Words

[sahyo]

ahy penpos pthin so much imprahtanc porwds? :D

[sahyo]

davik
david

you eeird calehed aheiera shwhnk writ loke pos peoplw
you desire called asheera think write like most people

but akaks msuch mconcstarton whch for mosp peopls sot so mvh
but takes much concentration which for most people not so much

you thenink sint' creatuv it not rriting like you cntnking cratheve is
you think isn't creative if not writing like you think creative is

worthd not cnecsaryy for crating
words not necessary for creating

crahting not lije pmost peoople thinking si
creating not like most people thinking is

:D

[DavidS]

Hi asheera - I appreciate the non-non·sense-making 'engagement' - who knows, it might lead to our having a 'meaningful relationship' some day. :D

you desire called asheera think write like most people

I desire asheera relate to what I communicate to asheera in a meaningfull way and to communicate with David in a way that David can relate to meaningfully (as here, in the post I'm responding to) -- not in a 'cryptic' (meaning difficult for David to to de·cipher), cleavered-word-peek-a-boo-with-question-mark-attached, way.

Each and every person writes/communicates (can do so, if and as s/he so chooses) in his or her own 'singular' way as far as I can see. What is 'most-people-writing' like, in your mind? There is no one here who write-communicates like 'most people'. Everyone has own, unique way of ex·pressing the mind-n-spirit force - you don't see me having 'trouble' with them because they are not writing like 'most people', do you? IMO, asheera is setting up a 'paper tiger' to 'shoot' here - avoiding dealing with the issue of her hiding/dodging behind 'extreme crypticism' (just my opinion, no more no less, now) .

but takes much concentration which for most people not so much

Again, you (falsely, IMO) use the 'most people' 'justification'. Also, whenever there are 'differences' in this regard, it is possible for people to 'meaningfully' meet' "somewhere in the middle". asheera generally responds hack-job-on-the-post's-meaning 'cryptically' even to David's and others' 'simplest' messages (which don't require "too much" concentration) -- not like anyone else here, IMO (just my opinion, no more no less, now). Is asheera 'communicating' that she has a 'concentration' problem, that she is 'concentrationally challenged' in some way which requires 'special' relational allowances and treatment? Looks to me like asheera being 'prima donna' to a very 'outstanding' degree.

you think isn't creative if not writing like you think creative is

All writing is 'creative' communication, asheera - the only issue, pertaining to 'differences' in this regard, is just what is being 'created' and 'communicated'. asheera creates a lot of ________ (fill in the blanks).

words not necessary for creating

'meanings' or 'meaningful stimuli' -- transmission and receptions of these - are necessary for 'communication' to take place, with or without words. My 'issue' with you, asheera, is not about 'words' but about 'meanings', not about 'creating' but about 'meaningfully interrelating'.

creating not like most people thinking is

What is it with this "most people" thing, asheera? I am addressing (attempting to address) the issue of meaningful communication, i.e., 'true' interpersonal intimacy, between you and me (first and foremost) and between all other conscious 'elements' present (secondarily, but not leastly).

If you don't want it, or don't want to attempt to 'improve' the level of communication between us, that's fine; but spare me the 'most people' crap, will you? Neither you or I are 'like' "most people"! And, IMO, no one else here is!!
----
Again, I very much appreciate the 'engagement'. I hope all this (less than a letter-page's worth of writing) did not overload your capacity for concentration. Looking forward to continued inter-'reach' - David

P.S. I hope it is clear that my response has nothing to do with misspellings or 'unique' spellings being used or not used in a 'message'.

[sahyo]

not in a 'cryptic' (meaning difficult for David to to de·cipher), cleavered-word-peek-a-boo-with-question-mark-attached, way

not "cryptic"cleavered" like youthinking

only seems "peek-a-boo" since youreading'thinking'about

What is 'most-people-writing' like

not think shouldshouldn't people writing

most people conditionedthinking'rules for wording, and think words can say

There is no one here who write-communicates like 'most people'

:lol:

htis is hot sher socnciitlcats....see?

Everyone has own, unique way

didn't say not"unique"

you don't see me having 'trouble' with them because they are not writing like 'most people', do you?

only since thinkingwriting'conditioned'similar'same'

IMO, asheera is setting up a 'paper tiger' to 'shoot' here - avoiding dealing with the issue of her hiding/dodging behind 'extreme crypticism'

davidthinking'imagining'

just my opinion

yes

Again, you (falsely, IMO) use the 'most people' 'justification'

no, davidimagining"false"

asheera generally responds hack-job-on-the-post's-meaning 'cryptically' even to David's and others' 'simplest' messages (which don't require "too much" concentration)

no

Is asheera 'communicating' that she has a 'concentration' problem, that she is 'concentrationally challenged' in some way which requires 'special' relational allowances and treatment?

not "problem"....just not think'direction'notdirection'meaning' like most people thinking'conditioned'thinking

"special"?....does david think"special"notspecial?

Looks to me like asheera being 'prima donna' to a very 'outstanding' degree.

does david enjoy thinking'whichnot' when cannot 'intellectually'understand which cannot happen 'intellectually'undertand?

All writing is 'creative' communication, asheera

didn't say wasn't

some which youposted tbv points youthinking some writing notcreative

asheera creates a lot of ________ (fill in the blanks).

youdesire saying which cannot say?

'meanings' or 'meaningful stimuli' -- transmission and receptions of these - are necessary for 'communication' to take place, with or without words. My 'issue' with you, asheera, is not about 'words' but about 'meanings', not about 'creating' but about 'meaningfully interrelating'.

if didn't thinking"meanings"words"meaningfully interrelating" would still happen "issue"whichnot?

david needs "stimuli"?

youdesire words "meanings", written in a way youthink can 'intellectually'understand, and if not then think'imagining'whichnot?

'true' interpersonal intimacy, between you and me (first and foremost) and between all other conscious 'elements' present (secondarily, but not leastly).

"between all other conscious 'elements'" thought'imagined'idea

If you don't want it, or don't want to attempt to 'improve' the level of communication between us

"improve"?...."level"?

but spare me the 'most people' crap

yes most people
(though cannot "most")

I hope it is clear that my response has nothing to do with misspellings or 'unique' spellings being used or not used in a 'message'.

didn't think were pointing spellings :)

yesterday was instant messaging friending....he knows cannot thinking words and hands typing like most people....told him so much concentrating tire quicky so he said to type like would type not concentrating....he said he could decipher....happened....he can read whvout plpmen whyf ype.... :D

also sharing friending instant messaging which writingplayingmusicing....he not say lots words....can say one word and he understands....he not thinking'intellectuallying'understanding when wording.... :D

yes most people thinkingwording like youdesire....
youdesire asheera cmonhsncting like most people 'conditionedthinking'



ahy penpos pthin so much imprahtanc porwds?


"many people think too much importance words"
(though cannot "many")


dancingdavidasheeradancing....dancing....whether davidthink so or not.... :D

[DavidS]

told him so much concentrating tire quicky so he said to type like would type not concentrating....he said he could decipher....happened....he can read whvout plpmen whyf ype....

How would you 'know', or for that matter how would he 'know', that what he de·ciphered from asheera's 'clues' was the 'meaning' that asheera had in mind when writing the clues?

There is a general communicational principle, used by communication facilitators around the world, which involves haing people actually say in their own words what 'meaning' they are hearing - only when that is done and the speaker of the original words 'reflects' back, saying "yes, that is the 'meaning' I meant 'n sent ... only then does it make sense to 'believe' that real transmission-reception de·cipering 'happened'.

As you can see, when I reflect back to you the 'meaning' I am 'hearing' in/from/through your words, 99.9% of the time, you say "no" or the equivalent - and you don't 'bother' to 'clarify' what you really meant in the first place.

