 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 (nobody)...and 307 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614221 Today 3 Topics 127549 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
don't know if it was so much a need - but the concept certainly has a great advantage (and not meaning to confuse this with the evolutionary thread:), but in trying to dominate/explain all of nature, it is faced with the problem of its exteriority towards nature (again, body might be a better way to characterise this), and thus creates this false problem in a sense. a necessary false problem.? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
jupitah: perhaps it is the recognition that we have forgotten. although perhaps more profoundly, in explaining we necessarily do so in light of a concept - ie. the difficulty encountered in explaining what one is explaining (and the infinite regress associated in doing so). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the conept is a springboard, necessary imo, but when it comes down to actually taking the step towards reharmonization, concept is merely a means for aiming our intentions. the action itself (of reharmonizing) would involve a healthy balance between conceptualizing and "living in the moment," out of concept. i imagine there would have to be a sort of faith in inuition. it is a huge step. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
and the balance itself could not be calculated, it too would be found intuitively and concept would be used to reflect upon the world to judge whether balance is in place. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
maybe i didn't follow... what is "the difficulty encountered in explaining what one is explaining " and "the problem of its exteriority towards nature (again, body might be a better way to characterise this), and thus creates this false problem in a sense. a necessary false problem.? " |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
or what are the implications.... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
and now go read some heidegger :) well, i guess .. although trying to harmonize conceptually will not solve the problem - so intuitively perhaps (implicitly). although we could just regard concepts in an abstract way - ie. they have pragmatic value in so far as they provide vocabulary of explaining things we encounter in living our lives. they are metaphors. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"although we could just regard concepts in an abstract way - ie. they have pragmatic value in so far as they provide vocabulary of explaining things we encounter in living our lives. they are metaphors. " yes, there is understanding between us :) this is what i meant by spring board. so tell me now, what might i expect to encounter with heidegger? i have a long list of literature to get to this summer. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
RE: "the difficulty encountered in explaining what one is explaining " and "the problem of its exteriority towards nature (again, body might be a better way to characterise this), and thus creates this false problem in a sense. a necessary false problem.? " kind of related i guess. well, taking the birth of the concept as the birth of the "mind" (as in mind/body, concept/nature) - the mind's/concepts function is to describe nature, yet finds itself exluded from nature. it cannot account for itself in its own terms - and thus remains seperate. trying to unify on its own terms ammounts to drawing a picture of oneself sitting in a room drawing the picture .. one is always catching up necessarily so - infinite regress |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
thus pursuing explanation in this way, will always either involve resorting to a form of dualism, or a infinite regress, a necessarily incomplete system. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
therefore! we must all go out and dance on friday nights, and when monday roles around we must ride a bicycle to work. i mean... so does this imply we can not plan for the reharmonzation? does it have to be a function of the whole body? certainly through chaos type cause and effect power the indivudual can act in will towards harmony, thus implanting the pattern of moving towards reharmonzation into the whole body. this is such a mess to think about in light of recognition of the limitations of rationality. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
in so far as the concept is the mind, you can't imo reharmonize as you've put it, through concept, because in doing so you're merely trying to establish a totalitarian concept, an all enveloping explicit whole (ie. in terms of the mind). it is only a mess in light of a concept ... looking at things as metaphors to get by, seems to be much more liberating, than trying to liberate oneself through verifying these metaphors. i don't mean you can't plan. i mean using the analogy of the drawing, you can plan to draw the drawing, and in such that you progress to draw it (ignoring for the moment the fact that it would quickly get too small for you to further draw), is directed, yet the goal, the end is always necessarily beyond grasp. where grasp would equate to harmony. further more, extending the analogy - there is always someone drawing the picture as it were. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ie. accept the hypocrisy of the concept, and not try to establish integrity of the concept through eliminating hypocrisy .. mm.. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
but what is the difference between a concept and a metaphor? i am only speaking in metaphorical terms. by reharmonizing i don't mean mentally grasping harmonic unity, i refer something beyond thought, something that i won't understand until i am there if i were to be there. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yo jenf - what flusser have to say bout this? .. :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
