Home | Community | Message Board

NorthSpore.com BOOMR Bag!
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: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   North Spore Bulk Substrate   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Mushroom-Hut Mono Tub Substrate   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9  [ show all ]
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Cartesianism and Violence
    #23941901 - 12/19/16 10:27 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Is Cartesianism, mind and body, or a subject to object relation, a kind of violence?

I believe it is, when the characteristic detachment to a present object is contextually situated, or is seen in actuality to grow out of an implicit involvement with nature and its entities. I think maybe I can try to explain this.

I would assume an understanding of our "present" situation can only be possible in this sensibility by giving a genetic historical account, as exhaustively as possible. Admittedly I find what I am able to do, and make clear, is only in the smallest gesture, and a basic analysis. I guess that means this will be a long post, with modest content, but hopefully it might be considered a contribution to the forum.

I don't expect anyone to respond to me in point on this, by the way, but I would like to suggest the notion, more openly as a question, or "questioning" to anyone who finds a question which may intimately concern our world, compelling. My response to the question, is yes, Cartesianism is a kind of philosophically endorsed violence, and the particular response to it I would propose is deconstructive.

I would assume that what is spoken of as an endearing concept, such as an adopted linguistic context, is sometimes just generally pragmatic. People’s novel experiences, and ways of being are not something I want to question, here. But it also seems important from another priority to avoid the entrenchment of bad ideas, or “bad science”, which is the back and forth of all contemporary western philosophy, seemingly, however deep people go into it. Typically I do not think that endorsement of science, goes deep enough.

We also have pragmatism. To be pragmatic might also be to say, that reflecting on our language use, our concepts, allows us to overcome some hangups like for instance, subject and object, and mind and body, which are also complicit concepts of our modern world more broadly. We can talk about linguistic sentences and their "correspondence" to the world, rather than subject and object, for instance, to a great degree, in more pragmatic ways. I agree with the notion, but I am not sure how I could beyond a generality. I would note, (as Rorty did) a language is just the new projected ideal, or post hoc justification of a mental experience it comes drawn from, in this sense, but does not disclose in these terms. Correspondence allows for other potentials of language (which are not correspondence theories) but it is basically the subject object relation in another package.

So as for pragmatism, it seems like on the plus side, as analysts have argued, it would be better to talk about linguistic practices, and the concepts and notions we have, and practically work with these, rather than mind body issues. But on the other hand, to think that analyses and practices around language necessarily put aside mind and body dualisms, by assuming these hardly disguised dualist terms, would be a bad assumption. It seems to me, to a large degree, linguistic/conceptual approach, is just a kind of further entrenchment in assumptions sometimes.

I do not think there is some ideal or pure reference. It seems to me that languages more or less develop contingent to history, and the novel idea or paradigm is to all extent and purposes, a metaphor that emerged that is gradually accepted as reality - if language theories do get beyond being replacements for  "mental mediums". I always liked Nietzsche's line, because it describes the revolutionary idea as it really is:

Quote:


What, then, is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms—in short, a sum of human relations which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that this is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins.




What I like about Nietzsche's description, is as he describes metaphors, once they have worn out their sensuous power, that is precisely when they are most established as the paradigm of a normal economy and context of exchange. Metaphors are the revolutionary idea of tomorrow, to become eventually worn and outdated concept as soon as it is accepted. The metaphor, in an ordinary context, is what breaks the rule of a language. This is how I think we should treat many concepts, if we think directly upon them. I think in a marginal way, it is a good outlet, better than trying to fit things into categories. When it comes to Descartes, the modern western concept of mind and body, this is how I think of his conceptions, are in one sense, in their arbitrariness.

One active topic here, is on the pineal gland, referred to as the material counterpoint, to a philosophy which ascribes a passage between “mind and body”. It was Descartes who in the 17th century called the pineal gland “the seat of the soul”. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy still has an entry on this. I have not looked at it, but maybe there is some history of not so great ideas there:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pineal-gland/

This is pseudo-science. I think what is sometimes missed in critiques of a “pseudo science” though, is that a simple analysis of material structures as proof, never addresses the reason the notion and is sought. In fact, both materialists and idealists seek this reconciliation if we look at the terms. Sometimes it seems like a material justification is sought in a broader constellation of ideas, which inform that we look for something like this, or ground a more abstract theory, in one way or another, and this may remain generally as impetus. Historically and to this day, this background impetus, to something being sought, is generally accepted. It is not just the persistent sentimentality of idealism that informs the particular ideal. It is not the mistaken arrogant assumptions belonging to a "materialist" in appropriating the world. It is neither of these things alone.

Why do we value the “I think”, “cogito”, cognition, as though it were a “thing” (res cogitan)? Why do we value these rationalizations, the particular “cognitivism” of our culture as an idea, where we are relating to a mental “thing”, a mind, or consciousness, and indulging the idea that this has any empirical or material basis to resolve? People say they question this philosophical dualism, one way, or they synthesize a philosophical impetus with whatever terms and mistakes in what they call more organic terms, but they do not often question the informing terms, which say to look for the mental “thing” to begin with. When someone says to look for something that can't be found, in so many cases, they remain in the seeking attitude.

The broader set of assumptions are firmly and genetically situated in western culture in many ways; but not per se, in terms of any particular proposition, or knowledge, not like "the seat of the soul". But when examined, these background assumption are not any better or more grounded as a floating whole, than the specific idea or any other material structure, bridging the mind and body, in such a proposition we hold place for. When someone like Richard Rorty comes along and rejects the existence of the mind, as an “invention”, in its usual rationalization, and likewise to finally say it is not worth the candle to think of anymore, I think mostly I agree.

Here is an orthodox assumption: It is said that mind and matter, a metaphysical question, is a "hard" problem that will never be solved, but somehow, it is implied by the way we think of the world in general. We have no problem talking about and resolving the difference between a “subject” and “object” though, for instance. Why? This is western philosophy in a nutshell. In a positive sense we prioritize something, affirm it, because it has “something to do with what we know”, right? Truth. And where do we begin but with the terms of what we know? Or is it that philosophy begins with being pressed up to the ledge of bad assumptions?

We accept the idea of a conscious “subject” (a subject has traditionally been stated as the basis of knowledge) only if it is abstracted, and in effect, constantly. A subject is something in the world, in a sensibility, and is like the way we talk about other subject matters, and other investigations of the natural world, which we seek to understand and know. But it is "itself" not something we investigate, like other subjects. Consciousness is a special subject, and when people start accepting and equivocating this standard, as basis, that is where we get bad assumptions.

It is possible that by following Descartes, due to his inconsistent system, we talk about a subject as the “mode” (ie. mentality) of relation to an “object”, paradigmatically. This is its concept, we know. A subject in this sense may be what is questioned, but not in regards to what it is, like other subjects in the world. It is questioned or interrogated rather, according to its deferred experience of the world (an object) in an empirical standard. This relation lays bear the possibility of any knowledge whatsoever, following Descartes’ assumptions and becomes “necessary” in all our considerations.

Since the world used to be found mainly in its subject, directly, and it was subjects we came up to, we still preserve that standard of knowledge (the natural world) but add another consideration. Rather than treating a subject as something natural, and part of the physical world, we so to say, come to its “door” and question it, or interrogate it, and demand entry. Our mode of “interrogation” of subjective experiences is consequently considered routine and necessary, to get to any subject in the world in front of us (now considered its empirical object). We find this a necessary demand, on our door, because the subject, we know, its place and grew out of the western philosophy's perennial comportment with nature, where "subjects" were indeed substances, or things in themselves, “subject matters” (hypokeimenon “underlying thing”) and this comportment, will always be our way, in the world that opened itself sublimely to the naturalist’s eye.

Where we ourselves become subjects, "things" we first set out a safe place, and then demand entry; we ourselves become this opening, and consequently this demand for opening, to content of the world. However it is put, (whether even Hegel got it right), without ado, we accept this equivocation of the meaning of a subject as bearing the openness and access to nature, even if in bearing the meaning of openness and accessibility, perception begins to be (as subjectivity) what obtrudes.

This is not a true phenomenological investigation, without pointing to this closing of access, and separation. It is just the "necessary" pathology of westerners who cut themselves off from nature, forget their roots, and find that a natural relation can subsequently only be found in challenging and demanding something forward, to the extent that if given a choice, probably they would prefer this. When Aristotle said that anything was a subject so far as it was a “thing” from natural phenomena to a book that opens itself, the thing opened itself from itself, in a way that we could not explain, and knowledge of nature, physis, was sublime to all greeks. To Aristotle, a “thing” in its thingness, or a substantive being or entity, showed itself, from itself. Subjects are just like they are as beginnings of sentences sentences, books containing knowledge, or natural phenomena (abstract or concrete objects - but always ultimately designated as substantive to nature) that open themselves. As Descartes, questions the sense, or rather puts it in a place to be interrogated, he needs to do a dance to justify a completely different rationalistic structure, a “mental thing”, (justified so far as it is bearing the general possibility of knowledge of the world) as thing, and as he incorporates this justification, as the general possibility of knowledge, its foundation, in a positive sense, apparently, all subsequent philosophy overlooks that what he designates is not an empirical object or a thing, perhaps it is what is most questionable of all. Thus we do not inquire, we interrogate for meaning. This becomes the mode of a transcendental subject, the opening or access to nature, remains the only source of relation, but limited to the standard of empirical,  which is justified in projectionality of epistemological structures; subject and object.

It is impossible to naturalize what in Descartes’ terms was never coherent. He originally calls the internal experience, a thing, but in spite of coming to it, as indubitable, in terms of a line of doubt, it was not an empirically observable itself. "I think", is not a concrete empirical observation of a “thing”, actually, and a conclusion "I am" is drawn from an assumption, if it is not itself what Informed I think, completely circularly. All Cartesian rationalizations are essentially circular even as it becomes the purportedly robust ground of all empirical observations, as the subject object (sense) relationships. These as just mentioned, are only possible in broadly equivocating the meaning of a subject, as two different things. We work in those terms, as far as we find them consistent, in terms of knowledge, and obviate the inconsistency of metaphysics.

That seems to be enough we figure, because, in a positive sense, bearing the world as radically alterior and posterior to us, and radically different, allows a kind of demanded access to things, which we seem to prefer. A domain to more prevailingly dictate, as human beings, is perhaps inevitably what from the beginning, was broached, as things. The efficient control and domain of a subject object relation, is perhaps an improvement, from just relating to nature, and its subjects, which already bared themselves enough. To describe this, as a narrative, is perhaps striking anyone as ascribing too much intelligibility to these occurrences, of human nature, but perhaps that will be forgiven. The narrative in a skeptical sense, is how western philosophers learn to pack all metaphysical assumptions they have in what they consider the implicit and necessary structure to positivistic knowledge. 

In the broadest sense what is a "subject" then? It could be said it is almost directly comported violence. We are “subject” above all as passive or receiving, and dictated, by the objective world. We are subject insofar as what we experience is marginal, always the object of designation, never the subject of communication. The objective world as “nature”, is supposedly this oppressive, to some people, and we do not exaggerate to confirm what can be projected this way. But this is a relation nonetheless, even as one-sided as it may seem. So a conscious subject in this sense has its inherent mysteries; (it is said) as its apparent freedom, or as mentioned its basic “specialness”, among other subjects, so far as it in fact must in some aspect (to exist at all) necessarily escape the pure economy of the leveling of all things to the quantitative empirical generality that it is subordinated to. For instance, a subjective mental experience in the world, as a relation to an object, is said to have a substantive qualitative experience in something like “the redness of the color red”, or “pleasure” or “pain”, things that at a point, we can only describe as raw qualitative experience, however close we can pinpoint how the brain structures may “light up” in showing us these experiences.

The qualitative or subjective experience is the point where physically objective reduction comes to a baseline and grounds out. Where the experience can’t be further analyzed or defined, an experience is subjective, and generally, this is seen in the general terms we comport ourselves to the world (the mentioned subject to object relations) as constitutive of our experience as a whole from the level ground up. Like Descartes said (when he doubted the external world) initially we come from what we assume in our senses, through doubt of what we assume, to finally wrest what we know, as a rational structure, in the way we inquire in general. The circularity, or interrogation of experience, is the grounds of certainty in one sense, the indubitable proposition, or the foundation of knowledge,  even though as we know in this whittling down and squeezing of the world of experience, we come to what escapes this tyranny of “knowledge”, as a subject. Again, conventionally, (and with whatever dogmas) we only question this subject as an entity, not as like other subject matters, so we “question” it, rather than inquire to it as we might understand.

Causally, in a similar way, go through the assumptions. We figure sometimes mental events supervene in the world, (I think, to move my arm, and fingers to type words, with whatever subserving physical structures, this if anything at all is mental activity) but at the same time, so far as we idealize and project a pursuit of absolute knowledge, this can happen for just as plausibly predetermined reasons, the chemical reactions and neurological economies, behavioristic relations to a surrounding environment. What description we rely on could seemingly be chosen without any fallacy, apparently to project these common sense baselines of physical and mental, respectively and usually with one in relation TO the other. We find this reasonable, in terms of what we can presently rationalize as a pursuit of knowledge as a totality, which is what we have our complicit assumptions about which we project as our positions in perennial discussions (a historicity that is unexamined). As long as our priority to know stands out, as first priority, we have both common sense, and idealized terms to speak in, implied by a general "subject" (with a respective phenomenal object) of physics, and chemistry and biology, not just as concepts, but in the gravitation around speculated terms of what they can and can’t explain in their object schema.

The opening of sensation, subject as a “relation” or mode, is arguably not just something we are going to figure out, or ever even sincerely ask of at all, in these schematics, but in an equal economy, a constant epistemological equivocation. A "subjective" experience of red, merely stands for whatever we don’t happen to objectively quantify, whatever we don’t articulate in a true subject matter. We come circle and say because this general relation of subject to object is necessary for knowledge, we can call statements which are broadly consistent with knowledge, in these abstractions, as knowledge (as a philosophically proved “subject”). Pragmatically and to certain effect this works, and is what people expect, and find to be most reasonable. At the same time, it is if bared in its related terms, it is indeed a completely fabricated invention, without any ground other than circularity, or some kind of arrogance or hubris of western philosophers, to find a pursuit of knowledge projected outwardly according to the seeming "line" of Descartes’ initial reasoning.

The question is, if you trace this way of thinking, in all its implications and back and forth, is this speculation, of a “pineal gland”, as the seat of the soul, to a “cogito”, or to its epistemological generalization as a “subject” (and if you give the full genetic account coming through to the present treatment of a linguistic concept, as a media, and “information science”) are you either just dragged along, by a history of bad understandings, but understand the contingency of these developments, and recognize as a whole, the problem. Are these concepts, useful as they are, any better than pseudo-science itself? Is Cartesianism not itself as a whole pseudo-science? Sure maybe we should be affirmative philosophers we should talk about language and concept, but what about this tradition that keeps accruing and building upon bad assumptions, bad faith, bad rationale, and bad ethics?

What it takes to come to terms with the world today, is not again pointing out the pseudoscience, but a deconstruction of the total constellation, the epistemological equivocations which are broadly accepted, that accompany this ideal. The question nobody asks, is why the word “subject” has equivocal meaning. Yet we are complicit to accept this meaning, and walk around and think of consciousness as it constructs knowledge and vice versa. Accepting of equivocal meaning for a moment, is post-modernity, while the deconstruction, and radical reconsideration of tradition is something people can draw out more or less appropriately to a setting. I say, be pragmatic or constructivist, take a scientific attitude, but feel free to dwell in your own notions, and when you can criticize the prejudices that are handed down and supposed to be accepted as given. It is in more than one dimension than idealist and materialist; it is history now. Or another alternative, is as Rorty argues; learn to see language, and concept as something which does not "mediate" reality mainly through its correspondence.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Kurt]
    #23942407 - 12/20/16 04:16 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

I agree.



--------------------
Anxiety is what you make it.


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

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: LunarEclipse]
    #23942857 - 12/20/16 09:47 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

A less formal way of putting it; could be that we overload the temporal basis of the present, or "presence".

Consider all the entities that are formally considered as what is "present at hand". We have subjects, or the substantial matters, and issues we are supposed to understand.

These become our relation and commitment to their "objects" though (subject object sense relations) which are constantly expressed. Then, this means we become subjects, and we are supposed to engage in these relations and question ourselves, and others (in our subjective experieces) to arrive at the content of any subject/object.

The presence of the world, could also be packed into the languages we use, the "paradigms" and conceptual frameworks, of what is, or the way we talk about objects in theoretical complexes which goes beyond even classical spatiotemporal objects, to correspond with the entities we call facts. For instance evolution - genetic decent  and change - is a fact, while Darwinian natural selection, as an explanation is a theoretical justification for this fact, implied in the background. It is the conservative basis of the fact of evolution, but not necessarily the exhaustive explaination of the standing of  the "fact".

And my question was; is this philosophical violence? Maybe violence began when Aristotle designated the Natural world as its "thing" its "subject", the manifest form which gives itself over in inteligibility and engagement in the first place

If I consider this just a remark on the way "things" are (I am an Aristotelian myself, as much as I believe that evolution is a fact on a conservative basis of natural selection...) but this does not seem to say whether ethically I would recognize anything occuring at all, in saying a thing is a thing. But when I attempt to describe all these relations, one growing out of the next, beyond "the present" of an aging historical presence, it is difficult to miss the degree of violence in each abstraction of things. Each abstraction is like stuffing and loading the world into a singular present, or sense of "what is", with additional forms of content. A subject or thing is what is, but an object is too though, and so is a fact, or what has increasingly been called "information" lately.

