Avoiding the pits of extreme skepticism

[Grantywanty]

So don't then. What's it to me? *shrug*

Yes, for all you know I am doing it.

It's called "observational distance", and yeah it is.

You speak a lot about what is for someone who thinks he only has access to seems.

Why? You can assume you're you and speak authoritatively about how it SEEMS to you without requiring an "IS" at all, were you so inclined... but you've said you aren't, so I guess I understand. Sorry for your loss.

I assume you mean apparent loss.

"seems to be to me", more appropriate. And I don't understand your second sentence there at all. SEEMS like nonsense to me, so should I say it IS? And if it IS, is that how it seems to you? Are you sure?

Oh, I absolutely would prefer you to say is rather than imply that it is.

 

[Grantywanty]

If you felt empathy for something, then you did accept it. it resonated with you, you identified with it, etc.

it could be anything that you empathize or identify with.

But what was the concept I must have accepted?
I can understand that in some way I accepted the other person, but I am not sure what concept I accepted. And I'm not sure how it ties in with the thread. (this could very well be my fault. The ideas you as Wes Morris are putting forward may be blurring in my brain)

 

[S.A.M.]

Interesting question.

I agree with the OP that extreme scepticism can be paralysing, as it leads to indecision when all parts of a whole are given simultaneous and equal consideration.

Which is why, we define limits of acceptable empiricism, based on repetition and replication for matters that require us to accept something as true unless it can be proven false. This still leaves the matter of subjective inference. Trial and error, for instance, is one way to arrive at a decision and we can either decide (that word again!) to reinvent the wheel at every turn, or accept what has been previously considered and move on from there.

The latter method also depends on which group think you align yourself with, which may be a function of chance or circumstance, as in the case of parental and scholastic or cultural influences, or they may be, once again a matter of deliberate choice, based on negative reinforcement from acceptance of earlier deliberations.

 

[Grantywanty]

Sure, but I'm not sure about my readings.
*slaps self for being facetious*
My point is, I don't consider my readings to be absolute.

Never?. And if some people are good at it, then are they not to some degree actually reading the other person's 'inside'.

Yes - but certain about what? What is it that one ought to be certain about, what is worth to be certain about?

That you want to say 'I love you,' when you do. That it really is uncomfortable the way you are sitting and you need to move. That you think this guy is fucking with you and you're going to tell him. That it feels good to walk in the woods Friday evening. That you want to meditate again. That you hate dishwashing and you want a job you love. That people can look and sound like they are certain and not know their ass from their elbows. That you enjoyed ___________ and it felt profound to you, that it brought you closer to what you want to be close to and you will try it again despite how illogical it seemed. That something is not right and you want it to change. That while intimacy scares you you yearn for it.

I meant in a more radical sense. Christians and some other theists get to keep their sense of self, don't have to deconstruct it, and still can consider themselves saved.
Some others need to deconstruct the self, give up clinging to notions of "humanity" in the pursuit of salvation from suffering.

I feel like apples and oranges when I look at them. Of course I can see patterns that are similar, but I think we want very different things in life and are very different things. I think the homo sapians class is misleading. I am not being snide or even feeling superior. I really feel apples and oranges. Or maybe cats and dogs. I don't want to sit in the windowsill in the sun all day. that is boring. I want to be out sniffing other dog ass, running, and chasing squirrels up trees. Those cats look very proud of themselves, self-satisfied. It offers me nothing. (and this is not taken away from by the cat's take on my boorish life)

I meant that as far as nuclear physics goes, nuclear physicists would rightfully consider me narrow and shallow, since I don't know much about nuclear physics.
And similar obviously goes for all other fields. Anyone pursuing any goal is in some way narrow and shallow.

We are all achieving things that could be goals. We are all specialized. But maybe I am missing the point.

 

[Grantywanty]

And you would know? I can neither say you are or aren't.

It sure seemed like you were saying that I was only in contact with what seems.

True. Actually I'm saying you are whether you say so are not, and that it's a consequence of individuality.

