The theory he desired a coup is contrary to his explicit statements from both before and after the event. — NOS4A2

What was his intended purpose?

I read this from Wiki:

He outlines how drugs and technologies, including intracranial self-stimulation ("wireheading"), designer drugs and genetic engineering could end suffering for all sentient life.[9]

His views might provide for some insight, considering many human beings are involved in, or enjoy consuming, some form of drugs and alcohol (for among other reasons, to mitigate their existential angst...).

courage and leadership — Todd Martin

Todd!

Can you elaborate on those concepts viz your thesis?

True. At least Trump didn't go to war. — ssu

SSU!

Thanks ssu. I don't want to stray too far off-topic, so I'll just add an ancillary note only to say that just like hiring and firing employees, most President's do good and bad. Meaning the one's that do more good than bad generally get re-elected and stay with the company, and the one's who do more bad than good generally don't. One of the great things about freedom/democracy for sure... . Being an independent moderate myself, I did what many did in 2016; it was a protest vote for the lesser evil.

One obvious takeaway was the lessons in extremism (both sides). With few exceptions, we need more moderate's in both our political and religious institutions. I think Aristotle was right :grin:

As far as this topic goes, I'm interested in how the human condition creates, perpetuates, and specifically, politically motivates human beings to do evil things. For a lack of a better term, should we accept extremism in all its forms, and at what cost do we waste human lives? And so generally, if we use the logic and say it is acceptable to shoot down the plane with 100 to save 5,000, I get that. But vis a vis COVID, I'm not sure that's what we're talking about here... .

Gnomon!

Great point! William James (aside from being one of my favorite psychologist-turned-philosopher's) was also a self proclaimed pacifist. In your view, how did he reconcile his pacifism with the so-called human need to fight wars?

To remain on point though, those who might be advocating for some sort of calamity here (perhaps it's a far-right ideology in this case) how do they reconcile that with the lives lost/COVID pandemic? Certainly, the last far-right winger to hold office (Trump) being truly derelict in his duty of public safety, by downplaying the pandemic and covering-up the medical science associated with same, ( recommending/suggesting the ingesting of bleach, not wearing masks, downplaying its impacts/being over as soon as it gets warm, ad nauseum), was there any sense of "communal resolve" and "political unity" in lying to the American tax payer about this?

Perhaps James was right, concerning the human condition, Trump was only perpetrating yet another unfounded belief (system) that apparently spoke to a broader human deficiency or pathology...in his case, a mind game that costed many lives. I think it's called gaslighting the public.

Thank God we fired him!

I guess I went off on a tangent. I'm always distracted but generally by beauty. So, if you want to use me as a beauty-meter here you might want to give what I wrote a second look — TheMadFool

You're fine TMF!

I think you raise a good point there. We know there have been theories associated with the philosophy of beauty (Aesthetics/Kant, et.al.) that impacts our cognition... .

To that end, it cannot be overstated how the act of perceiving or perception of beauty effects our human sentience. Our way of Being. For instance, a simple experience of a sunny day would yield feelings of happiness, contentment, joy, and even a spiritual-high of sorts. Similarly, the previously mentioned feelings associated with say, acts of procreation, invoke feelings that are in fact communicated through aesthetics/the object, in this case, through the object known as the human body/Being. Accordingly, in this context, perhaps the body is just a means to an end. But what is the end goal there, in those instances? Is it to communicate feeling's? Communicate the Will?

It seems we have yet another way to communicate on an interpersonal level. Without talking, we can engage in, yet I utter this word-picture, another form of communication/activity during lovemaking with our partner. As Freud might posit, that way of communicating is quite powerful and 'quite subconscious' if you will-no Schopenhauer pun intended LOL. Or maybe it's simply instinct. All that of course is not too dissimilar to feelings associated with experiencing music and the like. Perhaps the simple takeaway there is that this notion of ineffable experiences (body languages) are wide ranging....

Might such a paradox provoke one to step-back for a moment and consider alternatives to conceptualization? Might there just be another (better) way to seek the truth of the matter? — synthesis

Synthesis!

Sure. Thank you for that thought... . For reference, we can look to Kant and Schop (few of many) in parsing the different theories of knowledge and apperception(s). Meaning, in laymen's terms, how do we perceive our truth's, and how does the intellect, and the logic of language impact our (epistemic) knowledge. Consider a blind or deaf persons ability to perceive things without those natural abilities, thru the intellect/language, so as to affect apperception (our ability to have self-awareness).

