jupiviv wrote: ↑Mon Mar 19, 2018 5:00 am
Serendipper wrote: ↑Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:48 am
jupiviv wrote: ↑Tue Mar 13, 2018 4:58 amYou stated that communication *literally* contains meaning, truth, falsity etc. within themselves. My rebuttal was, in brief, that meaning has to occur - by definition - in the mind of at least one person, i.e., the original communicator of meaning, in order for it to be communicated. If it is understood by someone, it likewise occurs in the mind of that person.
The actual medium/piece of communication itself contains/conveys no meaning. If it did, then understanding on the part of anyone would be unnecessary for meaningful communication to occur.
Why didn't you say that before? "Literal" has 7 different meanings
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/literal?s=t Yes of course the words have no meaning of themselves, but I endow them with meaning when I string them together and you discern meaning implied by their construction. Maybe I overcomplicated the problem since I never expected you'd be pointing out the obvious, but I do tend to miss easy solutions so it's entirely possible it's my fault.
I made the same points repeatedly, and they were meant to counter your argument that "a statement is a thing because it is a series of words ... it is also a thing because it is a concept that conveys information". To my mind, it was clear enough which definition of "literal" I was using. But obviously there was a misunderstanding and now its cleared up. Presumably we can agree that statements are just series of words and not concepts or any sort of literal containers of meaning.
Unfortunately, no :( I can't agree that statements are only series of words and not concepts. I suspect another problem of semantics.
Within the set of "series of words" we have meaningful series and gibberish. If we define "statements" = "meaningful series", then all statements are concepts that convey meaning. The meaning isn't inherent to the statement, but is endowed by the issuer of the statement. The statement itself only has meaning because of the prior agreed upon system of communication.
I could send up smoke signals, but it will have no meaning to you unless we've agreed upon what meaning it will have. So even though I may think I am conveying meaning with smoke, you cannot perceive it because the smoke has no intrinsic meaning (other than indicating there is a fire).
So, I think the problem is that you define "statement" to be merely a series of words and I define "statement" to be a declaration by someone with intent to carry meaning. Obviously, unless someone were intent upon speaking gibberish, all declarations would be inherently meaningful. I think there is value in making a distinction between "statement" and "series of words" and prefer to define "statement" = "declaration".
"Literal" is a confusing word because I can't tell if it is opposed to "figurative" or is simply "literary". I think "intrinsic" or "inherent" are better choices.
I would suspect that you and I are going to agree more than not and if there is a disagreement, it's probably a result of a misinterpretation of a word.
Truth is a concept and subjective.
If truth is subjective, then it is not "a" concept but many concepts. Since it is subjective, any and all concepts can be said to be truth-concepts. Thus, your statement is self-contradictory because it assumes - contrary to its own conclusion - that the concept that truth is not a concept and not subjective is not a truth-concept.
Oh man, talk about acrobatics, but I think we may have different definitions in mind: truth is a property of an observation wherein a property is a concept among many concepts. A concept is a conceptualization or how we "think" about a thing.
If truth is a property of observation, then what observation contains the truth of this same observation?
The truthfulness of an observation is self-evident and subjective.
Jack: It is hot in here.
Jill: I see no truth in that statement because I'm freezing!
No statement is inherently true or false, but truthfulness is determined by the subject observing the object.
1+1=2 is not inherently true, but is only true within a dualistic universe within the context of mathematics, otherwise we'd have to concede that duality is inherently true and is the only way to have a universe and that mathematics inherently exists. Rather, duality just happened and wasn't dependent on some previous notion or determination. Nothing can be inherently true without presupposing many other things being inherently true, not least of which is the supposition of an authority dictating truth.
1+1=10 in binary and 1 lump of clay added to another lump makes 1 lump of clay, so 1+1=1. So the truthfulness of a seemingly explicit statement is still subjective which is relational to the context of interpretation. Beauty (truth) is in the eye of the beholder.
Oh I see what you're saying... the All would be less than All if something were cut from it. But the All is still a thing, right?
That's the point - unlike things, nothing can be added to or subtracted from the All. He who says the All is deficient is himself completely deficient.
I like that!
You can't have an objective view of yourself; only other things and people, but even that's not objective, but subjective.
Like I said, me in the future and past is "other things and people", as is someone else in the present, future or past. So basically at any given moment there is just me and other things and people. There is no third entity, viz. "me experiencing or not being able to experience myself".
Well if you take that view, then you must realize that you (as you think you are) exist in the past while the you that exists in the present is not something you can be aware of because it takes time for information to travel along nerves and time for reasoning to happen. If you look at yourself in the mirror, you are looking into the past and it's impossible to live in the present. And the farther away you look, the farther into the past you see. So to look increasingly inward is to be nearer the present, but you can never achieve it in actuality.
