GENIUS FORUMS

[laughs]

ExI:

This is a beautiful example for our discussion, I think.

Ryan wrote in Worldy Matters (UG Died..., etc.):

I’ll admit to experiencing what I’d call subtle mutations in the brain structure itself. On a couple occasions, in the depths of silence, it felt as if some force was rearranging the neurological network inside my brain. Some unknown force was basically taking out the trash contents within my consciousness, by some sort of nonverbal, nonmaterial, bizarre some of process. That is the best way I can describe it, and it doesn’t do it justice.

So based on these experiences, I would say that neurological mutations in the brain itself are possible, but many of their other claims are rather outlandish.

Selam, Leyla,

Pertaining to your post regarding Ryan’s comments, especially this…

Ryan: So based on these experiences, I would say that neurological mutations in the brain itself are possible, but many of their other claims are rather outlandish.

I saw that thread since I wanted to read what else was written, only to find that UG has actually passed away, which I did not really gather from your “UG Died… etc”, because I thought someone is trying to explain what he meant by “clinical death” which he often expressed as his unconventional experience.

However, it was Ryan’s last sentence that provoked me to look into it, and I feel that I should say something about it there.

I rarely venture into the ‘worldly forum’, not because that is all bull shit, but that I’m not much inclined to hearing what happened in Iraq, or what happened whilst I was driving to work today.

If you are interested, I might open up to the other side of my experiences, which may not be “logical” in a conventional sense, but may however be intriguing to say the least.

I stick to the “logical” in this forum, and hence do not respond to topics like, ‘after death’, ‘reincarnation’, or similar kind of topics posted here, simply out of the respect I have for the forum founders. It’s their home after all.

Selam, Sapius:

If you are interested, I might open up to the other side of my experiences, which may not be “logical” in a conventional sense, but may however be intriguing to say the least.

Sure. Let's do it.

I stick to the “logical” in this forum, and hence do not respond to topics like, ‘after death’, ‘reincarnation’, or similar kind of topics posted here, simply out of the respect I have for the forum founders. It’s their home after all.

I reckon I might be ready to write something substantial directly on the topic of reincarnation/after death.

Should be an enlightening journey.

truth will ever be an evil spirit.don't let your question be true or not,but what is the means in this expression.
the functional direction of everything that seeks means of conative ability is our light for discovering the most adequate medium

man is the very fixed unit of quantity of all he is responsible to conceive,and all the forgotten things that are left when other parts are taken away of his experiences .all truths are dimensional and have direction,but what we often overlook is the elasticity of forms (as now),and that at any time and place anything may be true or not.there is no more truth in relativity than not - a thing is equal to its degree in direction.

Leyla,

Sure. Let's do it.

One step at a time though; I cannot really talk about things unless it arises in a question form, for cetain things.

I reckon I might be ready to write something substantial directly on the topic of reincarnation/after death.

It is all connected, so I would rather keep it focused in one place, and the worldly forum is appropriate for it, since it is not considered as serious philosophy.

I think Diebert should join in sooner or later. I suspect… no… I’m rather quite sure he has had certain experiences that he does not like to talk about, and I can understand the reasons. However, I could be wrong though.

Selam. (Don’t expect me to ‘selam’ every now and then; I really mean it once said, and that should last for a lifetime.)

bert wrote:truth will ever be an evil spirit.don't let your question be true or not,but what is the means in this expression.
the functional direction of everything that seeks means of conative ability is our light for discovering the most adequate medium

man is the very fixed unit of quantity of all he is responsible to conceive,and all the forgotten things that are left when other parts are taken away of his experiences .all truths are dimensional and have direction,but what we often overlook is the elasticity of forms (as now),and that at any time and place anything may be true or not.there is no more truth in relativity than not - a thing is equal to his degree in direction.

As always, that sounds nice, Bert. I only wish I could understand English.

Oh, that was English?

Sapius wrote:

bert wrote: man is the very fixed unit of quantity of all he is responsible to conceive,and all the forgotten things that are left when other parts are taken away of his experiences .all truths are dimensional and have direction,but what we often overlook is the elasticity of forms (as now),and that at any time and place anything may be true or not.there is no more truth in relativity than not - a thing is equal to his degree in direction.

