GENIUS FORUMS

David,

"Do not feel absolutely certain of anything." ~ Bertrand Russell,

In other words, avoid truth.

I'd interpret it as saying "question everything". Seems like good advice for anyone interested in truth. What do you think the term "absolute certainty" points to anyways? Is it more then just a feeling?

.

Sooooo . . . . you are aware that all is becoming but you don't want any process talk.

and . . . . you are aware of cause and effect, but you don't want any consciousness of specific causes and effects.

and . . . . you are aware that nothing takes place outside of consciousness, but you don't want any talk of subjectivity.

and you write:

It should be remembered that Concluding Unscientific Postscript, from which that quote was extracted, was authored by the pseudonym, "Johannes Climacus", and thus does not really represent Kierkegaard's true thinking on these matters. He was simply exploring the postmodernist mode of thought - albeit ahead of his time, before the term "postmodernism" was coined.

It was part of the first half of his literary career in which he used pseudonyms to explore things like love, marriage, conventional ethics, conventional religion, [etc.]

and you write:

And yet you balk at entering the realm of ultimate truth.

If, like a good postmodernist, you steadfastly dismiss all content, then it is no surprise that you can traverse any number of philosophic ideas and not feel threatened by them. The mental trick of turning everything into a subjective process can defeat all philosophical threats. Yet such trickery also prevents you from entering the realm of ultimate truth.

So it is a second-rate level of freedom that you have settled for.

David, you can mitigate and mitigate, and you will mitigate yourself right past the dazzling and simple truth of it.

Unlike you, I do not receive spiritual edification by resting in a fact such as cause-and-effect, no more than I am delivered by the Pythagorean Theorem, no matter how 'permanent' these things appear to be. And unlike you, I do not make appeals for my essence to an Ultimate Reality that must exist outside of me for the authority of my own.

The ultimate ultimate reality does not exist outside of my skin and I do not require company within my skin to abate the terrors of impermanence to merge with a thought of the eternal, and in this I estimate I am entirely and fully free -- free in being and becoming what I already am. Ultimate reality is as Kierkegaard has it above -- the subjective experience, and it is the ultimate reality, the eternal truth for every human being that has ever lived. I would say that it is you who balk at this Truth, David; you who do not "own up" and the hysteria, discomfort, even fright of yourself and your followers when any suggestion is made contrary to things that last eternally and inherently -- is witness to the lack of freedom you feel.

Kierkegaard's truth trumps all others; there is nothing higher to say after that, for without these subjectivities and their experience, there is no one to say it; no one to take note of anything, and it is the truth all truth-sayers are the least willing to align themselves with when they demand existence for something outside of them, and demand that that something be permanent, unlike they, and that such a living share in that permanence shall somehow abate their feeling of being fettered to the impermanence that they are. I need no such abatement from this truth - suffer no such fear for my temporality, am not even fettered to myself and in that, I become in reality free. That someone would find more spiritual edification in the 'permanence' of cause and effect than in the temporality of their own existence is beyond me. That someone would feel more deeply for this mechanistic cause-and-effect than how it manifests in their humanistic experience is beyond me.

You can postmodernpostmodern me to sweet bits, David; it is not going to change anything of what I - my inward passion knows to be the highest truth as well as the One Truth the least of us have any stomach for. Every truth we discover after this is below this, and is used to secure this; to realize this. For it could be that other consciousness exists in the universe, with a greater refinement of things that we see, even with our mind's eye, and all that we have searched for outside of ourselves to stand eternally - when we don't - will be - in your sense of the word - ultimately error.

The greatest truth and the one most perfectly able to deliver us from the internal suffering of our temporality and the deep delusions we harbor against this is to be infinitely, 'eternally' right with our existence - to know that the world resides within us in every way.


.

Carl,

Interesting, that's who I must have conversing with, three postmodernists, recently at another forum:

Me? A "postmodernist"? Uh... maybe. I'm about as "postmodernist" as Hume, Kant, and Wittgenstein. Regardless, I eagerly await whatever rebuttal your going to provide to my various points. You are "certain" after all. I imagine that means you've thought all this stuff out in advance, and expected every one of our rebuttals to your suggestions, and are just waiting to give a snappy and inarguable reply. Unless, of course, you've got a rather odd definition of "certainty". Maybe you consider it to be a rebuttal to call me a "postmodernist" in a completely different thread, at a completely different board?

