Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


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

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2  [ show all ]
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Intellectual Laziness/Fear
    #5313043 - 02/18/06 10:36 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

..the gap between, say, Plato or Nietzsche and the average human is greater than the gap between that chimpanzee and the average human. The realm of the real spirit, the true artist, the saint, the philosopher, is rarely achieved.
Why so few? Why is world history and evolution not stories of progress but rather this endless and futile addition of zeroes. No greater values have developed. Hell, the Greeks 3,000 years ago were just as advanced as we are. So what are these barriers that keep people from reaching anywhere near their real potential? The answer to that can be found in another question, and that's this: Which is the most universal human characteristic - fear or laziness?
Waking Life




Y'know the old adage: Idle hands is the Devil's work. Get up off your lazy intellectual asses, folks.

There's a widespread problem going on with the masses of philosophers these days, or should I say, these centuries. And by philosophers, I mean just about anybody who thinks, and has a method to their mayhem. Let's be brutally honest for a second here. Did any of us "get the fucking memo" when we were kids? I sure as hell didn't. I never saw any post-it on the ole' fridge that read: "Warning: Mankind has disintegrated! Failures abound! Beware of 90% of Philosophical Clutter Out There! Face the facts!" Did we learn anything about this in school, aside from a few moments during recess on the playground? Oh god forbid, for that would be far too revolutionary.

Aw, if only it were so easy. No, most of us had to learn the hard way, and yet, at the same time, most of us were taught the hard way, if you know what I mean. Such is the result of taking off where the next generation left off, including all their disintegrated philosophy, unwarranted conclusions, and downright unreasonable, illogical garbage, all implicitly structured in the very styles of thought, modes of behavior and mindsets - ergo, the result of philosophizing mid-stream. We were taught what to think, but not how to think. Like the monkeys that are in us all, we did what we saw. We often traded mimicry for intelligence. And what we mimicked and gained memes from was likely a mongrel philosophy, where it shared the same diseases, and within it, seeds of evil. And now as a result we have philosophers who crusade for disintegration over integration, and so forth.

Integration is something that takes work to achieve, and in case you haven't noticed, laziness ain't a rare gem in the collective masses.
As long as we merely coast mentally, relying on our automatic processes, then our ideas will by default remain unconnected, floating and out-of-context. And such is the intellectual plague that has struck humanity's greatest asset - the mind. This is where philosophy should have came to the rescue, by showing the world the crucial method and importance of grasping cognitive relationships. Sadly, it has done the opposite - its power has been thrown to the side of disintegration.

Philosophy is the ultimate integrator of human knowledge - if used properly. Because philosophy is the subject that can see the forest, it can therefore relate all the fields sciences to one another. Philosophy is the subject by which our scientists and specialists should have the proper metaphysics and epistemology, and then ordain itself over the total field of cognition, calling for a halt and a reappraisal whenever different areas begin to clash. For instance, when physics advocate causeless subatomic behavior while psychology insists on determinism - both of which doctrines happen to be false. This is a crucial reason why man needs a philosophy: in order to ensure that knowledge is a unity, rather than, as is now the case, a cacophony of clashing, contradicting and warring specialties.

In all the chaotic clutter and arbitrariness of today, every step in the progress of knowledge is also seen as a threat, for with such advancements come the possibility of some contradiction or fault erupting somewhere.
Thenceforth, we hear the old adage, "The more you learn, the more confucked you become, and the less you know."

Well, if the majority of the masses wants to blindly believe that and wallow around in perpetual ignorance, then they can go to hell. This is my life and by the love of my life I'm not going to chain myself by the irrational policy that has halted progress in the humanities and intellectual evolution of mankind - and neither should you. I'm going to say "No!" to bullshit - and so should you. I'm not going to sit on my ass and dwell in some morally perverse comfort of intellectual laziness and unproductivity instilled by irrational values of this society and screw myself in the long run - and neither should you. I'm going to benefit myself with the power of rational epistemology, read: rational philosophy in an irrational age - because the fact is if you do precisely that, there is no need to fear such advancements and progresses in knowledge, data or new ideas. To the contrary, every new bit of knowledge you integrate into the structure of your knowledge will only mean that much more fact to your advantage, that much more weight to your conclusions, and that much more conviction to the total of your very cognition.

Soon it becomes clear what should've been the popular wisdom: That the more you learn, if you learn it properly, the more clear-sighted you become and the more you know.






--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblespud
I'm so fly.

Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
Re: Intellectual Laziness/Fear [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5313094 - 02/18/06 11:21 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

The ironic part is that the people who need to read this are too intellectually lazy to do so, due to it's length,

Good post though  :cool:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMarkostheGnostic
Elder
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 14,279
Loc: South Florida Flag
Last seen: 3 years, 2 days
Re: Intellectual Laziness/Fear [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5313361 - 02/18/06 01:05 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Does all this mean that when you watch reruns of sitcoms, you refuse to laugh with the laugh-track?  :grin:
Only kidding...I'm sure you aren't watching 'reruns' of the sitcoms - just the new ones! [Kidding again  :wink:].

Hey Skorpivo, if it's any consolation at all, I was reading 'Iamblichus: On the Mysteries of the Egyptians' in The Golden Chain: An Anthology of Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophy edited by Algis Uzdavinys, last night til 1:30 am. When the Melatonin kicked in, I was forced to go to bed.

"[T]here are, say those who write about the Mysteries, many that bear the thyrsus [wand] but few who are bacchanals [true initiates]....These few are in my opinion no other than the genuine philosophers. If therefore Philosophy alone by reason of its nature causes perfect virtue and purification of the soul, that alone is worthy to be desired and sought...And this is the reason why true philosophers abstain from the indulgence of all corporeal desires or passions, and persevere in this abstinence, not surrendering themselves to them, and not at all because they fear ruin and poverty, like the vulgar and the lovers of money: nor, again, because they fear disgrace and contempt, like the lovers of power and honor, do they abstain from these desires....

From this course of reasoning it is evident that Philosophy brings to us a release from human or corporeal chains and a deliverance from the incidents of temporal birth [generation], and leads to that which truly is, and to a knowledge of Truth itself and the purification of souls. But if in this above all things there is true felicity, we must cultivate Philosophy most zealously, if we wish to be truly happy."  pp.157-159

So to all those out there who are addicted to anything at all: drugs, sex, food, sports, gambling, video games, music, TV, cell phones, money, clothes, cars,  status, fame, etc. - YOUR chain is not the Golden Chain of Liberation, YOUR chain is the 'iron chain' of slavery. What was true in 250 C.E. is still true today if one is to be a Lover of Wisdom.


