boagie #180 thanx from proving my point.I doubt materialists and determinists can be salvaged intellectually on this matter..I also hope so.
How much evidence does it take to believe or to know?
-
- Posts: 642
- Joined: December 28th, 2009, 9:00 pm
- Keith Russell
- Posts: 897
- Joined: January 6th, 2010, 10:50 pm
You talkin' to me?boagie wrote:If the science community is delusional please enlighten us on their delusional natures. As to the statement on Bohm's work on plasma, it was Bohm himself who made the analogy. I am I going to jump through any circles for you, no. Just as you are no going to prove the scientific community is delusional. If you are not a faith head, I wonder at your motivations around this topic.
-
- Posts: 1021
- Joined: October 13th, 2008, 7:50 am
You've been watching taxi again haven't you. Should I take it then that I am misunderstanding you in a rather big way? This is a rather easy medium for that to occur in, if that is the case, you have my apology.
- Keith Russell
- Posts: 897
- Joined: January 6th, 2010, 10:50 pm
Pramanas
I cannot post links yet, so just google "pramanas" and see how much of the Orient handles evidence. They ask not, "how much," but what are acceptable forms of evidence and which are best.
Pramana (Skt) means form or type of evidence.
-
- Posts: 1021
- Joined: October 13th, 2008, 7:50 am
Hi Skull,
No matter what the methodology of acquiring knowledge/meaning is, it is in the end biological interpretation. Meaning/knowledge belongs only to the subject, and arises through the subject's relation to its object. PS: I have not as yet read on this Pramana, but I will, in the meantime I am assumeing it a method/mode of inquiry.
EDIT: After reading this, I do not really see how it differs from our western understanding, meaning is necessarily the relation between subject and object, and always the property of the subject, for it is the effect of object upon the subject biology which is perception, the evaluation thereof/perception being meaning.
- Keith Russell
- Posts: 897
- Joined: January 6th, 2010, 10:50 pm
I believe that there is no such thing as "inherent" (objective) meaning. (I think that's what you mean when you state that "meaning belongs only to the subject".)
Let me know if you agree...
Thanks!
boagie wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pramana
Hi Skull,
No matter what the methodology of acquiring knowledge/meaning is, it is in the end biological interpretation. Meaning/knowledge belongs only to the subject, and arises through the subject's relation to its object. PS: I have not as yet read on this Pramana, but I will, in the meantime I am assumeing it a method/mode of inquiry.
EDIT: After reading this, I do not really see how it differs from our western understanding, meaning is necessarily the relation between subject and object, and always the property of the subject, for it is the effect of object upon the subject biology which is perception, the evaluation thereof/perception being meaning.
-
- Posts: 1021
- Joined: October 13th, 2008, 7:50 am
Let me know if you agree...
Thanks!"
Keith Russell,
Yes, we have the same understanding, this understanding though seems to upset some people.
- Keith Russell
- Posts: 897
- Joined: January 6th, 2010, 10:50 pm
Yes. (Quite a few of my ideas seem to have that effect...)boagie wrote:"believe that there is no such thing as "inherent" (objective) meaning. (I think that's what you mean when you state that "meaning belongs only to the subject".)
Let me know if you agree...
Thanks!"
Keith Russell,
Yes, we have the same understanding, this understanding though seems to upset some people.
-
- Posts: 458
- Joined: January 27th, 2008, 8:43 pm
If you repeat that mantra over and over you will come to believe it is true regardless of what other thoughts enter your head. After a hundred or so repetitions you will become impervious to all other contrary beliefs. If Mr. Russell slowly repeats it and emphasizes the words he will soon be under its spell, too. Nice to see cultish practices still have not lost their potency even in science.boagie wrote:"believe that there is no such thing as "inherent" (objective) meaning. (I think that's what you mean when you state that "meaning belongs only to the subject".)
Let me know if you agree...
Thanks!"
Keith Russell,
Yes, we have the same understanding, this understanding though seems to upset some people.
....No matter what the methodology of acquiring knowledge/meaning is, it is in the end biological interpretation. Meaning/knowledge belongs only to the subject, and arises through the subject's relation to its object.
-
- Posts: 1021
- Joined: October 13th, 2008, 7:50 am
-
- Posts: 642
- Joined: December 28th, 2009, 9:00 pm
I agree with this observation cultish practices are not just theistic, they are atheistic and even asthetic in philosophy teachings.If you repeat that mantra over and over you will come to believe it is true regardless of what other thoughts enter your head. After a hundred or so repetitions you will become impervious to all other contrary beliefs. If Mr. Russell slowly repeats it and emphasizes the words he will soon be under its spell, too. Nice to see cultish practices still have not lost their potency even in science.
- Keith Russell
- Posts: 897
- Joined: January 6th, 2010, 10:50 pm
What mantra? This?OTavern wrote:If you repeat that mantra--boagie wrote:"believe that there is no such thing as "inherent" (objective) meaning. (I think that's what you mean when you state that "meaning belongs only to the subject".)
Let me know if you agree...
Thanks!"
Keith Russell,
Yes, we have the same understanding, this understanding though seems to upset some people.