Expectantly Ironic wrote:

"Do not feel absolutely certain of anything." ~ Bertrand Russell,

DQ: In other words, avoid truth.

EI: I'd interpret it as saying "question everything". Seems like good advice for anyone interested in truth.

That's certainly good advice. But I see Bertrand Russell's statement as something much more than this. It seems to go that extra step further and assert, as a kind of religious tenet, that certainty is, by default, an error.

At least that is how the mob over at "Common Ascent", which is essentially a cult of uncertaintists, interpret it.

What do you think the term "absolute certainty" points to anyways? Is it more then just a feeling?

It is not even a feeling. It is conscious understanding of what is true.

A core example would be the recognition that A always equals A.

Another example, although very much related to the first example, is the recognition that Nature/Reality/Totality, of which we all are part, is not nothing whatsoever.

Yet another example is the understanding that all things necessarily have causes. At root, there are an infinite number of truths which are absolutely certain.

But these are all instinctively blocked out by the "uncertaintists" so as to preserve their attachment to uncertainty.

-

At least that is how the mob over at "Common Ascent", which is essentially a cult of uncertaintists, interpret it.

CA is hardly a "cult of uncertaintists". If you'll note, the thread that PK/Carl linked to has very few folks who attacked the notion of certainty. Rather, they attacked the notion of certainty about causality. This is mainly due to the fact that the GF definition of "causality" is a bit different then the one most folks think of when the term is used. I have noticed that CA is more focused on analytic philosophy, whereas GF is more focused on continental and Eastern philosophy. That tends to result in some rather large differences in how things are phrased and understood.

As for what I think of "certainty", I might address it later. It's a pretty complicated matter.

ExpectantlyIronic wrote:Carl,

Interesting, that's who I must have conversing with, three postmodernists, recently at another forum:

Me? A "postmodernist"? Uh... maybe. I'm about as "postmodernist" as Hume, Kant, and Wittgenstein. Regardless, I eagerly await whatever rebuttal your going to provide to my various points.

I did address your main point. Your follow-ups contained too many big words for me.

You are "certain" after all. I imagine that means you've thought all this stuff out in advance, and expected every one of our rebuttals to your suggestions, and are just waiting to give a snappy and inarguable reply.

Such sarcasm born of anger.

Unless, of course, you've got a rather odd definition of "certainty". Maybe you consider it to be a rebuttal to call me a "postmodernist" in a completely different thread, at a completely different board?

Certainly not. I rebutted your main assertion at the board of original inquiry. I linked here because that convo was illustrative of the same issue being discussed here.

Carl,

Such sarcasm born of anger.

A right postmodernist rage really. :)

Expectantly Ironic wrote:

DQ: At least that is how the mob over at "Common Ascent", which is essentially a cult of uncertaintists, interpret it.

EI: CA is hardly a "cult of uncertaintists". If you'll note, the thread that PK/Carl linked to has very few folks who attacked the notion of certainty. Rather, they attacked the notion of certainty about causality.

Most of them attack out of a core belief that everything is uncertain. If you don't believe me, go and ask them what they are certain about and see what responses you get.

This is mainly due to the fact that the GF definition of "causality" is a bit different then the one most folks think of when the term is used. I have noticed that CA is more focused on analytic philosophy, whereas GF is more focused on continental and Eastern philosophy. That tends to result in some rather large differences in how things are phrased and understood.

It is more the case that GF is focused on getting to the heart of timeless matters with simple, direct thought, while CA is essentially a fashion house. I wouldn't even it call it a philosophy forum. It is simply a place to ogle and speculate over the latest fashions, which is partly why the principle of uncertainty is so important to them.

-

I am certain about a few things. So I guess I do not belong to the "cult of uncertaintists."

I think David's point about the folks at CA and their philosophical attitude misses one vital point: those things about which they might agree that certainty exists they dismiss as trivial (e.g. that the Totality is not nothing whatsoever). In short, they dismiss analytical truths as being of no significance. This is their real error and failing.