--------------------
γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: Intellectual Laziness/Fear [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5313464 - 02/18/06 01:57 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Important topic for the times! Like spud said, if a post goes up  longer then 4 sentences, some won't bother reading it. I think it's because they are looking for social idle chit chat. That leads into what you said about the "idle mind" that sits in park, burning fuel getting no place new in thought or understanding.

Its so bad in some cases, a person replied to a post header alone yesterday and admitted to not even reading the post. :confused: How lazy is that? :lol:

It makes me wonder, if it's partially due to how easy life has become for many in the event of modern technological conveniences. The faster the better is the motto of the day. Time is money so they say. :confused:

The television alone has replaced reading for so many. Video gaming entertainment has replaced learning hands on skills and athletics for many youth.

Another factor that you mentioned which I feel is a big part of it is that in the modern world children are taught what to think and not "how" to think. I would hold that responsible for the disintigration more then anything else.

What is your opinion on why civilizations that held thinking philosophies in high regard disintegrated themselves?

I have to wonder, if the philosophies were so great, why couldn't they keep the disintegration from happening. Something was missing from the models.

In other words, they would have kept human kind from running down the technological back slide which brought much imbalance into our lives.

They all must've been flawed or in the least lacking in something of practical use, just as powerful if not more, then what technology offered.

Technology allows for high speed living. We can get more done in a day with it.

Where and when was the value instilled in the human mind set?

People have jam packed there days so full, they never get to enjoy and realize the better of it or experience the quality that comes from something that takes time to achieve.

On the flip side, people are cracking and there has been a growing trend of people, moving away from the fast passed city life for the slower passed country life.

There is also a growing trend towards homeschooling as other value systems can be taught instead of the what to think one.

There are people STOPPING in their tracks and saying, "This way of life being crammed down my throat is not for me."

What is your opinion on this? I see an emphasis in todays world being put on the material and physical. I see that has orienting people to value physical sensory stimulus only as a result.

Where did the value of the intangible forms of stimulus which include creative thinking and feeling the quality energy of energy behind something go? Had an appreciation and value for those remained, people would have seen and felt this coming and would've kept more balance and a healthy pace alive and well.

I think the modern world emphasis on material gratification and physical stimuli is also responsible.

Kids are being taught not to feel. If this keeps up, the world will have lost it's gage for measuring what new wizardry of the modern world is actually good for the over all health and balance of human kind.

What are your opinions on the desensitization of people? How is any new resurgence of the great philosophers going to move or inspire people in a powerful way, when people have become desensitized from feeling?

Anyone, feel free to answers the questions I posed. I'm interested to know how many others see it.


:peace: :heart:


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: Intellectual Laziness/Fear [Re: spud]
    #5313530 - 02/18/06 02:24 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

I fear knowledge.

*shifty eyes*


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefresh313
journeyman
 User Gallery

Registered: 09/01/03
Posts: 2,537
Last seen: 12 years, 9 months
Re: Intellectual Laziness/Fear [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5313531 - 02/18/06 02:24 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

i like fast paced environments, thats when i can do my best work

if u sit there and think about things forever u lose your natural intuition

blaze2 describes my concept of intuion well in this post http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/5303795#Post5303795

proper integration of the external is crucial to honing intuition.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblespud
I'm so fly.

Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
Re: Intellectual Laziness/Fear [Re: fresh313]
    #5313543 - 02/18/06 02:30 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

A post that's 1 or 2 pages is a long ways from "forever".  :smirk:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefresh313
journeyman
 User Gallery

Registered: 09/01/03
Posts: 2,537
Last seen: 12 years, 9 months
Re: Intellectual Laziness/Fear [Re: spud]
    #5313570 - 02/18/06 02:43 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

in a fast paced environment a few minutes can be 'forever' in terms of success and failure


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblespud
I'm so fly.

Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
Re: Intellectual Laziness/Fear [Re: fresh313]
    #5313577 - 02/18/06 02:49 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

So then, it's just coincidence that all the most prolific philosophers throughout history were extremely fond lengthy debates and long texts?

The greatest works in history are books. A post is already ridiculously condensed, if one sees a post as too long, they are severely lazy. Anything else they may say is just a cop out.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSprings
Mine(d)
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/08/04
Posts: 330
Loc: sky hi
Last seen: 11 years, 5 months
Re: Intellectual Laziness/Fear [Re: fresh313]
    #5313593 - 02/18/06 02:56 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Great thread!
Quote:

Another factor that you mentioned which I feel is a big part of it is that in the modern world children are taught what to think and not "how" to think. I would hold that responsible for the disintigration more then anything else.




Alot of the problem with lazy people is they do not understand why it is important to learn and be open and healthy.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblepsyka
Praetorian
 User Gallery

Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 1,652
Re: Intellectual Laziness/Fear [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #5313837 - 02/18/06 04:14 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Indeed, they've got us running in around in mouse balls looking for the cheese. With top 10 lists, 24/7/365 based time and 8 hour work days. How can we afford to not be lazy? Stay home and be comfortable, after all that is what the system was structured for.

The real question is: how do we change this and still maintain progression?


--------------------
As the life of a candle,
my wick will burn out.
But, the fire of my mind
shall beam into infinite.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: Intellectual Laziness/Fear [Re: psyka]
    #5313986 - 02/18/06 05:21 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Your question may be going a little off topic and maybe not. I'll answer with some thoughts on it if thats okay with skorp. :smile:

Well, a part of it starts with the trend of people treating "wants" as needs. Does anyone really need a cell phone that can send faxes to mars? The gadgetry industries and society telling us we HAVE to have this and that to be "in" and with the times is getting ridiculous. From my view, more people need a good healthy loving hug, nap, and hour long meal full of lively conversation with family or friends once a day.

Raising awareness on the difference between wants and needs helps.

Making it "okay" for others and ourselves to not have the latest and greatest helps.

More then that, one by one, if all start giving the finger to the rat race mentality, the fringe society will work its way into the center.

I think the only way to keep progressing and yet, stop the maddening speed that throws off our balance is to remain mindful of the difference between wants and needs.

Prioritize what our needs.

Food
Water
shelter
health care
loving guidance
sleep
balance of work and play

Everything after that is a want of todays world

If any need is compromised by a want, we fall out of balance.

The work and play areas can be the time spent on progressive achievements, discovery and exploration. That must include the self.

I think thats where thinks went aphloey. How many make time anymore to work on themselves, self discovery, self exploration and cultivating spirit, self awarness, nature, balance and harmony into their lives? People stuck in the rat race have no clue who they are or even why in hell they run around so fast and furious for. If they are ignorant of the lazy sort, they have no clue they even are without any attention paid to cultivating the inner life that is aware of all of life.