As a segue to questions of how languages help us, I'm thinking that perhaps exploring the teleology of language and how this provides for self-awareness/self-consciousness might be more intriguing here. What is the purpose of language, was it caused or was it human invention?

For example, one question might be, did language evolve, and if so is it still evolving, and if yes, what are the future possibilities in providing for this better quality of self-awareness? Could the evolutional changes in language somehow be the only means and method by which we seek and perceive our truth's? We know for instance, that the language of math (and modern day discoveries in same) provides for a certain level of understanding about the Cosmos, etc. etc.. But will a different set of equations and languages be necessary for a complete ToE?

Lot's of different implications there, thanks for planting that seed...thoughts?

How soon you've forgotten: the incorrigible misuse / abuse of intelligence, knowledge and/or judgment that inadvertantly does harm for no gain or profit. That said, in the context of the original thread (linked by my user name), "stupid question" was merely sarcastic and seriously descriptive; a more accurate adjective would've been "pseudo" rather than "stupid". — 180 Proof

The temptation to belittle others is the trap of a budding intellect, because it gives you the illusion of power and superiority your mind craves. Resist it. It will make you intellectually lazy as you seek "easy marks" to fuel that illusion, [and] a terrible human being to be around, and ultimately, miserable. There is no shame in realizing you have fallen for this trap, only shame on continuing along that path."
— Philosophim

I don't see why we can't use language to remark on the limitations of our language. That would seem like saying we can't use our minds to think about our own mental limitations. — Jack Cummins

What "...should not be expressed..." has nothing to do with language and is more about stuff like respect, pity, love, goodwill, taboo, etc. For instance, many times I find myself thinking "I don't want to talk about it" and I'm sure this unwillingness to "talk about it" is quite common as evidenced by the many times I've heard it being said aloud to overly inquisitive folks. This, however, as is obvious, not a limitation of language - we can talk about something but it's just that we don't wish to. — TheMadFool

Sure, but that is not germane to the issue. Thanks anyway!

What "...cannot be expressed..." is what the limitations of language should (try to) discuss. Come to think of it, this seems to be an impossible task; after all if something is ineffable, it precludes any and all language-based inquiry. It's like trying to break a bulletproof glass with a bullet. — TheMadFool

As Jack alluded, are you saying we can't use our minds to think about our own mental limitations?

But back to the question that you were unable to answer, in paraphrase, when we experience moments of pleasure (or anger) what are the distinctions in expression?

But seriously, emotions are the nexus between the mind and matter. Have you studied pathology? The mind controls the body, yes? — 3017amen

A little Karma goes a long way. Are you unable to answer the question?
LOL

If loving you is wrong, then I want to be right LOL

But seriously, emotions are the nexus between the mind and matter. Have you studied pathology? The mind controls the body, yes?

Perhaps, but much more fundamental would be the acknowledgement that the human intellect is simply incapable of accessing reality in any way, shape, or form, so instead, we make-up all kinds of ways to approximate (for practical reasons). Whatever combination of letters/numbers you may wish to suggest have a relationship based on some natural law is stretching it a bit.

This is not to disparage mathematics or language, in general, as they satisfy basic needs, but (and as is always the case), it is in the understanding inherent limitations that give forth true value. — synthesis

Well said Synthesis! BTW- I like the concept/term you used 'approximate' (language being an approximation- of a something).

180 Proof see op — BartricksNothing but strawmen & sophistry, so the question remains:
Assuming it does, explain how an "immaterial mind" interacts with (its) material body. — 180 Proof:sweat: — 180 Proof

180, I'm surprised you don't know this, did you forget Physiology 101? Emotions are the nexus between the mind and matter. Next question (?).
LOL

'Everything I say is a lie', which if true is false, and if false is true .i] — 3017amen
Within everything exist everything, so the paradox of the above statement is present in all statements if we allow ourselves to realize it.

For example, consider the statement, "The boy has the blue balloon." If there is no visible light present, does the boy still have the balloon? Is it still blue? — synthesis

The former is a classic example (liar's paradox) of binary truth values associated with a priori logic, and the limitations of language (thereto). This occurs primarily with sentence structures of self reference and self referential statements. The main point is that not only does it underscore the limitations of language, it undermines the truth values, one being the nature of (our) existence.