Iolaus, already a few days ago pre-post-modernism:

Iolaus wrote:

Diebert wrote: You appear to use 'perception' as a form of intuition or higher level of insight. I rather use the term for any recognition of sensory stimuli.

Actually, I really mean something closer to sensory stimuli, but yet with a difference.

This extra difference you introduce here can still be called a working of the mind. Not all thoughts and half-thoughts and quarter-thoughts and other imagery we have to be aware of though. Our awareness and understanding of this is just like peeping through the looking glass and one can take in only a little bit at the time. But while you think there's a more 'direct' perception possible, I'm sure you realize this is not about things appearing more real or vivid - it's about how they relate to truth, or how they relate to everything else for that matter, a very conscious act ultimately!

I think in some people a form of spiritual vision can develop. You look at a person and see everything anyone else would, but you see deeper into them. I don't quite know how else to explain it, but motivations and thoughts become more apparent. The interactions of the higher selves become slightly visible.

It's all based on understanding but not many have a fully grown understanding of how their mind handles perception. It comes then in mysterious flashes but this is not something to compliment the non-intellectual mind on. Much of our learning goes on out of sight of our attention before it's mature enough to form a conscious understanding that brings it all together.

Very well, so you want the thing to be seamless. First of all, in this seamless whole, why is one aspect at the top of the pyramid? But even if we do call it the highest, you do agree that without all parts functioning, there is lack of progress.

The reason it's at the top is because it's the "tip" of the iceberg we can be aware of. The concave looking glass just doesn't allow capturing the complexity of the whole. Notice though that in this symbolic 'pyramid' the apex stone is a miniature model of the whole, ideally. As above, so below :)

Well, if there are only some parts of the whole mind working, then those nonworking or rarely working parts give rise to the idea that there is another way of knowing things, when suddenly they kick in.

You can only know things by knowing. Why introduce some often abused myth about 'unused' parts of the brain here? This is not grounded in any research or observation I know of. Are you mystifying on purpose; the old 'god' syndrome?

As to bottom-up versus top-down, that's just what I am thinking. (Perhaps more like left-hand, right-hand.) Either way can work, and if it's a bit lopsided in one direction for a while, that'll right itself eventually.

Sure there's always something compensating something else. But when it comes to correct intellectual understanding there's no lop-siding. There's only premature, incomplete or flawed understanding, perhaps trying to camouflage itself as being more than it really is at times. Human minds have become specialized in camouflage, as they themselves, and naked truth, have become their own worst enemy.

Dan Rowden wrote:I think David's point about the folks at CA and their philosophical attitude misses one vital point: those things about which they might agree that certainty exists they dismiss as trivial (e.g. that the Totality is not nothing whatsoever). In short, they dismiss analytical truths as being of no significance. This is their real error and failing.

So then you'd get a strange inversed type of world where the most important is reduced to triviality, not worthy to stand still for and the trivial has become our full-time obsession?

Trivial pursuit played by overactive imaginations.

It's a symptom of the influence of empiricism in philosophical thinking. Analytical truths are considered purely mental and supposedly don't speak to the nature of the actual world. There's an inbuilt prejudice in that view of course, but it is pervasive. If a position regarding the nature of the things cannot be backed up empirically, it isn't regarded as meaningful. i.e. analytical propositions are trivial; synthetic propositions are informative. The "Vienna Circle" has a lot to answer for in my view. What they miss is that some analytical propositions necessarily say something about the world and are therefore informative.

Diebert,

So then you'd get a strange inversed type of world where the most important is reduced to triviality, not worthy to stand still for and the trivial has become our full-time obsession?

The importance of any given notion is purely a matter of opinion. That's not even to mention that Quine's Two Dogmas of Empiricism demonstrated that there is no fundamental distinction between analytic and synthetic truths.


Edit: I replaced the word "clear" with "fundamental". There's obviously a clear methodical difference between analytic and synthetic truths.

Dan wrote:

I think David's point about the folks at CA and their philosophical attitude misses one vital point: those things about which they might agree that certainty exists they dismiss as trivial (e.g. that the Totality is not nothing whatsoever). In short, they dismiss analytical truths as being of no significance. This is their real error and failing.