I don't think you quite got me here. Since you are only in contact with what seems you therefore cannot know what I am in contact with.

False, I have an idea... I just don't need to prove it because it's a pointless excercise.

I didn't mean that literally. yes, you have an idea.



Of course.

And to you this is advantageous somehow? It protects your assumptions so you do not have to question them.Nicely played, but the problem with your smugness is that perhaps you discount what IS real, as you are in the same position with relation to me as I to you, and so since I'm careful to dilineate my assumptions, as in "this is how it seems to me", you find it easy to ignore.

I don't experience you as, in general, delineating your assumptions. Above you even take a dip into my inner emotional states and imply what my motives are: 'to protect my assumptions'. I find that you speak about me and what is my reality at least as much as anyone else.

Such is your choice, but from my perspective - to your potential loss, as perhaps I'm in touch with reality and you aren't.

Yes, I certainly think potential loss is more consistant.

Which.. if you let it sink in for a while, brings us full circle and fully support my argument... at least that's how it seems to me.

How do you know it seems that way to you?

 

[wesmorris]

It sure seemed like you were saying that I was only in contact with what seems.

I was saying that's true for all people, as a consequence of individuality.

I don't experience you as, in general, delineating your assumptions.

Hmm. I just was trying to do so at the moment of typing that. In general you're right though, it's just not efficient to list all that shit out all the time. (and yes, everything I ever say is me stating how it seems to me)

Above you even take a dip into my inner emotional states and imply what my motives are: 'to protect my assumptions'.

Didn't mean it like that. No offence intended, it's just seems like mechanics to me. If you take the position I suggested, insulation is a side-effect as I see it.

I find that you speak about me and what is my reality at least as much as anyone else.

Maybe even more. I'm interested in all that.

How do you know it seems that way to you?

It's an extension of my presumption of self. A synthesis if ego if you will, as to how things seem.

 

[greenberg]

And to you this is advantageous somehow? It protects your assumptions so you do not have to question them. Nicely played, but the problem with your smugness is that perhaps you discount what IS real, as you are in the same position with relation to me as I to you, and so since I'm careful to dilineate my assumptions, as in "this is how it seems to me", you find it easy to ignore. Such is your choice, but from my perspective - to your potential loss, as perhaps I'm in touch with reality and you aren't.

Which.. if you let it sink in for a while, brings us full circle and fully support my argument... at least that's how it seems to me.

This response of mine isn't to the post quoted above, but generally to your stance -

The thing is that you are postulating the existence of an objective reality, and that the distinction between objective reality and subjective reality applies and is true.

This might seem reasonable at first, but when it is applied to itself, it gets problematic.

Is it objectively real or true that all a person can have or know is a subjective interpretation of objective reality, a "seems"?

If it is objectively real or true that all a person can have or know is a subjective interpretation of objective reality, a "seems" - then what this person has or knows isn't subjective or "seems", it is objective.

If it is not objectively real or true that all a person can have or know is a subjective interpretation of objective reality, a "seems" - then what this person has or knows isn't subjective or "seems", it is objective.


So regarding this, postulating objective reality and that the distinction between objective reality and subjective reality applies and is true, is superfluous and misleading.

 

[greenberg]

My point is, I don't consider my readings to be absolute.

Never?. And if some people are good at it, then are they not to some degree actually reading the other person's 'inside'.

Never.

Yes - but certain about what? What is it that one ought to be certain about, what is worth to be certain about?

That you want to say 'I love you,' when you do. That it really is uncomfortable the way you are sitting and you need to move. That you think this guy is fucking with you and you're going to tell him. That it feels good to walk in the woods Friday evening. That you want to meditate again. That you hate dishwashing and you want a job you love. That people can look and sound like they are certain and not know their ass from their elbows. That you enjoyed ___________ and it felt profound to you, that it brought you closer to what you want to be close to and you will try it again despite how illogical it seemed. That something is not right and you want it to change. That while intimacy scares you you yearn for it.

