|
Post by laughter on Jun 17, 2013 18:37:50 GMT -5
The qualifier is the foam ring tossed into the drink to rescue common sense. Drowning is another metaphor that seems to get used from time to time ... Common sense doesn't have to be abandoned, in spite of the eagerness on the part of many to do so. No it doesn't. One example that comes to mind right off the bat would be proper nouns. Like Thursday. I don't see nouns as a conceptual filter. I can use nouns without them 'muddying the filter'. I would say they becomes conceptual filters when we attach to the belief that the map is the territory (or attach to the belief that it isn't the territory). I also don't see much difference in conceptual filter terms between nouns and verbs though I understand there can be value in pointing away from nouns to verbs. Any word you put in this blank: "No idea is ___ true" is just a qualifier. Get rid of the blank. 'Nuff said. The qualifier is needed to avoid self contradiction at the most fundamental level of thought. We can say everything is imagination, but there is a structure within that imagining, and it really is Fathers day. Perhaps I might be of assistance here. It is true that it was fathers day where E' was when he wrote that, and it's also true that father's day is only a consensus -- "Thursday" is a relatively recent consensus and assuming what we refer to by consensus as humanity is around long enough, lack of apprehension that there might not always be a Thursday is simply lack of imagination. This is a concrete example of executing ONE and EXACTLY ONE iteration of the recursive loop embodied in the abstract by the statement "no idea is true, including this one". It allows for pointing up this notion of realization vs. understanding as well because the pivot here is the nature of consensus. One can understand the idea of the consensus trance easily enough so that it is absent the same relationship between thought, sense of identity, and quality of experience present in the context of the realization. There's no way that I see to succinctly pour the ocean of thought necessary to get thinking mind from point A to point B by way of bridging the abstract to our senses that would relate these next two examples to where this post is at this point into the post but I'll give them anyway. I haven't taken a poll of those who've had the particular experience but I speculate that it's likely that you only have to see your hand the way that Steve described it in his woo-woo-log once and only once for many a noun to not necessarily fall away for good but to at least be colored a different hue for once and for all. A pattern that denies disidentification with the body might interfere with this but I further speculate that this pattern can't erase the realization. The final word on the conceptual screen of the noun goes of course to William Shakespeare's poetic rendition of the Zen origin story in his question .... "would it still smell as sweet?".
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 17, 2013 18:40:31 GMT -5
ce n'est pas une rose
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 17, 2013 18:43:10 GMT -5
Common sense doesn't have to be abandoned, in spite of the eagerness on the part of many to do so. No it doesn't. I don't see nouns as a conceptual filter. I can use nouns without them 'muddying the filter'. I would say they becomes conceptual filters when we attach to the belief that the map is the territory (or attach to the belief that it isn't the territory). I also don't see much difference in conceptual filter terms between nouns and verbs though I understand there can be value in pointing away from nouns to verbs. The qualifier is needed to avoid self contradiction at the most fundamental level of thought. We can say everything is imagination, but there is a structure within that imagining, and it really is Fathers day. Perhaps I might be of assistance here. It is true that it was fathers day where E' was when he wrote that, and it's also true that father's day is only a consensus -- "Thursday" is a relatively recent consensus and assuming what we refer to by consensus as humanity is around long enough, lack of apprehension that there might not always be a Thursday is simply lack of imagination. This is a concrete example of executing ONE and EXACTLY ONE iteration of the recursive loop embodied in the abstract by the statement "no idea is true, including this one". It allows for pointing up this notion of realization vs. understanding as well because the pivot here is the nature of consensus. One can understand the idea of the consensus trance easily enough so that it is absent the same relationship between thought, sense of identity, and quality of experience present in the context of the realization. There's no way that I see to succinctly pour the ocean of thought necessary to get thinking mind from point A to point B by way of bridging the abstract to our senses that would relate these next two examples to where this post is at this point into the post but I'll give them anyway. I haven't taken a poll of those who've had the particular experience but I speculate that it's likely that you only have to see your hand the way that Steve described it in his woo-woo-log once and only once for many a noun to not necessarily fall away for good but to at least be colored a different hue for once and for all. A pattern that denies disidentification with the body might interfere with this but I further speculate that this pattern can't erase the realization. The final word on the conceptual screen of the noun goes of course to William Shakespeare's poetic rendition of the Zen origin story in his question .... "would it still smell as sweet?". It was not necessarily true that it was Thursday when E said it was. It may have been true, it may have been false, it may even have been both or neither.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 17, 2013 18:49:04 GMT -5
It was not necessarily true that it was Thursday when E said it was. It may have been true, it may have been false, it may even have been both or neither. Despite adding the qualifier "necessarily", the primary difference between your statement and mine is the number of iterations over the recursive loop of thought that it embodies. Mine is 1. Your's is a model for the loop running endlessly.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 17, 2013 18:55:45 GMT -5