This is still a case of upholding the all-important religious principle of uncertainty. By tailoring one's thinking (via the study of "analytical philosophy") so that it can automatically dismiss all statements of certainty as being "trivial" by default, one is affirming that when it comes to the fundamental issues of life, knowledge of absolute certainty is not to be recognized.

A person doesn't dive headlong into "analytical philosophy" in the first place without having a strong attachment to the principle of uncertainty. It's not the sort of philosophy that excites anyone with soul and a burning interest in Ultimate Truth. It's akin to philosophy for music critics, rather than for musicians themselves.

-

Philosophaster wrote:

I am certain about a few things. So I guess I do not belong to the "cult of uncertaintists."

What things are you certain of?

-

Pye wrote:

Sooooo . . . . you are aware that all is becoming but you don't want any process talk.

and . . . . you are aware of cause and effect, but you don't want any consciousness of specific causes and effects.

and . . . . you are aware that nothing takes place outside of consciousness, but you don't want any talk of subjectivity.

Now who's wielding that either/or blade?

Process talk is fine, but not to the extent that it excludes content.

Subjectivity talk is fine, but not to the extent that it negates the reality of absolute truth.

Understanding process/subjectivity has its place, but it shouldn't be thought of as the pinnacle of knowledge, or even as being all that important for the gaining of wisdom.

David, you can mitigate and mitigate, and you will mitigate yourself right past the dazzling and simple truth of it.

Unlike you, I do not receive spiritual edification by resting in a fact such as cause-and-effect, no more than I am delivered by the Pythagorean Theorem, no matter how 'permanent' these things appear to be. And unlike you, I do not make appeals for my essence to an Ultimate Reality that must exist outside of me for the authority of my own.

The ultimate ultimate reality does not exist outside of my skin and I do not require company within my skin to abate the terrors of impermanence to merge with a thought of the eternal, and in this I estimate I am entirely and fully free -- free in being and becoming what I already am.

Ultimate reality is as Kierkegaard has it above -- the subjective experience, and it is the ultimate reality, the eternal truth for every human being that has ever lived. I would say that it is you who balk at this Truth, David; you who do not "own up" and the hysteria, discomfort, even fright of yourself and your followers when any suggestion is made contrary to things that last eternally and inherently -- is witness to the lack of freedom you feel.

Kierkegaard's truth trumps all others; there is nothing higher to say after that, for without these subjectivities and their experience, there is no one to say it; no one to take note of anything, and it is the truth all truth-sayers are the least willing to align themselves with when they demand existence for something outside of them, and demand that that something be permanent, unlike they, and that such a living share in that permanence shall somehow abate their feeling of being fettered to the impermanence that they are. I need no such abatement from this truth - suffer no such fear for my temporality, am not even fettered to myself and in that, I become in reality free. That someone would find more spiritual edification in the 'permanence' of cause and effect than in the temporality of their own existence is beyond me. That someone would feel more deeply for this mechanistic cause-and-effect than how it manifests in their humanistic experience is beyond me.

You can postmodernpostmodern me to sweet bits, David; it is not going to change anything of what I - my inward passion knows to be the highest truth as well as the One Truth the least of us have any stomach for. Every truth we discover after this is below this, and is used to secure this; to realize this. For it could be that other consciousness exists in the universe, with a greater refinement of things that we see, even with our mind's eye, and all that we have searched for outside of ourselves to stand eternally - when we don't - will be - in your sense of the word - ultimately error.

The greatest truth and the one most perfectly able to deliver us from the internal suffering of our temporality and the deep delusions we harbor against this is to be infinitely, 'eternally' right with our existence - to know that the world resides within us in every way.

As passionate as this speech is, there are a lot of problems and misconceptions contained within it, some of them quite glaring and crude.

For example, after repeatedly stressing previously that truth is infinite inward passion for an objective uncertainty - paraphrasing what Kierkegaard wrote under the pseudonym, "Johannes Climicas" - you immediately abandon this principle by declaring a passion for an objective certainty instead - namely, the reality of impermanence.

There is nothing objectively uncertain about impermanence as a principle which applies to all things, nor is there anything objectively uncertain about the impermanency of our own existence. This is a reality which stares all of us in the face. It is an obvious truth which contains no doubts and requires no leap of faith to acknowledge. It is both objectively and subjectively certain.

