Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Knowledge & Experience

Expand Messages
  • Dick.
    Why don t you silly pratts stop waffling nonsence about your ideas and thoughts; they are worthless; just word games as are religionists beliefs. Cosy blankets
    Message 1 of 9 , Dec 29, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Why don't you silly pratts stop waffling nonsence about your ideas
      and thoughts; they are worthless; just word games as are religionists
      beliefs. Cosy blankets and drugs. Talk about your life experience and
      what it has done for you and where it has lead you to. You just play
      silly meaningless word games with each other. EMPTY ! As for people not
      knowing anything then you delude only yourselves. You know when you are
      hungry don't you? You know when you are hot or cold don't you?
      You know when you are sad or happy don't you? Not even a dog can go
      through life and not learn things and KNOW them. Are you all less than a
      dog?

      Merlin.

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome wrote:
      >
      > I don't quite understand your conclusion that ... "Given this
      structure and
      > limitation of knowledge and experience, that humans are able to share
      > anything is truly miraculous."
      >
      > The "structure" you posit is that experience is universal but some
      things
      > may not be a universal experience. And only particular knowledge is
      not
      > transferrable. I can appreciate that some things are not universal
      ... as
      > the experience of running a marathon to a legless person. Although at
      the
      > moment I cannot think of any knowledge that is not transferrable, I
      will
      > accept your premise. But from this, how can you say that all other
      > experience and knowledge that we share is "miraculous"??
      >
      > eduardathome
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Mary
      > Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 11:57 AM
      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [existlist] Knowledge & Experience
      >
      > I think being restricted to knowing only our own experiences is a
      > philosophical puzzle which requires the ability to think
      paradoxically. It
      > can cause a lack of empathy and further isolate us from one another.
      Camus
      > thought the alienation and solitude which occur are a basis for
      solidarity.
      > We're all alone together. Though experience is universal, there is
      probably
      > no such thing as a universal experience, only the particular
      experience. If
      > this is true, there is only particular knowledge which is not
      transferrable
      > no matter how well communicated. Given this structure and limitation
      of
      > knowledge and experience, that humans are able to share anything is
      truly
      > miraculous. If our striving to know is merely a circling round a void,
      our
      > particular void is entangled with every other void. This implicit
      structure
      > becomes explicit through the motion of dialectical thought, the very
      > movement of being across the void of other being.
      >
      > Mary
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining
      nothing!
      >
      > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
      >



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • William
      Message 2 of 9 , Dec 29, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Dick." <somerset_2@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > Why don't you silly pratts stop waffling nonsence about your ideas
        > and thoughts; they are worthless; just word games as are religionists
        > beliefs. Cosy blankets and drugs. Talk about your life experience and
        > what it has done for you and where it has lead you to. You just play
        > silly meaningless word games with each other. EMPTY ! As for people not
        > knowing anything then you delude only yourselves. You know when you are
        > hungry don't you? You know when you are hot or cold don't you?
        > You know when you are sad or happy don't you? Not even a dog can go
        > through life and not learn things and KNOW them. Are you all less than a
        > dog?
        >
        > Merlin.
        > Merlin,Wuf,Wuf,Bill
        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome wrote:
        > >
        > > I don't quite understand your conclusion that ... "Given this
        > structure and
        > > limitation of knowledge and experience, that humans are able to share
        > > anything is truly miraculous."
        > >
        > > The "structure" you posit is that experience is universal but some
        > things
        > > may not be a universal experience. And only particular knowledge is
        > not
        > > transferrable. I can appreciate that some things are not universal
        > ... as
        > > the experience of running a marathon to a legless person. Although at
        > the
        > > moment I cannot think of any knowledge that is not transferrable, I
        > will
        > > accept your premise. But from this, how can you say that all other
        > > experience and knowledge that we share is "miraculous"??
        > >
        > > eduardathome
        > >
        > > -----Original Message-----
        > > From: Mary
        > > Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 11:57 AM
        > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > > Subject: [existlist] Knowledge & Experience
        > >
        > > I think being restricted to knowing only our own experiences is a
        > > philosophical puzzle which requires the ability to think
        > paradoxically. It
        > > can cause a lack of empathy and further isolate us from one another.
        > Camus
        > > thought the alienation and solitude which occur are a basis for
        > solidarity.
        > > We're all alone together. Though experience is universal, there is
        > probably
        > > no such thing as a universal experience, only the particular
        > experience. If
        > > this is true, there is only particular knowledge which is not
        > transferrable
        > > no matter how well communicated. Given this structure and limitation
        > of
        > > knowledge and experience, that humans are able to share anything is
        > truly
        > > miraculous. If our striving to know is merely a circling round a void,
        > our
        > > particular void is entangled with every other void. This implicit
        > structure
        > > becomes explicit through the motion of dialectical thought, the very
        > > movement of being across the void of other being.
        > >
        > > Mary
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > ------------------------------------
        > >
        > > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining
        > nothing!
        > >
        > > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      • Mary
        eduard, Bill, and all, I ll try to begin by answering your question about structure, limitation, and the miraculous. Because we are interlocked beings wrapped
        Message 3 of 9 , Dec 30, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          eduard, Bill, and all,

