|
Sclorch
Clyster


Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Dogma Means Contradiction
#5364370 - 03/04/06 11:45 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Show me any dogmatic set of rules and I will show you contradiction.
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Dogma Means Contradiction [Re: Sclorch]
#5364388 - 03/04/06 11:51 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
* Existence exists. * Consciousness exists * Existence is Identity.
Have at it.
--------------------
|
it stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
|
Re: Dogma Means Contradiction [Re: Silversoul]
#5364532 - 03/04/06 12:54 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Paradigm said: * Existence exists. * Consciousness exists * Existence is Identity.
Have at it.
Identity doesn't exist.
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
Re: Dogma Means Contradiction [Re: Silversoul]
#5364986 - 03/04/06 03:47 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Existence exists is a necessary truth, (which, I'd like to add, says nothing about the nature of existence), but not dogma. By definition, existence has to exist, in one form or another.
|
Sclorch
Clyster


Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Dogma Means Contradiction [Re: Silversoul]
#5367013 - 03/05/06 10:46 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Paradigm said: * Existence exists. * Consciousness exists * Existence is Identity. Have at it.
Quote:
Sclorch said: Show me any dogmatic set of rules and I will show you contradiction.
Have at it.
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Dogma Means Contradiction [Re: Sclorch]
#5367341 - 03/05/06 01:07 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
How is that not dogmatic?
--------------------
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
|
Quote:
itstarssaddam said:
Quote:
Paradigm said: * Existence exists. * Consciousness exists * Existence is Identity.
Have at it.
Identity doesn't exist.
If identity doesn't exist, then there would be no Law of Identity. A would not be A, because A wouldn't exist. If A exists, then A exists as A. And if there is no Law of Identity, then there is no Law of Causality, which is a corollary of Identity. If there is no Law of Identity, there would be no reason, no logic or any tools of cognition for us to gain knowledge about the world around us.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
dblaney
Human Being

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 7,894
Loc: Here & Now
|
|
My interpretation of his statement "Identity doesn't exist" was that identity exists only as an abstraction. One can state that A is A, but A in that scenario would be nothing more than a symbol for that which A is. That which is truly A is ineffable. I think the closest one can come, in language, to describing A would be to say that A is. Beyond that, only silence can better convey the ineffable.
-------------------- "What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?" "Belief is a beautiful armor But makes for the heaviest sword" - John Mayer Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
Re: Dogma Means Contradiction [Re: dblaney]
#5367660 - 03/05/06 02:57 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
My interpretation of his statement "Identity doesn't exist" was that identity exists only as an abstraction.
Yes, the concept of "identity" is an abstraction - however, it has a referent in existence. I wouldn't say, for instance, that cats do not exist, simply because the concept which refers to the furry, purring, pointy eared, four-legged existent, is an abstraction.
That which is truly A is ineffable. I think the closest one can come, in language, to describing A would be to say that A is. Beyond that, only silence can better convey the ineffable.
Can you please explain to me what you mean by "truly A"? What is truly the cat?
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
Re: Dogma Means Contradiction [Re: Silversoul]
#5367668 - 03/05/06 02:59 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
How is that not dogmatic?
It is ambiguous.
|
dblaney
Human Being