And the fathers of philosophy are turning in their graves!

But - I agree with you.

I feel like apples and oranges when I look at them. Of course I can see patterns that are similar, but I think we want very different things in life and are very different things. I think the homo sapians class is misleading. I am not being snide or even feeling superior. I really feel apples and oranges.

I can relate to this.

Anyone pursuing any goal is in some way narrow and shallow.

We are all achieving things that could be goals. We are all specialized. But maybe I am missing the point.

I was just basically stating the obvious, and how pursuing a goal isn't necessary a reflection of extreme skepticism.



(and this is not taken away from by the cat's take on my boorish life)

 

[(Q)]

Which is why, we define limits of acceptable empiricism, based on repetition and replication for matters that require us to accept something as true unless it can be proven false.

Hence, we can offer gravity and prayer as shining examples of acceptable empiricisms, neither of which follow similar falsification requirements.

Although, when one repeatedly falls on their ass despite their prayers to avoid the pitfalls of gravity, the misalignment of falsification requirements and their acceptance suddenly becomes most evident and dashes to pieces your argument.

This still leaves the matter of subjective inference. Trial and error, for instance, is one way to arrive at a decision and we can either decide (that word again!) to reinvent the wheel at every turn, or accept what has been previously considered and move on from there.

Of course, the problem with that is history continues to repeat itself, tragically, through the acceptance of what has allegedly been previously considered.

 

[wesmorris]

The thing is that you are postulating the existence of an objective reality, and that the distinction between objective reality and subjective reality applies and is true.

From my perspective, sure.

This might seem reasonable at first, but when it is applied to itself, it gets problematic.

Is it objectively real or true that all a person can have or know is a subjective interpretation of objective reality, a "seems"?

It would seem so, yes. Since my take on objective truth is only necessarily valid in my own context, you have little choice but to determine its utility in your own, which you will do whether or not you choose to. Your context limits your capacity to relate to the words I write. The words are limited by my capacity to mold them in a way that seems potentially effective. My context limits my capacity to relate to what you write, etc. Seems fairly straighforward to me of course.

If it is objectively real or true that all a person can have or know is a subjective interpretation of objective reality, a "seems" - then what this person has or knows isn't subjective or "seems", it is objective.

It objectively exists, containing a subjective context. So it's really both eh, depending on the context from which one relates to it... which is necessarily unique to the individual, as they occupy a unique position in "reality".

Do you reject that an individual can have objective and subjective aspects? Do you reject subjectivity alltogether? Perhaps I miss your point.... .... .....

you see what i did right?

Should we do a truth table or something? What are reasonable alternatives and what is their utility as you see it to the following: The words I used and the meaning I intended to imbue in them must exist objectively for you to interact with them. Yet at the same time, you only have the words by which to infer that objectively existing, subjectively seeded "packet" (if you will) of meaning.

It seems to me that "what I did" above directly illustrates a false dichotomy that you set up. Again, and for real, perhaps I didn't resonate with your intended meaning.

I've been over this enough in my own mind that it's difficult for me to see a viable alternative to this understanding, so if you have something useful please share.

If it is not objectively real or true that all a person can have or know is a subjective interpretation of objective reality, a "seems" - then what this person has or knows isn't subjective or "seems", it is objective.

You pose the question as if it could be discerned one way or the other. You exclude "indeterminate" and "both". As I said, I think it's both or perhaps the relationship of the words doesn't properly address the objective reality of it. But alas, how would i know if I stumbled on the right thing? Utility I suppose. (but I'll never really "know" absolutely unless I'm a dick, which I sometimes am so I guess sometimes I'll "know" absolutely and be a dick)

So regarding this, postulating objective reality and that the distinction between objective reality and subjective reality applies and is true, is superfluous and misleading.

As I don't agree with your argument, I can't accept the conclusion just yet. Perhaps you can persuade me or I'll figure out something else later. I dunno.

 

[wesmorris]

Hence, we can offer gravity and prayer as shining examples of acceptable empiricisms, neither of which follow similar falsification requirements.

