The function of the concept

[Nikolai1]

Hi Karl

 

 I think you believe that I believe that logic reveals some ultimate truth, but it doesn't. I've said that it only reveals what is false and not what is true at that point in time and space to the one using the logic.

As we've seen in the course of this discussion, when two premises are opposites, the conclusions that issue from them will be opposites too.  If the power of the logical argument is restricted to the peculiar time, place and personality of the logician and the premises he uses then it seems that the method is without much general usefulness. Is this so?

 

Logic provides a clear route to knowing what is fallacy that's all. It does not provide ultimate truths. 

Indeed, if the point of difference between the adversaries is at the premise then it seems that it can't even steer us towards the most commonplace of truths.  The ultimate that you speak of, in any given argument, IS the premise. It is that which is assumed; that which is believed to be true; that which we cannot even think to contradict and still stay sane.

 

 If you tell me that fairies roam the bottom of my garden then I shall tel, you I am not aware of them, but I would not challenge your belief that this is true for you. It is only when you say I should believe that varies exist that I go about with the spyglass of logic and my direct perceptions. 

You don't do this.  Rather, you simply present your own argument, which invariably issues from a quite different premise...and you call this argument 'the logical argument.'  Your whole attitude is of one trying to demystify.  You seem like someone on some kind of mission!

Edited August 17, 2015 by Nikolai1

[Karl]

Hi Karl

 

 

As we've seen in the course of this discussion, when two premises are opposites, the conclusions that issue from them will be opposites too.  If the power of the logical argument is restricted to the peculiar time, place and personality of the logician and the premises he uses then it seems that the method is without much general usefulness. Is this so?

 

 

Indeed, if the point of difference between the adversaries is at the premise then it seems that it can't even steer us towards the most commonplace of truths.  The ultimate that you speak of, in any given argument, IS the premise. It is that which is assumed; that which is believed to be true; that which we cannot even think to contradict and still stay sane.

 

 

You don't do this.  Rather, you simply present your own argument, which invariably issues from a quite different premise...and you call this argument 'the logical argument.'  Your whole attitude is of one trying to demystify.  You seem like someone on some kind of mission!

 

Of course it's useful, because reason is the only way to cross check reality in order to know a thing is a thing. That time shifts conclusions, doesn't alter the need for logic. I'm not concerned with scientific discussion, only the logic of words used in communication, as they appear conceptually. We have free will, we have to make choices based on what we perceive to be reality.

 

Yes, demystify.

 

 

[Brian]

<snip>

...reason is the only way to cross check reality...

<snip>

 

Why do you believe this to be true?

[Karl]

Why do you believe this to be true?

 

Because there is no other way of checking the validity of concepts other than by the use of reason.

[Brian]

 

Because there is no other way of checking the validity of concepts other than by the use of reason.

And you know this based on reason?

[Karl]

And you know this based on reason?

 

Please tell me we aren't going back around this loop again ?

 

[Brian]

I think "loop" is the operative word.

 

[Karl]

I think "loop" is the operative word.

 

Well then in the nicest of tones 'get stuffed' ;-)

[Brian]

Well then in the nicest of tones 'get stuffed' ;-)

As synchronicity would have it, I just finished eating a foot-long sub so you are right on time!

 

[Tibetan_Ice]

Karl, have you ever read

 

http://www.amazon.com/Franklin-Merrell-Wolffs-Experience-Philosophy-Transformation/dp/0791419649

 

?

[Bud Jetsun]

So the scientist accuses the mariner of an omission of experience.

The mariner accuses the scientist of logical error.

 

Which of these is right, according to logic?

 

 

Neither human construct they have created defines what is a dolphin.  Nor could it ever no matter how thoughtful the philosopher watching dolphins, or how meticulous the scientist dissects and analyzes all the tissues composing a dolphin.  They are still both limited to the bounds of being some humans perception limited observations and delusion-made thoughts. 

 

Both are equally true to the limit of a humans ability to know human-truths.  Both are equally non-Truth. 

 

There is no-thing to know.  Letting go of the illusion one ever held the capacity to know more than our perceptions of Now is taking another step closer to reality. 

