Derrida said, if I can recall the quote, words don't stand for things; they "stand in" for "things". A bit like saying We stand in for things. — Astrophel

Yes, as in, what we* are is just a stand-in(s) [for things]. Not what we breathlessly pursue, the thing itself.
*we, referring to those selves we live through, Mind, not our Bodies.

And to tie it back in, stand-ins cannot have or be Truth. They're stand-ins. Everything stand-ins "do" is a representation; an often multi-generational re-re-presentation, including all of the knowing and subsequent adopting, then ordaining with "truth;" when we've constructed a representation for Truth and we all "know" most of what we ordain does not fit that representation.

Unfortunately for our unquenchable desire for "truth", you are correct. Mine too is an invention of Mind.

But so is Love, and Peace and E=MC² and look what treasures they have generated for Mind.

If appearances are the only reality then there is no meaningful appearance/reality distinction. — Count Timothy von Icarus

There is a meaningful distinction. Appearances are the doings of human Mind, Reality is accessible to the rest of Nature, in the doing and being of reality; not in the knowing, a thing invented by Mind

But now our grounds for the impossibility of knowledge itself seems hidden behind an impermeable barrier. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Or is it that that barrier, i.e. language, is not (just) describing what we know, but constructing it? It is, in that case, the root/structure/nature of knowledge is not hidden at all. What makes it "hidden" is our ultimately false belief that it is something beyond/outside of/before/transcendent to its own structure and beyond its own "tools."

The "truth" about human knowledge (unique to us among all of the species we have encountered) is that it is constructed by and out of representations, and thus cannot be Real Truth, since the latter, presumably exist(ed)/by nature remains, in the present. We cannot have access to what happened, what is, what will be, we can only re-present these things. And that is knowing.

Epistemology, Ontology, even theology, physics and biology, are not means to uncovering available Truth. They are means/constructions to re-present/construct how things function from the perspective of the inquirer, and the functioning, both of which are necessarily restricted to said re-presenting and simply cannot uncover/disclose/discover.

So, finally, on topic: epistemology does provide "knowledge." And there are no barriers. It's just that it cannot disclose Truth; and that's where the barrier is.

I was brought up to believe that malicious thoughts were to be avoided, so if I am having such fantasies I am likely to try to avoid indulgence of such fantasies. — Jack Cummins

You were "brought up to... therefore..." I am suggesting that the "brought up to," has collected structures of Signifiers in your memory which autonomously surface/trigger others because of the ways and structures in which they have been input. Sure, it seems very much like you are choosing, because "I" is involved....

but I'm willing to move on. Your post is very interesting! Thank you

"I seem to have" I completely understand your point. However, to me, what makes daydreaming a spectrum (and similarly dreaming a seemingly obvious lack of volition, and wakefulness, a seemingly obvious predominance of volition) is that there is actually no volition, if by volition, we mean some inner being, i.e. you/I willfully thinking specific thoughts. That seems to happen eg. in wakefulness. But even when one thinks "I" am involved in an active way, there is no "I," no being at the center (or elsewhere) directing, willing, etc. the thoughts. There are only the thoughts and how those thoughts affect the Body, and the world, both Natural and Cultural.

When I find myself in a daydream, which I know you do not deny that happens (i.e. "finding myself") and then I think, "wait. I will not waste my time daydreaming, instead, I will reflect upon metaphysics or the structure/nature of Mind, that "change" in the Narrative was not prompted by some inner being at the helm. It, that successor thought, was also autonomously triggered by the movement of other Signifiers affecting it.

By the way, I noted in your post that you are inspired by Jung. Jung's archetypes emerge in dreams and conscious thoughts universally because they are some of those very foundational Signifiers input into memory by socialization, and surfacing from time to time when surrounding Signifiers prompt them.

Daydreams are chosen which is so different from those which arise spontaneously during sleep — Jack Cummins

Are you sure? You speak of volition but that is an illusion affected when the Subject "I" is "entailed." When you think, so-called "consciously," day dream or dream, these are the dynamics of autonomously moving Mind.

In "conscious" thinking--you do not first form the consciousness thought, "here is what I will now think about." Rather, something in the external world, the body, or Mind itself acted upon the Signifiers already stored and active in memory, to surface at such a moment as such a thought, and so on. If it was prompted by the thought, "here is what I will now...," what prompted that, if not my previous suggestion?

In daydreams, the same applies, something in the external world, the body, or Mind itself acted upon the Signifiers already stored and active in memory, etc.

