I have never experienced the silent self. Have you? — Truth Seeker

No. At least not in the way you might be thinking.

I note:

1. The ("experience" of the so called) silent self which can be talked about, is not the silent self.
2. You, I, and every human is ("experiencing") the silent self incessantly (perhaps until death? But I literally cannot "say"). Every breath etc. etc.
3. The silent self is not "achieved" "attained" nor "experienced," it was already always there and needs only to be attuned to.
4. One technique is to attune to your breathing, not as in "I am breathing," "body is breathing," "counting breaths," or the like; not by "switching" from the chattering to the breathing, or from "becoming" the breathing; but rather, by being (breathing).

For instance, my awareness of being self-aware isn't actually mine? :chin:
2h — 180 Proof

Yes, in spite of the emoji designed to ward off yeses. That "awareness" is the illusion too. Not even awareness in the sense we wish it to mean. It is codes generated to trigger Feelings and action. Some of same have evolved to the complexity of Narrative experience.

Now you have to have meant "mine" as in the being you are, not those constructions. I know you did, because we share the same basic constructions, and that you did, lends more credence to our intuition (call it) that there is a being you are before/beyond/outside of the self generated. Well, that Being you are is not ultimately bothered with the awareness of self aware etc. Unknowable to our philosophies, we are only fanning the flames of the illusion (just as, paradoxically/hypocritically I am right now. Its inescapable). That being you are is always presently responding to the coding of the illusion. The latter, I has displaced it is natural aware-ings with illusions. Most of them in Narrative form, requiring a Subject.

What is the true nature of the self?
The self is an illusion generated by the brain. This illusion vanishes when the brain dies.The self is an immortal soul that is resurrected after death of the body.The self is an immortal soul that reincarnates into another body according to karma.The true nature of the self is unknown and unknowable. — Truth Seeker

I'd select 1 and 4.

1. The self with which "I" identify. The Subject, ego, the sum in Descartes, is an illusion.

4. I intuit a silent self, popularized by Vedanta/Buddhism, as the observer, but not necessarily. I'm exploring "the organic being," aware but of Nature, drives, feelings, sensations, movements, without the content generated by the brain happening to have generated the first self. It is unknowable to the first self, and that's the only self asking, and the only self which wants to know. It on the otherhand, is perfectly content with being itself. (Either/both interpretations)

Anyway, for what that was worth.

I'll read your link. Sounds interesting.

the mystic's communion with the divinity is internal. Consider Socrates and his "daimon" for example — Metaphysician Undercover

If that was intended to address Midgley's notion that consciousness is not isolated to each individual, I think you are highlighting her point in your reference to mysticism. The possibility of communion suggests to me, that notwithstanding the "internal" source of the mystical exercise, it's end result is that consciousness can "break free" from isolation and commune with "other" consciousness(es).

if sin is in fact some act (or thought) contrary to the will of God, then it’s impossible for me (and for most people, I’d argue) to KNOWINGLY sin. — Art48

I agree with you that we do not know the will of God, and that we construct it. But if I understand your argument, it is that the will of God has not been in any way revealed to us by said god, ergo, the not KNOWINGLY. So, on the same principle the existence of God has not been in any way revealed to us by said god, ergo, the discussion becomes moot.

Now, I didn't say that to critique the logic of your argument. Rather, to highlight that any knowledge we have about any of it: sin, god, God's will, God's existence, our will, our existence never comes to us from God or any such superior being (and I am neither accepting nor rejecting God's existence). Rather, knowledge always only comes to us after it had once been constructed by someone, and then, torn down, revised and reconstructed a trillion times, until it is reconstructed by one of us and settled upon as believed.

I believe it’s a good idea to try to be an upright, honest, and charitable person. I believe there are things we should generally do and things we should generally avoid. — Art48

And thank "god" you, and probably the vast majority of us do. Right? So if you arrived at that belief or settled at that construction, by poetry, Immanuel Kant, logical reflection, trial and error, a proper upbringing, or the so called Bible, Koran, or Confucian analects, why should we care?

When all knowledge is a settlement or a belief, always at a given locus in History, following an inevitable chain of construction destruction reconstruction, shouldn't we be less confident in the ways in which we privilege some forms of knowledge over others? The ways in which we fight about such privilege? Tease each other concerning our actions based upon such privilege?

I.e., revelation, for theists and the like (the most obviously misplaced by some in the meaningless hierarchy--the one causing you to implicitly accept its claim of a god, while rejecting its claim regarding Her Will);

but, then reason (as if it deserves to trump all others with its denial of being equally constructed, and its pretention of preceding construction, and its claim to uncover or disclose truths which precede construction);

and perception, (as if, like empiricists claim, perception is sensation, direct access to objects, rather than what it really is, sensation promptly displaced by construction);

and so on.

