Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   North Spore Bulk Substrate   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Next >  [ show all ]
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Buster_Brown]
    #23946682 - 12/21/16 05:07 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Substance or Cartesian dualism. Substance dualism is a type of dualism most famously defended by René Descartes, which states that there are two kinds of foundation: mental and body. This philosophy states that the mental can exist outside of the body, and the body cannot think.




The first part about there being mind and body experiences is true but mentality, morality, conscience and sentience cannot exist outside the body as that would be sentience without matter which is not physically possible.

The body can and does react consciously to it's environment and surroundings as it generates electrical and chemical impulses as well as instinctive impulses like those of the Moro response(baby clinging) and the fight or flight response(survival).

Quote:

Consciousness: the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings.





--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: viktor]
    #23946730 - 12/21/16 05:22 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Not skeptical at all, but the Law of Effect translated to a hard science might reason out like this: When the Sun is in the sky it's light, and at night it's dark. Such observations tell us nothing about how the Sun works or how to create light by similar means.

I think it's possible for psychology to become a hard science. That may seem silly, but only because the task has been futile so far.

Perhaps the technological singularity won't climax as commonly portrayed, but as humanity finally coming to understand itself. It would be a triumph for science, and a victory for Cartesianism, finally getting to the fruits of a type of understanding that perhaps in some ways has thrown the world into turmoil.

Quote:

viktor said:
The problem with psychology is essentially this. Physics, chemistry, biology etc. can be reduced down to one or two factors at a time, so that each can be observed and understood in isolation.

Psychology almost never can do this because it's dealing with people's brains and minds, which have hundreds of factors and maybe even thousands when it all comes down it.

When it can, psychology can make contributions to the human understanding of the world as great as any other science. Read about the Law of Effect if you're skeptical - grokking the Law of Effect will change your entire life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_effect




--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace


"You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineviktor
psychotechnician
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/03/10
Posts: 4,293
Loc: New Zealand Flag
Last seen: 1 year, 9 months
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Rahz]
    #23946767 - 12/21/16 05:33 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Rahz said:
Not skeptical at all, but the Law of Effect translated to a hard science might reason out like this: When the Sun is in the sky it's light, and at night it's dark. Such observations tell us nothing about how the Sun works or how to create light by similar means.




The Law of Effect translated to a hard science looks like, in my experience, the cognitive behavioural therapy clinic I worked in in Sweden. Here it was understood that the stronger the reinforcement of prosocial behaviours in this clinical setting the more likely it was that our patients were going to be able to fit into society without violence.

We made a significant difference to the quality of life of people we helped, thanks to the Law of Effect.


--------------------
"They consider me insane but I know that I am a hero living under the eyes of the gods."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: viktor]
    #23947797 - 12/22/16 12:10 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

What is the success of an idea. Would it be in how the basic, representative idea is found to be true? Or is it in how many people adopt its conventions, and the memetic success, the widespread use of an idea? Or is it in how cathartic or therapeautic holding a conventional idea is, without regard to any necessary criterion of truth? Or finally, is it maybe how all these questions overlap and grow into the next, and in this notion of an authenticity and whatever excellence or virtue plainly put? And yet... as adventurous as we are to go down this path, is it certain an idea can be successful in the end?

Another question: why or how would we assume that the Cartesian cogito the particular proposition "I think" delivers on empirical or specifically psychological content? I wouldn't exclude the possibility, that people can make an approximate object of cognition but is this statement Descartes makes, cogito ergo sum, an empirical observation of something? Is there a clear object? These are questions a philosopher should ask, although at this degree of analysis they seem too general. Actually isn't the question of the subject of "I think", much more pressing and immediate, than the question of "its" objectification?  What is "an" I think?

While thought can be well considered psychological, is there any real assertible basis of that? I think what Descartes speaks to begins with as cognition, as a proposition, is closer in its conception to what Buster seems to have expressed and made a case for, as a philosophical notion.

For instance a "subject" might be a case, some contingency where a thought is expressed outwardly as some notion of the world, to meet with and be considered in a dialogue or conjecture about nature or existence. Etymologically that concept goes back to Aristotle.

Specifically in a post cartesian philosophy; a subject would not just mean a broached content (a subject matter) but reflexively, and in conjecture an additional issue of the way we ourselves (conscious beings as subjects) have perceptions, apprehensions, and to some degree intelligible understanding and rationale about things. We call this a subject too, or essentially include it in our dialogue. Clearly we adopt this language, with ease, specifically to insert reflexivity, into our dialogues and way of being.