          I'll try to begin by answering your question about structure, limitation, and the miraculous. Because we are interlocked beings 'wrapped around' our respective voids, the structural alienation of individual perception seems an insurmountable obstacle. What is miraculous is that through our individual development from consciousness to individual sense perception to self-consciousness and the ability to communicate, we are able to overcome our individuality, albeit to a very small degree.

          What we perceive and think is shared only through verbal and physical communication. Our experiences are individual. Observation of others having what seem to be identical individual experiences simultaneously is not the same as universal experience. As you say, each one is interpreting individually. The only things we can claim as universal are the activities themselves--perception and experience--not particular individual ones. Our particular experiences are instances of the universal and reflect the another indirectly and imperfectly.

          This is why I hesitate to describe particular and individual experiences, whether perception, thought or feeling, as truth. Truth requires proof: reality and knowledge do not. Though I speak here with a degree of certainty, my "truth" as you call it, is merely informal theory or hypothesis and additionally is based on or adapted from others' ideas. This is the nature of thought: it is shared via common language or symbols, not essentially.

          I suppose you'll say I'm hair splitting or muddying the terms: knowledge, truth, reality. I've often carelessly used them interchangeably, but they deserve some philosophical rigor. I welcome your questions and challenges, because they help demonstrate our limitations (finitude) and the need for multiple perspectives in order to more precisely show how thought moves within itself and between others. Thought is superior to experience because it is shared through language if one is concerned with the solidarity which accompanies history and politics. Experience is superior is you are strictly solitary.

          Reality is what we experience. Knowledge is what we learn. Both develop and change. Truth is absolute and wholly unattainable; it appear as, across and between its parts. What reality and knowledge have in common is our thought, but reason is truth itself, not its particular transitory determinations.

          I think the difficulty with the term 'absolute truth' lies in 'absolute.' For me it means total, whole, universal, infinite, but I can't experience it. Truth is momentarily glimpsed through its particular phenomena but elusively recedes, resisting our grasp. how could we ever comprehend the absolute?

          You're right that a positivist can't be considered postmodern, since postmodern theory includes scepticism about science itself as an absolute model for truth. Its relativism refutes formal objective truth. So like Bill, I'm also a little confused about its description. It does seem wrapped up in leftist sentiment and terminology, respecting the individual's quest for meaning to a fault, but that aligns with existentialism, along with a political correctness which generally strays from experience, etc. For me postmodern is a reaction to perceived strictures of what is modern and denies formal structure to anything.

          Dialectical reason means to me the kind of thought which is able to move between oppositions, contradictions and is also characterized by determining between differences, and the principle of negation, that knowledge is developed through negation and sublation.

          I agree with Sartre's take on freedom and responsibility, an ethical atheism recently promoted by Zizek. If the void means freedom, responsibility is freedom in action. Freedom is and isn't the lack of constraint, and responsibility implies there are things for which we are not responsible. As with Nietzsche, this is a treacherous slough.

          Thought is empirical and should be examined through philosophy, not neuroscience.