It was not necessarily true that it was Thursday when E said it was. It may have been true, it may have been false, it may even have been both or neither. Despite adding the qualifier "necessarily", the primary difference between your statement and mine is the number of iterations over the recursive loop of thought that it embodies. Mine is 1. Your's is a model for the loop running endlessly. Yes, the endless loop is necessary in order to illustrate the purely subjective nature of ideas. Your loop is still positing something outside of ideas.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 17, 2013 18:59:03 GMT -5
To be clear here, the distinction on the implied quantity of thought is only that, a distinction, and, despite all the fun with have with the <tmt> tag, doesn't imply a hierarchy of better or worse. It's just the witness apparently doin' what the witness apparently does (... which, in one sense, ain't much a' nuthin' at all! ...). Despite adding the qualifier "necessarily", the primary difference between your statement and mine is the number of iterations over the recursive loop of thought that it embodies. Mine is 1. Your's is a model for the loop running endlessly. Yes, the endless loop is necessary in order to illustrate the purely subjective nature of ideas. Your loop is still positing something outside of ideas. (** splash! **)
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 17, 2013 19:01:32 GMT -5
To be clear here, the distinction on the implied quantity of thought is only that, a distinction, and, despite all the fun with have with the <tmt> tag, doesn't imply a hierarchy of better or worse. It's just the witness apparently doin' what the witness apparently does. Yes, the endless loop is necessary in order to illustrate the purely subjective nature of ideas. Your loop is still positing something outside of ideas. (** splash! **) What I see you doing is wanting to posit something prior to ideas and there's nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't mean there IS something prior to ideas. 'The witness' is a nice idea, but a rumour until proved otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 17, 2013 19:05:23 GMT -5
To be clear here, the distinction on the implied quantity of thought is only that, a distinction, and, despite all the fun with have with the <tmt> tag, doesn't imply a hierarchy of better or worse. It's just the witness apparently doin' what the witness apparently does. (** splash! **) What I see you doing is wanting to posit something prior to ideas and there's nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't mean there IS something prior to ideas. 'The witness' is a nice idea, but a rumour until proved otherwise. <saying_too_much> "the ineffable" is ineffable. "the unknowable" is unknowable </saying_too_much>
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 17, 2013 19:08:32 GMT -5
What I see you doing is wanting to posit something prior to ideas and there's nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't mean there IS something prior to ideas. 'The witness' is a nice idea, but a rumour until proved otherwise. <saying_too_much> "the ineffable" is ineffable. "the unknowable" is unknowable </saying_too_much> Nice ideas, but again, not necessarily true.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 17, 2013 19:16:44 GMT -5
<saying_too_much> "the ineffable" is ineffable. "the unknowable" is unknowable </saying_too_much> Nice ideas, but again, not necessarily true. ce n'est pas un lapin
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Jun 18, 2013 8:24:40 GMT -5
Our logic always is based on the "if-->then" operator. Within the "if" are instantiated all the rules we work with, including that of "truth". That's how we very well can speak of necessary conclusions ("then"), given such and such conditions ("if"). At the same time we thus can understand that saying "no idea is true" must be false, because "truth" has already been instantiated within the "if", there is no "truth" prior to the "if".
|
|
|
The Rose
Jun 18, 2013 8:53:04 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by topology on Jun 18, 2013 8:53:04 GMT -5
Our logic always is based on the "if-->then" operator. Within the "if" are instantiated all the rules we work with, including that of "truth". That's how we very well can speak of necessary conclusions ("then"), given such and such conditions ("if"). At the same time we thus can understand that saying "no idea is true" must be false, because "truth" has already been instantiated within the "if", there is no "truth" prior to the "if". I'm not following. Where is the "if" in "no idea is true"? "if-then" can be viewed declaratively as a descriptive rule and the truth of the rule is determined by whether or not it's description matches the world being modeled.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2013 9:07:31 GMT -5
Our logic always is based on the "if-->then" operator. Within the "if" are instantiated all the rules we work with, including that of "truth". That's how we very well can speak of necessary conclusions ("then"), given such and such conditions ("if"). At the same time we thus can understand that saying "no idea is true" must be false, because "truth" has already been instantiated within the "if", there is no "truth" prior to the "if". I'm not following. Where is the "if" in "no idea is true"? "if-then" can be viewed declaratively as a descriptive rule and the truth of the rule is determined by whether or not it's description matches the world being modeled. <stab> if there is such a thing as an 'idea' and if no thing is true then no idea is true. </stab>
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2013 9:15:46 GMT -5
I'm not following. Where is the "if" in "no idea is true"? "if-then" can be viewed declaratively as a descriptive rule and the truth of the rule is determined by whether or not it's description matches the world being modeled. <stab> if there is such a thing as an 'idea' and if no thing is true then no idea is true. </stab> wait. methinks I jus' said "no thing is true." time to take this robot to the scrap heap.
|
|
|
The Rose
Jun 18, 2013 10:22:01 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by topology on Jun 18, 2013 10:22:01 GMT -5
I'm not following. Where is the "if" in "no idea is true"? "if-then" can be viewed declaratively as a descriptive rule and the truth of the rule is determined by whether or not it's description matches the world being modeled. <stab> if there is such a thing as an 'idea' and if no thing is true then no idea is true. </stab> You injected the if statements into the sentence in order to have if statements in the sentence.
|
|