The discursive self 'is' this coherence. Continual self-contradiction is no longer self-contradiction, but the discursive self dissolving into confusion. First philosophy is explication as much as inference. One need not prove a condition for the possibility of proof, though it seems like one of philosophy's job to fallibly make these conditions explicit. — plaque flag

We can say there is a discursive self, just as we might say there is a poetic self, a feeling self or an experiencing self, but are these selves anything more than ideas which overarch fields of inquiry or practice?

The way I see it this applies to the self tout court. I always liked Kant's use of the cogito, rejecting the Cartesian idea of self-as-substance, but highlighting the fact that in discourse every thought is an "I-think". Is that along the lines of what you are getting at?

but highlighting the fact that in discourse every thought is an "I-think". Is that along the lines of what you are getting at? — Janus

It's more of an unfolding of what that actually means. In short, my dramaturgical-discursive self is organized as an essentially temporal being by making and keeping promises. I am held responsible as a temporal ideal-unity-in-progress of claims and deeds. Using a concept as a fully sapient being is understanding what the use of that concept commits one to. A parrot can repeat words without moving in this time-dimension of responsibility.

For instance, Bakhurst (2011, 2015), following McDowell and Brandom as well as Vygotsky, characterises Bildung as a process of enculturation during which the child, by means of acquiring conceptual abilities, is transformed from being in the world to being a subject capable of thinking and acting in light of reasons, thereby taking a view on the world and herself. As Bakhurst points out, this ‘gradual mastery of techniques of language that enable the giving and taking of reasons’ (2015, p. 310) is an essentially social process, because in acquiring concepts the child essentially learns to participate in a social praxis. Similarly, by adopting an approach to pedagogy that draws on both Vygotsky and Brandom, Derry (2008, 2013) emphasises the importance of a normatively structured learning environment in which adults provide opportunities for children to engage in the social practice of giving and asking for reasons in order to gain understanding of the inferential relations that govern our use of concepts.
...
It is also very close to Brandom's view, which interprets intentionality as a fundamentally social phenomenon, namely as the ability for deontic score-keeping, that is the ability to ascribe and acknowledge justifications to others and oneself. Thus, on this view, human thinking, understood in terms of the possession and use of concepts, consists essentially in the ability to participate in the—necessarily social—game of giving and asking for reasons.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1467-9752.12407

I emphasize the temporality that is merely implied because I've been interested in why folks might accept so readily that a 'Cartesian' stream of thoughts should 'automatically' be a monologue that understands itself as such. What would unify this stream of thoughts ? And what kind of unity could be expected but a temporal unity ? Turns out William James discusses the same thing in his famous psychology book, my latest purchase.

I think we are trained into being virtual foci of responsibility.

We can say there is a discursive self, just as we might say there is a poetic self, a feeling self or an experiencing self, but are these selves anything more than ideas which overarch fields of inquiry or practice? — Janus

To me we can either call protons instrumental posits (useful fictions) -- or fallibly accept them as real. I use to choose instrumentalism, which is still reasonable, but I now prefer fallible realism.
All we ever have are beliefs, and we basically call beliefs true to say we share them. And that's it. And we can always be wrong. Or so I believe. And so maybe I'm wrong. But being wrong would mean (to me) getting a better view on the world that shows me how I'm wrong. The world-from-no-perspective is not something I can make sense of.

Materialism is a metaphysical, not a factual, principle. Scientists don't have to be materialists in order to do science. Nothing "depends" on materialism being true.

Yes. Although I suppose you could say hard problem depends on it being true.

If you are saying the current state of our understanding of consciousness cannot be considered scientific, I disagree. That's not to say there are not a lot of scientific issues yet to resolve.

What current understanding? the natural sciences have no method for acquiring an understanding. My point was that to confuse being ;scientific' with endorsing materialism is a serious error.

I don't agree that mysticism is the study of consciousness.

This is not a matter of opinion. What else could mysticism study when it teaches that everything is consciousness? .

Psychology is the study of mind, including consciousness.

This is not that case, as is noted by Kant. It studies the intellect, but not the source of the intellect. .

