Absoluteness

[Jim D.]

Here I am looking at you which your mage is received by my retna and neurologically messaged to my CNS where it is encoded and in turn, may cause a retrieval off stored impressions, let's say from past experiences, depending on how close my experience of you colates with my past experiences, causing me to believe that I can trust my preception of you, when in fact everything about me or the "i" tries to objectify you.

 

There can never be absolute kowledge, only conjecture on what is insubstantial and changing.

 

JD

[Karl]

Thats just sophism/skepticism.

 

You are saying that you can't know reality directly. That nothing can be proven because no reality can be known. Then you make an argument based on nothing at all. You can be safely ignored. You are saying because I have eyes I am blind, because I have ears I am deaf, because I have a mind I am ignorant.

 

Do you understand that proof relies on known reality, if you deny that you can know reality then you can never have proof of any kind of argument.

 

This is the fallacy of the stolen concept. That you rely on truth to deny there being any truth. That you rely on reason to deny reason. That you rely on logic to deny logic.

 

You say there are no absolutes whilst uttering an absolute.

 

Existence is absolute, reality is absolute, human life is absolute, a grain of sand is absolute, being hungry is an absolute.

Edited June 20, 2016 by Karl

[Daeluin]

I see a lot of absolute statements in this thread.

 

Can y'all back up your statements without trying to sound so absolutely right?

[Jim D.]

I need to know Karl how it is that it can be said that:
 

Existence is absolute, reality is absolute, human life is absolute, a grain of sand is absolute, being hungry is an absolute.  This where I will shut up and listen. When the student is ready, the teacher appears. Break it down for me like I am in your Introduction to Philosophy class :-)   And try not to talk over my head by using big words and complicated concepts. It will derail my thought process. Contrary to you assumption, I'm happy to share with you that I will turn 70 at the end of this month...and I am still open to learning, lectures are no longer interesting to me. So, please take each statement and break it down for me.

 

I think that we have both established our Philosophical beliefs. Now it is time to expand on what we know and don't know.

 

JD

[Jim D.]

Addendum: Too make it a little easier to answer, I am only saying that reality as seen by a human being is already distorted by its ability to think, judge, remember, feel, and share. Its like having a chain of persons who start out at the beginning sharing a message with the first person next to them, who passes it on to the next person, and so on. Before you know it after 10 people pass the message, the message gets distorted so badly that it does not appear to be the initial message shared at all.

 

The body system is even more complex.

 

JD

[Karl]

Reality is not distorted, we perceive it directly (and before we end up in what about hallucinations/dreams/drug induced distortions then let's accept that we have and know the definitions of those concepts-in other words when we say 'what about dreams' ? We already have differentiated dreaming from being awake.)

 

I cover the basics here:

 

http://www.thedaobums.com/topic/40966-objectivism-101/

 

I have yet to finish the work, but it is finished sufficiently to answer your specific question in a logical sequence.

 

It begins by defining philosophy and the axiomatic nature of existence, consciousness and identity. It's as simple as I can make it and you can ask questions on the thread-some may have already been asked by others.

 

I feel it important to add that this isn't about accepting an ideology called 'objectivism', if you did that, then, you would simply be adding to the clutter. I should say that I took Peikoffs course in logic prior to grasping the fundamentals of the objectivist argument. I then studied the history of philosophy in order that I could see what other philosophers had written.

 

I'm nearing 60, so not a youngster, but my mind is more active than my body was as a child-which is definitely a good thing ;-)

Edited June 21, 2016 by Karl

[Daeluin]

A large consciousness is idle and spacey; a small consciousness is cramped and circumspect. Big talk is bland and flavorless; petty talk is detailed and fragmented. We sleep and our spirits converge; we awake and our bodies open outward. We give, we receive, we act, we construct: all day long we apply our minds to struggles against one thing or another - struggles unadorned or struggles concealed, but in either case tightly packed one after another without gap. The small fears leave us nervous and depleted; the large fears leave us stunned and blank. Shooting forth like an arrow from a bowstring: such is our presumption when we arbitrate right and wrong. Holding fast as if to sworn oaths: such is out defense of our victories. Worn away as if by autumn and winter: such is our daily dwindling, drowning us in our own activities, unable to turn back. Held fast as if bound by cords, we continue along the same ruts. The mind is left on the verge of death, and nothing can restore its vitality.

 

Joy and anger, sorrow and happiness, plans and regrets, transformations and stagnations, unguarded abandonment and deliberate posturing - music flowing out of hollows mushrooms of billowing steam! Day and night they alternate before us, but no one knows whence they sprout. That is enough! That is enough! Is it from all of this, presented ceaselessly day and night, that we come to exist? Without that there would be no me, to be sure, but then again without me there would be nothing selected out from it all. This is certainly something close to hand, and yet we do not know what makes it so. If there is some controller behind it all, it is peculiarly devoid of any manifest sign. Its ability to flow and to stop makes its presence plausible, but even then it shows no definite form. That would make it a reality with no definite form.