That, by the way, is a functionally necessary part of the communicational exercise. The person who sent the meaning is 'required' to re·send his/her original message, using 'new' words if s/he 'hears', from what is 'reflected' back to him or her, that his/her intensed 'meaning' wasn't 'accurately' de·ciphered and understood. The process of 'reflection' of 'meanings' back and forth continues until the original sender says, "yes, that (last refelction) is the 'meaning' I am 'sending'.

also sharing friending instant messaging which writingplayingmusicing....he not say lots words....can say one word and he understands....he not thinking'intellectuallying'understanding when wording....

Again, I ask you, how do you 'know', or for that matter how does he 'know', that he really understands the 'meaning' you are 'sending', unless the back-and-forth reflection process is engaged in and a 'convergence' in terms of art·iculately ex·pressed 'meaning' takes place?

I have watched your 'conversations' when they 'go on' (beyond a statement with no response) with others here, asheera, including 'cascades' of smilies sent back and forth. 99.9% of the time, what I 'see' (or 'hear', rather) is that you and those 'speaking' with you each think you 'know' what 'meaning' (or meanings) the other is communicating, when you and they actually don't (that's as far as I can see or hear, at least).

Too bad, you 'tire so quickly' when 'concentrating', asheera - deary me! - but it really requires 'paying close attention' and 'putting out' the necessary energy to do the back-and-forth 'reflection' thang when the 'subject' at hand is open to different interpretations because the people involved in the conversation have different philosophical orientations and personal value-preferences.

Let me assume that the people referenced by you above really did decipher and understand what you were saying because they were 'like you' in terms of philosphical orientation and personal-value preferences. That's great! Maybe you will find it easier (i.e., less 'tire·ing' and less 'problematic') continuing to communicate with them.

It's a 'different story' though, what goes on (or more to the point, what doesn't go on) here, between you and me at least.

Regarding your looking-down-your-nose question about David 'needing' 'stimuli', let me say, Yes, David's mental-n-emotional constellation can only relate to asheera's mental-n-emotional constellation if there's meaningful 'stimuli' sent and received back and forth. But don't tire yourself out 'trying' to do that on my account, however, asheera - the invitation to 'groove-dance' together is there, but I don't 'need' to groove-dance with you (even tho that's the kind of dance I like) so the invitation it would be better not accepted unless that's also your 'wish' because of your philosophical persuasion and personal value-preferences - only then will you 'put out' the necessary concentration-effort and develop the necessary concentration-stamina 'asheera-organically'.

[sahyo]

How would you 'know', or for that matter how would he 'know', that what he de·ciphered from asheera's 'clues' was the 'meaning' that asheera had in mind when writing the clues?

wasn't "clues" and wasn't "meaning"

"writing the clues"?

[sahyo]

only then does it make sense to 'believe' that real transmission-reception de·cipering 'happened'.


"believe"?

[sahyo]

Too bad, you 'tire so quickly' when 'concentrating', asheera - deary me! - but it really requires 'paying close attention' and 'putting out' the necessary energy

not like youthinking, david

[sahyo]

less 'problematic'

"less 'problematic''?

[sahyo]

they were 'like you' in terms of philosphical orientation and personal-value preferences

no not "philosphical orientation and personal-value preferences" like youthinking

[sahyo]

Regarding your looking-down-your-nose question about David 'needing' 'stimuli'

question was "looking-down-your-nose question"?

[sahyo]

only then will you 'put out' the necessary concentration-effort and develop the necessary concentration-stamina 'asheera-organically'.

rediculas

:lol:

[sahyo]

the invitation to 'groove-dance' together is there

david thinks notdancing?

[DavidS]

Originally posted by asheera@Nov 26 2003, 08:03 PM
only then does it make sense to 'believe' that real transmission-reception de·cipering 'happened'.
"believe"?
Yes, asheera, 'believe' ... because, as you yourself have often stated, or at least 'clearly' implied, time and time again, there is no such thang as 'certainty', which means you can never 'know' whether what you think you 'truly' know is absolutely 'true' either, doesn't it?

By the way, to do the kind of communicational dance-thing I am speaking about, you might actually have to think, and both develop stamina and become 'adept', at thinking -- like 'thinking' "what did David actually mean when he said that?' and "what may have led him to think that was the case?' and "what might he think if I say this?" and "what do I really want him to understand is the case?" and "will my saying it this way result in his developing such an understanding?" and .... and ... and ....

I hope you get the 'picture' - 'thought' is necessary for 'successful' communication to take place. It's all well and good for you (anyone) to be 'thoughtless' in your own (alone) sphere of activity, if that's your preference (I prefer that at least some of the time when I'm 'alone' myself). But it ain't all well and good for you (anyone) to be 'thoughtless' when actually relationally-communcationally engaging and dancing with someone else.

Just in case you think (i.e., 'believe'!) there are no functional 'requirements' in the latter regard, let me point out that someone had to think and make a set of 'thoughtful' decisions before this forum realtional/communicational space came into being. It would never have 'happened' if webmaster Thomas had just run his life-energy and bounced about 'thoughtlessly'.

I hope that the significance of what I just said is not 'lost' on you, though I 'fear' it will be -- I am using "I 'fear' it will be" as an idiomatic expression, asheera, because I have 'seen' you time and time again simply ignore and ignorantly reject the real 'significance' of messages sent your way -- I am not really 'governed' by 'fear' as, by your repeated implication of the same, you are so fond of assuming and thinking you 'know' to be the case. Strikes me that it's a very 'convenient' way for you to not have to take what someone else says seriously -- just attributing their 'sense' of and/or 'position' on some matter to 'silly' 'fear'. Think about it and, after really thoughtful consideration, tell me, ain't that the case, or at least couldn't it be the case?

[sahyo]

there is no such thang as 'certainty', which means you can never 'know' whether what you think you 'truly' know is absolutely 'true' either

not about "know'ing :)

[sahyo]

By the way, to do the kind of communicational dance-thing I am speaking about, you might actually have to think, and both develop stamina and become 'adept', at thinking -- like 'thinking' "what did David actually mean when he said that?' and "what may have led him to think that was the case?' and "what might he think if I say this?" and "what do I really want him to understand is the case?" and "will my saying it this way result in his developing such an understanding?" and .... and ... and ....


youdesire analyzing?

[sahyo]

I hope that the significance of what I just said is not 'lost' on you, though I 'fear' it will be -- I am using "I 'fear' it will be" as an idiomatic expression, asheera, because I have 'seen' you time and time again simply ignore and ignorantly reject the real 'significance' of messages sent your way -- I am not really 'governed' by 'fear' as, by your repeated implication of the same, you are so fond of assuming and thinking you 'know' to be the case. Strikes me that it's a very 'convenient' way for you to not have to take what someone else says seriously -- just attributing their 'sense' of and/or 'position' on some matter to 'silly' 'fear'. Think about it and, after really thoughtful consideration, tell me, ain't that the case, or at least couldn't it be the case?

if davd"fear"ing was absent, you wouldn't posting thinking'imagining'whichnot

[sahyo]

By the way, to do the kind of communicational dance-thing I am speaking about, you might actually have to think, and both develop stamina and become 'adept', at thinking -- like 'thinking' "what did David actually mean when he said that?' and "what may have led him to think that was the case?' and "what might he think if I say this?" and "what do I really want him to understand is the case?" and "will my saying it this way result in his developing such an understanding?" and .... and ... and ....

youdesire thinkingpastspeculating'guessing'future which not?