          Mary



          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@...> wrote:
          >
          > I don't quite understand your conclusion that ... "Given this structure and
          > limitation of knowledge and experience, that humans are able to share
          > anything is truly miraculous."
          >
          > The "structure" you posit is that experience is universal but some things
          > may not be a universal experience. And only particular knowledge is not
          > transferrable. I can appreciate that some things are not universal ... as
          > the experience of running a marathon to a legless person. Although at the
          > moment I cannot think of any knowledge that is not transferrable, I will
          > accept your premise. But from this, how can you say that all other
          > experience and knowledge that we share is "miraculous"??
          >
          > eduardathome
          >
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: Mary
          > Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 11:57 AM
          > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: [existlist] Knowledge & Experience
          >
          > I think being restricted to knowing only our own experiences is a
          > philosophical puzzle which requires the ability to think paradoxically. It
          > can cause a lack of empathy and further isolate us from one another. Camus
          > thought the alienation and solitude which occur are a basis for solidarity.
          > We're all alone together. Though experience is universal, there is probably
          > no such thing as a universal experience, only the particular experience. If
          > this is true, there is only particular knowledge which is not transferrable
          > no matter how well communicated. Given this structure and limitation of
          > knowledge and experience, that humans are able to share anything is truly
          > miraculous. If our striving to know is merely a circling round a void, our
          > particular void is entangled with every other void. This implicit structure
          > becomes explicit through the motion of dialectical thought, the very
          > movement of being across the void of other being.
          >
          > Mary
          >
          >
          >
          > ------------------------------------
          >
          > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
          >
          > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
          >
        • eduardathome
          Mary, Thought is empirical and should be examined through philosophy, not neuroscience. It is not about what is thought, but rather the thoughting ... the
          Message 4 of 9 , Dec 30, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Mary,

            "Thought is empirical and should be examined through philosophy, not
            neuroscience."

            It is not about what is thought, but rather the thoughting ... the act of
            thinking. And that is in the realm of neuroscience. I am assuming your use
            of "neuroscience" relates to my position that our thinking is of the brain
            ... the workings of our neurons.

            But lets look more closely at your statement....

            Yes thought is empirical. It is what we interpret from observation. But
            "observation" is also neuroscience [to use your word]. We "observe" by
            means of our brains. But then so too is rational thought. We rationalize
            stuff by means of our brains ... neural processing.

            And philosophy itself is neuroscience. It is what someone thought by use of
            their brains. Everything we think, philosophize about occurs in our brains.

            As I said before, there is a huge resistance to accepting that we think by
            using our brains. We do make some concession to such thinking acts as
            remembering our telephone number, but things like spirituality and mysticism
            and such has to occur elsewhere. Whereas they are just more neural
            activity.

            By the way, how can one examine thought through philosophy??

            eduardathome


            -----Original Message-----
            From: Mary
            Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 1:32 PM
            To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [existlist] Re: Knowledge & Experience & Postmodern & Dialectic &
            Freedom & Responsibility

            eduard, Bill, and all,

            I'll try to begin by answering your question about structure, limitation,
            and the miraculous. Because we are interlocked beings 'wrapped around' our
            respective voids, the structural alienation of individual perception seems
            an insurmountable obstacle. What is miraculous is that through our
            individual development from consciousness to individual sense perception to
            self-consciousness and the ability to communicate, we are able to overcome
            our individuality, albeit to a very small degree.

            What we perceive and think is shared only through verbal and physical
            communication. Our experiences are individual. Observation of others having
            what seem to be identical individual experiences simultaneously is not the
            same as universal experience. As you say, each one is interpreting
            individually. The only things we can claim as universal are the activities
            themselves--perception and experience--not particular individual ones. Our
            particular experiences are instances of the universal and reflect the
            another indirectly and imperfectly.

            This is why I hesitate to describe particular and individual experiences,
            whether perception, thought or feeling, as truth. Truth requires proof:
            reality and knowledge do not. Though I speak here with a degree of
            certainty, my "truth" as you call it, is merely informal theory or
            hypothesis and additionally is based on or adapted from others' ideas. This
            is the nature of thought: it is shared via common language or symbols, not
            essentially.