Personally, I think people need to get back to their roots in spirit myself. That's where I think things went radically out of balance in the event of the industrial material age.

One way off the top of my head I can think of to initiate such a change of awareness and priority on a global level is for people to one by one, start making such change to get back to spirit, balance and harmony with nature, and for them to set examples for others sending the message that, we have no good reason to rush around, nor with so much to explore and discover, be lazy and ignorant of the self and life around us.

There are places in the world where people predominantly live as such.

You have to wonder about the U.S. where you have to be on 12 different prescription medications to get through the average "all American" day.

Has anyone noticed how every other commercial is for a prescription drug?

"If you frowned today you may have &*%$# . Ask you doctor about taking &*%$#^&.

"Do you feel tired after a long days work? You may have &*&^%$#$. Ask you doctor about taking *&^%$^&.

Does your child day dream during boring repetitive school work? They may have &**^^%$. Ask your doctor about *&^^%$#

Clearly something has gone out of whack with much of modern society.

I'd like to hear what some others have to say on your question myself.


:peace: :heart:


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefresh313
journeyman
 User Gallery

Registered: 09/01/03
Posts: 2,537
Last seen: 12 years, 9 months
Re: Intellectual Laziness/Fear [Re: spud]
    #5314251 - 02/18/06 06:37 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

spud said:
A post that's 1 or 2 pages is a long ways from "forever".  :smirk:




i make it a point to read every post in a thread b4 i post
even jiggies  :shocked:  :cool:  :smile:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Intellectual Laziness/Fear [Re: spud]
    #5314357 - 02/18/06 07:18 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

spud said:
So then, it's just coincidence that all the most prolific philosophers throughout history were extremely fond lengthy debates and long texts?

The greatest works in history are books. A post is already ridiculously condensed, if one sees a post as too long, they are severely lazy. Anything else they may say is just a cop out.



I personally find it easier to read a long book than a long post.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblespud
I'm so fly.

Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
Re: Intellectual Laziness/Fear [Re: Silversoul]
    #5314409 - 02/18/06 07:39 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

If a post is exceptionally long, and I find it intriguing, I'll often print it out simply because it's much easier on the eyes.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: Intellectual Laziness/Fear [Re: fresh313]
    #5314444 - 02/18/06 07:56 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

fresh313 said:
Quote:

spud said:
A post that's 1 or 2 pages is a long ways from "forever".  :smirk:




i make it a point to read every post in a thread b4 i post
even jiggies  :shocked:  :cool:  :smile:




I thank you for that fresh.  :heart: I just ask that anyone who replies to one, actually reads it first and doesn't guess what it's about based on the post header. :crazy2: 

:peace: :heart:


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Intellectual Laziness/Fear [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #5314993 - 02/18/06 11:13 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

What is your opinion on why civilizations that held thinking philosophies in high regard disintegrated themselves?

I have to wonder, if the philosophies were so great, why couldn't they keep the disintegration from happening. Something was missing from the models.


My opinion, is that all of man's cultures which had the quality of heightened cognition, had the same philosophical problems as we do today. It all comes down to the very roots of philosophy. First and foremost, metaphysics. An improper view of metaphysics will lead to irrational epistemology which leads to malevolent ethics and so forth. Combine this with the factor of widespread intellectual laziness/fear, you've got yourself a bona fide humanitus problematicus.

What was missing from the models? A logical, rational and coherent integrated philosophical structure, all built in successive levels from the ground up, like a towering skyscraper which is stable and strong by virtue of being connected with the ground.
What many people may not realize is, that doing this isn't always an easy task. Man must often expend effort and work hard to use his faculty of reason - that is but a simple fact of life.
I believe it was Henry Ford who said "Thinking [as in focused thinking] is the hardest thing there is. That's why so few people ever do it.", or something along those lines. Again, why is this? See: primary post.

There are people STOPPING in their tracks and saying, "This way of life being crammed down my throat is not for me."

What is your opinion on this? I see an emphasis in todays world being put on the material and physical. I see that has orienting people to value physical sensory stimulus only as a result. p.


I've always found that it is an excellent reality-check to consider historical patterns of humanity when thinking in terms of "but why ___ nowadays" contexts. For instance, during a conversation over lunch, an acquaintance of mine may be moaning and groaning about "how badly most movies lack in quality and ingenuity these days". But then another acquaintance - a much older fellow, chimes in and says "Ah, but if you look at the history of movies on the whole, you'll see that it's always been like that. There's always been only a few movies, at most, that are truly ground breaking."

With your case in point, I think historically, man has always, more or less, been valued and pursued material goods and wealth. But however popular it may be to think of such as a negative trait, I don't think it deserves such negative attention - at least, not in its rational order. As humans that live in a physical, real world, we are going to naturally pursue materialities. I pursue an animal to satisify my hunger, I pursue a table to eat my food, I pursue a woman to copulate with, and I pursue a bed to sleep on [and with said woman], as well as a myriad of other materialities in order to achieve values.

Furthermore, I think humans have always more or less, "bitched and moaned" about the precise same things we do today - albeit in a different content, but same context.

What are your opinions on the desensitization of people? How is any new resurgence of the great philosophers going to move or inspire people in a powerful way, when people have become desensitized from feeling?

Eh, I don't really feel anything about that. Hmm...




--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBlueCoyote
Beyond
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 16 days
Re: Intellectual Laziness/Fear [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #5315719 - 02/19/06 06:45 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Hehe, there exist people, who think the use of many words is a sign of incompetence. Same with the use of 'special/eccentric/fancy' words. No matter of the content, they think, the author has problems to find the point and starts rambling around to find a conclusion. It is seen as a lack of intelligence :wink: [I really did read that in a psychology journal a few days before. They did make a study on that :lol:]

In psychology, money is(was?) called an amplifier - an amplifier to the goals achieved. This naturally desensitizes(sp?) people as their attention is focused. Quite like Pavlovs' dogs.
To re-sensitize yourself and others is quite a honorable goal these days, to reduce the numbers of puppets in society overall.


--------------------
Though lovers be lost love shall not  And death shall have no dominion
......................................................
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."Martin Luther King, Jr.
'Acceptance is the absolute key - at that moment you gain freedom and you gain power and you gain courage'


Edited by BlueCoyote (02/19/06 06:54 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinegluke bastid
Stinky Bum
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/20/00
Posts: 3,322
Loc: Charm City
Last seen: 5 years, 3 months
Re: Intellectual Laziness/Fear [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5317050 - 02/19/06 04:42 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

SkorpivoMusterion said:

My opinion, is that all of man's cultures which had the quality of heightened cognition, had the same philosophical problems as we do today. It all comes down to the very roots of philosophy. First and foremost, metaphysics. An improper view of metaphysics will lead to irrational epistemology which leads to malevolent ethics and so forth. Combine this with the factor of widespread intellectual laziness/fear, you've got yourself a bona fide humanitus problematicus.