As always, that sounds nice, Bert. I only wish I could understand English.

sapius wrote:

What do you mean? “Definitions” are no more than mere representation of sensually perceived things, and that too because of language, and they have to mean exactly what they mean if logical reasoning means any thing at all.

Taking the mirage example; imagine me in the year 30,000 BC. “Reasoning” has just been developed, because obviously it helps survive better, but no proper language as such since my “words” are no more than different vocal grunts. (It was this urge to express experiences in words that has actually developed the kind of vocal cords that we have today. Mental notions arrived far before we could “conceptualize” abstract concepts, and with that began a search for truth.)

Now, I already have a mental notion of what “water” is because I have been quenching my thirst with it. So, if I am able to represent my mental experience into words, I will call it water and see if another accepts it. If he has the same capabilities, he will accept it when I will point to it, and due to the fact that no other thing has been yet named as such, and the definition becomes fixed for it, say in “English”. Now I cannot point to a “mountain” and say ‘Look, water’.

So far so good; now one day I travel too far into a dessert with my friend and encounter water. We race towards it only to find that it really isn’t there. To cut the story short, we define it as a mirage. But just as the water could evaporate, a mirage also disappears under certain conditions. So we know exactly what they are until we experience otherwise. And due to our human capabilities, we are able to think and converse about water and mirages without them actually being present to see and point to any more. Which is now known as abstract conceptualization. But unless we don’t have a fixed and agreed definition, neither our communications will make any sense nor one’s thinking in ones own head.

So definitions are necessarily essential irrelevant of one making a mistake in identifying a thing, for it is not a mistake until and unless one experiences otherwise.

Could you tell me; if I am watching a movie and say, “a butterfly is flying”, what kind of a sentence would that be?
Am I taking about an "actual butterfly really flying”?

on what is truth?

facts are indicating or serving to create partition or division into parts, or correlative of truth,posited by time-place:"it is a fact that it is a butterfly flying";to be true ,it must in any case be a butterfly flying.it may be so,but oftentimes does not - meaning: "I frequently conceive of it as a butterfly flying 'as/or' somewhere,sometime".
and all truths are as such.Truth necessitates all fictions.look upon ego as boostinggodcentricego for you can place into Ego anything you so will and it will give back semblances - other words:truth enough.

bert wrote:on what is truth?

facts are indicating or serving to create partition or division into parts, or correlative of truth,posited by time-place:"it is a fact that it is a butterfly flying";to be true ,it must in any case be a butterfly flying.it may be so,but oftentimes does not - meaning: "I frequently conceive of it as a butterfly flying 'as/or' somewhere,sometime".
and all truths are as such.Truth necessitates all fictions.look upon ego as boostinggodcentricego for you can place into Ego anything you so will and it will give back semblances - other words:truth enough.

Right… are you trying to say that ‘truth’ is relative? That ‘truth’ is 'true enough' to make sense according to any particular dimension a thing is to a thing?

Sapius wrote:

bert wrote:on what is truth?

facts are indicating or serving to create partition or division into parts, or correlative of truth,posited by time-place:"it is a fact that it is a butterfly flying";to be true ,it must in any case be a butterfly flying.it may be so,but oftentimes does not - meaning: "I frequently conceive of it as a butterfly flying 'as/or' somewhere,sometime".
and all truths are as such.Truth necessitates all fictions.look upon ego as boostinggodcentricego for you can place into Ego anything you so will and it will give back semblances - other words:truth enough.

Right… are you trying to say that ‘truth’ is relative? That ‘truth’ is 'true enough' to make sense according to any particular dimension a thing is to a thing?

any style of ornamentation of unverifiable fictions will find pragmatic testimony.

Bert,

any style of ornamentation of unverifiable fictions will find pragmatic testimony.

As you find in your above statement?

Sapius wrote:Bert,

any style of ornamentation of unverifiable fictions will find pragmatic testimony.

