Re: Metaphysic, Intuition, Intelligence
Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2015 12:18 am
Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment
http://www.theabsolute.net/phpBB/
It's unclear to me how somebody believing in some "supernatural world" would reason differently from that. He'd surely say he's "tapping into" that supernatural order here and now but only doesn't have the specific information on the how. Perhaps the difference is that science requires certain types of evidence, repeatability or theoretical framework to critique, while the supernatural or even the mystics will invoke "direct experience" and will see any more detailed "revelation" and exposition as being in vain? Like saying the experience cannot be "carved" up by further analysis and questioning. Perhaps for this reason the biggest supernatural nonsense will be found in the "enlightenment business"?jupiviv wrote:If it isn't distinct from our world then we are accessing its reality right here and now. What may be lacking is specific information/knowledge - the domain of science. For example you may not know anything about your pancreas or even know that you have one, but you do have one nevertheless. It influences you and vice versa regardless of your knowledge or understanding.So even those definitions are not implying "inherent distinction", much like string theory in physics is not implying something distinct from the natural world either and yet we could never access the potential reality of it.
Well, I was just referring to the standard definitions of critical theory linked to the Frankfurt School, basically starting from the position that "ideology is the principal obstacle to human liberation". And I added the emphasis here as I believe there's a larger "theological" framework implied which has already certain ideas in place about liberty and progress. That's already obvious since Hegel and earlier but evolved into modern liberalism, generally most of modern thought contains it and it's hardly being discussed.Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:When you say 'critical theory', and when I say it, we mean something specific and this can be located and defined. But critical though cannot be the possession of anyone, can it? One could chose to define oneself as an Aristotelean engaged in 'critical projects'. Do you really think that 'traditional theorizing [is] geared to describing or understanding without any call for more'? I think that so-called traditionalism, as in the Catholic Counter-Reformation, is continually forced to respond critically, and thus is drawn into the critical project. But as you know early Christianity began in apologetics and polemics against paganism and so was forced to define itself and explain itself from the early days. It is part of our structure, isn't it?
Getting to the roots or giving up and float are both potential endings to a particular journey. Both might not be the ultimate "meaning of life" and yet do happen. Like the gospel parable of the lost sheep, what causes one to stray and turn back or to be found again? What's the added value exactly to those involved? There's no good answer.I find this all very interesting to the present conversation. If one is going to broach a conversation that will touch on 'the truly important things' then one will have to take responsibility for such a decision and undertaking. And just as it says: The danger is not getting to the real root, or to the real water; and then also simply giving up and 'floating' as some here have said.
I think he'd imagine it influencing him differently from the ordinary and boring things that physically surround him. He'd imagine a profound kind of bond between himself and that realm which is totally unlike the bond between himself and the realm that causes him suffering. Perhaps he would imagine that his earthly life is like a conduit which is transporting him to the perfection of heaven.Diebert van Rhijn wrote:It's unclear to me how somebody believing in some "supernatural world" would reason differently from that.
Ultimately there is only "direct experience", but ironically a competent scientist probably has more of it than a competent (i.e, popular) mystic.Perhaps the difference is that science requires certain types of evidence, repeatability or theoretical framework to critique, while the supernatural or even the mystics will invoke "direct experience" and will see any more detailed "revelation" and exposition as being in vain?
Ah yes, the Talking Ass is back! To...er...talk, I guess. :-)PS, according to GB's signature: "GustavBjornstrand = AlexJacob". But he did share some terminology with Laird, that's correct.
He's not - well, as far as I can see. Both of them try to pretend they're part of some kind of intellectual tradition (some admixture of romanticism and classical liberalism?) by reading a wide variety of books on a wide variety of humanities-related subjects, but unfortunately only manage to come across a tiresome dilettante. Both lack intellectual substance and thus require the aid of torrents of frothing logorrhea to present the appearance of having it.Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:FYI, Gustav is distinct in numerous ways from Alex (TTA).
Absolute counts are hard to come by but Gustav: 54 + Alex T Jacob: 413 + Alex Jacob: 1671 + Talking Ass: 846 = 2984 posts, over four years is two posts a day. After being corrected by the mighty G himself, I'd have to add Alexis Jacobi: 166 to that which means 3150, nearing 2,2 posts a day already. Probably the most active poster here for the last four years -- together with Dennis basically drove the sunset years!jupiviv wrote:P.S - I misspoke in the previous post when I said that Alex's new avatar's post count is more than mine and Diebert's combined. I meant his post rate, i.e, the "posts per day" attribute of the profile stats.