We also look to the reflexive aspect of this subject "itself". What is this consideration exactly? A "conscious" subject, (or the reflex subjectivity) can be considered as any other subject matter right? Isn't that why it is designated a subject; as something of nature or like a book on flora, or anything else that opens itself to be understood? Isn't this our opening and openess to the world, which we call a subjective condition? It would seem abundantly clear, if we could reason this way. In this sense, the reflexive subject is apparently something in content that by association, just  increasingly and manifoldly has to do with our perceptions which to some extent inwardly held and yet are in relation to the world. A conscious subject, if it were a thing, in this sense, would seem be the notion of a person's perception, all in all.

Of course there are kother approximations. I would say the other most proximate consideration of Cartesian cogito, the notion of "I think, and its content, if generalizable might be more directly resonant with its institutionality ("thought" as ideology), or the conventionality and concatenations and hardenings of modern humanity's conceptual attitudes as such, rather than anything philosophical. This too though would be close to Hegel's ultimate treatment of the reflexivity of modern existence, or the opening of the subject, to new dimensions, in its essential (in this case fatal) possibility. Maybe this is the danger philosophy has to gaurd from, as too much appropriation of its contents. To Hegel the great pantheist philosopher, the subject was absolute, but to many others this "thought" or notion is the birth of modern ideology.

But at any rate, to the poiny; when we regard a mentality, an "I think", it seems to me that usually we go along with something projectional or reflexive, so making an object or simplification of this condition presents an essential difficulty: "I think" is not an object even if it is an approximate reflex if we work backwards from dealing with its presentable content. It seems to me when we do that, we come the phenomenology of a subjectivity (formally thinking about its perceivings, the way it reflexivey relates to objects).

I am not sure if this is a useful idea to anyone.  The argument to treating Cartesian cogito empirically should face questions consistent with the rationale of what we formaly mean by "I think" or cognition. Otherwise we are just doing something like equivocating Freud's ego (the "I" of self narrative, that relates to moral conscience and libido) with whatever grounds Descartes himself, an ostensible philosopher, suggested. When he purportedly grounded the "existence" of a mental cognition in rational terms. Any ostensible entity might be easy to equivocate (or reify as things) butwhat a philosopher and psychologist speaks of are different theoretical bases, justified in different terms.

So here specifically is the trouble with just making an object of subjectivity. Is "I think" an empirical observation of an object? The deductive certainty in which Descartes concludes I think therefore I am, is not to my mind an empirical observation. It is really a projected rationale. Now I will admit it is unique, because it is like a perpetually recursive dynamo. For instance what observation would seem to be in this sense, is to begin circling either on the "I think" or "I am", in this narrative of self justifying. Maybe "observation" seems to move back and forth from one possibility, lor premise to the other, and a conclusion, justifying or proceeding to inform the content of the other, with the other. There is no doubt that with focus, it can be linear, just as it is always seeming linear, but to say there is content, or that a "thing" is deduced to exist is not to speak of an observation. Such certainty does not come with the stroke of careful observation. If one is certain one is not observing because a rationalistic certainty is dragging thought this way. When did you begin to observe and when did you end observing? If it is said that an observation of an object seems to be like, or have this rationalistic structure clear beginnings or ends,  the shape of form, or if it can't not have this shape of form, this doesn't prove anything. All I can conclude is I think therefore I am is a rationalization, a narrative, so precisely for this reason it is not an instance of observation. Or this would be another question. Can rationalizations that there must be a thing, or content, be treated as observations? I think not. As important as Cartesianism is to laying out the scope and topography of an empirical induction, from internal "indubitable" mental realities, to external world of external objects, and their essential reflexive relationship, I think is not in that, an empirical object, or true observation.


When we say "I think" (and typically its usual need of justification) can be satisfiably associated with objective functions of cognition, we don't actually mean that perceptual experience, and the ideal outward justification of one's experience as understanding (for instance; perceivings ascribing their impress as data upon the table of science) occurs in thought. That is the philosophical-dialectical "notion" which will always be a dynamo of outward and beyond expressed this way. What a cognitive function is, is when the perception impresses itself on the inner table of data and storehold of objects, and objectivity as memory. The accuracy of memory is not a consensus and conjecture of dialogue; but rather perceivings and rememberings, however they happen to occur. So for a cartesian objectification of the subject (perception) what is really going on is the circular dynamo of the mind's rationalism and narratives is being associated with the object it somewhat formally (and mainly in another form and proportion) conceived, around rationality and argumentative proof.