With respect to the latter, my interpretation of that would be the necessity of a posteriori logic, and the need to perform empirical analysis to determine its truth value. In that case, you would seek to discover whether the boy has the balloon or not in order to determine the truth value.

Perhaps the consistent theme is, we are trapped in this mystery of self-awareness, which resides in our consciousness.

Listening to Jimi Hendrix is not the same experience as listening to Brahms. Listening to Jimi while cruising a highway is not the same experience as listening to Jimi while trying to solve a difficult puzzle. — Banno

Interesting. In what ways are they different? (Can language capture the phenomenon...)

TMF!

Thank you kindly for the link, it said:

Ineffability is concerned with ideas that cannot or should not be expressed in spoken words (or language in general), often being in the form of a taboo or incomprehensible term. This property is commonly associated with philosophy, aspects of existence, and similar concepts that are inherently "too great", complex or abstract to be communicated adequately.

I agree, as you alluded, that there are varieties of religious experiences that are ineffable. In your mind, are there others? For example, say the feelings of love, or to be excruciatingly graphic, during procreation activities/love-making, are those kinds of things similar, you think?

Interesting quotes about Keats. Something complex as truth is just another example which fits in this debate. It is an abstract concept that somehow could be "ineffable". Feelings of truth will manifest in reality depending on the human behavior we are speaking about.
Then, literally only exists our truth and the way we express. Some will accept it others will not. But I think here is not important about other but you. The human himself creating a world with the "reality" and truth he is experiencing. — javi2541997

Javi!

Interesting. Is it safe to assume we are talking about Subjective and Objective truth's? Perhaps one can think of their own sentience as their own unique language onto themselves, nevertheless, their own subjective truth... ?

What if language is the root of everything we ever discovered? — javi2541997

If you mean that the logic of language precedes the will, that could have interesting implications. For instance, one would have to acquiesce to words taking on an exclusive role in our behavior; how we act and our quality of life needs. That in turn has all sorts of implications relative to our human condition, be it socio-political or anything else...interesting… .

I'm thinking we would simply not be able to react to a stimulus that say's...' I don't like what he/she just said, so therefore I'm going to respond (using language of course) in like manner... '. We would be denying our own Will, or at least our intuition, etc. I think... .

I'm not sure what you're asking. If something's ineffable, it can't be described in words. Are you asking for a description of the experience of listening to music? Then I think one can't be given. Are you asking if we think the experience of listening to music can't be described in words? Then, yes, that's what I think. — Ciceronianus the White

CW!

Okay, I was just trying to confirm... . In other words, if something is ineffable, does that mean, in your mind, that there is no other way to use language to convey a meaningful response?

For example, say a musician is playing his/her instrument and 'trading bars' with another musician by spontaneous improvisation, or and engineer is reviewing another engineer's design calculations. In those instances, one would think that even those things which are ineffable, do require an understanding of a different language. In this case, it's musical language and engineering language.

Of course, we could also say that in theoretical physics/cosmology, that although like the engineer, the language of mathematics' tend to rule the day, it's quite conceivable that a whole other language might be necessary to explain the origins of same (the universe).

And so to your pointed questions, I agree that we are seemingly, once again, doomed to failure here... .

These wouldn't be limitations of language because language can't be used to discover its own limitations.

don't see why we can't use language to remark on the limitations of our language. That would seem like saying we can't use our minds to think about our own mental limitations. — Jack Cummins

Wow, keep them coming all... .

TMF & JC: I think you're both right. Meaning, if TMF is describing the limitations of logic synonymous with, say, Kantian things-in-themselves, then yes I believe he is right. In that sense, we are left with a sort of Kantian phenomenology associated with language and the limitations thereto.

At the same time, JC points out the paradoxical nature of a double negative, to name a few issues. For instance, if we are saying we can't use the mind to understand the mind itself (the nature of its existence), we are left with an interesting paradox... .

While we can use our mind to think about these issues of self-awareness, it seems we are doomed to failure when confronting the nature of its own existence. In those quick examples, we can describe things, but not fully explain things.

...good stuff all, keep them coming please!!!!

Not to single any one out, however said something that reminded me of Keats: "Truth is beauty, beauty truth; that's all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."


Philosophically, that almost begs the question of Voluntarism; the Will v. the Intellect. Take for example the law of attraction and/or the power of words and affirmation. Say one tells oneself that they are going to be 'successful', they repeat it continuously, then seemingly it comes into existence for them.

