Avoiding the pits of extreme skepticism

[wesmorris]

cool, thats two assumers. you really need to drop indulging the insane. semantics can lead to a contradictory state of affairs. choices will have to be made. secondly, everything is deemed by the "deemer"

Indulging the insane? Well, I don't know if it's sane or insane until I've already indulged it. I would not know the difference otherwise. I certainly understand how it looks annoying, but meh. Doesn't bother me because IMO, I can sort it out. Dass whut I b deemin yo.

yes
the law of parsimony is the axiom. the context

?

"law of parsimony"? explanation please, at least a smidge.

 

[wesmorris]

If something would be truly you or yours, you could control it, right?

To the extent that "the medium" (environment) allows, sure.

You could create it and you could destroy it.

Not sure about that.

Do you know of any such thing that is fully under your control, fully up to you to create it or destroy it?

Yeah the line above that I wrote and deleted.

 

[Gustav]

At least these (and this is not an exhaustive list)

apologies. basically what i've being doing is expressing opinions about the nature of being. the processes and methodology. what axioms, if any, should be assumed? shouldn't thinking and the thinker be prior to everything else?

You mean the khandas do not detract from positing an "absolute, independent, unique" self?

no. it is absolutely necessary to posit anything. an examination of self reveals objects and processes. these are the skandhas. it is thru this mechanism we are able to get a sense of self. however one need not understand nor name these skandhas for... me to be me

Alas, the debate on this issue is still hot within Buddhism.

sci can do better. lets give it a shot. fuck the buddhists

On the other hand, the "Western" model of the self supposes that the self can (and even should) be known.

east/west distinctions are superficial.....wholly irrelevant as far as the subject matter goes. it is a direct and immediate apprehension we are discussing. cultural baggage has absolutely no place in here. nor does superstition

what does introspection mean to you?

 

[wesmorris]

i think the default mode is to observe a dichotomy. a distinction

between self and environment?

a reasoned mode is to deny it iow the experiencer and that which is experienced are one and the same

Hmm. This is where reason and logic should be distinquished. Reason is IMO, logic's container. Reason is our attempt to make sense of the world in our own context and isn't necessarily logical. I think that if you realize the limitations of logic like I mentioned above about the inputs and stuff - and you want to pursue philosophical stuff, then the distinction of self and the medium in which self seems to exist is necessary, or there is no basis to utilize the very handy tool that is logic.

the latter appears untenable. why remove the distinction?
semantics allows for it, ja?

Well the stock answer would be, I'd think: "why make the distinction to begin with as there is no reason to do so" or "self cannot be proven, therefore the razor slices it away"... to which I've already argued against ad nauseum.

 

[wesmorris]

ahh
nicely put. awesome
ye wes of old

what is this ruse! i will not suck your junk! mommy make the bad man stop!

or in other words:

glad you appreciate it. thanks.

 

[wesmorris]

Of course.

You can make statements such as:
There is perception.
There is joy.
There is stress.
There is a sense of I.
There is talking about the I.

I strongly disagree, as each statement if broken down implies a receptor of each state.

There is joy... where? etc. The statements make no sense if you cannot establish someplace for them to be, which in fact you have done by making the statements.

 

[wesmorris]

well, true
but i see no denial of self there. merely affirmations

ya this.

 

[Gustav]

Indulging the insane? Well, I don't know if it's sane or insane until I've already indulged it. I would not know the difference otherwise. I certainly understand how it looks annoying, but meh. Doesn't bother me because IMO, I can sort it out. Dass whut I b deemin yo.

pure subjectivity is unable to validate itself to a reasonable degree of certainty (over 50%?). it just holds its experience to be true. or false i guess. or both. there is nothing relative to it. no comparisons blah

there is something social about this experience of being.

"law of parsimony"? explanation please, at least a smidge.

occam's razor? its just a general rule. junk really

 

[Gustav]

between self and environment?

whats yer notion of wes?

The fact that man produces a concept “I” besides the totality of his mental and emotional experiences or perceptions does not prove that there must be any specific existence behind such a concept. We are succumbing to illusions produced by our self-created language, without reaching a better understanding of anything. Most of so-called philosophy is due to this kind of fallacy. - (Albert Einstein)


wes
can we fuck him up? lets shred the old fart!!!

 

[wesmorris]

It may be neutral in some senses but it is one very limited way of looking at 'beings'.

Oh? How so. I think it's a very powerful way of looking at and understanding "beings". Very powerful indeed. In fact, it can be used to comprehend the entire scope of human interaction.

