GENIUS FORUMS

Whorly wrote:

You are having too much faith in reason. I want you to recognize that all these big words we are using are ultimately derived from empirical observations and were derived in the way that helped humans advance and survive, not in any way to promote the truth of the words. Metaphysics is the wrong use of these words as though God had written the dictionary for us.

The ‘big words’ that I am employing here are standard metaphysical terms which have been established through centuries of philosophical custom, as a means of conveying concepts that are not generally of interest to the average person. Like any language, the language of metaphysics has evolved in accordance with its own unique requirements, just as have the languages of science, mathematics or medicine.

The dictionary, which you seem to hold in such distain, is simply a compilation of the various meanings that we, the linguistic group as a unit, attach to a particular term at a particular time. That we should have an employ dictionaries is evidenced by the fact that the meaning of a particular term may vary over time; and if we do not employ the term within the scope of its current meaning, we simply will not convey the intended meaning; and so confusion will arise. For example, the term ‘vanity’ when employed in to translation of the James I Bible meant ‘empty, while today it means a shallowness of character. Further, given that the meaning of a particular term is not intrinsic to the term itself, but is establish by way of public convention; and given that a current dictionary definition is one that is derived through a statistical sampling of current usage, through a wide range of different users, it is necessarily the correct definition – whether or not ‘God’ wrote it (whatever you may mean by the term ‘God’).

Jehu,

It would appear that the two of you our more interested in a contentious argument, than in a rational one; nevertheless, I will respond to your concerns.

Thanks, but aren’t you judging a bit too soon. Shall we dispel with psychoanalyzing and projecting our unfounded opinions on to each another; unless you can actually experience from my perspective so to speak. You did ask me to temporarily dispel my beliefs, so I have to necessarily begin from the very bottom.

I put forward the dictionary definition of the terms ‘cause’ and ‘effect’, not because I believe them to be the definitive definitions, but because we must begin our enquiry somewhere, and there is no better place to begin than with the conventionally prescribed meanings.

Yes, we must begin somewhere, so I personally though the best place to begin with would be the “I”, because if that is an illusion, then absolutely all that the “I” arrives at would be an illusion.

Further, while it is the function of a philosopher to elucidate upon the meanings of such terms, it is not their function to redefine them, and in the case where we are able to develop a definitive meaning, that definitive meaning must accommodate all of the term’s conventionally prescribed uses; else it is a futile endeavour.

So I take it you will not redefine any terms, but of course we have to come to mutual agreement of its use.

S: So that makes cause dependant on the effect, just as effect is dependant on the cause. So why is cause real and effect an illusion? (you mention so below)

J: Let me put it this way, can there be a dream without that there is also a dreamer, and are not the two interdependent, and do we not say that the dreamer is real, and that the dream is only an illusion?

Not me. You simply assume ‘me’ in your “we”, hence I said you judge too quickly. This is the reason that I have to necessarily say something of where I come from, since there is no way I can simply say a yes/no to your propositions.

A dream and a dreamer are necessarily there and interdependent, hence neither can be without the other, hence either both should be real, or both illusions (which is impossible BTW); I can’t see how taking any one of them as illusion makes the other real, or vice versa. If knowledge is an illusion, then by what means of certainty is one cognizant?

A ‘universe of discourse’ may be anything that we wish to talk about as having an distinct existence, for example, ‘all human being living or dead’, or ‘ all left handed piano players now living in Boston’, or ‘all existents’; which would be the highest possible ‘universe of discourse’. Now, we have already established that there is one continuous existence, and so that existence is Cleary an entity, as apposed to a quality or relation.