and by understand i mean in the non-analytical sense, in the sense of "to feel/experience is to know and to analyze/think about the feeling/experience is to approximate the knowledge" |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
something beyond thought - sounds a lot like - the completed picture. metaphors can be thought and understood. perhaps the difference is that one can leave the piece of paper on the piece of paper blank and leave it at that, where concepts - in so far as they strive for consistency, and universality will generally keep filling in the drawings within the drawings - getting awfully complicated in the process. note, in terms of the vocab, the depth of metaphors, will i guess depend on the people you talk to - ie. the social element. but to focus on just one metaphor i don't know - |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
and by understand i mean in the non-analytical sense, in the sense of "to feel/experience is to know and to analyze/think about the feeling/experience is to approximate the knowledge" ^ haven't you just approximated what you mean by non-analytical? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the drawings get infinitely complicated given eternity to proceed, no? there is no ultimate metaphor. every answer spawns new questions, or rather, the process of answering a question is merely the fragmentation of the question into more questions and/or questions of different form. there is no ultimate answer to be obtained through analyzation, science and philosophy will bever be complete. experience can be complete though. i experience completeness on occasion. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yes, but there is no way around this. i am trying to communbicate something and i accept that i will forever be transmitting an approximation so long as i rely on symbolic communication. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
exactly :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i recently read a novel about the so-called "pied piper" virus... symbolic capacity is destroyed. it's a beautiful fantasy. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
to further the paradox: we ARE complete .. only insofar as one has to justify that claim are we not :) ?? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oh .. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
having been to the limits of logic so many times before i have learned to love and embrace paradox and mystery |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
korben dallas, does that hand gesture have any symbolic meaning, or is was it formed out of pure expression? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i suppose everything can have symbolic meaning, but was there intended symbolic meaning? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
paradoxes are pretty awesome imo ... infinite regress/incompleteness, cirularity, self-referential inconsistency, and zeno's paradoxes are quite great. soritis' paradox is kinda cool as well - though not quite in ^ league :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
" the mind's/concepts function is to describe nature, yet finds itself exluded from nature." I disagree. Traditionally the 'mind' has found itself excluded from nature because we have been wholly unsuccessful in our attempts to understand it. More recently (sorry to keep bangin on about this), various complex systems theories have given us a possible answer to the problem of mind/concious-thought, and enabled us to view it as just another natural process (without wishing to sound too flipant about 'the mind'!). I am firmly monist in my beliefs... so for me there has to be an answer that can be understood. To say that we can never understand the mind because it is something outside of what we can possibly know seems like a cop out... in a similar way to religion. I urge you to read 'The Web Of Life' by Fritopf Capra |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
*sits quietly with eyes closed, smiling* |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
its that simple :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i think A is most likely. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
luckypsycho. why do you think that the "mind" can suddenly now, without fundamentally changing its "placing" explain something that we couldn't further. because of technological advancements? because of the string theory? assuming such a theory were announced tomorrow - how do you think it could account for its announcing on its own terms? and thus if every event after its announcement is seen and can be interpreted as an essential form of repetition of the fundamental string with varying frequencies (? should really familiarize myself more with this metaphor). in essence everything is repetition. in accepting this, do we not accept the unaccountability of this account - and does this not resemble more of a dualism/religion? regardless of the pragmatic value of such a theory (which may be overwhelming reason to accept it), it would be deemed pragmatic to ignore this question, or mistakenly consider it answered? of course the alternative is to adderss this question, in which case imo you'll find yourself in an infinite regress |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
in terms of a difference between religion and science, in light of what i've said: religion could be characterised as accepting such a duality, where science is not, and thus will find itself in a perpetual development towards this end. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
science as it stands right now is, as i explained thoroughly, resting on a belief in the supernatural. seems like dualism has got to fit into it somewhere. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
