julianlaboy

Saludos, amigo! What kind of practice are you interested in?

Hello, again! "rather than not thinking about what we do not want, we focus on thinking about what we do want", what about non-conscious thoughts? In my opinion, "want" is more complicated than that. We would have to bring awareness and mindfulness, and their different degrees and differences between people, to the conversation. I'm only telling this to show again that I support individual differences in the whole consensus argument. "to be congruent you would think that the absolute meaning of a word stems from its use... and is set each time it is used.... and if the listener use, corresponds to the speakers use, then the listener understands what the speaker stated otherwise the listener understands whatever story the listener chooses to construct": I disagree. There is no absolute meaning to a word, other than what we coordinate the word (its content) to be. Again, there are co-ordinations (other word for consensus) of meanings between us. We are still in a world full of language and different construction of words, but things change and have a history and circumstances that again bring change (sometimes). I don't see how that would turn me an absolutist. Things are not set each time they are used because we have some preconceptions about what "things" are. Everything probably just is, but we do see "things" or "objects" specifically as humans. We define them and we find uses to them based on their definitions (which may vary from person to person, from time to time, etc.) and vice-versa. Because of our need and use of language (which is relative to many things) I think is really difficult, if not impossible, to go beyond our condition of humans living in a language world and explain, think, talk, etc., of what those "things" or "objects" really are. That's the point here, we think, explain, talk, etc., in language (again, which is relative to many things) and there may not be an exit to that (other than the whole "enlightened" thing that I'm sad to say have not experienced).

I am from Puerto Rico! Tough things happening on Mexico's politics. I have a friend posting a lot of pictures of people burning voting ballots !! Ok, let's go. Hehe... "this is actually just an example of how individuals 'unilaterally' and arbitrarily determine stuff for themselves (rather than follow a consensus approach)", and I agree completely. Individuality and creativity are not ignored in the consensus approach. You used the example of an apple, and I imagine a red or green kind of circle (debatable, hehe) that tastes tart (love the green ones), that have thicker skin that other fruits (hate the things on red ones), etc. There is a consensus for the ideal/statistical apple (that's how we understand each other). But my apple had a stick and a leaf, and some may imagine the thing with tree and all or with whatever changes, including color, taste, etc. "the absolute meaning of a word stems from it use...": I agree, but I thinks that that "absolute" stems from the consensus (so it's really a relative). Its use is what a (what we call) human uses it for. Some eat apples, others drink it, others ignore it, etc. I didn't know what ROTFLOL meant. I learned, thanks to you, what its utility is for and, by reaching a consensus (by agreeing with the definition and your use- and other's), I accept and will use it in a similar way that you did. You mentioned dyslexia. People with brain lesions (for example, frontal lobe lesions which "impairs the use of reason" if heavily "damaged") may think differently and have problems with our consensus of how things are. Because of their difficulty with maintaining our consensus (of words, meanings, intentions, all kinds of content) some people say that they are "out of reality". We see change in them because they no longer find useful our ways of seeing things. However, they still live in a world of language, so what changes in them is how they prefer to use it. That's why we "see" personality changes, emotional and rational changes, among others. Brains are maps that come and go, and no specific area relates absolutely to a function like "reason", for example. That's why you may have a lesion in the frontal lobe (strongly correlated to the use of reason), but still "use reason". It's just a different way of using it, but still in the world of consensus. How we interpret it is just something else. I don't know if I am making sense anymore. I have to sleep and go to work. hehe Oh! And of course, "I hold we need to be careful with what we think so that we cultivate what we desire to cultivate rather than the opposite": I agree. (Edit) I feel like I'm rambling through different ideas... Sorry!

ROTFLOL !!?? Hahaha I said sorry out of courtesy because you had to give me some of your time for such a silly question, hehe. Where are you from? I thought et-thoughts was because of ET, the movie. "The idea that what we have made results from a consensus disregards the fact that to accurately evaluate something we have to first accurate recreating it". I still hold that we first "create" out of what we intend/perceive/mean/understand we have. I don't believe we are re-creating anything. That still can manage to argue in favor of our language (not just words) consensus and the whole intend/perceive/meaning comment. Again, I probably am speaking as an "unenlightened". However, we are born in a world of language and that is why we can think of something and still manage to write that I didn't think about it. We are still focusing and understanding what is going on, but in a relative manner. I think of something when I hear/see/smell/taste/feel what we call an apple. But I cannot go beyond our senses (mind-body/emotions-reason) and give it a truly objective and absolute nature/conceptualization. If what we call a pion (subatomic particle) could have eyes, the whole apple-is-something thing probably wouldn't make sense to it. The pion would only see a chaotic kind of pattern (or so we think).

I agree that "There is no meaning of life and there is no meaning of numbers". Because of that I don't agree that life and numbers have purposes. At least I am not in a position as a human being to know that.

Agreed.