Anyway it is just a thought or reflection on the present. I took Descartes as particularly exemplary of violence.  Take the empirical-scientific standard itself, but not just bearing as facts or information, but in how it was conceived prior to being an institution. Since we follow Descartes' model of rationalism, an idea the senses are generally justifiable to doubt (which becomes the particular way of interrogating sense experience) this way of eliciting objects molds into a demand of the sensible entities implicitly. This doesn't just refer to our demand for the natural world in certain enframed terms. We dissimulate ourselves, to say that every experience is in this realm of possibility (in doubt) of either being a complete delusion, or hallucination, or what is founded in the senses. As this becomes a criterion for reality, we do not much consider if it is realistic, to act in organic ways as if our senses are accurate or not. More likely the intelligibility of experience does not fit into this mode of corresponding to the homogenous experiential datums, and the complicit norms of existing conceptual paradigms, and we really experience what we do. In other words, in a cartesian world it is as if we want a standard of distinguishing truth and falsity so much, we assume the senses are true and false. So the irreal, must situate the real, and no doubt the real pays its heed to the hyperreal the inflation of the present.

I don't suppose this makes sense or is particular true, in laying out these formal ideas. What I was thinking, after listening to a radio program recently on "our age"; was that we have three temporal extacies. Previously I thought mostly there were two, in the present, the historical development, (past and future). This is what I would be, to your amusement surely, attempting to describe. But it strikes me there is another temporal extacy which would be age.

An age would be something likke the way a day goes by so fast when you are young, but it is so much of your life. Or it would be like when you get older things slow down. Whether myh cat is younger than me in number of years and history, at the same time 15 or so years of age to a cat, is old in age. I was wondering the other day, if what we ascribe as the wisdom of elders is being in that temporal flow, rather than having a set of total experiences; a history in a technical sense. The formal stuff, on history and the overloaded present, seems accidental compared to the pacing rhythms of age itself. I don't think historical deconstruction, or more pragmatic language is necessarily a solution to the problems of the present, but maybe it is somehow looking for grounds in age.

Just a thought on the way of life though, I guess.


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

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Kurt]
    #23944144 - 12/20/16 05:44 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

What is our age?

Okay. Well I like Pink Floyd, and get the reference, now that I think about it. The first question is of that "special" divide and distinction of philosophers. In my experience there seems to be two approaches to dealing with these. One is the philosophical equivalent of dynamite, and the other is more protracted. Most things you can't just approach with dynamite anyway.

A philosophical distinction is actually easily passable as much as it builds up though. Maybe the thought I am having difficulty with; from this point of view, and attitude, (maybe a less headstrong approach to life in my age in some ways) is in dealing with what happens when you pass through walls, and supposed distinctions people live by. This is not dynamite. The consequence seems to be not in confronting a hard reality, but in part that "they" (the walls of the world) end up irrelevant, and so do you when you pass through.

I may be a bit younger, but I hear Radiohead song with that constant baseline, as my own, "I walk through walls...I float down a liffy."

Or to put another way, I find the poet Philip Larkin relatable when he says:

And once you have walked the length of your mind, what
You command is as clear as a lading-list
Anything else must not, for you, be thought
        To exist
And what 's the profit? Only that, in time
We half-identify the blind impress
All our behaving bear, may trace it home.
        But to confess.
On that green evening when our death begins,
Just what it was, is hardly satisfying,
Since it applied only to one man once,
        And that man dying.



My question, if I could raise one, would be how we pass through... the hard distinctions, the deep ideology, and education, life, etc which makes us or what we did, as a consequence unreal, if the notion makes sense. I don't think I will be able to present the ethical issue I intended here in clear terms, a straight forward critique. Instead, I think I should have titled this thread in a more positive way "On Age", which is not just some moment of violence in its problematics. And maybe I am projecting a bit, that an age is what we also just pass through.

I don't mean all the angst driven existential stuff necessarily. I would't say it is existential angst necessarily makes people distract themselves, in a constant stimulation (and simulation) of presence, and present moments. That's a particular theory, that itself projects, and this isn't so personal in my opinion. But if we do tend to constantly inflate and load the present with meaning, in our age, for whatever reason, and if we always are looking to this as "the present", I would say in a way we miss our age in these moments.

Maybe this does not necessarily need to be a critique mainly. Maybe what we do  needs to emphasize that the natural world just brings itself forward from another view in this way. I am not sure what the "present" is, and how consistent it is to what it "should be". But an age of philosophy is like spring and summer branches that grow and reach out to the Platonic sun, always up and out, always in progress, while at the same time partly, and then nearly fully, they conceal what they came of, in the denseness of foliage. The simple psychological expression would be that we forget, as we do in individual psychologies. And what is the new? If and when someone does assert value laden judgements, a flower refutes its previous way, just as much as a fruit refutes the flower, and the seed is only something outside of where it comes from, (for instance, in this Hegelian metaphor) and all we know of is that as a complete cycle which knows this as the separation. This in simple psychology, is a sentimental sensibility. To Nietzsche, a metaphor is also the new paradigm, pure creativity, which loses its sensuous value to become true, real and established, in its better worn exchanges but that is the path of all truths and armies of metaphors we dispatch. Like in the way we can hardly comprehend a collective version of our forgetting, we can hardly recognize what is in front of us in this way, by nature.

What if all our paradigms were originally these metaphors, and we just overlook this due to the seeming individuality of metaphorical existence, when we live in consensus reality, from which we constantly seem to forget? Will "they" call it sentimental to acknowledge this? A sentimentalist (some kind of overladenness we watch for as inner creators and poets) seems to be someone who looks back ultimately. We look back on our lives for some impress we made, only to find like Larkin, there is no general impress, and only our self creativity, which stands existentially. We fold things back and look at what is forgotten, what is the hardened stem and trunk, because that is what is most solid. We look to the conventional exchange. But what is it now, or in respect to now, is all we can ask. We can't question deeply, or question too much? I guess it seems right that we should in a positive way try to live in a present and its age, leaving some history forgotten and covered from one view.

Philosophically, what hardens up is what is most difficult to critique or question. It is sometimes unfathomable, to question, and only in the progress, of science, does it seem like we view any progress. A philosopher can emphasize it more maybe, affirming what it is, or what it seems to be, in order to question it. And it is what many controversial philosophers have said. There is an interesting connotation in the etymology of the word "modern", what we call our age. It is from latin "just now". It seems to me, modern world, or just now is supposed to made of some kind of "hard" or condensed, and packed reality, even as it endorses what it calls a present and increasingly disposable age in this. I do not mean to be too pessimistic about the way things go in this direction, more or less in themselves. Moral principles would have to be in specifics. But it is worth questioning, this unsustainable attitude. If we live in a "modern" way today, and we may surely forget yesterday, what do we live tomorrow? Is tomorrow modern too? Is there anything following what is modern? Isn't this modern attitude, something which deconstructs itself? Or is it to always be constantly stimulated, hard packed and disposable? I want to put this somewhere in line with a narrative, of this growth process, but I don't know what the constant ladening of the present would be. Maybe the idea of such a view or responsibility to history is impossible.

It seems like, unlike Hegel, who spoke of the end of history, and more like philosophers following him, we display things ourselves and let them fall apart, showing what it was in those things, that made them up, in philosophy. We look to a conscious subject today for instance, what Hegel called the spirit of our age. We look to a subject which in the most literal sense, if examined rightly, is equivocal. It has more than one usage and meaning, we grew out of. But I am bored with the idea of saying the way things are, saying what is true, about what seems to me to be untrue. When we have to be clear, and correct (true, and present), when someone asks to clarify particulars, I find I am pretty well able to. I would not attempt this associative approach to a question of clarification, for instance, of what do I mean by "presence" or the mechanics of a historical narrative, but it seems appropriate to realize that there is something that moves by itself, and the contingency of our language, just our metaphors to describe things. We do not describe any essential way of our own, or the way the world is. Is it to difficult to think on being? Well sure, and maybe it only comes in ironies to the philosopher. The irony might be that our "age" is as considerable temporal reality, as our present.

I might have said this, to my cat. Because across differences, I know a fifteen year old cat has understood age, in a way I can't, as any mere occurring and accruing of experience. I am older and younger, and of different and the same kind, as temporal being...

Okay, so I think I have flooded enough of my projected enough of my own ideas of things, to anyone if they read these posts. I do not assume it is all agreeable or sensible or anything at all, but I will leave my take as this.
Does anyone associate with any of these questions or critiques.
The original question was of "violence and thinking".
But I think a better question, is "What is our age...?"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Kurt]
    #23945227 - 12/21/16 05:11 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Mind and Body
Thoughts and Feelings
Opinion and Observation
Subjective and Objective
Implicit and Explicit
Central and Peripheral(nervous system)



--------------------
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, 15 hours
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: sudly] * 1
    #23945274 - 12/21/16 06:20 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

In the separation of Jungs 'daimon', or quintessence, from the husk, one can attribute Cartesianism to the former and empiricism to the latter.

If the daimon is entrapped by ideals then that may support  matt 5:27-8 in that a change in an ideal results in a change of empirical evidence.

i.e Rhizome's predilection to  steal his parents car is thwarted by the lack of the corresponding ideal in the object (his parents), whereas a conformity of ideals may result in imprisonment  for both parties and their "quintessences".

Isolation of Cartesian examples may then depend on the ideals of the "husks" conforming to non-judgementalism and letting inclement weather roll off a duck's back, so to speak.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Buster_Brown]
    #23945290 - 12/21/16 06:37 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

What in the fuck are you talking about?


--------------------
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, 15 hours
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: sudly]
    #23945311 - 12/21/16 07:03 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

The fork in the road.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Buster_Brown]
    #23945319 - 12/21/16 07:13 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

If that's the case then a choice has to be made and I choose the anatomy of the human nervous system explained through biology and modern evolutionary understandings.

Quote:

Is Cartesian Dualism, mind and body?




Yup.


--------------------
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, 15 hours
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: sudly]
    #23945334 - 12/21/16 07:24 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

The vigorous route with ever new obstacles to surmount.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Buster_Brown]
    #23945346 - 12/21/16 07:37 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

But boy do those summits look beautiful back there, and at least I got some photos.


--------------------
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, 15 hours
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: sudly]
    #23945353 - 12/21/16 07:45 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Care to compare skylines?



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Buster_Brown]
    #23945362 - 12/21/16 07:52 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, 15 hours
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: sudly]
    #23945381 - 12/21/16 08:12 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

chaos vs order one might observe.
       
               


Edited by Buster_Brown (12/21/16 08:19 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Buster_Brown]
    #23945412 - 12/21/16 08:28 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Negative entropy is a thing by Schrodinger and it's what I believe instead of karma.

Quote:

The concept and phrase "negative entropy" was introduced by Erwin Schrödinger in his 1944 popular-science book What is Life? Later, Léon Brillouin shortened the phrase to negentropy,to express it in a more "positive" way: a living system imports negentropy and stores it.

Indeed, negentropy has been used by biologists as the basis for purpose or direction in life, namely cooperative or moral instincts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negentropy#cite_note-6




In my view morality isn't objective because it's subjective and not instinctive because a sense of morality requires conscious reasoning of good and bad.

Quote:

Instinctive: relating to or prompted by instinct; done without conscious thought.




--------------------
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, 15 hours
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: sudly]
    #23945440 - 12/21/16 08:41 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

I appreciate your divisive co-operation.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Buster_Brown]
    #23945447 - 12/21/16 08:45 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Truth ain't no democracy.


--------------------
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, 15 hours
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: sudly]
    #23945618 - 12/21/16 09:54 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Isn't it? the refutation of Cartesianism on the principle of physical involvement with nature and its entities is to place us in Kurt's lap.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Buster_Brown] * 1
    #23946501 - 12/21/16 04:05 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Psychology has never been an exact science, but I won't assume that is so by nature. The brain is so complex and difficult to study that progress in that regard is very slow, perhaps all but non-existent to date. Does this mean the question of meaning cannot be approached using the scientific method? I think it's a bit pre-mature to suggest an answer one way or the other.

In the mean time, humans have been doing the best they can dealing with pre and post modern problems without the benefit of science. If Cartesianism does promote violence it's only because it has been wildly successful on the non-phychological front and inherently changed the way we interact in the world. But humans are adaptable creatures. Some people thrive despite the general removal of ourselves from more natural surroundings. Is this a good or bad thing? Who is to say?


--------------------
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]
    #23946563 - 12/21/16 04:27 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

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


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
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, 15 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, 15 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, 15 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, 15 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, 15 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, 6 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, 15 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
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Kurt]
    #23956652 - 12/25/16 03:21 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

I once in a very assuming way characterized (famous and perhaps brilliant historical figure we were talking about) as someone who experienced brief moments of lucidity. After making the statement I had misgivings as it had little to do with the person in question but rather my general view of humanity and by extension myself. I'm not so pessimistic now, though I don't think my viewpoint in that regard has changed much. I can't say as a matter of fact that pre-Descartes things were much difference but suspect Descartes wasn't the first Cartesian in practice. Full knowledge of our mortality brings troubled thoughts, and perhaps even on a more basic level we're prone to anxiety that by function results in better survivability.

I think in practice we do experience brief moments of lucidity, results varying of course. Ideally we are able to incorporate those experiences into our daily life and perhaps with some understood cognitive dissonance being a reasonable price, we experience a separation between how we feel deep down at times and how we learn to view and interact with the world in ways that tend to promote and maintain harmony.

Quote:

Kurt said:
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.




--------------------
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, 15 hours
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Kurt]
    #23956915 - 12/25/16 05:44 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

For the life of me I can't figure out why I can't find the opening post on other philosophy sites.

Quote:

Kurt said:
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: Rahz]
    #23957119 - 12/25/16 07:15 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Well said Rahz although I think we might disagree on genius. Lucidity is something I can follow.

I'd say tentatively (on a common sense way) that lucidity is quintessentially philosophical. But I take it, it is basically an ease in one's thoughts and expressions, which seemingly flow from the clarity or transparency of one's perceptions.

Lucidity as an ease in the way from one's perception may likely be psychological in principle, in this way, so I will have to access a few points to you there. I would more readily accede that we discuss the world in these terms than in our "mental existence" which I believe (especially in the Cartesian sense) is an intellectual aspiration to ascribe closure to the "existence" of minds in a more technical way. I'll give you the fundamental place of psychological analysis of existence, for this argument, gladly.

Before even precartesian philosophers like Aristotle talked of matter and the forms it takes (as being) and before this language modulated into Descartes system, surrounding a formal "subject" of the mind, (which indubitably "must exist", therefore raises more or less profound questions of its substance and origins), perhaps what was expressed as being, Before either of them was a psychological lucidity toward being, or existence itself, one's "situation" in nature, so to say? One way to say this, is that in being we face our own mortality, or non-being. If this is felt in a sense of challenge, and duality too, (first between human and nature) it can be a proposition one human being named and another considers.

I think there is a limit to this approach, in that the proposition that we fear nature's way, can't be necessarily true as some psychological fact, which goes with the fact of death. The mistake would be to take the theoretical postulate, as a necessary explanation for everything and anything. Freud himself said "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" (and not an oral fixation or symbol of a phallus). Sex is a theoretical drive if it is also most real according to Freud.

So what is fear of mortal existence and death? Fear comes in varieties of sweaty hands on a date, to the neurological response to shadow flitting on the periphery of vision (which neurologists find has a basic necessary reflex) to a drawn out anxiety a human has about one's being-toward something, and in this way realizing one's being can be towards nothing, or what we conceive of that, in death. If that is what a person theorizes upon, as anxiety, that investment seems complex, and philosophical, and generally it would seem to be a mistake to assume that "necessity" (of psychological fear) in general belongs to what we talk about, even if we well know the complex difference between being-towards something, and being-towards death and and the dread this can inspire.

To quote Richard Rorty;

Quote:

"But 'Fear of extinction' is an unhelpful phrase. There is no such thing as Fear of inexistence as such, but only fear of some concrete loss. 'Death' and 'nothingness' are equally resounding, equally empty terms. To say one fears either is as clumsy as Epicurus's attempt to say Why one should not fear them. Elicits said 'When I am, death is not and when death is, I am not'; this exchanging one faculty for another. For the word 'I' is as hollow as death..."




As final and necessity as death of nothingness may seem, in the way we think on it, or in the way some say that we should when we have life in the one hand and death in the other, what can we say of this? Do we not have to come back to admit the philosophical complexity of the question of death and nothing, rather than project this in the guise of a theory, to fallaciously say "one must fear as I do?" Isn't death anxiety theory, a coping mechanism for feeling philosophically pessimistic, or alienated from life, and humanity in some cases? People have these explanations for existence, and they can be seen as symptoms, and we can see things this way in general.

I will say I fear death though. In fact that (fear) has been many things and significantly changed alot. The suffering of existence, to me (as in wondering "why do I choose, or incline so much to suffer existence, as I do") has somewhat tempered that anxiety I felt before. That complex sentence was more a question, a menagerie of things I felt I was to be, "being towards" and that being met with a difference. I do not see this position as pessimism or something anyone should be challenged to see. There was some ancient Buddhist line I read before that said something like "the enlightened one sees clearly that all that arises is suffering and nothing aside. I didn't read this or find this as comforting when I felt existential But when life the positive term was pretty bad. (An illness I have since learned better to deal with.) I am not sure if this anecdote means anything, but when I have thought and emotionally felt myself as a being towards death, like say, yesterday morning for some reason I have found it more relative to what I have experienced, and it was sort of like... Yup, deal with what is in your plate. I figure (and again it's just my experience) I am more afraid of concrete losses, which I deal with anyway, as enough of a problem than what the strange philosophical animal feels and thinks at the same time.

And this makes me wonder. Why does Descartes say a mind "must exist"? Must it? The argument preceding this, If you recall, Rahz is essentially that the world is falling away; as it is being doubted into oblivion, for possibly being deceiving (by the senses). I am not sure what is so deceiving about life, but Descartes claims this as an intellectual position of skepticism, not a psychologically visceral claim, as a crisis, or spiral (etc) but I still do not know why the mind must exist, at least in these technical terms. It seems like something "must" necessarily exist in the mind only on the grounds that the world was falling away to doubt in the first place. So in that sense, how Cartesian arguments work, seems to be kind of strange.They seem to too necessarily relate different arguments. For example, it seems to me the Cartesian says something like:

"I must doubt my senses and the external world until I come to my mental experience, which must in turn exist to ground the world and existence", but "must" we think this way, either coming to this, or its seeming consequence? I neither have the spiral of doubt, or the redeeming proposition of my relatively certain mentality, either psychologically or philosophically.