Some of the so-called traditionalists say that a given tradition (Sufism, Vedism, Catholicism, Judaism, Zen, etc.) should be or must be practiced traditionally. That in order to *gain* from the system you have to invest in the system, become a part of the system. The traditionalists that I have read---I am thinking of Rama Coomeraswamy in 'The Destruction of the Christian Tradition', and here is a video where he expresses this specific opinion---all embed themselves in a traditional practice in ways that would likely be considered extremist from our angle. So, it is perhaps true that if one glossed all traditions and attempted to extract out of them valid essence, and then recombined them into something new, that some strange bastardisation would occur. But it is only an opinion to say that, stripped out of its context, some sort of 'beast' is revealed.Bobo wrote:If one were to try to find a basis for traditions one would end up only with a structure of superstitions, without the particularities that make them different the beast is revealed by itself.
This paragraph is chock-full of statements, and conclusions, that are more received-thoughts than anything else. Myself, I have noticed this lazy intellectual tendency in almost everything that you write, though there is often an interesting edge in some of your opinions. A challenge of sorts. I could spend a moment and unpack what you are saying here and demonstrate why your conclusions are 1) superficial (though they touch on 'truths', 2) run-of-the-mill and unoriginal (received), 3) charged with 'the grammar of self-intolerance' as Bowden chants about, and in this sense Marxian formulations which have become part-and-parcel of the structure of our thinking, and very likely more strongly so in your case as a Brazilian. There are trends in Latin American ideation which are nourished by terrible reductions on all levels. I would only make reference to Eduardo Galeano and 'Open Veins of Latin America' to indicate what I mean. What happens then is that someone formulates, charges, and sends out into the world some henid-like (I used the term 'larval') idea which catches hold of people's minds and travels like a meme. Suffice to say that this is utterly superficial and doesn't really involve thought. It essentially seeks to resonate with the emotional body and thus achieves its desired effect. It is not surprising that you, as Latin American, would have these feelings about Europe the Conquistador.Bobo wrote:So it is common to find a lot of intolerance in religion, having a holy book, a sacred prophet, is not something that is cherished between peoples, it makes religion to be a congregation of silly hats, therefore other religions must be destroyed, the Crusades could be seen as what were to have the christian religion as the main tradition of Europe at the time, and the metaphysical truth upheld by the church which was looting and murdering.
Yes? How many Traditionalists have you read in depth? Like zero? ;-) You are just bullshitting here, unfortunately. Yet this fits into the style of this forum and the quality of person it often attracts. Make it better.Bobo wrote:The contradiction that a traditionalist will fail to see (they lack the intellect to) is that by pouring acid they will only speed up the 'acidic' process, anyway that must be a comfortable role for an atheist like yourself. (I mean tradionalists don't really believe in anything, right? And that's why you must feel attracted to these ideas).
More about Gustav Bjornstrand is found here.jupiviv wrote:He's not - well, as far as I can see. Both of them try to pretend they're part of some kind of intellectual tradition (some admixture of romanticism and classical liberalism?) by reading a wide variety of books on a wide variety of humanities-related subjects, but unfortunately only manage to come across a tiresome dilettante. Both lack intellectual substance and thus require the aid of torrents of frothing logorrhea to present the appearance of having it.
When one doesn't use it to play "look, I'm culturally erudite" and one's writings about it cannot be shown to be glib and fatuous by an actual member of that tradition.Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:Questions:
1) When does one not pretend to be part of an intellectual tradition and actually become part of that intellectual tradition?
I wrote humanities, not humanism.3) What specific 'books' do you think are the most 'humanistic'? For example would you place Plato in the humanistic tradition? Aristotle?
In order - War and peace, the Buddha, Burns, Dali, Bach.3a) Have you ever read a novel? A novel that you liked? Which novel? Which writers do you like most? Who is your preferred philosopher? Do you have one? Poet? Artist? Musician?
I am not a dilettante in any of the fields I engage in seriously.6) In relation to your chosen topic or area of interest do you consider yourself also a 'dilettante' on some level, or as fully accomplished? A dilettante is defined as: 'a person who cultivates an area of interest, such as the arts, without real commitment or knowledge'.
Glib indicates insincere or facile. Fatuous, silly, asinine or idiotic. Those are sharp critiques. But the question is can you support your critique by demonstrating how and also why this is so? I mean of course in relation to the ideas expressed in this thread.jupiviv wrote:When one doesn't use it to play "look, I'm culturally erudite" and one's writings about it cannot be shown to be glib and fatuous by an actual member of that tradition.