 

Unlimited Love,

-Bud

[Karl]

Neither human construct they have created defines what is a dolphin.  Nor could it ever no matter how thoughtful the philosopher watching dolphins, or how meticulous the scientist dissects and analyzes all the tissues composing a dolphin.  They are still both limited to the bounds of being some humans perception limited observations and delusion-made thoughts. 

 

Both are equally true to the limit of a humans ability to know human-truths.  Both are equally non-Truth. 

 

There is no-thing to know.  Letting go of the illusion one ever held the capacity to know more than our perceptions of Now is taking another step closer to reality. 

 

Unlimited Love,

-Bud

 

No, the object called 'dolphin' is reality, there is a degree of subjectivity about the experience of the object labeled dolphin, but it exists independenly of your experience of it. You may have a subjective happy, scared on other reaction, or a link to a memory or other concept, which is equally real for you. We both experience the dolphin, but I may fear it and you may like it. These things are true for each of us.

[Karl]

Karl, have you ever read

http://www.amazon.com/Franklin-Merrell-Wolffs-Experience-Philosophy-Transformation/dp/0791419649]http://www.amazon.com/Franklin-Merrell-Wolffs-Experience-Philosophy-Transformation/dp/0791419649[/url]

?

No, I said I no longer do practices and neither do I read books on them. It's gone, past, I prefer interaction.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Karl

[Karl]

As synchronicity would have it, I just finished eating a foot-long sub so you are right on time!

 

Oh I hope the flea navy forgave you.

[Brian]

Only time will tell.

[Tibetan_Ice]

No, I said I no longer do practices and neither do I read books on them. It's gone, past, I prefer interaction.

Gee, Karl. My question was past tense. I wanted to know if you had ever read that book written by an academically trained philosopher and mathematician about his experiences and analysis of his enlightenment. It is not a book of practices.

 

But I guess you have answered my question and a whole lot more...

[Karl]

Gee, Karl. My question was past tense. I wanted to know if you had ever read that book written by an academically trained philosopher and mathematician about his experiences and analysis of his enlightenment. It is not a book of practices.

But I guess you have answered my question and a whole lot more...

It was not really on topic TI. I didn't see the connection between that and the value of concepts. I don't mind answering this stuff on another thread or PM if you want to.

 

Enlightenment is no big deal. IMO it doesn't require practices just a healthy mind.

Edited August 18, 2015 by Karl

[Tibetan_Ice]

It was not really on topic TI. I didn't see the connection between that and the value of concepts. I don't mind answering this stuff on another thread or PM if you want to.

Enlightenment is no big deal. IMO it doesn't require practices just a healthy mind.

Sorry for not not exposing the causal link between my question and the topic at hand, I thought that anyone interested in concepts and enlightenment would be familiar with Franklin Merrell Wolff's philosophy.

 

http://www.integralscience.org/wolffsheart.htm

 

The Nature of Concepts

 

In the Introduction we arrived at an apparent incompatibility between the ineffability of Realization, on the one hand, and the conceptual nature of philosophy, on the other. Put simply, because Realization is non-dual and conception is dual, it is not obvious how the two can be connected, how philosophy can be a Way of Realization. To dissolve this paradox, we will begin by examining the nature of concepts and conception.

 

In essence, a concept is an indication of some definite object or type of object. For example, the concept rock indicates a kind of object with certain properties. A rock is a hard, dense physical object that often has an irregular shape. It is larger than a grain of sand or pebble and smaller than a boulder or mountain. We learn the meaning of rock by learning these properties, or distinctions. We distinguish hard and soft, big and small, heavy and light. The concept rock is just a particular collection of such distinctions that we have learned to make in our experience. We then use these distinctions to identify whether or not a particular object is a rock. Implicit in the concept rock are all these distinctions. In addition to physical objects like rocks, concepts can also refer to mental objects. For example, a circle is a particular type of geometrical object that is distinguished from other objects by a set of properties, or distinctions. The word circle evokes these distinctions. Normally, we make the distinctions so quickly and automatically that the process is unconscious to us. Nevertheless, whether we are aware of it or not, at the root of every concept is at least one distinction that is used to define the concept through contrast with what it is not. Thus, every concept is inherently dualistic, and this is exactly what gives the concept a definite meaning.