And if you believe in a self than you localize gratification. This might not be useful to the whole.

The whole is a composite of the localized gratification ja?

But you said you found it useful. Is this how one determines objectivity?

There no way one can determine objectivity in an absolute sense. I can only state how and why I find it useful, and that it would appear useful to me in the general case - which I can sadly (and joyfully I guess) only prove within my own context, tentatively.

There you can see how utility and gratification of a posited self has led to an objective error. (I realise this is cruel and you were joking)

Ha! It was no error! Hehe. Language is my bitch. I pimp it to my utility!

Actually I am a religious folk, though not a monotheist and I wish more rational-humanists (feel free to clean that up, it is not meant as an aspersion, could see their own axioms as clearly)

Well, I don't hate you. *shrug* You seem smart and cool.

Me not know Hebrew (winks)

Gah! Me either.

Well, good. I find it easier to do gymnastics if I am not arguing for something I believe in.

Well I hope you're at least mentally adorned in something skimpy then, for your own comfort of course.

 

[Gustav]

glad you appreciate it. thanks.

heh
i eyeballed green and granty in phil and i said....i wish wes was here, he'll teach y'all how to think

you've trial and errored in here quite courageously. shit should fall into to place eventually. failing that... a wrong turn resulting in an accidental nirvana

/riding shotgun

 

[wesmorris]

whats yer notion of wes?

Well, that's a long story I suppose - but you've witnessed a lot of what I boil down to.

The fact that man produces a concept “I” besides the totality of his mental and emotional experiences or perceptions does not prove that there must be any specific existence behind such a concept. We are succumbing to illusions produced by our self-created language, without reaching a better understanding of anything. Most of so-called philosophy is due to this kind of fallacy. - (Albert Einstein)


wes
can we fuck him up? lets shred the old fart!!!

Well I thought i already had, but sure I'll address this quote specifically. First to note that his statement negates itself in that, where the hell did it come from if not self? Call it "me", "I", "funkinjuicin", "purple" or whatever, the label isn't important.

"does not prove that there must be any specific existence behind such a concept"

Only somewhat correct. That the concept is recognized to exist, means it exists. It's objective accuracy cannot be broached and is ulitimately irrelevant. There is no such thing as proof without a basis by which to make it so. IMO, his statement necessarily attempts to negate the basis by which it was made, rendering it self-contradictory.

"We are succumbing to illusions produced by our self-created language"

If we determine all stimulous to be illusions, then illusions are all we have to deal with no? If there is no self to tentatively establish the difference between illusion and reality, this point is wholly moot and utterly meaningless.

"without reaching a better understanding of anything"

sheer pompousness. "a better understanding" is a wholly subjective term. he completely ignores subjectivity and utility, for his own utility. ah, the follies of our egos.... like us trashing einstein! yeah!

 

[Gustav]

fuck einstein!!!!!
fuck that fucking fuck!!
youse our beeyatch!!!!

/yeehaw

 

[wesmorris]

What's fucked up about that is that really I'm just excercising relativity... to the max!

 

[Gustav]

What's fucked up about that is that really I'm just excercising relativity... to the max!

/kowtow

 

[Grantywanty]

Oh? How so. I think it's a very powerful way of looking at and understanding "beings". Very powerful indeed. In fact, it can be used to comprehend the entire scope of human interaction.

Doesn't it skip them as subjects but treat them as objects for others?

The whole is a composite of the localized gratification ja?

If everyone looks at everyone else solely as potential gratification the whole loses and so does everyone. In fact it happens right off.

There no way one can determine objectivity in an absolute sense. I can only state how and why I find it useful, and that it would appear useful to me in the general case - which I can sadly (and joyfully I guess) only prove within my own context, tentatively.

This last is a concession.

Well, I don't hate you. *shrug* You seem smart and cool.

Thank you. I did mean 'as clearly as you do ', rather than the possibly implied 'as I do'. At least consciously.

 

[greenberg]

If everyone looks at everyone else solely as potential gratification the whole loses and so does everyone. In fact it happens right off.

Not at all.

What you are saying above seems to be presuming that seeing others solely as a potential gratification necessarily includes that one will do so with greed and lack of wisdom.

I don't think this is necessarily so. Seeing others (even) solely as a potential gratification can be done wisely as well. This includes not expecting things from people; staying away from those who displease one and seeking the company of those who do please one; seeking that which is beneficial in the long run.