Well, all this means is that, according to you, you are not a dilettante! It is just a statement of opinion and a vain one really. Are you saying that we are self-qualified to self-assess, or is it necessary to submit ourselves to an outside authority?I am not a dilettante in any of the fields I engage in seriously.
You are again making statements without backup. You say:Bobo wrote:I am using redutionistic thinking when talking about religion as you are using ludicrous thinking, for example that we lost one metaphysical truth that exists secretly within religion. When I associated religion with bigotry you could only say that it was a form of reductionism, sure religion is not the only cause for bigotry but that is in part because religion is not that relevant in our world anymore, as in making identities, and in lookin by this angle your own vacuous thinking becomes more irrelevant yet.
That is so funny to me that it is almost cute.Bobo wrote:By vacuous thinking I mean that you make no statements of the core of what you are supposed to explain.
I asked you to provide a short description of your view of metaphysics. You still haven't provided one, and instead provided more words that other people have written. That is your problem as I see it - you're incapable of thinking for yourself. You require the constant company of books to maintain this worldview of words for yourself.Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:Have you read all the posts in the thread? Have you read the pages that have been included? Are you saying that the ideas included in those pages are also 'glib' and 'fatuous' too?
Any genuine member of any intellectual tradition can be recognised by the fact that they have themselves assimilated that tradition within themselves and can speak on their own authority about subjects or ideas that fall within its scope - this doesn't even mean that they speak wisely, only that they have sincerely devoted themselves to that tradition. That is something you never do. Also, they would not be bothered like you obviously are when someone calls their erudition to question - they're far more concerned about the tradition itself, which is precisely what evinces their erudition.What 'member of the tradition' can you refer to who would make that judgment? Are you a member of that tradition? If you are not, how could you make that assessment? Isn't your statement contradictory?
No it doesn't stand because you misread something I wrote for something else entirely, but apparently you're too pompous to admit even that.You wrote humanities and not humanism, but the question still stands: Do Plato and Aristotle have a solid place within humanities as a discipline, or no?
The one thing I engage in seriously above all else is the pursuit of truth, and I've been shooting pearls of wisdom towards your face for the entire duration of our conversation. If you disagree then prove that I have been dishonest or irrational in any instance.Well, all this means is that, according to you, you are not a dilettante! It is just a statement of opinion and a vain one really. Are you saying that we are self-qualified to self-assess, or is it necessary to submit ourselves to an outside authority?
jupiviv wrote:All I have to do is call you a pseudo-intellectual and the carefree dilettante exterior gives way to the irascible intellectual wannabe. Your ramblings belong in a well-written role playing game, not serious discussion.
There are just so many of them, I don't know which to pick up first. It's like a kid in a candy shop only its not candy but the most important stuff a person can think about ...jupiviv wrote:The one thing I engage in seriously above all else is the pursuit of truth, and I've been shooting pearls of wisdom towards your face for the entire duration of our conversation. If you disagree then prove that I have been dishonest or irrational in any instance.
If some aspect of reality is non-intelligible and non-communicable, then nothing whatsoever can be asserted about it - not even that it is non-intelligible.Gustav/Alex wrote:Myself, I have a few ways to describe my concept of metaphysic. One is simple and yet it is non-communicable. It has to do with the question of intelligibility that came up a few posts back. In my view here is much that is intelligible about this reality where we find ourselves, but there is more, or I should say there is a larger piece of it, that is non-intelligible and non-communicable.
I am guessing you are still describing the non-communicable part of your description, so I'll just skip ahead if you don't mind.The part of myself that *knows* this (feels it, understands it, believes it) is the part of me that is 'metaphysical to my existence'.
This is all very confusing. First you distinguish intelligibility from non-intelligibility and then you make the latter dominant in your definition of the former. In your view, is there ultimately only non-intelligibility as the basis of all thought and reason?So, intelligibility depends on one side on rationality. To seek and to remember facts. To organise and cultivate the mind so to be able to do that. But on the other, intelligibility depends on intuition (and intuition stands over reason). And it is this skill or in any case this endeavour (of cultivating intuition) that is not rational, or it is not in the same domain as 'logical thinking' and what we normally understand as ratiocination. However, as I define it, that is the point where metaphysic comes into play. It is on one hand the *sense* that there are higher dimensions of knowing which transcend physicality, or body-specificity (in time, in a given place, etc.), and a *sense* of connection to other, distinct, and 'higher' dimensions of thought or perception.