So sure, I agree, you're never knowingly "sinning." But I also agree with what I think was your more genuine position. Call it sin or not, your offending yourself, and the others sharing your greater locus of history, whenever you do anything you believe you ought not have, or whenever you fail to do anything you believe you ought to (at any given locus in History, since what you settle upon will be revised and reconstructed from locus to locus).

He is pure unfiltered consciousness with no hint of mental and physical attributes — Sirius

so much so, without attributes, Nirguna, that "He" is not even a He; not a she nor a they nor an It. Ultimately, as Existence Consciousness-Bliss, Brahman without attributes also has no will,

If l am Brahman, then my will is Brahman's will. But my so called "will" related to what doesn't happen is illusory, like my mind and body. — Sirius

And though the Upanasads have Brahman willing existence for "sport," Lila, that is Saguna Brahman. Brahman for discourse. But ultimately, discourse too is the illusory workings of Maya.

To "understand" Brahman within Maya, all of these discussions may be useful. But to access ultimate reality, Nirguna Brahman, this too is karma, clouding ultimate reality with Fiction. All of it, including this (i.e., my) pretentious depiction.

Only the living Body can access itself, that is, Brahman (as Atman, if one insists) and only by fully assimilating to the fact of the living being, being none other than Brahman, and to the fact of the Fictional nature of Maya, experienced by humans as the mind. To realize ultimate nondual reality, one must exert great pains at un-clouding mind and its experience, or, to use a more recent western term, becoming; and instead, by only being.

It does imply that the consciousness of creatures that don't grow up in that way becomes moot - even if they are sentient. In ethics, that might become problematic. — Ludwig V

You meant to say "doesnt". Of course, it doesn't. I don't think anyone intended bonding was the source of consciousness, only that it was a place Descartes overlooked when he was formulating his isolated "I am."

I do remember you from Epistemology and Ontology. I'm pretty sure I found both language and "Language," to cause barriers there too.

Doesn't it always? Unlike, say, organic bonding.

In a forum like this, pages of space and hours of time might be required for us to truly have mutual understanding--I might post "language is a barrier"; you might return with, oh really? Doesn't it bring us together? And so on and so on and so on.

What I say, you could endlessly critique; then, in turn what you say, if not I, I am certain someone. And so on and so on.

That was Descarte's "problem." (And Aquinas and Augustine and Aurelius and Aristotle all the way back with the exception of a certain Socrates we might be able to extract out of Plato). And we have inherited that problem. That is, that you cannot arrive at certainty with language processing in our minds. You cannot weave straw into gold.

But you can with bonding, for example, and so, ...here we go again

Are you suggesting another framework?
There's an interesting discussion to be had about translation between languages/cultures — Ludwig V

I wasn't. I was recognizing that we are within a framework, within a framework.

However your discussion above is also interesting.

If, on the other hand, I were suggesting another framework, I would respectfully say your discussion above is not what I would consider another framework. Rather, it too, is within this framework. Or, from your position, probably a framework within.

Anyway, the other framework I'm suggesting, is, in a manner of speaking, a framework without. That is, not in the way so called truth "works" itself out in language, which, afterall is a construction, perhaps the meta framework, but still, not the framework "without." The latter being before/beyond/outside of Language, which I would now identify as the constructed world, the world within a framework of becoming, to a world of organic presence, a world of (human) being. That's why the bonding Midgley referenced is uniquely significant--family, mates, offspring--that's where you find consciousness, and you find that we are one. Thats where Descartes neglected to look.

so truth within a restricted framework is not really truth?
Briefly -
For my money, "the sky is blue" is true because of the system of colours, — Ludwig V

Well said...within this framework.

I think Midgley makes a profound point. Below, from that "article" you referenced, I pasted a snippet. She may have been compelled by her locus in History, to cloak it in a domestic gown, but she was presenting a meaningful hypothesis.