Introspection is a valid method for studying human psychology. Introspection is not necessarily mysticism. Or mysticism is not necessarily introspection. Or something like that.

I'd say it depends on how you define 'introspection and how you practice it.

I think you're mixing things up here. As I understand it, "perennial philosophy" is metaphysics.

Yes it is, but it is also mysticism. Since Huxley's book under this title the phrase 'Perennial philosophy' and mysticism are synonyms.

If you doubt that mysticism is the study of mind and consciousness then I wonder how you interpret Lao Tzu. Do you see him as just a metaphysician? What else can one study while sitting in meditation? For Lao Tzu and the Perennial philosophy consciousness and reality are the same phenomenon. . .

What current understanding? the natural sciences have no method for acquiring an understanding — FrancisRay

He says in a post on an internet forum.

Although I suppose you could say hard problem depends on it being true. — FrancisRay

Unless, of course, the hard problem is metaphysical too. Let me think about it... I'm not sure, but it may be. For me, that ties in with the question of whether the hierarchies of scale are metaphysical too, which is something I've been thinking about for a while.

What current understanding? the natural sciences have no method for acquiring an understanding. — FrancisRay

I'll save this as a great example of begging the question.

My point was that to confuse being ;scientific' with endorsing materialism is a serious error. — FrancisRay

Isn't that what I just said?

I don't agree that mysticism is the study of consciousness.
This is not a matter of opinion. What else could mysticism study when it teaches that everything is consciousness? . — FrancisRay

Of course it's a matter of opinion, your opinion. Here's what the dictionary says:

• Belief in direct experience of transcendent reality or God, especially by means of contemplation and asceticism instead of rational thought.
• Such experience had by an individual.
• Belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension that are directly accessible by subjective experience.

Psychology is the study of mind, including consciousness.
This is not that case, as is noted by Kant. It studies the intellect, but not the source of the intellect. . — FrancisRay

Another matter of opinion. Again, from the web:

• The science that deals with mental processes and behavior.
• The emotional and behavioral characteristics of an individual, group, or activity.
• Subtle tactical action or argument used to manipulate or influence another.

I'm using regular old common usage, i.e. the dictionary, as the source for what the words I use mean.

Introspection is a valid method for studying human psychology. Introspection is not necessarily mysticism. Or mysticism is not necessarily introspection. Or something like that.
I'd say it depends on how you define 'introspection and how you practice it. — FrancisRay

Now you're just being difficult. Valid methods can be used badly.

I think you're mixing things up here. As I understand it, "perennial philosophy" is metaphysics.
Yes it is, but it is also mysticism. Since Huxley's book under this title the phrase 'Perennial philosophy' and mysticism are synonyms. — FrancisRay

I'm not sure that's true and if it is, I don't understand how it's relevant to this discussion.

For Lao Tzu... consciousness and reality are the same phenomenon. . . — FrancisRay

That's not how I read him. Do you have an example where he says that?

Unless, of course, the hard problem is metaphysical too.

This is what I mean. It is metaphysical, so of course it's going to be a hard problem to prove that it's not. I'm unable to understand people who believe it is not a metaphysical problem for it is ancient and well-known in metaphysics. It's just a guise of the mind-matter problem. .

What current understanding? the natural sciences have no method for acquiring an understanding. — FrancisRay

I'll save this as a great example of begging the question[/Quote}.

It IS a question? How can a question beg the question?

Of course it's a matter of opinion, your opinion. Here's what the dictionary says:

Belief in direct experience of transcendent reality or God, especially by means of contemplation and asceticism instead of rational thought.
Such experience had by an individual.
Belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension that are directly accessible by subjective experience.

NO, this is not mysticism. It is NOT a system of beliefs. It the pursuit of knowledge. Surely everybody knows this. Mysticism is the endorsement of these 'beliefs', yes, but this is a painfully worded definition. It is the pursuit of the knowledge of these things and it may be acquired only by exploring consciousness. Any fool can have a belief.

I would have thought that it is only necessary to read one book on mysticism to know that mysticism is the study of consciousness. It's goal is the discovery of Being, Consciousness and Bliss. ,.