As you find in your above statement?

yes.

we can indicate a certain build-up from that:supposition,potentiality,probability.

bert wrote:

Sapius wrote:Bert,

any style of ornamentation of unverifiable fictions will find pragmatic testimony.

As you find in your above statement?

Yes.

We can indicate a certain build-up from that: supposition, potentiality, probability.

How about certainty?

Sapius wrote:

bert wrote:

Sapius wrote:Bert,

any style of ornamentation of unverifiable fictions will find pragmatic testimony.

As you find in your above statement?

Yes.

We can indicate a certain build-up from that: supposition, potentiality, probability.

How about certainty?

a fiction can not be decided as to where it belongs in a scheme according to anything known and nothing is known for certain.

bert:

a fiction can not be decided as to where it belongs in a scheme according to anything known and nothing is known for certain.

Now, I know we've been down this road before but I have to say it again because I can't remember how you replied: apparently, there is one thing you know for certain, and that is what you have said above. Otherwise, it's simply an utterly meaningless statement to make, even if we are to entertain is possibility for a moment!

In other words, you might as well have written absolutely nothing.

Leyla Shen wrote:bert:

a fiction can not be decided as to where it belongs in a scheme according to anything known and nothing is known for certain.

Now, I know we've been down this road before but I have to say it again because I can't remember how you replied: apparently, there is one thing you know for certain, and that is what you have said above. Otherwise, it's simply an utterly meaningless statement to make, even if we are to entertain is possibility for a moment!

In other words, you might as well have written absolutely nothing.

funny.

all conation is a line of reasoning that shows how a conclusion follows logically from accepted propositions having a truth value determined by observation or facts, our best - that little difference.

I'm not a huge fan of Wittgenstein's academic work in general, although I do like certain aspects of his thinking. I'm fond of his idea that what can't be talked about meaningfully must be passed over in silence, as this is very similar to a Zen/Taoist approach. Naturally, the implied paradox is that in order to establish this, we have to talk about what can't be talked about. But that's the universal dialectic of language and thought itself. We don't resolve the apparent contradiction, we dissolve it by transcending dualistic conceptual frameworks.

Unidian wrote:I'm fond of his idea that what can't be talked about meaningfully must be passed over in silence, as this is very similar to a Zen/Taoist approach.

I kind of wish he had stated it a little more forcefully, maybe something like, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one should shut the fuck up."

bert wrote:

all conation is a line of reasoning that shows how a conclusion follows logically from accepted propositions having a truth value determined by observation or facts, our best - that little difference.

Hm. What's your definition of fact?

Sapius,

(It was this urge to express experiences in words that has actually developed the kind of vocal cords that we have today. Mental notions arrived far before we could “conceptualize” abstract concepts, and with that began a search for truth.)

I don't really think that language emerged out of a desire to express things per se. Rather, I think it's more accurate to say that language emerged to do things. For instance, we can imagine a primitive language in which someone yells out "slab" to get someone else to bring them a slab. Language is like movement in that way. If I move about, I'm attempting to do something, and perhaps might report something as well. We usually talk to get a desired effect. The notion that language developed to get at truth strikes me as somewhat absurd, because if I already knew about water before I could discuss it, what else is there to know about it that language could help me with? The metaphysics of water?

So definitions are necessarily essential irrelevant of one making a mistake in identifying a thing, for it is not a mistake until and unless one experiences otherwise.

Exactly. Hence why I mentioned that identification is something we do. It's a state of affairs. It has nothing to do with logic.

Could you tell me; if I am watching a movie and say, “a butterfly is flying”, what kind of a sentence would that be?
Am I taking about an "actual butterfly really flying”?

You are if you are, you aren't if you aren't.


Leyla,

If we define and, thus, conceive wisdom as the understanding of how (and therefore necessarily why) to apply knowledge, then we necessarily find it in the abstract and not the empirical. It is one thing to teach and quite another to be wise.