"I am quite sure of is that for anybody living intimately with them as a genuine member of a family...their consciousness would be every bit as certain as his own...Philosophers have generally talked for instance as though it were obvious that one consciousness went to one body, as though each person were a closed system...I wonder whether they would have said the same if they had been frequently pregnant and suckling... if in a word they had got used to the idea that their bodies were by no means exclusively their own?" --M. Midgley

Her point, I take it, to be that we do not [contra Descartes] have to infer the existence of the same consciousness in others. She was beyond Descartes, the subject, "I", and phenomenal perception. She locates her proof in the organic being, human being, the animal; in its organic bonding with kin. There you don't have to meditate, reflect, analyze to know other is real, you are the other. And the "problem" with post Cartesian explorations of what can we know, is it limited itself to what can we know via an exercise of Language? As if that had a monopoly on truth. Why not bonding as a source for the truth that we are not utterly isolated in our consciousness? Or is philosophy not about truth, but about it within a restricted framework?

makes the point clearest, to leave the misalignment be. — Fire Ologist

Always!

I think I have a clearer lens on what you've been saying. I think if you develop your "middle" more (and who am I to say you haven't. Perhaps the Forum can only afford meager glimpses), I now understand that it is more akin to what Nietzsche, Heidegger and Sartre, inter alia, were constructing with their (simplified collectively as:) what is/how to exist authentically. Your middle is constructing something more like that.

Of course, that must "take place" in becoming (and yes, acknowledged, in this context, becoming to being and so on). You are talking about the middle as a "tool," the optimal place from which to "navigate" the, ideally, (or, inevitably) transformative movement from being to becoming to being.

...?

That's why my fixation on "being" had no place. (Although, you made room for it, carved out a place, more than once,

The becoming of the movement is a quantitative change, and the persistent being of the frisbee is a qualitative enduring as the same thing. — Joshs

the most recent courtesy.)


But from the beginning, you were getting at,

All, for human beings, is in the middle. — Fire Ologist

And

And as these fleeting attempted selves are becoming, we move other things, making changes back at the world of moving things (like me writing this and sending it aloft, redefining me as a mover of ideas like you who receives them). — Fire Ologist

And

There is no “this” meaning “this only”. There is always “this and that”, never this only. Every “this” brings with it it’s distinction from “that”, it’s position on the horizon, as it hangs there, flying, being, becoming. — Fire Ologist

,

you were saying in this human all too human world of becoming, of this and that, of endless transformation, the middle is the "place" where you can get the best view (to 1. Oversimplify, 2. Presume, 3. Try to encapsulate).

Anyway, here's my personal challenge as an eager disciple of wisdom: If I've understood you, I like it. If I haven't, humbly, I like it anyway.

So while I hope I have finally understood your intent, I cannot help but feel gratified either way. I look forward to reading more.

To hold something still in a nanosecond, there “is holding”, so there is still becoming in that nanosecond. We have to chop and measure a nanosecond, so instead, I see chopping and measuring. — Fire Ologist

I think we're in agreement, and I am stubbornly clinging--like George Costanza clinging to nothing--to my insistence on the "never the twain shall meet." Obviously if we are inevitably always becoming, that nanosecond can only "happen" as a "movement" to being, which as you say, from becoming, cannot be but a simultaneous negation (albeit brief) of becoming. And the middle is that "pause" (?) which (likely) alone* affords such negation (since becoming is otherwise an unstoppable train). *Because death, though it stops becoming, we must presume, at least in this context, also stops being. So yes, the middle. I think I see your point and you're right, the middle is not, as I was insisting, being.

In the middle is the “ing” personified as an object and therefore distorted into a “what”, a single what it is. — Fire Ologist

Yes, because we cannot but becoming, while the x-ing for be-ing is in the is-ing [of it (without subject/object)], for so called "us" in human existence, with the unavoidable subject/object, it can only be attuned to, as the "ing" and not as the subject, in the middle of becoming.

Feel free, if I'm still way off. I do feel like I'm narrowing closer to your narrative.

Being in the middle, draws out simply becoming. — Fire Ologist

For me, being/becoming: never the twain shall meet. (Except by illusion in becoming).

If “I am” links this becoming to the “I” and this is illusory, I say that I’ve tempered the illusion of identity by saying nothing of “I” and positing only “being in the middle is”. I’ve replaced the “I” with anything being in the middle, so nothing in particular, or everything — Fire Ologist

I kind of see what you mean...but, I ask, was "tempering" the illusion, not just a "trick," like all of this is? Like all of my thoughts and expressions in the fleeting of becoming. And, therefore, are we not truly in the unbridgeable "gap" between being and becoming, when we are truly in that nanosecond worth of being in the middle?

you say “inaccessible”, I would say this implies one here “accessing” (or failing to access), another one there. — Fire Ologist

Yes. I say becoming necessarily failing to access being; the latter, only accessible to/by be-ing.


So ultimately, I misunderstood. I now think "middle" in your query, intends a time/place within becoming.

If that is the case, where is its "magic" (referring to that which you so eloquently described in your original post)?