[sahyo]

david

has happened often almost quiting posting
when so tired the concentration needed for which most people
not need so much....but once happened reading a post tbv
when quiting almost happened,
since then when almost happening,
doesn't

:)

[sahyo]

which read wasn't "cause"notcause

[DavidS]

Looks to me like your polaroids filter out my vibes 'remarkably' well, asheera - don't think rephrasing my 'messages' or articulating what I 'get' from yours will make any difference - best explanatory 'model' I can come up for this is our 'sensibilities' are totally 'orthogonal' - we just don't compose or hear the same kind of music (pertaining to 'meanings', that is) - alas - David :ph34r:

[sahyo]

Looks to me like your polaroids
filter out my vibes 'remarkably' well

:) can't filter out vibs, david

is clear the intellectual'meaning'-and'not', which you post
(the writing veryvery articulate)

most humans desire and like intellectual'meaning',
which 'seems safe'

since doesn't 'seem safe', is rare humans can let
happening kapsour(a)is

[sahyo]

Saraha
Treasury Of Songs


He who does not enjoy the senses purified,
And practices only the void,
Is like a bird that flies up from a ship
And then wheels round and lands back there again.

But do not be caught by attachment to the senses, Saraha says.
Consider the fish, the butterfly, the elephant, the bee, and the deer.

Whatever pours forth from the mind,
Possesses the nature of the owner.
Are waves different from the water?
Their nature like that of space is one and the same.

Who speaks, who listens, and what is confided?
Like the dust in a dusty tunnel,
That which arises in the heart goes to rest in the heart.

Even as water entering water
Has an identical savoir,
So faults and virtues are accounted the same
As there’s no opposition between them.

Do not cling to the notion of void-ness,
But consider all things alike.
Indeed even the husk of a sesame-seed
Causes pain like that of an arrow.

One thing is so, another is not so.
The action is like that of a wish-granting gem.
Strange how these Pandits go to grief through their own errors,
For in self-experience consists this great bliss

In all forms are endowed with the sameness of space,
And the mind is held steady with the nature of this same same-ness
When the mind ceases thus to be mind,
The true nature of the innate shines forth.

In this house and that the matter is discussed,
But the basis of the great bliss is unknown.
The world is enslaved by thought, Saraha says,
And no one has known this non-thought.

There is one Lord revealed in many scriptures,
Who becomes clearly manifest at your wish.

Oneself is the Lord, and another is the enemy.
This is the notion they have in their houses.
In eating the one, he consumes all the other,
But she goes outside and looks for her master.

He is not seen to come,
Nor known to stay or go;
As sign less and motionless the supreme Lord is known.

If you do not abandon coming and going,
How may you gain this rare one, this splendor?

Thought is pure when consigned to the forehead.
Do not even conceive differences in yourself.
When there is no distinction between Body, Speech, and Mind,
Then the true nature of the innate shines forth.

There how should another arise,
Where the wife without hesitation consumes the householder?
This yogini’s action is peerless.

She consumes the householder and the Innate shines forth.
There is neither passion no absence of passion.
Seated beside her own, her mind destroyed, thus I have seen the yogini.

One eats and drinks and thinks what occurs to the thought
It is beyond the mind and inconceivable, this wonder of the yogini.

Here sun and Moon lose their distinction,
In her the triple world is formed.
O know this yogini, perfecter of thought and unity of the Innate.

The whole world is tormented by words
And there is no one who does without words.
But insofar as one is free from words
Does one really understand words.

The same without as within,
Firmly established at the fourteenth stage,
The bodiless form is concealed in the body.
He who knows this is therein released.

I used to recite (the text-book, which begins with the words), "let there be success"
But I drank the elixir and forgot it.
There is but one word that I know now,
And of that, my friend, I know not the name.

At the moment of the embrace does he then win the great bliss,
Who does not comprehend that everything is of his own nature?
He is like a thirsty deer that runs for water which is but a mirage.
It dies of thirst, and how should be obtain the divine waters?

The Five skandhas, the five material elements, the twelve sense fields, the six faculties of sense and their spheres, these with their various modifications are the water. In these Doha verses which are altogether new nothing is anywhere concealed.

So Pandits, please have patience with me,
For here there is no hesitating.
That which I have heard by the word of my master,
Why should I speak of it secretly?

That blissful delight that consists between lotus and vajra,
Who does not rejoice there?
In the triple world whose hopes does it fail to fulfill?

This moment may be the bliss of Means or of Both Wisdom and Means,
And by the favor o their master and by merit is known by a few.

It is profound, it is vast.
It is neither self nor other.
O know this self experience
Of the Innate in the fourth moment!

Even as the moon makes light in the black darkness,
So in one moment the supreme bliss removes all defilement.

When the sun of suffering has set,
Then arises this bliss, this lord of the stars.
It creates with continuous creativity,
And of this comes the Mandala-Circle.

See thought as thought, O fool, and leave all false views,
Gain purification in bliss supreme,
For here lies final perfection.

Question not with hesitation.
Release this elephant, which is your mind,
That he may drink the river waters
And stay on the bank at his pleasure.’

Held in the trunk of the elephant that now represents the senses,
One may appear as lifeless,
But the yogin like a nimble rider slips away and goes.
As is Nirvana, So is Samsara.
Do not think there is any distinction.
Yet it possesses no single nature,
For I know it as quite pure.

Do not sit at home, do not go to the forest,
But recognize mind wherever you are.
When one abides in complete and perfect enlightenment,
Where is Samsara and where is Nirvana?

O Know this truth,
That neither at home nor in the forest does enlightenment dwell.
Be free from prevarication
In the self-nature of immaculate thought!

‘This is myself and this is another.’
Be free of this bond, which encompasses you about,
And your own self is thereby released.

Do not err in this matter of self and other.
Everything is Buddha without exception.
Here is that immaculate and final stage,
Where thought is pure in its true nature.

The fair tree of thought that knows no duality,
Spreads through the triple world.
It bears the flower and fruit of compassion,
And its name is service of others.

The fair tree of the void abounds with flowers,
Acts of compassion of many kinds,
An fruit for others appearing spontaneously
For this joy has no actual thought of another.

So the fair tree of the void also lacks compassion,
Without shoots or flowers or foliage,
And whoever imagines them there, falls down,
For branches there are none.

The two trees spring from one seed,
And for that reason there is but one fault.
He who thinks of them thus indistinguishable,
Is released from Nirvana and Samsara.

If a man in need approaches and goes away hopes unfulfilled,
It is better he should abandon that house
Than take the bowl that has been thrown from the door.

Not to be helpful to others
Not to give to those in need,
This is the fruit of Samsara.
Better than this is to renounce the idea of a self.

He who clings to the void
And neglects compassion,
Does not reach the highest stage.
But he who practices only compassion
Does not gain the release from toils of existence.
He, however, who is strong in practice of both,
Remains neither in Samsara nor in Nirvana.

[DavidS]

Originally posted by asheera@Dec 3 2003, 05:19 PM
He who thinks of them thus indistinguishable,
Is released from Nirvana and Samsara.

He, however, who is strong in practice of both,
Remains neither in Samsara nor in Nirvana.
Cool 'song'. Thanks, asheera.

A lot of 'good' (i.e., 'discerning' commentary) in there. But what I don't 'get', or shall I say, the 'leaning' which I regard as 'masochistic', however, is why it would be 'better' or 'best' to be 'released' from Samsara and Nirvana and want to be 'in' neither of them? I mean, if there was some kind of 'necessary' trade off between 'Love and Truth' on the one hand and 'Samsara and Nirvana' on the other, such a 'choice' might conceivably make sense and be appleaing. But my mental-n-emotional ex·peer·ience is that one can 'have', or live 'in', all of the above: Truth, Love, Samsara & Nirvana at the same time, or at least in rapidly revolving round-robbin 'successions' of the same such that they are expeerientially color-wheel 'blurred' together.

The EITHER-OR 'thinking' strikes me as being 'invalid', or 'suspect' at the very least. I prefer the BOTH-AND synthesis which ultimately leads one to simultaenously ex·peer·ience ALL-OF-THE-ABOVE 'together'.

