if you stipulated that 2+2=5 — Banno

I can propose a couple of possible worlds: (a) a dull world where the number signs have gotten swapped, or (b) a rather confusing one where Nature abhors a foursome, such that whenever one has two pairs of shoes, another shoe comes spontaneously into existence, and whenever two couples meet for lunch a child is born.

But what I was wondering is why you were asking anyone to stipulate an un-stipulated possibility? Architects' plans stipulate possible buildings; but just because they cannot plan an unplanned building, does not prove that unplanned buildings cannot exist.

Can anyone provide an example of a possible world or counterfactual situation that is not stipulated? — Banno

Not me, but suppose that I could ...

{insert un-stipulated possible world example here}

... if I stipulate that a possible world is un-stipulated, is it stipulated? Does Kripke die of shame at this point?

Further to my Guardian link above, here it is being questioned:

https://www.thecanary.co/global/world-analysis/2018/11/28/growing-calls-for-guardian-editor-in-chief-to-resign-after-the-paper-publishes-massive-fake-news-story/

I'm holding my breath, and exploring possible worlds...

Yeah, that's the Phillip K Dick novel. I was thinking of Len Deighton's SS-GB, but there are others too. Unless we are philosophers, there is little problem understanding counterfactual possible worlds and their difference from the detective's possible solutions.

But as I have never been to the US, it is possible that The Man in the High Castle is substantially true, and all this stuff about presidents is fake news. Or is it?

Is there a problem with saying I was asleep and dreaming? Is that not already a clearer statement than the possibilities you propose?

Generally, I would prefer to say I am conscious of something, or not, so I can be conscious of writing a post, but not conscious of my breathing, both being equally real and present. And at the same time I can daydream of other answers (unreal) I might give, that I might remember later or not.

But generally, we say of someone asleep that they are unconscious, and mean that they are not conscious of the world in which they are asleep.

And the conclusion: that S is 1 metre long is an a priori, contingent truth. — Banno

Feeding this back into what has gone before, it is possible that Nixon was called Nixoff, and was a native of Canada and became a social worker. At which point, there is only the stipulation of the possible world that makes Nixon and Nixoff 'the same person'. (Which could be made more plausible if we suppose that his parents (possibly) emigrated and changed their name.)

But such stipulations are susceptible to ridicule or earnest criticism, though they be immune from dis-proof. Just as a stipulated metre stick can be criticised as being prone to expansion when damp or hot, so Nixoff can be criticised as being uninterestingly Nixon. Or, a possible Moses who didn't part the Red Sea, as not the Moses that anyone cares about, or a possible world in which the moon landings were faked, as too fanciful.

But possible worlds have uses, (unlike the counterfactuals being considered here), like metre sticks, either as projections to the future - I might go shopping later, it might stop raining: - or as tools of discovery of the past. The detective considers possible worlds in which each of his suspects committed the murder, works out the consequences in each case, and looks for evidence that supports or contradicts each possibility. Could Armstrong have done it and faked his alibi of being on the moon? could Nixon have done it and not talked about it on his tapes? Could Moses have time travelled? Possibilities are eliminated until the only one left is that the butler did it. And time will tell whether or not it stops raining and I go shopping.

In practical modal reasoning, there is a rule against changing the known facts, that there was a murder, that it is raining, That Nixon was the president, or whatever, that does not apply when one makes a novel about if Hitler had won the war. Such a novel can be instructive as a warning but is not admissible in court.

We have contradictory customs. — frank

We write novels, and we try cases, and different rules apply, but as long as we keep our customs separate, and keep fiction out of the courtroom, there is no contradiction.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/27/manafort-held-secret-talks-with-assange-in-ecuadorian-embassy?CMP=fb_gu&fbclid=IwAR23kYkeSgEfY3z-1l0J3MzF-JaBl3GsE6KqgFfZV_qIpJt1mwTB1NN4eyQ

I just can't help adding seventeen and six and getting twenty-three on this one.

Same reason we call a flock of sheep sheep. It's just the way we happen talk.