How do you define 'true' (and NOT 'truth')? — Bob Ross

The example below, from another post, helps to illustrate how seamlessly "true" couples with other concepts. Not so with "be".

"When someone says "I know that the distance to my local grocery store is 10 miles", they do not mean that they are absolutely certain nor that it is absolutely true that <...>; rather, they mean that they are (1) have a belief that , (2) are justified in, (3) and have high enough credence levels to claim that it is true that <...>."

Look, I realize that was possibly cheeky. The problem is, we have entered a region of the cave, immediately adjacent to the opening, where it is all too obvious we are just playing with shadows.

Yes, I see how "gap" is problematic.

But the definitions of the complex concepts are not themselves circular: they don't refer to themselves in their definitions. — Bob Ross

Right because only being is outside of the game. Every other concept, including, in my humble opinion, value, true, and false, has references in other signifiers, allowing for levels of analysis. These are the things we think we know. All of them nothing but webs of signifiers. Open to discourse because they are discourse.

Being cannot be defined by signifiers. It cannot be discussed. It can only be "known" by being.

this does not afford any real analysis into what ‘to be’ really is itself but, rather, is just a reiteration, in different words, of the same meaning. — Bob Ross

I'm not sure what other examples you have in mind, but isn't "being/to be," (and I wouldn't say existence too) special?

Without giving a complex analysis--because I can't; I'm just stepping lightly on an intuition--all other concepts, are signifiers, representations which can be traced to other signifiers, either backward to eventually a long lost source in reality, or forward to other ways of signifying the same (really, similar) thing(s). But being is what is, it cannot be represented, but remains necessarily present.

And so to know any other concept or representation is exactly a playing with signifiers. But to "know" be-ing--not even just human being--but what it is to be (a thing,) requires being (it)

Or am I missing your point entirely?

at home, here in the present, here in the middle, somewhere above the ground, like a frisbee — Fire Ologist

While generally I'm OK with interpreting a text outside of authorial intent, in this case it would be folly to ignore the opportunity.

Here's what I read. Am I overreaching?

The middle is not a place on the course (of becoming), but the gap, actually inaccessible to us, but it's where being resides, in the present.

If we never dip our toes in the same always moving river twice, there's no [at least, discernable] middle.

If we dip our toes in a river that is whole, with no beginning or end, then the significance of the movement (becoming), and a middle, is an illusion.

Are there other options? Either way, the middle is inaccessible to us trapped in becoming.

It is accessible "somewhere else" "above the ground like a frisbee." Is that not in the presence of being?

but the OP asks if knowledge is merely belief. Apparently, it's implying that the difference between knowing and believing is empirical verification or rational justification. And so, we argue about shades of truth. :smile: — Gnomon

Very true. I did take liberty in my read. And you are correct. Thank you

Once saying is, things are said. Once things are said, dichotomy blossoms. — Fire Ologist

Ok yes. That might be a subtlty I'm missing. That's where I'm going to direct my thinking!

I'll tell you, from this discussion, I can say you are intellectually very open and giving, a great quality in a forum like this. It's not universal!

You have to get an “ing” word in there, breathing life into the more stagnant sounding “direct awareness”. — Fire Ologist

Uncanny similarities and yet some differences. I always call my version, aware-ing. Which compliments my last point about the arm reaching. I think truth is in the present is-ing/do-ing.

It is likely I an too heretical. Maybe I have over romanticized the romanticizations of N et al. I'll have to think more.

Kant, he saw that knowledge was cut off from the objects it sought to know — Fire Ologist

Yes, arguably necessary for there to have been a Nietzsche, or at least, the N. being discussed.

first illusion, where our man-made conventions called “knowing” (which knows nothing of the thing in itself) is now called truth - an illusion built on a forgotten illusion, all because people like Aristotle — Fire Ologist

he admitted the “truth” was less valuable then the knowledge of it as illusion. — Fire Ologist

when we forget this first, we start to use words like “truth” where I think you put the capital T. — Fire Ologist

Nice

There is no dichotomy in reality? I disagree. I am the dichotomy in reality. When you say one thing, it immediately holds everything else in the balance, — Fire Ologist

This one, I stubbornly grapple with. I cannot let go of my admittedly radical view that "when you say," period, you are already in that which displaces reality, what we've loosely desginated as N. illusion. In reality, not only no dichotomy, but no say.

The act of throwing all truth away has truth in it! I — Fire Ologist

Yes, when you put it that way. I need to at least temporarily release my puritanical hold on Realty is only being (?)