I agree with that Descartes expresses something that has been expressed many times by different names, as philosophical lucidity. But this is where Descartes seems to me to be obscure, and a shifting pool. He can't figure out where he comes from, if he can't clear away these presumptions of the necessities in doubt (of the senses) and how this leads him to say mental existence "must be". I think this whirlpool and a certain circulatory in Descartes' argument is why some people pull towards an idealism and some towards a method of doubt. But they are the same statement. The idea that mind or intellect, or "I" must be, the challenging and stumbling forward may be a good part of what we call our collective intellectual ego, (I definitely would agree there) but what really at all is true to the nature of life and nature about this?


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

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Buster_Brown]
    #23957125 - 12/25/16 07:22 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

I used to and still post at Google search: "philosophy forums", and it was alright.

I have been trying to just quit too, to develop better posture. The shroomery is aware of my tragicomedy, I just came back.

I am doing Pilates now, though and getting more fresh air so things do change sometimes.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineblingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Kurt]
    #23957626 - 12/26/16 03:00 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

In my opinion Cartesian dualism is a kind of violence in the sense that it cuts one away from the powers of the cosmos such that all pursuits become totally profane and finite in the grand scheme of it all.

The philosopher Charles Taylor whose book A Secular Age (which you should definitely read) uses Max Weber's dichotomy of disenchantment vis-à-vis enchantment to describe the transition we have gone through since Decarte and the scientific/industrial revolution as a transition of the self.

The enchanted self is characterized by the permeability of the individual and the world such that an individual may be affected by external phenomena and find grounds for a meaning to life in the cosmos. For the enchanted self meaning can exist both inside and outside the individual such that the meaning of a thing exists both within the subjective experience of the individual, but also within the surrounding environment. So, just as the individual is colonized by the world of magic and spirits the individual also effectively enchants the world. This is a very old way of seeing the world which contains many supernatural phenomena. From our modern perspective however, it appear quint, outmoded even ridiculous.

The disenchanted self is characterized by the barrier that exists between the individual and the world, such that meaning is only a property of subjective experience and cannot exist outside of the individual, which is largely cut off from the world, and most definitely cut off from justifying his/her existence as a meaningful player in the cosmos. This is the Cartesian self. Its development has caused a crisis of meaning in the modern soul, but has ushered in a new era of material prosperity through scientific and industrial advancement.

Th violence you speak of is this crisis of meaning.


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineblingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Kurt]
    #23957637 - 12/26/16 03:20 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Kurt said:
Well said Rahz although I think we might disagree on genius. Lucidity is something I can follow.

I'd say tentatively (on a common sense way) that lucidity is quintessentially philosophical. But I take it, it is basically an ease in one's thoughts and expressions, which seemingly flow from the clarity or transparency of one's perceptions.

Lucidity as an ease in the way from one's perception may likely be psychological in principle, in this way, so I will have to access a few points to you there. I would more readily accede that we discuss the world in these terms than in our "mental existence" which I believe (especially in the Cartesian sense) is an intellectual aspiration to ascribe closure to the "existence" of minds in a more technical way. I'll give you the fundamental place of psychological analysis of existence, for this argument, gladly.

Before even precartesian philosophers like Aristotle talked of matter and the forms it takes (as being) and before this language modulated into Descartes system, surrounding a formal "subject" of the mind, (which indubitably "must exist", therefore raises more or less profound questions of its substance and origins), perhaps what was expressed as being, Before either of them was a psychological lucidity toward being, or existence itself, one's "situation" in nature, so to say? One way to say this, is that in being we face our own mortality, or non-being. If this is felt in a sense of challenge, and duality too, (first between human and nature) it can be a proposition one human being named and another considers.

I think there is a limit to this approach, in that the proposition that we fear nature's way, can't be necessarily true as some psychological fact, which goes with the fact of death. The mistake would be to take the theoretical postulate, as a necessary explanation for everything and anything. Freud himself said "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" (and not an oral fixation or symbol of a phallus). Sex is a theoretical drive if it is also most real according to Freud.

So what is fear of mortal existence and death? Fear comes in varieties of sweaty hands on a date, to the neurological response to shadow flitting on the periphery of vision (which neurologists find has a basic necessary reflex) to a drawn out anxiety a human has about one's being-toward something, and in this way realizing one's being can be towards nothing, or what we conceive of that, in death. If that is what a person theorizes upon, as anxiety, that investment seems complex, and philosophical, and generally it would seem to be a mistake to assume that "necessity" (of psychological fear) in general belongs to what we talk about, even if we well know the complex difference between being-towards something, and being-towards death and and the dread this can inspire.

To quote Richard Rorty;

Quote:

"But 'Fear of extinction' is an unhelpful phrase. There is no such thing as Fear of inexistence as such, but only fear of some concrete loss. 'Death' and 'nothingness' are equally resounding, equally empty terms. To say one fears either is as clumsy as Epicurus's attempt to say Why one should not fear them. Elicits said 'When I am, death is not and when death is, I am not'; this exchanging one faculty for another. For the word 'I' is as hollow as death..."




As final and necessity as death of nothingness may seem, in the way we think on it, or in the way some say that we should when we have life in the one hand and death in the other, what can we say of this? Do we not have to come back to admit the philosophical complexity of the question of death and nothing, rather than project this in the guise of a theory, to fallaciously say "one must fear as I do?" Isn't death anxiety theory, a coping mechanism for feeling philosophically pessimistic, or alienated from life, and humanity in some cases? People have these explanations for existence, and they can be seen as symptoms, and we can see things this way in general.

I will say I fear death though. In fact that (fear) has been many things and significantly changed alot. The suffering of existence, to me (as in wondering "why do I choose, or incline so much to suffer existence, as I do") has somewhat tempered that anxiety I felt before. That complex sentence was more a question, a menagerie of things I felt I was to be, "being towards" and that being met with a difference. I do not see this position as pessimism or something anyone should be challenged to see. There was some ancient Buddhist line I read before that said something like "the enlightened one sees clearly that all that arises is suffering and nothing aside. I didn't read this or find this as comforting when I felt existential But when life the positive term was pretty bad. (An illness I have since learned better to deal with.) I am not sure if this anecdote means anything, but when I have thought and emotionally felt myself as a being towards death, like say, yesterday morning for some reason I have found it more relative to what I have experienced, and it was sort of like... Yup, deal with what is in your plate. I figure (and again it's just my experience) I am more afraid of concrete losses, which I deal with anyway, as enough of a problem than what the strange philosophical animal feels and thinks at the same time.

And this makes me wonder. Why does Descartes say a mind "must exist"? Must it? The argument preceding this, If you recall, Rahz is essentially that the world is falling away; as it is being doubted into oblivion, for possibly being deceiving (by the senses). I am not sure what is so deceiving about life, but Descartes claims this as an intellectual position of skepticism, not a psychologically visceral claim, as a crisis, or spiral (etc) but I still do not know why the mind must exist, at least in these technical terms. It seems like something "must" necessarily exist in the mind only on the grounds that the world was falling away to doubt in the first place. So in that sense, how Cartesian arguments work, seems to be kind of strange.They seem to too necessarily relate different arguments. For example, it seems to me the Cartesian says something like:

"I must doubt my senses and the external world until I come to my mental experience, which must in turn exist to ground the world and existence", but "must" we think this way, either coming to this, or its seeming consequence? I neither have the spiral of doubt, or the redeeming proposition of my relatively certain mentality, either psychologically or philosophically.

I agree with that Descartes expresses something that has been expressed many times by different names, as philosophical lucidity. But this is where Descartes seems to me to be obscure, and a shifting pool. He can't figure out where he comes from, if he can't clear away these presumptions of the necessities in doubt (of the senses) and how this leads him to say mental existence "must be". I think this whirlpool and a certain circulatory in Descartes' argument is why some people pull towards an idealism and some towards a method of doubt. But they are the same statement. The idea that mind or intellect, or "I" must be, the challenging and stumbling forward may be a good part of what we call our collective intellectual ego, (I definitely would agree there) but what really at all is true to the nature of life and nature about this?




I like what you have to say about death (you have clearly read heidegger) however I disagree. You say you fear the concrete losses, I take this to mean the little things, a beloved pet or the fact that a wonderful evening has come to an end etc.

What you need to understand is that these "concrete losses" ARE little deaths. Each one brings you into contact with the finite nature of human existence, which is ultimately what is feared. In other words; the fear of death is the primordial fear from which all other fears descend. Rationally we can understand this, which is why people fear being too rational, that's why we have religion. Rationality is a little death, which is the same as the violence of Cartesian dualism you speak of.


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: blingbling]
    #23957668 - 12/26/16 04:05 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

So can anyone summarise or give a quick word on what Cartesian dualism has to do with violence? Or at least what you think the relationship is?


--------------------
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, 15 hours
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: sudly]
    #23957716 - 12/26/16 06:01 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

In a nutshell I think the proposition is that arguments counter to science are a violation of sensibility. The opposition posited that thought itself constitutes a violation thereby initiating science into categorical violence only subdued by self appointed regulation from the standpoint of science whereas the Cartesian can dispute the regulation as 'self-appointed'.


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

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: blingbling]
    #23958470 - 12/26/16 02:21 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

I don't think there is anything people need to understand about death. We have anecdotes...about life. To take a Heideggerian approach; the question might be; are you clear when you move in and out of temporal structures of existence? (By the way, I actually like the post Heideggerian philosopher Emmanual Levinas alot for his acknowledgement of ethics and experiences with others, as first philosophy).

Blingbling, to your argument I would say it seems like you are positioning a post hoc rationale, whereas to me the psychological anecdotes is a leap forward, and more positive. I mean in general it seems to me that sometimes people can get stuck on these things, and ironically not just in how death can be, in life, but as a theory explaining life, or human sociology and psychology. Better not to get stuck at all if you ask me, in life. Although I do enjoy Heidegger and other heavy thinkers, I tend to see a limit in the approach, practically sometimes. I think sometimes people just feel alienated and seek a justification for this, and if we focus on broad theories there'd might as well be a theory for that too.

At any rate I would say the thematic of questions I would be interested, and which relate to this thread are in the temporal as such, just as much as the finite. Consider the extent to which temporality, the Heraclitian river that is stepped into, is commonly looked away from in the partiality platonic philosophy, where form itself has stood for the present, or presence of being. Look to how much modern cartesian philosophy emphasizes this above all, and how in the technological epoch of science, being as presence, becomes an unconscious narrative of the standing reserve, as much as the disposability of what is. The premise of this thread could be that we overload the present, or make too much issue of it's representation. One response, which seems to get a psychologically resonant response, is what about absence? What about yin to yang, the morphology of change, which we can represent to some extent, (for instance in historicizing and temporalizing philosophy) rather than just challenging forth to manifest presence, as what is, throwing aside what is not, the nothing, as irreality? There is a limit to what we can say in this sense though too.

Your question about the possible relation of concrete losses and understanding temporal finitude in a related way, can be a good question.

"Concrete losses" can become what we encounter in the stream of finite experience, but these notions are related, only where a person affirmatively makes a connection. For instance, in philosophical terms, "the being of beings" has through the history of western metaphysics been considered concretely as god. Or in science, the being of beings is the sum totality of presences and entities or dimensions in a domain of nature. But arguably what we encounter as this phrase, or common prerogative to the "being of beings", may be considered existence. The "being of beings" is existentiality, not just presence of an entity; but being temporally ecstatic, and ultimately more or less conceivably, as facing finite existence.

At no point does the fear of death (if that is in the temporally extatic experience of being-towards-death) simply become the sum total cargo of experiences, or sUm of the things, one can lose, or one big thing accrued from the past to lose on the way, by rationale alone. Where is the specific temporal structure? Projecting as being towards something and the possibility of this being an end or nothing, is in one sense the anxiety of death, as temporal finitude, that may come up, psychologically expressed. You can rationalize and press on this, in different ways, but if we straight forward, we do not know what it is we may conceive more or less sensibly as "losing ourselves" or if the ideas people have one way or another make sense at all. More likely we relate or associate concrete loss of something with the insight into temporality.

This is where I think existential analysis begins. We have lost, and know loss, and we can find this positively meaningful, or psychologically cathartic when we do think of the nature of temporal being. Likewise, contemplating impermanence can bring us to terms with loss and suffering in life. We dip in and out of this. It is not a truth or fact of existence in a technical sense, so much as a common experience, or spirituality, a "noble truth". It is also not just a "psychological" philosophy either, but (something the strain of contemporary west has difficulty with due to its embeddedness in tradition, but let's put that aside for indvidual experience) a way of thought that can positively affirm temporal being. The temporal structures are not "necessities" in the classic sense where what is necessary is true. This is the mistake I think many people make. There are limits to being able to represent temporal structure. There is a good reason w have talked about being as "presence" by priority, over the interspersed absence, (which only in symphony are able to represent arising, becoming and ceasing). It is just that we look away from our nullities, by tendency.

When Rorty says we fear a "concrete loss", this connection to temporal structures can bring a closure. But then; not necessarily. Maybe people hold on, and maybe they have good reasons to hold on to an experience or something though. What do you tell a girl is love holding on or letting go and letting be? I have learned you don't try to say either thing. We more bear this care to mind in general. We care that things are at stake, that they come and go, and this is not necessarily suggesting a one dimensional reality or truth to this.

Or likewise we can see a hint, in front of us when the "beings" in front of us, or in this stream of temporality seem to resonate or shine in their finitude. Why this is potentially meaningful to temporal existence, what we go through, seems to be good question...  but also it only presumes we might catch something, face to face like this. A glimpse is not saying one's existence, ("being" in the temporal sense) from which these anecdotes of finite experiences are made; is the sum of beings or experiences, added together necessarily. It is also not just that one big fish, and we are not always fishing for these statements and claims anyway. We are more alongside each other in this way as the being of beings, existing. But when we see finite being in front of us, face to face, we are at least not hypostatizing one special being in the center of the world (a special "I") making things go around it, when other beings shine in their finitude. Existential analysis then is not an end, in itself, but what allows us to encounter meaningfullness, and renew our wonder of being (the being of beings) in a positive ways which we might otherwise be afraid to see, when we cling only to the present. Levinas, unlike Heidegger, writes we come to the other, face to face, to understand the responsibility of death. And I agree it is not that we need to face something or understand something, or there is some claim to make. Sometimes it seems like people think this is an interrogation or they try to "argue" death anxiety. It is more we come "face to face", and that does not have a necessary structure of meaning.

It would be right as you say that fear of death, temporal and finite existence, can be related to concrete experiences, or our losses in anecdotes. We are not telling big fish stories though I would say. We are not measuring something as human authenticity. And yet this wouldn't be possible to say if there wasn't some baseline commonality to our experiences that resonates, as life and existence that we come to. Philosophically you do not solve a problem; or have a theory about what death "is". So these temporal structures, existentiale, are not "necessary" in the idealized sense, as true to nature or being (as "necessarily true") or present objects as we encounter them. What they are, are the temporal ecstacies, "standing outside oneself", being thrown or projectional in a stream of being as we are. The significant proposition is that we can experience this, the being of beings face to face, as existence. By living, and experiencing, (not backwards rationalizations; not by treating all things as "present" or as objects) one can make a connection to the concrete losses of temporality, (being arising ceasing and eventually some picture of impermanence) and this relates to our insights into finitude.

So like before I can describe an analogy, from my own way, but when we talk it is just another anecdote about life, not any moral of the story, any necessary truth... What is concrete loss, to existence? Well we will say something. Maybe it is like the moment, when as you have in theory or in principle sought a nonviolent approach to living, or temporally ecstatic life which affirms life and (not be morbid) but mistakenly step on a frog barefooted on your porch. There may be a psychological moment of squeamishness, both in your rationale or principle like "I messed up", and at the same time this might overlap with a less noble like "this is a mess, get it off me...quickly". This is life and existence. We have all been through things like this, or there is an existential commonality in this. This could be the moment of making a connection too, I am not sure. Maybe you are authentic in a principle and see if the little guy is okay, and actually care, beyond rationalized principles of ethics... If you don't freak out and fling him or scrape a living thing away as quickly as you can, maybe you can be "more authentic". Mostly authenticity is relative to you yourself, but there may be something common (say to reflective people) in that too. But just as well, don't follow the myth of authenticity; sometimes when people have rationalized non-violence they sort of react this way, without realizing they run or flee from the face to face, constantly. There is no necessary or true experience in authenticity. A truth typically, is a presence ("what is") but is that you? Maybe you are more in existentiality. For instance this may be incidental to anyone else but me, but it is not meaningless to me for that. I am a long time vegetarian and have been through looking to myself in this way, and seeing the better and worse side of my principles. I have a bit of an anecdote in it, that is all. I don't have any moral of the story except my own.

I'd venture people who say they found some psychological closure about death, or about life and finitude, are usually talking about going from an ignoble squeamishness, to responsibility and looking life face to face. In a way, that is the only way we can go. But it is also true that it is not a moral, or belief about the world. There is no necessary rationale, and nothing so edifying, just as, as such, (apologies to those who psychologically project) there is no necessary fear of death, to insinuate as squeamishness to overcome, if we are ourselves authentic, and not projecting insecurity.