 

If we examine our own experience of the act of conception, we find that it not only involves making distinctions, but also involves directing attention to the contents of those distinctions. To give a concrete example, consider this particular circle: O. For an instant, your attention was just focused in a small part of your visual field of awareness where the circle appears. In perceiving this circle, a distinction was drawn between that circle and everything else in your visual field of awareness. Attention was limited to that region of visual awareness within the distinction, and you momentarily ignored everything else. That act of ignoring a region of consciousness is what actually gives rise to the object and makes it stand out in consciousness. So, conception acts to create a distinction in consciousness and to limit attention to the contents of the distinction, ignoring the rest of awareness.

 

It is important to recognize that this ignorance of the rest of awareness does not destroy it or even alter it. When you look at that mark, it does not alter the rest of the visual field of awareness or make part of it literally disappear. The direction of attention to that mark is merely an ignoring of the rest of visual awareness, so that the mark is brought into contrast and made to stand out, or exist. The mark then appears as an object with a seeming existence distinct from Consciousness Itself. The world of objects, in other words, arises through a process of negation or ignorance, and its existence is a relative absence of Consciousness. As Wolff puts it:

 

"Thus the active, concrete, and perceptual consciousness is to be viewed as an arousal of specific awareness through a partial blanking out of the full and perfectly balanced consciousness of the Primordial State. As a result, the world of things, apparently given through the senses, is actually a domain of relative emptiness." (Experience, p. 261)

 

Thus, insofar as you are conscious of a world of objects, the conceptual process of ignoring part of consciousness is active. Even if you are not thinking, your very experience of the world is inherently conceptual since it is the conceptual process of making a distinction and ignoring the awareness outside the distinction that makes objects of experience appear.

 

Now, there is nothing inherently problematic about this partial blanking. It is a natural activity of Consciousness. As the Hindus say, it is the play of Lila, the dance of Shiva. However, if we are unconscious of this process, if we do not recognize our own activity of ignoring, then we will experience the objects as if they had their own objective reality, independent of consciousness. This is similar to psychological projection, where we experience our own unconscious psychological contents as objectively existing in other people. This is much more radical, though, since we are projecting onto the world the delusion that it is objectively real. Not only do objects arise as appearances in consciousness, but they also seem to be self-existent things, having their own inherent existence. This delusion is a kind of secondary overlay upon the primary universe. The primary universe is created through the process of conception, while the secondary overlay results from an unconsciousness of that creative process, making it appear as if the created objects were real. Because we are unconscious of our own process of conception, which by nature blanks out part of Reality, we think that the limited world defined and created by these concepts is the whole of Reality. We ignore the fact that conception is only an ignoring of part of Reality, and the result of this double ignorance is a kind of conceptual reductionism that makes us believe that the objective world is real and is all there is. We dream up a world, forget that we have dreamt it up, then are bound to live in it as if it were real. Naturally, we then suffer.

 

There are also theoretical problems that arise when we fall into the delusion that what is real is what can be conceptually defined, and no more. When we fall into this conceptual reductionism, we inevitably encounter paradoxes and contradictions. Naturally, these problems arise when we attempt to use concepts, which are limited, to describe all of Reality, which is not. For example, if we say Reality is ineffable, then we have used the word ineffable to describe it. But if it is truly ineffable, we can not describe it with any word, including ineffable. Similarly, if we say Reality is non-dual, then we have used the word non-dual to distinguish Reality from that which is dual. But if Reality is truly non-dual, then it is not distinct from anything, including the dual. Similar paradoxes arise with concepts like infinite, unconditioned, and Consciousness Without An Object.

 

These paradoxes and contradictions all arise when we strictly limit concepts to their explicit definitions, then forget this limitation and try to apply them to all of reality. This kind of conception, which is strictly limited to definition in terms of other concepts, creates a closed system. So there is no way for concepts to take us beyond conceptual understanding. This does not mean that there is nothing beyond conceptual understanding. It only means that concepts can not capture all of Reality. As Wolff puts it,

 

"The direct value of that Recognition is inexpressible and inconceivable in the sense of concepts meaning just what they are defined to mean and no more. "(Experience, p. 315)

 

Thus, because concepts are strictly limited to their definitions, they can not be applied to the indefinable, unlimited Reality without contradiction. The misguided attempt to apply concepts to Reality is a result of conceptual reductionism, a confusion of reality with what is conceivable. Similarly, our delusion of an objective world is a result of confusing reality with objects appearing through the process of conception.