Can anyone think of a perspective that makes life/reality or the world a moral and desirable state of affairs? — Andrew4Handel

I'm not clear what this means. If everything was as it ought to be, there would be no gap between ought and is, and thus no use for moral talk. But you seem to want to say that nothing is as it ought to be, and further that nothing ought to be at all. Odd.

I think anyone enlightened would never claim to be enlightened. Hence being unenlightened. — Posty McPostface

There is a flaw in your logic.

All enlightened people do not claim enlightenment.
Unenlightened does not claim enlightenment.
Hence... no, nothing follows.

I can't see why it should seem a combative question. Its perfectly reasonable to ask people to justify any claim they care to make. — Janus

The constant repetition makes it seem combative, and that without any explanation of its significance. I'm here to discuss Krishnamurti's teaching, not my own faith.

How many such radically transformed individuals do you know, or even know of? — Janus

I don't think I'm in any position to make the judgement; it seems like a rather combative question. One hears tell, but personally, I am not that interested in another's enlightenment. But even if no one has conquered this mountain, still perhaps someone may...

This causes me anxiety. How can I live my life (if I even exist) doubting that every thought that enters my mind as being real and true. — Kranky

During our dreams we do not know we are dreaming. We may even dream of interpreting a dream. Only on waking do we know it was a dream. Only after the great awakening will we realize that this is the great dream. And yet fools think they are awake, presuming to know that they are rulers or herdsmen. How dense! You and Confucius are both dreaming, and I who say you are a dream am also a dream. Such is my tale. It will probably be called preposterous, but after ten thousand generations there may be a great sage who will be able to explain it, a trivial interval equivalent to the passage from morning to night.
________________________________________
To the most trivial actions, attach the devotion and mindfulness of a hundred monks. To matters of life and death, attach a sense of humor. — Chuang Tzu

One cannot, it seems, awaken oneself by indulging in anxiety, because that too is part of the dream. There is nothing for it but to take the dream as real in the meantime; feed the seeming body, care for the seeming friends, and worry about real reality when one awakens to it.

Row, row, row your boat
Gently down the stream,
Merrily merrily, merrily, merrily
Life is but a dream. — traditional

Meditation bore a great deal of 'fruit" for me in terms of learning to relax, still the mind, and to be in the present. humble gains, I know; but the rest is wank IMV. — Janus

Wank it may well be, but it is what Krishnamurti is claiming. Meditation, like any other path, produces fruit and humble gains. But though one polish the mirror assiduously and thereby can see more clearly, it remains a mere reflection that one sees.

I used to live in a room full of mirrors
All I could see was me
Then I took my spirit and I smashed my mirrors
And now the whole world is here for me to see. — Jimi Hendrix

A path is made by walking on it. — Chuang Tzu

There's a snippet of conversation where someone asks Krishnamurti about another of his sayings, "You are the world." , asking, "When you say it, it seems true, but would it still be true if I said it?" And K's answer is something like, "It would still be true, but there would be no truth in it." I take this to mean that there is a world of difference between understanding the theory that all is one, and experiencing the fact. Krishnamurti speaks the truth as he experiences it, not as he understands it theoretically, and as Jake intimates, there can be no path to here and now, one is present, or else one is absent.

Compare the surgeon's form of life. "Scalpel!" "Swab!"
Compare Ikea's pictorial instructions: the intent is shared, and it is to construct the cabinet. I don't need to infer that as if it is opaque.
Compare the conductor's gestures to the orchestra - the 'please' gesture is not used.

We know what we are about, (except when we are philosophising or politicking) - to the extent, sometimes, that meaning is reduced to rhythmic coordination: "I don't know but I've been told...", "What shall we do with the drunken sailor?"

'Compare!'

'What is Wittgenstein's intent?'

I guess your assignment has been handed in by now, so here's a little paper that doesn't really answer the question, but is still worth a read.

https://epochemagazine.org/merleau-ponty-education-and-the-meno-paradox-4ddd0702529e?fbclid=IwAR0zq-baWXCd2x9VhVj63dR848Cg-FwmxLql_g6xGCYEStW7T8zK9sRV7ww

Why did Owen say it in a poem? — csalisbury

That's worth its own thread sometime *mumbles something about beautiful tragedy*, but only poetry can speak the unspeakable, because words are weak, and deeds even weaker.