We can all tend to appreciate when something is at stake, and we look closer, or something itself seems to shine out. Think about frogs and bugs, and little lives we ourselves live, or look closer and see something there and maybe you have a moral of the story, a psychological fable, a good story, if you give animals voices. But it seems to me like we are just passing through, and there are no stories or anecdotes, or approximately common experiences like this that really or necessarily hold, or put to others; the "existentiale" are only true to being or experience. No one "has" to understand a concrete loss, of finite being, (as being towards death is not a philosophical or logically determinant necessity anyone has laid out in its consequence) but it seems to me we can in affirmative ways, and in good measure, in philosophy and anecdote. There is something common about our existences and something different or other at the same time.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Buster_Brown]
    #23958828 - 12/26/16 05:16 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

So self appointed regulation is why we don't have violence? And why we can focus on and develop things like science?


--------------------
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, 15 hours
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: sudly]
    #23958935 - 12/26/16 06:08 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
So self appointed regulation is why we don't have violence? And why we can focus on and develop things like science?




I like to think so.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Buster_Brown]
    #23958940 - 12/26/16 06:13 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Do you think it's fair to say that 'self appointed regulation' could be the inhibition of the innate fight or flight response in humans?

To be able to step back from natural instincts to be less impulsive and hence more rational in the moment?


--------------------
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, 15 hours
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: sudly]
    #23958949 - 12/26/16 06:19 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
Do you think it's fair to say that 'self appointed regulation' could be the inhibition of the innate fight or flight response in humans?

To be able to step back from natural instincts to be less impulsive and hence more rational in the moment?




Sure.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Buster_Brown]
    #23958970 - 12/26/16 06:28 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Alas, how could one learn to override their instinctive fight or flight response?

Quote:

Behavioural effects are dependent on dose and the individual reaction and sensitivity to psilocybin, previous experiences and the setting. The major effects are related to the central nervous system, but there are also some sympathomimetic effects.
http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/drug-profiles/mushrooms




Quote:

Sympathomimetic : (of a drug) producing physiological effects characteristic of the sympathetic nervous system by promoting the stimulation of sympathetic nerves.








--------------------
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, 15 hours
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: sudly]
    #23958995 - 12/26/16 06:40 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
Alas, how could one learn to override their instinctive fight or flight response?




Our primal response to situations can be adjusted by our mind; Mind over matter (situation).


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

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Buster_Brown]
    #23959024 - 12/26/16 06:57 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Mind over matter is always a good approach, especially as an expression of the stoic, who faces his or her age...

Through intellect, we can maintain different intellectual attitudes. How about some historical sensibility?

Cartesianism, as a method of doubt, primarily, could be seen as necessary to pull the sciences out of dogmatic appropriations, the institutions of knowledge led and sanctioned only by the church in the 17th century. In the previous centuries, since Galileo, the church was denying first person experiences, for an over-formalized and non-inquisitive, Aristotelianism (which was an injustice to Aristotle as much as any scientists of that time). So Descartes basically, in a pretty stark political opposition, said that all we can trust is our own minds, this new "subject" (as the ground of the world as we understand it). Maybe how literally we take this, in his technical arguments, may be the question.

How stark this opposition and tension should be, (in all the oppositions we can fill in) if it should need to be at all, could be what intellectuals could consider temperance. It is not like Galileo is locked up in the tower in our day... Self discipline could be a really good idea...


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

Registered: 09/17/11
Posts: 11,309
Last seen: 3 days, 15 hours
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Kurt]
    #23959107 - 12/26/16 07:39 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Given that individual experience is a dye in the fabric of a personality, and that 'colors' their expression, one might extrapolate "death" and "finite" and "temporality" as a nihilistic perspective.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineblingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Kurt]
    #23959138 - 12/26/16 07:54 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Blingbling, to your argument I would say it seems like you are positioning a post hoc rationale, whereas to me the psychological anecdotes is a leap forward, and more positive. I mean in general it seems to me that sometimes people can get stuck on these things, and ironically not just in how death can be, in life, but as a theory explaining life, or human sociology and psychology. Better not to get stuck at all if you ask me, in life. Although I do enjoy Heidegger and other heavy thinkers, I tend to see a limit in the approach, practically sometimes. I think sometimes people just feel alienated and seek a justification for this, and if we focus on broad theories there'd might as well be a theory for that too.

I think you are correct that some cynical people use these ideas as a justification for their cynicism, but that does not necessarily imply that the theory is untrue. Also, your argument that this is simply a post hoc rationalisation can be made against any argument as all theory is a post hoc rationalisation.

You say that people can get stuck on things and I agree with this. Life is a contradiction between being alive, striving for life and yet knowing death. We are all stuck. So, it should not come as any surprise that people become stuck in these things as you say.


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Buster_Brown]
    #23959141 - 12/26/16 07:54 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Buster_Brown said:
Quote:

sudly said:
Alas, how could one learn to override their instinctive fight or flight response?




Our primal response to situations can be adjusted by our mind; Mind over matter (situation).




True but do you really think that ability has been inherent in humans throughout our entire evolutionary history, or did we somehow learn to use our relatively large neocortex to achieve this state of 'mind over matter'?


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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineblingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: sudly]
    #23959147 - 12/26/16 07:58 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
So can anyone summarise or give a quick word on what Cartesian dualism has to do with violence? Or at least what you think the relationship is?




In my opinion cartesian dualism creates existential angst. Separation from the redemptive power of the cosmos is a product of dualism, as mind and experience is cut away from material reality, the cosmos and the cycles of birth, death and rebirth found in the natural world.


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.


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

Registered: 09/17/11
Posts: 11,309
Last seen: 3 days, 15 hours
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: sudly]
    #23959157 - 12/26/16 08:07 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)


Alas, how could one learn to override their instinctive fight or flight response?




Our primal response to situations can be adjusted by our mind; Mind over matter (situation).




True but do you really think that ability has been inherent in humans throughout our entire evolutionary history, or did we somehow learn to use our relatively large neocortex to achieve this state of 'mind over matter'?




I think the training of animals is enough to disprove the latter and prove the former.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: blingbling]
    #23959163 - 12/26/16 08:10 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

as mind and experience is cut away from material reality




Experience consists of physical sensations and the mind is the memory of them so IMO there is no cut away from material reality from a perspective of Dualism of body and mind.


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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: sudly]
    #23959167 - 12/26/16 08:13 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

I think the training of animals is enough to disprove the latter and prove the former.




Service animals can be taught to express mind over matter in certain situations when taught intelligent disobedience.

Quote:

Intelligent disobedience occurs where a service animal trained to help a disabled person goes directly against the owner's instructions in an effort to make a better decision. This behavior is a part of the dog's training and is central to a service animal's success on the job.




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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineblingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: blingbling]
    #23959182 - 12/26/16 08:19 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Philosophically you do not solve a problem; or have a theory about what death "is". So these temporal structures, existentiale, are not "necessary" in the idealized sense, as true to nature or being

This is a very old form of death denial which is coming more and more into fashion. It involves necessarily mystifying the process of death and decay. Any child above the age of about 7 which is not mentally stunted can tell you what death is. The animal stops moving, decays, ceases to be what it once was. Death is like sex, you know it when you see it.

I know you've written a lot and so me picking these bits out to criticise might seem kinda dickish, but I'm not trying to be a dick to you. Just thought I'd put that out there.

We can all tend to appreciate when something is at stake, and we look closer, or something itself seems to shine out. Think about frogs and bugs, and little lives we ourselves live, or look closer and see something there and maybe you have a moral of the story, a psychological fable, a good story, if you give animals voices. But it seems to me like we are just passing through, and there are no stories or anecdotes, or approximately common experiences like this that really or necessarily hold, or put to others; the "existentiale" are only true to being or experience. No one "has" to understand a concrete loss, of finite being, (as being towards death is not a philosophical or logically determinant necessity anyone has laid out in its consequence) but it seems to me we can in affirmative ways, and in good measure, in philosophy and anecdote. There is something common about our existences and something different or other at the same time.

I think you are right in the sense that there is something uncommunicatable about death. We cannot imagine ourselves to be dead, because we are still imagining a blackness or emptiness which is not necessarily non-being. But death is real. We can know it rationally which is why we fear rationality. This unimaginability of death is also why I think we become lost in idealistic philosophical notions about the primacy of the mental over the physical, or the primacy of "being". If all there is, is the mental or "being" then death becomes unreal, which is a relief, but like religion is a little too convenient for my liking.


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineblingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: sudly]
    #23959190 - 12/26/16 08:22 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
Quote:

as mind and experience is cut away from material reality




Experience consists of physical sensations and the mind is the memory of them so IMO there is no cut away from material reality from a perspective of Dualism of body and mind.




Sure, but doubt creeps in. Is what I am experiencing really reality or just an illusion? So in some sense you are separated from material reality because you can never know if what you are experiencing is material reality. You can only know that you are experiencing. I think therefor I am. That is the point of cartesian dualism.


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: blingbling]
    #23959225 - 12/26/16 08:36 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

What your mind is experiencing is chemical and electrical interactions.
Physical sensations are material reality and I think to deny that is when one truly cuts away from material reality by believing in that which is immaterial.

If you want to go down that path you may as well call radio waves, electromagnetism and radiation immaterial too. 

I would say, "I think therefore I am but what am I?"

And I would answer that with the experience of sensations and mental perceptions of them.

The PNS is the body and the CNS is the mind :imo:


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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineblingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: sudly]
    #23959231 - 12/26/16 08:39 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

I agree with you, but decarte's argument cannot be denied which is why it is so insidious. None of the things you've said necessarily refutes Cartesian dualism which is why philosophers still argue over it.


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: blingbling]
    #23959384 - 12/26/16 09:44 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

I think any ontological argument for a god can be denied with basic rational seeing as sentience cannot exist without matter.

All I'm talking about is Dualism of body and mind which is pretty self explanatory with a basic understanding of how the human nervous system functions and is divided into different sections with different roles.


--------------------
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: blingbling]
    #23959496 - 12/26/16 10:51 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

blingbling said:
Philosophically you do not solve a problem; or have a theory about what death "is". So these temporal structures, existentiale, are not "necessary" in the idealized sense, as true to nature or being

This is a very old form of death denial which is coming more and more into fashion. It involves necessarily mystifying the process of death and decay. Any child above the age of about 7 which is not mentally stunted can tell you what death is. The animal stops moving, decays, ceases to be what it once was. Death is like sex, you know it when you see it.

I know you've written a lot and so me picking these bits out to criticise might seem kinda dickish, but I'm not trying to be a dick to you. Just thought I'd put that out there.

We can all tend to appreciate when something is at stake, and we look closer, or something itself seems to shine out. Think about frogs and bugs, and little lives we ourselves live, or look closer and see something there and maybe you have a moral of the story, a psychological fable, a good story, if you give animals voices. But it seems to me like we are just passing through, and there are no stories or anecdotes, or approximately common experiences like this that really or necessarily hold, or put to others; the "existentiale" are only true to being or experience. No one "has" to understand a concrete loss, of finite being, (as being towards death is not a philosophical or logically determinant necessity anyone has laid out in its consequence) but it seems to me we can in affirmative ways, and in good measure, in philosophy and anecdote. There is something common about our existences and something different or other at the same time.

I think you are right in the sense that there is something uncommunicatable about death. We cannot imagine ourselves to be dead, because we are still imagining a blackness or emptiness which is not necessarily non-being. But death is real. We can know it rationally which is why we fear rationality. This unimaginability of death is also why I think we become lost in idealistic philosophical notions about the primacy of the mental over the physical, or the primacy of "being". If all there is, is the mental or "being" then death becomes unreal, which is a relief, but like religion is a little too convenient for my liking.




You put it out there, I guess. Is that why your handle is bling bling?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineblingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Kurt]
    #23959702 - 12/27/16 02:36 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Can't remember exactly why I chose the name blingbling :shrug:


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineblingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: sudly]
    #23959704 - 12/27/16 02:42 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

I think any ontological argument for a god can be denied with basic rational seeing as sentience cannot exist without matter.

I don't think that the axiom which states that sentience cannot exist without matter necessarily implies that a God cannot exist. However, there are plenty of other good reasons.

All I'm talking about is Dualism of body and mind which is pretty self explanatory with a basic understanding of how the human nervous system functions and is divided into different sections with different roles.

Just playing devils advocate here, but your understanding of the human nervous system could simply be an illusion implanted in your consciousness by an evil imp as Decarte once speculated. There really is no getting around Descartes' arguments because all knowledge arises as formations of consciousness.


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: blingbling]
    #23959715 - 12/27/16 02:54 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

It implies sentience cannot exist without matter and you can make your assertions from there.

Quote:

Just playing devils advocate here, but your understanding of the human nervous system could simply be an illusion implanted in your consciousness by an evil imp as Decarte once speculated. There really is no getting around Descartes' arguments because all knowledge arises as formations of consciousness.




This is where I lose some respect for you, because the anatomy of the human nervous system is not an illusion.

All I have to say is that I think sentience arises from consciousness and not the other way around.


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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineblingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: sudly]
    #23959731 - 12/27/16 03:08 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

sudly said:

This is where I lose some respect for you, because the anatomy of the human nervous system is not an illusion.

All I have to say is that I think sentience arises from consciousness and not the other way around.




Then what does consciousness arise from? Because if it is matter then we then we can keep going around in circles arguing for and against idealism and materialism as has been done for hundreds of years. And if consciousness is the fundamental aspect of reality then your knowledge of the central nervous system is pretty much useless philosophically.

Quote:

sudly said:

It implies sentience cannot exist without matter and you can make your assertions from there.




What if God is made of matter?


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: blingbling]
    #23959750 - 12/27/16 03:30 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

I think consciousness is inherent to all life on Earth in the form of an awareness of external elements.

As for a sense of morality, a conscience and overall sentience I think that arises from the chemical and electrical interactions that take place within our Central Nervous Systems(Brain and Spinal cord).

In essence I think sentience is influenced by electromagnetism.

What if Jews are made of orange juice?


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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineblingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: sudly]
    #23959761 - 12/27/16 03:39 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Yes and you've come too all this knowledge through consciousness which may or may not be accurately tracking reality. This is why this argument is so slippery, it doesn't matter how much you know about biology, chemistry, physics etc. You still come to knowledge through consciousness and so you cannot ever definitively say from where consciousness arises, the only thing you can definitively say is that you are conscious.


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: blingbling]
    #23959773 - 12/27/16 04:17 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

I don't think one comes to knowledge through consciousness alone, but from a sense of morality, a conscience and sentience.

Again, most people don't seem to see any difference between consciousness and sentience.


--------------------
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: blingbling]
    #23959960 - 12/27/16 08:29 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Blig bling, posturing about death anxiety and then suggesting we have a metaphysical anxiety attack about your conception of the existence of god is faux pas.

Do not argue devils advocate for bad arguments from now on. How about that as a strategy? It might be good to come to actual grounds of argument, rather than just projecting personalities out of the blue.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Kurt]
    #23960021 - 12/27/16 09:13 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Just to touch on an earlier point, perhaps best not to exaggerate the ability to change. Acceptance could be a more valuable strategy. Idealizing mind over matter will more likely end in Cartesian anxiety. Acceptance seems more likely to result in moderation, which in and of itself might negate the more troublesome aspects of dualistic perception.


--------------------
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, 15 hours
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Rahz]
    #23960037 - 12/27/16 09:23 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Oh, you mean because of the guilt associated with ontological certainty?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Buster_Brown]
    #23960071 - 12/27/16 09:48 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Any sensation the mind finds itself in contradiction with.


--------------------
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, 15 hours
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Rahz]
    #23960091 - 12/27/16 09:59 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Rahz said:
Just to touch on an earlier point, perhaps best not to exaggerate the ability to change. Acceptance could be a more valuable strategy. Idealizing mind over matter will more likely end in Cartesian anxiety. Acceptance seems more likely to result in moderation, which in and of itself might negate the more troublesome aspects of dualistic perception.




Our adaptability could prove equal to the challenge.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Buster_Brown]
    #23960496 - 12/27/16 12:58 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

it's a neat little origami of philosophical formality.
well maybe it folds that way, or maybe we are still trying to crease something that is already too thick.

a Cartesian distinction between mind and body/sense starts off clearly, but  quickly transforms  such that mental processes become objectified or body like:
if the creases are the mind part, insubstantial and one dimensional components, then the body is wrapped by the flat planar parts of the origami figure, bridging between the crease lines and giving strength and effects to the overall thing-ness.

the only violence I can see is in the rapid reversal of roles in subject and object as the origami interdependence of mind and body are evaluated.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Buster_Brown]
    #23960678 - 12/27/16 02:27 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Buster_Brown said:
Quote:

Rahz said:
Just to touch on an earlier point, perhaps best not to exaggerate the ability to change. Acceptance could be a more valuable strategy. Idealizing mind over matter will more likely end in Cartesian anxiety. Acceptance seems more likely to result in moderation, which in and of itself might negate the more troublesome aspects of dualistic perception.




Our adaptability could prove equal to the challenge.




True, but part of adaptability is the ability to accept things about ourselves that aren't ideal. Acceptance in many situations may increase the likelihood of change as opposed to only seeing the negative aspect of a thing and fighting it and wanting to "conquer" it. That in itself could be considered a type of Cartesian violence.


--------------------
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
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: redgreenvines]
    #23960916 - 12/27/16 04:29 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

It may be true in cognitive science that Cartesianism is seemingly just a straight forward sensibility. We are seamlessly just going back and forth, between laying out a genuine subject matter of investigation (which is the mind) and the formal difference of a subject's perceptions (to sensed objects) which as a relation just "articulates" this subject, which we can turn back and forth from effectively.

When cartesianism or cognitivism is a more broadly projected attitude to our world, without implied organic basis of a subject as subject matter as its basis to fall back on, the empirical basis is arguably more arbitrary and projectional. Rather than just eliciting an organic or natural phenomenon, implicitly, things are defined as the "object" more than as "subject" that would show itself to the naturalist. I think people look right through this because the language is so implicit to us, in scientific attitudes, or that people are tired of "idealist" objections to objectification.

So turn back from the fold to the crease that is set in there. Where the body is res extensa in Descartes, we can see it as it the "extended" spatiotemporal dimensions to the mind's eye. Then, this is generalized or extrapolated as physical existence. Physicality itself is found as the table or "matrix" of extended linear dimensions, of calculable or determinable realities in which objects are found. Nature can become then the sum totality of dimensions and entities, and facts about them, found contained  within this term.