But there was this,

But with the becoming, things come to be in the becoming. — Fire Ologist

And, I think that's our folly, or even fall. Maybe N. didn't go this far, and I accept that. But then, I would humbly assert he stopped short. I assure you I am not religious in any conventional sense, but I wonder if humans did "fall from grace," the grace of nature when we also "forgot" that nature "creates" being, and our becoming never arrives at being, but only at more becoming in its vacuous construction of vacuous time.

And yet,

Or else we wouldn’t know what we can’t know. — Fire Ologist

where I've settled is ultimately absurd, trapped by a paradox of its own creation.

...or is the absurdity just more support?

Are we all just reaching into a dark cave and by some crazy coincidence, one of us winds up holding truth? I don't think so. I rather think none of us are. I think the truth is in the arm reaching. I don't mean, as per Lessing, glorifying the pursuit. That's just philosophy justifying verbal masturbation. I mean the actual organism acting. That's the real truth, the one N. illusions have displaced, or caused itself to have forgotten.

the question of why people might rationally conclude that consciousness depends on more than physical (beyond just "wanting" that outcome) is the topic of the so-called "Meta-problem of Consciousness" — Malcolm Lett

It seems no more necessary than the "first level" I.e. the hard problem itself. It's a fundamental misunderstanding or misguided approach to Consciousness to begin with, viewing it as the primary of human existence. Probably rooted in those quasi psychological reasons you suggested. Even in broader philosophy the objects of the fears of loss are imagined 1) from a misunderstanding of the workings of the human mind, and 2) also, as "defense mechanisms" to shield us from the primary fear of loss, the loss of self.

But then that begs the meta meta question, why does consciousness cling to the self and all of those hypotheses which follows? Answering it might lead to another meta, and so on.

I think that strong identification with self, a mental model, is built (evolved) into the structure/function, because it promoted the efficient and prosperous system that said consciousness is today, and still evolving.

I might diverge from you (I cannot tell), in
"characterizing" or "imagining for the purpose of discussion" that evolution as taking place exclusively in/by the brain, notwithstanding our mutual rejection of dualism. But that's for another discussion.

referring to the difference between the known physical laws vs something additional, like panpsychism or the cartesian dualist idea of a mind/soul existing metaphysically. My personal belief is that no such extra-physical being is required. — Malcolm Lett

Understood. And FWIW, I currently
agree

can't say that MMT achieves that aim — Malcolm Lett

It's reasonable to me. My concerns about it are directed at myself, and whether I understand the details sufficiently. I read both your first post and the link, and should reread etc. But from my understanding it's persuasive. I believe there are reasonable, plus probably cultural, psychological, bases for "wanting" there to be more than physical, but still I find it strange that we [still?] do. Even how you intuitively knew you'd better clarify "in your opinion no need for extra physical."

For senses that inform us about the outside world, we thus model the outside world. For senses that inform us about ourselves, we thus model ourselves — Malcolm Lett

Very much with you

here I use "causal" in the sense that the individual thinks they're doing the causing, not the ontological sense — Malcolm Lett

:up:

And so you didn't mean the "self" was
this severable thing, "part" of the Body, other than the model. No need to reply unless to clarify.

Thank you

“direct awareness” - the present becoming of experience.. Thrown there, in motion, with it. It immediately presents an object to a subject; but it can also just be seen as just the subjective experiencing…, becoming in the moment - direct awareness. — Fire Ologist

I apologize if I am overbearing. I have found you have insight into matters important to me.

The above quotation is a good place to clarify where we differ slightly. That is, if you think we haven't reached the beating a dead horse phase.

Direct awareness is significant to isolate. And I totally share your apparent enthusiasm about that. But is direct awareness taking place in becoming? Does it involve subject/object? There might be a more direct awareness in becoming. But the one which excites me, and which paradoxically is pointless to discuss, as you suggested earlier, is a "return" to the aware-ing Being, finally just being, liberated from becoming. (Won't elaborate here/now).

also see truth there with the illusion. — Fire Ologist

Ok. And I get that.
Is the truth
1. The now buried source of the illusion, displaced by the illusion but lingering?
2. Is it dissolved in the illusion such that they are indistinguishable?
3. Or, is it literally obliterated by the illusion as implied below?
4. Something else?

see truth dashed to pieces — Fire Ologist

how could something present itself as an illusion to me, if I couldn’t see that it was not real, not truth? — Fire Ologist

Yes. And i understand the logic. But if we stay with N for a minute here, logic (specifically, the requirement of a not that, to reflect a this), is the illusion. So, I submit that our (yours, mine, N.'s and many others) "intuition" about the illusion, though eventually worked out in logic/reason, has its source outside of the illusion, and I submit, that source is in Being (Not enough time/space to elaborate presently). Point being, it is not in logic (in my humble...etc).