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 7,894
Loc: Here & Now
|
|
however, it has a referent in existence
Or at least that is what we interpret. I know you're an objectivist, and barring another long thread about it, I say that a subjective being cannot objectly observe anything. It's based on the assumption that there IS a reality that exists separately from a subject.
Can you please explain to me what you mean by "truly A"? What is truly the cat?
As opposed to the symbol provided by language. The word "cat" is itself not actually a purring and hissing cat, rather it refers to that which is. By "truly A" I meant that to which a word (in this case, "A") refers to.
-------------------- "What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?" "Belief is a beautiful armor But makes for the heaviest sword" - John Mayer Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
Re: Dogma Means Contradiction [Re: dblaney]
#5367987 - 03/05/06 04:45 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Or at least that is what we interpret. I know you're an objectivist, and barring another long thread about it, I say that a subjective being cannot objectly observe anything. It's based on the assumption that there IS a reality that exists separately from a subject.
There is a difference between evidence and an assumption. Are you saying there is no evidence that I exist seperately from you? Are you alluding to solipsism or some form of subjectivism? In respect of Sclorch's intendend purpose of this thread, I will also bar another long thread about this. I'm only interested to see what your fundamental primaries are. What are the basic axioms of your philosophy or metaphysical worldview? Present any clarification, and I'll simply acknowledge it and move on.
As opposed to the symbol provided by language. The word "cat" is itself not actually a purring and hissing cat, rather it refers to that which is. By "truly A" I meant that to which a word (in this case, "A") refers to.
We agree then. That to which the word 'cat' refers to, is the furry, purring, pointy eared existent. This is what is truly "A" [in this case, the cat]. However, it is because that to which cat refers to, is not ineffable, that there can be concepts that express such an existent.
DBL: "That which is truly A is ineffable." SM: "What is "Truly A?" DBL: "By "truly A" I meant that to which a word (in this case, "A") refers to." SM: "But if, say, the existential referent to which "cat" points toward, is ineffable, then how come we can interact with it, garner tremendous amounts of information about it, communicate expressions about it, and so on and so forth?"
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
dblaney
Human Being

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 7,894
Loc: Here & Now
|
|
What are the basic axioms of your philosophy or metaphysical worldview? Present any clarification, and I'll simply acknowledge it and move on.
Seems fair to me. To be honest, while my metaphysical worldview is more than mere vague and generalized concepts, I haven't really adopted any fundamental axioms. I would say perhaps: - Brahman exists
This is a good idea though, I think I'll spend a few days this week trying to establish a few fundamental axioms on which I base my views.
DBL: "That which is truly A is ineffable." SM: "What is "Truly A?" DBL: "By "truly A" I meant that to which a word (in this case, "A") refers to." SM: "But if, say, the existential referent to which "cat" points toward, is ineffable, then how come we can interact with it, garner tremendous amounts of information about it, communicate expressions about it, and so on and so forth?" DBL: "According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, ineffable is defined as 'incapable of being expressed in words'. Just because the referent is ineffable, it isn't necessarily non-existant. In your examples, you can't interact with the word "cat", or garner tremendous amounts of information about the word "cat", you're garnering the information (which is also symbolic) from the referent, which is ineffable."
-------------------- "What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?" "Belief is a beautiful armor But makes for the heaviest sword" - John Mayer Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
Re: Dogma Means Contradiction [Re: dblaney]
#5368170 - 03/05/06 06:15 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
DBL: "That which is truly A is ineffable." SM: "What is "Truly A?" DBL: "By "truly A" I meant that to which a word (in this case, "A") refers to." SM: "But if, say, the existential referent to which "cat" points toward, is ineffable, then how come we can interact with it, garner tremendous amounts of information about it, communicate expressions about it, and so on and so forth?" DBL: "According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, ineffable is defined as 'incapable of being expressed in words'. Just because the referent is ineffable, it isn't necessarily non-existant. In your examples, you can't interact with the word "cat", or garner tremendous amounts of information about the word "cat", you're garnering the information (which is also symbolic) from the referent, which is ineffable." SM:"But again, there is a contradiction. If the referent is actually ineffable, then how can we gain knowledge about it, express concepts and words about it and so forth? My contention is not that we garner information and interact with the word "itself" - rather, all I am saying is that the referent is, by definition, not ineffable."
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
dblaney
Human Being