If we must part,
Then let it be like this.
Not heart on heart,
Nor with the useless anguish of a kiss;
But touch mine hand and say:
"Until to-morrow or some other day,
If we must part".

Words are so weak
When love hath been so strong;
Let silence speak:
"Life is a little while, and love is long;
A time to sow and reap,
And after harvest a long time to sleep,
But words are weak. — Ernest Christopher Dowson

I heard a programme about the poetry of Afghanistan last night - lots of flowers and orchards and sadness amongst the death and suffering, like the poppies of Flanders. It's very popular there apparently.

So, how do you understanding something without agreeing on it? — Posty McPostface

Well, how do you disagree with something without understanding it? I say 'six sevens are forty-eight', and I expect you to disagree just to the extent that you understand what is being said.

There is a sense in which agreement and disagreement are based on a more fundamental agreement - what the words mean. Understanding is mutual from the beginning and at this base level shows itself in action as per Wittgenstein - I say 'slab' and you don't hand me a block. So we build that mutual understanding to the point where I say 'six sevens' and you say 'forty-two'.

Now if someone replied to this in Arabic, it might be right and it might be wrong, but it would be meaningless to me; I could not agree or disagree because I would not understand anything.

Doesn't that imply judgement on one's part to ask that question? At least some form of judgement at least. — Posty McPostface

Of course it does. Everything involves judgement; How much food to put on your fork so it won't fall off on the way to your mouth. Let me offer an example:

Solipsism solves the problem of other minds by simple denial. So when I say 'slab', and you pass me a slab, that is evidence, not that you understand anything, but that you are a voice activated robot, or some such. 'Agreement' and 'understanding' become aspects of good programming on your side, and matters of effective manipulation on my side. This leads to a very different understanding of this (or any) thread, that I cannot entirely get my head around. 'Why does a solipsist engage in discussion?' is a question I cannot really answer, certainly not to convince others; perhaps it is an attempt to reprogram, but my favourite is that they are not really solipsist, but find it entertaining to espouse the position, not least because it makes sense of a self-centredness that admits no moral limit. So it also solves the problem of morality by simple denial. The problems it raises are every aspect of communication, mutuality and society, none of which make any literal sense.

This is my best understanding and judgement, that a genuine solipsist cannot acknowledge my communication, and is therefore impossible to talk to meaningfully at all. But my experience is that they are very very few.

should agreement and consensus building take first order or of utmost importance? — Posty McPostface

No. First order is always understanding, I think. Not 'Do I agree or disagree?' tends to be upper-most in my mind, but 'do I understand what is being said, and why it is being said?'

Why the disagreement if we adhere to sound deductive, inferential, and abductive reasoning? — Posty McPostface

I think very often it is in that 'why it is being said?' Typically, it seems to me that a philosophical position presents a solution to some problems, and problematises some other solutions.

Ontologically how do you pinpoint them as false beliefs? — Posty McPostface

Dialogue. It's hard to see one's own rose-tinted specs (other colours are available), but we might well spot each others distortions, if we are honest and interested. Hence talking cures, though it is not a great cure for politics.

'cognitive distortions' are errors in the reasoning of beliefs? — Posty McPostface

Systematic errors. Getting things wrong is not a huge problem, unless one always gets them wrong in the same direction. Personalisation, for example, tends to be one sided, for example, some politicians like to take personal responsibility for things that go right, and make others personally responsible for things that go wrong; depressives tend towards the reverse.

Meanwhile, those who do not have the decency to be dead get rather less remembrance. At least 13,000 hero soldiers left HOMELESS after leaving the military - and almost all have PTSD.

My growing Trumpophobia is probably showing. — Baden

Yeah, but did you see Corbyn's disrespectful coat? !

So this is the shit that we dump on the follies of the past, to resurrect them for a pageant of competitive correctness. they'll be turning in their lack of graves. Here's another poem, to get us back on track.

Nellie the Elephant packed her trunk
And said goodbye to the circus
Off she went with a trumpety-trump
Trump, trump, trump
Nellie the Elephant packed her trunk
And trundled back to the jungle
Off she went with a trumpety-trump
Trump, trump, trump — Ralph Butler and Peter Hart

And that's from an official website of the United States government, so it must be true.