Extending the former question - is the basis of our rational soul also non-intelligible? Do its judgments, choices and motivations arise from a non-intelligible source?Metaphysic definitely implies a 'rational soul' in the Aristotelean and Thomist sense---in other words we are not mere mechanical robots and we have the unique capacities of volition and the sort of motion that conscious volition allows. As one develops the notion of what is meant by 'metaphysic', one would begin to describe what a 'rational soul' is capable of doing, and indeed what the psyche really does do in our world, and to begin to posit a nomenclature about that would, I am sure, involve metaphysical concepts and even postulates.
This is your own belief, and it is an incorrect one. There is no reason not to view consciousness as a product of material processes. Consciousness resides in the brain, and the brain is a material thing just like inanimate objects.On a more simple level I see simple mental activity---that anyone has a mind (and even I would include dogs and birds who seem really exceptionally aware, in some ways: shining awarenesses and often with something like a sense of humour)---as being metaphysical to mere inanimate matter. Because I do not see human consciousness as being a full product of physicality or material processes, I am inclined to see animal awareness as also 'metaphysical' to pure materialism and physicality. (I do not deny that whatever our consciousness is, is bound---as a tree is bound by roots---to the physical matrix. But biology and matter alone do not produce it, nor explain it. And therein is the impossible aspect of the mystery of life and awareness).
I think that there are limits to what is intelligible and that one can easily designate that area that is non-intelligible simply by referring to it as such. It is a way of saying that it is not understood. I think that knowledge can expand into areas that are not intelligible, as with increasing physical knowledge of the world, but it is my view and understanding that there is a limit to what it is possible to know, and the extreme example is that it is not possible to answer the question 'Why do things exist' (or 'Why do I exist'). When I use the word 'non-communicable' it is connected to other definitions that have to be included. For example, the inner meaning, that is to me, of certain of my experiences which are the basis of my *understanding* of myself, and my existence here, are non-communicable to many and possibly most others. When I refer to non-communicability I am referring to knowledge and knowing of that order. Additionally, and independent of my take on the matter, the question of intelligibility is central to philosophy generally. Some schools tend toward the pole of non-intelligibility and others to intelligibility. I am not sure it there is an absolute answer.jupiviv wrote:If some aspect of reality is non-intelligible and non-communicable, then nothing whatsoever can be asserted about it - not even that it is non-intelligible.
In combative and polemical conversation, and especially if one begins with a desire 'not to understand' or a refusal to make the effort, I suppose that all is permissible! However, if you avoid what you call 'walls of text' because it is rambling, babble, and what-have-you, I think you are functioning within a sort of hard-headedness which is---rather obviously---destructive to communication. In short it renders it impossible. So, while you can certainly skip over what you wish to skip over, to understand what I mean would mean staying with the text and taking it as a whole.I am guessing you are still describing the non-communicable part of your description, so I'll just skip ahead if you don't mind.
Once again I will refer to a Platonic definition. One reason is because it is particularly eloquent, and the second is that it connects to 'ways of knowing' that are foundational to Occidental culture. The passage is this:This is all very confusing. First you distinguish intelligibility from non-intelligibility and then you make the latter dominant in your definition of the former. In your view, is there ultimately only non-intelligibility as the basis of all thought and reason?
Again, it is the posing of the Question that has more value than a specific answer. This is and these are after all the Core questions of philosophy and religion and, for some, of existence itself.Extending the former question - is the basis of our rational soul also non-intelligible? Do its judgments, choices and motivations arise from a non-intelligible source?
These sorts of statements are humorous to me. But it does, in my view, indicate what sort of a philosopher you are. You can make definite statements even if the question is seen as being open, or inconclusive, or requiring further analysis. It really is a complex philosophical problem, that is 'the body-mind problem', and though you indeed seem to believe that it is not a philosophical problem for you, in my view it still very much stands as one. And I could refer you to those for whom it still very much is a problem.This is your own belief, and it is an incorrect one.