What is it about the EITHER-OR approach which you think makes it 'necessary' and therefore (presumably) 'desirable'?

[sahyo]

thankingThanks :)



does

He who thinks of them thus indistinguishable,
Is released from Nirvana and Samsara.

He, however, who is strong in practice of both,
Remains neither in Samsara nor in Nirvana.


point would be 'better' or 'best' to be 'released' from Samsara and Nirvana and want to be 'in' neither of them?



if there was some kind of 'necessary' trade off between 'Love and Truth' on the one hand and 'Samsara and Nirvana' on the other, such a 'choice' might conceivably make sense and be appleaing.

trade off as though 'gainnotgain' isisn't?



But my mental-n-emotional ex·peer·ience is that one can 'have', or live 'in', all of the above: Truth, Love, Samsara & Nirvana at the same time, or at least in rapidly revolving round-robbin 'successions' of the same such that they are expeerientially color-wheel 'blurred' together.

in?

is not

in Samsara nor in Nirvana


imagined?

is 'together' if not thinkseparate which not?



The EITHER-OR 'thinking' strikes me as being 'invalid', or 'suspect' at the very least. I prefer the BOTH-AND synthesis which ultimately leads one to simultaenously ex·peer·ience ALL-OF-THE-ABOVE 'together'.

What is it about the EITHER-OR approach which you think makes it 'necessary' and therefore (presumably) 'desirable'?

does the song point EITHER-OR?, or

Whatever pours forth from the mind,
Possesses the nature of the owner.



When the mind ceases thus to be mind,
The true nature of the innate shines forth.



The world is enslaved by thought



But insofar as one is free from words
Does one really understand words.



See thought as thought, O fool, and leave all false views

[DavidS]

See thought as thought, O fool, and leave all false views
Hi asheera -

As I said, I thought ;) there was a lot of 'good' or 'discerning' commentary in the song. To get completely 'immersed' and 'entangled-caught·up' in any one thang, like 'Samsara' or 'Nirvana' or any thang else for that matter, I agree would (ultimately, at least) be a personal-consciousness 'limiting' choice.

However, my 'point' which you seem to either be unable or unwilling to comprehend, was that it's all (potentially) 'good'. That 'rejecting' thangs like 'Samsara' OR 'Nirvana' of any thang else for that matter, in 'favor' of some 'superordinated' state of mind-n-heart or imagined-other-kind-way of being, is likewise 'limiting' or self-'denying' in relation to the potentials and possibilities that life-being 'affords' us, or 'gifts' us with.

For instance, take the 'opinionated' view, "See thought as thought, O fool, and leave all false views," implies that thought in and of itself leads to views that are false-'bad' and so 'undesirable' - I mean, why advocate someone 'leave' something that is 'desirable', which is truth-explorative and truth-amplifying (like a great 'song', 'painting', 'story') unless one thinks/believes that such thangs are not also 'good'.

I submit (again) to you that "thought" is (potentially at least) an 'enriching' aspect/part/component of Life, asheera, just as language/verbal commuincation, sexual congress, and inumerable other thangs. That (numerous) people abuse such thangs, or misuse them in such a way that there are 'negative' (or 'harmful') results, in no way discredits their 'positive' (or 'beneficial') use by those who learn to do so adeptly.

Can you 'see' why I think practicing and advocating that one reject or 'get rid' of such modalities of being in oneself and others is basically a kind of 'masochism'? I think the author of the song and you as its 'conveyer' are both fools in this regard. And I suggest to you and all other readers here that any argument or pro·position which 'advocates' for one kind o' thang by asserting or implying that some other kind o' thang is of 'no', or 'false', or 'lesser' goodness or value, is base·ically doing the same kind o' thang as "Coca Cola" 'inveighing' against "Pepsi" (in order to try to 'get' a 'greater' 'market share') and vice versa.

Note: this is not to say that they (such kinds of 'arguers' and pro·posers) don't at least sometimes make some 'good' 'pro'-points in the process - as mentioned, the referenced 'song' makes many of these, I think.

But, in reference to the base thang I've pointed to, as I have said before, this doesn't make a 'pretty' 'picture' in my consciousness-mirror. Altogther too 'partial' and 'partisan' a point of view, IMO - reflecting 'sentiments' like "my 'view' is more 'truthful' than any other view (which is therefore more 'false');" "the way I advocate is 'better' than any other way;" "my god is more 'real' than your god;" etc., etc., etc.

Because this so characterizes so many of your post-messages, asheera, in my view (it is no more and no less than this), you are an 'ideological dogmatist' with a very 'partisan' personal agenda - who thinks-believes she's so 'on track' and 'on target' when it comes to what is really 'the best' that she shamelessly 'puts down' (in relation to her own personal preferences in this regard) other points of view and derivative values and choices.

[sahyo]

That 'rejecting' thangs like 'Samsara' OR 'Nirvana' of any thang else for that matter, in 'favor' of some 'superordinated' state of mind-n-heart or imagined-other-kind-way of being, is likewise 'limiting' or self-'denying' in relation to the potentials and possibilities that life-being 'affords' us, or 'gifts' us with.
did the song point "rejecting"?

For instance, take the 'opinionated' view, "See thought as thought, O fool, and leave all false views," implies that thought in and of itself leads to views that are false-'bad' and so 'undesirable' - I mean, why advocate someone 'leave' something that is 'desirable', which is truth-explorative and truth-amplifying (like a great 'song', 'painting', 'story') unless one thinks/believes that such thangs are not also 'good'.
'fact' not thought'goodbad'notgoodbad

Can you 'see' why I think practicing and advocating that one reject or 'get rid' of such modalities of being in oneself and others is basically a kind of 'masochism'? I think the author of the song and you as its 'conveyer' are both fools in this regard.


:lol:

But, in reference to the base thang I've pointed to, as I have said before, this doesn't make a 'pretty' 'picture' in my
consciousness-mirror.
how can 'mirror', david?

breath not discern breath

Because this so characterizes so many of your post-messages, asheera, in my view (it is no more and no less than this), you are an 'ideological dogmatist' with a very 'partisan' personal agenda - who thinks-believes she's so 'on track' and 'on target' when it comes to what is really 'the best' that she shamelessly 'puts down' (in relation to her own personal preferences in this regard) other points of view and derivative values and choices.


:lol:

[slayer]

[QUOTE=asheera,Nov 26 2003, 09:36 PM]there is no such thang as 'certainty', which means you can never 'know' whether what you think you 'truly' know is absolutely 'true' either



The claim above is false. She's mistaken due to her misconception of 'knowledge.'

She believes that 'knowledge' requires 'certainty,' which it does not. There are three criteria for knowledge: (1) that you believe what you're claiming, (2) that what you're claiming be true, and (3) that you have acquired this belief in the appropriate way. This third criterion is commonly called the 'justification' criterion, which is just to say that you have to come to believe what you believe under certain circumstances.

For example, let's say that I believe that someone in China right now is flying a kite. Let's also say that it's true that someone in China right now is flying a kite. But though it's true and I believe it, I do not have knowledge. The reason being is that I didn't acquire this belief in the right way, say, by seeing that person fly the kite. I merely guessed that someone was flying a kite in China and therefore I lacked justification for my belief. But notice that nowhere in these criteria do we require certainty. In fact, one can have knowledge, as it is now defined, and yet be mistaken.

Hence, her claim that we can't have knowledge because we can't have certainly is false. It's false not just because we can and do acquire knowledge, but because the certainty-requirement is irrelevant.

[a random hack]

what use is knowledge that is not certain?