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 7,894
Loc: Here & Now
|
|
DBL: "That which is truly A is ineffable." SM: "What is "Truly A?" DBL: "By "truly A" I meant that to which a word (in this case, "A") refers to." SM: "But if, say, the existential referent to which "cat" points toward, is ineffable, then how come we can interact with it, garner tremendous amounts of information about it, communicate expressions about it, and so on and so forth?" DBL: "According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, ineffable is defined as 'incapable of being expressed in words'. Just because the referent is ineffable, it isn't necessarily non-existant. In your examples, you can't interact with the word "cat", or garner tremendous amounts of information about the word "cat", you're garnering the information (which is also symbolic) from the referent, which is ineffable." SM:"But again, there is a contradiction. If the referent is actually ineffable, then how can we gain knowledge about it, express concepts and words about it and so forth? My contention is not that we garner information and interact with the word "itself" - rather, all I am saying is that the referent is, by definition, not ineffable." DBL: All that you speak of: knowledge, concepts, words, etc., are all symbolic. Knowledge is a collection of symbols that describe certain patterns that we observe matter to exhibit. Let's suppose you have a black and white striped cat. Those words are merely symbols for what the black and white striped cat is. The cat is not itself the word "black" "white" "striped" or "cat", those terms symbolize the patterns that the ineffable seems to exhibit. Anything you say or do to describe it will only be a symbol for the reality. You CAN interact with the cat, of course, and you can describe what you are doing with a sophisticated set of symbols ("I'm petting a black and white striped cat" for instance), but they are still symbols. One can utter symbols to describe something, and furthermore one can never describe the something without a symbol. In my mind this makes it ineffable.
-------------------- "What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?" "Belief is a beautiful armor But makes for the heaviest sword" - John Mayer Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln
|
Sclorch
Clyster


Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
|
Quote:
SkorpivoMusterion said: ...rather, all I am saying is that the referent is, by definition, not ineffable."
How many times must we repeat ourselves? A student can learn, but cannot be taught... maybe...
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
Re: Dogma Means Contradiction [Re: dblaney]
#5368386 - 03/05/06 07:26 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
DBL: "That which is truly A is ineffable." SM: "What is "Truly A?" DBL: "By "truly A" I meant that to which a word (in this case, "A") refers to." SM: "But if, say, the existential referent to which "cat" points toward, is ineffable, then how come we can interact with it, garner tremendous amounts of information about it, communicate expressions about it, and so on and so forth?" DBL: "According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, ineffable is defined as 'incapable of being expressed in words'. Just because the referent is ineffable, it isn't necessarily non-existant. In your examples, you can't interact with the word "cat", or garner tremendous amounts of information about the word "cat", you're garnering the information (which is also symbolic) from the referent, which is ineffable." SM:"But again, there is a contradiction. If the referent is actually ineffable, then how can we gain knowledge about it, express concepts and words about it and so forth? My contention is not that we garner information and interact with the word "itself" - rather, all I am saying is that the referent is, by definition, not ineffable." DBL: All that you speak of: knowledge, concepts, words, etc., are all symbolic. Knowledge is a collection of symbols that describe certain patterns that we observe matter to exhibit. Let's suppose you have a black and white striped cat. Those words are merely symbols for what the black and white striped cat is. The cat is not itself the word "black" "white" "striped" or "cat", those terms symbolize the patterns that the ineffable seems to exhibit. Anything you say or do to describe it will only be a symbol for the reality. You CAN interact with the cat, of course, and you can describe what you are doing with a sophisticated set of symbols ("I'm petting a black and white striped cat" for instance), but they are still symbols. One can utter symbols to describe something, and furthermore one can never describe the something without a symbol. In my mind this makes it ineffable. SM:"All you are saying is that concepts are relational to our consciousness - there is no disagreement there. I am not contending that concepts are anything more or less than condensations of data with referents to reality. Contrary to what your mind prefers to believe, it is only because the black-n-white cat is not ineffable that anything can be expressed of it. If we are to remain accurate, consistent and logical, then this contention is to be accepted."
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
|
DBL: "That which is truly A is ineffable." SM: "What is "Truly A?" DBL: "By "truly A" I meant that to which a word (in this case, "A") refers to." SM: "But if, say, the existential referent to which "cat" points toward, is ineffable, then how come we can interact with it, garner tremendous amounts of information about it, communicate expressions about it, and so on and so forth?" DBL: "According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, ineffable is defined as 'incapable of being expressed in words'. Just because the referent is ineffable, it isn't necessarily non-existant. In your examples, you can't interact with the word "cat", or garner tremendous amounts of information about the word "cat", you're garnering the information (which is also symbolic) from the referent, which is ineffable." SM:"But again, there is a contradiction. If the referent is actually ineffable, then how can we gain knowledge about it, express concepts and words about it and so forth? My contention is not that we garner information and interact with the word "itself" - rather, all I am saying is that the referent is, by definition, not ineffable." DBL: All that you speak of: knowledge, concepts, words, etc., are all symbolic. Knowledge is a collection of symbols that describe certain patterns that we observe matter to exhibit. Let's suppose you have a black and white striped cat. Those words are merely symbols for what the black and white striped cat is. The cat is not itself the word "black" "white" "striped" or "cat", those terms symbolize the patterns that the ineffable seems to exhibit. Anything you say or do to describe it will only be a symbol for the reality. You CAN interact with the cat, of course, and you can describe what you are doing with a sophisticated set of symbols ("I'm petting a black and white striped cat" for instance), but they are still symbols. One can utter symbols to describe something, and furthermore one can never describe the something without a symbol. In my mind this makes it ineffable. SM:"All you are saying is that concepts are relational to our consciousness - there is no disagreement there. I am not contending that concepts are anything more or less than condensations of data with referents to reality. Contrary to what your mind prefers to believe, it is only because the black-n-white cat is not ineffable that anything can be expressed of it. If we are to remain accurate, consistent and logical, then this contention is to be accepted." MMTM: Either of you wanna hit this?
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
Quote:
MMTM: Either of you wanna hit this?
That made the most sense of anything in this thread.
Oh, and yes I would.
--------------------
|
dblaney
Human Being