What was missing from the models? A logical, rational and coherent integrated philosophical structure, all built in successive levels from the ground up, like a towering skyscraper which is stable and strong by virtue of being connected with the ground.





I don't agree with you. I don't think you've accepted the inherent truthfullness and possibility of the postmodern philosophy. You are attacking what is in reality the growing mass realization that every aspect of human existence-from culture to thought to money to scientific observation-is arbitrarily assigned meaning instead of having absolute meaning. People are as done with rationality and enlightenment as they are with romanticism. Because we know neither exists.

What contemporary science has to say about metaphysics is this: Physics is not concerned with the study of nature, physics is concerned with what we can say about nature. In other words, the more we use science to observe nature, the more we realize we don't know the first thing about what really holds the universe together. Sound familiar? Scientific observation is backing up the very observation that you attacked, originally made by Plato "the only wisdom exists in knowing that you know nothing"

I am not an anti-intellectual. I don't believe in book burning, like Hitler. I believe that the more you study and intellectualize and philisophize the more sharp and clear your understanding of the world becomes. As long as you realize that your lessons are meaningless.

My argument against your argument that humanity needs to build an integretated philosophical structure of successive levels is this: The only way humanity will move both forwards and backwards as a species into the realm of true knowledge is to knock over any structure of philosophy as soon as we have built it. Keep building philosophy, but keep destroying it, because any human designed foundation is tragically flawed. Keep deconstructing. Stay at ground level. Never build anything, never accept a flaw.

That is our fate, as a species. Flaw exists within our own designs for ourselves. Acknowledging this is wisdom.

"Destroy any Pattern of Rational Thought" - William S. Burroughs
"If you see Buddha on the road, kill him" -Ancient Saying


--------------------
:hst:
Society in every form is a blessing,
but government at its best is but a necessary evil
 
- Thomas Paine


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Intellectual Laziness/Fear [Re: gluke bastid]
    #5317698 - 02/19/06 08:28 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

You are attacking what is in reality the growing mass realization that every aspect of human existence-from culture to thought to money to scientific observation-is arbitrarily assigned meaning instead of having absolute meaning.

Certainly not - for I am cognizant that there are aspects of human existence that are not arbitrary and are indeed absolute. Moreover, I certainly agree that there is a growing realization that many [but not all] aspects of man's repertoire are arbitrary, detached from reality and unreasonable.
Take "scientific observation", as you mentioned, for instance. Scientific observation is rooted in taking in the data from our five senses and reviewing such information objectively, rationally and logically, and creating coherent and applicable knowledge of reality as we know it. There is nothing arbitrary about this at all. If we were to merely claim that knowledge comes from some other-worldly place like lightning bolts, rather than through reason, then that would be arbitrary, for it has zero evidential or rational basis.


What contemporary science has to say about metaphysics is this: Physics is not concerned with the study of nature, physics is concerned with what we can say about nature.

This is a rather bizzarre and incoherent statement, that attempts to replace physics with linguistics. What we can say about nature is directly contingent upon what we study about nature. Absent any scientific observation of nature, there would be no objective facts or knowledge.


In other words, the more we use science to observe nature, the more we realize we don't know the first thing about what really holds the universe together. Sound familiar?

In other words, you are saying that the more we learn, the more we realize that there are more things to learn. In essence, man never stops learning [all sarcasm aside]. Horribly uncontroversial.


Scientific observation is backing up the very observation that you attacked, originally made by Plato "the only wisdom exists in knowing that you know nothing"

Plato's quote is only attackable on my account if it is to be taken literally, and likewise, the quote is only defendable by any Science if it is to be taken figuratively.


I believe that the more you study and intellectualize and philisophize the more sharp and clear your understanding of the world becomes. As long as you realize that your lessons are meaningless.

Realize that my lessons are meaningless? Meaningless to whom? Certainly not I, for the lessons which have taught me to live in harmony with reality, achieve values, prosperity and happiness are far from meaningless - they are meaningfull, for they serve a purpose.


The only way humanity will move both forwards and backwards as a species into the realm of true knowledge is to knock over any structure of philosophy as soon as we have built it.

Forwards and backwards? Well, yes, I strongly agree with you there - for humanity can only progress and regress if all progress constantly becomes destroyed, only to be rebuilt once more and so on ad neasueam.


Keep building philosophy, but keep destroying it, because any human designed foundation is tragically flawed.

Tragically flawed, how? What justifies the notion of destroying ALL of a philosophy, as opposed to re-writing a philosophy according to new information?
Why shouldn't I rather gain knowledge about a particular weakness so that revisions of a philosophy can be made and corrected?
What is the point of destroying an entire philosophy because of a particular flaw, if only to be rebuilt once again - with the same flaw?
Are you distinguishing human error rooted in lack of situational knowledge, between error rooted in an actual principle?


Keep deconstructing. Stay at ground level. Never build anything, never accept a flaw.

How can one stay at ground level if one keeps rebuilding? What does it serve to regress all the way back to square one? I certainly don't wish to go back to the Medieval Ages, ruled by Atillas and Witch Doctors.
Never build anything and never accept a flaw, you say? Disagreed. You seem to neglect the fact that building things requires a process of solving flaws, problems and weaknesses. One must first accept that there exists a flaw before one can proceed to understand and correct it. And if one never builds anything - as you recommended, one will never learn anything - for it is mistakes and flaws that are one of our greatest teachers.


Flaw exists within our own designs for ourselves. Acknowledging this is wisdom.

Acknowledging flaws is most certainly a characteristic of wisdom, agreed. But merely acknowledging a flaw is rather incomplete and unproductive, and does nothing to promote progress. Acknowledging that the flaw exists, is the first step. If any sort of progress is to be made, then there are corollaries to follow. One must excercise their power of reason and rationality to understand and realize the why, the how, and the what i.e., why such a flaw exists and how one should approach such a flaw, and what valuable lessons have been learned.




--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.