In fact, I think that -wisely- seeing others as potential gratification is a better way to go than to make all sorts of assumptions about their selves.

 

[Grantywanty]

Not at all.

What you are saying above seems to be presuming that seeing others solely as a potential gratification necessarily includes that one will do so with greed and lack of wisdom.

I don't think this is necessarily so. Seeing others (even) solely as a potential gratification can be done wisely as well. This includes not expecting things from people; staying away from those who displease one and seeking the company of those who do please one; seeking that which is beneficial in the long run.

In fact, I think that -wisely- seeing others as potential gratification is a better way to go than to make all sorts of assumptions about their selves.

I am not denying the role of utilility in how I react to people or how we should react to people. I think it is a limited description of how I react to people. I feel the impact of their presence as subject. It's funny but a very clear example that comes to mind is the last time I was in the company of a horse. He swiveled his head around and I felt the weight of his subjectivity. Martin Buber comes to mind, I and Thou and all that, though for me I and You seems all that is necessary.

The weight of this subjectivity informs my reactions and intentions in relation to others. It is not simply because of future negative gratification consequences that I react differently to my wife and a hammer.

 

[wesmorris]

Doesn't it skip them as subjects but treat them as objects for others?

For others to what?

If everyone looks at everyone else solely as potential gratification the whole loses and so does everyone. In fact it happens right off.

It can be fairly construed that you don't have to look at them that way for them to be that implicitely. It's a balancing thing. If you value interacting with someone, there is some reward in it that can be painfully broken down to an emotion reaction of sort sort even if's a fairly dry factoidal type notion that you rationalize is why you do it. Something about that interaction must have been valued by you (even if that value is negative) as can be noted by the fact that you were involved in it. If you were of the mindset of emotional indifference the experience still shaped your world view in some small way by at least not having done something you didn't expect, and as such there were related emotional impact of some sort, even if that sort is to "unsort" it (for lack of a better term atm).

I'm just saying that whether you look at them that way or not, evidence as I see it indicates clearly that it still happens. I don't mean it as cruel manipulation (except some of the time), but as in "this is the relationship between two subjective entities" in principle. Then in the case of each individual you can try to find through the details of their whatever, how it works in their mind.

This last is a concession.

Seems like a necessary condition of consistency with the model I'm trying to apply.

Thank you. I did mean 'as clearly as you do ', rather than the possibly implied 'as I do'. At least consciously.

I choose to take that as a compliment and bow courteously in your general direction, doing something goofy that I'm not sure what it would be atm in the process.

 

[greenberg]

apologies. basically what i've being doing is expressing opinions about the nature of being. the processes and methodology. what axioms, if any, should be assumed? shouldn't thinking and the thinker be prior to everything else?

No, I see no need to posit that the thinker and the thinking come first.
Of course, we often posit the thinker and/or the thinking as first, and there are certainly some uses of this.

I can also posit as an axiom "I want to be happy, I don't want to suffer", whereby it is not necessary to delve into that "I". Instead, "I want to be happy, I don't want to suffer" can be understood as one unit, a whole that has a direct counterpart in a particular non-verbal state of the body-mind.
The methodology is then developed by trial and error, trial and success.

I realize though that this is an approach that doesn't look very good (to say the least) when typed out in a forum post or in a discussion!
It's nothing like the reasoning strategies many of us are normally used to.

no. it is absolutely necessary to posit anything. an examination of self reveals objects and processes. these are the skandhas. it is thru this mechanism we are able to get a sense of self. however one need not understand nor name these skandhas for... me to be me

No, one need not understand or name the khandhas in order to have a sense of self.
It might, however, be a mistake to think that the khandhas are all there is - as this would lead to an annihilationist view, which would be counterproductive to the efforts to make an end to suffering.

east/west distinctions are superficial.....wholly irrelevant as far as the subject matter goes. it is a direct and immediate apprehension we are discussing. cultural baggage has absolutely no place in here. nor does superstition

I'm not sure I can say anything at all without "cultural baggage". It would of course be nice if I could. But already the very fact that I am using language heaps cultural baggage on me, whether I like it or not.

Direct and immediate apprehension can happen within my body-mind, on the spot. But as soon as I start to talk about it, trying to produce a coherent text that could be meaningful to others, cultural baggage comes into play.

what does introspection mean to you?

Good question.
For the most part, for me, introspection is about finding ways to solve my problems. Whatever metaphysical theories I entertain or develop in the process, is only circumstantial.