 

The hundred bones, the nine openings, the six internal organs are all present here as my body. Which one is most dear to me? Do you delight in all equally, or do you have some favorite among them? Or are they all mere servants and concubines? Are these servants and concubines unable to govern each other? Or do they take turns as master and servant? If there exists a genuine ruler among them, then whether we could find out the facts about him or not would neither add to nor subtract from that genuineness.

 

If you regard what you have received as fully formed one and for all, unable to forget it, all the time it survives is just a vigil spent waiting for its end. In the process, you grind and lacerate yourself against all the things around you. Its activities will be over as quickly as a horse galloping by, unstoppable - is it not sad? All your life you labor, and nothing is achieved. Worn and exhausted to the point of collapse, never knowing what it all amounts to - how can you not lament this? What good does it do if others say, "To us he is not dead"? The body has decayed and the mind went with it. Can this be called anything but an enormous sorrow? Is human life always this bewildering, or am I the only bewildered one? Is there actually any man, or anything in a man, that is not bewildered?

 

If we follow whatever has so far taken shape, fully formed, in our minds, making that our teacher, who could ever be without a teacher? The mind comes to be what it is by taking possession of whatever it selects out of the process of alternation - but does that mean it has to truly understand that process? The fool takes something up from it too. But to claim that there are any such things as "right" and "wrong" before they come to be fully formed in someone's mind is this way - that is like saying you left for Yue today and arrived there yesterday. This is to regard the nonexistent as existent. The existence of the nonexistent is beyond the understanding of even the divine sage-king Yu - so what possible sense could it make to someone like me?

 

"But human speech is not just a blowing of air. Speech has something of which it speaks, something it refers to." Yes, but what it refers to is peculiarly unfixed. So is there really anything it refers to? Or has nothing ever been referred to? You take it to be different from the chirping of baby birds. But is there really any difference between them? Or is there no difference? Is there any dispute, or is there no dispute? Anything demonstrated, or nothing demonstrated?

 

How could courses be so obscured that there could be any question of genuine or fake among them? How could words be so obscured that there could be any question of right or wrong among them? Where can you go without it being a course? What can you say without it being affirmable? Courses are obscured by the small accomplishments already formed and completed by them. Words are obscured by the ostentatious blossoms of reputation that come with them. Hence we have the rights and wrongs of the Confucians and Mohists, each affirming what the other negates and negating what the other affirms. But if you want to affirm what they negate and negate what they affirm, nothing compares to the Illumination of the Obvious:

 

There is no being that is not "that." There is no being that is not "this." But one cannot be seeing these from the perspective of "that": one knows them only from "this" [i.e., from one's own perspective]. Thus, we can say: "That" emerges from "this," and "this" follows from "that." This is the theory of the simultaneous generation of "this" and "that." But by the same token, their simultaneous generation is their simultaneous destruction, and vice versa. Simultaneous affirmability is simultaneous negatability, and vice versa. What is circumstantially right is also circumstantially wrong, and vice versa. Thus, the Sage does not proceed from any one of them alone but instead lets them all bask in the broad daylight of Heaven. And that too is only a case of going by the rightness of the present "this."

 

"This" is also a "that." "That" is also a "this." "THAT" posits a "this and a "that - a right and a wrong - of its own. But "THIS" also posits a "this and a "that" - a right and a wrong - of its own. So is there really any "that" versus "this," any right versus wrong? Or is there really no "that" versus "this"? When "this" and "that" - right and wrong - are no longer coupled as opposites that is called the Course as Axis, the axis of all courses. When this axis finds its place in the center, it responds to all the endless things it confronts, thwarted by none. For it has an endless supply of "rights," and an endless supply of "wrongs." Thus, I say, nothing compares to the Illumination of the Obvious.

 

To use this finger to show how a finger is not a finger is no match for using not-this-finger to show how a finger is not a finger. To use this horse to show that a horse is not a horse is no match for using not-this-horse to show that a horse is not a horse. Heaven and earth are one finger. All things are one horse.

 

Something is affirmative because someone affirms it. Something is negative because someone negates it. Courses are formed by someone walking them. Things are so by being called so. Whence thus and so? From thus and so being affirmed of them. Whence not thus and so? From thus and so being negated of them. Each thing necessarily has some place from which it can be affirmed as thus and so, and some place from which it can be affirmed as acceptable.