knowing anything, be it illusion or not, seems both impossible and already accomplished at the same time. We are dealing in living paradoxes… — Fire Ologist

Agreed. I wonder if the paradox doesn't come from trying to fit Truth within the illusion, i.e. by attempting to access it by logic/reason, and if "emancipation" doesn't come from accessing them separately. The illusion in becoming (our mundane or conventional existence--the existential world N. "chastises" and attempts to remedy via authenticity etc); and the Truth in being (not existentially (narratively involving the constructions of difference and time), but organically (always presently)--again too much to elaborate here and now).

He describes both, and tells us what is true and what is not true about them both. — Fire Ologist

Ok. Did not know. Methodically? Or do we read between the lines?

We should not seek the truth as if to follow a shepherd, we must make it. — Fire Ologist

Ok, I agree with the first part. But second part suggests we are constructing small t truths in our becoming, in the illusion. Fine. Functional. Necessary. This is his authentic self stuff which I respect, but qualified. It is our truth, and not The Truth, even our authentic-ized self. This is not an attack on N. Just what I think he "really" meant. But I confess I do not know what he meant. I am strictly one who does not think it necessary to abide by authorial intent, but rather, to use History to build History (in the "realm" of becoming). Then why query N's intent? I care about it, just willing to use it creatively. (There's a Daoist parable in the Zhuangzi where the Dao is compared to an old deformed Tree which was deemed useless for lumber and thus allowed to grow. Zhuangzi highlights the folly of restricting its use for lumber, noting how its longevity allowed it to provide optimal shade)

maybe we should avoid the concept, we are smarter to jettison it from discourse… — Fire Ologist

Totally, Real Truth. Avoid it in all philosophical discourse (hypocrisy acknowledged). Not just should we jettison; but, unknown to those of us stuck only in becoming, The Truth isn't even on board the discourse to jettison it from. Only constructed truths, which, because of their becoming, are fleeting and empty, vacuous as you suggest. Even The Truth I am querying about is already only truth.

still, in order to say all that or to tear down any dogma, as I said, Nietzsche had to be as dogmatic about these things as anyone else. — Fire Ologist

Like all philosophers, I suspect, ineluctably trapped between I've said too much/I haven't said enough. Like, you I imagine, after you read my follow ups, knowing you could have addressed these in one swoop, maybe even figure you have, but the questions, in a dimension empty of being, can never settle. So we believe until the new one comes along. Dogma thinks it can circumvent belief by dictating. But even Dogma is in constant motion, only vacuous becoming and only temporarily settled upon. That's how I read N (in my repeatedly confessed modest reading. That is, I am ready to accept that my reading is "heretical" to those who have read N.)

If there is one thing I know, it is that I know nothing — Fire Ologist

My read? Finally one came along and resurrected that first and only philosophical Truth after Plato buried it in the cave. (PS I love Plato. Just saying).

think Heidegger put things in a more classically logical, more metaphysical way, and all of this might be dismissible as facade to Nietzsche. — Fire Ologist

Ok, yes. From Nietzsche's lens, H was working with the vacuous constructing brilliant, but nonetheless, vacuous things. I fully acknowledge you said "might" and also that you have never purported to pinpoint N. but have been gracious enough to share your findings, and within a Ltd space/time.

I wonder what you think of where I see the the truth of it all, how illusion is only illusion in the eyes of something who knows truth, or simultaneously, truth is only truth in the eyes of something seeing illusion; how the presence of either one, brings the presence of both together. — Fire Ologist

In fairness to you, I didn't give you much of a chance to express your own views. You were being courteous in addressing my queries on N., for which I am compelled to repeat my gratitude. It has been enriching. But given what I could read between the lines, and the quotation directly above, I would be interested. I do not think we are crossing the boundaries of "Is knowledge belief."

On the face of it. I think the dichotomy is only relevant In illusion . I think opposites, paradoxes, contradiction, difference, are also constructed fictions existing, bearing meaning, and qualifying as truths, only in becoming. In Reality, Being, there is not only no dichotomy, there is no inquiry, no focus, no concern whatsoever about Truth/No Truth. There is no logos. There is only presence being [that Truth...added here only for our benefit]

Your hypothesis is intriguing, and exceptionally presented.



It seems like the entire "process" described, every level and aspect is the Organic functionings of the Organic brain? All, therefore, autonomously? Is there ever a point in the process--in deliberation, at the end, at decision, intention, or otherwise--where anything resembling a "being" other than the Organic, steps in?