Another matter of opinion. Again, from the web:

The science that deals with mental processes and behavior.
The emotional and behavioral characteristics of an individual, group, or activity.
Subtle tactical action or argument used to manipulate or influence another.

Exactly. It does not study consciousness.

I'm using regular old common usage, i.e. the dictionary, as the source for what the words I use mean.

Always the best idea.

Now you're just being difficult. Valid methods can be used badly./quote]
Most people's idea of introspection is not meditation. This confuses the issues.

That's not how I read him. Do you have an example where he says that?

When Lao Tzu is asked how he acquired his knowledge he answers, 'I look inside myself and see'. Is this not a clue?

If you're arguing the mysticism is not the study of consciousness then thanks for the chat but we'd best leave it here. It is such a basic and easily verifiable fact. .

I can;t imagine what you think mysticism is about. — FrancisRay

Forgive me, I copied this from the OP for a discussion I started a year or so ago called "What is mysticism."

I have some ideas about what mysticism is, but I’ve never tried to tie them down. For that reason, it’s not a word I use much. It definitely has a bad connotation in some uses – it’s often mixed up with ideas about the occult. Chinese warriors flying through the air with their swords flashing. Just to satisfy my own curiosity, I decided to look for a definition of “mysticism” that I can use from now on. Here are some definitions from several sources:

[1] Belief that union with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or the spiritual apprehension of knowledge inaccessible to the intellect, may be attained through contemplation and self-surrender.

[2] Belief characterized by self-delusion or dreamy confusion of thought, especially when based on the assumption of occult qualities or mysterious agencies.

[3] The experience of mystical union or direct communion with ultimate reality

[4] The belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (such as intuition or insight)

[5] Vague speculation : a belief without sound basis

[6] A theory postulating the possibility of direct and intuitive acquisition of ineffable knowledge or power

[7] Mysticism is popularly known as becoming one with God or the Absolute, but may refer to any kind of ecstasy or altered state of consciousness which is given a religious or spiritual meaning. It may also refer to the attainment of insight in ultimate or hidden truths, and to human transformation supported by various practices and experiences.

[8] The belief that there is hidden meaning in life or that each human being can unite with God

[9] The pursuit or achievement of personal communion with or joining with God (or some other form of the divine or ultimate truth).

I like number 4 the best. Based on that, yes, Taoism is a form of mysticism. The lesson I take from this exercise is that "mysticism" has at least two conflicting meanings. The first; as described in Items 1, 3, 4, and 9; represents a potentially valid method to gain knowledge about the world. The second; as described in Items 2, 5, and 6 represents a vague, undisciplined, invalid method to gain the appearance of knowledge or power. These two meanings are often mixed up. There are clearly those who don't think that mysticism, by whatever definition, is a valid means to knowledge.

That's not how I read him. Do you have an example where he says that?
When asked how he acquired his knowledge he answers, 'I look inside myself and see'.

If you're arguing the mysticism is not the study of consciousness then thanks for the chat but we'd best leave it here. It is such a basic and easily verifiable fact. . — FrancisRay

The Tao Te Ching is not about studying consciousness, it's about using consciousness, i.e. introspection and intuition, to study the world.

"What current understanding? the natural sciences have no method for acquiring an understanding" — FrancisRay

He says in a post on an internet forum.

I should have said 'physical' sciences. With this qualifier I'd say the same in an academic journal if you wish and wouldn't be the first to do so.

Do you have a significant example of how science has helped us understand consciousness? At this tome I know of no scientist who claims any understand of it except for the rare ones outlier who explores meditation and mysticism. . .

I should have said 'physical' sciences. With this qualifier I'd say the same in an academic journal if you wish and wouldn't be the first to do so. — FrancisRay

Lot's of things get posted in academic journals by people who don't know the subject they are talking about as well as one might wish. I'm not seeing a need for more of that.

I've already presented the stats of relevant "hidebound" academics - those more likely to have have put significant scholarly effort into becoming informed about science which is of relevance to philosophy of mind, rather than choosing ignorant denial of the relevance of science.

Consider this quote from the home page of The Science of Consciousness Conference.