The being or way of being of things in "extention" is an essential containing, or enframing. The rocket built to go to the moon and gather geological specimens by the dreamer, or engineer doing his job, demonstrates and contains to it, the laws of astrophysics and laws of thermodynamics, that suffice to get it there. The science is not grounded in any implicit relation, (as if hyperbolically what we were describing as science was strictly intended to go and get those entities on the moon, to reveal nature as it is). This vehicle is itself the setting upon, and the way of bringing and challenging a nature forward, in many implicit dimensions and possibilities of itself. We see science shift (as effeciently enough) more incidentally in the extentional object, than in subject matters, although they will be parsed into appropriate fields after the empirical objectification.

In this relationship, there is no implied organic net to fall back into though (like the subject of mind) and what we discover is without implied guidence of nature. Mainly this practically sorts itself out. The subject to object relation takes over the subject matters, though which become more arbitrary. My view, is in this moment, Cartesianism looks to enframe and impose a more mechanical reality, or invention as body than nature itself tends to actually have in itself. If the idea goes back to Descartes it is sensible to assume that we deal with the world in mechanics...

Quote:

I specifically paused to show that, if there were such machines with the organs and shape of a monkey or of some other non-rational animal, we would have no way of discovering that they are not the same as these animals. But if there were machines that resembled our bodies and if they imitated our actions as much as is morally possible, we would always have two very certain means for recognizing that, none the less, they are not genuinely human. The first is that they would never be able to use speech, or other signs composed by themselves, as we do to express our thoughts to others. For one could easily conceive of a machine that is made in such a way that it utters words, and even that it would utter some words in response to physical actions that cause a change in its organs—for example, if someone touched it in a particular place, it would ask what one wishes to say to it, or if it were touched somewhere else, it would cry out that it was being hurt, and so on. But it could not arrange words in different ways to reply to the meaning of everything that is said in its presence, as even the most unintelligent human beings can do. The second means is that, even if they did many things as well as or, possibly, better than anyone of us, they would infallibly fail in others. Thus one would discover that they did not act on the basis of knowledge, but merely as a result of the disposition of their organs. For whereas reason is a universal instrument that can be used in all kinds of situations, these organs need a specific disposition for every particular action.

Renes Descartes; Discourse on Method





Usually these attitudes of situating and working with a machine are well disclaimed, or considered "pragmatically" (hardly in any philosophical sense, but in utilities). The tendency to project seems obvious, even though it is immediately containing. For instance, the current apologetics for Descartes in contemporary philosophy of the mind, seem to be saying that animals are not less like machines than Descartes anthroprocentrically supposed, but that (at least by analogy) we are ourselves are more like computational functions and machines. Maybe that will even things out and this would be a good thing.

To say there is violence to the conventionality of Cartesianism is not necessarily to say it is wholly wrong, too. It works well for cognitivists to describe the mind in organic "functions", for instance. The usefulness of analogies to computer hardware, an input output structure, (sensation response), is clear. In being able to go back and forth in the analogy (like in the way that in a thought experiment, whether a computer can pass a turing test or not is a general premise itself, which is taken to say alot about our views of mind, whatever our views are, or stand to be in this respect) there is a practically effective way to study the mind body relation. This does not describe the full bloom of cartesianism though,  or the cognitivism of modern life, and culture, where the implications of empirical studies are different. They are implicitly containing differently.

I do not think it is just a sociological interpretation, to say we live in a highly effecient, engineered reality, a highly attuned power structure. Probably it would be difficult to say there is an overt violence in conventional modern existence as such, without seeming nihilistic, but I would like to raise the question, what is engrained in what Descartes' categories?

The irony is, as modern or radical as he was in this technical departure, he was actually a creationist, in many of his arguments; and not just his view of body or nature, and animals. The "hard" question of mind and body essentially reflects this, because when Descartes argues to the existence of the mind by a straight line of doubt, (to the one indubitable proposition of mind when all else can be doubted) the only way he gets the world back from solipsistic skepticism, and aligns the senses with a real world, is to invoke god, a benevolent author who explicitly would not deceive the senses. When we live in much different world today, with different appeals to authority, and yet the way we make this connection, from Descartes on, is more arbitrated in power and force, I would say than anything else previously.

The simplist way to put it, (aside from my argument to interpretation) is body in Descartes, res extensa, is situated (in respect to mind, res cogitans) as something simultaneously projectional and containing nature.


Edited by Kurt (12/27/16 07:57 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineblingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: sudly]
    #23961252 - 12/27/16 07:35 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
I don't think one comes to knowledge through consciousness alone





I think you are right, but an idealist philosopher would disagree and you have no logical argument that could refute this hypothetical idealist philosopher. This is why we still talk about Decarte.

Quote:

sudly said:
Again, most people don't seem to see any difference between consciousness and sentience.




Could you explain it please?


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineblingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Kurt]
    #23961270 - 12/27/16 07:46 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Kurt said:
Blig bling, posturing about death anxiety and then suggesting we have a metaphysical anxiety attack about your conception of the existence of god is faux pas.

Do not argue devils advocate for bad arguments from now on. How about that as a strategy? It might be good to come to actual grounds of argument, rather than just projecting personalities out of the blue.




Wow, seems I've touched a nerve with you Kurt. It's ok. I'm used to it. Most people don't like being told that their raison d'être is simply a coping mechanism.

How about you stop dictating how people should or should not argue in a public forum designed specifically for arguing.

It's funny because I even went as far as telling you that I wasn't trying to be a dick, but it seems your hubris has gotten in the way of a straightforward and charitable argument.

Explain why death anxiety is simply a myth and not a genuine portion of reality and perhaps we can have a civil argument. Earlier you said that it is simply a way of coping with cynicism and I conceded this with the caveat that this does not refute the entire argument for death anxiety. If you are scientifically minded I can point you towards some empirically grounded studies of death anxiety, but I am more than happy to argue it from a purely philosophical perspective. Your move...


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: blingbling]
    #23961297 - 12/27/16 08:02 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

blingbling said:
Quote:

sudly said:
I don't think one comes to knowledge through consciousness alone





I think you are right, but an idealist philosopher would disagree and you have no logical argument that could refute this hypothetical idealist philosopher. This is why we still talk about Decarte.





I would say that one can come to knowledge through a sense of morality, a conscience and overall sentience.

Quote:

sudly said:
Again, most people don't seem to see any difference between consciousness and sentience.




Could you explain it please?




Consciousness is an awareness of elements external to ones self.
Quote:

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




Sentience is an internal awareness of individual perceptions made from an individuals conscience and sense of morality.


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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineblingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: sudly] * 1
    #23961331 - 12/27/16 08:21 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

I think separating consciousness and sentience is a mystification. All things that one is conscious of arise in consciousness whether they are dependent on external phenomena or not, and this includes morality. This is precisely the reason that idealism is a logical philosophical argument. Again, I'm not peddling idealism, I am just trying to point out its merits which you seem to be skipping over in your haste to ground sentience or consciousness in material reality.


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: blingbling]
    #23961337 - 12/27/16 08:24 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

To me the separation of consciousness and sentience is the separation of body and mind.

Sensations arise from consciousness as nerve impulses which are then processed by sentience into perceptions :shrug:


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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Kurt]
    #23961344 - 12/27/16 08:27 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

the opposite of your quote for descartes thought experiment is true
Quote:

Kurt said:
It may be true in cognitive science that Cartesianism is seemingly just a straight forward sensibility. We are seamlessly just going back and forth, between laying out a genuine subject matter of investigation (which is the mind) and the formal difference of a subject's perceptions (to sensed objects) which as a relation just "articulates" this subject, which we can turn back and forth from effectively.

When cartesianism or cognitivism is a more broadly projected attitude to our world, without implied organic basis of a subject as subject matter as its basis to fall back on,
...
...
My view, is in this moment, Cartesianism looks to enframe and impose a more mechanical reality, or invention as body than nature itself tends to actually have in itself. If the idea goes back to Descartes it is sensible to assume that we deal with the world in mechanics...

Quote:

I specifically paused to show that, if there were such machines with the organs and shape of a monkey or of some other non-rational animal, we would have no way of discovering that they are not the same as these animals. But if there were machines that resembled our bodies and if they imitated our actions as much as is morally possible, we would always have two very certain means for recognizing that, none the less, they are not genuinely human. The first is that they would never be able to use speech, or other signs composed by themselves, as we do to express our thoughts to others. For one could easily conceive of a machine that is made in such a way that it utters words, and even that it would utter some words in response to physical actions that cause a change in its organs—for example, if someone touched it in a particular place, it would ask what one wishes to say to it, or if it were touched somewhere else, it would cry out that it was being hurt, and so on. But it could not arrange words in different ways to reply to the meaning of everything that is said in its presence, as even the most unintelligent human beings can do. The second means is that, even if they did many things as well as or, possibly, better than anyone of us, they would infallibly fail in others. Thus one would discover that they did not act on the basis of knowledge, but merely as a result of the disposition of their organs. For whereas reason is a universal instrument that can be used in all kinds of situations, these organs need a specific disposition for every particular action.

Renes Descartes; Discourse on Method




...





natural speech from human looking machines are very near on the horizon.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineblingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: sudly] * 1
    #23961348 - 12/27/16 08:34 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
To me the separation of consciousness and sentience is the separation of body and mind.

Sensations arise from consciousness as nerve impulses which are then processed by sentience into perceptions :shrug:




Sensations of the body arise in consciousness just like the appearance of a thought, the colour red etc. You need an extra "leap of faith" (to quote Kierkegaard) to say that a body actually exists. You could be a brain in a vat somewhere which is programmed to believe it has a body. I'm not saying we should take this argument so seriously that we spend the rest of our days wondering whether we really have a body. All I'm saying is that it should be taken into account when we discuss these things from the perspective of philosophy.


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: blingbling]
    #23961366 - 12/27/16 08:52 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Sensations of the body can arise through consciousness but that doesn't say anything about how perceptions arise, especially since perceptions are formed through the processes of mental synthesis.
 

The only leap of faith is to think one doesn't have a body and I'm saying we shouldn't view that argument in any way as serious because you could be a turtle but you're not, you are a human being.


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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineblingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: sudly] * 1
    #23961383 - 12/27/16 09:05 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

If you are conscious of something whether it be a perception or a thought or whatever, it is a content of consciousness and to say anything more requires the caveat that it could be incorrect. For example perhaps I perceive the colour red, but in actual fact it was the colour purple. I see the colour red again and I can doubt whether it really is red, but I cannot doubt that I am conscious of something. Consciousness of something is the only thing which cannot be doubted. I can doubt everything except the fact that I am conscious enough to doubt. This is a kind of radical skepticism which there is no logical argument against.


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: blingbling]
    #23961409 - 12/27/16 09:24 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

isn't that minimal absolutism?


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: blingbling]
    #23961421 - 12/27/16 09:32 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

For the tenth time on this forum, individual perception of colour can be different due to different colour rods and cones in our eyes but the wavelength of specific colours are always the same. E.g. A colour blind person sees colours differently because there is a physical abnormality in the cones and rods of their eyes. 


You can doubt whatever you like but that doesn't mean nature is any less real or true.

Being conscious of the environment around you isn't the same as being aware of your own sense of morality.

I'm not doubting consciousness, I'm saying all life on Earth experiences consciousness but that only humans and trained service animals can express a sense of morality, a conscience and overall sentience.


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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineblingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: redgreenvines] * 1
    #23961557 - 12/27/16 11:09 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

redgreenvines said:
isn't that minimal absolutism?




it could be called that. i thought it was called radical skepticism.


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineblingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: sudly]
    #23961560 - 12/27/16 11:12 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
For the tenth time on this forum, individual perception of colour can be different due to different colour rods and cones in our eyes but the wavelength of specific colours are always the same. E.g. A colour blind person sees colours differently because there is a physical abnormality in the cones and rods of their eyes. 


You can doubt whatever you like but that doesn't mean nature is any less real or true.

Being conscious of the environment around you isn't the same as being aware of your own sense of morality.

I'm not doubting consciousness, I'm saying all life on Earth experiences consciousness but that only humans and trained service animals can express a sense of morality, a conscience and overall sentience.




your knowledge of cones and receptors is merely a content of consciousness and can therefor be doubted. whereas my assertion of the primacy of consciousness cannot be doubted, so goes the argument for idealism...


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: blingbling]
    #23961589 - 12/27/16 11:23 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Anything can be doubted but that doesn't mean there is any merit to the doubts, I can doubt gravity, maths and science but that doesn't mean they aren't true, I can doubt the world is round but that doesn't mean it's true, I can doubt computers were made by man but that doesn't mean it's true.

I'm saying that consciousness is a pre-requisite to sentience and not the other way around so I don't even know what you're arguing against.


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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineblingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: sudly] * 1
    #23961638 - 12/28/16 12:02 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

No, everything except consciousness can be doubted. That was Decarte's point.

I'm just trying to get you to admit that idealism is logically consistent. I agree with almost everything you've said, I just think that you have skipped over some of the other arguments about consciousness without due course.

And its kinda fun to play the other side of the field for a while :cheersyoufuck:


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: blingbling]
    #23961668 - 12/28/16 12:23 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

My point is that doubt alone doesn't make things in nature untrue.

Idealism is a synonym for daydreaming?
I can daydream about a talking cupboard and to me it may seem logically consistent but it's in no way rational in the real world.

If there's anything I've skipped over it'd be lovely for you to share what that is.



--------------------
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, 15 hours
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: sudly]
    #23961767 - 12/28/16 01:43 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

sudly said:

I can daydream about a talking cupboard and to me it may seem logically consistent but it's in no way rational in the real world.






Many people accept that the source of Descartes' Visions is exterior to the body.

Perhaps the process of the rectification of our perception and presentation also stems from a source separate from our consciousness.

In that vein we might perceive progress as a battle of wills rather than a matter of conscience, and the spectacle of improvement an enjoyable one.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineblingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: sudly] * 1
    #23961865 - 12/28/16 03:48 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
My point is that doubt alone doesn't make things in nature untrue.

Idealism is a synonym for daydreaming?
I can daydream about a talking cupboard and to me it may seem logically consistent but it's in no way rational in the real world.

If there's anything I've skipped over it'd be lovely for you to share what that is.






Idealism is not the same as daydreaming, and saying that proves you don't understand it. 'i think therefor i am" is a logically consistent argument. The point of idealism; that consciousness cannot be reduced to matter; is logically consistent. You cannot prove through the brain sciences that this is untrue because all knowledge arises through consciousness and so is reducible to consciousness, not to the brain.

Once you take the leap of faith that that there is something outside of consciousness, like a brain that brings consciousness into being, then there are better and worse leaps of faith e.g. some ideas require you to leap further than others.

Buster Browns idea that conscious could somehow emirate from outside the brain is one leap of faith. It is a leap of faith that I think is further than your claim that consciousness is a product of the brain. But they are both leaps of faith. What is not a leap of faith is that I am conscious of myself thinking about Decarte, and this is the only thing that I can say with total certainty.

I'm afraid that it is you that is daydreaming; dreaming about how your view of reality is the only logically consistent view and that all others are merely the rambling of lunatics.


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineblingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Buster_Brown]
    #23961870 - 12/28/16 03:55 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Buster_Brown said:
Quote:

sudly said:

I can daydream about a talking cupboard and to me it may seem logically consistent but it's in no way rational in the real world.






Many people accept that the source of Descartes' Visions is exterior to the body.

Perhaps the process of the rectification of our perception and presentation also stems from a source separate from our consciousness.

In that vein we might perceive progress as a battle of wills rather than a matter of conscience, and the spectacle of improvement an enjoyable one.




The interesting thing about the tv antenna conception of the brain e.g.. like a tv the brain picks up a signal that it converts to consciousness, is that scientifically nothing would really change. The brain sciences would not have to alter at all to accomodate this view of consciousness. However, as I said previously I think it is a further leap than to just say consciousness is a product of neurochemistry alone.


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Buster_Brown]
    #23961875 - 12/28/16 03:58 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Nikola Tesla was in love with a white pigeon that visited him one night whereupon it's eyes began to glow brightly shortly before it died.

Quote:

Perhaps the process of the rectification of our perception and presentation also stems from a source separate from our consciousness.



I like that part, the rectification of our perception.
Perhaps that's a better explanation of how one can develop a sense or morality, by rectifying perceptions.

I would think since will is, 'the faculty by which a person decides on and initiates action', that morality is related or at the least influential in making those decisions.

Quote:

Morality: beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior.




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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: blingbling]
    #23961887 - 12/28/16 04:09 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

blingbling said:
Quote:

sudly said:
My point is that doubt alone doesn't make things in nature untrue.

Idealism is a synonym for daydreaming?
I can daydream about a talking cupboard and to me it may seem logically consistent but it's in no way rational in the real world.

If there's anything I've skipped over it'd be lovely for you to share what that is.






Idealism is not the same as daydreaming, and saying that proves you don't understand it. 'i think therefor i am" is a logically consistent argument. The point of idealism; that consciousness cannot be reduced to matter; is logically consistent. You cannot prove through the brain sciences that this is untrue because all knowledge arises through consciousness and so is reducible to consciousness, not to the brain.

Once you take the leap of faith that that there is something outside of consciousness, like a brain that brings consciousness into being, then there are better and worse leaps of faith e.g. some ideas require you to leap further than others.

Buster Browns idea that conscious could somehow emirate from outside the brain is one leap of faith. It is a leap of faith that I think is further than your claim that consciousness is a product of the brain. But they are both leaps of faith. What is not a leap of faith is that I am conscious of myself thinking about Decarte, and this is the only thing that I can say with total certainty.

I'm afraid that it is you that is daydreaming; dreaming about how your view of reality is the only logically consistent view and that all others are merely the rambling of lunatics.




