hey, you got slack.
I mean semantic errors, ain't that philosophy?
Yah sometimes, and sometimes it's just miscommunication.
I can't even say I was pointing out your use error but rather my interpretive one. I was just highlighting the issue so we could both look at it and make sure we were on the same page (you don't think exists, ha, ha).
No biggie, and yeah I think the page exists. I even know it, I just don't know anything outside my own context, as I am what stores and embodies the page, as you are to you. I even suspect strongly that it's that way regardless of whether or not I believe it.
I can't be sure the universe does not have knowledge and is not an individual and we are subpersonalities.
Of course not. Do you have any reason however, to believe that it does? Do you find that model to have any useful potential? My personal problem with other models is that for all of them I can think of, I can't see them as truly representative of what seems to be "the reality" of things as they are skewed through my perspective.
I can't be sure inner and outer are as clear as most people seem to take them.
Me either, but I think the way it's defined renders this point moot, as I said "whatever the extents of you, is" or something like that.
I feel I can, on occasion, speak in absolute terms - in other words, without doubt - about some things inside me.
I always feel I can speak in absolute terms about me if I choose to. The thing is, "me" limits the scope of term "absolute" to what I consider to be perfectly acceptable. This is why I think it gets screwed up in speaking about it, because the scope is not specified. Actually I think the scope of anything ever uttered is actually "self", no matter how much it insists otherwise. It's fine though, if we both agree it's raining - we both get out of the rain. Whether or not it's "absolutely raining" in the objective sense is
utterly irrelevant to the course of action either of us might choose.
first try:
Think of this as pure geometry. It's a very simple relationship that I cannot find a way to rationally deny. To me this entire line of thinking is based maintaining consistency with it. Here is a simple model:
O
I can't say I disagree.
Perhaps:
Hell, I don't even know if that is true. See it keeps coming back for me to certainties and metaphysics on your part.
They why not offer a specific alternative view?
What if things are not so Boolean and separated.
... how so?
It's not that I want to disagree or change your mind.
Feel free. I'd love to have my mind changed! Shine on!
But I want to show you how I keep your ideas at bay. Away.
*shrug* how can you do so and understand what I mean? sounds to me like "I'm just going to evade them". well shit the easy means of avoidance is to ignore me! lol. why do you want to show me that? what do you hope to accomplish by doing so?
Apart from the fact that they do not fit my experience exactly, they seem to me to also have claims to absolute knowledge.
I suspect sometimes I might have stumbled upon some, but again to me it's a matter of scope. Within the context I establish by having noticed I exist and such, my knowledge is "absolute" in some areas. How applicable is that knowledge to the general case? How applicable is it to 'what is
real'? How representative is the reflection of that which it reflected?
You are talking about what every subject is limited by.
Sure, I can tell you what I think "every subject is limited by" and you can tell me if you can find an exception or contradiction in my opinion. If not, then perhaps we'll agree... if so, we might disagree. Then you won't think what I think, but I'll still do so until I figure out a way to improve it or my mind degrades, I learn someting new that alters it, etc etc. Hopefully, we're trying to help each other expose potential fallacies in our perspectives, etc. If so, thanks.
Ok then. To me, the impact of accepting this as "agreed" is the scope thing I was talking about above. This is the framework in which I operate. If you would be so kind as to tell me where you think it's off, I'd appreciate it.
You don't seem especially evasive to me. I do sort of half expect you to think I am fucking with you.
Meh. Not really, a little maybe but you haven't been particularly combative or rude so it would seem you're attempting to discuss the topic as fairly as you can... so I'm okay with it.
Or being scattered back at your more organized mind.
I dunno about that. My mind is optimized for a certain approach. I think it's rather gifted in a particular manner, but I'm quite retarded in other areas, depending of course on your perspective. I was just fucking with you about the psychoanalsis thing, sorry... lol.
i keep getting the feeling you have a blind spot. Like you keep saying 'my chair has no legs' but I keep (hallucinating) that you are teetering on at least one.
No it's just me. I'm a teeterererrrerer perhaps. I'm not sure how much of the conversations between the four or five related threads you've kept up with, but I've repeatedly stated that I think that the leg is "self" - assumed. For the purposes of all my analysis I assume that self is not questionable as the building block for reason. If you question it, then the analysis doesn't stand. I just don't question it because I assumed it. If you think it should not be assumed, I'll listen to the arguments but I've been over and over and over it every way I can concieve it and have so far found no viable alternative as a conceptual basis for modelling well, all this stuff.
I did a thread somewhere once about logic being a transform, and that transform requires input or it is
unbound and utterly useless. This is basically how I feel about self in terms of a building block for philosophical thought. To me it is the optimal assumption for several reasons.
Somewhere you wrote about being good at this kind of thinking and if I remember right I got the impression you were trying to share what you had found. that seemed like a reaching out on the assumption -perhaps tentative - that your ideas were objectively useful.
Well it's possible, sure. It's not so much really that it is "objectively usefull" as that it's "subjectively useful to me" and it has been reported to me on numerous occasions as "subjectively useful to others" and if nothing else, it's a very interesting topic to me, as it's something I'm sort of always processing in the background, often times in the foreground of my mind.
Belief. What is that damn thing? Far as I can tell I can and have had contradictory beliefs and still gotten out of bed.
Sure. Beleifs are internal representations of your mind trying to work out how to interact with stuff right? Actually I'd guess it's the result of that, but sometimes if you expose to yourself that they clash, it can become dissonant. dissonant? crap I don't know if that's the right word. "to cause internal conflict" is what I'm trying to say. I'd say as long as the beliefs are not contextually required to co-exist in teh same moment of whatever is focused in the mind, they can exist for a long time and be
totally contradictory. And if you're somewhat sociopathic, it's all good - contradict away!
I have found out only with hindsight that I had beliefs while I thought I actually had other ones. Beliefs, beliefs.....on a certain level I could give a shit.
Yah.
I am not utilitarian - though perhaps you will say I am - more hedonist.
I'd call hedonism perhaps the inevitable result if being utilitarian, or at least one of its possiblities, yeah. Perhaps "it's a flavor of utility".
Body surfing I love without considering if it is good for me - or useful - though I might later after doing it for a few years decide that I realize I have beliefs about it.
Yeah I'd just call that emotional utility. Cost-benefit. The emotional utility of body surfing outweighs the risks, and risks are only possilities where choosing to get in the water and surf, that's a sure thing.
Love leading, beliefs following.
Yah! Hehe, honestly - I often think every utterance ever made by every human is probably just one giant rationalization used to justify their actions in reviewing them. I don't think that necessarily contradicts everything else I've said, but it certainly puts it in a lighter, more entertaining scope - at least to me.
I need a little more here. do you mean einsteinian R?
Uhm.. not exactly. I mean more about trying to figure out "a general case of self", and how that self relates to everything else, including all the other instances thereof. There's a lot of relativity in there, where things appear different from different "reference frames" if you will.
Or do you mean that everyone creates their own or has their own world?
More like that, but not that people "physically create worlds", but that their minds are conceptual collections and shape their impression of the world such that interacting with other minds introduces a noteable skew?