reification and negation

[Marblehead]

You sure know a lot about me (you think).

You realise this is just another version of subjectivism ?

All thoughts are subjective.  That's just the way life is.  To experience without thought is objective.

 

Living without subjective thought could be said to be a no brainer.

 

That you actually accept what you described as BS, but you just don't happen to like that particular version because it didn't make sense to you. So you found one that you preferred.

Well, of course.  Everyone does that.  (Yes, you too.)

 

If you doubt you can know, then by inference you can't know. You have closed out the question, by begging the question. This is because you asked 'why?' Before 'what?' The why is in consciousness, the what is existence. In other words you have created a loop in which it is actually the primacy of consciousness that powers your philosophy, but you have chosen not to see it that way.

Oh, we can know some things.  No faith required.  I rarely ask "Why?" anymore.  But I do indeed ask "What?".  What is more important than why.  What is the objective, why is the subjective.

 

Oh, I see how I have established my philosophy.  But that is all subjective.  There first be a me who is conscious (objective) before we can start thinking about anything.

 

You believe existence exists but you don't believe you can know it. Therefore you do not believe what you claim to believe. You cannot prove to yourself beyond all doubt that existence is primary, because you don't believe you have the faculty to know. That is pure faith and not reason.

Existence existed before I was born.  I didn't make existence happen.  Now, consciously aware I do know some things.  But even my knowing is subjective.

 

Of course I have stated numerous times that existence does not depend on me.  The universe existed for 16.7 billion years before I was born.

 

I do not operate on faith.  Don't be mistaken.  That is why I have said many time to question everything.

 

Now stop pretending that you know so much about me.  Sometimes I don't even know myself.

 

 

 

Yours is the hardest of prisons, the highest and thickest of all walls.

[Apech]

Thanks for the clarification of your positions. My primary point of interest lies in our relationship with ourselves, and our relationship(s) with others.

 

 

This you mean in terms of reification and negation?

 

Perhaps you are talking about how we place ourselves in relation to the needs of others - to what extent we negate our own selves and needs for the benefit of others and so on?  If so, I think the irony of all this is that although the benefit of others is perhaps the highest good and what we should wish for, it is not achievable by diminishing our selves.  In fact the even odder thing that I have found is that the more I focus on benefitting others - the more positive I become about myself.  The more I focus on my selfish needs the more diminished I become.  But I think this depends on some profundity.

 

What I mean by this is that I don't really care about what other people need or want.  I think their needs and wants reflect their own confusion.  So I have no interest in supporting that.  So for instance I might see picture of some refugees in a boat in the Med and feel sympathy for their plight and so on - but at the same time I know that their own appetites or desires have led them there.  So I don't have to fall into some kind of emotive identification, guilt or other entanglement.

 

So in terms of our relationship with ourselves - well in a way what else have we got?  While we might negate some of the dross we have picked up - ideas, feelings, habits, inherited characteristics and so on - we won't get very far by negating ourselves.  But on the other hand if we just dwell on the idea of our selves being ultimately real we could fall into some kind solipsism. Whatever it is that our 'selves' actually are is a great and paradoxical mystery - and really that's how it should remain - because to fall too easily into either affirmation or negation is just a way of copping out of the great mystery.  If we open up to the mystery then it becomes something that just keeps on giving - deeper and deeper insight and greater and greater worth - infinite in fact (which is one way of saying what we really are).

 

Sorry if this rambles off the point

Edited January 25, 2016 by Apech

[3bob]

anyone going nuts yet?

[Karl]

You sure know a lot about me (you think).

 

All thoughts are subjective. That's just the way life is. To experience without thought is objective.

 

Living without subjective thought could be said to be a no brainer.

 

 

Well, of course. Everyone does that. (Yes, you too.)

 

 

Oh, we can know some things. No faith required. I rarely ask "Why?" anymore. But I do indeed ask "What?". What is more important than why. What is the objective, why is the subjective.

 

Oh, I see how I have established my philosophy. But that is all subjective. There first be a me who is conscious (objective) before we can start thinking about anything.

 

 

Existence existed before I was born. I didn't make existence happen. Now, consciously aware I do know some things. But even my knowing is subjective.

 

Of course I have stated numerous times that existence does not depend on me. The universe existed for 16.7 billion years before I was born.

 

I do not operate on faith. Don't be mistaken. That is why I have said many time to question everything.

 

Now stop pretending that you know so much about me. Sometimes I don't even know myself.

I don't know anything about you MH accept you are an ex soldier of maturing years that lives as free a life as he can. However, you have presented an argument so I'm not mind reading, or guessing what your philosophy is. It's abundantly clear to me, even if it isn't to you. Don't mistake your lack of comprehension as being mine. If you present me with an argument 2+2=whatever whimsical number enters ones mind, then I have it figured. If you say 2+2=whatever the Dao, God, or the spaghetti monster says it does, then I get that too.