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by slayer@Jan 27 2004, 07:44 PM

For example, let's say that I believe that someone in China right now is flying a kite. Let's also say that it's true that someone in China right now is flying a kite. But though it's true and I believe it, I do not have knowledge. The reason being is that I didn't acquire this belief in the right way, say, by seeing that person fly the kite. I merely guessed that someone was flying a kite in China and therefore I lacked justification for my belief. But notice that nowhere in these criteria do we require certainty. In fact, one can have knowledge, as it is now defined, and yet be mistaken.

Hence, her claim that we can't have knowledge because we can't have certainly is false. It's false not just because we can and do acquire knowledge, but because the certainty-requirement is irrelevant.


Jeez! I've been wondering how dubya just "knew" about those WMD's. Thanx for explaining it to me Slayer! :)

[slayer]

Originally posted by a random hack@Jan 27 2004, 09:40 PM
what use is knowledge that is not certain?

A Random Hack,

I think yours is a very intuitive question to ask. I also think you'll soon agree that 'knowledge sans certainty' is extremely useful. In fact, we rely upon it -- and justifiably so -- all the time.

If you're not familiar with Descartes's Dream Argument or Evil Demon Argument, they go something along these lines.

The Dream Argument: Our dream experiences sometimes appear so genuine to us that we think we're actually experiencing those things in our waking lives. Because we could possibly be dreaming any experience we are actually (that is, not in our dreams) having, we cannot know that we're actually experiencing any single actual experience.

The Evil Demon Argument: It's possible that we don't have bodies at all, but simply are brains (in a vat, maybe) that an evil demon manipulates to believe that things are as we believe them to be, but really there is no earth, stars, cars, people, etc. Therefore, we can't know that we're not really just brains which an evil demon manipulates to think things that aren't really true.

Both arguments are meant to show that there are very fews things that we are in fact certain (that is, it's not possible for us to be wrong) about.

The problem with Descartes's arguments is that knowledge doesn't require certainty. Just because it's possible that there is an evil demon as described it doesn't follow that we can't 'know' that, say, other people actually exist.

But to show you how powerful and useful the epistemic state of knowledge is, consider the following scenario (in fact, partake in this experiment).

Look outside your window and see whether it's raining. Let's just say that it's not raining and you've verified this by looking outside. You now believe it's not raining. But more than that, you 'know' it's not raining. All the criteria for knowledge are satisfied. Yet, you are technically not certain that it's not raining. Why? Because it's possible that it's not actually raining -- the evil demon could exist or you could be dreaming all this.

Of course you have quite reliable information, information which you could use and rightly depend on being accurate. And to show you other things which most of us know but are not certain about, here's a small list.

1. That rocks don't talk.
2. That you're not an insect with a brain.
3. That the sun is hot.
4. That water can turn into ice.
5. That ours isn't the only planet in the universe.

None of that above are we certain about.
All of the above we know.
Knowledge is quite a formidable epistemic tool, one which we rightly rely upon and use.

One extra tidbit.

Descartes came to the conclusion that there was at least one thing (later he added others) that he could be certain about -- that he existed. He reasoned correctly that even if there were an evil demon manipulating his brain, that he was nevertheless thinking. And since thinking requires consciousness, and consciousness implies life, that therefore he was alive (i.e., existed). Hence, Cogito ergo sum.

[rich]

P/O slayer's post:
None of that above are we certain about.
All of the above we know.
Knowledge is quite a formidable epistemic tool, one which we rightly rely upon and use.


Even if what we think to be true, although actually it may not be, we will accept it as truth, or as knowledge. What else are we to do? It is true (to me) as long as I think of it as truth. But,
ICBW! :D

[slayer]

Originally posted by rich@Jan 28 2004, 10:24 AM
Even if what we think to be true, although actually it may not be, we will accept it as truth, or as knowledge. What else are we to do? It is true (to me) as long as I think of it as truth. But,
ICBW! :D

No, Rich, something isn't true just because you believe it's true. The world isn't flat even when everybody thinks it is. They held a FALSE belief about the world long ago.

Of course by "It is true to me" you really just mean "I believe it."

That's why for you there's no difference between saying "I believe that the sun exists" and "I believe it's true that the sun exists."

But if you talk this way, you'll only end up confusing yourself, which you obviously have done.

Truth is not about what you believe, but it's about what there is in the world. Take the sentence "snow is white." Is it true? How do we determine whether that sentence is true? What we don't do is look within ourselves and simply decide. No, what we do is look at the world to see what color snow is. If the world is as our sentence describes, then the sentence is true. This is called a correspondence theory of truth.

You completely misuse the term "true" when you say things like "It is true (to me) as long as I think of it as truth." And your misuse leads to muddled thinking.

Just to show you how ridiculous your position is, take the following claims.

(1) It's true for me that I can walk on water.
(2) It's true for me that I'm the only person who exists.
(3) It's true for me that I can fly to the sun.

Under your definition of truth all of these would be in some sense true. Of course they're all false. And we're right to say they're false because the claims each makes is not the case and cannot be the case.

So stop talking that relativist dribble.

slayer

[sahyo]

Originally posted by slayer+Jan 27 2004, 05:44 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (slayer @ Jan 27 2004, 05:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
<!--QuoteBegin--asheera@Nov 26 2003, 09:36 PM
there is no such thang as 'certainty', which means you can never 'know' whether what you think you 'truly' know is absolutely 'true' either
The claim above is false. She's mistaken due to her misconception of 'knowledge.'

She believes that 'knowledge' requires 'certainty,' which it does not. There are three criteria for knowledge: (1) that you believe what you're claiming, (2) that what you're claiming be true, and (3) that you have acquired this belief in the appropriate way. This third criterion is commonly called the 'justification' criterion, which is just to say that you have to come to believe what you believe under certain circumstances.

For example, let's say that I believe that someone in China right now is flying a kite. Let's also say that it's true that someone in China right now is flying a kite. But though it's true and I believe it, I do not have knowledge. The reason being is that I didn't acquire this belief in the right way, say, by seeing that person fly the kite. I merely guessed that someone was flying a kite in China and therefore I lacked justification for my belief. But notice that nowhere in these criteria do we require certainty. In fact, one can have knowledge, as it is now defined, and yet be mistaken.

Hence, her claim that we can't have knowledge because we can't have certainly is false. It's false not just because we can and do acquire knowledge, but because the certainty-requirement is irrelevant.

[/b][/quote]
though displays asheera posted, if reread the post you quoting, slayer,
you will see are quoting which david posted :)

[slayer]

My apologies for misattributing the quote to you, Asheera.

sincerely,

slayer

[sahyo]

thanking
though didn't mind....
happens sometimes when posting :)
....was just informing

[DavidS]

Originally posted by slayer@Jan 28 2004, 12:03 PM
(1) It's true for me that I can walk on water.
(2) It's true for me that I'm the only person who exists.
(3) It's true for me that I can fly to the sun.

Under your definition of truth all of these would be in some sense true. Of course they're all false.
Strikes me that, because of the 'reductionist' 'window' you prefer to view things through (maybe a wider 'apperture' would result in things becoming blindingly bright for eyes not used to expeeriencing/witnessing Life in its full intensity?), your 'mind' is not 'open' 'enough' to 'see' the sense in which such 'apparently' 'impossible' or 'wierd' things may be (and, I suggest, are) 'true'. It all hinges on the parameters of the de·finite·ion of 'me' and 'I', which one's 'logic'-machine mind axiomatically includes in its 'calculations', I'd wager. B)

[slayer]

Originally posted by DavidS@Jan 29 2004, 12:27 PM
Strikes me that, because of the 'reductionist' 'window' you prefer to view things through (maybe a wider 'apperture' would result in things becoming blindingly bright for eyes not used to expeeriencing/witnessing Life in its full intensity?), your 'mind' is not 'open' 'enough' to 'see' the sense in which such 'apparently' 'impossible' or 'wierd' things may be (and, I suggest, are) 'true'. It all hinges on the parameters of the de·finite·ion of 'me' and 'I', which one's 'logic'-machine mind axiomatically includes in its 'calculations', I'd wager. B)
David S,

I can almost make sense of this, but I don't really bother with bad English anymore, unless you're a great mind, which I highly doubt.