Residually, even if we do manage this, (and it seems simple enough in theory) it seems to me a western culture constantly wants to justify the life (eg. the cartesian proposition of "existence" the "object") of the mind, or wrest it from its place to dissolve it from such a formal structure. But somehow it should be seen that "I think therefore I am" this notion, or this existential-ontological rationale, its content, (of "being") is not an empirical (or meditative) observation. All western philosophy following Descartes to some extent has the rationalization of the minds "existence" at issue behind what it ostensibly observes, because it was invented in a certain formal way in a historical conyingency of the 17th century. But from what I can see Descartes' strength or soundness of argument is in a premise proceeding to a deduction,  a direct inference to its signified object, not an observation or study. While it seems like  some work in studying functional (essentially input output versions of) cognition can be empirical and pretty insightful in one way, there seems to be a lot of this confusion. Studying memory and perception is one thing, appropropriating subjects as objects seem to be another.

Not sure this is to helpful. When we do study cognition, its subject, it seems like the subject has to be pretty open, and can't cling to the conditional perception or his formation of memories, all in all the subjective terms of experience, but I'd say that it is possible to call that dealing with content philosophical too. I'd argue philosophical consideration bof cognitive function is not attacking subjective experiences of another person, or one's own (as we are generally conditioned by Cartesian culture to interrogate demand access to content, which a subject "should" bare as its datum and content). Dealing with one's own arising mental contents is not judging, or seeking a higher rationale but in authenticity, letting them be both conditional and what they are, as they project "out of" and "into", in their reflex, such as from perceivings to ascribed memories. That seems to me objective, and observing.

As for that is a hard one...but if psychology looks for objectivity, wouldn't it mainly call an implicit moral value or standard of normalcy, real, or its objectivity? To come full circle; could there be a science of authenticity or self actualization? I think there could be a philosophical path and we never know how the next road turns do we? It seems to just goes over yonder.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBuster_Brown
L'une
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/17/11
Posts: 11,309
Last seen: 3 days, 14 hours
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Kurt] * 1
    #23948285 - 12/22/16 07:58 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

What is real?:

" where wee desire to be informed, 'tis good to contest with men aboveour selves...( Sir Thomas Browne )... but to confirme and establish our opinions, 'tis best to argue with judgements below our own, that the frequent spoyles and victories over their reasons may settle in our selves an esteeme, and confirmed opinion of our owne. Every man is not a proper Champion for Truth, nor fit to take up the Gantlet in the cause of Veritie: Many from the ignorance of these Maximes, and an inconsiderate zeale unto Truth, have too rashly charged the troopes of error, and remaine as Trophees...: A man may be in as just possession of Truth as of a City, and yet bee forced to surrender: tis therefore farre better to enjoy her with peace, then to hazzard her on a battell: If therefore there rise any doubts in my way, I doe forget them, or at least defer them, till my better setled judgement, and more manly reason be able to resolve them; for I perceive every mans owne reason is his best Oedipus, and will upon a reasonable truce, find a way to loose those bonds wherewith the subtilties of errour have enchained our more flexible and tender judgements. In Philosophy where truth seemes double-faced, there is no man more paradoxicall then my self..."

Obviously another can speak better than I, and in the mastering of fate the requirement is to have the best speakers on hand to foil the argument.

With this caucus of talent being the meat and potatoes of the meal, the self takes a subsidiary role, perhaps to ponder on the dancing patterns and whether the BodyofChrist is accurately represented by a small white circle.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: viktor]
    #23949387 - 12/22/16 02:56 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Fair enough, but why does it work when it does? Why does it not work when it doesn't? It's not a hard science, but that doesn't mean it holds no validity or utility.

Quote:

viktor said:
Quote:

Rahz said:
Not skeptical at all, but the Law of Effect translated to a hard science might reason out like this: When the Sun is in the sky it's light, and at night it's dark. Such observations tell us nothing about how the Sun works or how to create light by similar means.




The Law of Effect translated to a hard science looks like, in my experience, the cognitive behavioural therapy clinic I worked in in Sweden. Here it was understood that the stronger the reinforcement of prosocial behaviours in this clinical setting the more likely it was that our patients were going to be able to fit into society without violence.

We made a significant difference to the quality of life of people we helped, thanks to the Law of Effect.




--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace


"You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBuster_Brown
L'une
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/17/11
Posts: 11,309
Last seen: 3 days, 14 hours
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Rahz]
    #23950840 - 12/23/16 04:31 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Rahz said:
Fair enough, but why does it work when it does? Why does it not work when it doesn't? It's not a hard science, but that doesn't mean it holds no validity or utility.






In the pursuit of science one may counter that the lack of wheels is one and the same as an omission of liberty, which may reflect upon the relationship between a conglomerate and a small white circle.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Buster_Brown]
    #23950854 - 12/23/16 04:55 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)



--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBuster_Brown
L'une
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/17/11
Posts: 11,309
Last seen: 3 days, 14 hours
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: sudly]
    #23950857 - 12/23/16 05:01 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

My perspective on the spice of life has undergone some adjustments over the years. Dare I say they slipped under my guard?(Rhetorical question)


Edited by Buster_Brown (12/23/16 05:17 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Buster_Brown]
    #23950893 - 12/23/16 06:05 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

My spice of life is apparently scientific knowledge.