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 7,894
Loc: Here & Now
|
|
DBL: "That which is truly A is ineffable." SM: "What is "Truly A?" DBL: "By "truly A" I meant that to which a word (in this case, "A") refers to." SM: "But if, say, the existential referent to which "cat" points toward, is ineffable, then how come we can interact with it, garner tremendous amounts of information about it, communicate expressions about it, and so on and so forth?" DBL: "According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, ineffable is defined as 'incapable of being expressed in words'. Just because the referent is ineffable, it isn't necessarily non-existant. In your examples, you can't interact with the word "cat", or garner tremendous amounts of information about the word "cat", you're garnering the information (which is also symbolic) from the referent, which is ineffable." SM:"But again, there is a contradiction. If the referent is actually ineffable, then how can we gain knowledge about it, express concepts and words about it and so forth? My contention is not that we garner information and interact with the word "itself" - rather, all I am saying is that the referent is, by definition, not ineffable." DBL: All that you speak of: knowledge, concepts, words, etc., are all symbolic. Knowledge is a collection of symbols that describe certain patterns that we observe matter to exhibit. Let's suppose you have a black and white striped cat. Those words are merely symbols for what the black and white striped cat is. The cat is not itself the word "black" "white" "striped" or "cat", those terms symbolize the patterns that the ineffable seems to exhibit. Anything you say or do to describe it will only be a symbol for the reality. You CAN interact with the cat, of course, and you can describe what you are doing with a sophisticated set of symbols ("I'm petting a black and white striped cat" for instance), but they are still symbols. One can utter symbols to describe something, and furthermore one can never describe the something without a symbol. In my mind this makes it ineffable. SM:"All you are saying is that concepts are relational to our consciousness - there is no disagreement there. I am not contending that concepts are anything more or less than condensations of data with referents to reality. Contrary to what your mind prefers to believe, it is only because the black-n-white cat is not ineffable that anything can be expressed of it. If we are to remain accurate, consistent and logical, then this contention is to be accepted." DBL: I agree that the referents can be spoken of SYMBOLICALLY, and if you consider that to be an adequate substitute for expressing what the referent IS (for the referent is NOT it's symbol, as surely you'd agree), then it could be considered effable. However I find the symbolic nature of language to be one or more steps removed from the actual referent, and as such, it's ineffable. I fear that we have gone drastically off topic of what this thread was originally intended to discuss, however.
Alright I'll hit that
-------------------- "What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?" "Belief is a beautiful armor But makes for the heaviest sword" - John Mayer Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln
|
Sclorch
Clyster


Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Dogma Means Contradiction [Re: dblaney]
#5371089 - 03/06/06 02:31 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Oh no, you're not off-topic, really... keep it going.
*takes a hit* *passes it to the left*
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
|