But do they have to tell themselves that first, or is it a secondary apperception of language? I agree with the sentiments about the paradoxical nature of this problem. Let's say I'm sad about something, Am I sad because my logic of his or her word formulations are making me sad, or is there an existential angst (my will) that preceeds the intellect thus making it so?

Even if by considering Keats, we can receive or even associate feelings of joy (in this case) with Truth, how does our feelings of truth manifest? Language only? Is our truth ours and ours only? What is Truth?

Say I'm an engineer and design an award winning novel structure through the language of mathematics, how should I feel about that? It seems like that particular (engineer's) language conveys a purpose or meaning.

It seems as though, we should add into the database here, that the logic of language may just be a means to an end... (?)

Since we human's like to dichotomize things, does the logic of language come before feeling, or does feeling come first? Do words invoke feelings, or do feelings invoke words?

Philosophy is the foundational questioning that ideas are built upon. Much of moral philosophy and modern politics are based upon philosophical ideas, questions and solutions. Philosophy is playing the long game, it shapes society over time. — Christoffer

Yep :up: I think the OP might could reflect on what kinds of philosophy are relevant here. For instance, as you so well pointed out, whether it's political philosophy, scientific philosophy, Christian philosophy (the golden rule) or any other kind of general philosophy, the important point is that philosophy lives in words. And we all use words to convey or communicate meaning, usually in order to advance the subject matter. Accordingly, we use reason and common sense (treating like cases likely and different cases differently) to discover and uncover new ways of Being.

Otherwise, conversely, I say, slay your Gilligan's; ask not what philosophy can do for you-ask what you can do for philosophy!

LOL Happy Friday!!!

So, if there are proficient and influential mathematicians who openly deny Platonism, then these same mathematicians must be prepared to revisit, denounce and replace, all the fundamental mathematical axioms which are based in Platonism, or else they are simply being hypocritical. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yep. Sir Paul Davies is at least one of many theoretical physicists who would agree with that! :up:

Have you given any thought to relativity (speed of light) and the existence of a theoretical eternity/outside of time itself?

Consider yourself enlightened then. LOL There remains mystery (?).

The answer to the question of origin of the universe is "Mystery created it" or "Mystery caused it" or "Mystery did it", which only begs the question and does not answer it.

Either (i) religious theists don't know that they don't know or (ii) they know they don't know and just bullshit themselves and us with "Mystery did it", etc. — 180 Proof

How is that different than other existential mysteries of the universe, including your own conscious existence?

Then debating Plato Berkeley said: "an abstract object does not exist in space or time and which is therefore entirely non-physical and non-metal" — javi2541997

Keep in mind, that at some point , the regressive description of existing things (atoms, protons, neutrons, electrons...) ultimately, right now, have no other explanation other than that of abstract mathematics (mathematical structures that are discovered) or a Platonic reality, of sorts.

However, to advance Berkley's idealism from modern day discoveries as you suggest, I think he provides for an nice backdrop or theory of metaphysical existence of consciousness. And that in turn squares with abstract qualities and structures existing in the universe, including our own conscious existence.

So you have consciousness itself and mathematical abstracts themselves, both existing without a so-called existential or complete material (or even logical) explanation. But instead, an abstract one.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Berkeley actually resolved/reconciled consciousness requiring space and time to exist, or maybe he did... .

Thank you. I read thru that, and found this:

Schopenhauer contrasted Kant's transcendental critical philosophy with Leibniz's dogmatic philosophy.


With Kant the critical philosophy appeared as the opponent of this entire method [of dogmatic philosophy]. It makes its problem just those eternal truths (principle of contradiction, principle of sufficient reason) that serve as the foundation of every such dogmatic structure, investigates their origin, and then finds this to be in man's head. Here they spring from the forms properly belonging to it, which it carries in itself for the purpose of perceiving and apprehending the objective world. Thus here in the brain is the quarry furnishing the material for that proud, dogmatic structure. Now because the critical philosophy, in order to reach this result, had to go beyond the eternal truths, on which all the previous dogmatism was based, so as to make these truths themselves the subject of investigation, it became transcendental philosophy. From this it follows also that the objective world as we know it does not belong to the true being of things-in-themselves, but is its mere phenomenon, conditioned by those very forms that lie a priori in the human intellect (i.e., the brain); hence the world cannot contain anything but phenomena.