But yes I agree that the individual spice of life adjusts and develops over the years, as does a sense of morality.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Buster_Brown]
    #23950921 - 12/23/16 06:39 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Hah

Well...the first question of a science is not necessarily always whether it is efficient or valid to it's purpose or not. That empirical measure could be "putting the wagon before the horse" so to say. The first question might be of what the science describes - what it's subject or object would be, in theory.

That could be a good question put to psychology. It is the study of the psyche (soul) or mental entities in a generality. So it possibly relates to a theory of mind, or Cartesianism. But in the science itself, and the way it would make an object of investigation,  (objectification of this entity) it seems like psychology would be the study of certain "economies of norms" if it were made specific in its own right. Psychology as a study would be normative, in general or in particularly a study of what it is to be a functioning normal person.

Is that a science? It is empirical but a science usually has more justification for the validity of its particular theories. A Newtonian universe has a great degree of validity to its domain - three dimensions of space and time -when it asserts a law of gravity. Granted we know today that those laws are paradigmatic, compared to a theories of relativity.

But this is not a physics (life science for that matter) at all.

Is capitalism, the human social economy which can be studied in statistics a law of nature? Capital (its object) is the invested consensual belief, and set of beliefs implied by us, when we consensually invest in the meaning of numbers and pictures printed on pieces of paper. Human evonomy of investments can be empirically studied, but is capitalism a scientific theory? A similar question could be asked of psychology.

For example if you largely study how the ego or identity as such relates to society or social norm as the field of a subject/object ("psychology") what you get in all and any results is an interpretation of a culture and its norms along with any objectification of a person or subject. Objectification in the case of psychology is not a robust theory, a consensus in this case - it is possibly consensual though.

The preferenced theory, the theoretical assumption, can be grounded in anything from a libido to "death anxiety". Is this scientific? Are assumptions about human nature, economies of psychological life, justifiable as an assertion? Zealots assume the interpretation is of nature  and broadly fit or force subjects to these interpretations. Michel Foucault describes this History of normalization as science in his work.

It seems to me psychology is an empirical standard that works like a science. Psychology can be studied upon complicit assumptions that we conform to standards. The net empirical standard, which psychology works in, and its testing and results in general may be worthwhile, if there is a common belief in theory, or in other words if the objectification is consensual. The significant question is if it is consensual. And unfortunately as many of us are aware by experience it is not. The result of studying human behavior is not going justify the theory of norms fundamentally, in genera. It can move and work like a natural science. It seems like if people aren't challenging people into these systems and laws, into pet theories and patients, psychology could be considered a practical empirical science, in its own rigor.

In the cases people want to claim something about human nature, as an "object"  or objectification of human existence, like in this forum it seems like people's the existential points can be better argued philosophically. Existential questions can be good ones. They are less good as assumptions or interrogations, because everyone knows you don't get clear information that way - just a confirmation of someone's feelings (through interrogation). Again, consensually, that dialogue and impressing on that may be positive and worthwhile, but only on a common or consensual basis, like in a belief in the theory.

It is consensual, not consensus making. I don't think peoples definitions of science in the modern world are really to specific in regards to how they stand in epistemological basis in general, so it doesn't make ultimate sense to use the term, as standard. Science is what tells us, in a consensual way, pragmatically, look before you leap. I think we  should be talking in a holistic way about theoretical paradigms, like psychology, rather than forcing ideas on people as laws in any case. Darwinist fundamentalism (rather Darwinian theory as a positive and holistic theoretical paradigm) is another example of a ridiculous attitude, which turns people towards the tendency to impose concepts the wrong way.

Psychology or fronted psychoanalysis is an excellent example  of the sort of unjustifiable violence that ensues when people use cartesian objectification as a tool though so this is right on topic, if we can stay here. The positive interpretation of psychology's effectual objectifications, objectification as a tool, can be justifiable or not, depending not on nature but how this tool is used. This sort of tool of making technical objects of things, is itself recursively a human sociology, or philosophically tinged anthropology of modern western existence. We like to make things into objects and it works. It would be an assumption to say, "true to nature" here. We seem in that tool using existence to be more, simian, and more apish in our politic than anything human. That is really what seems primal and instinctual about it.


Edited by Kurt (12/23/16 09:43 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBuster_Brown
L'une
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/17/11
Posts: 11,309
Last seen: 3 days, 14 hours
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Kurt]
    #23951154 - 12/23/16 09:14 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

^
v

Quote:

sudly said:
My spice of life is apparently scientific knowledge.
...
mentality, morality, conscience and sentience cannot exist outside the body as that would be sentience without matter which is not physically possible. 