As much as I would like it, I don't think those kind of patterns "are there" out of necessity, as you say. I do think is a chance thing. But I respect and value your opinion and, as I said before, I may be wrong. As et-thoughts said, it may be a topic for the enlightened to know.

I agree also with you when you speak of "the enlightened". That is why I said that I simply can't say anything about what goes beyond language. As for the reconciliation of the following: - considering stuff "out there" or "exists independetly of" - the notion that there are no "correct" or "normal" perceptions. I would say that we are creating worlds (no translating anything, which also is a response to the first post by Everything). We create a world (or worlds) made of consensus of what we call correct or normal, for example, the notion that there is an "out there" and so on. Going beyond that also leaves us to the "enlightened" theme. When you say "where as I believe that there exists a bit more interplay taking place... that is beliefs tints what we conceptualize and experience as we conceptualize and experience stuff... sometimes even changing the experiences altogether", I do not think we are thinking differently. And, what is "FWIIW" ? Sorry, Spanish is my primary language and haven't seen that yet. hehe

We are not speaking at different angles. I agree with that. That is what I meant when speaking of "structural coupling".

I agree that math is just a language used to describe an aspect of reality. In my opinion we live in a world full of language (and language is not just words). When speaking about what's out there, or what exists independently of us, I think we cannot say anything. Just feel and maybe make some assumptions and inferences. I need more people like all of you in the island I live!!

I don't think we can go outside language. Maybe it's because I haven't had a moment that would change my opinion; I cannot say. And hey! I want an update on the toilet thing!

et-thoughts, love the name! hehe There is so much to talk about! I understood everything you said, don't worry. I see subtle differences in what we think; we share a lot. The concept of "knowledge" is very important here. I do think that knowledge exists within a mind-body. I don't consider the notion of "out there" or "exists independetly of" as absurd. It is very practical and we can hold it up to a point. As you say, "The ideal can help us be more than we can be...". As I said to joeblast, the problem resides in the absolute and final manner in which we can be sure that we can point to (or think of) something and explain that "that" is "something a priori". I love that "some of what is out there has everything to do with what we are" phrase. You are absolutely right and that's why I speak of a mind-body. In my humble opinion, it is impossible to explain or define something without making reference to something else. You also say that "beliefs tints what one could perceive, which sometimes its a blessing and sometimes its a curse". I agree, but I would be more careful saying that because I don't think that there are "correct" or "normal" perceptions. There are indeed consensus and that's why we say we understand each other. But that's completely statistical. Beliefs tints what one could perceive, but that happens after we conceptualize (consciously or not) a world (or worlds). If I made things worse and made things confusing, sorry. I wanted to cover various things from your comments and got exited and maybe talked very incoherently, hehe.

You are absolutely right when you said "euclidean geometry was not refuted...", etc. When I posted that I immediately wanted to change it but meeeeeeh. That whole not-"the"-geometry point was what I wanted to communicate. The same happened with Einstein and his Theory of Relativity (special and more or less general) as you mentioned. And the same happened with the new set of rules given by quantum mechanics. I wanted to emphasize how change tends to define our rules. What I was thinking was that maybe a reality exists independently of ourselves, but I just cannot say in an absolute and final manner that it does because we are indeed limited by being what we call a mind-body and however we describe it. We perceive it in the way that you say, and I agree. I also maintain that thusness exists. But I say it in my frame of reference as a human being (again a concept with different meanings...). I feel that I cannot say anything beyond that level of relationships. I'm speaking of something beyond changing the word "two" for "owt" but having the same rule. That's why I included the word ontology in the Subject. Objectivity is something that I fear cannot be explained without reference to ourselves as we view ourselves (pardon my redundancy). And of course, best of luck with that toilet!! They are indeed tricky, hehe..

Today I talked with a friend of mine about mathematics. In general, he was saying that the content of math exists "out there". That we gave names to numbers and equations, but that it does not need us to exist. Numbers and their rules exist "a priori" (before we even know about them) rather than "a posteriori" (math needing us and how we experience it). He said the same about abstract/analytical logic. Math exists out there. I said that math is just a game. We set the rules, we give names and that now exists by its own. Numbers and their rules have a circular manner to them because that is our way of explaining how we experience what we call the world. Euclidean geometry was refuted by present-day geometry, physics is giving way to certain "nonsense", among other examples of how numbers and math change with time. Of course, 2 + 2 = 4, and an alien will get it. But that will happen only when we explain (if they could understand our language) that game's rules. To my understanding, it's impossible to go beyond what we are (mind-body + structurally coupling with our circumstances). Because of that, saying that there is an ideal 2, or an ideal 4, or an ideal 2 + 2 = 4 is outside of what we can say about what we call world. I believe that there is a problem with saying what is "out there" because what is out there has everything to do with what we are. What do you think?

And it worked. Hi and nice to meet you. You'll see very deep thoughts here!