Edited by SkorpivoMusterion (02/19/06 08:47 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinegluke bastid
Stinky Bum
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/20/00
Posts: 3,322
Loc: Charm City
Last seen: 5 years, 3 months
Re: Intellectual Laziness/Fear [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5319636 - 02/20/06 11:41 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Thanks for the reply, it made a lot of sense to me. Some responses:

Certainly not - for I am cognizant that there are aspects of human existence that are not arbitrary and are indeed absolute. Moreover, I certainly agree that there is a growing realization that many [but not all] aspects of man's repertoire are arbitrary, detached from reality and unreasonable.
Take "scientific observation", as you mentioned, for instance. Scientific observation is rooted in taking in the data from our five senses and reviewing such information objectively, rationally and logically, and creating coherent and applicable knowledge of reality as we know it. There is nothing arbitrary about this at all. If we were to merely claim that knowledge comes from some other-worldly place like lightning bolts, rather than through reason, then that would be arbitrary, for it has zero evidential or rational basis.

This is probably where we differ most in opinion. While I understand the difference between scientific objectivity and the subjectivity of something like a language, I am not convinced that even mathematics is truly objective. In fact I believe that the notion that the universe has an objective observable nature is an assumption of science and remains to be seen. Sure, physics and technology have invented ways for humans to repeat the same miracles of science over and over, and we as a result have come up with laws that describe the nature of the physical universe, but to me these laws are subjective. They are subjective in the sense that, while reliable from our point of view, we have no way of knowing whether or not they are truly universal.
Recent developments in quantum physics seem to be backing this up. The bigger the shift in size, space and time we try to make with our scientific observations, the more ambiguous our results are. This suggests that maybe science only "works" if it is kept on a human scale.

What contemporary science has to say about metaphysics is this: Physics is not concerned with the study of nature, physics is concerned with what we can say about nature.

This is a rather bizzarre and incoherent statement, that attempts to replace physics with linguistics. What we can say about nature is directly contingent upon what we study about nature.

Maybe physics is a type of linguistics. Maybe what we study about nature is not the whole picture, and is complicated by subjectivity. If the statement is incoherent, this is how Heiddeger put it:
"What we observe is not nature revealed, but nature exposed to our line of questioning"

I believe that the more you study and intellectualize and philisophize the more sharp and clear your understanding of the world becomes. As long as you realize that your lessons are meaningless.

Realize that my lessons are meaningless? Meaningless to whom? Certainly not I, for the lessons which have taught me to live in harmony with reality, achieve values, prosperity and happiness are far from meaningless - they are meaningfull, for they serve a purpose

I only meant meaningless in the sense that they hold no universal truths. At least, that is the way I look at the lessons I have learned. They only serve me in the long run when I realize they make sense subjectively and fleetingly. Intellectual laziness pressures the mind to think that it has already learned everything it needs to know. We seem to both agree wholeheartedly that as soon as the mind stops moving forward, its thought process becomes stagnant. This also may be obvious, just wanted to make it clear.

What justifies the notion of destroying ALL of a philosophy, as opposed to re-writing a philosophy according to new information?
Why shouldn't I rather gain knowledge about a particular weakness so that revisions of a philosophy can be made and corrected?
What is the point of destroying an entire philosophy because of a particular flaw, if only to be rebuilt once again - with the same flaw?


I don't believe a philosophy can be destroyed any more than a memory can. And, like individual memories make up a lifetime, individual philosophies are most meaningful when they react with each other and all take part of a big picture that can't really ever be wholly described. Were you to dwell on an individual memory from your childhood, your understanding of yourself would be very weak. The more memories you understand the clearer the picure is, the more you comprehend.

Are you distinguishing human error rooted in lack of situational knowledge, between error rooted in an actual principle?

No. I don't believe it is possible to make such a distinction any more than it is possible to look at the back of your own head. Without a mirror, that is. Perhaps the goal of metaphysics should be to discover that metaphorical mirror that would allow humanity to perceive its own situational perspective in its entirety.

Keep deconstructing. Stay at ground level. Never build anything, never accept a flaw.

How can one stay at ground level if one keeps rebuilding? What does it serve to regress all the way back to square one? I certainly don't wish to go back to the Medieval Ages, ruled by Atillas and Witch Doctors.

Ah but I would argue that we are much closer to ground level today than they were in the middle ages, and we are much better off because of it! The middle ages had a very elaborate structure of understanding, that took a long long time for the renaissance to topple. It was built up over years and years of hierarchical repression of dissenting voice. This Repression was simply a tool for maintaining the status quo, and re-inforcing the notion that the church's philosophy was the only philosopy. And when you look at how the powers that were in the Middle Ages (The Vatican and the Crown) responded to those who were trying to fix the flaws of understanding (Galileo, Newton), you see how dangerous the game can become. Nowadays, although there is a power structure, there is also an open invitiation for revolutions of thought, in fact they are sought out in public debate. I honestly think this comes from the fact that society is beginning to see flexability in meaning, even science.

Never build anything and never accept a flaw, you say? Disagreed. You seem to neglect the fact that building things requires a process of solving flaws, problems and weaknesses. One must first accept that there exists a flaw before one can proceed to understand and correct it.

But what if the flaw is only observable once the tower is complete, and is in the head cornerstone of the structure? The whole thing has to be torn back down to its foundations.


--------------------
:hst:
Society in every form is a blessing,
but government at its best is but a necessary evil
 
- Thomas Paine


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Intellectual Laziness/Fear [Re: gluke bastid]
    #5321807 - 02/20/06 09:13 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

While I understand the difference between scientific objectivity and the subjectivity of something like a language, I am not convinced that even mathematics is truly objective. In fact I believe that the notion that the universe has an objective observable nature is an assumption of science and remains to be seen.

Caution: I, for one, do not think that knowledge or mathematical facts are intrinsic to reality - nor do I profess that our objectivity is intrinsic to reality - and nor are they subjective. Rather, such qualities and data are products of a metaphysical union between reality and man, just as the colors we percieve in a rose are not in the object alone, nor in perciever alone, but object-as-percieved.


Sure, physics and technology have invented ways for humans to repeat the same miracles of science over and over, and we as a result have come up with laws that describe the nature of the physical universe, but to me these laws are subjective. They are subjective in the sense that, while reliable from our point of view, we have no way of knowing whether or not they are truly universal.
Recent developments in quantum physics seem to be backing this up. The bigger the shift in size, space and time we try to make with our scientific observations, the more ambiguous our results are. This suggests that maybe science only "works" if it is kept on a human scale.


There is only one existential law I know of which becomes "questioned" when discussing QP, and that is The Law of Causality. However this is an unjustified transition from epistemology to metaphysics. And for argument's sake, let us say it becomes proven that the LoC is only applicable to the macroscopic level - this is no different from saying that it is contextual. Lastly, your stretch of the definition for subjective doesn't fly with me. Having a confined or local nature does equate to subjectivity. The fact that water won't freeze when boiling at 130 degrees Fahrenheit is confined to the circumstantial components that make the unique liquid we call H20, does not mean that such a fact isn't an objectivity.