A shining example of the utility of going along with the group, well the latter. The former is damn fine subjective verficiation, so long as your honest and have a functioning nervous system and all.

Although, when one repeatedly falls on their ass despite their prayers to avoid the pitfalls of gravity, the misalignment of falsification requirements and their acceptance suddenly becomes most evident and dashes to pieces your argument.

- but only if you're honest eh? Denial is an argument's nano-tube coated teflon. Far worse, denial seems quite nefarious and inescapable throughout the entire species - and it's really, really tough to spot for one's self (though often painfully easy from another perspective).

"misalignment of falsification". Lol!

Of course, the problem with that is history continues to repeat itself, tragically, through the acceptance of what has allegedly been previously considered.

Way to bring everybody down, dick. Sheeeeeeeeeeeeez. Lol. Sorry. Uhm, well it doesn't always really repeat itself but yeah ok. We're all born, we die, it's a repeat, fine fine. Still it's YOUR freakin repeat. Have fun with it for chrissake, unless of course fun sucks for you, then just have your suckfest. Bah! Bleak bastard.

 

[wesmorris]

Did I kill the thread?

 

[Gustav]

Gustav,
I really appreciate that you are willing to take an individual stand in relation to communication. I admire it, truly. I do sometimes wish you could take one more step toward me. This certain speaks about my laziness, but I don't think it speaks about my abilities. I love Cesar Vallejo, for example.

sorry buddy
if you hit page up twice or thrice at the time of posting the quoted text
the reference is there
posts prior to this are numbered 2,4, 5 and 8
i refuse to give link. i think it is best i not take too many steps towards you cos then i would be in your face. ja?

i shall clarify if required. please be specific.
i am not sure which post it is that you do not understand. conventions asserts it would be the one immediately preceding the post framing the above quote. however.......what?,,,,,,,...you mean all of em?

do reply if still interested
i have a question about vallejo

/calm/collected

 

[Gustav]

Did I kill the thread?

no buddy
you just made a hole and i crept back in
good to see you wes

 

[wesmorris]

no buddy
you just made a hole and i crept back in
good to see you wes

*kowtow*

 

[greenberg]

Did I kill the thread?

I'll get back to you.

 

[Grantywanty]

sorry buddy
if you hit page up twice or thrice at the time of posting the quoted text
the reference is there
posts prior to this are numbered 2,4, 5 and 8
i refuse to give link. i think it is best i not take too many steps towards you cos then i would be in your face. ja?

i shall clarify if required. please be specific.
i am not sure which post it is that you do not understand. conventions asserts it would be the one immediately preceding the post framing the above quote. however.......what?,,,,,,,...you mean all of em?

do reply if still interested
i have a question about vallejo

/calm/collected

It was a blurt. In full awareness of my laziness I could often feel the intelligence of your posts but did not grasp them as quickly as I liked. I also like not assuming that communication has to take standard forms, kudos to you. In my own life this is compartmentalized to writing poetry and in person talking where I am often told - you can't say that in ___________, and I tell them I was aware of that, but you can't say it in English 'like that' either, it was a choice, to play and maybe get something new. So consider it a blurt and do what you will.

As far as Vallejo, ask away.

To relate all this to the topic of the thread Extreme skepticism can and perhaps should be aimed a language. we tend to view language through a container metaphor. We put it into words, the words leave our mouths, and the other person then gets the meaning out of the words. (almost like those old vaccuum tube communication systems where little cylinders were sucked around buildings.) I like to more of a Newtonian when it comes to language - this is ironic. There is no inside to words and sentences. They have impacts on the other person and set off associations, memories feelings and so on. This meaning is vastly larger than verbal and most of it is not noticed, like a pebble hitting a pond and the waves move out through the body of the water. Only words manage to send out vastly more complicated vibrations since the pond, our body, is primed in such a complicated fashion. (other metaphors are also useful).

The skeptic can argue that no communication takes place, because it is so individualized, all the the associations. What actually happens when the words reach the other person.