So in having passion for this, you are not just deviating a little bit from Kierkegaard's formula for truth, you are sweeping it aside and engaging in the complete opposite.

If anything could be classed as an objective uncertainty here, it would have to be the ideal of immortality. To hold fast to the belief in one's immortal nature in the face of all the evidence to contrary would surely require great inward passion and a genuine leap of faith. Resting in what is immediate and obvious is easy. It doesn't require any inward passion at all. It is the mundane act of resignation from an individual who has become too old and tired to fight. But to believe in the ideal of immortality, or even better, to use the power of one's own mind to apprehend one's infinite nature and thereby transcend life and death (which is essentially what immortality means), this is something else entirely! This is much closer to what Kierkegaard means by "subjectivity", or having a "subjective seizure".

When Jesus allowed himself to be tortured and put to death on the cross, was it to open people's eyes to the mundane fact of impermanence? Or was it to point people's attention to something grander and more "objectively uncertain"?

Related to this, the concept of cause and effect is nothing like how you paint it. It isn't a dead piece of knowledge like Pythagoras's Theorem. It doesn't, or shouldn't, distract the mind away from oneself and the reality of impermanence. It doesn't even negate the reality of impermanence. You're way off base here, on all fronts.

I can understand why you would be critical of, say, a religious belief system which attempts to bypass the reality of impermanence by promising a personal form of immortality, such as Christianity, but the knowledge and practice of causality is nothing like this. It is the complete opposite in fact. It accepts the reality of impermanence and works with it. Great philosophy means peering into the very nature of impermanence and discerning the immortal nature of Emptiness hidden within.

Properly understood, cause and effect is a living, breathing thing which unravels everything in the Universe, both inside of one's self and outside, even life and death. That is how it operates for those who are fully open to it. If it is just a dead thing sitting there in the corner of your mind, like a mathematical theorem, then the fault is yours. It means that you haven't even begun to understand it, much less taken steps to activate it.

-

David,

This is still a case of upholding the all-important religious principle of uncertainty. By tailoring one's thinking (via the study of "analytical philosophy") so that it can automatically dismiss all statements of certainty as being "trivial" by default, one is affirming that when it comes to the fundamental issues of life, knowledge of absolute certainty is not to be recognized.

I'm not sure what grounds you're making these statements on, given that G. E. Moore, one of the founders of analytic philosophy, set out to prove philosophical skepticism to be unfounded. Wittgenstein also wrote a posthumously published work called "On Certainty", which explored the themes presented by Moore in more depth. Neither of them could be said to default to the notion that claims of certainty are trivial. In fact, Moore sought intensely to prove that one could be certain of various "common sense" notions.

It's not the sort of philosophy that excites anyone with soul and a burning interest in Ultimate Truth. It's akin to philosophy for music critics, rather than for musicians themselves.

I think all philosophical notions should interest someone who values truth.

David Quinn wrote:What things are you certain of?

That things are identical to themselves, that I perceive things (or that there are perceptions), that logic works. I see no way to coherently doubt those things, so I am certain of them.

I'm glad to hear it, Philosophaster. Is that the full list? What is the deepest, most profound thing that you know to be absolutely certain?

When you say you are certain that "logic works", what do you mean by that? Do you mean you are certain that it can resolve all philosophic issues and expose what is ultimately true in life?

-

Expectantly Ironic wrote:

DQ: This is still a case of upholding the all-important religious principle of uncertainty. By tailoring one's thinking (via the study of "analytical philosophy") so that it can automatically dismiss all statements of certainty as being "trivial" by default, one is affirming that when it comes to the fundamental issues of life, knowledge of absolute certainty is not to be recognized.

EI: I'm not sure what grounds you're making these statements on, given that G. E. Moore, one of the founders of analytic philosophy, set out to prove philosophical skepticism to be unfounded. Wittgenstein also wrote a posthumously published work called "On Certainty", which explored the themes presented by Moore in more depth. Neither of them could be said to default to the notion that claims of certainty are trivial. In fact, Moore sought intensely to prove that one could be certain of various "common sense" notions.

