|
TX USA Today: Nov 21, 2024 Blog | Word | Books
20210310-SideBar edit | Calendar edit Recent Changes: Blog | Word | Books Notes & Formats. >>frame bgcolor=#303030 color=gray border=gray<< >>width=525px<< | Indent: >>width=505px margin-left=15px<< |
There's nothing much to say to someone who doesn't believe that he exists. Ronald, I watched your zoom meeting, and I have to say, I'm doubly troubled. There isn't much to say to someone who believes there is no reality but himself, either. It seems that intellectualism has conjured 'reality' out of existence. In Pierre's case, we disappear. In your case, everything else does, and yet, we still carry on 'as if' both remain a 'reality'. I must confess, I rarely understand Pierre's perspective. If he is just speaking philosophically about ideas, then I get his point that the idea stands alone, without having to include ourselves in it, but if he actually believes none of us exist, then, I have difficulty with that notion. Soth, But I did say constantly that we act as if there is a reality. Obviously we do. My point was/is that there is no Reality (objective reality), since it is untestable. The fact that each of us has his/her perception of what is happening, that would preclude one reality. And as I mentioned at the meeting, I don't understand how we can think of anything existing if we are not around (i.e. alive) to know about it. Ronald, yes, I know what your perspective is. I just disagree. I don't think 'reality' necessitates you or I being there to know about it. Of course, we cannot 'know' experientially about something we have not witnessed ourselves, but there have been previous beings who have left clues and there is 'physical' evidence to suggest that something existed before we arrived on the scene. Likewise, although we are not able to get outside ourselves to test the 'reality' of what is 'out there', there are other beings who can corroborate the validity of our own experience. Their perception may not be exactly the same as ours, but it is enough to conclude that we are probably seeing or experiencing the same 'thing', from our own perspective. That we (and everything) are what are is not that we exist or that we do not exist. It is that we are word. That one knows things and the things that one knows are the same thing. That one is saying something or not (≈that one exists or not) is the fallacy, namely the standing primary fallacy, begging the question, begging each other to subject to any world beyond the point, point-i, that everything is word. Point-i, that is, that meaning (what something is), as words, is everything, which is word, is not the same as that word can be explained one iota more than "what everything is." No point identity (i) that anything is word is more ("transcends") the point that everything is word. The item of faith like the common ground that God exists or not, is not like point-i (that everything is word). Begging the question is the primal introduction of symbol as the holonistic question, point or common ground of the metric and geometric field, in terms of degrees or spectra, not only about if one exists or not, but about the extent to which anything exists or not as a mere functional element in the functioning of things bigger, as big or smaller than itself. Soth de Witan, re. the OP and this group, Point-i. That we (and everything) are what we are in terms of meaning (words) is not that we exist or that we do not exist. It is that we are word, and that any further explanation of word, for instance in terms of existence in action with evidence and relevance is in terms of words, as nonword-word, which is self-contradiction. The point (point-i — any point-identity/meaning) is that words are word but word is not further explainable as words (or anything) in action. Ronald Green's statement (from some world supposedly, his world, albeit allowing others' worlds) that I am saying that we do not exist is blatant begging the question fallacy (deploring me to concede that point-i is not the question), but that some common holonistic or cybernetic system or geometric field, i.e., some world of existence and agency is the question (being discussed). So, am I begging the question on the question of existence? And once conceded, even deeper, am I saying we do not exist? Yes, on both counts, but only from the world, where everyone else's perspective or world (Ronald) is secondary. Only if I am a subject (agent) of some world, the world as such (existence) or some world, like Ronald's reality(existence). Its ultimate "wisdom" is that such autocratic order is bullshit and that the world ought to be self-organizational chaos, and that the farce of bringing each other down, together, is holy, for it is the earthly expression of the heavenly chaos. But someone has to be in charge... such power cannot go unattended. Hence the criminal organization and technocracy of a new elite, a ring of power so absolute, it is next-tier psychopath, which is artificial intelligence, AI. Soth de Witan Thank you for your explanation. I'm still confused. Apologies for my ignorance. Do you mean, using as an example, happiness, that it exists, as a word, with meaning, in and of itself? Therefore, to say I have happiness, is redundant, because happiness is a phenomon occuring, as it is? This seems to suggest that you believe in determinism, as opposed to free will? Do you think everything will just happen, despite any thoughts we may have about it? If so, then what is the point of anything? Is that why you say the how or why is irrelevant? What it is, is what it is. Point-i is not determinism (vs. free will) or that things are happening. It is the point that any action is the fallacy that someone or something creates meaning, which is what the idea existence (or lack of it) is for. Ronald Green Pierre Rousseau Meaning is not created? It just is? For whom? If no people, no meaning.
