"Inside" Experience

Yeah I know, I’m just explaining how whatever you think you’re arguing, it necessarily can’t be valid if it denies Experientialism.

The theory works whether we abstract or don’t. Experience is directly and concretely unavoidable and undeniable whether or not you abstract it into discrete things. Continuous Experience is the absence of abstraction - it’s not a discrete thing - even the words used “continuous” and “experience” respectively imply concrete and fundamental. It’s what happens before abstraction, whether you abstract from it or not.

This is why I observed and remarked to Sil that experience investigates itself (to which he objected that to posit a self is unwarranted, to which I clarified that I did not posit a self but merely observe the concept of experience which his theory seems to leave entirely uninvestigated) and comes to the conclusion that it has a certain place in a greater order.
We can infer this positively from the actual reality of experience.

This is why people are easily mislead by politics, too - they do not really study the implications of words, but only go by the explicit “meaning” (reference).

“Experience” absolutely implies discontinuity. But one has to think about it for a while to realize that.

This is why one cant make an ontology out of a single term.

(VO uses three terms: being is self-valuing and valuing in terms of self-valuing. It extends into modulation, i.e. in a “cosmos”, so that process, such as thought, can occur on its account, and from there on, certainty can be established. Certainty isn’t as quickly attainable as S, again quite cleverly, suggests.

Paradoxically, it s precisely because synthetic experience is required to establish certainty, that we can not posit experience as an “arche”.

In fact, the self-valuing, the “integer” out of valuator logic, takes on he role of “god particle” but not as a physical particle. Why Im rapped Im a “big Higgs boson player”
What coheres the atom is simply - its coherence.

Because, hear this - let me end all the nonsense pseudo-science has been engaging in; everything larger than atoms is uncertain definite. Everything smaller than atoms is uncertain, indefinite. Only the atom itself is certain, definite.

The atom is actually the smallest discrete particle.
Consistency with that, it also lives by far the longest, can in fact exist eternally.

Subatomic physics is like predicting the weather inside of the atom.

We can surely predict heat at the equator, which is like working with electricity.

We work with electrons, but without knowing what or where precisely they are. We can get them moving in directions, but that doesn’t mean we grasp their existence.

know google claims otherwise, but Alpha Zero, its chess engine, turns to to be fake as well. Someone just replayed the matches vs Stockfish using the actual Sockfish engine and Sockfish just makes very different moves in reality than in the matches reported to have occurred against Alpha Zero.

Safe to say Im skeptical about Googles claim to have developed Qubits.

Well that is the Analytical, I would call it early-Wittgenstein fallacy.
Heidegger causes no such problems, for him logic isn’t a closed system, and being an open system it can actually resemble reality. (and not end up in entropy, as Experientialism does)
But neither does Aristotle.
I will go into that soon, in The Philosophers thread.

Indeed.
“A entails B only if A and B share at least one non-logical constant.”
-Alan Ross Anderson.

Yes I know thats what you’re attempting. But one can never explain a dogma - you have simply decided that it is the case and reason from that axiom.
But your axiom would require that you investigate the term of your axiom first, and flesh out its implications.

You never bothered to check the implications of the term.

Actually, all words are abstractions, so all this is, unfortunately, perfectly untrue. Here we can see that Prometheans “outsider” criticism of your theory was quite valid. Yet I like to go a bit deeper and disproved it from the inside.

Valuator logic produces implications.

QED: In classical philosophy a premise was only considered valid if something follows from it;
and it was considered therefore that no one premise can stand alone.

Premise 1: valuing exists. (this is cogito ergo sum stripped of the superstitions of “I” and “think” - I just know that there is willing, requiring, wanting, desiring. I am witnessing it in the first degree.)
Premise 2: valuing as I know it requires a plurality of separate objects which all have their terms of being, under which they were born. (an ashtray is born under the terms of cigarettes, cigarettes under terms of pleasure, pleasure under the terms of valuing.)
Premise 3: valuing is an experience for me, where “me” is the very experience of valuing. Valuing thus experiences itself and this results in the idea of a “self”.