In Dreams, the same Signifiers acting autonomously, flood the inner-image-ing sense (the Organic Source of these now autonomous renegade Signifiers) with the same types of Narratives as before, but now the Subject "I" (which is the Signifier purporting to stand-in for the Body, and is thusly confused as a "Self" embodied) is less directly entailed. The Narrative playing from memory in image-ing is more vague, less connected, harder to "believe," than it is in wakefulness. But it is no more and no less the autonomous construction of Narrative out of Signifiers.

Only in so called deep dreamless sleep, does the Body rest in its True Natural state, absent the Fictional chattering of Human Consciousness or Mind. Prior to the emergence/evolution of Mind as described, humans might see flashes of Images stored in memory--but without any Narrative at all. Tiger fangs, Lush fruit trees (stored for the animal human to have autonomously triggered flight or foraging) for example

you remind me of the Zen masters who will reply to questions like "what is reality?" by offering you a cup of tea. Perhaps we should share one and stop worrying so much. Or am I misunderstanding you? — Ludwig V

Here's one I neglected to address. Whether or not you misunderstood me, I cannot fairly say, owing to the ambiguity of my language, which, notwithstanding your skilled efforts, will inevitably leach into your responses.

However, we are close to some capital T Truth in the way you brought up Zen. Whether in the mind of your hypothetical Zen master it is intellectually formulated thus way or not, his reply to what is reality, for instance, with, as you say "a cup of tea," illustrates many of the points under review.

1. Foolish question given the forum of questioner, answered, and resources used by both has no access to Reality

2. The power of something like Irony and absurdity might awaken you to what is Real. As if it is a cup of tea or any object constructed by and known only as mediated by fiction.

3. If the master simply offers a cup of tea silently, she is illustrating that reality is in thevpresentvparticiple verb, be-ing, do-ing

There are et ceteras but I'm not willing to exert more effort, trusting that you get the
gist.

The call to breathe was not delivered as some cute koan. It is affirming, if you want to crack the nut of Being, you cannot do it by knowing, but only in Being (the animal you are).

The — Ludwig V

Besides my ambiguous terminology, there is a further aggravating factor to my speech. That is, I am ultimately proposing it too is Fictional. I think that problem applies to everything, and that it is resolved by recognizing its function, not its Truth-status, is its/the purpose (of inquiry etc). Leave that for another time.


Rather than trying to itemize your concerns by highlighting them as quotes, allow me to save space (and effort) by responding to what I see as three ideas requiring clarification. Language, History, Nature (although the last may end up being addressed within the Bodies of the first two)

Language. Signifier is probably the best word to describe what I am trying to express. I'm proposing that human mind--unique in Nature (lets assume)--is not a Natural-part of the world-structure. Assume our Sciences are correct, Nature is made of matter. Language is not the same as a Rabbit’s teeth or a bone, as real and natural as anything else in the world. If it (and Mind which I am proposing to be structured of it) exist as a Reality distinct from Nature, it must be something like a Spirit. But if you think this is a stretch...At one hypothetical moment in prehistory, the human organism was still using its images stored in memory, organically to trigger responses (feelings or actions) appropriate to survival. However, eventually, I guess given the complexity of our Brains, this process of Signifiers in memory (stored as "images" of smells, textures, sights, sounds etc) grew to such a surplus "size" that Laws emerged to structure the dynamics (again, admittedly vague terms). At the same time, these Laws were outwardly manifesting in small "l" language as grammar, logic, reasoning, the Narrative form, eventually math etc. While "internally," these Laws were governing thought and experience: difference necessarily emerged to resolve issues of use of these once organic, now dynamic Signifiers. Time emerged "internally" the Dialectical process, settlement/synthesis, the application of meaning onto everything (Signifiers must signify), the Subject "I" the "other". These are fleeting constructions, empty nothings which trigger every human body to feel and act. Displacing the Real aware-ing Organism which is Real and Natural and "finds" "itself" (no self--self is constructed) in breathing; in being. And these are input into every human child by what we have called socializing (etc.). Just observe, as Lacan did, the assimilation of the Subject "I" into the juvenile organism, perhaps marking the moment of inescapable displacement.

And collectively...