In your interpretation, does this tie to some sort of eternal phenomena? Is the eternal phenomena consciousness itself? Is the metaphysical Will similar? What does Schop say about this?

Ok, using some sense of logic, not that logic can explain certain/all phenomena of Being, perhaps we can analogize to, say, the mysteries associated with relativity and the speed of light.

In your scenario, if the speed of light (at full speed), time stops (eternity), then in theory we have a sense of some sort of Platonic realm of being, somewhere in the universe. Existential psychology has taught us that human's can experience these so-called transient states of absolute Being where there is a feeling of ultimate purpose, peace, and/or completeness (time-stopping euphoric feelings), in their everydayness of doing, striving, and so forth. Too, I happen to agree with many theoretical physicists in thinking that an anthropic universe (PAP) contains conscious information which provides for such transient states of Being. To that end, it's seems as though it's all there for the taking to enjoy. It's kind of like knowing what questions to ask; answers are received based upon how we think. Kind of like the law attraction. The cosmic computer.

That may lead to many other questions of course, one of which is the pragmatism or practice of arriving at these transient states of Being.... . Transient states of oneness, wholeness, and so forth, to where we realize that which we were born to do.

The common takeaway there is that Being is synonymous with doing, an action verb. We were meant to be here and accomplish things through ourselves and other's. And if life is truly about relationship's, it seems that it is incumbent on us to pursue same. And in a humanistic way, through that process, perhaps we can experience your Platonic realm of Being (albeit they are fleeting...).

Take music for example, or even the discovery of some novel invention or idea (all from our own consciousness/existence). It seems we have the volition capable of such perceptions, such feelings... .

Maslow seems to be the antithesis of Schopenhauer here.. Maslow is buying into the scheme of becoming, in Hegelian fashion (someone Schopenhauer despised, though one of many). Schopenhauer's ideal is Platonic rest or being. — schopenhauer1

Schop1 !

In our humanist framework, is this correct:

Being and Existentialism:

Existentialism (earliest form in the west/Ecclesiastes): let be/a time for all seasons
Taoism: let be
Existential psychology: transient states of absolute Being
Platonism/Platonic rest: unchanging, absolute... ?

Is there an unresolved dichotomy between being and becoming?

Hey Schop1!

I got to run to an appointment, let me get back to you cause those are some intriguing thoughts....

Also, it would be easy to compare the whole idea of desires with needs, because both could be seen as arising from the essence of human nature, even though the actual idealised goal of the two thinkers is vastly different. — Jack Cummins

Sure. In that context, needs, can be synonymous with the [Schop's] metaphysical will. The will to be.

The definition of a human being is an interesting conflation between a verb and a noun. In that sense being is to live an ordinary life of doing, or striving. Perhaps the trick is to desire what one already has. For instance, one might go to the gym and exercise because they desire to keep their body fit. It's like scrubbing one's teeth, it's a habit for life. The habit is based on the desire to maintain what one already has... .

Any pessimists out there who'd like to defend Schopenhauer on this point? — Amalac

From the Psychology of Being:

"So far as the person himself is concerned, all he knows is that he is desperate for love, and thinks he will be forever happy and content if he gets it. He does not know in advance that he will strive on after this gratification has come, and that gratification of one basic need opens consciousness to domination by another, "higher" need. So far as he is concerned, the absolute, ultimate value, synonymous with life itself, is whichever need in the hierarchy he is dominated by during a particular period. These basic needs or basic values therefore be treated both as ends and as steps toward a single end-goal. It is true that there is a single, ultimate value or end of life and also it is just as true that we have a hierarchical and developmental system of values, complexly interrelated.

This also helps to solve the apparent paradox of contrast between Being and Becoming... ."

AH Maslow

I was going to take the high road but karma has a strange way of rearing its head:

YOU'RE FIRED!!!!

One term loser; the experiment failed.

My question is, will all those middle class people who gave Trump legal-team donations get their money back??

LOL

Bonus question: does Dumper Trumper prefer to be perceived as a victim, or a loser?

Bonus question-2: is this a lesson in the dangers of extremism?

FWIW, I don’t pretend to engage in anything more than speculative philosophy — Possibility

In this context, that's kind of sad. To become another person for a day, might yield interesting results. Think of it this way, does having a life altering experience change one's approach, perspective, or philosophy about a given subject matter?