Secondly, is the concept of self a mental model? You differentiate the self from the body, identify it as the Dominant whole of which the body is a part, was that just for the sake of the text, or how do you think of the self, if not just a mental model?

my body is part of my self, — Malcolm Lett

Ugh. Never mind — Metaphyzik

No, that was informative. Thank you. And I get your frustration. Feels impossible sometimes to address such multilayered complexities in a narrow time and space.

You did a nice job, at the very least, illustrating how it is much more multilayered and com0lex than my prompt implied.

It shows that it is not logically complete. — Metaphyzik

And therein lies the "resolution" to your unresolvable paradox, right?

You are judging how it stands up to logic.
If nothing is absolute, neither is logic.

Hence the illusion of a problem that does not arise in a/the Reality where everything isn't relative.

Philosophers (broadly speaking) who read N seem to read into his work philosophy even he didn't necessarily understand or think of while writing — AmadeusD

Interesting. I had that hunch but didn't know it was commonly regarded.

I could have chosen not drink anything at all, or could have drank a cola, but I chose to drink water because I wanted to. — Corvus

How did you settle finally upon the so called decision to drink water? You say you wanted to.

Did your body receive organic triggers driving you to feel what we call thirsty, in turn sending triggers to your mind, which has been conditioned over time so precisely, that the particular organic feeling, triggered in Mind, the exact chain of Signifiers which habitually code the final Signifier, I want water?

Or was there an environmental trigger first, you saw an image of water on the screen, triggering in Mind, the exact sequence of Signifiers which habitually code the final Signifier, I want water?

Or to prove this suggestion wrong, are you now going to get up and spontaneously drink a glass of water? To prove this wrong.

No, you couldn't have. It was not open to you to decide anything but what the preceding history of hte Universe determined you to decide. — AmadeusD

It’s easy to misrepresent Nietzsche, and when you try to briefly summarize what he says you are in danger of leaving so much out. — Fire Ologist

Acknowledged.

we have invented. It’s not that truth is not something. It’s not that we can avoid knowing and seeking the truth. It’s that we have over valued so many truths and then built obscene facades of dogma and institution out of these over-valuations. — Fire Ologist

You gave an excellent explanation given space/time, and the aforementioned caveat. I would assume, an "orthodox" one as well (recognizing there's no such thing, all the more so for one like Nietzsche).

Obviously, like everyone else, my explorations have a "why" of their own. So I'm not pursuing this argumentatively, but also not entirely openmindedly, but rather, with an openly confessed personal path in mind. I've learned it's fair and functional sometimes to unshroud where you're coming from.

Having said all that, there seemed to me in your explanation, a reluctance to go a certain distance as far as truth being an illusion/invention. It is as if you have found there is a lingering of truth for Nietzsche in his assessment in this regard.

Is that because for certain N. hung on to a level of truth even in how we experience, for lack of better terms, our phenomenal or existential?

Or are you reluctant to ascribe to N. a more absolute abandonment of truth in human existential/phenomenal experience because, for e.g. he's so ambiguous and that would be pinpointing him to an extreme; or, it sounds like nihilism, etc.?

I see this as with so much of what he says as an exaggeration to make a complex point — Fire Ologist

Is that for certain? Or, though he wrote with passion, was he, nonetheless, dead serious that all [human] existential truths, I.e. the way we see and interpret the world, is illusion? He wouldn't have been the first, nor the only. But perhaps he was dead serious and any subtle hints to the contrary are there because, 1) his age did not equip him yet with the Narratives to boldly make that claim (he lacked post modernism for e.g., exposed to Buddhism, but not really). 2) we read those subtleties into N to mean he clung to a more traditional metaphysics when really he didn't. ?

instead of being a truth seeker, of following the drive and will to truth, instead he was willing to live without it. — Fire Ologist

Ok, and here, I accept, without need for further query. Because, to clarify, I'm not wondering if N. rejected Truth per se. I know he didn't. He Isn't a nihilist. But I'm seeing a reluctance to say he rejected truth in all things human. And sure, there are truths in the sense of we believe, and truths in the sense of it is functional to believe, but for N. in human existence, these too are ultimately illusions. No?

yes all science is only practical convention and can be over-valued as well — Fire Ologist

Damn right. So if even science is not shielded from illusion...

He ruined all good discussions of what is “knowledge.” Damn Nietzsche. — Fire Ologist

Fair enough. But I think you agree (are there people who don't?) we don't really judge these types of theories for there impact on history. . . wait, or is that exactly what we do but don't like to admit it, so when someone says, "I disagree with N because he ruined discourse," we call them out and remind them to judge the theory on the merits, as in, does it stand to reason?