            I suppose you'll say I'm hair splitting or muddying the terms: knowledge,
            truth, reality. I've often carelessly used them interchangeably, but they
            deserve some philosophical rigor. I welcome your questions and challenges,
            because they help demonstrate our limitations (finitude) and the need for
            multiple perspectives in order to more precisely show how thought moves
            within itself and between others. Thought is superior to experience because
            it is shared through language if one is concerned with the solidarity which
            accompanies history and politics. Experience is superior is you are strictly
            solitary.

            Reality is what we experience. Knowledge is what we learn. Both develop and
            change. Truth is absolute and wholly unattainable; it appear as, across and
            between its parts. What reality and knowledge have in common is our thought,
            but reason is truth itself, not its particular transitory determinations.

            I think the difficulty with the term 'absolute truth' lies in 'absolute.'
            For me it means total, whole, universal, infinite, but I can't experience
            it. Truth is momentarily glimpsed through its particular phenomena but
            elusively recedes, resisting our grasp. how could we ever comprehend the
            absolute?

            You're right that a positivist can't be considered postmodern, since
            postmodern theory includes scepticism about science itself as an absolute
            model for truth. Its relativism refutes formal objective truth. So like
            Bill, I'm also a little confused about its description. It does seem wrapped
            up in leftist sentiment and terminology, respecting the individual's quest
            for meaning to a fault, but that aligns with existentialism, along with a
            political correctness which generally strays from experience, etc. For me
            postmodern is a reaction to perceived strictures of what is modern and
            denies formal structure to anything.

            Dialectical reason means to me the kind of thought which is able to move
            between oppositions, contradictions and is also characterized by determining
            between differences, and the principle of negation, that knowledge is
            developed through negation and sublation.

            I agree with Sartre's take on freedom and responsibility, an ethical atheism
            recently promoted by Zizek. If the void means freedom, responsibility is
            freedom in action. Freedom is and isn't the lack of constraint, and
            responsibility implies there are things for which we are not responsible. As
            with Nietzsche, this is a treacherous slough.

            Thought is empirical and should be examined through philosophy, not
            neuroscience.

            Mary
          • Mary
            eduard, Speculative reason or philosophy is not the same as common or ordinary thinking. All that neuroscience can do is observe and measure where thinking
            Message 5 of 9 , Dec 30, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              eduard,

              Speculative reason or philosophy is not the same as common or ordinary thinking.

              All that neuroscience can do is observe and measure where thinking occurs in the brain; it can't account for the content of thought. Nor does it take into account the entire body and its environments as part of a feedback loop. I don't deny that neuronal processes are involved in thought and emotion but that they are only part of a larger system including and extending from the body, even to other minds. Neither science nor philosophy can prove definitively what consciousness is, nor can one's individual experience with it be extrapolated into a universal.

              Philosophical or speculative reason is scientific because it observes and examines how thought develops among people and it tries to establish abstract and concrete categories or at least improve on existing principles which may possibly determine why people think as they do. Any approach which cannot sort cause from effect is inherently flawed.