 

And you do question 'everything' and that has become your mantra.

 

How do you know existence exists ? How do you know that existence existed before you were born ? How can you know anything if you think it's subjective and therefore must be continually questioned ? It's the same as saying 'i can't know anything for certain'. If you say that you can know some things for certain then how can they be subjective ? Only if you believe everything is subjective.

 

It's like you have a big blackboard on which you have written a long argument to prove proof. You work all the way down to the bottom and conclude that proof must be proven, so then you erase the argument and begin again. You cannot have proof of proof. It is pointless to become an extremist in questioning everything because by 'questioning everything' you are actually saying that nothing can be known, everything is subjective.

 

The objectivist philosophy rejects materialism. Materialism is deterministic and subjectivist. As peikoff says 'as if the mind was just a series of glandular squirtings'.

Edited January 25, 2016 by Karl

[Karl]

anyone going nuts yet?

 

Eating nuts. Raw almonds at present .....or are they ?

[Apech]

anyone going nuts yet?

 

... and now you ask that question?

[3bob]

well sometimes we even get to have our nuts and eat them to...

 

btw, it seems most nuts are fairly safe if they are fun.

[Marblehead]

anyone going nuts yet?

No, but I have some in the cupboard.

[Marblehead]

How do you know existence exists ?

We are not going there.  That's Buddhist stuff.

 

The objectivist philosophy rejects materialism.

Just goes to show how screwed up they are.

 

 

Materialism is deterministic and subjectivist.

Absolutely the opposite.

 

As peikoff says 'as if the mind was just a series of glandular squirtings'.

He or she needs to go back to bed.

[Marblehead]

Eating nuts. Raw almonds at present .....or are they ?

 

Maybe.

[Karl]

We are not going there.  That's Buddhist stuff.

 

 

Just goes to show how screwed up they are.

 

 

 

Absolutely the opposite.

 

 

He or she needs to go back to bed.

 

But you said existence existed before you were born, or exists now. Then how do you know that to be true ? You have to begin with something. The bottom line. An axiomatic truth. I'm not asking you to prove existence (it can't be done, it's an axiom).

 

So, if you begin with 'existence exists' then you know because you are conscious of existence. Consciousness is the axiomatic corollary to existence. One implies the other.

 

If you insist that existence exists is only a subjective thought, then you are saying that it is consciousness that is primary. That is in conflict with your claim that existence existed before you existed.

 

I'm not trying to prove you are wrong, I'm pointing out the conflict in your argument. When I ask you to account for the conflict you are unable to do so. You say it Buddhist which is ironic really.

 

Do you, or do you not accept existence and consciousness as an axiomatic objective truths-as irreducible primaries ? Let's at least see if we can get agreement on that before jumping to the conclusion that it's 'screwed up' philosophy as you put it.

 

 

[Marblehead]

But you said existence existed before you were born, or exists now. Then how do you know that to be true ? You have to begin with something. The bottom line. An axiomatic truth. I'm not asking you to prove existence (it can't be done, it's an axiom).

It's called logic Karl.  Ever heard of it?  I was born.  Therefore someone had to have given me birth.  I know for a fact that it was my mother.  Therefore there was existence prior to my birth.

 

So, if you begin with 'existence exists' then you know because you are conscious of existence. Consciousness is the axiomatic corollary to existence. One implies the other.

I'll buy that, but only if the price is right.

 

If you insist that existence exists is only a subjective thought, then you are saying that it is consciousness that is primary. That is in conflict with your claim that existence existed before you existed.

You have incorrectly understood what I have said.  Existence is objective.  Has nothing to do with my thoughts.  Remember, it existed before I was born.

 

And besides, my mother existed before I was born.  That's proof of existence existing before I was born.

I'm not trying to prove you are wrong,

You can't prove me wrong because I am right.

 

I'm pointing out the conflict in your argument. When I ask you to account for the conflict you are unable to do so. You say it Buddhist which is ironic really.

The conflict is with your understanding of what I am saying.  There is no conflict.

 

 

Do you, or do you not accept existence and consciousness as an axiomatic objective truths-as irreducible primaries ?

Of course.  Duh!

 

Let's at least see if we can get agreement on that before jumping to the conclusion that it's 'screwed up' philosophy as you put it.

The universe exists objectively.  What I might think of it is subjective.

[ilumairen]

Oh my stars! This debate :looking at Karl trying to stuff MH into a word-box he refuses (it's that thing again ): is not what I had in mind. Although I understand many people reify their own ideas in such a manner.