I think it is good that you call attention to the process of communicating by breaking habits. We have to work to build up meaning - which we actually always have to do, but we do it along habitual lines, so we don't notice.

I am not going to try to refute the ES stance in relation to language, suffice to say, I don't agree. But an ES in relation to language my be very healthy company for a time.

 

[Gustav]

So consider it a blurt and do what you will.

decent intellects are entitled to blurt...knock yourself out

 

[greenberg]

Wes, I'm not sure how useful this will be for you, but please read and consider the whole before replying. My whole reply culminates in the question at the end -

Is it objectively real or true that all a person can have or know is a subjective interpretation of objective reality, a "seems"?

It would seem so, yes.

Then the "seems" is all there is. If the "seems" is all there is, how then can we possibly speak of anything beyond it - the objective? We can't.

Since my take on objective truth is only necessarily valid in my own context, you have little choice but to determine its utility in your own, which you will do whether or not you choose to. Your context limits your capacity to relate to the words I write. The words are limited by my capacity to mold them in a way that seems potentially effective. My context limits my capacity to relate to what you write, etc. Seems fairly straighforward to me of course.

In light of this, I think it would be better then to speak of utility only. Utility necessarily implies that we are talking about what is useful or relevant within a particular context. Adding issues of "objectivity" and "subjectivity" is a pleonasm then, but which significantly complicates matters.

If it is objectively real or true that all a person can have or know is a subjective interpretation of objective reality, a "seems" - then what this person has or knows isn't subjective or "seems", it is objective.

It objectively exists, containing a subjective context.

How can you know it objectively exists, if all that a person can have or know is subjective (as you admitted earlier)?

It seems to me you are positing the existence of objective reality so as to work out some problems that emerge if we presume that subjective reality is all there is.

So it's really both eh, depending on the context from which one relates to it... which is necessarily unique to the individual, as they occupy a unique position in "reality".

This is so if we accept that an individual objectively exists.

Should we do a truth table or something? What are reasonable alternatives and what is their utility as you see it to the following: The words I used and the meaning I intended to imbue in them must exist objectively for you to interact with them. Yet at the same time, you only have the words by which to infer that objectively existing, subjectively seeded "packet" (if you will) of meaning.

Sure - but I don't have to see it this way. I can read and reply, but I don't have to use the notions of "subjective" and "objective".

Not to be naive - but my point is that there are more ways possible of how to understand what is going on.

If it is not objectively real or true that all a person can have or know is a subjective interpretation of objective reality, a "seems" - then what this person has or knows isn't subjective or "seems", it is objective.

You pose the question as if it could be discerned one way or the other.

It has to be. Otherwise it is pointless to speak of the distinction "objective" and "subjective".

You exclude "indeterminate" and "both".

If it is "indeterminate" or "both", then the distinction between "objective" and "subjective" is superfluous.

As I don't agree with your argument, I can't accept the conclusion just yet. Perhaps you can persuade me or I'll figure out something else later. I dunno.

Considering everything said above - let me ask you this:
If you refrained from using the terms and concepts of "subjective" and "objective", but kept the term and concept "utility", what would change for you?

 

[wesmorris]

Wes, I'm not sure how useful this will be for you, but please read and consider the whole before replying. My whole reply culminates in the question at the end -

Okay read, understood, but I have to respond piecemeal as learning to communicate with someone is to me, enhanced by doing so. In this particular case, it's because our approach to the framing of the problem seems to differ dignificantly. I shall attempt to at least put a slight dent in the differences. (and yes 'dignificantly' was a typo, but I decided I like it better than the real word in this case).

Then the "seems" is all there is.

Epistemelogically, yes. This is crucial IMO, as "what we 'know' is what we 'are' in a very strong sense. More technically in my funky little perspective, what we "know" comprises a sort of supportive structure, a framework if you will; for self (ego).