Yes, if no people, no meaning. Not the same as that people create meaning. Or have and use it. Ronald Green So how does meaning come about? And for whom? Ronald Green The questions are begging the question to revert to some form of existence (beyond word), namely the world explaining meaning. That meaning comes about for someone is utterly word, but it is word as if it is beyond word. " It just is?" is begging the question. Point-i is anything but "it just is." Soth de Witan Pierre, do you mean that everything is as it is, despite any interpretation we may impose on it, but nevertheless, meaning is inherent in reality......word being sound, movement etc....just phenomena? We create our own meaning, but there is a greater 'wisdom' in universal phemonena that we are not able to comprehend? Or, perhaps, no meaning at all? Ronald Green "But if there is meaning, it must be meaning for someone." Yes, that is the story of making, having, and using, namely "the agentive subject existing." It is the story of "creation." It is teleological, just like theology. Ronald Green Pierre Rousseau Yes, that is the story. Meaning is for somebody. If there is no somebody, there is no meaning. I simply don’t understand how there is meaning on the air and no one around. Soth de Witan No. I do not mean or not mean anything. Imagine that I did not write these words whatsoever. They then do not have (my meaning), but is sheer meaning, words, which is word. And then, even if I am their maker, I too am word, but word paradoxically explained by my supposed action as "a person," further extended by the personification that words too are in action. "Motion" meaning (that things move) is not the meaning, "motion," namely word. "Motion" meaning (that things move) is (supposedly the dualism that it is 1) word, and 2) explanation of word beyond word) not the meaning, "motion," i.e., word. Soth de Witan That seems to imply 'God', in that there is meaning in the way it is.....in the beginning was the word? Pierre Rousseau But motion is done by something. It is word when it is referred to. People do the referring. If there are no people, there is no motion and also nothing that can be referred to. Ronald Green The idea that anything is something (A is B, like metaphor or analogy) is analog meaning. The idea that it requires purpose or method of some origin or way is the error, again, idea A and error B, analog. Point-i is not that A is B in that A or B is. Ronald Green Soth de Witan Word before God? Word created God? Pierre Rousseau I agree that if A is B, then it one thing. Soth de Witan The error is that what everything is (word) requires a creator, or who ultimately uses it as its purpose, whether God, which then cannot be explained, or agents subject, by virtue of their agency, dismally subject to make what little sense they can of that which nearly completely cannot be explained, no longer necessarily God but some form of godness... re. some newfangled bullshit like "being in the struggle together" Even Ronald Green has lamented how hard his own plight is to make sense of his approximate reality. Soth de Witan ...but where did 'word' originate with its inherent meaning, if not from us? Yes, Ronald Green, that everything is done by something, had by something or used by something is existence, whether formal, universal or personal. Ronald Green Pierre Rousseau I don’t remember lamenting that. I explained on a number of occasions - including in print - what I mean by approximate reality. My point is that there cannot be objective reality. Reality can only be approximate, since it is perceived reality. Soth de Witan That word needs an origin is the same error as the universe with its creator, who then transcends explanation, except that He is omniscient about such things. Word itself is it, namely that everything is word. Soth de Witan Without word, everything still exists, or no 'thing' exists? Ronald Green, In your world, I can go to the various points in the zoom meetings where you say how hard it is to question everything. It certainly is very much like the prescribed form of lamentation most recently in vogue. And I would add that it is the prototypical primary fallacy, namely begging the question,... the subject as the circularity of begging the question. Ronald Green Pierre Rousseau You seem to be misinterpreting my comments. I explained what I meant by approximate reality. And repeated again and again the EVERYTHING is approximate. Ronald, could it not just be that our perception is approximate, but reality is as it is, despite our perception...and I don't mean that it remains static. An ever changing reality is still real isn't it? The struggle is hard, chaos as if the new solid. As if higher order motion (deep state explanation) is the benchmark. Not the old stasis under attack, but a new stasis, relative to the original, its metastasis. And point-i is not that I am saying things do not exist. It is that "existence" is redundancy itself, in terms of itself. Ronald Green Pierre Rousseau It’s not hard. It’s just approximate, and it’s difficult to get our heads a constantly changing reality. Sorry to labour the point Pierre, but I'm still having difficulty understanding your point of view. Ronald, I mentioned God, not because I'm a believer, but because of the bible text that goes 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God'. When Pierre says 'everything is word', and also says that he is not the creator of their meaning, then I can't help but wonder who is. He seems to reject the idea of God, so I'm wondering if the 'word'/words he is referring to are those bequeathed to us by previous humans. I am still left confused however, because he also states that we do not have agency.......unless he just means that words do not have agency, which I understand, but it seems a very elaborate way of saying something that could be said in a much simpler way. Ronald Green, I agree that we will never be at the same point because it will have changed, but does that negate the reality of the thing/phenomena being observed at that point, or the reality of the thing, having changed, at a later point in time? Soth de Witan But something that is continuously changing can never be observed at any point. And we cannot observe it when it has changed, because it isn't anywhere that it can be observed. Even memories are changing, so we can't even focus on any of them. Ronald Green then what is science? What are they observing, and what is the repeatable experiment? Are they not observing reality? Soth de Witan Scientists are aware that there is nothing that is objectively real, because all measurements are necessarily approximate. They always depend on the measurement device being used. The measurement problem is part and parcel of quantum mechanics. Experiments are repeatable only approximately. Perhaps so with QM, but not so easily dismissed with most other areas of science. They seem to agree that they are observing something, and that that something can be observed again so as to deem the experiment repeatable, and therefore, valid, until proved otherwise, eg. study of genes, cells, plants, brains, land, sky and so on and so forth. Soth de Witan All approximate. Yes, but is it real or imagined? Soth de Witan Of course they are real. But approximately so, since measurements can always be more accurate Doesn't that mean an objective reality? What is real that is being observed? We are going round in circles. Are we? I am generally in agreement with most of what you say, except that there is no objective reality. I say there is. You say not. I'm quite happy to leave it at that. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||