Please write in simple and unaffected prose, it might suit your purpose. Of course that purpose would have to be to be understood. The problem with writing clearly is that people catch on to your argument and can then address it. The benefit of writing the way you do is (as many of you have experienced in debating with Asheera) that it requires a lot of effort to figure out what's being claimed, then you take time to respond to this claim, then you have the reply that "that's not what I said."

So, as you'll soon realize, unless I'm relatively sure of what you're saying, then I'm not going to address what appears to be claimed.

(thanks for the correction on "dribble", Sonrisa),

slayer

[sahyo]

is slayer desiring 'sense'?

[Thomas Knierim]

Slayer,

You mentioned the evil demon argument and the dream argument -both of which could nowadays be stylishly summarized as the Matrix hypothesis- to support your statement about the lack of certainty. These are classical arguments, fairly well known; but they are also fairly harmless weapons against the illusion of certainty. The Matrix hypothesis can be dimissed simply by rejecting the premise. I can assert that "we aren't wired," without contradiction. Naturally, my assertion is unprovable. However, of all the billions of people who have lived on Earth, nobody seemed to have waken up to face evil demons, agents, or such like. Neither has anyone seen brains in vats. Nobody ever returned from a supposed "waking state" to report about the existence of evil demons and brains in vats. We can therefore assume that the Matrix hypothesis is false, not because it is logically imposible, but because of the absence of empirical support.

If you want show that uncertainty is inherent in all knowledge-building (epistemic) processes, and that uncertainty cannot be dispelled from human knowledge, I think the discussion of belief structures in general and the scientific method in particular is more suited to achieving that goal. You could, for example, draw on Karl Popper's 'versimilitude' concept -a tricky replacement for certainty- as well as the concept of falsification and falsifiable premises and theorems of (scientific) theory. Unfortunately, this is likely to require an explanation of the analytic/synthetic distinction and the noumenon/phenomenon distinction, and in view of this it may be fairly tedious undertaking :knockout: but, hey, who said victory comes easy?

Cheers, Thomas

[slayer]

Thomas,

I agree, the Matrix scenario lends itself to the same point I was drawing from the Dream and Evil Demon Arguments. My using Descartes to make my point is just a preference. Of course the point is that certainty isn't a requirement on knowledge. I agree that when something has so much speaking for it and little speaking against it, then it's more reasonable to believe that something is the case.

No, I'm not about to attempt to try to explain noumena and phenomena, nor the analytic/synthetic distinction. I'm not sure I could do a very good job of it. I was trying to avoid talk of belief structures and the scientific method, to be honest. I agree though that this way would probably be a more convincing way to argue the point, especially with a modern audience. Nonetheless, I hope I haven't failed to make that point.

thanks for the feedback,

slayer

[Thomas Knierim]

Slayer: Of course the point is that certainty isn't a requirement on knowledge.

Right. But is it a possibility?

Thomas

[slayer]

"Right. But is it a possibility?" -- Thomas

Are you asking whether certainty might be a requirement on knowledge?
Or are you asking whether certainty is a possibility?

If the former, then No.

I think we have certainty about numerous things. E.g., that 2 + 2 = 4, I'm certain that I exist (leaving what "I" refers to undefined), that 'P and ~P' is false, etc.

But as far as certainty about the existence of the external world, say, then I tend to lean with Barry Stroud (or was it Thomas Nagel) in thinking that our subjective point of view prevents us from achieving the objective standpoint we'd need to be certain about certain matters regarding what's out there. It's subjectivism in a very narrrow sense. I don't want you to miscontrue my position as 'we can't know reality' or something oversimplified as that.

Pats 32 -- Cats 29,

slayer

[rich]

A random thought entered mind for no reason at all.

Thinking of the word together .

Noticed that it means exactly what it says. :lol:

And what is that? :unsure:

To get her! :twoguns: :moody: :scatter: hahaheehaw

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by slayer@Feb 2 2004, 01:09 AM

Pats 32 -- Cats 29,



and Janet 1! :devilish:

[Owen]

Slayer: Of course the point is that certainty isn't a requirement on knowledge.

Thomas: Right. But is it a possibility?

Slayer:
Are you asking whether certainty might be a requirement on knowledge?
Or are you asking whether certainty is a possibility?
If the former, then No.
I think we have certainty about numerous things. E.g., that 2 + 2 = 4, I'm certain that I exist (leaving what "I" refers to undefined), that 'P and ~P' is false, etc.


I agree that certainty, in an absolute sense, is not knowable.
Certainty is neither a requirement on knowledge nor is it a possibility for knowledge.
Absolute truth, certainty, cannot have a method of decision.

That there is no possible unique system of determining all truths (Godel), denies the possibiliy of absolute truth (certainty).

Slayer: I think we have certainty about numerous things. E.g., that 2 + 2 = 4, I'm certain that I exist (leaving what "I" refers to undefined), that 'P and ~P' is false, etc.

I don't agree with this remark. Apparently you identify proof within a specified system of understanding, as certainty.

But, the axioms and rules of inference of any system by which proof is determined, are not themselves subject to your understanding of certainty.
The axioms etc., are assumed truths (beliefs) and have no possibility of being proven within the same system.

The relative certainty of: (p & ~p) is false, or, (2+2 = 4) is true, lies in that we have some method of decision by which we can show that they are theorems.
(calculations such as truth tables and addition tables are sufficient proof here)

We decide truth don't we?

The relativity of truth is that all truth is relative to the system that determines it. All truth and all knowledge are system dependent.

Belief is presumed truth.

Truth is that which can be shown to be the case.
Knowledge is that which is shown to be the case.

What we demonstrate by our proofs of propositions is their truth.

The certainty of 'I exist' is also system sensitive.

For example: If we define 'x exists' as 'x has some property' then we can infer, x thinks therefore x exists'.
(given that thinking is a property)

To deny 'I exist' is to perform some activity...which is proof of your existence!

e.g. x shows that 'I exist' is false, therefore, x exists.
(given that showing something is a property)

No one can deny 'I exist' is true.
(within the confines of some method of deciding its truth)

Certainty (absolute truth) has no sense outside of its system of decision.

Of course, all of my remarks are subject to my understanding of the world.

Owen

[slayer]

Originally posted by Owen@Feb 8 2004, 10:27 AM
Slayer: I think we have certainty about numerous things. E.g., that 2 + 2 = 4, I'm certain that I exist (leaving what "I" refers to undefined), that 'P and ~P' is false, etc.

I don't agree with this remark. Apparently you identify proof within a specified system of understanding, as certainty.

But, the axioms and rules of inference of any system by which proof is determined, are not themselves subject to your understanding of certainty.
The axioms etc., are assumed truths (beliefs) and have no possibility of being proven within the same system.

The relative certainty of: (p & ~p) is false, or, (2+2 = 4) is true, lies in that we have some method of decision by which we can show that they are theorems.
(calculations such as truth tables and addition tables are sufficient proof here)

We decide truth don't we?

The relativity of truth is that all truth is relative to the system that determines it. All truth and all knowledge are system dependent.

Belief is presumed truth.

Truth is that which can be shown to be the case.
Knowledge is that which is shown to be the case.

What we demonstrate by our proofs of propositions is their truth.

The certainty of 'I exist' is also system sensitive.

For example: If we define 'x exists' as 'x has some property' then we can infer, x thinks therefore x exists'.
(given that thinking is a property)

To deny 'I exist' is to perform some activity...which is proof of your existence!

e.g. x shows that 'I exist' is false, therefore, x exists.
(given that showing something is a property)

No one can deny 'I exist' is true.
(within the confines of some method of deciding its truth)

Certainty (absolute truth) has no sense outside of its system of decision.

