reification and negation

[Apech]

.....Ditto..... Close thread, make tea. I thought you wanted an open discussion and not confirmation ?

 

 

Is this microagression?  (I've just licked up this term from a Guardian article and so am want to use it).

[Apech]

I don't think I ascribe to either the total independence of beings but also not to their total inter-dependence either.  In relation to others I think it is crucial to maintain one's own integrity and balance.  Otherwise it's not possible to form relationships that are healthy.

[Brian]

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 ?

'Tis truly unfortunate that you have chosen to lock yourself into a hamstrung 23-century-old philosophy and reject everything learned since. You don't do yourself any favors. I opted to cease attempting to reach you after you told me you had no use for more advanced forms of logic and then tried to use NLP on me but I'll jump back in if you'd like...

 

[Apech]

'Tis truly unfortunate that you have chosen to lock yourself into a hamstrung 23-century-old philosophy and reject everything learned since. You don't do yourself any favors. I opted to cease attempting to reach you after you told me you had no use for more advanced forms of logic and then tried to use NLP on me but I'll jump back in if you'd like...

 

 

Is he time traveller?

[ilumairen]

In relation to others I think it is crucial to maintain one's own integrity and balance.  Otherwise it's not possible to form relationships that are healthy.

 

[Brian]

 

Is he time traveller?

Nash, just fixated on Aristotelian logic as he understands it. It becomes quite tedious at times.

 

EDIT: Looks like A&P has this covered, though, so I'll continue to watch from the sidelines.

Edited January 25, 2016 by Brian

[Karl]

I don't think I ascribe to either the total independence of beings but also not to their total inter-dependence either.  In relation to others I think it is crucial to maintain one's own integrity and balance.  Otherwise it's not possible to form relationships that are healthy.

 

In that sense absolutely. I meant independent identity not independence from other things or people. If I believed in being a hermit I'm not doing a very good job of it :-)

[Karl]

'Tis truly unfortunate that you have chosen to lock yourself into a hamstrung 23-century-old philosophy and reject everything learned since. You don't do yourself any favors. I opted to cease attempting to reach you after you told me you had no use for more advanced forms of logic and then tried to use NLP on me but I'll jump back in if you'd like...

 

I think you will discover your philosophy predates mine. Objectivism is built on Aristotlian philosophy, but it's most definitely 20th century in regard to its progression.

 

Your 'attempting to reach me' is the equivalent of a preacher with a Bible threatening hell and damnation if I reject your beliefs, so, no thanks on that, but by all means jump in.

 

As for 'doing myself favours'. 'Big, nay, huge raspberry'. Get a life Brian and quit acting like a Guru.

 

Not sure where I tried to use NLP on you-naughty if I did, but then I cannot claim I'm anything other than mortal.

[Apech]

In that sense absolutely. I meant independent identity not independence from other things or people. If I believed in being a hermit I'm not doing a very good job of it :-)

 

Bright star, would I were stedfast as thou art--- 

Not in lone splendour hung aloft the night 

And watching, with eternal lids apart, 

Like nature's patient, sleepless Eremite ...

[Karl]

Well, what I see you doing stylistically is similar to what Ayn Rand did stylistically. On the one hand, it tends to work fairly well if you have people who are tuned-in to the terms you use. On the other hand, if people are not tuned-into the meanings of the terms you use there tends to be an increased occurrence of misunderstandings and disconnects.

 

I think I first encountered Ayn Rand when I was in my sophomore year of high school. I thought she was interesting and had merits and I still continue to like a number of her ideas. However, I find their utility best when they are viewed as mathematics structures that can be applied. Most people have a viscerally negative reaction to Ayn Rand because she put terms out that were highly specific but at odds with common language.

 

I am now a college graduate and I have spent all of my years between now and high school looking intensively into the stuff of philosophy, linguistics, and mathematics. The main thing that I have found, stylistically, is that communication is easier if you help people transition into your terms and point of view. So, on this point, being aware of indeterminancy in language use: the psycho-linguistic and phenomenological side of language, it is easier to relate ideas to other people and guide other people into thinking (or at least working-with) the terms you are using.

 

I know Rand's terms, it proceeds kind of like Euclidean geometry where we have things like independent and identity and their combination in the composite phrase "independent identity" and from the semantics which are imparted to this composite term (by virtue of the semantics attached to the undefined terms which compose it) we can proceed to make meaning in a style befitting of an axiomatic system.