The study of human consciousness is one of science's last great frontiers.
The Science of Consciousness (TSC) is an interdisciplinary conference emphasizing broad and rigorous approaches to all aspects of the study and understanding of conscious awareness. Topical areas include neuroscience, philosophy, psychology, biology, quantum physics, meditation and altered states, machine consciousness, culture and experiential phenomenology.

As you can see, knowledge of meditation is only one aspect of what is involved in being informed about this very interdisciplinary subject.

Do you have a significant example of how science has helped us understand consciousness? — FrancisRay

Sure,

Science has helped humanity understand the ability of consciousness to be shut down, in the sense of ansthesia.

Science has helped humanity develop some understanding of the effects of a variety of mind altering physical substances.

Science has learned much about the limits of people's conscious perception. Such scientific understanding leads to the wide variety of optical and other sensory illusions which can be seen today.

I could go on like this forever, if not for my strong tendency to get bored and frustrated with people who want to be spoon fed rather than go educate themselves.

At this tome I know of no scientist who claims any understand of it except for the rare ones outlier who explores meditation and mysticism. . . — FrancisRay

Not something to be bragging about.

I think we are trained into being virtual foci of responsibility. — plaque flag

We are morally responsible for our actions, (although then only insofar as they will impact others) but we don't have to answer to anyone for our thoughts. I can tell you what i think without any expectation or concern that I am going to convince you to think as I do.

To me we can either call protons instrumental posits (useful fictions) -- or fallibly accept them as real. I use to choose instrumentalism, which is still reasonable, but I now prefer fallible realism. — plaque flag

The third option would be to understand the arguments for both positions and to reserve judgement on the basis of what seems undecidable.

The world-from-no-perspective is not something I can make sense of. — plaque flag

Do you think that the fact that world-from-no-perspective makes no sense to you entails that the world cannot exist without relying on any perspective?

Do you think that the fact that world-from-no-perspective makes no sense to you entails that the world cannot exist without relying on any perspective? — Janus

I've believe that: all we ever have is beliefs. Such beliefs are the intelligible structure of the world as it is given to us (from our perspectives.) So this is how I currently experience the world, as given perspectively to myself and others.

I can't believe what I can't make sense of. I believe in 'round squares' as an kind of oxymoron or bad check. It exists in that sense, but I don't otherwise take round squares seriously. They just turn out to have a use as an example of the ability of humans to confuse themselves with sexy paradoxical phrases.

You are basically asking me if my not being able to make sense of the square root of blue means that there is no square root of blue. There's no great answer here. Nonsense does not compute.

But I really don't mind if people believe in things that seem like nonsense to me. I've been a skeptical atheistic fucker for a long time. It's just that here we should finally get to be honest on at least a few issues...as if we all agreed at the door to get our dearest beliefs and favorite phrases taken unseriously by others, so that we ourselves could enjoy the same privilege of not humoring those who make no sense to us.

You are basically asking me if my not being able to make sense of the square root of blue means that there is no square root of blue. There's no great answer here. Nonsense does not compute. — plaque flag

I don't see the idea of the world existing independently of humans as being nonsensical or contradictory at all, unlike 'round squares" or "the square root of blue", so I'm afraid your thoughts on this point remain incomprehensible to me.

We are morally responsible for our actions, (although then only insofar as they will impact others) but we don't have to answer to anyone for our thoughts. I can tell you what i think without any expectation or concern that I am going to convince you to think as I do. — Janus

I say look at normative rationality at the heart of science and philosophy, the expectation that one justifies ones claims. Or look at a cheating boyfriend making excuses, or a job applicant making a case for a company's interest in hiring her. Or marriage vows. Or promising to take out the trash, walk the dog. Timestructure. Promises, explanations, justification of claims...

I don't see the idea of the world existing independently of humans — Janus

I think ancestral objects are a challenge to my view, but when one tries to imagine a meaning for the world existing independently of humans, one has only the raw material of experience. So one projects a fantasy, forgetting the living human being doing such projecting/imagining.