              Mary

              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@...> wrote:
              >
              > Mary,
              >
              > "Thought is empirical and should be examined through philosophy, not
              > neuroscience."
              >
              > It is not about what is thought, but rather the thoughting ... the act of
              > thinking. And that is in the realm of neuroscience. I am assuming your use
              > of "neuroscience" relates to my position that our thinking is of the brain
              > ... the workings of our neurons.
              >
              > But lets look more closely at your statement....
              >
              > Yes thought is empirical. It is what we interpret from observation. But
              > "observation" is also neuroscience [to use your word]. We "observe" by
              > means of our brains. But then so too is rational thought. We rationalize
              > stuff by means of our brains ... neural processing.
              >
              > And philosophy itself is neuroscience. It is what someone thought by use of
              > their brains. Everything we think, philosophize about occurs in our brains.
              >
              > As I said before, there is a huge resistance to accepting that we think by
              > using our brains. We do make some concession to such thinking acts as
              > remembering our telephone number, but things like spirituality and mysticism
              > and such has to occur elsewhere. Whereas they are just more neural
              > activity.
              >
              > By the way, how can one examine thought through philosophy??
              >
              > eduardathome
              >
              >
              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: Mary
              > Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 1:32 PM
              > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: [existlist] Re: Knowledge & Experience & Postmodern & Dialectic &
              > Freedom & Responsibility
              >
              > eduard, Bill, and all,
              >
              > I'll try to begin by answering your question about structure, limitation,
              > and the miraculous. Because we are interlocked beings 'wrapped around' our
              > respective voids, the structural alienation of individual perception seems
              > an insurmountable obstacle. What is miraculous is that through our
              > individual development from consciousness to individual sense perception to
              > self-consciousness and the ability to communicate, we are able to overcome
              > our individuality, albeit to a very small degree.
              >
              > What we perceive and think is shared only through verbal and physical
              > communication. Our experiences are individual. Observation of others having
              > what seem to be identical individual experiences simultaneously is not the
              > same as universal experience. As you say, each one is interpreting
              > individually. The only things we can claim as universal are the activities
              > themselves--perception and experience--not particular individual ones. Our
              > particular experiences are instances of the universal and reflect the
              > another indirectly and imperfectly.
              >
              > This is why I hesitate to describe particular and individual experiences,
              > whether perception, thought or feeling, as truth. Truth requires proof:
              > reality and knowledge do not. Though I speak here with a degree of
              > certainty, my "truth" as you call it, is merely informal theory or
              > hypothesis and additionally is based on or adapted from others' ideas. This
              > is the nature of thought: it is shared via common language or symbols, not
              > essentially.
              >
              > I suppose you'll say I'm hair splitting or muddying the terms: knowledge,
              > truth, reality. I've often carelessly used them interchangeably, but they
              > deserve some philosophical rigor. I welcome your questions and challenges,
              > because they help demonstrate our limitations (finitude) and the need for
              > multiple perspectives in order to more precisely show how thought moves
              > within itself and between others. Thought is superior to experience because
              > it is shared through language if one is concerned with the solidarity which
              > accompanies history and politics. Experience is superior is you are strictly
              > solitary.
              >
              > Reality is what we experience. Knowledge is what we learn. Both develop and
              > change. Truth is absolute and wholly unattainable; it appear as, across and
              > between its parts. What reality and knowledge have in common is our thought,
              > but reason is truth itself, not its particular transitory determinations.
              >
              > I think the difficulty with the term 'absolute truth' lies in 'absolute.'
              > For me it means total, whole, universal, infinite, but I can't experience
              > it. Truth is momentarily glimpsed through its particular phenomena but
              > elusively recedes, resisting our grasp. how could we ever comprehend the
              > absolute?
              >
              > You're right that a positivist can't be considered postmodern, since
              > postmodern theory includes scepticism about science itself as an absolute
              > model for truth. Its relativism refutes formal objective truth. So like
              > Bill, I'm also a little confused about its description. It does seem wrapped
              > up in leftist sentiment and terminology, respecting the individual's quest
              > for meaning to a fault, but that aligns with existentialism, along with a
              > political correctness which generally strays from experience, etc. For me
              > postmodern is a reaction to perceived strictures of what is modern and
              > denies formal structure to anything.
              >
              > Dialectical reason means to me the kind of thought which is able to move
              > between oppositions, contradictions and is also characterized by determining
              > between differences, and the principle of negation, that knowledge is
              > developed through negation and sublation.
              >
              > I agree with Sartre's take on freedom and responsibility, an ethical atheism
              > recently promoted by Zizek. If the void means freedom, responsibility is
              > freedom in action. Freedom is and isn't the lack of constraint, and
              > responsibility implies there are things for which we are not responsible. As
              > with Nietzsche, this is a treacherous slough.
              >
              > Thought is empirical and should be examined through philosophy, not
              > neuroscience.
              >
              > Mary
              >
            • eduardathome
              Mary, All thought, including speculative reason is thinking and it is through means of the brain. Neuroscience does account for the content of thought. It is
              Message 6 of 9 , Dec 31, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                Mary,

                All thought, including speculative reason is thinking and it is through
                means of the brain.

                Neuroscience does account for the content of thought. It is what we store
                and produce in our brains.

                Like I said there is a huge resistance to think that we actually think. Or
                that the brain produces the words and all the rest of the stuff that is for
                example on these pages.

                Science has proven what consciousness is. It is just the interior workings
                of our brains. My brain processes thought, therefore I am.