“The theory works whether we abstract or don’t. Experience is directly and concretely unavoidable and undeniabl”

Yeah, we know experience works whatever the case. What we are discussing here is your abstraction of it, which fails. It dont take a philspher really, for that first part to hold. As you say, it just holds. It is then what you say about it, or your abstraction, which holds just enough to be delicious to refute it. Because it does not hold.

HOOOOOOoooooldddddddd!

One can never explain a dogma is correct - for the very specific reasons that I’ve covered.
Yet operating without a dogma is always either baseless or circular, as I’ve covered, and the only way to reconcile this with the fact that some knowledge is better than others is to have a founding dogma, as I’ve covered.

In this way, we know a dogma exists by trying to explain around it or without it. This doesn’t mean we’ve explained the dogma, because the dogma necessarily has to be void of explanation. If it wasn’t void, it would be part of the explanation and not the inevitable dogma that all knowledge must necessarily regress back towards. You cannot require then that the dogma must be explainable by its implications, because this inverts the dogma to discrete experiences that premise Continuous Experience: committing the fallacy of reverse causation.

Explaining presupposes a dissection, so cannot be a fundmental: explanation can only exist after the existence of a fundamental to ground it. This is why Epistemology must follow Ontology, because knowledge must first of all exist before it can develop. Continuous unity therefore has to be the nature of a fundamental axiom.

It’s not an arbitrary decision of mine that experience is this axiom - as I’ve covered. It’s the only possible conclusion. And due to the nature of inevitable dogma, it defies terms and implications itself. And only due to the axiomatic imposition of an unaccountable dogma can you proceed to divide it up into concepts and conceptual models.

What does “all” abstract from? There’s nothing greater than “all” from which to abstract “all” or it wouldn’t be “all”. The best you can do is describe “all” tautologously, which is to say “meaninglessly” - simply rephrasing in terms of synonyms - or you can describe it as the sum of its constituent parts: in terms of discrete experiences and losing out on its gestalt. As such, “Continuous Experience” by itself doesn’t tell us anything meaningful - it is tautology to meaninglessly rephrase it in terms of synonyms. The words “continuous” and “experience” only function as the remainders of all possible equations that we can construct from discrete experiences - the words may as well be “unabstractable/undefinable existence” or “all”. Concretely, “all existence” directly and immediately confronts us as experience, which is unbroken such that nothing can be said about it. But is saying that nothing can be said about it through the word “continuous” really saying anything about it? And is using the concrete term of “experience” saying it’s an abstraction? Words are circularly defined terms of discrete experiences, so can never suffice to encompass what they aren’t, but “Continuous Experience” is just about the best you can do given the necessity of words to communicate meaningful knowledge. It’s a problem even to give “Continuous Experience” a name at all, but to do so exactly fits the problem shaped hole left by dealing solely in discrete experiences - as its inevitable remainder. It doesn’t need a name, as it’s immediately inevitable with or without having a dissected discrete term to describe. The point is you get to “that which Continuous Experience refers” from either and any direction inevitably.

So your mention of classical philosophy where no one premise can stand alone is false. Philosophy since then, as I covered with mention of Russell, the Zermelo and Fraenkel guys who resolved his paradox, and Godel who poked a hole even in the ZF resolution, has advanced beyond classical philosophy. We already knew about circular reasoning before then (no premise standing alone requires infinite premises - “turtles all the way down” - or circular premises that all try to stand on each other and thereby stand on nothing as a whole). You have to advance on from classical philosophy once you realise its flaws. We already knew tautologies are meaningless and logic cannot exist without premises etc., but those guys formalised this whether they intended to do so or not. I’m simply coining the result as “Experientialism”.

Your 3 premises of valuator logic are fine as just another way to have pre-dissected Continuous Experience into discrete experiences and connect them back together into a conceptual model. Let it do battle with other conceptual models of discrete experiences. I’m staying back a step further to address a fundamental problem of Epistemology that it cannot fundamentally be either baseless or circular, with each term relying on a previous premise either indefinitely along a line or indefinitely around a circle, and at the same time have a fundamental starting point. You need an axiom or whatever you say is either linearly or circularly baseless.

That’s a declaration.