Which brings me to History. While this Signifier based autonomously evolving structure was displacing Real Organic aware-ing with its Narratives--now I cannot see a lamp without seeing Lamp; or better, Body no longer (is) see-ing; now "I" am "seeing" Lamp--and as it began manifesting in the world as small l language; so too did it begin manifesting as Culture. Yes, it, Language (the Signifier Structure) Mind, History: one autonomously moving System, ontology Fiction, yet constructing Civilizations, and personal anxiety. None of which is Real; all of which is never True, irredeemably alienated from True, but because it is believed (that justified belief settling upon true part of the Dialectic) it has moved bodies and built mountains. All authored by One human Fiction manifesting in billions of loci, but it is a shared and open system. Just because the bubbles near China are not the same as the bubbles near California, doesnt mean its not one Ocean. Not a perfect analogy but then none is.


I do believe that the instances in which I appeared contradictory may have been addressed herein. However, I might take another look.


By all means, I appreciate your input, but do not wish to drain you. Please do not feel obligated out of courtesy (a courtesy I have read in your voice) to engage further.

@ludwig v

Thank you. See my most recent post on this topic, if it is of any interest/provides further clarity

The problem lies in the possibility that "seeing," as in organic sense of sight, is one thing; a thing presumably accessible to all organisms with sight, and still "happening" by the Human Animal.

But with the advent of uniquely human Consciousness or Mind, "seeing" is immediately displaced by "perceiving." That is, it is displaced by the Signifiers re-constructing the sensation with its Narrative.

So we do "see" lamp, whatever that is. But seemingly immediately "Lamp" displaces our seeing, and now sensation is displaced by perception: object, linear movement, meaning, and we cannot "unsee," that perception (in its becoming--in its linear constructed Narrative form).

As for epistemology and it's relationship to ontology in all this. The answer is, in Nature there is Truth. But that is not in the object, but only in Body see-ing. In human perception there is never Truth, but always only justifiable belief. As long as such justifiable belief is functional--remains a justifiable belief--we ordain it with so-called, small t truth.

Knowing is never accessing Truth, but always constructing truth.

If a traveller sees a rope ahead which she believes is a snake, in human Mind, it is a snake, until she gets close-up and declares--by her justifiable belief--that it is a rope. Both instances are constructed knowledge; neither is Truth. In Nature the object is none of the things our Narratives have evolved to construct. (See Huineng: it is neither flag nor wind, but Mind which is moving)

All we can say regarding the Truth of this hypothetical in Reality is the Organism seeing. It is in the Organism do-ing, be-iing, see-ing , is-ing, all of which "exists" in presence, in is-ing/be-ing, which is True.

The constructions of Mind, the becoming, is never present, only settles upon a seeming presence, I.e., a justifiable belief, in its empty, fleeting, movement through constructed time.

I am not necessarily using any philosophical dialectic, although I recognize how that creates a barrier between ideas I might express and readers in a forum of highly trained. All I can do is assure you I'm not being deliberately careless, beg the indulgence of those with whom I interact, and thank you when you assist/clarify-for me. And yet, on another hand, I sometimes think it is absolutely impossible to be precise in our language and speaking loosely is more honest, open, and helpful to the ultimate cause. (But perhaps I said that too loosely)

I am using Language as broadly as one can imagine, to include all images, representations, signifiers etc., if there are ceteras, stored in memory/History and structuring what we--philosophers and laity alike--think of as human experience.

I am using History to refer to the collective of these Signifiers operating on the Natural World beyond the individual body, and constructing Narratives beyond individual personalities, all of which moves autonomously in accordance with evolved Laws and Dynamics, is inter-permeable or accessible to Itself inspite of embodiment, is ultimately Fictional, and though it affects Realty via embodiment and the manipulation of resources into Culture, it has no access whatsoever to knowing Reality, despite all of our (Its own) efforts to prove it wrong.

When I say gap (or variations thereof) I mean this: With respect to that structure (Mind/History) which is ultimately Fiction cannot access Reality by knowing, since knowing too is constructed by Language and ultimately Fiction, there is an insurmountable gap between Mind and Reality because Mind is not presence, the "locus" of Reality. Mind is re-presentation. It is, for Humans in human existence or History impossible to get out of the representational (difference, Time, becoming, etc etc) and back to presence (being) by "using" Mind (thinking reflecting reasoning). We cannot cross the gap as the Subject I, also constructed by Mind, or by any kind of pondering. Reality is only accessible in Being (presence, Organic, Body doing; Body is-ing) not in re-presenting, becoming, constructing, knowing.