"What we observe is not nature revealed, but nature exposed to our line of questioning"

Incorrect. What we observe is nature revealed through our sense perceptions, which are automatic and in-fallible; they do not question, or reason. Pertinent such a function lies in our faculty of reason, which interprets sensory data into condensations of data, forming concepts, and so forth.


I only meant meaningless in the sense that they hold no universal truths.

Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed - this is undeniably universal, and a very enlightening lesson I've learned. Reality is real. Existence exists. A is A. Those truths are not "local."


No. I don't believe it is possible to make such a distinction any more than it is possible to look at the back of your own head.

I disagree. We can form a guideline of principles that are -in principle- flawless, but this does not mean that any human who follows it will necessarily be without mistakes and the occasional err. Take a look at the Declaration of Independence, by Thomas Jefferson -nothing short of a brilliant and great philosophical work- which holds true the principal of individual freedom. Yet, look at the state of current affairs today, where countless Americans face life behind bars for smoking a type of grass called Cannibis, for instance.
This does not mean such an example of an egregious deviation from the norm indicates a flaw in the principle authored by Jefferson - rather, an error due to lack of situational knowledge per human[s].


Ah but I would argue that we are much closer to ground level today than they were in the middle ages, and we are much better off because of it! The middle ages had a very elaborate structure of understanding, that took a long long time for the renaissance to topple. It was built up over years and years of hierarchical repression of dissenting voice. This Repression was simply a tool for maintaining the status quo, and re-inforcing the notion that the church's philosophy was the only philosopy. And when you look at how the powers that were in the Middle Ages (The Vatican and the Crown) responded to those who were trying to fix the flaws of understanding (Galileo, Newton), you see how dangerous the game can become. Nowadays, although there is a power structure, there is also an open invitiation for revolutions of thought, in fact they are sought out in public debate. I honestly think this comes from the fact that society is beginning to see flexability in meaning, even science.

Ah, I thought by "going back to ground level" you were talking about actually going back to "square one" - which as I'm sure we both agree, is quite absurd. Now if I understand you correctly, what you're really talking about is maintaining a level of universality in one's philosophy - well, of course I must agree. How does one create a versatile philosophy? It must be rooted in reality, not fantasy, in facts, not fiction; if it -in principle- remains comitted to this, it will be nothing short of an highly universal philosophy.


But what if the flaw is only observable once the tower is complete, and is in the head cornerstone of the structure? The whole thing has to be torn back down to its foundations.

I have yet to hear what may be this "flaw" you speak of.




--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTurn
Hey Its Free!

Registered: 12/14/04
Posts: 367
Loc: The fabled catbird seat
Last seen: 13 years, 9 months
Re: Intellectual Laziness/Fear [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5321914 - 02/20/06 09:34 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Right on man! Your right, but what direction should I look in to know how to think?

And you said "and then ordain itself over the total field of cognition, calling for a halt and a reappraisal whenever different areas begin to clash. For instance, when physics advocate causeless subatomic behavior"
But Physisicst tell me that the subatomic world is so differnt from our world that our logic and reason don't work down there, and you have to accept the madness it is. - I just saw that alot of the replies deal with this, so scratch it



And I don't like your attitude of if the rest of the world wants to not think then let em. But yeah, smartest thing I have read all day, and I have been reading Kingdom of Fear all day!


Edited by Turn (02/20/06 09:35 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinegluke bastid
Stinky Bum
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/20/00
Posts: 3,322
Loc: Charm City
Last seen: 5 years, 3 months
Re: Intellectual Laziness/Fear [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5328272 - 02/22/06 02:43 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

SkorpivoMusterion said:
For argument's sake, let us say it becomes proven that the LoC is only applicable to the macroscopic level - this is no different from saying that it is contextual. Lastly, your stretch of the definition for subjective doesn't fly with me. Having a confined or local nature does equate to subjectivity. The fact that water won't freeze when boiling at 130 degrees Fahrenheit is confined to the circumstantial components that make the unique liquid we call H20, does not mean that such a fact isn't an objectivity.


Contextual is a better word. But in a universe of infinite contexts (of space, scope, and time), human-perspective-obejctive-truth becomes one of just an infinite number of objective truths. This may or may not pose a threat to your definition of objectivism. I'm curious to see your answer.

"what we observe is not nature revealed but nature exposed to our line of questioning"

Incorrect. What we observe is nature revealed through our sense perceptions, which are automatic and in-fallible; they do not question, or reason. Pertinent such a function lies in our faculty of reason, which interprets sensory data into condensations of data, forming concepts, and so forth.

How does your statement contradict Heidegger's? Sense perception + Reason = Line of Questioning, In my understanding. And besides, how can you trust your sense and your reason when both are susceptible to delirium? What makes your senses and reason more in-fallible than those of a paranoid schizophrenic's?

Reality is real. Existence exists. A is A. Those truths are not "local."

How can you prove that reality is real?

I disagree. We can form a guideline of principles that are -in principle- flawless, but this does not mean that any human who follows it will necessarily be without mistakes and the occasional err. Take a look at the Declaration of Independence, by Thomas Jefferson -nothing short of a brilliant and great philosophical work- which holds true the principal of individual freedom. Yet, look at the state of current affairs today, where countless Americans face life behind bars for smoking a type of grass called Cannibis, for instance.
This does not mean such an example of an egregious deviation from the norm indicates a flaw in the principle authored by Jefferson - rather, an error due to lack of situational knowledge per human[s].


To me it indicates the canyon sized gap between theory and practice. The Declaration of Independence is ultimately a collection of words with a specific poetic nature. "The principal of individual freedom" can mean anything to anyone. I can think of dozens of different ways to understand it even in the context of my very own somewhat rigid political beliefs. You can't build something that is due to subjective interpretation and believe that people will somehow understand it objectively!

Ah, I thought by "going back to ground level" you were talking about actually going back to "square one" - which as I'm sure we both agree, is quite absurd. Now if I understand you correctly, what you're really talking about is maintaining a level of universality in one's philosophy - well, of course I must agree. How does one create a versatile philosophy? It must be rooted in reality, not fantasy, in facts, not fiction; if it -in principle- remains comitted to this, it will be nothing short of an highly universal philosophy.

What is the difference between a fantasy and a fact? Using your model of sense perceptions plus reason as the method to make objective observations...Is an LSD induced hallucination a fact or a fantasy? How about the presence of your mother in your dreams? How about seeing a dog wag its tail and deciding that it is a happy doggy? How about deciding that a movie is a comedy as opposed to a drama?