 

The problem, however, is not with concepts themselves, or the fact that they are limited to strict definitions. The beauty of mathematics, for example, is due in part to the discipline of clearly and explicitly defining concepts, and rigorously adhering to those limited definitions. The source of the problem is with our attempt to apply these limited concepts to Reality, as if Reality were reducible to strictly defined concepts.

 

The above examination has been an attempt to clarify the nature of concepts and conception. Having seen exactly how the problems with concepts arise, we are now prepared to investigate how it is possible to transcend the limitations of concepts, and see how philosophy can be a door to Recognition.

 

 

Edited August 18, 2015 by Tibetan_Ice

[Karl]

Sorry for not not exposing the causal link between my question and the topic at hand, I thought that anyone interested in concepts and enlightenment would be familiar with Franklin Merrell Wolff's philosophy.http://www.integralscience.org/wolffsheart.htm

 

There is no 'projecting'. Everything appears in conscious awareness and subjective responses are attached and viewed in that same awareness.

 

It isn't science, it's perceptual distortion and the dismantling of cognition.

[Nikolai1]

Hi Karl

Of course it's useful, because reason is the only way to cross check reality in order to know a thing is a thing. That time shifts conclusions, doesn't alter the need for logic. I'm not concerned with scientific discussion, only the logic of words used in communication, as they appear conceptually. 

You talk about logic being the only way to cross-check reality.  How does this happen? The conceptual terms of the logical arguent - words - are themselves only symbols.  So how does the concept 'bridge the gap' to reality?

[Karl]

Hi Karl

 

You talk about logic being the only way to cross-check reality. How does this happen? The conceptual terms of the logical arguent - words - are themselves only symbols. So how does the concept 'bridge the gap' to reality?

You've been doing research I see :-)

 

Firstly I'm certainly not an expert in human cognition, so how we relate and form links internally is beyond my ability to explain. Get that out of the way early.

 

There is a branch of modern thinking (which is really old thinking) which posits it is the words themselves that create concretes and not the other way around which is unsound. Secondly, existence exists, a is a this is an axiom.

 

With that ground prepared we can then talk about the Trivium method as it pertains to words, or more correctly grammar. This is represented as: grammar --> logic --> rhetoric. The key to the input is definitions. Before any logic can be applied the definitions must be solid to the best of the ability to do so.

 

It is the definition that is often hijacked to create corrupted concepts "he who controls the definition, controls the argument". In critical thinking it's important to understand this to be the case. Definitions and concepts can be weaponised and used to control the way people think. Even the promotion of the Trivium itself must be challenged starting with that first axiom. Instead of reading books and listening to all other second hand information it's necessary to evaluate every bit of grammar first, before subjecting it to logical reasoning. It's like inspecting parts carefully before assembling a component.

 

One of the ways the church controlled people was the use of the classical trivium. This was the use of apriori definitions which were to be accepted by everybody without question. Logic was put prior to grammar which is a corruption as the mind doesn't work that way. It was a sleight of hand. In effect it put the 'why' of a thing first.

 

In NLP we were taught to use this frame all the time. Presentations always began with the 'why' and then the 'what'. It means certain presuppositions, definitions and concepts are controlled. The what that follows is then predetermined by the logic. As Milton Erickson often said 'artfully vague'. In other words bypass the usual learning sequence by design. Add confusion (a confused mind is easily manipulated) re order the learning process, use long rambling sentences that go nowhere in which commands are embedded.

 

We even used an adaption of Patanjali's yoga sutra to achieve the 'trainer state'.

Edited August 19, 2015 by Karl

[Nikolai1]

Firstly I'm certainly not an expert in human cognition, so how we relate and form links internally is beyond my ability to explain. Get that out of the way early. 

Is a concept a symbol or not?

[Karl]

Is a concept a symbol or not?

 

No. I wouldn't define it that way.

[Nikolai1]

Some consider the concept to be a representation of reality.

 

How do you define the concept?

[Karl]

Some consider the concept to be a representation of reality.

 

How do you define the concept?

 

The integration of two abstractions with similar characteristics.