] through the manner in which he came to “think up” RM/AO and the Real God.

But now if James really is dead, I’ll never have another opportunity to probe how existentially that worked for him in his conflicted interactions with others.

On the other hand, there are still plenty of other objectivists around able perhaps to yank me up out of my own far more problematic understanding of normative interactions.

And not all of them are Kids. :wink:

James’s age says a lot about his posts and perspective… he’s always right. :laughing:

Pretty much like you do. Well, with the help of the stars. :wink:

On the questions of Daseins and different contexts colliding and colluding, i.e. the World which is weary of our questioning it.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=179858&start=25#p2695265
it strikes back at us
disallows us to walk it

then questions arise. “Why?” But “there is no why, there is only because.” - witchdoctor

Logic is the will to predict. Without it, nothing can live. We observe regularities, and note these and include them into a system of other already discovered regularities. This has allowed us to conclude so many things that we know even less than we did when we knew nothing, because we have been caged inside our regularities and predictions and all the as yet unclassified rages among us unseen, and causes havoc and the end of our world. Affectance-Storms, nuclear fallout from broken self valuings, splinters of the anentropic shells blasting through our world as it stumbles.

Did you not think that God, dying, might explode?
[Annoying Olympian Laughter]

Rather typical of you of late. A post made to sound astute, shrewd…clever?

But what are we to make of it?

Is it true?

Well, in reference to what particular context? A context that might enable us to grasp more clearly what the point actually is.

Instead from my perspective it appears to be just another intellectual contraption. The point is true if you can find others to agree on the definition and the meaning of the words used to make it.

Much like James encompassing RM/AO.

Now, in the either/or world, the science is [admittedly] often over my head. Me, I’m more intent on exploring its relevance to conflicted human interactions in the is/ought world.

Down here when values come to clash an exchange of intellectual contraptions just won’t do.

For example, consider the one from your link above:

Is this meant to be ironic? Are you exposing to James the same sort of intellectual gibberish he would often dump on me in my attempts to yank RM/AO down out of the didactic/scholastic clouds?

Really, seriously, what are we to make of this in a world bursting at the seams with all manner of moral and political conflagrations?

Why [for all practical purposes] should it matter to us?

Explain that please.

Well it has been well over two months now since we have seen any sign of James.

I am preserving his work on my forum and website as found in my signature and I hope to clear up some of the less easier to grasp concepts that he presents.

Aside from that, the conversations on the Neosophi Forum are starting to diversify and could do with some new content.

All invited:

http://forum.neosophi.net/

If you have any problems signing up - let me know straight away.

I see that Satyr has chosen to contribute here as well. And here, in part, is his own reaction to “affectance”:

And the closest he comes to bringing it all down to earth is this:

As with James defending his own “frame of mind” here, Satyr steers his arguments as far away from the is/ought world as he possibly can.

In other words, another nest of “serious philosophers”, another nest of Will Durant’s “epistemologists”:

In the end it is dishonesty that breeds the sterile intellectualism of contemporary speculation. A man who is not certain of his mental integrity shuns the vital problems of human existence; at any moment the great laboratory of life may explode his little lie and leave him naked and shivering in the face of truth. So he builds himself an ivory tower of esoteric tomes and professionally philosophical periodicals; he is comfortable only in their company…he wanders farther and farther away from his time and place, and from the problems that absorb his people and his century. The vast concerns that properly belong to philosophy do not concern him…He retreats into a little corner, and insulates himself from the world under layer and layer of technical terminology. He ceases to be a philosopher, and becomes an epistemologist.

iambiguous

In my own defense, I am only new to philosophy in the last year so I am not always able to form wonderful philosophical arguments but I know for a fact that I can detect little subtleties here and there(id est by no means am I stupid). From what I can tell, what you are saying makes much sense to me.

I am going to say this straight up - I think James and Satyr have both created little shields around themselves and are very unwilling to see things any other way than their own way. In saying this however, I see value in what both of them say and I am sure they could offer much criticism on my open mind.

Personally I can not be bothered with dogmatic debate as I believe we are far from any definitive answers on life and what it means and why we are here and how we should be and whatever else you want to add to that list. I see value in debate when I see people willing to concede their own arguments but not necessarily close the door on what is of value in their original argument.

Obviously I have my own way of seeing things and I can see many problems with James’ philosophy that I think are fixable - for a start I think that what he is explaining should not be so connected with the physical but rather be used to explain away certain aspects of the physical(if that makes sense). Levels of Abstraction is what I am referring to and it comes from the philosophy of information and strangely and independently from my own philosophy that I have developed away from information - that is the same concept of Levels of Abstraction are used in both. James’ philosophy should be looked at as a level of abstraction and not a physics as such - at least for now. I think Levels of Abstraction could work fine in Metaphysics.

Affect does not focus away from the cause - simple.

And this is where my amateurness shines through - I have been reading your posts for a while and I still do not have a full grasp on the is/ought world. I nearly feel ashamed that I am unable to grasp something that you obviously find easy to communicate, but then I could just ask you questions.

This I do understand and agree with.