Philosophy Discussion Forums

dawwg wrote: ↑August 14th, 2019, 10:23 pm

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑August 14th, 2019, 6:52 pm Learn intellectual violence.

How'd I do?

I love your answers. They are almost impossible to understand. Yes, of course he would dissemble and use deception. I believe in the paranormal and deception and dissembling are right at the heart of that. The problem is that most people don’t understand what those things are. They are real things out there in the “objective” world. They are also a most important part of romance. Any would-be lover must, absolutely must, learn the arts of illusion.

If you have read some of my answers on this thread in this forum, you know that I am gay. I like twinks. And my philosophy centers around my sex addiction. It becomes supernatural. Here in Kathmandu, Nepal, I study Hindu shamanism. I read the old texts and talk to jhakris (shamans). Hinduism is magically sexual. Secrets abound. I fit right in, even though I pray to Jesus, another magician. I know where danger lies.

I ride public transportation and cruise. I see gods everywhere. The eternal Forms are exemplified all around me. And these gods know fashion, as all boys do, and they waste time on their mobile smart phones texting their friends. Not much has changed in the last few millennia. Yes, fashion is the medium of divine revelation.

I am a conscious being, a mind. The essence of consciousness is the intentional nexus. I spy a beauty up ahead. And instantly that Nexus goes to work. I am all over him. Direct Realism. I don’t go through mental deputies to get at what I want. Only the thing itself is good enough for my lustful eye as it eats that holy eucharist.

Of course all those are only words. What about words? They are the spells and mantras that the shaman uses. He rides on a chariot made out of them and arrives at his desired destination. With the spirits. Words are the divine semen of Shiva. Moonlight. Perhaps you know the Shiva Lingam. We are here dealing in the Real, not mere mental constructs.

Is that deception and dissembling? That is for sure a part of it. But it is all, nonetheless, Real. These gods of illusion are captivating. And intense.

I do metaphysics here at the foot of a hill where boy monks roam around Buddhist monasteries. What do they do in there? I know. And so do you.

Here's a dropbox link. Let me know if you get it. My website is under "contact" over on the right. https://www.dropbox.com/s/c2tmnhgx37ogj ... e.pdf?dl=0

dawwg wrote: ↑August 14th, 2019, 10:22 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑August 14th, 2019, 5:04 pm
No. You can't "give him that"!!!LOL. This is a complete fantasy.

It's impossible for me to prove it to you, but such events have occurred, I believe.

What you or anyone else "believe" is of no importance. There have been and are so many beliefs in the world that are completely ridiculous that it's necessary to have evidence.

For the sake of argument let's say I cornered an unsuspecting 'advanced being', more by luck and his skepticism that the truth would be accepted than by deft maneuvers, what defensive strategy would they adopt? Deception and dissembly (sp?)

Ah yes, and you think this individual is alone? No I tell you, we are in a veritable coven of vampires!

Are you trying to make a point?

Greta: We have no mind or will as an embryo. Mind emerges gradually .... Will emerges from these situations naturally

But that's my point: emerges, emergent. The plant emerges from the seed, the caterpillar enters the cocoon and emerges as a butterfly, etc. It is an intelligent and therefore progressive process, not a random one.

It reminds me of the movie, Field of Dreams, "build it and they will come." Create the necessary conditions for life and it will show up and play, just as the spirits of dead baseball players did in the film. It's too improbable.

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑August 14th, 2019, 11:38 pm Let me know if you get it.

Retrieved the book (Many thanks) from archive .org but no, I didn't get the contact info. Here's mine (burleysmith@gmail.com/I rarely go there) should you have a pressing need for privacy.

Felix wrote: ↑August 15th, 2019, 4:19 am

Greta: We have no mind or will as an embryo. Mind emerges gradually .... Will emerges from these situations naturally

But that's my point: emerges, emergent. The plant emerges from the seed, the caterpillar enters the cocoon and emerges as a butterfly, etc. It is an intelligent and therefore progressive process, not a random one.

How is this intelligent?

Intelligence:
the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

Well then, the foundation of intelligence: the ability to respond to the environment, where did that come from?

The caterpillar is programmed by nature to become a butterfly. It doesn't need to know this. It happens without any interference by the caterpillar without the least idea of what or will happen. It will never think or be aware that this is the day I stop crawling and start flying. It will never think or say Free at last, free at last, thank god almighty I'm free at last!

steveb1 wrote: ↑August 14th, 2019, 7:23 pm Thanks for your perceptive comments.
You wrote,

"Everything that appears to our mind is objective."

If so, then what do we categorize as subjective?

And, re: God-talk - mystics claim to know God as a "Presence", but also as a "Person". Can a person, who is a human or a divine subject, be experience only as an object...?

My concern is to avoid Idealism, which says that what we see is "only in your mind" and not real. I believe that if I am aware of something, then that exists. It is real and not just "in my mind". The world I see is real.

I don't categorize anything as subjective. The objective-subjective divide doesn't exist. That is to say, that it is not something that appears to my mind's eye. What could being "in the mind" mean? I see nothing when I try to look at it.

Not all mystics see God or a god as a Person. I engage in God-talk and I believe in God and I don't. What do you think being a Person means? In fact, to say something is a person seems rather unmystical to me.