People who carry guns tend to get shot more than people who don't carry. Scientifically we could remark that the psychological profile of someone who carries is more apt to place them in the situation where they might get shot rather than accede that we exist within a formless sentience that dispenses justice along the lines of a person's belief rather than their action of carrying or not.

Perhaps a scientific poll of all victims of violence will show a predilection in the victim towards violence as a means of control.

Or we could poll everyone and map group A who condone violent resolution in regards to group B who don't, and then try to classify the statistics based on the known aberrations of this formless sentience within which we exist, allowing for the sins of the father to pursue descendants for 7 generations, and so on, unless they find grace etc.

And so it comes down to us and them in this formless sentient embrace where education can prove to be the decisive factor in the management of the mind and in the turn of events.


Edited by Buster_Brown (12/23/16 09:47 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Buster_Brown]
    #23952086 - 12/23/16 04:22 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

I don't condone violence either :shrug:


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: sudly]
    #23953779 - 12/24/16 09:48 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

If a person who carries  gun is statistically more prone to violent situations, what is the data actually about? If it suffices to say the subject matter is about whatever we happen to gather from looking to certain finite field of technical objects, (something we can objectively gather a behavior and statistical tendency from), the objectifcation of  humn behavior can and will suggest that owning a gun makes a subject psychologicaly predisposed to violence.
If the subject of human behavior is considered more complex, reflexive, or figuretivey speaking in a less simplified proximity to trigger, the data only raises questions of the complexity of the subject. In general politicians will look to justify one interpretation or another, rather than really step back to a fair objectivity.

As of recently, and up to now really, IQ studies, tests which gather a table of data on an individual performance, have been used liberally to justify that statistically different races and sexes perform disproportionately. Due to the convincingness and rigor in which scientists established a fair standard in these tests, their ability to extrapolate, to different fields of technical objects through statistical analysis, (race, sex) things, it seems reasonable and historically will be, untill scientists realize what they really studieed in the object. Really what these studies indicated was that what is studied is a different matter, dependent on the participants happening to be socially advantaged or disadvantaged or conditioned a certain way. Naturally this raises questions back to even the individul studies, and their objectivity, but historically only after this protracted path is gone through reaching falsification.
If we really studied anthropic behavior it would be in this typical mismeasure of itself, in these tendencies; of having a subject, making a technical object observing something in a field of vision, "extrapolating", and finally falsifying. It could be said this is essentially cartesian slant of a science. We learn in a positive way to doubt our projected and (and temporally protracted) assumptions which are always projecting, and we are more or less generally enlightened about this.
The reason I started this thread is because in my opinion important to understand how a cartesian paradigm actually works from the ground up. We can emphasize and see it play out.

If a "first person", cartesian subject stands in front of an object, in a field of objects, and another second person stands in respect to an object and field of objects, how do we relate these experiences? If I stand in front of a tree and a second person does as well, how do we know (aside from what we call common sense, in this present narrative) it is the same tree?

Keeping in mind that in already speaking of a subject and object, in this question, we have laid out a topography of "internal" (the indubitable proximate experience of being) and "external" fields of experience. So when we get stuck in our subjectivity, in "the philosophial" what do we do. I'd say rather than thinking in some way towards our philosophic certainty (in Descartes this is actually the indubitable internal - subjective experience) essentially we extrapolate objects from experience.

If we imagine a third person, (like this narrative description itself) or a third person in the situation looking on these affairs, we can see that from his perspective an approximate place of subjective experience is itself found in a field of vision relating to the tree. One subject looks in the general direction of the tree and so does the other from another second perspective or relation, and the "third person" invoked looks upon these affairs which makes the subjects into approximate objects objects (sense perception a cartesian topography of internal and external reality). This seemingly justifies cartesianism which is self enframing. Each person or sort of narrative that is added is subjective and intersubjectively maintained from first to second to third which enframes. This "enframing" (as Heidegger puts it - gestell) is really how cartesian subjectivity works. It is not just upon the invoked standard of certainty, a subject's certain being, the philosophical argument of cartesianism, a direct line to the subject, and not in how one makes phenomenal spatiotemporal objects of what is in front of subjects, in the second relation, but in the third relation, "third person objectivity". For Descartes, this necessary third substance which authors the world was god, the omnicient seer, but for us today institutional reality of our conjectures serves to mediate and make possible and organize the projective intra-subjective experience.  We essentially treat ourselves as subjects, and make objects of things in front of us.  The protracted moment that we can question this experience, our senses, falsify it, is in one relation what projects and checks itself at once in enframing of sense. This conceptual approach is more conditioning than common sense. But it will be said - how else does one resolve the relation of "subjects and objects" but in such an arrangement?