 

So no thing is not right, no thing is not acceptable. For whatever we may define as a beam as opposed to a pillar, as a leper as opposed the great beauty Xishi, or whatever might be [from some perspective] strange, grotesque, uncanny, or deceptive, there is some course that opens them into one another, connecting them to form a oneness. Whenever fragmentation is going on, formation, completion, is also going on. Whenever formation is going on, destruction is also going on.

 

Hence, all things are neither formed nor destroyed, for these two also open into each other, connecting to form a oneness. It is only someone who really gets all the way through them that can see how the two sides open into each other to form a oneness. Such a person would not define rightness in any one particular way but would instead entrust it to the everyday function [of each being]. Their everyday function is what works for them, and "working" just means this opening up into each other, their way of connecting. Opening to form a connection just means getting what you get: go as far as whatever you happen to get to, and leave it at that. It is all just a matter of going by the rightness of the present "this." To be doing this without knowing it, and not because you have defined it as right, is called "the Course."

 

But to labor your spirit trying to make all things one, without realizing that it is all the same [whether you do so or not], is called "Three in the Morning."

 

What is this Three in the Morning? A monkey trainer was distributing chestnuts. He said, "I'll give you three in the morning and four in the evening." The monkeys were furious. "Well then," he said, "I'll give you four in the morning and three in the evening." The monkeys were delighted. This change of description and arrangement caused no loss, but in one case it brought anger and in another delight. He just went by the rightness of their present "this." Thus the Sage uses various rights and wrongs to harmonize with others and yet remains at rest in the middle of Heaven the Potter's Wheel. This is called "Walking Two Roads."

 

The understanding of the ancients really got all the way there. Where had it arrived? To the point where, for some, there had never existed so called things. This is really getting there, as far as you can go. When no things are there, nothing more can be - added!

 

Next there were those for whom things existed but never any definite boundaries between them. Next there were those for whom there were boundaries but never any rights and wrongs. When rights and wrongs waxed bright, the Course began to wane. What set the Course to waning was exactly what brought the cherishing of one thing over another to its fullness.

 

But is there really any waning verses fullness? Or is there really no such thing as waning versus fullness? In a certain sense, there exists waning versus fullness. In that sense, we can say that the Zhao family are zither players. But in a certain sense, there is no such thing as waning versus fullness. In that sense we can say, on the contrary, that the Zhao family are no zither players.

 

Zhao Wen's zither playing, Master Kuang's baton waving, Huizi's desk slumping - the understanding these three had of their arts flourished richly. This was what they flourished in, and thus they pursued these ares to the end of their days. They delighted in them, and observing that this delight of theirs was not shared, they wanted to make it obvious to others. So they tried to make others understand as obvious what was not obvious to them, and thus some ended their days debating about the obscurities of "hardness" and "whiteness," and Zhao Wen's son ended his days still grappling with his father's zither strings. Can this be called success, being fully accomplished at something? In that case, even I am fully accomplished. Can this be called failure, lacking the full accomplishment of something? If so, neither I nor anything else can be considered fully accomplished.

 

Thus, the Radiance of Drift and Doubt is the sage's only map. He makes no definition of what is right but instead entrusts it to the everyday function of each thing. This is what I call the Illumination of the Obvious.

 

 

 

Now I will try some words here about "this." But I don't know if it belongs in the same category as "this" or not. For belonging in a category and not belonging in that category themselves form a single category! Being similar is so similar to being dissimilar! So there is finally no way to keep it different from "That."

 

Nevertheless, let me try to say it. There is a beginning. There is a not-yet-beginning-to-be-a-beginning. There is a not-yet-beginning-to-not-yet-begin-to-be-a-beginning. There is existence. There is nonexistence. There is a not-yet-beginning-to-be-nonexistence. There is a not-yet-beginning-to-not-yet-beginning-to-be-nonexistence. Suddenly there is nonexistence. But I do not-yet know whether "the existence of nonexistence" is ultimately existence or nonexistence.

 

Now I have said something. But I do not-yet know: has what I have said really said anything? Or has it not really said anything?

 

Nothing in the world is larger than the tip of a hair in autumn, and Mt. Tai is small. No one lives longer than a dead child, and old Pengzu died an early death. Heaven and earth are born together with me, and the ten thousand things and I are one.

 

But if we are all one, can there be any words? But since I have already declared that we are "one," can there be no words? The one and the word are already two, and the two and the original unnamed one are three. Going on like this, even a skilled chronicler could not keep up with it, not to mention a lesser man. So even moving from nonexistence to existence we already arrive at three - how much more when we move from existence to existence! Rather than moving from anywhere to anywhere, then, let us just go by the rightness of whatever is before us as the present "this."