                The problem here is that we cannot accept, in expressing ourselves [the
                content], that this is the workings of our brain. The reason is because we
                cannot monitor our thinking process. For example, I am not aware that my
                brain is actually producing these words because I can't see it happen. But
                it does. If I type the the word "existentialism" this is from my brain. If
                Sartre puts it in a book, it is the workings of his brain.

                Because we can't monitor our thinking, we invent the idea of ourselves as
                other than our brain. As something else that can account for the special
                content of thought.

                It is somewhat similar with sight. People tend to think that when we see
                something, the eye is producing an image which is somehow projected on a
                screen in the back of our heads. But there is no image. The eye senses the
                elements of what is projected on the retina [colour, brightness, vertical
                lines, horizontal lines, curves, etc. etc.]. These elements ... there are
                11 or 15 ... are then sent as electrochemical signals to the brain. Think
                of what happens when I "see" my hand. The eye senses colours of red and
                white and this is an element. It also senses vertical and horizontal
                dimensions as well as depth/thickness. My hand has a certain brightness in
                this light. It has shadowing. There isn't an image of a hand in my brain
                ... only stored elements.

                When we "think" of a remembered image, it is just those elements being put
                back together. And the reason why we tend to forget things over time. The
                storage of some element of the image is lost because neurons weaken if not
                used. When an important element is missing, the brain invents one of its
                own. That's why witness reports can be so different. The coat worn by the
                criminal now becomes red because the brain lost the element of a blue coat
                and did a substitution.

                There's no image in our brain of things seen ... no sound of things heard
                ... no sweetness of candy tasted. It's all a bunch of electrochemical
                signals stored in neurons. The same applies to philosophy, religion,
                mysticism or whatever. And these as well are just neuroscience. But we do
                not want to accept the fact.

                We tend to get carried away by the perceived importance of our thoughts.
                Its Ok for the brain to observe and measure ... that's just ordinary
                thinking ... but to talk about philosophy ... that has to come from
                somewhere else.

                So we invent all sorts of things that enables us to account for what we
                think is non-common thinking. And if it is not our mundane brains, then of
                a larger system extending outside of the body. And from there it isn't much
                of a step to consider that we can transmit our thoughts to others, and get
                into other neat stuff like channelling to the dead. Which of course can be
                a lot of fun, but in the end it is only our brains doing their thing.

                There is no fundamental difference in our brain enabling us to jump across a
                mud puddle than to compose a symphony.

                eduardathome

                -----Original Message-----
                From: Mary
                Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 8:57 PM
                To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: [existlist] Re: Knowledge & Experience & Postmodern & Dialectic &
                Freedom & Responsibility

                eduard,

                Speculative reason or philosophy is not the same as common or ordinary
                thinking.

                All that neuroscience can do is observe and measure where thinking occurs in
                the brain; it can't account for the content of thought. Nor does it take
                into account the entire body and its environments as part of a feedback
                loop. I don't deny that neuronal processes are involved in thought and
                emotion but that they are only part of a larger system including and
                extending from the body, even to other minds. Neither science nor philosophy
                can prove definitively what consciousness is, nor can one's individual
                experience with it be extrapolated into a universal.

                Philosophical or speculative reason is scientific because it observes and
                examines how thought develops among people and it tries to establish
                abstract and concrete categories or at least improve on existing principles
                which may possibly determine why people think as they do. Any approach which
                cannot sort cause from effect is inherently flawed.