Quote:

Idealism: In philosophy, idealism is the group of philosophies which assert that reality, or reality as we can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial.




Tell me the difference then..

The brain and human nervous system is the faculty of sense and if you want to deny that then you are daydreaming.

My position is more so saying that consciousness is a result of the bodies innate responses(heart/intestine/PNS), whilst a sense of morality, a conscience and overall sentience arises from the rectification of perceptions within the brain and spinal cord(CNS).

Here's a question for you, I shit therefore I eat is logically consistent but what does that explain about the food I've eaten?

Ergo, I think therefore I am, but what does that explain about the human condition or what a human is?


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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineblingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: sudly]
    #23961902 - 12/28/16 04:23 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Shitting is always reducible to eating, just as thinking is always reducible to consciousness, therefor knowledge (a form of thinking) is reducible to consciousness, consciousness is not reducible to matter as matter can only be perceived in consciousness, matter is a product of knowledge, knowledge of the sciences etc. which is reducible to consciousness as knowledge arises in consciousness.

I told you a few posts back that this would go round in circles :lol:

What it explains about the human condition is that we are constantly in a state of doubt and so we should be, we would be fools to think otherwise.


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: blingbling]
    #23961932 - 12/28/16 05:01 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Thinking is not always reducible to consciousness, especially since innate and instinctive responses such as the fight or flight response are done without conscious thought.

Quote:

Instinctive: relating to or prompted by instinct; done without conscious thought.




Perception doesn't change matter. :facepalm:
Invention is a product of knowledge.

Your interpretations might make sense with a Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics but definitely not in Pilot Wave theory.


As far as I can see it you are the only one going in circles, so have fun daydreaming. :cookiemonster:

Computers weren't invented in a constant state of doubt.


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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: sudly]
    #23962004 - 12/28/16 06:47 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

the advancement that blingbling illustrates over sudly here is
to be aware of going in circles.

guess which one will eventually stop going in circles


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: redgreenvines]
    #23962018 - 12/28/16 07:08 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Going In Circles



--------------------
Anxiety is what you make it.


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

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: redgreenvines]
    #23962092 - 12/28/16 07:53 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

After the circularity is seen, formally the direct line to the conscious subject (through methodological doubt), is considered solipsism.

We know that Descartes doubting the world until he came to the one proposition that can't be doubted, "I think therefore I am" does not say that such a proposition of ideal or absolute mental existence/content, on its own, has any content that is actually relavent to the world as such. Solipsism is not a good proposition - although it is tempting enough.

Whether it is considered a good proposition or not to lay out these terms, from external, to internal, is based on further formal arguments of a different character that are implied by Cartesianism. A hint is in that the line to the subject is formally maintained, in our world as sensible, but the generic idea (idealism) of doubt of the senses does not suffice, alone to maintain and regulate it.

We do not just doubt the senses. We follow the lines to subjects, to question or interrogate them, asking them about their experiences of the objective world in front of them. Doubt of the senses formally has to be transposed to mean interrogation of the senses, which asks of content. How this world is formally propped up though, from Descartes' relatively straight forward idea (the method of doubt) is the interesting question.

It seems to me we approximate the line drawn from object to subject, and create a geometrical relation of these lines. If one person stands in front of an object, and so does another, how do we know they see the same thing? It is not just through these relations, and yet aggregatively it is. If a "third pereon" is there (another subject) or implied in the situation, this subject can see that a subject in the first place stands in approximate relation to an object, (say a tree) and the other subject stands from a different perspective in front of a tree. We need the third person's objectivity to triangulate. The line between first and second relation has to be generalized and looked upon from another dimension.

Each subject as point, (in relation to object) becomes another object of information, in the line drawn from subject to objects. Then we can once again call this relation, precisely what was doubted - a sense experience. The lines extend from subjects approximately as sense experiences. The key it seems to me, is that doubt of the senses, Descartes establishes in one formal way, has to become a specific interrogation of the senses, in interrelational geometry of affairs.

This interrogation of the senses, (asking about their contents) is one solution that seems to be commonly used, anyway. Descqrtes' "Method of doubt" means both the former one dimensional argument and the latter by implication and extrapolation.


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

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Kurt]
    #23962151 - 12/28/16 08:33 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Descartes' extentionalism (res extensa "extended thing", world of physical bodies to the subject) would be better illustrated with geometrical pictures, but I think anyone can more or less follow the logic. Subjects are impelled forward to become objects of information, (to question in regards to their implied content) in a community of discourse conventionally upheld in their senses. Constructively, we work from the line to the subject, to many compounding dimensions of interrelated lines (of doubt/"sense") in a geometrical matrix.



But I tend to like to deconstruct a bit too. To what extent is Descartes just begging the question of his mental existence? The world is falling away everything, to a solipsistic doubt. We are saved by the existence of the mind? I thought the mind was just what is most doubtable of all in this line of reason. And what if I just trust common sense in the first place, rather than conceptually implicate it?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Kurt]
    #23962153 - 12/28/16 08:34 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Kurt said:
... We follow the lines to subjects, to question or interrogate them, asking them about their experiences of the objective world in front of them. ...



You may wish to follow by an underlying linearity and logic, but that is a formalized artifice that hides the underlying association method which takes place in the mind:

image or mind-form links to another 'associated' image or mind-form, not through a line but through several correspondences (usually the linkage between two mind-forms is because the two things happened together as part of a scene or happened in sequence; or they are intrinsically similar in form). In each case a plurality of joins make association functional, single joins (lines) hold nothing by themselves in the linkages between thoughts.

each image is composed of the same raw stuff as sensation or more precisely mentation because all sensation happens in the mind (because of the body initially).

Anyway what one thinks follows what one thought just a moment before through association; not one-dimensionally as in (logical) lines, but multidimensionally - flashing entire images and composites of images favoring the hardy linkages that are freshest or which have grown strongest by repetition over time.

The formalized artifice of discourse winds around itself more easily than it provides enlightenment. In that way it is narcissistic. It is a style of thinking which is itself the topic of it's path.

This is most circular.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


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

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: redgreenvines]
    #23962378 - 12/28/16 10:17 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Is it really anything more than the collective ie. "intellectual" ego we are talking about, as the conscious subject though? I wouldn't balk at the narcissism of it, because it seems to me that is what it is. The tricky thing is our intellectualism as such, is not something that mainly occurs at an individual level, or in the ponds of individual minds, but in mass, in the appeal to foundations of knowledge in cogito.

What would cartesianism in symphony "be" without the individual turn toward solipsism, the absolute doubt of the external world leading to the proposition "I think therefore I am" which is indeed if we observe, narcissus looking into his pond, psychologically interpreted? It is an essential feature of Cartesianism to arrogate the formal solipsistic claim, in the first place, and I am not sure how you would imply a cartesian could get around that. Formally, it has to come through, become acceptable by whatever interpretation, because it coming through (the "transcendental subject") is collectively to get out of the parasitic spiral.

I wasn't saying that Descartes is not circular in logic here.  I think therefore I am is a circular piece of work, merely associating and developing a mental content. We can ask two questions. One is whether this form of argument is worth indulging at all. Or we can ask, in the formal implication, how does this now established place of existing mental content relate to the world?

It is clear that we do not perceive the world, through what is implied (as epistemelogically basic) as a subject-object relationship. That is not a cognitive function in you sense. What I don't understand, is why you or anyone would think that what Descartes is talking about as mind, cogito, or a structure of perception, is anything but something constructive and derived from that in this formal sense. Our world in the essentially cartesian sense (or in a certain conventional structure of our world) is these chunks of subject object, mind body relations, whether or not this has been fully analyzed.

As I understand you are saying we can look closer at this. If somethint establishesn the aproximate place of res cogitans, the "affairs" of perception, and these cartesian chunks of content, can be described if you prefer, at that level, or as close to a neurological correlation as possible. A function of the mind through sense and memory, and associated brain functions draws a connection to objects, itself, you might say. But it seems to me, all that you are saying, is that the mind here mimics what Descartes actually talks about.

You are right that there may be much going on in between the actual instance of perception and conforming to these states of affairs. Perceptioj is not just the construct, but seemingly  happen pretty individually, or pretty well in the mind. If I stand here, at one point of space and time, a three dimensional object seems one way to me. Perhaps it is not too clear in its aspect. If I take two steps over to the right or to the left, there is suddenly a phenomenologically rich experience, more aspect to the dimensions and outline of what I am looking at. I remember and ascribe what I saw previously, the object "rotates", and now I have a three dimensional appearance, and an object-thing. This can all be phenomenologically beared as the first person relation to a second relata or point of reference, which sustains in different moments.

On the other hand, this would just the normative matrix of conjecture in Descartes, as expressed, geometrically triangulating upon objects as well. You draw many lines, in Cartesianism, and comvemtionwlly you ignore the circularity, (or the hard problem of consciousness) which establishes this, since acknowledging a circle would invalidate the argument, and deconstruct or destabilize the cartesian system as a whole. To put it another way, if cartesianism sustains, gets beyond solipsism (which is the question) you have to learn to ignore the fact that Descartes formally makes a direct line inward to solipsism, and instead adopts the cultural intellectual ego, which establishes a possibility of your personal experiences, senses, relating outwardly reflecting back to objects.

It seems to me, you are underestimating the appeal to conventionality which brings this process to its closure. the collective intellectualism, the squareness and linearity that Descartes implies, is its only constructive possibility it seems to me. If it is circular, you throw the argument out. Narcissism is sublated as the modesty of intellectually independent existence in a collective conjecture. If cartesianism is consistent, it carries through intrasubjectively, (where the importance of subjectivities are collectively regulated as much as they are posed) as well. So whether that subject is one person's private mental cognition, or of many people conforming to a frame of reference, is mostly arbitrary. The collective asserts that phenomenological opening is a narcissism, sometimes, because it would be narcissism to favor one's particular idiosyncracies and whims about the world. Yet these are the same novelties, which flower out of this system. How far one goes off, or goes into their private genius and brings something back, in a form that is novel, or even groundbreaking view, to the implied frame of references we live in, is the positive interpretation (genius). These will occur suddenly not as opening the collective mind to phenomenology, to perceptions in cartesianism, but the mass movement of the conceptual or paradigmatic shift of reference as a whole.

I did not mean to say that our cartesian experience is without a phenomenology, a richness to it; I am saying that the phenomenological or functional relation can work things out, but this matrix of affairs is effective, where "subjects are made objects of information rather than subjects of communication". The conceptual mechanism that levels our reality, systematically, is an appeal to sense experience as such, the line first in and drawn out from the subject to object. This is an intellectual ego.

In the world mostly we are grinding down and leveling to certain dimensions. We (as in, our scientific society) interrogate a subjects experience usually, not because they are interesting or potentially novel to us, (although some views or perspectives are respected more than others) but because they fit in a preconceived frame of reference or near to that which we want data or information about. This is what Descartes calls "foundations", or foundationalism the more or less stabilized culture of epistemic discourse. It does not seem to me to mainly be an actual cognitive function.

Maybe people will judge Descartes' (and an interpretations') "modesty" as they will, but it has just as much been the gradual acceptance of our culture's intellectual ego, for that modesty to be regulated this way. Descartes may be pretty circular, in this sense, which to me means his initial argument is contrived, self glamourizing, but he is damn well the squarest philosopher we are presently, occupied with too, if we accept that circularity, and follow the ingrained formal implications. Cartesianism is essentially enframing; a gestell, or gestalt, an association of an image and single frame of reference, or univocal concept we level to which is empty of its essential content. First person descriptions (phenomenological) are described as narcissistic roughly based on how idiosyncratic they seem to the cultural ego, which says we should level to states of affairs of subjects relating to objects. That point is completely arbitrary if we accept Descartes game of solipsism. Anyone could say we value eccentricity, the circularity that is stretched and wavers in orbit around a point of reference, to swing back, as intellect, in a positive sense. How much does the eccentricity of mental experience (the social disregard for difference but love and worship of technical genius) have to do with actual perception? More, or less... or more-or-less...?



Edited by Kurt (12/28/16 11:57 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Kurt]
    #23962703 - 12/28/16 12:45 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

can you
a) reduce the excess words
b) correct grammar after the cut

it is hard to pick up the frayed threads you are spinning

maybe if you put them more neatly into smaller bundles


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineblingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: redgreenvines] * 1
    #23962716 - 12/28/16 12:53 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

redgreenvines said:
the advancement that blingbling illustrates over sudly here is
to be aware of going in circles.

guess which one will eventually stop going in circles




exactly, sudley has a very interesting take on materialism, but he thinks that because he/she can make a straight line between consciousness and matter that he/she is right and everyone else is just daydreaming. The stumbling block that he chooses to ignore is that within the frame of his argument all things can be reduced to consciousness as all things that can be known arise in consciousness. It doesn't necessarily mean he/she is wrong, just that he/she is not properly taking into account the scope of his own argument.


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineblingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: sudly]
    #23962735 - 12/28/16 01:05 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
Thinking is not always reducible to consciousness





The unconscious is simply the consciousness that we are not conscious of. But that is beside the point. I can theoretically reduce anything knowable to consciousness because knowledge must arrive in consciousness to be known.

Do you see why people have been arguing over this for hundreds of years?

You keep offering material explanations and I keep reducing them to consciousness. This is a philosophical vortex that can spin forever and never come to a definitive answer.

You either posit something that exists outside of consciousness which can therefor be doubted (as you have done) or you base your philosophy on an immaterial consciousness which barely tracks that reality of actually lived life. There is no way out of this.

I don't know how old you are, and I'd hate to bring age into this as if it really mattered philosophically, but something you learn as you get older is that sometimes you are between a rock and a hard place and there is no easy answer.


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.


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

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: blingbling]
    #23962911 - 12/28/16 02:33 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Do you read any continental or deconstructive philosophy RGV?

It is possible to take a more analytic view, as you please, but things will come in bundles and disjointed forms, in actual fact, in Cartesianism, since it it is not a formally consistent system.

I mean, for instance, when you say Descartes is circular, it would make a lot more sense to me to throw circular arguments out, than just say they are circular. So for me to understand your own analytic views, to be fair you would have to explain this obscurity probably too.

Here is an attempt; no promises though and I am on the run today so sorry for being lax on proofreading previously.

In the one dimensional version of Descartes' philosophy, you have a "method of doubt" more or less straight forwardly. Sometimes it is thought of in generality. In this sense, Cartesianism says you start with assumptions about the world, they become subject to doubt, and fall away, or whittle down to what is true and certain. You go from some estimations and guesses, or opinions and beliefs, to what is indubitable and grounded. But if you are clear on these things, you see this is not just an inductive approach in Descartes. This is an appeal to the foundation of certainty, upon which the sciences as a whole are built, a deduction, not just a guess interposed within a particular domain. This is a difficult point to grasp but it is essential

The first argument "I think therefore I am" is a projected rationale which in effect rifles through the contents of experiences of the world (sense experiences) and hearsay of opinion and conjecture however serious, to the one truly indubitable proposition. What I am saying that is probably different than usual is that the entity dealt with here, cogito, is not found in an empirical observation. This is above all what has to be clear. You can't just jump into a particular cognitive science and say that this is what Descartes' cogito is about. The generality of Descartes' Method of Doubt (as foundational as it may be) can't be taken as it were in a particular science. We are not observing a cognition. Neither the "thinking", or its "existence" is an observation of something in the statement, "I think therefore I am." It is rationalized or inferred as such a foundation. This is important to get straight. If it is assumed that thinking has to have particular content from past experiences of the world, to exist, this is a rationalization extended upon the first.  We are not empirically observing anything as a cogito, in this statement so much as coming to a rationalization that an object or thing must exist. He says "I think, therefore I am", so we should not mistake this as an observation or study.

This is the first resolve of Cartesianism as a rationalism, a sensibility of certainty about the world. As for what would be most "clear" here, I am not sure, because people project their philosophical preferences that way. My view is there is actually something disjointed here, and not formally or fully developed. This is only the form of sense experience being layed out (it is a rationalization laying out the internal and external), in the line drawn toward a subject. This describes nothing in particular content. If we hold Descartes to the deductive certainty, he has only doubted or rejected the senses, to articulate the place of the mind to the world, in a way which is formally solipsistic. That is what is going on in the argument. Maybe this seems undermining, but if we are clear that it is a straight forward assertion or argument that is asserting the cogito, that line of argument, (that upon doubting what is doubtable, the one thing I cam be certain of is "I think therefore I am") goes to the conscious subject only. Whether you want to admit this line of argument as it is asserted or not, seems to be the issue Red Green.

A constructive cartesian will want to mobilize, and generalize this place of mental experience, and develop its content as something outwardly relevant and informative to the world, in sense experience. In form, this development follows the absolute skepticism or solipsism, more or less implicitly. This move to mobilize the cogito into sense perceptions is both disjointed and formally necessary at once,, to escape an implied solipsism.

This should be clear enough to follow. It is not intellectual in my opinion. It is about taking responsibility for these assertions and lines of reasoning we are complicit to. The method should be destructuring (unifying as you take apart) the inherently disjointed forms of justification. So what I explained here, is that the first resolve of Cartesianism "I think therefore I am" is solipsism. The argument should probably be thrown out as saying anything at all about the world if anything.


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

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Kurt]
    #23963006 - 12/28/16 03:10 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

The non-expositional version would be that Descartes is not just circular in argument, but simultaneously very linear, structured and disjointed at once. That much should be fair, preferences to philosophical styles aside. Could you who say Descartes is circular or circling, say if and why we should indulge that, or if we should throw the argument out?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: blingbling]
    #23963194 - 12/28/16 04:21 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

blingbling said:
Quote:

sudly said:
Thinking is not always reducible to consciousness




The unconscious is simply the consciousness that we are not conscious of. But that is beside the point. I can theoretically reduce anything knowable to consciousness because knowledge must arrive in consciousness to be known.

Do you see why people have been arguing over this for hundreds of years?