Edited January 25, 2016 by ilumairen

[Apech]

Oh my stars! This debate :looking at Karl trying to stuff MH into a word-box he refuses (it's that thing again ): is not what I had in mind. Although I understand many people reify their own ideas in such a manner.

 

 

What did you have in mind.

[ilumairen]

This you mean in terms of reification and negation?

 

Perhaps you are talking about how we place ourselves in relation to the needs of others - to what extent we negate our own selves and needs for the benefit of others and so on?  If so, I think the irony of all this is that although the benefit of others is perhaps the highest good and what we should wish for, it is not achievable by diminishing our selves.  In fact the even odder thing that I have found is that the more I focus on benefitting others - the more positive I become about myself.  The more I focus on my selfish needs the more diminished I become.  But I think this depends on some profundity.

 

What I mean by this is that I don't really care about what other people need or want.  I think their needs and wants reflect their own confusion.  So I have no interest in supporting that.

 

 

 

 

So in terms of our relationship with ourselves - well in a way what else have we got?  While we might negate some of the dross we have picked up - ideas, feelings, habits, inherited characteristics and so on - we won't get very far by negating ourselves.  But on the other hand if we just dwell on the idea of our selves being ultimately real we could fall into some kind solipsism. Whatever it is that our 'selves' actually are is a great and paradoxical mystery - and really that's how it should remain - because to fall too easily into either affirmation or negation is just a way of copping out of the great mystery.  If we open up to the mystery then it becomes something that just keeps on giving - deeper and deeper insight and greater and greater worth - infinite in fact (which is one way of saying what we really are).

 

Sorry if this rambles off the point

 

Actually your 'ramble' addresses that which is of interest to me. Thank you.

[Apech]

Actually your 'ramble' addresses that which is of interest to me. Thank you.

 

 

Do you wish to discuss further?

[ilumairen]

Do you wish to discuss further?

 

Yes, very much so. I too have lost much of my desire to 'help' - in the way I formerly was taught and understood the role I accepted as mine, and used to define (reify) myself which paradoxically was through negation of myself.

 

 

[ilumairen]

What did you have in mind.

 

An open discussion about how people applied that which is both reifying of self/other, that which is negating of self/other, and hopefully a middle ground where the pendulum hasn't swung so drastically and experience is allowed to just be.

 

(and for myself, more clarity on when the pendulum should swing a bit more)

[Karl]

The universe exists objectively.  What I might think of it is subjective.

 

There in lies the heart of the conflict. Maybe this is more semantics or definitions ?

 

Subjective-meaning your understanding is influenced by your tastes and feeling.

 

Does that apply to the laws of gravity, the laws of motion, thermodynamics, chemistry, biology, physics or your need for food and air for instance. Are all these things influenced by your tastes and feelings ?

 

 

 

 

 

[Karl]

Oh my stars! This debate :looking at Karl trying to stuff MH into a word-box he refuses (it's that thing again ): is not what I had in mind. Although I understand many people reify their own ideas in such a manner.

 

Not at all, why think like that ? I don't understand his argument, or him mine, and in order that we can continue we need a platform, a base from which we can agree on, otherwise we could be talking Apples vs Oranges.

 

 

[Karl]

An open discussion about how people applied that which is both reifying of self/other, that which is negating of self/other, and hopefully a middle ground where the pendulum hasn't swung so drastically and experience is allowed to just be.

 

(and for myself, more clarity on when the pendulum should swing a bit more)

 

Self is self. A thing is a thing. Another person is a a thing also. Both are objective independent identities, in reality, existent and we are conscious of both self and others.

[ilumairen]

Not at all, why think like that ? I don't understand his argument, or him mine, and in order that we can continue we need a platform, a base from which we can agree on, otherwise we could be talking Apples vs Oranges.

 

I know you aren't understanding. You have reified positions to defend that negate the ability to understand.

[Karl]

Nothing in reality is independent.

 

Let me repeat 'independent identity'-before this becomes a mass of equivocations about causality and sophism.

[Karl]

I know you aren't understanding. You have reified positions to defend that negate the ability to understand.

 

.....Ditto.....

Close thread, make tea.

I thought you wanted an open discussion and not confirmation ?

[Karl]

I don't deal in equivocations about causality and sophism. My issue is not with your stance but your use of language relative to your stance. I guess ultimately it doesn't matter---I just like having a more direct and telegraphed interaction with the properties of language when special issues are presented...

 

Pray enlighten me. Are you suggesting a more precise conceptual language for philosophic discussion than we currently use ?

 

I did specifically state 'independent identity' and not a less precise 'independence' that is open to generalisation-though in the context of the discussion it should have been relatively obvious (but that I admit is only my assumption that my communication is sufficiently-perhaps it is not).