                Mary

                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@...> wrote:
                >
                > Mary,
                >
                > "Thought is empirical and should be examined through philosophy, not
                > neuroscience."
                >
                > It is not about what is thought, but rather the thoughting ... the act of
                > thinking. And that is in the realm of neuroscience. I am assuming your
                > use
                > of "neuroscience" relates to my position that our thinking is of the brain
                > ... the workings of our neurons.
                >
                > But lets look more closely at your statement....
                >
                > Yes thought is empirical. It is what we interpret from observation. But
                > "observation" is also neuroscience [to use your word]. We "observe" by
                > means of our brains. But then so too is rational thought. We rationalize
                > stuff by means of our brains ... neural processing.
                >
                > And philosophy itself is neuroscience. It is what someone thought by use
                > of
                > their brains. Everything we think, philosophize about occurs in our
                > brains.
                >
                > As I said before, there is a huge resistance to accepting that we think by
                > using our brains. We do make some concession to such thinking acts as
                > remembering our telephone number, but things like spirituality and
                > mysticism
                > and such has to occur elsewhere. Whereas they are just more neural
                > activity.
                >
                > By the way, how can one examine thought through philosophy??
                >
                > eduardathome
                >
                >
                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: Mary
                > Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 1:32 PM
                > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                > Subject: [existlist] Re: Knowledge & Experience & Postmodern & Dialectic &
                > Freedom & Responsibility
                >
                > eduard, Bill, and all,
                >
                > I'll try to begin by answering your question about structure, limitation,
                > and the miraculous. Because we are interlocked beings 'wrapped around' our
                > respective voids, the structural alienation of individual perception seems
                > an insurmountable obstacle. What is miraculous is that through our
                > individual development from consciousness to individual sense perception
                > to
                > self-consciousness and the ability to communicate, we are able to overcome
                > our individuality, albeit to a very small degree.
                >
                > What we perceive and think is shared only through verbal and physical
                > communication. Our experiences are individual. Observation of others
                > having
                > what seem to be identical individual experiences simultaneously is not the
                > same as universal experience. As you say, each one is interpreting
                > individually. The only things we can claim as universal are the activities
                > themselves--perception and experience--not particular individual ones. Our
                > particular experiences are instances of the universal and reflect the
                > another indirectly and imperfectly.
                >
                > This is why I hesitate to describe particular and individual experiences,
                > whether perception, thought or feeling, as truth. Truth requires proof:
                > reality and knowledge do not. Though I speak here with a degree of
                > certainty, my "truth" as you call it, is merely informal theory or
                > hypothesis and additionally is based on or adapted from others' ideas.
                > This
                > is the nature of thought: it is shared via common language or symbols, not
                > essentially.
                >
                > I suppose you'll say I'm hair splitting or muddying the terms: knowledge,
                > truth, reality. I've often carelessly used them interchangeably, but they
                > deserve some philosophical rigor. I welcome your questions and challenges,
                > because they help demonstrate our limitations (finitude) and the need for
                > multiple perspectives in order to more precisely show how thought moves
                > within itself and between others. Thought is superior to experience
                > because
                > it is shared through language if one is concerned with the solidarity
                > which
                > accompanies history and politics. Experience is superior is you are
                > strictly
                > solitary.
                >
                > Reality is what we experience. Knowledge is what we learn. Both develop
                > and
                > change. Truth is absolute and wholly unattainable; it appear as, across
                > and
                > between its parts. What reality and knowledge have in common is our
                > thought,
                > but reason is truth itself, not its particular transitory determinations.
                >
                > I think the difficulty with the term 'absolute truth' lies in 'absolute.'
                > For me it means total, whole, universal, infinite, but I can't experience
                > it. Truth is momentarily glimpsed through its particular phenomena but
                > elusively recedes, resisting our grasp. how could we ever comprehend the
                > absolute?
                >
                > You're right that a positivist can't be considered postmodern, since
                > postmodern theory includes scepticism about science itself as an absolute
                > model for truth. Its relativism refutes formal objective truth. So like
                > Bill, I'm also a little confused about its description. It does seem
                > wrapped
                > up in leftist sentiment and terminology, respecting the individual's quest
                > for meaning to a fault, but that aligns with existentialism, along with a
                > political correctness which generally strays from experience, etc. For me
                > postmodern is a reaction to perceived strictures of what is modern and
                > denies formal structure to anything.
                >
                > Dialectical reason means to me the kind of thought which is able to move
                > between oppositions, contradictions and is also characterized by
                > determining
                > between differences, and the principle of negation, that knowledge is
                > developed through negation and sublation.
                >
                > I agree with Sartre's take on freedom and responsibility, an ethical
                > atheism
                > recently promoted by Zizek. If the void means freedom, responsibility is
                > freedom in action. Freedom is and isn't the lack of constraint, and
                > responsibility implies there are things for which we are not responsible.
                > As
                > with Nietzsche, this is a treacherous slough.
                >
                > Thought is empirical and should be examined through philosophy, not
                > neuroscience.
                >
                > Mary
                >




                ------------------------------------

                Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

                Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.