Hmm.

wisdom shines — Fire Ologist

Agreed. Unlike truth and knowledge. A hazy thing. Im not as comfortable with its ontology (?) true nature (?). It involves some of N's illusion, but also brings in organic feelings and drives in a way which bypasses emotions and sometimes logic and reason. A bit like Kant’s sublime.

I get lumping Nietzsche, Heidegger and Sartre (along with Camus, Kierkegaard, Dostoyevsky, Goethe, and others. They all use such different vocabularies (absurd, dread, anxiety, nausea) — Fire Ologist

I'm interested in seeing if people who are comfortable with N. would be comfortable saying that from a Nietzschean perspective Heidegger's Dasein, throwness, ready at hand, etc. etc. etc., though brilliant and functional, is also, in the end, illusion, and has not described Truth, but has only described the illusion, because Truth is inscrutable and ineffable and, actually inaccessible by means of the illusion, .

He said many wise things. These refute his exaggerations — Fire Ologist

I'm good with respecting ideas even if the dominant thinking in my locus of history has found reason to refute it. Ideas build ideas, and so on. We don't even always know how and which ones. For sure N has influenced my thinking even though I have read admittedly little N., and, even though my locus might have removed him from the current circle of influence.

As for "exaggerations," I'm not sure I see them that way, which is the "why" of my queries here.

Thanks for the time and edifying discourse.

I

weirdly, reject S-theory and Hedonism...)
6m — AmadeusD

And, yes to the "weirdly" reject Hedonism. S-theory, I will look up.

Ok!
Yes, I agree with you.

Look, I know this won't sound sincere, an inherent dysfunction in forum etc, but this information you've provided has been very helpful to me, augmenting. Thank you.

Very nice! All of it. Thank you

But below especially, intriguing but I am not fully confident I understand: "within a theory"?

Morally, the premise that 'happiness' must be attained within a theory for it to be Plausible is a common refrain from moralists. It's one I find to be pretty question-begging. — AmadeusD

You cannot reason with someone who bases their position on a free miracle at the beginning of their reasoning. — AmadeusD

I'm pretty sure I understand your point, but because I especially like this "free miracle," isolated as the common element, what would this free miracle be for institutions other than Abrahamic religions?

Unlike other sensory modalities, our experience of color is deeply intertwined with linguistic labeling practices from the start. — Matripsa

we may just be experiencing the qualia of what is agreed upon or linguistically coded to be "red" within a particular cultural/linguistic framework. — Matripsa

I agree with this observation, and, for me, the query goes further. Although I acknowledge that my explorations on this topic are not conventional.

I wonder whether or not other examples raised in the "qualia" argument against physicalism might be subjected to the scrutiny, that,
1. our experience of most things (i.e., not just color) are "deeply intertwined with linguistic labeling practices from the start." AND,
2. [For me] the coding is significant, not just within a particular culture, but universally. AND THEREFORE, [here is where I really deviate from both convention, and even your point]
3. Almost all of our sensory "experiences," which i will call perception to differentiate from unobscured sensation, has ineluctably been mediated by such "coding." Red is Red for everyone and any variations of that experience are relatively not significant enough to argue subjects are isolated from one another.


Edit: to clarify further, I'm saying we see "red" because we have made "clor" and "red" signifiers accepted by convention etc. Who knows what these are to organic sensation free of the mediation of perception?

Is there a problem with God of Abraham religions that we might resolve with reason? — Athena

Abrahamic religions are essentially exclusive and intolerant. It's not possible to reason with those who believe they already know — Ciceronianus

I am not disagreeing. However, doesn't this apply, even if to varying degrees to: Communists, Capitalists, Racial Supremacists, Certain groups of Academics and Scholars, etc. Note also that while historically, the same might not have applied to "Hinduism," but the Hinduism of Modi?

How do you not love Nietzsche. Great starting point for these questions. — Fire Ologist

Brilliant.

there was a star upon which clever beasts invented knowing. — Fire Ologist

May I ask what you think:

1. How do you suppose Nietzsche "defines" knowing (besides the quote provided)? That is what (ontology(?) if I am using the word properly) does he "ascribe" to human knowledge? It is clearly not a thing inherent in the universe which our superior brains can uncover? Is it, to N, a fiction, an illusion?

2. How would N. characterize the conclusions about Being (as ontology(?)) made by Heidegger and Sartre, for e.g.? As "arrogant and mendacious"? Or meaningfully nonetheless, and if meaningful, then how?