Right now all you’re doing is reifying experience.
Im saying there is no criterium for posting continuous experience as more fundamental than discrete experience, as your notion of the former is derived from the latter.
We’ve had this discussion in 2013 or 2014 on Humanarchy, of course, but Tom Secker (the owner) took it offline, I think prompted by his Marxist handlers.
This is a non sequitur, as you’re using the term “gap” both as positive and as negative.
No.“Experience” is irreducible (except to its singular quality which is valuing) but the argument for its continuousness is, as I see it, merely syntactic, which does not amount to a foundational idea in my book.
But we can agree to disagree here, at least you’re actually invested in your idea, and it isn’t hollow semantics.
Anomaly - I rather think what we see as “matter” is a configuration of forces. That there is no “substance” apart from these forces, which I see all as “valuing” (selecting, attracting, repulsing).
Again, he is rather famous here for posting this sort of “it’s-so-deep-it’s-meaningless” intellectual, uh, drivel?
You know, if I do say so myself.
Anyway, all I can do is to challenge him to bring his accusation out into the world of human interactions where a discussion of “universal truth” pertains to an actual context. Of his choosing.
Giving him yet another opportunity to demonstrate more substantively the manner in which I ask stupid question. And no doubt provide stupid answers.
Well, unless I manage to turn it all around and convince you that it is instead him that his own accusations are more applicable to.
See, addressing the guy with philosophical concepts merely results in him exhibiting a deeper feigned ignorance and an increased feigned pride.
However, before I addressed him directly (and thus implicitly played along with the idea that he was seriously trying to get us to think), when I defined his methods, he had no choice but to accept me as his master and put my terms in his mouth, to use a phrase.
All play for power, i.e. the power to be the valuator of the situation, and some commit more strongly to particular methods than others.
Iambiguous has found the very high “affect-quotient” of arrogant feigning of ignorance.
If being is defined as will to power (if being is only experience, it is only experience of will to power) and if this definition identifies a universal fact, then all human writing and speaking would certainly be misunderstood if it wasn’t interpreted foremost and a priori to any conveyed meaning as an expression of will to power.
To take something that is said at face value is always to misunderstand its origin, cause, and thus, I would argue, its true meaning.
Scientific statements of fact are included in this. Why make a scientific observation at all? There is no “objective reason” for it.
No fight with one who never confronts, never looks in the eye.
You either follow the trail of breadcrumbs (misunderstandings for you to correct) or you figure out you already have a loaf of bread (you weren’t suffering the doubt he purports).
Then, well, back up even further into clouds full of them:
Note to others…
If you think you understand what he means here as it relates to the relationship between describing what some construe to be universal truths in regard to human interactions in conflict over value judgments, statements about them, and how to differentiate them technically, please provide your own context in which his “philosophical concepts” might be expressed as meaningful given the part that most interest me: actually reconciling or resolving these conflicting goods down here on the ground.
Also, how do you suppose astrology fits into all of this? If that’s an appropriate point to being up.
Straw men are used to avoid having to engage in conflict, if that answers your question.
[size=85]They are often preemptively fabricated to distract from problematic experience but often enough spontaneous misapprehension of the case at hand.[/size]
Right now the Sun is on the last degree of Scorpio. I don’t know what you are asking.
One thing people don’t consider is that maybe iambiguous deserves being lost. Maybe it’s good, a good sign. Maybe the world he wants, a world with laws that perfectly dictate how all human interactions should go, would be a horrible fucking world.
If I hear a “Universal Truth”, I think Coca Cola or Hulk Hogan.
Something which simply is and has its image about it which clearly points to itself, and which people can have around them without being deranged from their own elements, but which provides a placeholder for their continuous responsiveness.
A truth has to have a narrative.
Universal facts are scientific facts, they need nothing to pertain to, to exist.
A truth pertains.
A narcissist wouldn’t be able to see that a fact is not a truth.