For you, I think, clarity means the statement of a complex problem as a reduction. You have, as I said, the ability to make definite statements about very very complex and knotty philosophical and ontological questions, and you seem to feel that you can reduce these things to short and terse phrasings. I simply, and honestly, do not see things in that way. So clarity means something very different for me. In my own view, if 'posters had a problem with me', it has to do with the fact and the problem that they, and you too I feel, function within a limited, and a limiting, binary mental structure. This description is important. In my view---and you or anyone can have a different view and any view that you desire and seems reasonable---you function with a limited mind, and you have a limited knowledge base, and you are brash, overconfident, anti-intellectual in a peculiar way, and uniquely focussed on one attribute or aptitude of mind: the 'rational' approach. To speak about what I mean by this approach would mean to open up the conversation into wider areas within philosophy and the history of ideas of which, it seems, you are unaware and not interested in.That's all I can respond to until you decide to answer my question above. You really despise clarity don't you? I didn't have that many exchanges with you, but I descried some of your discussions and wondered why so many of the posters seemed to have a problem with you. Now I know.
There are only the limits imposed by circumstances, not limits in a fundamental sense. There is nothing finite that is inherently inaccessible to human consciousness (or any kind of consciousness). Only the infinite is beyond consciousness, and that is because it necessarily includes consciousness.Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:I think that there are limits to what is intelligible and that one can easily designate that area that is non-intelligible simply by referring to it as such.jupiviv wrote:If some aspect of reality is non-intelligible and non-communicable, then nothing whatsoever can be asserted about it - not even that it is non-intelligible.
Things exist because they are caused to exist by other things, and ultimately by the infinite.it is my view and understanding that there is a limit to what it is possible to know, and the extreme example is that it is not possible to answer the question 'Why do things exist' (or 'Why do I exist').
A person may not want to communicate certain things like experiences, but they are still communicable. Other people can intentionally or accidentally find out those same things without said person's consent or knowledge, and communicate them to others if they want. You are creating a distinction that doesn't even exist to support your position, and justifying by calling it a "definition that has to be included". This buffoonery might impress a dunce, who would perhaps think, "well, it is after all a 'definition that has to be included', so it must make some kind of sense!" But it doesn't fool anyone who actually bothers to comprehend it.When I use the word 'non-communicable' it is connected to other definitions that have to be included. For example, the inner meaning, that is to me, of certain of my experiences which are the basis of my *understanding* of myself, and my existence here, are non-communicable to many and possibly most others. When I refer to non-communicability I am referring to knowledge and knowing of that order.
Wait, some philosophical schools tend towards non-intelligibility? You're a buffoon, Alex. 300 years ago you'd be a castrato in an opera house.Additionally, and independent of my take on the matter, the question of intelligibility is central to philosophy generally. Some schools tend toward the pole of non-intelligibility and others to intelligibility. I am not sure it there is an absolute answer.
Are you chiding me for not making the effort to understand what you yourself termed "non-communicable"? You were right Alex, the lulz in this instance are truly non-communicable!In combative and polemical conversation, and especially if one begins with a desire 'not to understand' or a refusal to make the effort, I suppose that all is permissible! However, if you avoid what you call 'walls of text' because it is rambling, babble, and what-have-you, I think you are functioning within a sort of hard-headedness which is---rather obviously---destructive to communication. In short it renders it impossible. So, while you can certainly skip over what you wish to skip over, to understand what I mean would mean staying with the text and taking it as a whole.I am guessing you are still describing the non-communicable part of your description, so I'll just skip ahead if you don't mind.
And now, ladies and gentlemen, our very own singing donkey-boy, Alex the Amazing, will shock the very foundations of your content and natural persuasion by emulating the great philosopher Plato! See how his tiny hoof-toes rap the ground as he blares out some obscure paragraph he's gleaned from a piece of parchment before delegating it to his ample tummy just this morning! Though devoid of Man's faculty of discernment, he possesses profoundly the capacity for retention often observed in the higher animals in connection to their preferred comestibles. Oh, and just look at that little tail bobbing up and down! All the ladies love it!Once again I will refer to a Platonic definition. One reason is because it is particularly eloquent, and the second is that it connects to 'ways of knowing' that are foundational to Occidental culture. The passage is this:This is all very confusing. First you distinguish intelligibility from non-intelligibility and then you make the latter dominant in your definition of the former. In your view, is there ultimately only non-intelligibility as the basis of all thought and reason?