So all the different people you say exist in the past, are they different at 1s in the past or .000000000001s? Or .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001s? Or is it minutes? Where is the line that defines past from present?
"Objective view" is not synonymous with "logical view". A true objective view would have no observer because all observers "taint" the view with their subjective interpretations of the object.
If this is objectively true, then this is not objectively true.
There is no such thing as objective truth because there is no one who could possibly observe it. If you are observing this statement, then that is a subjective view.
Also, a comment on the Alan Watts quote:
The important thing to find out is this: That the sensation of being the knower and the experiencer of all this, is not, as it were, aside from everything else that's going on, but it's part of it. Although you experience your existence subjectively, you are nevertheless part of the external world. You are in my external world just as I am in your external world. So in this way, the final barrier between the knower and the known is broken down. There is nobody being carried along by fate; there is just the process... and all that you are is part of the process.
He experiences no longer a passive relationship to the world, he simply sees that all that he is and all that he ever was, was something that the entire process was doing. At the time, when he felt himself to be separate, he sees in a certain way that that was just what he should have felt because that was what the process was doing in him, in exactly the same way as it was giving him brown or blue eyes. And that's going through the door and turning round to see there was no door. You're not fated; you're not trapped because there's nobody in the trap.
It certainly isn't wise to tempt fate by denying its existence and then insulting it by calling it "the process".
He is saying there is no fate because you are part of what determines what would otherwise be fate.
If this process refers to the All, then things are not a part of it for the same reasons they might be a part of other things.
Yes the process refers to the All. All that there is is the All and you are part of it.
If someone is trapped and in despair, or free and wise, and the "entire process" is doing that in them or as them, it isn't for the same reasons other things might be doing so.
I'm not sure what you're saying, but he is saying that you and the trap are the same thing. Anytime within these philosophical discussions that we find ourselves trapped in an infinite regression, I believe we can assume the subject and object are the same thing. There are no infinities, but circular observation.
There isn't any reason why things are a part of or created and directed by the All, because in relation to the All all things are as nothing. Even the All itself isn't a reason for those things, since what reason does nothing need?
The All can't be nothing because there is nothing within nothing to make something. Even if everything within the All cancelled to leave nothing, there would still be something unaccounted for, which is the question of how it became separated in the first place. Nonexistence is not nothing, but a state of potential to exist.
When a light is on, it has potential to be off. When a light is off, it has potential to be on. Neither state is nothing.
Marry or do not marry, be trapped by or be free of fate, realise your inseparability from other things or your isolation from them - whatever you do or think, if you relate it to the All you will regret it. If you are clever and decide to do both or neither or neither and both, and then relate that to the All, you will still regret it.
I don't understand what you're trying to convey with that.
Rather, do what you truly believe is right, not what the All is making you do or doing as you or whatever else.
You can only do what you believe is right and you cannot dictate what you believe is right because what you believe is right is what the All has caused in you.
Let us now turn from Watts to Kierkegaard:
If you marry, you will regret it; if you do not marry, you will also regret it; if you marry or if you do not marry, you will regret both; whether you marry or you do not marry, you will regret both. Laugh at the world’s follies, you will regret it; weep over them, you will also regret it; if you laugh at the world’s follies or if you weep over them, you will regret both; whether you laugh at the world’s follies or you weep over them, you will regret both. Believe a girl, you will regret it; if you do not believe her, you will also regret it; if you believe a girl or you do not believe her, you will regret both; whether you believe a girl or you do not believe her, you will regret both. If you hang yourself, you will regret it; if you do not hang yourself, you will regret it; if you hang yourself or you do not hang yourself, you will regret both; whether you hang yourself or you do not hang yourself, you will regret both. This, gentlemen, is the sum of all practical wisdom. It isn’t just in single moments that I view everything aeterno modo, as Spinoza says; I am constantly aeterno modo. Many people think that’s what they are too when, having done the one or the other, they combine or mediate these opposites. But this is a misunderstanding, for the true eternity lies not behind either/or but ahead of it. - Either/Or
So if I regret it, I will regret it; and if I don't regret it, I will regret it. All this says to me is that regretfulness is absolute and I don't understand the significance of that claim. That is, of course, unless he is saying what Watts is saying in that there is no way to beat the game because by trying to beat the game you're a hamster on a wheel trying to get off the wheel. The only way off the wheel is not trying to get off the wheel. The only way not to have regrets is to not try to do anything, and that includes doing nothing as a way to do something.