Seems is more specifically "all that can be known in an absolute sense". I mean this as in: "the ego of a perspective is the only entity directly privvy to its input and is uniquely and necessarily qualified to report on the status of said perspective (the particulars don't even have to make sense in another context for this to be true). The report and the status are the same thing, from the reference frame of the ego making the report.

If the "seems" is all there is, how then can we possibly speak of anything beyond it - the objective? We can't.

Of course we can. We just can't KNOW if that's what we're speaking of, we can only claim its utility in the context of our own value function (instantaneous evaluation of value as applied in a mind at whatever time). Utility however, is the thing... as really it's integral to "how things seem to me" - again this is one of those that you don't have to consciously do for it to get done.

In light of this, I think it would be better then to speak of utility only. Utility necessarily implies that we are talking about what is useful or relevant within a particular context. Adding issues of "objectivity" and "subjectivity" is a pleonasm then, but which significantly complicates matters.

But as I see it, it is the difference between "objectivity" and "subjectivity" that allows for the possiblity of utlity in the first place. If there is no such thing as the subjective, there exists no context - the unobserved universe. It just IS, and cannot be spoken of. Since I'm here to talk - and it seems that it's the fact that I am a subjective creature that allows me to do so - the issues of objectivity are not intentionally "added" for any affect, but are terms used to model the problem as closely as to how "reality" seems to me in my best attempt to recognize it.

How can you know it objectively exists, if all that a person can have or know is subjective (as you admitted earlier)?

Indeed. I cannot know if it objectively exists, but I can know the idea that it does to be of enough utility to accept (assume) for whatever context or amount of time suits my utility.

It seems to me you are positing the existence of objective reality so as to work out some problems that emerge if we presume that subjective reality is all there is.

Well... the utility of the idea is significant in my comprehension of how all this stuff works. My usage of "objectively reality" is quite simple: "a common medium". IMO, it follows quite closely from the assumption "I am", which IMO is equivalent to "I exist" which directly implies as I see it "a means for which the acts to be accompished" such as the simplest solution "a common medium".

This is so if we accept that an individual objectively exists.

Which I do per the explanation above. Would you disagree that you objectively exist? If so, I would disagree with you as ask how you think I came up with your questions for you though it seemed to you that you did it, unless of course you disagree that you think you did it - at which point I would have to question your honesty or sanity.

Sure - but I don't have to see it this way.

Of course. I don't think you have to unless you recognize it as truth that is of positive utility to your value function. Then you have to because you did so.

I can read and reply, but I don't have to use the notions of "subjective" and "objective".

No you don't have to - no one is forcing you, as that's not particularly easy to do, nor would it be of any use to me. What you have to do, is figure out if the idea has any merit whatsoever to you, and if you decide not to jack with it, you established the merit.

Not to be naive - but my point is that there are more ways possible of how to understand what is going on.

Sure there are always more ways. Which is rational? Which is effective? Which appeals to your emotions? Which wins? I'm telling you what wins for me now. It might help or hinder our respective content and quailty of "wins" in this context. The thing is neither of us has a choice - if we're as honest as we can be with ourselves, as to what "wins" for us.

We seek what we value, that is our function. It can be observed directly in deed/thought. However, sort of like photons perhaps, the act of observing it changes its appearance.

It has to be.

That seems rather absolute.

Otherwise it is pointless to speak of the distinction "objective" and "subjective".

Is it pointless to distinguish between yin and yang? In what context? It's certainly not pointless in the context they themselves establish. The manner in which I relate to my environment establishes its own context too.

If it is "indeterminate" or "both", then the distinction between "objective" and "subjective" is superfluous.

Perhaps to you, at the moment sure. Probably to most people at most moments, yes. But at the moment I invoke it, it is not, as it rings to me as necessary as established by the manner in which I relate to my environment. Hopefully I explained well enough above why I find it relevant.

Considering everything said above - let me ask you this:
If you refrained from using the terms and concepts of "subjective" and "objective", but kept the term and concept "utility", what would change for you?

Well as I said above, I think it is the very distinction in question that defines or without it, could not allow the capacity to make distinctions.