Just to be clear, the 'problem' is not so obvious as with the round square. But consider the spatial object, which is always seen perspectively. How else could it be seen ? That analogy carries over pretty well I think into this larger issue. We don't know what we are talking about. You can say you have a clear idea, and I can doubt it. And you can doubt my doubt. And so on. And that would be a kind of jam in the conversation.

But if you can make sense of the world existing independently of humans, I politely challenge you to share that sense here.

The only normativity I understand to be essential to rationality comprises coherency, consistency and non-contradiction. I see none of those in the idea that the world (universe, cosmos) exists independently of us, although it should be clear that by "world" I obviously don't mean "the (human) life-world".

I see none of those in the idea that the world (universe, cosmos) exists independently of us, although it should be clear that by "world" I obviously don't mean "the (human) life-world". — Janus

The question is what do or can you mean ?

I challenge the disconnected entity from a holist position as semantically ungrounded.

But if you can make sense of the world existing independently of humans, I politely challenge you to share that sense here. — plaque flag

It's simply the idea that the cosmos existed before humans. I don't understand what you think is problematic about the idea.

It's simply the idea that the cosmos existed before humans. I don't understand what you think is problematic about the idea. — Janus

This may help. From a famous book on this issue:

...it would be naïve to think of the subject and the object as two separately subsisting entities whose relation is only subsequently added to them. On the contrary, the relation is in some sense primary: the world is only world insofar as it appears to me as world, and the self is only self insofar as it is face to face with the world, that for whom the world discloses itself...

...the metaphysician who upholds the eternal-correlate can point to the existence of an ‘ancestral witness’, an attentive God, who turns every event into a phenomenon, something that is ‘given-to’, whether this event be the accretion of the earth or even the origin of the universe. But correlationism is not a metaphysics: it does not hypostatize the correlation; rather, it invokes the correlation to curb every hypostatization, every substantialization of an object of knowledge which would turn the latter into a being existing in and of itself. To say that we cannot extricate ourselves from the horizon of correlation is not to say that the correlation could exist by itself, independently of its incarnation in individuals. We do not know of any correlation that would be given elsewhere than in human beings, and we cannot get out of our own skins to discover whether it might be possible for such a disincarnation of the correlation to be true. Consequently, the hypothesis of the ancestral witness is illegitimate from the viewpoint of a strict correlationism. Thus the question we raised can be reformulated as follows: once one has situated oneself in the midst of the correlation, while refusing its hypostatization, how is one to interpret an ancestral statement?
...
...our Cartesian physicist will maintain that those statements about the accretion of the earth which can be mathematically formulated designate actual properties of the event in question (such as its date, its duration, its extension), even when there was no observer present to experience it directly. In doing so, our physicist is defending a Cartesian thesis about matter, but not, it is important to note, a Pythagorean one: the claim is not that the being of accretion is inherently mathematical – that the numbers or equations deployed in the ancestral statements exist in themselves. For it would then be necessary to say that accretion is a reality every bit as ideal as that of number or of an equation. Generally speaking, statements are ideal insofar as their reality is one of signification. But their referents, for their part, are not necessarily ideal (the cat is on the mat is real, even though the statement ‘the cat is on the mat’ is ideal). In this particular instance, it would be necessary to specify: the referents of the statements about dates, volumes, etc., existed 4.56 billion years ago as described by these statements – but not these statements themselves, which are contemporaneous with us... — After Finitude

https://altexploit.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/quentin-meillassoux-ray-brassier-alain-badiou-after-finitude-_-an-essay-on-the-necessity-of-contingency-bloomsbury-academic_continuum-2009.pdf

Thanks, I've read the book. Meillassoux actually rejects, and purports to refute, the correlationist argument as I remember it. From the fact that subject and object are inextricably bound together in the human lifeworld, it does not follow that there are any subjects and objects absent humans, or that subject/object is intrinsic to the Real.

It does seem reasonable to think that what exists prior to or apart from humans has the potential to resolve itself into subject and object if and when humans are present. I acknowledge this is difficult to speak about without being misinterpreted, since our language itself is obviously part of the lifeworld.

So, it does not seem to me at all self-contradictory to say that the cosmos existed prior to humans provided it is not presumed to say what the nature of a perspectiveless existence could be.