No… WE… that is you and I, have not agreed if there is ONE continuous existence, for I find it quite difficult to consider Existence as ONE, (if we mean the same when we say ‘existence’ that is), because from THAT perspective, “it” is neither one, nor not one; in fact, none of any attributes do apply, including ‘continuous’. The moment we REALLY do, (of course we can talk about IT), we are forgetting a crucial fact of ‘being’, ‘existing’, that it takes TWO to tango in any which case, in any which world, (in your case, awareness AND knowledge), Hence ‘existence’ cannot be an Entity, or a Thing; which are the terms I use to express any-THING finite in the general sense of expression.

Now you are starting to get the point, the notion of change is simply not logically tenable; but I refuse to speculate upon how the appearance of change comes about, although I assure you that it will become clear if and when the enquiry progresses. At this point, we must simple come to grips with the fact that an effect and its causes cannot be separate things.

Ok then, please go on. But I do speculate on how things come about, otherwise I wouldn’t know how cognition comes about, or if it is indeed cognition or an illusion, or say, “could I rely on it”?

Sapius,

Two points, before we proceed: (1) this tread was opened as a result of David’s request that I provide a logical demonstration that the nature of reality is essentially cognizant, and so it is I who must determine where I shall begin, and by what path I shall proceed; and (2) it was made perfectly clear at the beginning of this thread that our enquiry was to be a rational one, and as such, you are free to refute any proposition that I put forward, so long as you provide a rationale; and the fact that do simply not agree, does not constitute a valid refutation.

Now, you say that you and I have not agreed that there is a single continuous existent, however as you have entered into the enquiry after we had already agreed upon this and several other points, and given that you presented no opposition to any of the points that were previously agreed upon, one could only take this to mean that you were in agreement. Nevertheless, if you would like to present your counterarguments now, I should be happy to deal with them; if not, then please give us your assent so that we might proceed.

As you say, I will not be redefining any terms; although I will, where possible, try to synthesize the existing definitions into a single all encompassing one. And on that note, when I employ the term ‘entity’ I mean that which has a distinct existence as apposed to a quality or relation, and which may be either real or imaginary; in accordance with the conventional use of the term.

You are right, Jehu; Perhaps I am wasting your time. You can proceed with David since your explanation was at his request.

Pardon for the intrusion.

Jehu,

The ‘big words’ that I am employing here are standard metaphysical terms which have been established through centuries of philosophical custom, as a means of conveying concepts that are not generally of interest to the average person. Like any language, the language of metaphysics has evolved in accordance with its own unique requirements, just as have the languages of science, mathematics or medicine.

The language of metaphysics is a farce. Science has its own language sure. But this is simply to describe empirical observations in areas of science. Medicine has terms to do the same. Metaphysics has no empirical observations. The terms originally had some use in the real world and then metaphysicians made the mistake of trying to carry these words into some higher realm. Whatever conclusions you make using these words is useless when you realize that it cannot be applied to the world OUTSIDE your head, only the metaphysical world inside your head.

There's nothing I enjoy more than Cosmic gossip,

This thread is precisely the thought behind Sartre's Being and Nothingness.
The thread introduction parallels closely Sartre's statement of the issue.
Sarte in a nutshell: 1) "is" is transitive
2) Consciousness is not what it is and is what it is not.

The choice of focus, cognizant instead of consciousness, is interesting, the
two being synonymous, albeit with various contextual connotative shadings.

The fundamental position is a clarification of Descartes' observation "I think, therefore I am.",
to simply "I am thinking." (with the infinity of other possible assertions implied).
And, the fact that nothing is not or there is nothing nowhere. "Not" is a positive
state of being, the negation of some aspect of being, and not an existent "thing".

So the "I" that is, is nothing and everything. It always was, is, and always will "be".
"I" is the universal subject, not a personal, relative I, as in "I like pizza." It is
everywhere and nowhere, being and nothingness, alpha and omega, cause and
effect, masculine and feminine, Jew and gentile, Christian and Pagan, Islam
and infidel, philosopher's stone, Grail, the word, All, One.

Attributed to Solomon:
What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done;
there is nothing new under the sun.

God, I love this stuff!,

JLJ