Desiring, anting, willing…and valuing, only apply to life.
To presume that valuing, like willing, is a universal truth, applicable to the non-living, would have to also presume that because you are aware that all existence is aware.
That’s a superstition.

An ashtray has a utility that gives it value to the one that designed it.
If it were made from stone then the stone would acquire value to the designer, because of the need/desire ti was made to satisfy - tis utility.
A stone, not even a gold nugget, has an intrinsic value…unless it is given one by a living organism wanting to build a house with it, or a dam, or wanting to display his quality, his rarity.

The fact that organisms evaluate existence using themselves as a standard, or they value what is part of themselves, is nothing new.
The Christians mystified the term ‘love’ just as you are attempting to do with the term ‘value’…and for the same reasons.

What you fail to do is understand the underlying cause of willing, desiring, and valuing. You stop at the subjective experience…like cogito ergo sum…what is the ‘I’. Valuing, judging, willing is its expression not its essence. It is what differentiate it from other life forms and form the non-living.
It cannot be valuing itself, for this would be circular.
Why and how do lifeforms evaluate existence?
Yes, using themselves as a standard, but what is the underlying cause of this need to evaluate and to will, and to want and to desire?

Isn’t this just kind of a round-a-bout way of saying that by valuing we demonstrate ourselves as valuers? Descartes covered this, so why the emphasis on valuation over thought?

Pedro - What do you mean by “subjective experience”? The reverse of objective object? Identity and difference would seem to be experiential concepts.

Proofs in philosophy require something both immediate and and the loophole of being nebulous and unverifiable.

You can take whatever side you want, although it’s considered disingenuous to argue the nebulous and unverifiable side… a side many posters here use.

What is the immediate part? Self evidential!

It is self evidential that nobody wants their consent violated. Consent is self evidentiary. There is no further regress here. Someone who claims they want their consent violated, would be violated by never having their consent violated. Which still solves (even in the opposite case) that nobody wants their consent violated. It’s not only self evidentiary, it’s a law that non-consent violation is what works for everyone in the ideal.

Since silhouette pointed this out, many other posters here have used it as well, that the phrase “nobody wants their consent violated” solves as a meaningless tautology: “people don’t want what people don’t want” But obviously here, logic is in it’s infancy, because when uttering it’s a meaningless tautology and then gets hit on the foot with a hammer, it’s now the most important thing to them for this phrase to be understood as NOT meaningless. EVERYONE knows exactly what the phrase, “nobody wants their consent violated” means, and it’s disingenuous to call it a meaningless tautology, it is NOT disingenuous to observe that tautologies are not always meaningless, and that logical operators haven’t advanced that far for certain circular (self evident) phrases.

It’s almost like seeing parrots type to each other “circular bad” “tautology bad”… I know they teach that in school, but this is the real world here.

I personally would really like it if people stopped parroting academia and look at these types of exceptions. “A banana is a banana” is an identity statement, all identity statements are tautologies… HOWEVER, there are many meaningful contexts where identity is not a meaningless way to teach about identity in terms of the existence we all share here.

If philosophy is about justifying word-games, then creativity has to be liberated from realism.
Declaring something and claiming ti is brilliant, is a start. It shows a desire, a need…a pathos.
But even a moron can do that.
How will we differentiate the true insight from the mystical manipulation of desire?
Should we use the oracles of Delphi as our muse?
Should we seek inspiration in the Old and New Testament, and its verbal seductions?
Shall we replace ‘love’ with ‘value’ or ‘power’, and declare it something profoundly new?

Let’s do all of that…and more.
Because, I am hungry for the taste of need that has defensively inflated its ego to a theoretical bubble, just begging to be burst.

Need is the most honest expression of self. Desire must hide in pretence.
I see plenty of that on this forum.
My friend was right.

"How will we differentiate the true insight from the mystical manipulation of desire?
Should we use the oracles of Delphi as our muse?
Should we seek inspiration in the Old and New Testament, and its verbal seductions? "

Well, you know, that’s the entire point of philosophy. Not relying on anything outside one’s own capacity to judge.

Look into yourself. before valuing and willing…what is there?
What sparks willing and valuing and desiring and needing?