 

This is fine. I don't have a problem with it. The issue is not with the specific formal language that is applied but the manner in which it is applied. Hence, in the shanlung thread I dropped some links for the idea of holophrastic indeterminancy, semiotics, and coding theory because human language (and it's users) don't cleanly interface with closed axiomatic systems.

 

Edit: addition: and by "cleanly interface", I mean that language, as a medium, is far more extensive than a closed axiomatic system. Most people won't zoom into the stuff of the system and stay there, they will move in and out of it and bring things unrelated to it to bear upon it. This is a feature of typical language use. Syntax is present but semantics drive the process.

 

I get that and Inagree you are correct in the sense of being tuned into that terminology. I'm not keen to use mathematical language as it is an abstract. We didn't all grow up with Euclidean geometry either. we know certain words. Neither independent or identity are unknown, or difficult to define, but we, as a human race, have yet to get a more accurate system for communicating ideas. If we say 'tree' then we know to some extent what type of thing we are discussing. Do we really need a long list of specific mathematical terms that describes every facet of every type of tree from a million different shoe trees, family trees, biological trees ? The whole point of concepts is the way we can compress something into a word which encapsulates the concept.

 

That said, a lot of what you said about holophtastic language went right over my head. I'm not a detail kind of person. I don't make watches, but could construct a sun dial. You would need to use this language yourself and you don't-which kind of days it all.

[ilumairen]

 

As for 'doing myself favours'. 'Big, nay, huge raspberry'. Get a life Brian and quit acting like a Guru.

 

I like Brian's posts.

[Karl]

I like Brian's posts.

 

Well it isn't against the law.

 

[Karl]

Nash, just fixated on Aristotelian logic as he understands it. It becomes quite tedious at times.

EDIT: Looks like A&P has this covered, though, so I'll continue to watch from the sidelines.

 

Little side swipe there eh Brian. You stay on those sidelines. Good boy.

[ilumairen]

Topic... there is a topic.

[Marblehead]

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.

I'm not suggesting that doing so is wrong but I will say that it is very dangerous.  Too much of that and you could be one of those in need.

[Marblehead]

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)

I think that the word "enough" is key.  When we have enough we can then share our excess with others.

 

The giver still has enough and the receiver has more than they previously had.

[Marblehead]

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

For sure.

 

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

Yes.

 

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.

No.

[Marblehead]

Nothing in reality is independent.

True.  But yet everything is special and unique.

[Brian]

 

I like Brian's posts.

[Brian]

Little side swipe there eh Brian. You stay on those sidelines. Good boy.

Yeah...

 

On second thought...

 

When I have nothing better to do, I'll address you. Perhaps tomorrow. I suspect there are a few members here who don't see you for what you are. I'll treat it as a public service.

Edited January 26, 2016 by Brian

[3bob]

hey MH, they say reification is a noun, but has a verb form thus we have another Veroun, holy shit, but it's still not as sexy as a tachyon.    (which must near the top of the pile!)

[Brian]

 

hey MH, they say reification is a noun, but has a verb form thus we have another Veroun, holy shit, but it's still not as sexy as a tachyon. (which must near the top of the pile!)

I was always fond of the strange quark...

[Karl]

Yeah...

On second thought...

When I have nothing better to do, I'll address you. Perhaps tomorrow. I suspect there are a few members here who don't see you for what you are. I'll treat it as a public service.

 

Ooh goody, addressed by Brian, I can hardly wait.

 

I'm Luke's dad, it isn't any secret these days. Everyone knows what lies beneath Darth Vaders mask. ;-)

 

Let it go Brian. Turning this into some kind of personal feud is boring, destructive and unnecessary.

 

 

[Marblehead]

hey MH, they say reification is a noun, but has a verb form thus we have another Veroun, holy shit, but it's still not as sexy as a tachyon.    (which must near the top of the pile!)

Yea!  More bi-sexual words!   Actually, tachyon would be an oxymoron too.

 

 

I think I would have to argue against reification being a noun though.  There's verb written all over it.

[3bob]

well being or having a tachyon sounds like some kind of medical condition although I'll with-hold judgment on the matter for now, btw. how are your 'free radicals' doing if you don't mind me asking?