What I was suggesting, in relation to Novelty, is that Novelty Only arises/exists in Language/Mind/History. The dialectical structure, difference Time, make Novelty necessary. And contrary to what some may think, a "place" or "moment" where it seems that there are no words to
speak of, that is not because therein is a glimpse of Reality (see Kant's sublime or Wittgenstein's silence, loosely, for the notion that something "transcending" phenomenal experience is taking place in this "moment" or gap). The gap is still Mind/History, still fully Language and its constructions, ineffable though it may seem. Reality cares not for effability. Its just a moment where the Narrative is about to shift, as it is structured to do. As you suggested, a moment where "we are driven to develop new ways to speak". But it’s not the Truth trying to shine through, because any access to Reality is divided from Mind/History by an unbridgeable gap. If its Reality you want, just breathe.

This was an over simplification. But, alas, oversimplifying, I find, is unavoidable in a forum like this.

places when we don't know what to say. We may be driven to develop new ways to speak, — Ludwig V

Yes. Exactly. Isn't that exactly what eventually but (almost?) inevitably happens when there are gaps in the Language structures. Not, these "silent places" must present cracks where unspeakable Truth breaks through. Rather, these unspeakables are moments where what will be spoken has yet to be written; "places" where History is approaching a change (which didn't emerge in a vacuum, nor as a revelation or uncovering of Truth, but rather evolved out of all previous speech) in the Narrative and so the conventional structure (ie., that which is readily speakable) is not yet conventional. Novelty is built-in to the whole system/process of History; change, like Time, is a necessary mechanism for the Narrative(s) of Mind(s) to be "written" and correspondingly spoken.

Then if one accepts that there is such a thing as a moment which is unspeakable because it is Reality or Truth, rather than a shift in the Narrative, which is inexpressible, what is that like? Saying so will immediately rob it of that Truth. But, a fellow slave to speech, I'd say it is any so called moment or place where you, not the thinker/speaker, but the human organism are being. So, always, throughout your life. But that being--not must be, but--is silent. Truth is not unspeakable; Truth does not speak.

A God constructed by minds wouldn't qualify as a God for many people. God, as fully transcendent and without limit, would exist over all minds and anything else, "within everything but contained in nothing," as St. Augustine puts it — Count Timothy von Icarus

While I am not prepared to state that my Truth is devoid of any relationship/connection/source to/with/from a Universal or Transcendant Truth, call that "God", I think, the nanosecond I define that in/to Consciousness (mine/other) I have brought such "Thing" out of "Its" "Transcendance" and into Human Mind, by constructing "It" with such definition. So even that definition quoted above, is a God constructed by minds.

And therefore, building from as you pointed out, that a constructed God cannot be God, is it not suggested:
1. The God we can speak about is not God,
Or
2. If we can speak about God, we cannot speak accurately (or know It) because it transcends us and is without limitation (how can something without limitation be defined...therefore, including, even as a "thing without limitation")
Or
3 Anything we (think we can) say and or know regarding God, is a human construction (which basically was implied in my question, "Do you really think God...is Real I.e., not constructed by Minds?)

My point, to reiterate, my Organic so called being, may or may not have a relationship to/with a Universal Reality. But any consideration of that, even the one encapsulated in the immediately preceding statement, is already not that relationship.



1.

The following is a simplified reply owing to present time constraints and a reluctance to provide more info than you are after.

Mind is structured by images stored in memory, the "organic" function of which is to facilitate expedited responses to organic needs etc. Hearing roar, triggers flight for expedition. For humans, uniquely, these images evolved over time into a System of Signifiers operating autonomously and in accordance with its own Laws etc etc etc.

Out of these Signifiers, empty, fleeting, ontologically Fictional, every "thing" under the umbrella "human experience," is constructed, and such constructions trigger real organic response (see Clasdical conditioning) Not to say there are not Real human sensations, feelings and activities. But these constructions out of Signifiers, autonomously displace the human organism's Real "consciousness;" sensation with perception; feeling with emotion; inner feeling/image-ing with idea; drives and their corresponding actions with deliberation, choice, and so on, and so on.

To oversimplify some more: Language is not a mirror of our world. Rather the world (as we "see" it) is a mirror of our Language.

Thank you for clarifying. Apologies for any misinterpreting.

Reason: (simplified) that set of Laws/Dynamics/Process/tools including such as Logic, cause, linear movement, justification used to arrive at and settle upon a belief which is adopted as true (as opposed to so arriving/settling/adopting by way of alternative means such as convention, or fantasy).


Do you really think God, soul, monad are Real I.e., not constructed by Minds over time?