If you believe that the Declaration of Indepedence, the Law of Causality or the Periodic Table are not extensions of the same subjective point of view manifestations of human psychology, memory subconcious and most importantly culture, than I just don't agree with you. There is no reality outside of the human mind. Subjective perception is everything. And yet the universe exists and human perception is as objective as any atom can hope to be. Its both. The universe is an objective truth. The universe is a subjective rubik's cube of an infinite number of possible interpretations that are equally complete and incomplete.

I just don't share your belief that the human mind and human culture as a whole will ever develop an objective philosophy that will even come close to addressing either the subjective or objective nature of the universe. How can you objectively describe that which is subjective? How can you subjectively describe that which is objective?

Versatile philosophy needs only to be rooted in the acceptance that philosophy is nothing more than an ever expanding "?"

I have yet to hear what may be this "flaw" you speak of.

You and i disagreeing evinces the flaw in both of our philosophies.


--------------------
:hst:
Society in every form is a blessing,
but government at its best is but a necessary evil
 
- Thomas Paine


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLakefingers

Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 6,440
Loc: mumuland
Re: Intellectual Laziness/Fear [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5330600 - 02/23/06 04:28 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

...and the Responsibility of the Intellectuals.

Now, when individualism is one of the highest values among the ignorant, an intellectual must question the values and pillars of individualism.

Does the intellectual choose to continue willing against a herd or do they choose to act selflessly? To uphold a tradition, a way, a path...

Both individualism and selfless care can be rooted in fear, but only individualism can be rooted in laziness.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Intellectual Laziness/Fear [Re: gluke bastid]
    #5331552 - 02/23/06 12:43 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Contextual is a better word. But in a universe of infinite contexts (of space, scope, and time), human-perspective-obejctive-truth becomes one of just an infinite number of objective truths. This may or may not pose a threat to your definition of objectivism. I'm curious to see your answer.

Not at all a threat. The plurality of objective truths does not weaken Objectivism - it only strengthens it. Anyhow, going back to our prior sub-discussion, should we not also keep in mind the unjustified accroachment of epistemological nescience over metaphysics, as mentioned before?


How does your statement contradict Heidegger's?

Heidegger said "What we observe in nature..."
You phrased: "Sense perception + Reason = Line of Questioning, In my understanding" That, is correct. However, our line of questioning does not alter our sense perceptions themselves, only our interpretations of our sense perceptions. Heidegger's statement wasn't specific enough with the word "observe", so I took that to mean as "What we percieve [not to be confused with concieve] in nature...".


And besides, how can you trust your sense and your reason when both are susceptible to delirium?


Being susceptible to delirium doesn't warrant a mistrust in my sense perceptions or reason - it only means that, usually, they can only be trusted when they are not under the influence distortion. I say usually, because there are exceptions, e.g., under the influence of hallucinogenics, when such "delirium" does not negate some people's use of reason and/or interpretation of their sense perception - some have reported only intensified use of such abilities - not much unlike the reports of those who've experienced sudden and intense experiences, whether under a negative or positive context.


What makes your senses and reason more in-fallible than those of a paranoid schizophrenic's?

Our sense perceptions are in-fallible because "right or wrong" does not apply in and of themselves, any more than such mind-made conceptions apply to a tree's system of photosynthesis. This means that a schizophrenic's sense perceptions are not any less in-fallible than ours are. However, a schizophrenic's interpretations are what becomes fallible - and the same applies to us non-schizophrenics. How is it determined that the interpretations of our sense perceptions more accurate than that of a schizophrenic's? By objectivity, read: by the recognition of reality as the ultimate standard of evaluation, read: by the consistent correspondence with facts and objective knowledge of reality/nature.


How can you prove that reality is real?

By the very fact that it exists, and the fact that we are conscious of it. Objectively, there is no "un-reality". It is all RealTM.


To me it indicates the canyon sized gap between theory and practice.

Well, essentially, this is basically what I am talking about. In principle, i.e., in theory, there can be flawless guidelines by which man can follow - but it is putting it in practice that ain't always gonna be easy. There is a reason why, after years and years of school, doctors call it "practice" - forbid they should call it "Utopian Action", or the like, for they are human just as much as anyone else - they are capable of error, in spite of the rather rigorously tested, verified, and flawless principles of medical procedures and processes that will work - both in principle and action - albeit with chances of error in action. Much of everything we do is practice, in this sense.


"The principal of individual freedom" can mean anything to anyone. I can think of dozens of different ways to understand it even in the context of my very own somewhat rigid political beliefs.

Well, indeed, the exact phrase "The Principal of Individual Freedom" can mean many things to anyone - but when much more specifically elaborated principles which covers much more ground is introduced, it becomes much more explicit rather remaining an implicitness which becomes a host for, at least far more, assumptions, interpretations and misbegotten conclusions.


What is the difference between a fantasy and a fact?

A fact has clear objective status, and is evident and open for anyone to verify, but this doesn't mean that everyone will accept it. Fantasy is only limited to the imagination - albeit with references that will always have to boil down to some specific percept, or observation, one way or another.


Using your model of sense perceptions plus reason as the method to make objective observations...Is an LSD induced hallucination a fact or a fantasy?

A hallucination is a fact, for it is a physiological result of chemicals interacting with neurons.


How about the presence of your mother in your dreams?

Imagination + memories - not that I really ever recall dreaming about my mother, now that you mention it.


How about seeing a dog wag its tail and deciding that it is a happy doggy? How about deciding that a movie is a comedy as opposed to a drama?

Sense perception + identification + evaluation + response. Mind you, I recognize that such a process is subjective defined as particular to a specific individual, but I recognize that ultimately, it is all part of an objective existence, and as such, is objective as well. From what I've gathered in your response, it sounds to me like you and I agree on this.


There is no reality outside of the human mind.

Nonsense. There is most definitely a reality outside of my mind, for if it weren't for the existent in the form of a furry creature with four legs that we refer to in the English language as "dog", I would not have any such concept pertinent to such an existent.


I just don't share your belief that the human mind and human culture as a whole will ever develop an objective philosophy that will even come close to addressing either the subjective or objective nature of the universe. How can you objectively describe that which is subjective? How can you subjectively describe that which is objective?


It sounds to me like you are under the definition of Objective as being outside of our nature, i.e., being intrinsic to reality. However, strictly speaking, reality/nature itself, isn't objective. Reality/nature is only objective in relation to consciousness. It is only the mind which is objective or non-objective.
In relation to consciousness, one is objective if one adheres to reality by reason in accordance with logic - epistemologically speaking. In relation to consciousness, one or something posesses metaphysical objectivity by the recognition that existence exists, and is independent of a perciever's consciousness - in other words, that the consciousness only holds existence as its object - metaphysically speaking. Hope that clears up where I'm coming from.