I don't find any of this very believable. What does it mean to prove that various common sense notions are absolutely certain? Did Moore consciously ground these notions in the Absolute? Did he become fully enlightened about the nature of Reality and observe a direct connection to these notions? I very much doubt it.

I'm sorry, but I just can't take those kinds of philosophers seriously. I think they're insane.

DQ: It's not the sort of philosophy that excites anyone with soul and a burning interest in Ultimate Truth. It's akin to philosophy for music critics, rather than for musicians themselves.

EI: I think all philosophical notions should interest someone who values truth.

Life is too short to waste on blind alleys, superficial complexities, trivial academic discussion, pointless theological debate, etc. You need to prioritize. It is far better to go the very root of life first and then decide, after that, which notions are worth pursuing and which are not. Otherwise, you are just going to lose yourself in a maze.

At least 99% of academia is a complete waste of time, consisting as it does of endlessly detailed discussion of issues which don't actually exit. I wouldn't even wipe my bum with it.

-

Is that the full list?

It's all I can think of right now. That may be the full list.

What is the deepest, most profound thing that you know to be absolutely certain?

Probably that logic works, by which I basically mean that if I know A and A implies B, then B must be true.

David,

I don't find any of this very believable. What does it mean to prove that various common sense notions are absolutely certain?

It means the Moore held up his hand, and then asked himself if he could be certain that it was there. He tried to demonstrate that he could.

Did Moore consciously ground these notions in the Absolute? Did he become fully enlightened about the nature of Reality and observe a direct connection to these notions? I very much doubt it.

As do I. His methods made a whole lot more sense then that.

I'm sorry, but I just can't take those kinds of philosophers seriously. I think they're insane.

Yet you seem to know almost nothing about them. Does your enlightenment give you the magical ability to have correct opinions on arguments you haven't heard or considered?

It is far better to go the very root of life first and then decide, after that, which notions are worth pursuing and which are not. Otherwise, you are just going to lose yourself in a maze.

"Root of life"? That sounds like essentialist talk. Are you an essentialist?

At least 99% of academia is a complete waste of time, consisting as it does of endlessly detailed discussion of issues which don't actually exit.

I know that I find it more productive to just state Aristotle's law of identity over and over.

Pye,

Pye wrote:Ultimate reality is ... the subjective experience, and it is the ultimate reality, the eternal truth for every human being that has ever lived.

What if there's no subjective experience? If non-subjective-experience is a possibility, then its opposite can't be eternal.

for without these subjectivities and their experience, there is no one to say it; no one to take note of anything

And....?

it is the truth all truth-sayers are the least willing to align themselves with when they demand existence for something outside of them, and demand that that something be permanent, unlike they, and that such a living share in that permanence shall somehow abate their feeling of being fettered to the impermanence that they are. I need no such abatement from this truth - suffer no such fear for my temporality, am not even fettered to myself and in that, I become in reality free

But what happens when there's no consciousness at all?

.

Philosophaster wrote:

DQ: What is the deepest, most profound thing that you know to be absolutely certain?

Ph: Probably that logic works, by which I basically mean that if I know A and A implies B, then B must be true.

Have you discovered anything of eternal interest using this method?

-

Expectantly Ironic wrote:

DQ: I don't find any of this very believable. What does it mean to prove that various common sense notions are absolutely certain?

EI: It means the Moore held up his hand, and then asked himself if he could be certain that it was there. He tried to demonstrate that he could.

Are you saying that he was absolutely sure his hand was there? He wasn't dreaming it?

DQ: It is far better to go the very root of life first and then decide, after that, which notions are worth pursuing and which are not. Otherwise, you are just going to lose yourself in a maze.

EI: "Root of life"? That sounds like essentialist talk. Are you an essentialist?

I'm not an essentialist in the sense that there is a tangible essence or substance underlying everything.

However, it is possible to understand the root nature of everything - not as a substance as such, but as a timeless principle. The principle involves understanding that all things lack inherent existence, which immediately precludes the idea of an underlying substance.

DQ: At least 99% of academia is a complete waste of time, consisting as it does of endlessly detailed discussion of issues which don't actually exit.

EI: I know that I find it more productive to just state Aristotle's law of identity over and over.

Why?

-