Of course, all of my remarks are subject to my understanding of the world.

Owen


Owen,

I wasn't claiming that I can prove that 2 + 2 = 4 within arithmetic. I wasn't about to challenge Godel's incompleteness theorem. But proving the axioms of a theory isn't the same thing as being certain of those axioms being the case.

If we are certain (an epistemological notion) about anything, then it seems that our mental state in such cases should be characterized by something other than what it would be in cases of knowledge. Another way to put this is, knowledge has its criteria (whatever they are, let's say) and certainty, it would seem, has different criteria.

So, taking the Cogito example, the reasoning goes along these lines. I am thinking. Thinking implies existence. Therefore, I exist. Of course the force of this argument rests on logic, which is how we reason. But certainty is an epistemological notion to be explained. So, you didn't deny that this argument was valid, but instead you pointed out that we're assuming that thinking is a property. At least I think that was the impetus behind "(given that thinking is a property)."

But then aren't you agreeing that if A, A -->B, then B is true? I'm not merely pointing out that you're agreeing that these axioms or theorems (just like 'P & ~P') are true within formal logic, but that they're how we in fact reason. And since certainty is certainty about facts, then their justification comes from their explanatory power with respect to how the world is. Of course "justification" and "certainty" are both epistemological notions, and since we use logic in explaining what constitutes certainty, I'm not seeing why we need some metalogic system -- nor do I think there could be such a thing -- to justify our claim to certainty about certain matters.

I hope this was coherent. I'll try again later if it wasn't, but I have to run now,

slayer

[slayer]

Owen,

My previous post wasn't the most articulate thing I've composed. I want to try again. This time let me point out a very fundamental difference between us, and this will explain why we differ in opinion regarding the things I've said we can be certain about. I had tried (in my previous post) to explain why we can indeed be certain about 'I exist', '2 + 2 = 4', and the truth of 'P & ~P', but I confess I didn't do a good job of it. That particular route will be very difficult, so I'm taking a slightly different route this time.

"We decide truth don't we?" -- Owen

Well, no, we don't decide truth. We in no way determine what is true. We don't determine whether a proposition is true.

There just is a matter of fact about how many planets our solar system contains. Whatever that number is, that number in no way depends on us. So the sentence "there are 9 planets in our solar system" is true if,and only if, there are 9 planets, and false otherwise. That would mean that the proposition 'that there are 9 planets in our solar system' would accurately describe the world.

"Truth is that which can be shown to be the case" -- Owen

Again, I disagree. It was true 2000 years ago that the earth was spherical, although no one then could show that it was the case.

It was true 2000 years ago that water was composed of hydrogen and oxygen, although 2000 years ago no on could show that it was the case. Our new equipment didn't make it the case that water was composed of hydrogen and oxygen. If you say that, then you're saying it wasn't the case that water was composed of hydrogen and oxygen until we could see the hydrogen and oxygen. And that doesn't seem to hold water (excuse the pun).

I hope this post was clearer. In retrospect, it was a mistake on my part to try to argue for our certainty about the three things I mentioned, because nothing will get settled until we settle this question of truth first. If we agree to disagree about truth, then it makes little sense to debate the other points.

slayer

[rich]

Dear slayer,

logic or illogical, if you did not write the post I am responding to,

then did a non-existing being, put those words before my eyes?

I am sorry, but I d0 not exist either. I've vanished. :huh: :o

[slayer]

Originally posted by rich@Feb 9 2004, 08:56 PM
logic or illogical, if you did not write the post I am responding to, then did a non-existing being, put those words before my eyes?

I am sorry, but I d0 not exist either. I've vanished. :huh: :o

Rich,

I'm not exactly sure what the question is.

Are you asking whether I posted what you've quoted? If, yes, then, since my name is on it, you seem to be teasing me because of my rather courteous reponse to Owen.

Or, are you asking me about non-existent beings?

Not sure, please ask again differently.

slayer

[rich]

Originally posted by slayer+Feb 10 2004, 11:36 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (slayer @ Feb 10 2004, 11:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--rich@Feb 9 2004, 08:56 PM
logic or illogical, if you did not write the post I am responding to, then did a non-existing being, put those words before my eyes?

I am sorry, but I d0 not exist either. I've vanished. :huh: :o

Rich,

I'm not exactly sure what the question is.

Are you asking whether I posted what you've quoted? If, yes, then, since my name is on it, you seem to be teasing me because of my rather courteous reponse to Owen.

Or, are you asking me about non-existent beings?

Not sure, please ask again differently.

slayer [/b][/quote]
Dear Slayer,

Think i misinterpreted your post.

Was trying to be funny at your expense.

I did not mean to upset you.
So, taking the Cogito example, the reasoning goes along these lines. I am thinking. Thinking implies existence. Therefore, I exist. Of course the force of this argument rests on logic, which is how we reason. But certainty is an epistemological notion to be explained. So, you didn't deny that this argument was valid, but instead you pointed out that we're assuming that thinking is a property. At least I think that was the impetus behind "(given that thinking is a property)."

But then aren't you agreeing that if A, A -->B, then B is true? I'm not merely pointing out that you're agreeing that these axioms or theorems (just like 'P & ~P') are true within formal logic, but that they're how we in fact reason. And since certainty is certainty about facts, then their justification comes from their explanatory power with respect to how the world is. Of course "justification" and "certainty" are both epistemological notions, and since we use logic in explaining what constitutes certainty, I'm not seeing why we need some metalogic system -- nor do I think there could be such a thing -- to justify our claim to certainty about certain matters.

I hope this was coherent. I'll try again later if it wasn't, but I have to run now,

slayer

[slayer]

Rich,

Not a problem. I wasn't upset, just confused.

slayer

[...]

wrong thread

[Owen]

"We decide truth don't we?" -- Owen

slayer:
Well, no, we don't decide truth. We in no way determine what is true. We don't determine whether a proposition is true.

Yes we do, please be patient and let me describe what I mean.

In the case of the formal truths of logic and mathematics we don't accept the truth of an assumed poposition unless we can prove it, i.e. until we can deduce it by some accepted set of axioms and rules of inference. We must be able to show that it is true within the confines of some sytem of decision.
If it can be shown to be the case then it is true.

In the case of the factual situations that are presented to us, we grant a correspondence between that which is named and its name in language.
If the names in our statement correspond to the objects/properties presented by the world then that statement is true!

Factual truths that are not atomic are conluded by some system and they are not presented by the world.

In all cases: that which is true, is that which can be shown to be the case.

slayer:
There just is a matter of fact about how many planets our solar system contains. Whatever that number is, that number in no way depends on us.

The world cannot express 'logical' objects, such as numbers, truth, language, etc.
For example, there is no object 'not' in the world.

That there are nine planets is confirmed by some scientific method, astronomy I guess.

slayer:
So the sentence "there are 9 planets in our solar system" is true if,and only if, there are 9 planets, and false otherwise. That would mean that the proposition 'that there are 9 planets in our solar system' would accurately describe the world.

There sems to me, no difference between:
1. "there are 9 planets in our solar system" is true,
and
2. there are 9 planets.

The accuracy of 'there are nine planets in our solar system' is surely determined by some system of decision, isn't it?

"Truth is that which can be shown to be the case" -- Owen

slayer:
Again, I disagree. It was true 2000 years ago that the earth was spherical, although no one then could show that it was the case.

Not so, it was not true then, it may have been believed that it was true, but, they did not have a method of showing its truth.

That 'the world is spherical' cannot be understood without language and mind.

We can and do presume that the physical world exists prior to mind but there is no sense in saying that truth is an object in the world. Truth is a property of statements and not of physical things.

slayer:
It was true 2000 years ago that water was composed of hydrogen and oxygen, although 2000 years ago no on could show that it was the case.