You and i disagreeing evinces the flaw in both of our philosophies.

Please elaborate further.


Btw, did I mention you have good taste in avatars? :wink:




--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.


Edited by SkorpivoMusterion (02/23/06 02:03 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Intellectual Laziness/Fear [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5331982 - 02/23/06 02:51 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Our sense perceptions are in-fallible because "right or wrong" does not apply in and of themselves, any more than such mind-made conceptions apply to a tree's system of photosynthesis. This means that a schizophrenic's sense perceptions are not any less in-fallible than ours are. However, a schizophrenic's interpretations are what becomes fallible - and the same applies to us non-schizophrenics. How is it determined that the interpretations of our sense perceptions more accurate than that of a schizophrenic's?

If sensory perceptions are infallible and reality is objective, why can a schizophrenic have the perception that spiders are crawling all over his body, but no one else is able to percieve them? Even if the schizophrenic correctly interprets this hallucination as a hallucination and not truely representative of reality, his perception is still erroneous.

A hallucination is a fact, for it is a physiological result of chemicals interacting with neurons.

The physiological mechanisms behind hallucinations are not being questioned, the question is the perception. The mechanisms for why you see something exists, but simply because you see something doesn't mean it exists in reality. For instance, may I smoke DMT with some friends and have the perception that have been transported to another planet. Yet all my sober friends around me observe that I haven't left the room. Either, my perception is incorrect, their perception is incorrect, or reality is malleable and we are both correct.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Intellectual Laziness/Fear [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #5333264 - 02/23/06 09:48 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

If sensory perceptions are infallible and reality is objective, why can a schizophrenic have the perception that spiders are crawling all over his body, but no one else is able to percieve them?

Because the schizophrenia is distorting his perceptions. His sense perceptions are being warped by the lack of proper functioning of his thoughts, memory, and emotions between perception.


Even if the schizophrenic correctly interprets this hallucination as a hallucination and not truely representative of reality, his perception is still erroneous.

Incorrect. His perceptions are representing reality quite truly, for it is "representing" the very schizophrenic disorder of his mind. His perceptions can only be labeled erroneous in relation to our standards and evaluations. His perceptions in and of themselves do not "lie", any more or less than a thermometer does.The fact that the schizo is percieving the hallucinations, be it auditory or visual, does not negate his sense perceptions any more or less than the fact I will percieve a stick as "bent" when submerged underwater. Our sense perceptions automatically obey reality - in-fallibly.


The mechanisms for why you see something exists, but simply because you see something doesn't mean it exists in reality.

I've noticed that you and I seem to be using, in this context, the word reality in differing meanings. When I use that word in this context, I refer to: existence. If it has existence, in one form or another, then it is unimpeachably real. What I think you're actually saying, is if one interprets their hallucinations exist as non-hallucinations, then they are in error. In other words, you are saying hallucinations do not exist in reality as normally percieved or interpreted. However, such hallucinations do exist in reality, otherwise, they would've not been experienced - and there would be no concepts with such a referent.


For instance, may I smoke DMT with some friends and have the perception that have been transported to another planet. Yet all my sober friends around me observe that I haven't left the room. Either, my perception is incorrect, their perception is incorrect, or reality is malleable and we are both correct.

Correction: It depends on how you interpret your perception. If you are cognizant of the fact that it was an actual hallucination caused by a physiological phenomenon, then you are correct as well as your sober friends.




--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Intellectual Laziness/Fear [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5333722 - 02/23/06 11:46 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

When I ask if a perception is real, I'm asking if that perception accurately represents whats actually happening externally. If one person can see a unicorn, but another cannot, I think its reasonable to assert one of these two is inaccurately viewing reality.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Intellectual Laziness/Fear [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #5333822 - 02/24/06 12:48 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

When I ask if a perception is real, I'm asking if that perception accurately represents whats actually happening externally. If one person can see a unicorn, but another cannot, I think its reasonable to assert one of these two is inaccurately viewing reality.

I agree - a hallucination does not accurately correspond with what's actually happening externally - otherwise, it would not be a hallucination. And I simply add: such a hallucination is by definition, real.




--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefresh313
journeyman
 User Gallery

Registered: 09/01/03
Posts: 2,537
Last seen: 12 years, 9 months
Re: Intellectual Laziness/Fear [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5333865 - 02/24/06 01:08 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

theres an internal and external reality

they both view each other independently and objectively

like if theres a colorblind guy on a road w/ a traffic light with only one signal. its flashes either red or green at the same intervals. his internal reality is black and white, on or off. say he doesnt know hes colorblind. he just know to go or stop by the position of the illuminated lights usually. he goes thru. you stop cuz u see its flashing red.

External reality was that this light was emitting red wavelengths

The colorblind guy is less one of his indicators of external reality

A schizophrenic on the other hand is given extra indicators of internal reality.


Edited by fresh313 (02/24/06 01:19 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Intellectual Laziness/Fear [Re: fresh313]
    #5333902 - 02/24/06 01:36 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Sounds like you and I agree - except, I recognize that, basically speaking, external reality only holds such colors in relation to our consciousness. A cat or some other creature will see things in a much different tone and color-scheme, for instance.



--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2  [ show all ]

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Schizophrenia from a spiritual perspective gettinjiggywithit 2,241 18 01/26/05 05:32 PM
by incubaby_421
* A different look at Schizophrenia
( 1 2 all )
gettinjiggywithit 3,902 32 02/08/14 03:22 AM
by FishOilTheKid
* Numerology and schitzophrenia
( 1 2 3 all )
reflectedlight 5,922 43 06/07/07 06:05 PM
by backfromthedead
* intresting interview with a schizophrenic
( 1 2 3 4 all )
scattass 9,837 71 04/21/07 10:30 AM
by spiritualemerg
* Schizophrenia
( 1 2 3 all )
OrgoneConclusion 6,599 59 10/19/09 03:32 PM
by soldatheero
* some thoughts on schizophrenia
( 1 2 all )
wordreality 3,521 20 10/06/03 10:28 AM
by fireworks_god
* Belief in God: A form of schizophrenia?!
( 1 2 3 all )
Northernsoul 6,584 47 08/26/09 12:01 PM
by OrgoneConclusion
* Schizophrenia: Loss Of Control
( 1 2 all )
Droz 2,591 20 01/12/07 03:41 PM
by jonnyjonjonjon

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
2,751 topic views. 1 members, 7 guests and 8 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 0.037 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 14 queries.