Zaay,
Your refined critiques are deeply appreciated. I am considering very much everything you write.
Of course, for many skeptics, unknown = false, until proven otherwise. So while they treat it on one hand as false, on the other, they're treating it as unknown, period.
Zaay, now we are at the center of this argument. Yes, you're correct, skeptics do define unknown=false, that is how I pointed out 'or the 2, right?' Many skeptics define unknown as false, and many 'believers' define unknown=true. Both are making the same critical error.
Let's look at this closer.
The Skeptics argument. unknown=false
The Believers argument. unknown=true
Bubblefish's argument. unknown=unknown.
Semantically, they are [skeptic's and believer's argument] both obviously false, you may as well say x=y and never bother to define x and y.
Critical thinking is A=A. Subjective/Creative Thinking is A=B
Therefore, unknown=unknown, false=false, true=true, hence, the third value and the neccesity of critical thinking to be applied to one's personal philosophy.
You can only get to unknown=false as a skeptic when you apply Occam's Razor or something similar. Occam's Razor is not logic, nor is it science, nor is it dialectic, but rather a heuristic. You can't determine anything with a heuristic, it's only a guide, it's not science, it's philosophy.
These are hardly useless steps, {the skeptics approach to an unknown phemomena} but I doubt you understand that.
compared to my point of view, they are useless, they dont determine anything, they are more likely to mislead. Those steps were guided by a philosophy with unscientifically determined assumptions.
I stated a series of questions, not answers mind you, but questions that a dialectician would use. It is not the answer which always informs or enlightens, it's the question. A question itself is by default beholden of the third value. The question is proof of the mystery it seeks.
You mentioned-
A verbose expansion of the process taken by the skeptic in dealing with the Christian believer's statement. This is all part of the process, you know.
if the skeptic is applying unknown=false to those answers, the skeptic is going to delude himself as much as the Christian believer, no? It is possible that any concievable higher intelligence in the universe may be far removed from the Christian Believers 'image' of God.
to this you reply
Irrelevant to the statement offered. This is largely hand-waving and misdirection, having little to do with the issue of a Biblical God.
but it
could possibly have to do with the biblical god in the sense that the biblical god was only an idea that perhaps was guided by some organizing princaple in either nature or the universe. the christian idea of jesus and the various belief systems around jesus provided society with some pretty critical components, very benificial social ethics were adopted into society due to those belief systems.
For here, you may consult atheist Isaac Azimov. He wrote a book about religion, I forget the title, but I love his argument. Although Azimov is an atheist, he critically pointed out the many benifits religion had on early society, i.e. those beliefs served an organizing princaple regardless if they are false. If you think Muslims or arabs are not rational now, you should have seen how violent and murderous their culture was directly before the advent of Islam
Now, you suggest that asking questions regarding humanity's origins, purpose, or direction, or at least certain questions, is not an approach, and, indeed you say that it is...
and it essentialy is the only one, that's my argument. We want truth, right? we can't find the truth if we can't ask the question.
The question's may provide 1 or 2 values, but we must ask them, we cant go on 'hunch, which to me seems like you are doing at a critical level of your philosophy.
Now, first you suggest here that these questions would be meaningless, yet below you state that they become meaningless only when..
Only once those answers reach the stage of being assigned a true or false value.
well of course, then they are redundant, no? and many of those questions I addressed uptop have not reached that stage, far from it, there is far too much 'mystery' that has not been untangled.
Mystery is nothing but a tangled hierarchy of true and false, and skeptics see mystery as false and believers as true.
Now, you mention qi, you made some claims which I said were epistemological and philosophical. I dont understand why you responded with...
No, this is the accumulation of about 20 years of research into Chinese mythology, anthropology, archaeology, and history, as well as research into what is contemporarily referred to as 'qi practices'.
meaning your making epistemological and philosophical claims based on your research, no?
Chinese myths are one of my hobbies. Probably has a lot to do with Quan Yin being my patron deity.
Interesting, so is mine!
Your inability to accept what is apparently true is irrelevant. Yes, it is verifiable, though I would hardly call twenty years of research easy. Still, I expect you'll be looking into the historical, archaological, and anthropological origins of qi shortly?
although I can't say I have been researching it for 20 years, I too have done similar research as yours as well as an actual hands on practice for over 10 years, I come to a different conclusion than you, so that is how I say I can't accept your statement as objectivly true and certain. It's a mysterious idea, your claim, from my point of view at this time.
I say qi currently has one of two possibilities to consider based on my personal experience and research, I too am making an epistimenological claim.
Qi is possibly a peri-normal phenomena, or a phantasm of subjective experience that is non contradictory inside of a body of philosophy.
That last bit was meaningless. If it exists as an unknown phenomena (I reject your use of the buzzword 'perinormal'), then saying it does not exist is contradictory.
I am determining niether, rather I am saying it reasonably could be one or the other at this stage, not both at once! (although it 'could' actually be both at once, but that is too complex a possibility to discuss at this time)
Either a thing exists, in which case it is a normal phenomena (no matter how unusual), or it does not exist, in which case it is a supernatural phenomena.
Either a thing exists in matter, or in concept, or both. With qi, either the mechanism is material, or psychological (conceptual placeholder for what ever 'mind' mechanism creates results in 'placebo' effects)
Our awareness and knowledge of its existence is irrelevant, as regards such existence.
On the other hand, many things exist as concepts and placeholders - though that is a different discussion altogether.
it's not a different discussion, it's the element of the 2 value, most indeed apart of this discussion.
Imagination exists in universe, it follows none of the laws of universe, it completly disregards them. It exists in 'conceptual' space. We can only verify it exists through personal experience, there is no proof of it's existence outside of this. Same as consciousness. We have absolutly no scientific evidence for the existence of consciousness other than direct experience of ' I Am, I think, I feel'.
Now, I am going to cut this post in half and end here, and focus on the other half of your argument in a new post.
I am so glad you responded to my comment about Dr. Shui Yin Lo, that was very intentional me mentioning him on this forum. You mentioned in another post that I briefly read that you agree with one of the propositions in OS 012 as being self evident. Rocks are Rocks, Trees are Trees, Human beings are human beings, and ideas are ideas.
Human beings are not ideas, yet human psychology argues against propositions and suggestions exactly as if they are. Although we can agree intellectually that ideas are ideas, and human beings are not ideas, our behavior in discussion, when the text is held at the objective face value, shows that at a very critical level, we confuse ideas as human beings and vice versa.
When we confuse as idea as a human being, we have a reaction. Reactions are
and I will address this further in my next post.
Once again, Zaay, you are indeed a thinker I am deeply enjoying discussion with. I hope that both of us will find a higher synthesis of our opposing schools of thought throughout this exchange. I have thought about our exchange all day, and I am deeply considering everything you write.
Much Respect,
Bubblefish
My humble effort merely strives to act as a reminder, to those foolish enough to try, that attempts to interract with it are pointless and doomed to fail because his Highmindedness is a dyed in the wool, unreconstructed troll. The only worthwhile legal activity is to bait the moron. 