I can agree that material that appears to-and-in the psyche is not subjective because it "presents" as an object. It is said of certain meditative methods that what appears to the meditator is simply feelings, thoughts and images in a never-ending stream of images. But it also differentiates between the observer of the images - the "Witness" - and the non-Witness "external" objects. It is also said that there is a difference between person and thing, e.g., the brain, as a three-pound skull organ, is a thing - a "something", whereas the person is a "someone". A person has a subjective qualia-associated identity, whereas a rock or a star do not. If no subject-object divide exists, then why don't we break or get hurt, mentally or physically, when rock is blasted out of a quarry, or when a star dies or a tree falls? How can we justify treating people differently from the way we treat non-human objects and "things"?

Agreed that the world we see is "real" in the sense of being "out there" and verifiable by material experiment, but this view can't be universally true, because sometimes we "see" hallucinations as well as "real" objects. Jung would say that our hallucinations are indeed real, even if they don't conform to physical reality - they are real objects in our consciousness even if they don't exist "out there". Which, if true, implies that there are two realities - one "out there" and objective, the other "in here" and subjective.

Your views are somewhat new to me and I am not completely certain that I have gotten your drift. So my reply is made under that cautionary note.

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑August 15th, 2019, 6:53 pmNot all mystics see God or a god as a Person. I engage in God-talk and I believe in God and I don't. What do you think being a Person means? In fact, to say something is a person seems rather unmystical to me.

Personhood is the highest form of self-consciousness. A person "is a thinking intelligent being that has reason and reflection, and can consider itself as itself, the same thinking thing in different times and places." (Locke)
I think personhood requires the capacity for linguistic self-reflection; so languageless animals, i.e. ones lacking natural-language vehicles of thought, aren't persons. They may have a lower form of self-consciousness, but they lack the full-blown reflective self-consciousness that is necessary for personhood.

Consul wrote: ↑August 15th, 2019, 7:38 pm

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑August 15th, 2019, 6:53 pmNot all mystics see God or a god as a Person. I engage in God-talk and I believe in God and I don't. What do you think being a Person means? In fact, to say something is a person seems rather unmystical to me.

Personhood is the highest form of self-consciousness. A person "is a thinking intelligent being that has reason and reflection, and can consider itself as itself, the same thinking thing in different times and places." (Locke)
I think personhood requires the capacity for linguistic self-reflection; so languageless animals, i.e. ones lacking natural-language vehicles of thought, aren't persons. They may have a lower form of self-consciousness, but they lack the full-blown reflective self-consciousness that is necessary for personhood.

One of the achievements of modern Logical Analysis was the separation of thought from consciousness. If I have the thought of reason and reflection, of self and sameness through time, of language and even personhood, then all those objects of my consciousness are things other than consciousness. Thought and object of thought is other that consciousness of those. Neither consciousness nor thought are persons.

Consciousness and thoughts aren't persons, but that doesn't address the reasons why we differentiate between persons and things and why most of us believe that we are morally obligated to treat persons differently than things.

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑August 15th, 2019, 7:56 pmOne of the achievements of modern Logical Analysis was the separation of thought from consciousness.

The beginning of modern logic is the end of psychologism in logic. See e.g. Frege's Antipsychologistic Arguments! Frege's Gedanken aren't psychological entities but logical ones, viz. propositions. But thought in the psychological sense is (I think) always conscious thought.

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑August 15th, 2019, 7:56 pmIf I have the thought of reason and reflection, of self and sameness through time, of language and even personhood, then all those objects of my consciousness are things other than consciousness. Thought and object of thought is other that consciousness of those.

If transitive consciousness (consciousness-of) is perception, then it is different from cogitation (thought); and, of course, objects of thought needn't be contents of the mind/consciousness.

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑August 15th, 2019, 7:56 pmNeither consciousness nor thought are persons.

No, but thinking self-conscious beings are.

Consul wrote: ↑August 15th, 2019, 8:36 pm

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑August 15th, 2019, 7:56 pmOne of the achievements of modern Logical Analysis was the separation of thought from consciousness.

The beginning of modern logic is the end of psychologism in logic. See e.g. Frege's Antipsychologistic Arguments! Frege's Gedanken aren't psychological entities but logical ones, viz. propositions. But thought in the psychological sense is (I think) always conscious thought.

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑August 15th, 2019, 7:56 pmIf I have the thought of reason and reflection, of self and sameness through time, of language and even personhood, then all those objects of my consciousness are things other than consciousness. Thought and object of thought is other that consciousness of those.

If transitive consciousness (consciousness-of) is perception, then it is different from cogitation (thought); and, of course, objects of thought needn't be contents of the mind/consciousness.

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑August 15th, 2019, 7:56 pmNeither consciousness nor thought are persons.

No, but thinking self-conscious beings are.

My guess, and it's only a guess, is that you are operating out of a substance-attribute ontology and those attributes are not fully separate from the substance they are "of". I have a more radical separation between bare particular - those things you think are contradictions and not real - and universals. I also have various nexus to tie all those separate things together.

Given that difference between our basic ontologies, I'm wondering how we can discuss these matters, if indeed we can at all.