My theoretical framework

[Piggy]

On the same token, any field (especially scientific ones) without a robust grasp of philosophy is blind and will tend to stagnate.

There has to be a healthy balance for there to be any kind of fruitful intellectual pursuit.

<Lumberg> Uh, I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with ya there. </Lumberg>

One big reason I bailed out of academia was that I got tired of having my boots continually stuck in the mud of philosophy.

I went into public service, then into private sector, where what matters is results.

It is possible to abandon philosophy altogether and focus on results. It's a much better world to live in.

And don't even try to tell me that focusing on results is some kind of philosophy, b/c if you do that you're attempting to paint with so broad a brush that every activity we engage in becomes "philosophy" -- and when a word means everything, it means nothing, because it fails to distinguish anything from anything.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Maybe. I'm not sure that is what he's saying.

But BDZ is being much more forthcoming than usual, so I'm willing to wait for clarification on this.

I appreciate it. Thanks.

 

[Piggy]

I think what BDZ is saying is that in a philosophical sense, post-positivist introspections have some merit. In renouncing a materialistic interpretation of sensory phenomena, one an tap the inner senses of a personal nous and logos, combining the best of ancient philosophy with modern post-enlightenment traditions. In this manner, we can say there is no such thing as galaxies and frogs and quarks and whatnot, only the semantic transference between perspective and observation. Only through such a transference can meaning be truly obtained, because it is within the transference rather than within an extant deification that any given object truly exists. Translating these concepts into 'noumena' in reference to concepts beyond the scope of human consciousness may introduce confusion to those not yet ready to view reality through the appropriate paradigm. Perhaps we should come up with an alternate terminology, eh BDZ?

This is the kind of verbiage produced by sheltered academics who never managed to outgrow the "Hey, you ever wonder if, like, what's green to me is green to you?" stage of late night sleepover talk.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

The entire confusion appears to rest on second paragraph which sounds solipsistic or Idealistic. The rest of the post sounds Positivist.

BDZ, over to you.

For Pixy it is the fourth I think.

Lets see:

In the second one I state that what we see is not what is "there". But the tricky part is the "there". It denotes space, but this is a perception, and later a concept.

Now the fourth: Almost the same explanation, "internal" and "external" are mutually related concepts, and both exists in our mind. The same goes for every other opposite (objective, subjective, and so on).

These are perceptual and conceptual categories, and in this sense, belong to us more than "to the world" (the noumena).

 

[PixyMisa]

Pixy, not true. Yes, materialism and my "ism" works with the same degree of confidence, but epistemologically and ontologically they are different.

Then what is this difference? Stated clearly, please.

What do you mean about the fourth paragraph? Care to explain where do you see the contradiction in more detail?

Well, it's pretty blatant, but since you ask:

From the second paragraph:

There is no “external” material world outside your consciousness.

From the fourth and fifth paragraphs:

Consciousness is made of phenomena, yet it is caused by the noumena. ... The noumena is, whatever it is, outside the reach of consciousness. For convenience we can say that the noumena is physical, made of quarks, quantum states, strong and weak forces, and so on.

You say there isn't an external world, and then you say there is, and that it is the cause of consciousness.

As I said, if we translate your "phenomena" to thoughts and "noumena" to "the world", we have materialism. If this is an incorrect translation, then I apologise, but you deliberately obfuscated your post, so it's your fault if people misunderstand.

 

[Piggy]

For Pixy it is the fourth I think.

Lets see:

In the second one I state that what we see is not what is "there". But the tricky part is the "there". It denotes space, but this is a perception, and later a concept.

Now the fourth: Almost the same explanation, "internal" and "external" are mutually related concepts, and both exists in our mind. The same goes for every other opposite (objective, subjective, and so on).

These are perceptual and conceptual categories, and in this sense, belong to us more than "to the world" (the noumena).

If you choose to believe in demons, you will see them everwhere you look.

By the same token, if you choose not to cast your gaze beyond your own thought and words, but instead to fetishize them, then the entire universe will appear to you as nothing more than a mesh of ideas and words.

When you lose your fear of demons, you find that the world makes perfect sense without them, they become useless and redundant, and then they vanish.

When you move your gaze beyond your own thoughts and words, you find that the world persists, that it takes no care for the products of your mind... and never did.

 

[quixotecoyote]

This is the kind of verbiage produced by sheltered academics who never managed to outgrow the "Hey, you ever wonder if, like, what's green to me is green to you?" stage of late night sleepover talk.

Ha! It is the sheltered philosopher who dares not question the assumption of shared perception. In fact, the oft trumpeted empiricism so commonly associated with positivism requires shared assumptions as its axiomatic bedrock. Without acknowledging the need for a standard basis of comparison, it is impossible to reach anything objectively. Thus the colorblind person conversing with one capable to observing the normal spectra of human perceptible wavelength must, by default, disprove the assumptions of empiricism and by extension unenlightened skepticism. Thus the asynchronism of brain-wave patterns, the logical extension of BDZ's post #99, delivers a withering barrage of subjectivity suppression fire against Alric's objectivity cannon. For if brain activity is observed to be markedly different in separate individuals in response to the same phenomena, then it verifies the precedence of noumena in the ontological hierarchy to the point of rendering any meaningful epistemology inaccessible. Only through an alternative praxis can an approximation of the natural world be attained. It is this new vision that BDZ casts before you. The progressive staging of perception to conceptualization replaces the flawed reliance of observation as a foundational heuristic.