Well if all you're saying is that reality must exist somewhere then I don't disagree with that. But his argument still holds. — Posty McPostface

Let's call that reality 'the Presence of God'. all things are possible to God. Bla bla... I don't think it is impossible, but I don't think there is an argument either. somehow, when it is dressed up in scientific garb, folks will swallow the most medieval cosmologies and think them both new and plausible.

I'm saying the argument is self-undermining. I'm not making any positive claims.

If simulation, then evidence is simulated.

the universe is 13.8 billion years old. — Elon

we are most likely living in a simulation. — Elon

When the conclusion invalidates the premises, the argument is weakened.

That is to say, it is probably more convenient to simulate a universe that is - say - a minute old, but looks 13.8 billion years old, than to run the program for 3.8 billion years, which would be 'boring'. but if the universe is not that old, then the argument somewhat collapses. Elon has to assume the reality of the universe that he wants to argue is likely a simulation.

So what's fake? He didn't go. It was raining. He cannot operate an umbrella. His hair is a big issue for him. And it's all got absolutely nothing to do with Finland.

Frankly, I'm lost for words, Frank.

Finland is fake France, I assume, but we already know that it is Trump who does not know how to operate an umbrella.

I think this Renewal and Remembrance thread is the most proper one to note this following anecdote. — ssu

It is so proper it's incredible. A million or so dead we can cope with, but no one wants to look bad. The lesson has been well learned.

You might look at Wittgenstein.

"I am unenlightened" --unenlightened.

Dude you are so (mis)-judgemental. And callous.

I discussed play with a professionals — musicpianoaccordion

A musician, an actor, a philosopher, a grand master, a sportsman, or an engineer?

I like the engineer's answer, that play is freedom of movement. Perhaps freedom from purpose covers a lot of ground; "the play's the thing" refuses the question 'what for?' and insists that there is no purpose outside the play.

Someone said to me 'To you football is a matter of life or death!' and I said 'Listen, it's more important than that.' — Bill Shankly

You approve of this, but won't accept that. It doesn't work that way. — frank

I get the feeling you don't approve of me for that.

I asked you honor a man's life, not the means of his death. — frank

Frank, who are you, to demand this of me? No. I have said it three times, "and what I say three times is true". Request denied. As if my honouring is of any value to a corpse. But it concerns you, as if I owe it to you.

Don't you realize the bad is wrapped up with the good? — frank

Don't you realise life is wrapped up with death? Death is the culmination, and life is what these people gave, in exchange for what? My feeble sentiment or yours? No, it was for an idea of nation and righteousness - a LIE.

I remember that.

How does your kind of memorializing work? — frank

It is only what you see here, a patchwork of hand-me-downs, fragments of stories and songs. For me, these are the traces, the only traces I have. There is a little museum of the wars not 50 meters from my home, and one of their little projects is to put on each house of the town, a poppy and a little note of the soldier that lived there and died. So many little stories. Next door there is one from WW1. Next door on the other side, Walter is 98, a veteran of the far East conflict in WW2. He gave us the packing case that shipped his gear back home at the end of the war for firewood, and we gave it to the museum - just a big wooden packing case.

This is a narrative, the stories you tell are narratives. Traces if you like, of what has been and is not.

"He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning." But not at me, unenlightened, but at Wilfred Owen, that I have heard tell of and read, and I tell of the telling, that he brought to the world. And everyone seems to want me to say of this guttering, choking, drowning, in chlorine gas (I have had a whiff in chemistry class), that there is something noble, honourable, virtuous. And I say no. It is an irredeemable catastrophe. That is the good faith I want to keep with Wilfred and his experience as he narrates it.

To me, it's about real people, so we try to dispense with the narrative. — frank

Can you explain? What is real about a person who died 100 years ago, apart from the narrative?

Hmm. There seems to be a mis-understanding between us, but I'm not sure what it is. This thread is my act of remembrance. The question is how to remember a mass dismembering.

Or rather, how to memorialise - I'm not that old.

Try to honor his life — frank

No. I do not honour folly.