That goes back to Hume: you can't get an ought from an is. Nevertheless, there never really can be a solid foundation for such ethical matters. They're always simply a matter of opinion, and there is no grounds on which to say that someone is right or wrong about something ethical. Fortunately we all experience certain emotions, and that tends to keep the general consensus of what constitutes "good" or "bad" from being scattered across the spectrum. If anyone can have wisdom on ethical or aesthetic matters, then everyone must have wisdom on such matters, and the maximum amount of wisdom that is possible.

“Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them” -David Hume

Leyla Shen wrote:bert wrote:

all conation is a line of reasoning that shows how a conclusion follows logically from accepted propositions having a truth value determined by observation or facts, our best - that little difference.

Hm. What's your definition of fact?

a contrived idea of an obvious truth

EI,

S: (It was this urge to express experiences in words that has actually developed the kind of vocal cords that we have today. Mental notions arrived far before we could “conceptualize” abstract concepts, and with that began a search for truth.)

EI: I don't really think that language emerged out of a desire to express things per se.

I have said that in brackets for a reason. I’m not really interested in discussing just that. If you really are interested; please take that up with the Discovery channel. :) However, not the "with that began the search for truth" part. I have responded to that, below.

The notion that language developed to get at truth strikes me as somewhat absurd,…

No, it was not particularly developed to get at truth, but discover it, and understand what is false, as in a mirage, so the next time you don't run after it to quench your thirst; but somehow we get hung-up on 'truth' and actually stagnate rather than grasp the realization of a truth and move on, and don't believe that that is a necessary effect of thinking logically, and that there is no ONE Ultimate truth to begin with, but rather just a realization of many relative truths put together. The question that arises in the form of - WHY? leads to all sorts of logical and illogical conclusions, and truths can only be seen comparatively, not in any Ultimate sense, for there is no Sense on that level at all; absolutely zilch - nada.

I really don’t know how else to express it. I’m not saying that hence there is no truth or realization at all, or that one should stop thinking; as if that could be achieved.

Again I might have gone too far, but I can’t help that. What can I say… :)

…because if I already knew about water before I could discuss it, what else is there to know about it that language could help me with?

What to call it so that I can think about it since I have just developed the power of thinking, defining, communicating; that evolution has provided us a tool in accordance to its nature – survival of the fittest. And what more could be better than questioning and reasoning, that helps one survive a winter that he was not otherwise made fit for? We have been made to trade-in our physical evolution in favor of a mental one. Why? You tell me.

The metaphysics of water?

Among other things. You are free to think over whatever and however you like.

S: So definitions are necessarily essential irrelevant of one making a mistake in identifying a thing, for it is not a mistake until and unless one experiences otherwise.

EI: Exactly. Hence why I mentioned that identification is something we do. It's a state of affairs. It has nothing to do with logic.

The problem is that you take “logic” as in a formal system of reasoning only, rather than it also being an inherent system and the foundation of consciousness itself. Which is A=A. So as long as one is not aware that it is a mirage, it is logically correct up until then that it is water. Once I KNOW that it is a mirage, then that becomes logically correct. So when was it that I was not indulging in reasoning based in and of logic (A=A)?

But to extrapolate form this that every thing could be a mirage, would necessarily end up in regress.

If at all, I would rather say that every state of affair is exactly what it is, rather than it is merely a state of affairs.

You are if you are, you aren't if you aren't.

No, if I think I am I am, if I think I am not, I still am. In fact, I am that I am.

Only the most brilliant of a thinker could have answered as to who “he” was. Some how it has been mistakenly attributed to God. Well, I don’t claim to be one, but that’s exactly who I am, or every one is.

Sapius,

If at all, I would rather say that every state of affair is exactly what it is, rather than it is merely a state of affairs.

"Rose is a rose is a rose is a rose." -Gertrude Stein

"Now listen! I’m no fool. I know that in daily life we don’t go around saying 'is a … is a … is a …' Yes, I’m no fool; but I think that in that line the rose is red for the first time in English poetry for a hundred years." -Gertrude Stein

"5.5303 Roughly speaking: to say of two things that they are identical is nonsense, and to say of one thing that it is identical with itself is to say nothing." -Ludwig Wittgenstein

It's simply redundant to say that something is what it is. If you're suggesting that a state of affairs is anything beyond exactly what it is, then it should be obvious that a difference exists; and if you're suggesting that a state of affairs is simply what it is, then you are being entirely too wordy in order to express something that is only true due to grammar, and that is entirely obvious on top of that.