You keep offering material explanations and I keep reducing them to consciousness. This is a philosophical vortex that can spin forever and never come to a definitive answer.

You either posit something that exists outside of consciousness which can therefor be doubted (as you have done) or you base your philosophy on an immaterial consciousness which barely tracks that reality of actually lived life. There is no way out of this.

I don't know how old you are, and I'd hate to bring age into this as if it really mattered philosophically, but something you learn as you get older is that sometimes you are between a rock and a hard place and there is no easy answer.




Under any consistent logic the unconscious mind is the instinct we were born with. Funny how we're born with innate knowledge isn't it? and since that's the case your assertion that anything can be reduced to consciousness is irrational in my view because knowledge can be reduced to instinct.

People have believed Jesus arose from the dead for over 2000 years but that doesn't give the idea any merit.

You are ignoring instinct or at least failing to acknowledged it. 

Again, doubt doesn't effect the physical world, to say that is essentially a belief in telepathy which is as irrational as believing Jesus came back to life.

Maybe basing philosophy on the laws of nature is a better way to not sound insane because sentience cannot exist without matter. To say that anything is immaterial is to ignore everything science has ever said about the laws of nature.

Sometimes you realise there are answers within perspectives you haven't yet looked through, the same went for mankind in the 1880's when radio waves were discovered, back then people didn't know anything about them but the scientific method provided a perspective for them to understand the truth of what was really going on in the world around them and what technologies could be developed.


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



Edited by sudly (12/28/16 04:56 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Kurt]
    #23963249 - 12/28/16 04:39 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

I admit I am having a bit of trouble following what you  are saying.
Each idea seems decorated with suggestions of other ideas in hints and cadences.
for instance this one here:
Quote:

A constructive cartesian will want to mobilize, and generalize this place of mental experience, and develop its content as something outwardly relevant and informative to the world, in sense experience. In form, this development follows the absolute skepticism or solipsism, more or less implicitly. This move to mobilize the cogito into sense perceptions is both disjointed and formally necessary at once,, to escape an implied solipsism.




and my struggle to get it goes something like this:

Quote:

A constructive cartesian will want to mobilize,
**** The thesis at hand will articulate
and generalize this place of mental experience,
**** and model the seat of experiencing,
and develop its content
**** and the process of its parts
as something outwardly relevant and informative to the world,
**** as an artistic expression
in sense experience.
**** where body sense is experienced.


In form, this development
**** this thinking
follows the absolute skepticism or solipsism,
**** chains from skeptic solipsism
more or less implicitly.
**** we can assume.

This move to mobilize the cogito
**** Beginning to move the Thing That Thinks
into sense perceptions
**** onto the same level as Sensory Associations
is both disjointed
**** goes against the norm
and formally necessary at once,
**** but suits the case in which
, to escape an implied solipsism.
**** we can be free of any "idea that the self is all that can be known to exist."





resulting in
Quote:


The thesis at hand will articulate
and model the seat of experiencing,
and the process of its parts
as an artistic expression
where body sense is experienced.


This thinking
chains from skeptic solipsism
we can assume.

Beginning to move the Thing That Thinks
goes against the norm
but suits the case in which
we can be free of any "idea that the self is all that can be known to exist."





or to simplify
Quote:

We artistically model the seat of experiencing, and the process of its parts together with body sensations.
(Assume skeptic solipsism here)
Moving the Thing That Thinks unfashionably suits the case in which
we need not think that the self is all that can be known to exist.




but it still makes little sense to me


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


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

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: sudly]
    #23963430 - 12/28/16 05:56 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Getting psychology mixed up into arguments seems to be the bane of this thread, guys. It is muddy and not clear, but I understand why we would too. Cogito ("I think"...and therefore I am) is like the intellectual version of egotism, a view seeming to come from nowhere. I think that probably it is in a good part (in content) psychology but it is a straight forward argument, about the world, not a psychologism at face value.

I would propose that if psychological terminology has to be used, or if it is clarifying to what we talk about, we need to try to be clear about this. Sudly, I respect your moral scruples quite a bit, but "conscience" is not an inherent structure of nature or of human cognition. It may be something that we can emphasize, that comes through our nature, but it really is not cognition itself.

Bling Bling, the theory of unconscious, (or any particular theory about the id, libido, or death anxiety, as particular unconscious "drives") is a theoretical postulate, not a cognitive structure.

The particular theories of unconscious are projected to perhaps explain human nature in more primal ways, and in very fundamental ways. But in spite of this depth, they generally remain social constructs (just theories) more than sciences. The theory can be empirical, which is to say a subject can be studied and analyzed, and gathered from, but these studies are not rigorously falsifiable or confirmable. That is, none of the studies confirm or falsify or validate anything about the theories, other than that human behavior can seem be studied in the projected way. Behaviorism as the generalization of a method of explaining people's drives to act, or behave in certain ways, is no longer held in high regard by standing science.

We need to be clear on what the scientific basis really is here, so we are not just on our way to posture Psychoanalyse of people. If you are out to confirm a pet theory, by reified objectifications (unscientifically making objects or ends of people) you will be pointed out. We need to be practicing clear reasoning, and that means we need to be maintaining a good standard of discussion rather than just projecting stereotypes and anthroprocentric categories of human nature.

The idea of philosophy is in large part to discuss ideas, or make arguments about the world. Talking about person's behind the ideas, reflexes conferring with an ideology or belief, is getting it backwards. I don't care about whatever spin. This is ad hominem argument, argument to the man, rather than the idea, it is just bad form. We could at least have a more cohesive dialogue if we came to a ground of assertion about the world or existence.

Descartes makes an argument about the world when he says "I think therefore I am". As much as we may be suspicious of this statement, and however psychological it seems, we need to stick to grounds ostensibly like this; as the reasoned argument about the world, and sort through the rationalistic and empirical baselines.

I would also challenge anyone to consider the question I asked above about the circularity of Descartes' argument.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Kurt]
    #23963537 - 12/28/16 06:38 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Sudly, I respect your moral scruples quite a bit, but "conscience" is not an inherent structure of nature or of human cognition. It may be something that we can emphasize, that comes through our nature, but it really is not cognition itself.




As I've been saying throughout this, I think only consciousness is an inherent structure in nature and that a conscience is something that can become emphasised in humans through the accumulated experience of an inhibited fight or flight response that come alongside the ingestion of psychedelic drugs like the psilocybin found in magic mushrooms.

Here is the basic logic I follow to get from having a sense of morality to having a conscience to expressing sentience.

Quote:

Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour




Quote:

Conscience: a person's moral sense of right and wrong, viewed as acting as a guide to one's behaviour.




Quote:

Sentience: feeling or sensation as distinguished from perception and thought




Morality in my view is distinguished from explicit feelings and sensations as implicit perception and thought.

Quote:

the theory of unconscious, (or any particular theory about the id, libido, or death anxiety, as particular unconscious "drives") is a theoretical postulate, not a cognitive structure.

The particular theories of unconscious are projected to perhaps explain human nature in more primal ways, and in very fundamental ways. But in spite of this depth, they generally remain social constructs (just theories) more than sciences. The theory can be empirical, which is to say a subject can be studied and analyzed, and gathered from, but these studies are not rigorously falsifiable or confirmable.




To date that makes sense but hopefully in time the theory of Triune Dualism will be completed to explain these things and show that there is a basic and fundamental cognitive structure to the human experience.


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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
Simplify this [Re: Kurt]
    #23963576 - 12/28/16 06:53 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

what is the question?
you say in the question above, well how far above( or was it an implicit question above) that would be naughty))?

loose linkages are not helping with clarity.

anyway, to the basic statement: "I think, therefore I am"
I concur:
all mental contents together are thought, with or without language, with or without sensation, with or without logic, with or without memory, with or without pain - that is the broader reality of thinking and of being,
so yeah
"I think, therefore I am".


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: Simplify this [Re: redgreenvines]
    #23963607 - 12/28/16 07:04 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

I think therefore I am, but what am I, am I a body and/or a mind?




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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleThe Blind Ass
Bodhi
I'm a teapot User Gallery


Registered: 08/16/16
Posts: 26,659
Loc: The Primordial Mind
Re: Simplify this [Re: sudly]
    #23963691 - 12/28/16 07:39 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Samsaric appearances, unfounded, are like optical illusion,
their very rootlessness undoing all defining features;
with insight, they appear as hollow, insubstantial light-form
and we recognize their primordially unoriginated nature.

Just as a small object in the middle of an empty plain,
although insignificant assumes vast importance,
so from a tendentious belief in empty self as solid ego
samsara' s delusory panorama arises and materializes.

Under scrutiny that delusory vision dematerializes
and it is evident that like the sky it is impotent,
mere light-form without existence, like optical illusion,
so we just let it be, denying it all credibility.

It is pure space! it is timeless! it is primordially pristine!
Do not try to localize it! do not try to conceptualize it!
What is inchoate light without dimension
cannot be caged by obsessive, biased, constructs.
It is better to surrender all ideas about it
and recognize it all as devoid of truth.

So we recognize all events as optical illusion
and rest the weary mind, just as it is, in its primordial nature.

:patlal:


--------------------
Give me Liberty caps -or- give me Death caps


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: Simplify this [Re: The Blind Ass]
    #23963762 - 12/28/16 08:03 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)



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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleThe Blind Ass
Bodhi
I'm a teapot User Gallery


Registered: 08/16/16
Posts: 26,659
Loc: The Primordial Mind
Re: Simplify this [Re: sudly]
    #23963852 - 12/28/16 08:40 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

:excuseme::manofapproval::heart:

The crass naive materialist thumping the table
and saying, 'And isn't this real?' is in denial of the ineluctable
dominant cognitive component of every perception.
Indeed in every cognitive event our specifically personal
beliefs about the reality of the external world are
undermined by the logic of variable sensory experience
under evolving conditions.

The subjectivity of our deeper,
hidden, preconscious, common, shared beliefs about the
external world and its presumed immutable reality are
easily refuted by the proofs offered by the scanning electron
microscope and by quantum theory and particle physics in
the field of objective investigation.

Then turning inward in discursive, analytical meditation we can search for an essence that is
substantial and permanent and yet find only emptiness:  magical illusion


--------------------
Give me Liberty caps -or- give me Death caps


Edited by The Blind Ass (12/28/16 08:42 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: Simplify this [Re: The Blind Ass]
    #23963888 - 12/28/16 08:53 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Pilot wave theory, not the Copenhagen interpretation thank you.



Quote:

redgreenvines said:
we are constantly playing with models of the real world, even to the extent that we stop connecting with the real worlds because our model is far too engrossing. The mind's eye can be easily distracted by it's own model.






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



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: blingbling]
    #23963896 - 12/28/16 08:55 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

blingbling said:
I'm just trying to get you to admit that idealism is logically consistent.




Sudly is a meat-worshipper. He doesn't have the intellectual capacity to step back and think about idealism.

I'm not even sure why he posts here, since the entire point of the psychedelic experience is to realise that the material world is an illusion and consciousness is eternal and thus to become liberated.

He should post on some physics or maths forum where there are some people on a similar wavelength. Getting lectured by him about 'implicit sensations' is like getting lectured by a religious child that just will not listen when you try to tell him that Santa isn't real.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleThe Blind Ass
Bodhi
I'm a teapot User Gallery


Registered: 08/16/16
Posts: 26,659
Loc: The Primordial Mind
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: viktor]
    #23963920 - 12/28/16 09:05 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Nothing wrong with his opinion, Its pretty clever and represents things well I think.  Others do the same but with other interpretations, probably because of different personality types or whatever conditioning they have or what have you.  All the same to me.  Materialism, or Consciousness Only, or whatever it is all is the same to me, just like people talking about the same thing in nature but only using different languages to do it.  But the subtle nuances or gross ones of each individuals take on a thing adds a nice spice to life, and megusta el spice.


--------------------
Give me Liberty caps -or- give me Death caps


Edited by The Blind Ass (12/28/16 09:06 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: viktor]
    #23963942 - 12/28/16 09:18 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

viktor said:
I'm not even sure why he posts here, since the entire point of the psychedelic experience is to realise that the material world is an illusion and consciousness is eternal and thus to become liberated.

He should post on some physics or maths forum where there are some people on a similar wavelength. Getting lectured by him about 'implicit sensations' is like getting lectured by a religious child that just will not listen when you try to tell him that Santa isn't real.




Quote:

"Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology"





Implicit perception*
Quote:

At this point the concept of implicit memory (Graf & Schacter, 1985; Schacter, 1987), also known as indirect memory (Johnson & Hasher, 1987; Richardson-Klavehn & Bjork, 1988) or memory without awareness (Eich, 1984; Jacoby, 1984; Jacoby & Witherspoon, 1982), is quite familiar and widely accepted.
http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~kihlstrm/Bornstein92.htm




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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleThe Blind Ass
Bodhi
I'm a teapot User Gallery


Registered: 08/16/16
Posts: 26,659
Loc: The Primordial Mind
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: sudly]
    #23963974 - 12/28/16 09:33 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Hey Sudly, I hear you...worship meat?  Is this true?

Do you have an alter you worship at with some raw beef shaped into a phallus seated on a golden plate on top of it and surrounded by incense? :datass:


--------------------
Give me Liberty caps -or- give me Death caps


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: The Blind Ass]
    #23964005 - 12/28/16 09:44 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

You got me..


--------------------
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: Simplify this [Re: redgreenvines]
    #23964086 - 12/28/16 10:11 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

The statement you bolded is a neat truism. I take it you are saying Descartes is talking about the mind or thought, like a vessel to be filled? It is a place where things come or are placed together.

As I understand;

All experiences, past as much as present perceptions and feelings, take place equally in the place of consciousness. All physicalities (sensations), as much as mentalities take place in consciousness. What we mean by thought as intellect sometimes; as thoughts expressed in linguistic statements, dialogues, or thought as internal narratives, and non-linguistic thoughts, like image like phenomena and dreams (etc), are really anything we experience all together in consciousness.

Descartes' statement is not simplified to this point, "mental content is thought"; and I would say truisms are troublesome in that they themselves already say too much for what they have to say. I take your notion "simplify this!" though. All I would say there is a lot more to get a hold of and interpret in Descartes. In a way what you say, is the same as, or what he essentially says, even if what he is saying is more, and more toublesome in many cases.

It actually sounds like a pretty weird thing to just say "I think therefore I am" out of nothing, or without looser context. Descartes says not only "I think", or "I think...(x)", (and not I think I am) but "I think...therefore I am." He is saying a lot. I wonder, is it just like you say, to wit, that this statement is like filling a vessel, or placing together of all things in one place? Maybe that only works in simplicity.

It seems to me that Descartes is not only talking about identification more, but also significantly, what he thinks and asserts as the metaphysical foundation of the world, or what the foundations of scientific knowledge should be, in respect to the cogito. In Discourse on Method this is the looser context he lays out to haggle. I might have clarified, when I set out to reinterpret Descartes in this thread I did not just intend to find a distilled truth, in what he says, but to understand completely what he is saying and how it seems to be taken especially, in testament and in a broad philosophical cultural tradition, as cartesianism.

For instance, we did not even cover why in cartesianism the world is extended (like in linear spatiotemporal dimensions) res extensa, in respect to the cognition res cogitans; or how Descartes' mind and body relation "works". If you are talking pretty well about being and thinking, as such, I would add, Cartesianism is not just what we can distill in it as true. Well, hopefully this makes more sense.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
Re: Simplify this [Re: Kurt]
    #23964706 - 12/29/16 05:54 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

it was somewhat more readable, although it seems extra words were added at any opportunities.

Although "vessel" helps to formulate a metaphor for what I was saying, I think "mind" has properties that make "vessel" too limiting:

to begin with it is not spatially constrained, it is vast and accommodating of all experience.

while it floats on life, it floats whether upended or not.

if it sinks, it sinks within its own materiel.

================

as for the property of extension, this is mostly attributed to earth, which solidly extends and supports; but it is also intrinsic to space, and to mind, since both accommodate dimensions.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleThe Blind Ass
Bodhi
I'm a teapot User Gallery


Registered: 08/16/16
Posts: 26,659
Loc: The Primordial Mind
Re: Simplify this [Re: redgreenvines]
    #23964712 - 12/29/16 06:05 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

absent yet apparent - like an apparition, comes to mind - no pun intended


--------------------
Give me Liberty caps -or- give me Death caps


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
Re: Simplify this [Re: The Blind Ass]
    #23964792 - 12/29/16 07:32 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

that too


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


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

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: Simplify this [Re: redgreenvines]
    #23965226 - 12/29/16 10:57 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Well, true to form. I think the guy above you thinks it is your aura and redgreeny essence floating by.

Anyway, I agree that communication is great, but let's see what progress has actually been made in terms of argument. To recap, you said you concur with Descartes when he says "I think therefore I am":

"Yes", you say, "all mental contents together are thoughts" (these are your words, two of your posts up).

To really be true to form, we need a more focused verbal argument. I am not myself impressed by the guru style in pronouncing truisms, either, so you will have to do a little better with your words. Sorry to weigh you down. We need actual argument as the constraining form. Let's actually consider what you say this way:

Explain this: You say "all mental contents - all thoughts - together, are thoughts?" Thoughts (together) are thoughts? A=A, is placed together? What is this statement saying?

Are you also going to also tell me that "all bachelors are unmarried"?

Or will you say that "the buddhist's opiate makes me sleepy because of its dormitive power"? It may be lulling, and nice sounding to young grasshoppers who love to assume the question of consciousness. You are already off talking about this stuff, the formless unconstrained "matter" of thought; I am just offering that we keep things grounded a bit.