how bout this... maybe A is true, and so is B maybe while conciousness is a function of physical processes, once it clicks on things can exist within its conciousness, in a non-physical way (ie ideas, feelings, things that are not directly observable, but, arguable and so far at least partially demonstratably synonymous w/ the physical world) now as im sure many of you have thought, there is no clear line of black magic marker seperating one thing from another.. we draw lines for convenience, cus otherwise everything would be everything individual isolated distinct "things" only exist as abstract objects in conciousness this includes living "things" as well as conciousness... every self-concious being has, by definition, an idea of "it"self as an entity distinct from the "rest" of the universe... anyway once THAT line is broken, that conciousness becomes everything, just like any other "thing" once we forget about the lines that define it so my point is once conciousness exists, everything is part of it, including other 'counciousness-es' (? hehe) and non concious "things", so everything is concious, since everything is part of it like Buddhism says: "the world is your soul" |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
uh.. that had some weird spelling and gramatical anomalies... i hope you know what i mean |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"once consciousness exists" this implies that there was a moment when it came into existence, a moment before which there was no consciousness. as i've explained throughout this thread, this idea relies on the notion that consciousness is supernatural. do you believe that is consciousness somehow outside of nature? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i admit, i didn't read through the whole thread (188 posts!!), sorry (ive now skimmed through it) i dont believe anything is outside of nature.. only outside of our understanding if it i think this is a false dichotomy its like trying to decide when mountains came to exist there is no one point... but that doesn't mean they have always existed and that everything has a little bit of mountain in it.. althought that is true in a way (the "everything is everything" thing), it would make more sense to acknowledge mountains as constructs of our minds in the first place a spectrum that would measure how much of a mountain something is, or to what degree a mountain exists.. since one end of the spectrum must be ideal mountainhood... a construct this seems to lead to the possibility that conciousness, as a distinct point of view, is an illusion? thats not to say conciousness does not exist... but maybe our understanding of its nature is limited (b/c our scope is so limited) so we cant understand the whole that it is part of.. like we're seeing it out of context and therefore it cant make sense and will appear supernatural for the time being? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
shit..... again, due to my endless re-arranging of sentences and such, my msg has lots of parts that dont make sense i meant that the spectrum of mountainhood/non-mountainhood is false |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
agreed, a mountain is a mountain and just because it has a continuous relation to the universe and our mind doesn't mean that everything's a mountain, unless of course you conceptualize a mountain as being everything. it is one universal body is what it is, and our categorization of incoming information that we recieve as a cohesive whole is only a metaphorical utilitarian tool. a mountain is a conept but it has no absolute definition. a concept is something that is drifting and elusive, while we think of nature now in terms of physics where everything behaves as we KNOW it should, and so it does. But the physics is a concept, and the emotional body and mind that we experience ourselves as is real and there is nothing satic about it. And like the mountain, my body is my body is a body; it is how i know my soul, and just because it has a continuous relation to the universe doesn't mean that everything is my body, unless of course i conceptualize my body as extending throughout the infinite realms of experience, which i do. i am. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"...and there is nothing static about it." |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"But the physics is a concept, and the emotional body and mind that we experience ourselves as is real and there is nothing satic about it. " how do you know our impression of it is any more real than our impression of physics? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i mean.. considering that people are sure of the "real"ness of all kinds of things that end up just being concepts |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i'm not sure what you mean by "our impression of it." what i feel is what i feel and there is nothing more to it; raw experience grounded in the moment. how one interprets experience with the mind is open to infinite subjectivity, and that is where concepts such as physics come in. i don't doubt the usefulness of the mind and conceptualization but i think it is important to respect the limitations of rationality and, as i said, to understand that our categorization of the single seemless body is conceptual and fails to bring us an ultimate undertanding of reality because of the limitations. the only Truth is that which we feel. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the only reality is death my friend. .. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
glitch: you're full of fecal matter, because there is one other thing which is certain in life, other than death itself - taxes! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
nah everything is reality. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