The cartesian is always already begging the question of "the senses" as subject object relations in this way. This enframing is what plays out as the protracted work of objectification of this visible field of objects and entities.

To mitigate violence (as well as inform better philosophical attitudes) it seems to me the best approach is to avoid making subjects into objects arbitrarily (do good science), and recognize there is complexity in dimensions both above and hidden below the dimensions and fields of our "senses" in most cases, and this does not need to just be the institution or hierarchy of concepts we refer to. So we should not just "reify" or arbitrarily make the object, of something (as apparently we can or "must")  - to objectify, but consider our commitment to actual open phenomenological considerations, (the open second relation ethic, otherness). We could be more philosophically pragmatic. Otherwise our sciences end up being a dogmatic behaviorism failing to give a self account.


Edited by Kurt (12/24/16 11:47 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBuster_Brown
L'une
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/17/11
Posts: 11,309
Last seen: 3 days, 14 hours
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Kurt]
    #23954195 - 12/24/16 01:04 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

We violate silence with our words. In that sense, is Cartesianism a violence or a mirror of a fundamental condition of the something and nothing interspersed as letters on this page? Can the rape and pillage of Leda be unavoidable as night following day or sleep versus wakefulness? I don't know, but I'll posit that something is better than nothing, that the violence is a creation and regulated, and in the regulation appears the variety. So, was Leda raped?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefalcon
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,005
Last seen: 1 day, 5 hours
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Buster_Brown]
    #23954340 - 12/24/16 02:03 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Leda? :wow: :fuckingwow: That opens a can of corn bigger than an Earl Butz subsidy! Thanks dickhead, for uncovering a rabbit hole that wasn't there before in this thread.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: falcon]
    #23954617 - 12/24/16 04:24 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Can we look back at our situation, as one thing or another, that could be avoided? I think the answer is both yes  and no - we are past what happened in any case though.

In one sense the only way to look is forward as our heads are situated. Does that mean we vest ourselves in the "present" and "progress" (and disposability of moments past) and these enlightened values are right exactly? If we have our heads on our shoulders I guess we do.

I like what you said. I think what I can say in response is I would hope there is a difference between words and the reality they signify and mobilize, and that that is why we talk alot of times, and this may be what we rightly consider enlightened about our world. But seperation or removal is not an answer, so on that token, I would say similarly I appreciate a notion, a genuine idea, creativity, something forward, (I guess something "practical" might suffice)  more than just the technicality of concept or the cog in the machine which drives and challenges things forward necessarily "anyway". Does that make sense? I see a balance there. I am not sure an intellectual position could really stake things down, but maybe there is some platonic virtue that we speak to ideas?

If someone speaks to a notion and we call it an affirmative Cartesianism, it might be something about mind and body or conscious existence, but what I was here stiving to point out is that we we mostly discuss the relations of "subject and object", a derivation on that theme and this is more engrained. We have validated demonstrations of our assumptions; even and especially of the nature of the mind and the redness of the color red, what pleasure and pain, as all this is to a "subject", and so on, which we find easiest to deal with as a baseline qualitative experience. I am not sure what exactly this means. But ironically we assume we know what we mean here, always already, by internal and external realities; so that we only talk about them, and not of them as much. That would be a positive and affimative critique.

Probaby destructive and deconstructive thinkers can't throw out the moment Cartesianism essentially happened. The conventions that are based on it, are too far engrained in formal ways. It would probably just sound like an appeal to materialism (a world without mental experiences). I think it was a sort mistake (not the least in some of Descartes' arguments) in some ways. But what does anyone know about these things which are history? Luckily consciousness and the physical world has many names and can itself converse in our notions, from the nature of the mind to what medicines we use and how we live in emphasizing the positive, even if there are negatives.


Edited by Kurt (12/24/16 05:01 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBuster_Brown
L'une
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/17/11
Posts: 11,309
Last seen: 3 days, 14 hours
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Kurt]
    #23955648 - 12/25/16 02:09 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

The regulatory intermediary between our violent interaction in itself may be malleable or held to a standard, which suggests a tier of authority or courts with perhaps separate standards of involvement.

In regulating my own behavior I profess free choice of consequence and accord with the laws I uphold and suspect a superseding influence should I meet with opposition.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Buster_Brown]
    #23956426 - 12/25/16 12:54 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

That may be the other reason Cartesianism can't be slipped out of or escaped. Another way we are subjects, is in our social and political existence; an existence we positively enjoy, which prefers us from a Hobbsian anarchy. You're right to gesture to this, or to our "city of truth".