Redgreen essences,
squeezing through and wafting by,
no argument though.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
phenomena which occur in mind [Re: Kurt] * 2
    #23965389 - 12/29/16 12:08 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

obviously I am not talking about bachelors, I am talking about mental objects.
phenomena which occur in mind.
what is experienced.
the mind stage is like a theater or media player.
the content of mind is mental media.
traditionally we consider the meaning of thought to be its subset which is discursive thought or thought that is packaged in word streams, or word streams that are voiced silently, and this corresponds to the activity of discourse/argument/conversation/communication etc.

thought that has the form of words or sentences and cadences is made of general mental forms/energy that has the character of words etc. which could be read or heard or spoken.

thought that has the form of scenery or graphical views is also made of the same general mental forms/energy that has the character of what could be seen or navigated within.

thought that has the form of body sensations or physical posture, gesture or movement is also made of the same general mental form-stuff as other thought though the character of it is has proprioceptive reality.

thoughts of all these types occur with eyes open or closed, when dreaming or awake.

what is most uncanny is that verbal thought is considered by many as the only real thought, and any other thinking is not considered at all as having the same basic substance, or even any valid semblance to thinking, to the extent that inarticulate animals are not considered conscious, though we may observe emotions, and even complex planning in their behaviors.

We here in mushroom land enjoy mental state alteration recreationally, which means that we take pleasure and find inspiration in the intermingling trails that mental events afford.

by observation we come to see that any idea, or mental form, or component thereof, or composite thereof arises, and passes away with the same property - i.e. while stoned we may note resonance extension, prolonged fading etc. of any class of mental form that arises.

I am not sure if you can accept experiential proof of this, or even if your kind of discourse accepts measurements or experimental recording of this, but this is what happens when getting stoned, and it applies equally well when not getting stoned.

any mental forms that occur (from sensational experience) may be integrated (associatively) into the continuum of memory formation, and any recognition from memory also is a mental form (which arises and passes away - though not from real-time sensation).

This is why I am careful to separate sensation from perception, since sensation is real-time input to the mind, and perception is reflective, i.e. a new form arising because of the (associative) sensory trigger, in which the sensation is recognized as like unto something that happened before.

the curious aspect of solipsism is that the real time feed is external to self, even though the experience of it is as mindforms in real time, mixed with triggered memory mind forms.

the triggered memory mindforms (including discursive thought as well as body sense memories) are, however, all internal. and after a period of time one could begin to live within their own head, though it is guaranteed to be repetitive.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


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

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: phenomena which occur in mind [Re: redgreenvines]
    #23966228 - 12/29/16 06:13 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Obviously?

Good post though, I read through a few times and think I follow.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineblingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: sudly]
    #23967241 - 12/30/16 02:54 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
Quote:

blingbling said:
Quote:

sudly said:
Thinking is not always reducible to consciousness




The unconscious is simply the consciousness that we are not conscious of. But that is beside the point. I can theoretically reduce anything knowable to consciousness because knowledge must arrive in consciousness to be known.

Do you see why people have been arguing over this for hundreds of years?

You keep offering material explanations and I keep reducing them to consciousness. This is a philosophical vortex that can spin forever and never come to a definitive answer.

You either posit something that exists outside of consciousness which can therefor be doubted (as you have done) or you base your philosophy on an immaterial consciousness which barely tracks that reality of actually lived life. There is no way out of this.

I don't know how old you are, and I'd hate to bring age into this as if it really mattered philosophically, but something you learn as you get older is that sometimes you are between a rock and a hard place and there is no easy answer.




Under any consistent logic the unconscious mind is the instinct we were born with. Funny how we're born with innate knowledge isn't it? and since that's the case your assertion that anything can be reduced to consciousness is irrational in my view because knowledge can be reduced to instinct.

People have believed Jesus arose from the dead for over 2000 years but that doesn't give the idea any merit.

You are ignoring instinct or at least failing to acknowledged it. 

Again, doubt doesn't effect the physical world, to say that is essentially a belief in telepathy which is as irrational as believing Jesus came back to life.

Maybe basing philosophy on the laws of nature is a better way to not sound insane because sentience cannot exist without matter. To say that anything is immaterial is to ignore everything science has ever said about the laws of nature.

Sometimes you realise there are answers within perspectives you haven't yet looked through, the same went for mankind in the 1880's when radio waves were discovered, back then people didn't know anything about them but the scientific method provided a perspective for them to understand the truth of what was really going on in the world around them and what technologies could be developed.




The scientific revolution is definitely the most transformative force that has ever acted upon human beings in my opinion. I'm not trying to deny that. But you are missing a fundamental truth about reality by leaning so heavily on your brand of materialist philosophy.

Your example of instinct is a good one. We do things for reasons of which we only retrospectively interpret as instinctual. We know things that we don't know we know. But consider a concrete example.

I learn to play the piano. I play a song I have learned to on the piano and it brings me joy. We would not consider these actions instinctual. However, perhaps I finish with the piano and see an alluring woman which I desire greatly. It is fair to say that this reaction is instinctual correct?

What both these experiences have in common is that they are first and foremost experienced by someone as the arising of sensations in consciousness. It doesn't matter whether the behaviour is learned or instinctual, it nonetheless appears first in consciousness.

Even if we stuck someone in a brain scanner and observed with some technology that we don't currently posses that in the next 5 minutes a person will engage in X behaviour, we can only know this because there is an experimenter whose is conscious of an experiment taking place.

There are lots of problems with a combination of scientific and first person perspectives, its clunky and our language doesn't seem to support it appropriately. But, the position of idealism, that reality is located in consciousness has its own small truth.

Lastly, consider the scientific principle that most of matter is in fact empty space, and yet we experience it as being something hard of soft or sticky,, when really there is not that much there from an atomic perspective. This disjointedness between consciousness and what physics tells us reality is, is symptomatic of our failure to effectively integrate idealist and materialist philosophies, and which leads to the circular arguments that we have been engaging in for the last few posts.


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineblingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: viktor]
    #23967257 - 12/30/16 03:12 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

viktor said:
Quote:

blingbling said:
I'm just trying to get you to admit that idealism is logically consistent.




Sudly is a meat-worshipper. He doesn't have the intellectual capacity to step back and think about idealism.

I'm not even sure why he posts here, since the entire point of the psychedelic experience is to realise that the material world is an illusion and consciousness is eternal and thus to become liberated.

He should post on some physics or maths forum where there are some people on a similar wavelength. Getting lectured by him about 'implicit sensations' is like getting lectured by a religious child that just will not listen when you try to tell him that Santa isn't real.




Actually I agree with most of what he has to say. You claim that he is a "meat worshipper" and this might be true, but its a bit rich coming from someone who is clearly a spirit worshipper; in the sense that you use the philosophical ideas of idealism to shelter yourself from the reality of death and impermanence. All this gets us is a one dimensional hallmark card version of real philosophy.

I think sudley should stick around even if it is to merely troll the rest of the spirit worshippers at the shroomery.

Perhaps you should open yourself to some of sudley's arguments and through the integration and conflagration of opposites we might come to real knowledge.


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: blingbling]
    #23967270 - 12/30/16 03:36 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

in one quote above sudly uses the following to support an argument:
Quote:

Under any consistent logic the unconscious mind is the instinct we were born with. Funny how we're born with innate knowledge isn't it? 




most psychologists will not agree that instinct is equal to subconscious, nor  has there been experimental proof of being born with innate knowledge.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: blingbling]
    #23967287 - 12/30/16 04:07 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

I learn to play the piano. I play a song I have learned to on the piano and it brings me joy. We would not consider these actions instinctual.




No, we wouldn't consider that instinctual for it is a learnt behaviour to be able to play the piano.

Desire is a tough one but I still think physical desire is instinctual e.g. the desire to procreate. As they say you can't choose your sexuality :shrug:

On the other hand there is love or emotional desire which I don't think is instinctual but instead related to individual personality.


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



Edited by sudly (12/30/16 04:13 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: redgreenvines]
    #23967289 - 12/30/16 04:08 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

How else does one explain instinctive responses such as the Moro reflex?

Quote:

The Moro reflex may have developed in human evolution to help the infant cling to their mother while she carried them around all day. If the infant lost their balance, the reflex caused the infant to embrace their mother and regain their hold on the mother’s body.






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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: sudly]
    #23967384 - 12/30/16 06:32 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Morrow reflex can be an example of instinct, if it is not an example of subconscious. Not both.

Any example of subconscious is an example of memory which has formed in this lifetime, and the "sub" qualifier relates to the memory surfacing "sublimely" or "subliminally", more felt than heard if you will.

Again, it is for capricious use of scientific terms that I am calling you out. These terms don't even support your argument, they are buckshot to illustrate that you are steeped in knowledge, but that is not a reasonable way to stay on topic, and it muddies other conversations, in cases when you become quoted by a more ignorant person.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: redgreenvines]
    #23968537 - 12/30/16 04:00 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

redgreenvines said: Morrow reflex can be an example of instinct, if it is not an example of subconscious. Not both.




Instinctive is a synonym to subconscious so I can't agree with you when you say the Moro reflex is not an example of both instinct and the subconscious.

I appreciate your feedback but I think you're wrong because I'm following dictionary definitions :shrug:

Quote:

Instinctive: relating to or prompted by instinct; done without conscious thought.




Quote:

Subconscious: of or concerning the part of the mind of which one is not fully aware but which influences one's actions and feelings.

synonyms: intuitive, instinctive, innate, involuntary;




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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: sudly]
    #23968606 - 12/30/16 04:36 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

a dictionary will give you common usage, and if that is the rule used for your science, you will have a common science that is not very good.

the size of your vocabulary is expanding, but the quality is sinking.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: redgreenvines]
    #23968620 - 12/30/16 04:48 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

A dictionary will give you the correct definition of words, so..


--------------------
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
Defining Cogito [Re: sudly]
    #23969151 - 12/30/16 08:26 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Speaking of definitions, what is the cogito; cognition?

Is there some kind of synopsis to this thread in sight? The discussion of how cognitions relate to or embrace empirical psychology has continually proved to go nowhere. Words like "unconscious", "subconscious" and instinct, conscience, and so on, may seem to be attempts to naturalize discussion. They may seem to stand for a deeper ecology of the human conscious life, explaining how we act, or live by certain drives, and ostensibly these theories could be grounded more or less in empirical bases, but for a discussion of cognition specifically this proves to be all too theoretical.

I am not sure if it would be helpful to distinguish what we are talking about, but here is a try. The bridge and correlation between supervening mental states studied in empirical psychology and the subserving brain functions (so where the brain lights up when a person fears, or desires, or has such a mental state), is broad and theoretically associative. This is not a commentary on what is wrong with psychology or something like that. I think the way we can work with those concepts should not be used as bridges, in a discussions of things Redgreenvines has mentioned like "perception" "sensation" and "association/memory" though. So I decided to look up cognition, and found out why there seems to be a difference in language. There is not any more grounding of the "cognitive" mental states in neuroscience, but as I discovered there is grounds to consider this language cognition.

Why? To take the simple definition, what we call cognition is not conscious experience as a whole, but as Oxford English Dictionary defines it, "the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses." Cognition, in other words has a general epistemic basis. Cognition is how conscious functions reflect the synthesis of knowledge in the mind and its features. Apparently, at some historic point, this epistemelogical connotation, (again not just a possible connection to a particular body of knowledge, but in how we gather any knowledge whatsoever) has been passed down as necessarily having something to do with what we call mind, or cogito.

Granted this is a formal approach, but I do think intuitively, there is something to it. Maybe by method, we can try to learn to bracket and clarify the propositions of psychology, as these terms do not directly relate to the gathering of knowledge in a direct way. Then we can bring this discussion around to the sort of statements and language that confers directly, (in certain possible confirmations of discourse) as links between the mental function and our world; the cogito. One language, or basis of statement, should not be confused with the other.

I will try to take a queue from what I am following from this. I would say one of things about about Cartesianism is it is discursive at face value. There is an ostensive statement about the world, something that people can get ahold of, and in a sense, claim or assert. The statement we all seem to be familiar with, is "I think therefore I am"; Cogito ergo sum.

From here on maybe we get into the deeper discussion of cogito. Whether it is to add context, or distill the meaning of a discursive statement, I am not sure, but hopefully we all are aware that there is this discursive context now. It seems to me we have to be careful about language if we want to have any cohesive discussion.


Edited by Kurt (12/31/16 08:23 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: Defining Cogito [Re: Kurt]
    #23969186 - 12/30/16 08:42 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

I usually struggle to find a point in your discussions but I do like this one.

Quote:

Cognition is how conscious functions reflect the synthesis of knowledge in the mind and its features.




--------------------
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: Defining Cogito [Re: sudly]
    #23969582 - 12/30/16 11:17 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Thanks, but should your agreement with a statement or dialogue  be in a preference of what you like to read? I do not really care about your philosophic rigamorole. I can see where people are coming from and what they speak to. Now what is worthwhile is practical flexibility in conceptions, and at least being aware of them.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: Defining Cogito [Re: Kurt]
    #23969637 - 12/30/16 11:51 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

I do not really care about your philosophic rigamorole.




Amen.

Res cogitans is mind. (a thinking thing)
Res extensa is body. (Descartes often translated it as "corporeal substance")

What more is there to say?

I don't think solipsism accounts for res extensa :shrug:


--------------------
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, 15 hours
Re: Defining Cogito [Re: sudly]
    #23970013 - 12/31/16 06:24 AM (7 years, 30 days ago)

Sudly, your 20% derogatory rating reflects the pressure of the hive-mind to adjust participant behavior. The effect of aspersion can be calculated to affect participation in these affairs, with the greater aspersion correlating with a lesser participation and on the flip-side the greater acclaim linking the psychological-set of a participant with their favor. This bullying is unrecognized evidently because we don't think, ergo the refutation of Cogito ergo sum and the establishment of "The hive-mind thinks and therefor I am."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
Re: Defining Cogito [Re: Buster_Brown]
    #23970025 - 12/31/16 06:32 AM (7 years, 30 days ago)



--------------------
Anxiety is what you make it.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: redgreenvines]
    #23970028 - 12/31/16 06:36 AM (7 years, 30 days ago)

Quote:

redgreenvines said:
a dictionary will give you common usage, and if that is the rule used for your science, you will have a common science that is not very good.

the size of your vocabulary is expanding, but the quality is sinking.




talk talk



--------------------
Anxiety is what you make it.


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

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: LunarEclipse]
    #23971429 - 12/31/16 05:34 PM (7 years, 30 days ago)

If the statement of a definition of a cognition (as inward syntheses of knowledge) is fitting, and not arbitrary, I would venture to propose what it actually means in general, is important. I guess it would mean we apparently begin and remain in close correspondence with a discursive statement, ( Like I think therefore I am) in whatever intelligibility we choose to ascribe to the mind.

Knowledge in general may be something gathered empirically, through a sensory experience and the way of recording of data, in a community of conjecture. We say things about the world and they are true or not, and record them to the books. If we look for a broad equivelence to fields of knowledge when we study cognition, I do not think the description of cognition is just going to be any aping of science. That is where people looking to extrapolate too much from empirical psychology are making their mistake. But perhaps it is assuming and adopting a generally synthetic ("placing together") view of the mind which can unfold itself? That is what with some reservation and skepticism, I find interesting, but I will try to clarify.

If we practically assume a mind is consisting in an apparatus of sensory experience, and gathering together of recorded memories, this cogito, as a glassy reflection to our discursive rational-intellect is indeed uncanny. I would note it is not just uncanny in the sense that when we observe the mind, we realize how dogmatically we think that mental function follows language and discursive meaning. To what extent in general have we assumed cognition: that cognition is a synthesis, a sensory experience, a gathering and ascription of "data"?

My point is not to posture the extent we look to cognition is either arbitrarily marked, or on the other hand, essential. Likewise in a similar proposition it could be that being homo sapien, "wise man", as we arrogate, really is essentially a way of nature, cutting through the fields of knowing. Perhaps our knowledges came correspondently, out of our minds, as they are in this way, but the uncanniness of this mirroring back and forth strikes me. To what extent is knowing really essential to cognition, to "thinking and being?"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Kurt]
    #23971511 - 12/31/16 06:16 PM (7 years, 30 days ago)

I image you doing weird modern dance moves as you describe this.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Kurt]
    #23971528 - 12/31/16 06:23 PM (7 years, 30 days ago)

I would think the beliefs and values an individual holds are influenced by what they have come to know through the gathering and rectification of sensory experiences, 'data' or nerve impulses.

In other words I'd say knowledge is essential to the formation of individual values.


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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleThe Blind Ass
Bodhi
I'm a teapot User Gallery


Registered: 08/16/16
Posts: 26,659
Loc: The Primordial Mind
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: sudly]
    #23971654 - 12/31/16 07:19 PM (7 years, 30 days ago)

hello gentleman :cool:


--------------------
Give me Liberty caps -or- give me Death caps


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

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: redgreenvines]
    #23971925 - 12/31/16 09:40 PM (7 years, 30 days ago)

Ha, look who's talking, sir tokes alot.

Got any more phenomenological poetry for us?

Do another one about the all embracing free-form conscious material, and I'll do an irish jig.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Kurt]
    #23980837 - 01/04/17 09:01 AM (7 years, 26 days ago)

I find it ironic that someone who believed the body to be unreliable also holds the view that the mind is wholly separate from the body, being that it's not an objective idea and there's no proof to support it.


--------------------
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, 15 hours
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Rahz]
    #23980888 - 01/04/17 09:30 AM (7 years, 26 days ago)

Intangible proofs are evidently discounted as "Leaps of faith".


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Buster_Brown]
    #23980912 - 01/04/17 09:41 AM (7 years, 26 days ago)

Wherever my body goes, there I am. But it is not objective evidence either way. The irony is that such a belief was held by the same person who pioneered the scientific method.


--------------------
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
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Rahz]
    #23981347 - 01/04/17 12:44 PM (7 years, 26 days ago)

The broader problems and seeming "contradictions" in cartesianism seem reasonable enough to point out to me.


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

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   North Spore Bulk Substrate   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Mushroom-Hut Mono Tub Substrate   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates


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. 0 members, 18 guests and 4 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 0.104 seconds spending 0.014 seconds on 14 queries.