So as long as one is not aware that it is a mirage, it is logically correct up until then that it is water. Once I KNOW that it is a mirage, then that becomes logically correct. So when was it that I was not indulging in reasoning based in and of logic (A=A)?

"'Counterwise,' continued Tweedledee, 'if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's Logic'" -Lewis Carroll

To say that "what looks like water is water", is to say that something is what it clearly isn't. It would be much more accurate to say that "what looks like water is what looks like water". Of course, we all use the term "water" to describe what appears to be water, for what is water besides an appearance? Nevertheless, this doesn't make it logically correct to say that "what looks like water is water" if we intend for "water" to be understood as anything besides "what looks like water". If we should understand "what looks like water" to have the same meaning as "water", then we are saying too much by saying that "what looks like water is water" and should really just say "" (nothing at all).

I shall think those things which I see,
are those things that I think them to be,
for what does it mean for me to see,
beyond simply having things being for me?

Such thoughts make for nice poetry, but you're falling into the same trap that infected medieval theologians and led Occam to insist something along the lines of "plurality ought never be posed without necessity!" If what one sees is to be something beyond that which it appears as, we should say that the process of recognition is not one of recognizing something for what it is, but rather at attempting to do so. If we are to say that what one sees is nothing beyond that which it appears as, we should say that it is terribly redundant to say that it is what it is.

The problem is that you take “logic” as in a formal system of reasoning only, rather than it also being an inherent system and the foundation of consciousness itself. Which is A=A.

Logic is merely the study of inference, and a handy name for said inference. You seem to suggest that the structure of logic is isomorphic or perhaps indistinguishable from the structure of the world as it appears to us. Thus, it would seem, that what we experience is dependent upon logic for its getting experienced. What argument can you advance for such a view? We can't empirically determine that the world is anything beyond those states of affairs that appear to be the case, and we can't use sound logic to determine determine anything about the world. If your defense of tautological logic depends upon the notion that all things are dependent on tautological logic, then I should tell you that your argument simply begs the question it pretends to answer.

On what grounds can you suggest that a rose is a rose is a rose, and be expressing something that isn't more easily expressed by saying "a rose"?

We have been made to trade-in our physical evolution in favor of a mental one. Why? You tell me.

Thought doesn't depend upon language. A cougar cannot speak, but it is better at thinking then the beasts it hunts. Language gave us a number of edges over other beasts, but none of them have much to do with the discovery of truth. For instance, language can be used to give instructions, which is helpful for hunting. I could shout "arg!" and point in the direction I want my fellow hunter to go, and after enough times of doing this, and then forcing him over to where I want him to go, he'll eventually get the message and just bloody move when I do such things. Meaning tends to be use, as language is used to do things. I keep saying that language serves a functional purpose. You seem to be thinking of language merely as a means of reporting things, perhaps even to oneself. It's absurd to think that thought should consist in us talking to ourselves, and to think that language is limited to the mere reporting of events is to take on a rather selective blindness.

No, it was not particularly developed to get at truth, but discover it, and understand what is false, as in a mirage, so the next time you don't run after it to quench your thirst;

Are you being metaphorical? It's quite obvious that a mirage is identified through sensory characteristics that one doesn't need language to identify. We either identify the mirage as a mirage, or we don't identify the mirage as a mirage. Either way, we have only our experience and memory to thank for our success or failure.

I really don’t know what your point is, IE. You seem to misinterpret what I am saying. .

On what grounds can you suggest that a rose is a rose is a rose, and be expressing something that isn't more easily expressed by saying "a rose"?

How do you get that I'm saying that a rose is a rose is a rose?

OK... I need to understand it step by step. So help me here.

I am saying “a rose”.

Now what? Where do we go from here?

Is it NOT “a rose”? Is it anything other than “a rose”? Or is it “a rose” because I imagine it is “a rose”?