....No matter what the methodology of acquiring knowledge/meaning is, it is in the end biological interpretation. Meaning/knowledge belongs only to the subject, and arises through the subject's relation to its object.
"No matter what the methodology of acquiring knowledge/meaning is, it is in the end biological interpretation. Meaning/knowledge belongs only to the subject, and arises through the subject's relation to its object."
--over and over you will come to believe it is true regardless of what other thoughts enter your head. After a hundred or so repetitions you will become impervious to all other contrary beliefs. If Mr. Russell slowly repeats it and emphasizes the words he will soon be under its spell, too. Nice to see cultish practices still have not lost their potency even in science.
-
- Posts: 458
- Joined: January 27th, 2008, 8:43 pm
Your position rests on a larger concept that meaning starts with the subject and is applied to the object. But where, exactly, did the subject get this ability to apply meaning? From the dead objective world around it? How could it be possible for a dead objective world to bring about a subject with the capacity to apply meaning onto the world?boagie wrote:O'Tavern,
Negativity is the easiest form of expression requiring no thought whatsoever, lets here your reasoned argument against it. Pouting just does not count for much.
This entire view is based upon a larger myth about the way the cosmos functions. CS Lewis addressed it in "The Funeral of a Great Myth" from Christian Reflections pp. 88-90boagie wrote:[In post #186]After reading this, I do not really see how it differs from our western understanding, meaning is necessarily the relation between subject and object, and always the property of the subject, for it is the effect of object upon the subject biology which is perception, the evaluation thereof/perception being meaning.
To follow this line of thought, one can, I suppose, rest so confidently on the Great Myth described by Lewis, as to become self-assured in the belief that meaning somehow spontaneously generates in the mind of a subject, oblivious to the fact that the mind of the subject was previously generated in a cosmos with the capacity to order events and bring about the minds of subjects. The cosmos, therefore, must have sufficient "meaning" generating properties as to facilitate the possibility of meaning in the minds of the human subjects.The basic idea of the Myth – that small or chaotic or feeble things perpetually turn themselves into large, strong, ordered things –may, at first sight, seem a very odd one. We have never actually seen a pile of rubble turning itself into a house. But this idea commends itself to the imagination by the help of what seem to be two instances of it within everyone's knowledge. Everyone has seen individual organisms doing it. Acorns become oaks, grubs become insects, eggs become birds, every man was once an embryo. And secondly – which weighs very much in the popular mind during the machine age – everyone has seen Evolution really happening in the history of machines. We all remember when locomotives were smaller and less efficient than they are now. These two apparent instances are quite enough to convince the imagination that Evolution in a cosmic sense is the most natural thing in the world. [But]
...reason cannot here agree with imagination. These apparent instances are not really instances of Evolution at all. The oak comes indeed from the acorn, but then the acorn was dropped by an earlier oak. Every man begins with the union of an ovum and a spermatozoon, but the ovum and the spermatozoon came from two fully developed human beings. The modern express engine came from the Rocket: but the Rocket came, not from something more elementary than itself, but from something much more developed and highly organized – the mind of a man, and a man of genius.
CS Lewis again:
To paraphrase: The only reason, you as subject, can bring "meaning" to the cosmos is precisely because the meaning behind the cosmos made it possible for you to do so. Therefore: "meaning is ... always the property of the subject" is clearly not true. The only reason meaning can be a property of the subject is precisely because the subject is part of a meaningful environment - the cosmos that brought the subject into being.The myth asks me to believe that reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of a mindless process at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. The content of the Myth thus knocks from under me the only ground on which I could possibly believe the Myth to be true. If my own mind is a product of the irrational - if what seem my clearest reasonings are only the way in which a creature conditioned as I am is bound to feel – how shall I trust my mind when it tells me about Evolution?
Your position seems to be the metaphysical equivalent of Piaget's concrete operational stage of psychological development where the process of conservation has not been realized. The next stage, following Piaget, would be the formal operational stage where you realize that meaning and truth exist in a transcendent, formal way independent of your perspective. Of course to achieve this stage a thinker must shed egocentrism, where meaning hinges upon perspective, to an understanding that meaning could arise from other and even transcendent perspectives, and perhaps (God forbid!) be a property of the cosmos itself in a formal way (Platonic as that may sound.)
I hope the above doesn't come across as "pouting" to you
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13813
- Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
- Location: UK
Your position rests on a larger concept that meaning starts with the subject and is applied to the object. But where, exactly, did the subject get this ability to apply meaning? From the dead objective world around it? How could it be possible for a dead objective world to bring about a subject with the capacity to apply meaning onto the world?
The modern, post-scientific enlightenment view is that meaning is a continuum which has been naturally selected for in homo sapiens, the 'subject'.As I said, a continuum. The 'dead objective world' is in a continuum, through the more brainy mammals, with the meaningful world of human beings at the other extreme from 'the dead objective world' extreme.
The dead objective world is within the circle of love and necessity along with homo sapiens.The dead objective world is also part of the system of nature.Every hair of your head is numbered.
The way in which this continuum produced man with his intellectual and symbolism capacities is explained by natural selection.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023