Yes, and that means that it was at best.. believed true, at that time.
It was not a part of their knowledge back then.

Owen

[slayer]

Owen,

I could address each of your responses, but I'd really just be saying the same thing I said in my previous post. I will try again though -- but a condensed version this time. I'll explain what I believe you are conflating, namely, truth and our ability to say something is true.

As for 1 + 1 = 2 or 2 + 2 = 4, we can know these things a priori.

"The accuracy of 'there are nine planets in our solar system' is surely determined by some system of decision, isn't it?" -- Owen

Yes, our system of decision determines whether we can discover whether there are 7, 8, or 9 plantes in our solar system. Our system of decision though doesn't determine what 9 is. Nine things are nine things irrespective of how we deciced to represent 9; e.g., by using "9" or "Nine" or "Nueve", etc. Our language or system of decision doesn't change how many planets are in our solar system -- it doesn't determine that fact. Our language and system of decision may determine what result we come up with, but our result will not match the world unless our result is true.

Are you saying that if our system were less advanced, say, and we were only to observe 8 planets, that therefore it would be true that there were 8 planets? And then the next day -- our technology having advanced -- it would be true that there are 9 planets, because we can now observe all 9? This leaves us with saying that it was true yesterday that there were 8 planets in our solar system and it is true today that there are 9 planets in our solar system, while the actual number of planets remained the same (from yesterday to today). I find this position very unsatisfactory.

"That 'the world is spherical' cannot be understood without language and mind." -- Owen

If you're claiming that the sentence "The world is spherical" cannot be understood without language and mind, then, yes, I agree. But that's not really the point of what I'm arguing. I'm saying that we can know that the proposition that the world is spherical is true. Propositions aren't sentences, they are the meanings of sentences and we don't need language to grasp that meaning. If you were on Mars and viewed the earth, then you'd know it was spherical. That is, you would see it's actual shape. It's not important what you call this shape. Spherical refers to a certain shape. So we're concerned with that shape, not what we call that shape. So, even without language, you could understand or believe or know that it's true that the earth is spherical. And nothing rests on language here.

And the reason why I think you're conflating truth with what we can say is true is because you continue to hinge your arguments on systems of decisions.

But how do you get around the fact that there just is a specific number of planets in our solar system right now? For the sake of argument, let's say that number, whatever it is, isn't constantly changing -- that is, the same planets, no more or less, have been there for 10 years, say.

You're saying that truth is so relative that one person using one system can claim that there are 8 planets and another person with a more sophisticated system can claim that there are 9 planets, and that they're both expressing truths about the world. And this is key. They're making claims about the world, not about what validly follows from their systems. Or, about what is consistent within their system.

slayer

[Owen]

slayer: You're saying that truth is so relative that one person using one system can claim that there are 8 planets and another person with a more sophisticated system can claim that there are 9 planets, and that they're both expressing truths about the world. And this is key. They're making claims about the world, not about what validly follows from their systems. Or, about what is consistent within their system.

Personal subjective opinion has nothing to do with truth.
Personal truth has no confirmability.

The facts presented by the world are interpreted as factual truth by the scientific methods.
The world presents situations not truth.

Logical methods eg. deduction, calculation etc. provide logical truth.


You may be interested in a 'number of planets' puzzle by Quine (1943) ...

1. The number of planets is nine,
2. Necessarily(nine is greater than seven),
therefore,
3. Necessarily(the number of planets is greater than seven).

This argument follows from Leibnitz's Law.
(x=y & Fx) -> Fy.

The premises are true but the conclusion is false.

(the number of planets is greater than seven) is true, but it is not necessarily true, is it?
(it could have been otherwise)

Are factual occurences necessarily true?, isn't that fatalism?

Owen

[slayer]

Owen: Personal subjective opinion has nothing to do with truth.
Personal truth has no confirmability.

I agree with the first claim.

I'm not sure what a 'personal truth' would be. But confirmability is irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make.

Owen: The facts presented by the world are interpreted as factual truth by the scientific methods.
The world presents situations not truth.

You seem to concede that the number of planets in our solar system, whatever it is, is a matter of fact. If it's a fact, then isn't it true that there are 9 (supposing 9 is the actual number) of planets in our solar system?

You seem to be arguing that it's only true that the number is 9 within some system of decision. But suppose the actual number is 9 and our system allows us to say that it's true that the number is 9. Doesn't our system get it right? Doesn't it match up with how the world actually is?

Owen: You may be interested in a 'number of planets' puzzle by Quine (1943) ...

1. The number of planets is nine,
2. Necessarily(nine is greater than seven),
therefore,
3. Necessarily(the number of planets is greater than seven).

Shouldn't we be making a de dicto/de re distinction with premises 2 and 3?

Yes, it's necessary that nine is greater than seven. No, it's not necessary that the number of planets is greater than seven; that is contingent. But Leibniz's law is misapplied because the necessity in 3 belongs to "the number of planets", which is 9. It doesn't belong to the planets, which number 9.

slayer

[Owen]

Owen: The facts presented by the world are interpreted as factual truth by the scientific methods.
The world presents situations not truth.

slayer: You seem to concede that the number of planets in our solar system, whatever it is, is a matter of fact. If it's a fact, then isn't it true that there are 9 (supposing 9 is the actual number) of planets in our solar system?

The state of affairs (situation) that includes the planetary presence, is stated by factual truth. The world presents the planets not their nine-ness. That there are nine planets is a conclusion that we infer. There is no physical object (9) which corresponds to the logical idea of nine!

slayer: You seem to be arguing that it's only true that the number is 9 within some system of decision. But suppose the actual number is 9 and our system allows us to say that it's true that the number is 9. Doesn't our system get it right? Doesn't it match up with how the world actually is?

We cannot know how the world actually is, without pesumptions.
We believe many things about the world before we can make any assertions (truths).

Owen: You may be interested in a 'number of planets' puzzle by Quine (1943) ...

1. The number of planets is nine,
2. Necessarily(nine is greater than seven),
therefore,
3. Necessarily(the number of planets is greater than seven).

slayer: Shouldn't we be making a de dicto/de re distinction with premises 2 and 3?

Why?

slayer: Yes, it's necessary that nine is greater than seven. No, it's not necessary that the number of planets is greater than seven; that is contingent. But Leibniz's law is misapplied because the necessity in 3 belongs to "the number of planets", which is 9. It doesn't belong to the planets, which number 9.

How is Leibnitz's Law misapplied?

Necessity, like truth, belongs to statements and not to objects.

I am the truth, is syntactic nonsense.

x=y -> (Fx <-> Fy), for all x, y, and F.

ie., (x=y & Fx) -> Fy.


Where [] is the necessity operator:

1. (the number of planets) = 9,
2. [](9 > 7),
therefore,
3. []((the number of planets) > 7).

This argument is an instance of Leibnitz's law.

(x=y & Fx) -> Fy.

Substitute: 9 for x, the number of planets for y,

1a. 9 = (the number of planets),
2a. [](9 > 7),
therefore,
3a. []((the number of planets) > 7).

Why do you think this argument is not true, if LL is true?

Are you denying Leibnitz's law for things like 'the number of planets'?

Owen

[slayer]

Owen,

Sorry, been busy lately and haven't had a chance to address your latest response. I must confess, I'm a formal logic tyro, but not so much so that I'm incapable of discussing Godel's 1943, as well as his similar 1960, argument. I do believe those arguments were offered against those espousing essentialism, not fatalism. That said, I don't think Godel succeeds. But, giving my argument will take me considerable time. I'm not balking though, I will give it, just not now. So, give me a week or so, and I should have it up.

For now, I need to give quick polemical responses to a few TBV regulars.

slayer