If being a "subject" doesn't just mean having an attitude toward an implicit knowledge base (of an objective world), but this is an organized convention, and institution of intellectual discussion (science), we can also be aware that science is conventionally pursued both as the residing sentiment to understand nature (naturalism) but also the vehicle of dialogue and synthesis which is mainly in our day driven by its own vehicle, and economy to a great degree, alone. Science - though it may touch on the same questions of metaphysics and epistemology - is not just another philosophy.

Philosophers have asked, what steers a free, self inspiring vehicle? We know that we perceive finitude and limits of knowledge in science, as its truth. This regulation and mediation works from the ground upward. To quote Hannah Aren't, our vita activa is to pursue "truth", and this is any vehicle that works and demonstrates itself within the same terms preceding it, informing it, finally in containment. "The real" as a word for this vehicle of truth of our day, is regulatory, and containing and harnessing power, through its economy. "The real" includes what passes and suffices to stand in our world and rationale (nature) but beyond that boundary, the hyperreality which challenges nature forward and into humankind's conventionality and invention itself.

We are challenged to reality, in other words and the residing sentiment, (which seems fair by the old standard) of man against nature suggests that this would be the same as staking out a place in natures elements. But our modern reality "contains" nature. For example, the invention of modern rocketry, or a device which happens to tame and demonstrate natural laws of astrophysics and thermodynamics, as such may be used to gather geological specimens on the moon, even or make Neil Degrasse Tyson's philosophical wonderment twinkle like the stars as the true and real, but the hyper reality of the real, which humanity challenges forth in nature is beyond what stands as true to nature.

Our social existence today seems to be a mass expression of projective truths, from a regulatory basis in general, an invention of truth. What is projected is what "stands" as the impartial argument or truth, and we hold to that as science. But the real, the empirical standard, as it were, since Descartes, is found between res cogitans and res extensa, a mental thing and extentional (spatiotemporal) physical reality, projecting to the hyper-real in the same moment, the modern mind and the projected/containing machine. From Descartes' inception res cogitans and res extensa  was challenging being and beings forth into the extensional (calculative and determinative) dimensions, as its projective sense of a whole, which ironically in its alienation is constantly trying to reclaim the unity of its terms. Technology itself, is the original appeal of the virtue of truth as its free utility, its forthright challenge, indistinguishable anywhere along the line, in its regulation from science. Science does not regulate or establish any difference between discovery and technological invention, just as science departed from the natural philosophy and teleology of Aristotle in the first place.

We seem to have not distinguished this "discovery" of nature. The rocket which is challenging, and demonstrating nature in yet another Copernican, turn in a relatively innocent engineer driven social reality, now contains nature, as much as it discovers it, and transcends discovery to contain reality. So we still call this nature, the self standing, or sufficient truth, but find by the ideal of the will expressed as calculative taming, the same ancient conceived judeochristian attitude towards the natural world of animals and plants, and genus and species, only more to emphasize whatever the will chooses to make as its natural world.

Though I can't help but appreciate the expediences which this modern existence affords, like a degree of political security, and free speech, the conventions of liberal democracy which came out of our modern world, hand in hand as "free thinking", this secularism (etymologically, seculer; "within the world" or from saecularis "of an age") as a regulated dialogue, so far as it is established has in my opinion forgotten itself, and is suspect. Containing things, is a positive, projecting foregoing way.

A critique of Cartesianism, just intellectually speaking (which I hope leads to understanding its implicitly endorsed consequences), would be in the generally ungrounded and projected arguments. Descartes doesn't actually ground mental entities and derivatively extended bodily machines in "modern" terms at all, but as such a radical departure, in fact, in an appeal to mideival scholastic standards. The mind is an ens  creatum, in reflection to ens perfectissimum, an idealized authority, as the necessary third substance which regulates the possibility of Descartes' "mind and body". This deferring and insertion of grounds of knowledge (for instance, for the perfect knowledge) is familiar to us but not as intellectual arguments originally suggested.

In doubting the senses, and external world and all rationalized conventions of knowing, all subject matters, in order to turn to the inward place of the mind, what makes the mind relavent and corresponding to the world? How does Descartes get the world back? To Descartes this containment and regulation appeals to the absolute:

"V. Why we may also doubt of mathematical demonstrations.

For example, the mind has within itself ideas of numbers and figures, and it has likewise among its common notions the principle THAT IF EQUALS BE ADDED TO EQUALS THE WHOLES WILL BE EQUAL and the like; from which it is easy to demonstrate that the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles, etc. Now, so long as we attend to the premises from which this conclusion and others similar to it were deduced, we feel assured of their truth; but, as the mind cannot always think of these with attention, when it has the remembrance of a conclusion without recollecting the order of its deduction, and is uncertain whether the author of its being has created it of a nature that is liable to be deceived, even in what appears most evident, it perceives that there is just ground to distrust the truth of such conclusions, and that it cannot possess any certain knowledge until it has discovered its author."