I don't doubt that some things make sense to some and not to others, which means that this issue is probably not susceptible to rational argument at all.

Damn, bringing in the speculative realists!
:clap:

So, it does not seem to me at all self-contradictory to say that the cosmos existed prior to humans provided it is not presumed to say what the nature of a perspectiveless existence could be.

I don't doubt that some things make sense to some and not to others, which means that this issue is probably not susceptible to rational argument at all. — Janus

I actually might agree here, and I am glad to see the word "perspectiveless" in there.

provided it is not presumed to say what the nature of a perspectiveless existence could be.

I don't doubt that some things make sense to some and not to others, which means that this issue is probably not susceptible to rational argument at all. — Janus

So we arrive at the mighty mystical X yet again ? It's fine to posit X as long as we admit (and don't even care) that we don't know what we are talking about ? Why not not posit it ? I'd rather just call paradox or confusion what it is. Why bluff ?

Damn, bringing in the speculative realists!
:clap: — schopenhauer1

I don't agree with M, but I like that he sees the fucking issue. His weird attempt to wriggle out of correlationism is fascinating, and he sees his foe better than those who might be its ally if they understood it. My thread here is an outright variant of correlationism. As is any perspectivism that understands consciousness as the being of the world itself, through or for that perspective.

:cool:

So we arrive at the mighty mystical X yet again ? It's fine to posit X as long as we admit (and don't even care) that we don't know what we are talking about ? Why not not posit it ? I'd rather just call paradox or confusion what it is. Why bluff ? — plaque flag

I don't see this as mystical. A perspectiveless world cannot be imagined, but it also cannot be imagined that the world absent any percipients could be anything but perspectiveless; I don't believe it can be imagined as simply non-existent, I think that notion is even more incoherent, more mystical.

I see lots of examples of science gaining some grasp of cognition and psychology in your list but none that indicate an understanding of consciousness. We know a bit about anesthetics, as you say, but this tells us nothing nothing about consciousness. If you look at your list it doesn't include a knowledge of consciousness but behaviour and mental factors.

subscribed to the journal of consciousness studies for three years and in that time did not see one scientific article that moved our understanding of consciousness forward by an inch and only about two philosophical articles that added anything useful. The subject is at a standstill. Fifty years of work and they can't even falsify the traditional explanation of consciousness that dates back three millennia.

But no matter. I'm going to drop out of the discussion. The idea that consciousness is fundamental and was explained long ago is clearly unwelcome. See you around. . . . .

I don't see this as mystical. A perspectiveless world cannot be imagined, but it also cannot be imagined that the world absent any percipients could be anything but perspectiveless; I don't believe it can be imagined as simply non-existent, I think that notion is even more incoherent, more mystical.

If the absolute cannot be imagined then this is just a fact. Kant established that it is a fact and yet he is not dismissed as 'mystical'. The fats are the facts. But Kant does not say it does not exist and neither does mysticism. They say it lies beyond the categories of thought thus can be known but not thought.

This is just a thought. I'm moving on so no need to reply. . . .

I see lots of examples of science gaining some grasp of cognition and psychology in your list but none that indicate an understanding of consciousness. — FrancisRay

If you don't see cognition and psychology as significant aspects of consciousness, then I don't know what you are referring to with the word "consciousness".

We know a bit about anesthetics, as you say, but this tells us nothing nothing about consciousness. — FrancisRay

That looks like black and white thinking to me. Why think that knowing a bit about the effects of anesthetics doesn't tell us a bit about consciousness. Why think that consciousness is something that might be well understood without knowing all sorts of bits?

That looks like black and white thinking to me. Why think that knowing a bit about the effects of anesthetics doesn't tell us a bit about consciousness. Why think that consciousness is something that might be well understood without knowing all sorts of bits? — wonderer1

It's the presumption that something is known about the real character of consciousness introspectively, or more strongly, that that is the only way anything can be known about the real character of consciousness. Such an attitude may well seem intuitively right, but its correctness or incorrectness can never be demonstrated; hence the interminable arguments that do not consist in arguments.