 

[PixyMisa]

In the second one I state that what we see is not what is "there".

You do realise that we all know this? Under materialism, we assume that what we observe is what is. But we know that we cannot see identity, only behaviour, and seeing is itself a behaviour, a series of interactions.

Now the fourth: Almost the same explanation, "internal" and "external" are mutually related concepts, and both exists in our mind. The same goes for every other opposite (objective, subjective, and so on).

Yes, "internal" and "external" are concepts, are thoughts. That's no insight.

Internal and external are real, though, as you will find if you ever have them inverted.

These are perceptual and conceptual categories, and in this sense, belong to us more than "to the world" (the noumena).

The noumena possesses the ability to stop thought. This is of some significance. As I said elsewhere, dead philosophers do not argue.

 

[Robin]

This is the kind of verbiage produced by sheltered academics who never managed to outgrow the "Hey, you ever wonder if, like, what's green to me is green to you?" stage of late night sleepover talk.

I think he of the eternal quixotic and fruitless search for klaxonic sustenance in the wilderness is perhaps having us on.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Where, exactly, is the woo part?

You can take your time.

Woo is, in the colloquial usage of this forum, any term or phenomenon which is poorly (or not at all) defined scientifically -- such as most of the mystical sounding terminology you used in your OP.

 

[AkuManiMani]

One big reason I bailed out of academia was that I got tired of having my boots continually stuck in the mud of philosophy.

I went into public service, then into private sector, where what matters is results.

It is possible to abandon philosophy altogether and focus on results. It's a much better world to live in.

And don't even try to tell me that focusing on results is some kind of philosophy, b/c if you do that you're attempting to paint with so broad a brush that every activity we engage in becomes "philosophy" -- and when a word means everything, it means nothing, because it fails to distinguish anything from anything.

I think I understand your perspective.

[Recently, I've been playing around with socionomics and it sounds a lot like you would be a variant of the ESTJ personality type -- I swear sometimes the accuracy of this type system is scary.]

You just have a radically different cognitive style than the more metaphysically minded Bodhi Dharma Zen. You're two completely different cognitive animals who naturally seek out and function in different niches.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

In this manner, we can say there is no such thing as galaxies and frogs and quarks and whatnot, only the semantic transference between perspective and observation. Only through such a transference can meaning be truly obtained, because it is within the transference rather than within an extant deification that any given object truly exists.

Agreed. The existence of something like a universe lies in here. In us. Out of us, the mere word lacks any meaning and the answer is rendered absurd.

Is the moon out there when we are not watching it?

It doesn't matter.

Translating these concepts into 'noumena' in reference to concepts beyond the scope of human consciousness may introduce confusion to those not yet ready to view reality through the appropriate paradigm. Perhaps we should come up with an alternate terminology, eh BDZ?

Nope. It is ok if some people can't see it.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

This is the kind of verbiage produced by sheltered academics who never managed to outgrow the "Hey, you ever wonder if, like, what's green to me is green to you?" stage of late night sleepover talk.

Lets see, maybe your meds are in the drawer. I strongly suggest you take them and relax.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

If you choose to believe in demons, you will see them everwhere you look.

By the same token, if you choose not to cast your gaze beyond your own thought and words, but instead to fetishize them, then the entire universe will appear to you as nothing more than a mesh of ideas and words.

For hating philosophy, you do lots of it.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

The noumena possesses the ability to stop thought. This is of some significance.

When the noumena stops it, there is silence.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Bodhi, you really gotta start using that multi-quote feature >_<

Edit: nevermind the double postings I made above >_>

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Bodhi, you really gotta start using that multi-quote feature >_<

Edit: nevermind the double postings I made above >_>

First time I notice it. Do I simply put quotes on several posts and can answer them in a single one? Or how does it works (no more to answer today in order to find out)

 

[AkuManiMani]

First time I notice it. Do I simply put quotes on several posts and can answer them in a single one? Or how does it works (no more to answer today in order to find out)

Basically tag each post you want to quote with the " icon and then click "Quote" for the last one -- seems to work for me.

 

[PixyMisa]

When the noumena stops it, there is silence.

Yes.

The point is, if the noumena (real world) causes thought, and the noumena can uncause it, then the noumena is what is. Pure materialism.

If you want to say naturalism, rather than materialism, then that's fine too.

 

[Phaedrus74]

Yes.

The point is, if the noumena (real world) causes thought, and the noumena can uncause it, then the noumena is what is. Pure materialism.

If you want to say naturalism, rather than materialism, then that's fine too.

Considering the fact that the theoretical framework proposed is a pretty good, albeit rough, summary of Kant transcendental idealism would be a more apropriate name.

Also quixotecoyote, don't forget that hermeneutics is in the end about things not words or concepts! "Being" is ontologically prior to "being-there"...

And finally, just because knowledge and inference start with perception does not warrant the conclusion that the connection between an event and the beliefs caused by that event are inherently unreliable. Error-prone?Maybe. Unreliable? No. There simply is no good reason to assume that the noumena that cause my perceptions at this moment are anything other than what I believe them to be, namely a desk, a bunch of paper and a computer monitor. It's a lot of fun to imagine otherwise, I enjoyed the Matrix a lot (though I enjoyed eXistenZ more), but in everyday life (also the everyday life of an academic philosopher) it's nearly always a waste of time. (Except when you're in a pub drinking a couple of beers...)