"XIII. In what sense the knowledge of other things depends upon the knowledge of God.

But when the mind, which thus knows itself but is still in doubt as to all other things, looks around on all sides, with a view to the farther extension of its knowledge, it first of all discovers within itself the ideas of many things; and while it simply contemplates them, and neither affirms nor denies that there is anything beyond itself corresponding to them, it is in no danger of erring. The mind also discovers certain common notions out of which it frames various demonstrations that carry conviction to such a degree as to render doubt of their truth impossible, so long as we give attention to them. For example, the mind has within itself ideas of numbers and figures, and it has likewise among its common notions the principle THAT IF EQUALS BE ADDED TO EQUALS THE WHOLES WILL BE EQUAL and the like; from which it is easy to demonstrate that the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles, etc. Now, so long as we attend to the premises from which this conclusion and others similar to it were deduced, we feel assured of their truth; but, as the mind cannot always think of these with attention, when it has the remembrance of a conclusion without recollecting the order of its deduction, and is uncertain whether the author of its being has created it of a nature that is liable to be deceived, even in what appears most evident, it perceives that there is just ground to distrust the truth of such conclusions, and that it cannot possess any certain knowledge until it has discovered its author."

Descartes author is hidden as the third substance, the "third person" invoked after the first and second relations, subjects and objects, and atheists and theists, as well call for mediation, as a community, of dialogue. This utopianism is both deified and the projected possibility of perfect knowledge, but as Heidegger argued, either way it is the insertion of our most baleful prejudice. I guess people are having the same argument of authority, and it is still what determines and regulates our understanding of beings as being, but I see more of a void between the ungrounded and opposed possibilities.

When we all put these discussions aside to deal with our baseline reality of the being as "present", (if not in the usual challenge in my opinion) what is it we accept? That to me me is the question. We accept our regulations, and accepting the present means letting things be and express themselves as they are. I do not know how much of a bang it should be, who we should elect, and do not know what gods should or should not be worshipped, but I do not think the contemporary world is any clearer in what it seems to challenge forward one way or another so occasionally that is the dialogue I would look to and think on. I think its ironic how much modern free thinkers reflect and structure their institutions upon the midieval absolutists they are at odds with. Usually people find these questions too formal; I wonder how they sit here...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Kurt]
    #23956525 - 12/25/16 01:58 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Thanks for keeping up with the exchange, by the way. I am not sure, but I would say I don't find my telos, my means or ends in criticism, but I tend to press on a point. I don't know, really. Even if these do seem to be issues of our day and age, it seems to me the way we are thrown into them, makes us perhaps more directly inheritors and less immediately responsible for things, in some ways. Regulations?

Some call this earth our ship...
Some older traditions are its shephards...
And some are stewards one way or another...

From one view to the next there seems to be violent differences, but are there?

It seems like if we are born into this situation, we are a step back to find temperance, in whatever is our way/ways. So I can tend to press on a critical point to make myself, but generally I enjoy trying to understand the world, and appreciate the dialogue here.

To anyone else reading or who has remarked here with insights and connections, thanks. Even if I stand differently to the basic validity (challenging forward) of psychology as science, for instance I thought a little more about it and respect the view of how it would be practically scientific. It is in one sense yet another vehicle of modern people's truths after all, and modern westerner's conceptions of mind and body, which are not in my opinion "wrong" exactly, so much as they could be critically rethought. I don't really know, I guess res cogitans is what we go with, in the broad sense. We are thrown to it, and we catch up with ourselves.

Anyway, happy holidays everyone, all solstices, and festivals included.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   North Spore Bulk Substrate   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* cartesian dualism is unsound
( 1 2 all )
Patisotagami 3,115 28 02/20/10 09:42 PM
by Kickle
* Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!)...
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Shroomalicious 11,179 107 05/03/10 01:26 AM
by Withinity
* Cartesian Dualism Voido 1,317 9 04/29/08 11:51 PM
by johnm214
* Are Believers Rational Beings?
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Swami 8,172 60 04/22/02 03:23 AM
by infidelGOD
* Why Dualism is Forlorn
( 1 2 3 all )
Annom 4,224 50 12/17/04 03:29 PM
by Phluck
* Is Buddhism Cartesian?
( 1 2 all )
Lakefingers 3,076 22 06/02/07 09:45 AM
by redgreenvines
* Dualism
( 1 2 all )
Jellric 2,354 24 12/14/04 07:46 PM
by ninjapixie
* Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs
( 1 2 all )
Swami 10,629 39 01/14/05 05:58 PM
by Alan Stone

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
3,114 topic views. 1 members, 19 guests and 9 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.029 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 15 queries.