 

Now, courses have never had any sealed borders between them, and words have never had any constant sustainability. It is by establishing definitions of what is "this," what is "right," that boundaries are made. Let me explain what I mean by boundaries: There are right and left, then there are classes of things and ideas of the proper responses to them, then there are roles and disputes, then there are competitions and struggles. Let's call these the Eight Virtues! As for the sage, he may admit that something exists beyond the six limits of the known world, but he does not further discuss it. As for what is within the known world, he will discuss it but not express an opinion on it. As for historical events, he will give an opinion but not debate it. For wherever a division is made, something is left undivided. Wherever debate shows one of two alternatives to be right, something remains undistinguished and unshown. What is it? The sage hides it in his embrace, while the masses of people debate it, trying to demonstrate it to one another. Thus I say that demonstration by debate always leaves something unseen.

 

The Great Course is unproclaimed. Great demonstration uses no words. Great humanity is not humane. Great rectitude is not fastidious. Great courage is not invasive. For when the Course becomes explicit, it ceases to be the Course. When words demonstrate by debate, they fail to communicate. When Humanity is constantly sustained, it cannot reach its maturity. When rectitude is pure, it cannot extend itself to others. When courage is invasive, it cannot succeed. These five are originally round, but they are forced toward squareness.

 

Hence, when the understanding consciousness comes to rest in what it does not know, it has reached its utmost. The demonstration that uses no words, the Course that is not a course - who "understands" these things? If there is something able to "understand" them [in this sense], it can be called the Heavenly Reservoir - poured into without ever getting full, ladled out of without ever running out, ever not-knowing its own source.

 

This is called the Shadowy Splendor.

 

 

Zhuangzi

Chapter 2: Equalizing Assessments of Things

tl Brook Ziporyn

 

Edited June 21, 2016 by Daeluin
Added a quote box.

[Karl]

Do you think you might try and simplify your argument because it sounds like gobbledygook to me.

[Jim D.]

After doing some research on Ayn Rand, I agree and follow her philosophy, and have unknowingly. Or maybe I just forgotten that she was covered in one of the Philosophy courses taught in undergrade. Her Philosophy is extremely close to how it is that I live my live today.

 

Intellect over Emotions = Sanity

 

Take care of yourself first and you will be able to give to others

 

I am not altruistic. I do everything for a reason.

 

Feelings are not fact

 

The "Man" does not have a right to run my life

 

Buearucracy is too busy running my life

 

We are too lazy to step up and fire them all

 

The National Debt is there for a reason, it is serving a purpose

 

Do your own thinking

 

Organized Religion exploits the exploitable

 

The only thing that is constant is change

 

God does not have an office

 

I don't have to believe in anything, but me

 

Most people do not want to think for themselves,

therefore vote for someone that will

 

JD

[Karl]

After doing some research on Ayn Rand, I agree and follow her philosophy, and have unknowingly. Or maybe I just forgotten that she was covered in one of the Philosophy courses taught in undergrade. Her Philosophy is extremely close to how it is that I live my live today.

 

 

Intellect over Emotions = Sanity

 

Take care of yourself first and you will be able to give to others

 

I am not altruistic. I do everything for a reason.

 

Feelings are not fact

 

The "Man" does not have a right to run my life

 

Buearucracy is too busy running my life

 

We are too lazy to step up and fire them all

 

The National Debt is there for a reason, it is serving a purpose

 

Do your own thinking

 

Organized Religion exploits the exploitable

 

The only thing that is constant is change

 

God does not have an office

 

I don't have to believe in anything, but me

 

Most people do not want to think for themselves,

therefore vote for someone that will

 

JD

Somewhat, but as I said, following a philosophy is simply adding to your junk, even if that philosophy is a good one. I wouldn't accept objectivism anymore than I would accept Kantianism or religion unless I had thoroughly questioned every aspect logically. I lot of people say they follow objectivism, but that makes it into a cult, very few of the so called 'followers' ever realise that Rand would not have wished for anyone to follow her. Indeed Peikoff has stated he would rather see objectivism die than have people follow it.

 

Can you answer the three questions to your own satisfaction: where am I ? How do I know it ? What should I do ? It is not a case of answering these in the shallow sense, but being able to reason precisely how you arrived at your answer. These questions allow you to build a full philosophy, it is not simply a question for now. What should you do ? For instance is not simply about the next thing on your list, it is your entire ethical structure and values.

 

If you grasp what I'm saying, then you can move effortlessly between the axioms of your philosophy and politics, economics, science and law. Each step is interconnected and based on the previous. You can run merrily up and down the steps from great theories to the non atomised fundamentals. Sometimes in the running you will find a loose, or bad step, something not properly defined or integrated and can set to with your tools to repair and make good.