With all due respect, none of this constitutes an argument. — Possibility

Exception taken as noted: it's called philosophical pragmatism.

A visit to a nudist colony neither constitutes proof of your theory, nor a thought experiment in itself. It’s a particular subjective account. Useful, but only if you’re willing to be honest about your experience and accept the challenge of an alternate interpretation. — Possibility

See above. What am I not being honest about?

Philosophical theory put into practice is living and interacting with the world - I’m doing that just fine, thanks, but I certainly don’t consider any ‘facts’ of my experiences to be proof of my theories. — Possibility

Should I interpret that as the repudiation of empiricism?

seems to me, though, that your preference is instead to regress your awareness, to retreat into ignorance and deny this vulnerability, and in doing so to retrieve a false sense of ‘innocence’. I’m thinking you might have missed the point of it being a thought experiment... — Possibility

Actually I think it is you who is denying your vulnerability. And that was evidenced by your foregoing arguments concerning denial over the objectification of women.

Further, and don't take this the wrong way, this is another reason why I respect Maslow (and Pragmatist William James), as he was a psychologist turned philosopher; not just all theory and philosophical jibberish. He put practice into theory. Just like my theory was put into practice by visiting the nudist colony. Whereas you my dear, are all theory.

I would recommend either applying for the reality show 'naked and afraid' or simply visiting a nudist colony then come back with relevant facts from your experience.

, deduction can adequately describe ontology or conscious existence without issue. It is all about defining it, then applying it. — Philosophim

Then please explain using logico deductive reasoning; driving while daydreaming and being in a coma, living yet not living.

How is this so? — Philosophim

When you explain the aforementioned you will have the answer.

we can know will by application. — Philosophim

But we can't know it through deduction.

Deduction does not prove something to be true. — Philosophim

Would that mean you agree that deduction cannot adequately describe ontology/conscious existence? Otherwise deduction does indeed provide for a priori truth values.

As long as reality does not contradict knowledge, then it is rational to hold such a viewpoint as being the best fit for what is true. — Philosophim

Using deduction, reality contradicts consciousness and consciousness contradicts reality.

First, consciousness must be defined. Is is the consciousness of the poets, the consciousness of science, or something else entirely? — Philosophim

All of the above, including all such tenants of philosophical idealism.

If we cannot apply it without contradiction, then we cannot applicably know consciousness within our distinctive context. — Philosophim

Deductive logic has taught us consciousness cannot be explained. Hence, it's logically impossible yet it still exists. Just like any self-referential proposition creating contradiction, paradox and incompleteness.

Think of it this way Philosophim, if you could explain conscious logically in principle, you would be living in a different world. Or perhaps more importantly, you would be considered in many ways transcendent, meaning your knowledge and understanding would be outside the usual categories of rational human thought.

Really good video. Thanks. — Gus Lamarch

Gus!

Have you given any further thought to the video and how something that's absolute wouldn't require any outside/external data?

I have had people use the a priori and a posteriori words to relate before, and it has often caused them to misunderstand the points. Subjective deduction is really the best summary of what knowledge is. The "subjective" depends on the subjects involved. This may be the self, or the context of friends, scientists, the world, etc. — Philosophim

That sounds like a subjective truth. A truth that relates to me and no other object. For example if I have a will to be or a will to exist, what deduction is required for the will?

if we were to find and be certain of the truth, it would most likely come from a deduction, and not an induction. — Philosophim

Are you sure? Are you suggesting living life is nothing but a tautology? Unless I'm misunderstanding you, your holy grail of knowledge seems to be a priori deduction.

It seems to me you're making a case for subjective idealism.

As such, that would go back to our previous discussion about consciousness and logical impossibility. Since your holy grail is deduction, the consequence of such methodology in exploring or describing a particular truth value is tantamount to logical impossibility, when applied to the nature of a thing. So dedction doesn't help us in parcing ontology/consciousness because of the mutually exclusive truth values of either/or and true/false. Consciousness doesn't work that way, it's both/and. Deduction can't help us.

On the other hand if one were to analyze a given proposition through empirical analysis and inductive reasoning, there would be more import.

It's kind of like saying mathematical truth's and associated knowledge (a priori/deduction) shouldn't be used to test the validity of anything. In themselves, they are just truths that relate to abstract concepts.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your theory. How does subjective deduction explain (or describe) consciousness? (Using deduction to describe it results in logical impossibility.)