- But thus much I can certainly declare concerning all these writers, or prospective writers, who claim to know the subjects which I seriously study, whether as hearers of mine or of other teachers, or from their own discoveries; it is impossible, in my judgement at least, that these men should understand anything about this subject. There does not exist, nor will there ever exist, any treatise of mine dealing therewith. For it does not at all admit of verbal expression like other studies, but, as a result of continued application to the subject itself and communion therewith, it is brought to birth in the soul on a sudden, as light that is kindled by a leaping spark, and thereafter it nourishes itself. Notwithstanding, of thus much I am certain, that the best statement of these doctrines in writing or in speech would be my own statement; and further, that if they should be badly stated in writing, it is I who would be the person most deeply pained. And if I had thought that these subjects ought to be fully stated in writing or in speech to the public, what nobler action could I have performed in my life than that of writing what is of great benefit to mankind and bringing forth to the light for all men the nature of reality? But were I to undertake this task it would not, as I think, prove a good thing for men, save for some few who are able to discover the truth themselves with but little instruction; for as to the rest, some it would most unseasonably fill with a mistaken contempt, and others with an overweening and empty aspiration, as though they had learnt some sublime mysteries.
Do you realise how ridiculous you will look in any genuine intellectual/academic scene when you try to support your arguments by appealing to "Occidental culture"? The way things are in the humanities nowadays, you'd be better off channeling Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, or even Rihanna.The part I have underlined corresponds quite nicely with my own conception. Though I admit that to say that the non-intelligible can or does inform the rationally knowable is a problematic statement. In my own case I have often been baffled, or impressed, and sometimes stymied and even confused, by the apparent fact that my rational ability to *understand* has limits. I think it is a problem that is peculiar to men generally but is a large problem in the Occident because of the contrast between two definitions of how knowing arises, or how knowledge is gained. It is a question and problem that runs through all of Western ideation, and philosophy, and literature and art, and then of course Occidental mysticism. Poets and musicians seem to understand the matter, I have found. I think it is expressed, or alluded to quite well, in Blake's:
- This life's five windows of the soul
Distorts the Heavens from pole to pole,
And leads you to believe a lie
When you see with, not through, the eye.
This is bunkum. You're like a 1st year philosophy student trying to impress their professor.jupiviv: 'Is there ultimately only non-intelligibility as the basis of all thought and reason?'
My answer to that is that I think it is the question that has more relevance and value than a specific answer. The reason is because I do not think the question has been answered, either by science and scientism nor by philosophy. In my own case it is pretty much as I have stated it: There are domains of knowing, there are domains of knowledgeability, which are very open to us, and we have certainly opened them. The Seventeenth Century seems to stand as an epoch in which new ways of knowing were discovered and applied. This is rational knowledge, the knowledge of quotients or the behaviour of substances, and is focussed on 'bodies' and tangibilities. But there is another order of knowledge which is obtained through other avenues of thinking and the use of intellect which is expressed (in just one example) as [being] 'brought to birth in the soul on a sudden, as light that is kindled by a leaping spark, and thereafter it nourishes itself'.
All you have to offer is speculation, and unintelligible speculation at that, viz., "a domain, or a possibility, or an awareness". No arguments, no propositions, no consistent references. If someone asks you to clarify something, you quote someone. If they ask you to explain your quote, you quote someone else.You ask for my own view and here it is: It is in our own consciousness that we discover a domain, or a possibility, or an awareness, of a 'higher order of existence', or of ways that we are connected through our physical being to domains of knowledge, and orders of being, which are meta-physical.
You mean I am like philosophers in general. Have you ever read a philosopher who didn't state anything definite about a disputed issue?These sorts of statements are humorous to me. But it does, in my view, indicate what sort of a philosopher you are. You can make definite statements even if the question is seen as being open, or inconclusive, or requiring further analysis.
Clarity always means the reduction of complexity, so long as the complexity is needless. You revel in needless complexity because that is precisely what allows you to indulge your fantasies.For you, I think, clarity means the statement of a complex problem as a reduction. You have, as I said, the ability to make definite statements about very very complex and knotty philosophical and ontological questions, and you seem to feel that you can reduce these things to short and terse phrasings. I simply, and honestly, do not see things in that way. So clarity means something very different for me. In my own view, if 'posters had a problem with me', it has to do with the fact and the problem that they, and you too I feel, function within a limited, and a limiting, binary mental structure. This description is important. In my view---and you or anyone can have a different view and any view that you desire and seems reasonable---you function with a limited mind, and you have a limited knowledge base, and you are brash, overconfident, anti-intellectual in a peculiar way, and uniquely focussed on one attribute or aptitude of mind: the 'rational' approach. To speak about what I mean by this approach would mean to open up the conversation into wider areas within philosophy and the history of ideas of which, it seems, you are unaware and not interested in.
Clarity indeed ...