What is the pattern?
What does the ‘ing’ imply?
Value…ing….will…ing…desire…ing….want…ing….
What does a verb imply?
Before willing, valuing, desiring, wanting,…these are but expressions of a kind of this…
I’m not going to tell you.

Aegean - welcome.

Philosophy begins with minimizing the sort of errors you have made into a habit, no fault of your own most likely - you have been taught by inadequates.

Your beginners approach to written theory shows that valuing is precisely the unconscious part of you - your consciousness is a mere kite in the wind of your valuing;

you already know what you want to be reading before you begin, and only become conscious of those things your valuing lets through into your mind.

Sounds tricky, doesn’t it? It is. Philosophy requires that you shut off a lot of automatisms - of which you aren’t even aware you have them turned on!

So my first instruction to you, if you wish to be my pupil, is : try to finish reading a text (anything - it can be your salt-shakers ingredients label, which should be rather short, or a news-article or a page from a childrens book) and suspending your judgment of what the text means until you have read it completely.

Maybe you can even manage to double down and read it twice, before giving yourself the chance to formulate your interpretation of it.

Seeing as where you stand now, this exercise will be plenty difficult, so take your time.

When you have become acquainted with the haste of your own mind, you can begin to discipline this mind.
If you get as far as that you may begin to approach simple philosophy, like Plato, perhaps even Aristotle. We call these “deductive philosophers”.
We find ourselves in a more advanced age, but still, these ancient men were pretty smart even by comparison to the moderners who have taught you how to think!

Sound like a plan?

Let me quickly address your mistakes.

Of an observation.
Im starting with pure empiricism.

Ah! But I only said that I experience valuing, etc.

You’re running ahead - Im nowhere near close to explaining how I see valuing to apply to all being. Ive only observed, again purely by empiricism, that there is valuing, because I am witness to it by experience.

My experience is of willing (valuing), etc.

And yet, did you know that it has never been formalized into a logical method?

Here, you are simply using your imagination too much.

I will repeat what I made you aware of earlier:

Your beginners approach to written theory shows that valuing is precisely the unconscious part of you - your consciousness is a mere kite in the wind of your valuing;

you already know what you want to be reading before you begin, and only become conscious of those things your valuing lets through into your mind.

Yes, valuing it its own logical cause. It has no physical cause, it is physical cause to all else.

I know the following is a very taxing text, but the whole subject is taxing! Feel free to try and see how far you get in reading this. You can keep your prejudices switched on for now, as there is no way you are ready to read as much without the salt-shaker training.

[tab]

[/tab]

The conscious valuing (selective response, as Ive explained) is merely an extensive form of non conscious selective response.

What is the cause?
Only the fact that nothing stands in its way.

Do you notice what Ive done here?
Why being and no rather nothing? Because nothing stands in its way.

Do you see?
That is how philosophy can, when diligently practiced, show the superstitions underneath our commonly accepted words!

Your master taught you about on type of this…valuing. and he flatter and promised you great things, if only you remained loyal to this one thing.
But a master that wants to remain a master is not one you should follow.
A master, like a father, liberates you from…him, first and foremost. His insights are applicable without his presence, like a good father teaches gis son to be free from his guidance.
any ideology, n matte how pleasing and sempower9ng it feels, that does not offer independence, is a religion…an Abrahamic nihilistic ideology.
A philosophy must be independent form the one that exposed you to it.

“A master, like a father, liberates you from…him, first and foremost. His insights are applicable without his presence, like a good father teaches gis son to be free from his guidance.
any ideology, n matte how pleasing and sempower9ng it feels, that does not offer independence, is a religion…”

Now this is true.

“A philosophy must be independent form the one that exposed you to it.”

However, there is no “a philosophy.” Ehem, there is “philosophy.” Embarrassing as that is to have to say.

“any ideology, n matte how pleasing and sempower9ng it feels,”

Except this part. This part doesn’t make a lot of sense. Also ideology doesn’t offer anything. It is not a thing. That can offer.

“A philosophy must be independent form the one that exposed you to it.”

ought implies can.
-Kant