And on that note, Reason is constructed by Mind through its "membership" over time. Like Language was so constructed. In this sense "evolved" . That is, not deliberately constructed. Or do you mean to suggest that both Reason and Language are Reality pre-existing, independent of humans; inherent to the Universe?

If it is the latter, then I can see how epistemology and metaphysics are separate, because knowing is the process of discovering Truth.

But if, as I suspect, it is the former, and both Reason and our truths are constructed, then epistemology and metaphysics are entangled as yet another process/outcome of such conditions.

Finally, as for "physical things," I accept prima facie that they are Real; albeit your periodic table is a human construction; an example not of physical things in Reality, but of how we construct that in human Mind.

What do you mean by the Real world? Physical things? Is Reason a thing outside the Real World? What things are real (not as in, accessible to our perception--but ultimately real) and not physical? And with respect to such--if you think they Really exist--whence their cause?

Why?

Because I'm suggesting Reason is constructed; knowledge is constructed. And truth for humans, the only species that cares about truth, is not known as in discovered, but rather, constructed. Epistemology and metaphysics are entangled: both so called Truth and how humans pursue/access Truth are constructed by the Minds busily doing so.

Things in the world have causes. — Lionino

Ok. Do you think there is a cause for Reason? Or are some things exempt from the need for cause? Or, back to the original question, is "cause and effect," itself, a "thing" caused?

Yes.

The precise exercise doesn’t fit as well for the Subject as it does for Free Will. But it's the same finger pointing at tge same moon.

For something to be true, there must be a reason why it is true — Lionino

If the quoted statement is true, what is the reason?

Isn't Reason itself the reason (I.e. the rule internal to Reason that there must be a cause)?

I think epistemology and metaphysics are entangled. We think about truth and know truth, and all of our conclusions thereof, because both are constructed within the same framework: our Minds, and for us, there are no metaphysical conclusions known without both knowing and concluding having first evolved as constructions.

I really like what your exercise reveals for me.

C is the only one with any functional value. If free will didn’t exist C would revert to B. So yes, it is better to live as though we have free will; and besides the deep digging of philosophy; that is exactly what we do.

Could that reasoning be the mechanism, buried from conventional awareness, which "makes" free will seem to be real when there are strong opposing arguments?

Can you now reverse your exercise and bring it back to Pascal's original? Do we believe in God because it is functional, and thus a form of Reasoning like or unlike Pascal's caused such a mechanism to evolve in human Consciousness?

Can we go other steps further and suggest we believe in an individual Self, the Subject "I" because it is functional, and thus a form of Reasoning like or unlike Pascal's caused such a mechanism to evolve in human Consciousness?

And so on?

In other words, are all thing we "find ourselves" almost naturally or inescapably believing in (like God, Free Will, Self Consciousness, objective reality, morality, etc) even when there are strong reasonable opposing arguments, believed because they are functional and a mechanism for such belief evolved over time for that purpose?

Would the bulk of us be better off cutting the crap, and going on as if God, Free Will, and My Self, are Real, leaving the crap to a small minority of obsessive philosophers?

So... if a philosopher arrives at a hypothesis of the Absolute Being of all beings; and derived therefrom, a corresponding morality; a strict deontology, she is no less offensivel than an adherent to a religion who subscribes to an Absolute God and a corresponding morality? It's not strictly the idea of God that is abhorrent, but adherence to any Absolute because of the threat such adherence brings to morality? Just trying to understand what it is that is truly offensive to reasonable minds who often raise morality as the problem with belief in (an) Absolute. Neither of which I am necessarily advocating for.

Persuasive! Mulling it over. Thank you

And yet, out of/in reaction to Hegel, emerged, arguably, Kierkegaard, Heidegger, existentialism, psychoanalysis, postmodernism, Marx, and Marxism, the understanding of dialectic, and so on and so on. I agree it is all idle talk if it is simply absolute Truth one is after. If it is, like everything human, stabs at the shadows in the dark cave, with the motive of coming up with useful artifacts, it is not idle talk, but rather, one of our many forms of science.

I have in mind the platonic idea of god as an absolute substance, content, form, quality. A sun around which all objects revolve. An unfalsifiable, unchangeable criterion for the true, the real and the good. This idea is abhorrent to me because it is conformist, restrictive and violent in its sanction of blameful
moralisms. — Joshs

What if the pursuit of "God" as so defined, is akin to the pursuit of Being, or the Being of all beings? Is it truly the idea of God that is abhorrent, Platonic or otherwise? Or, is it what we have done to that via the corruptible vehicle of so called religion? I.e., the former, an absolute criterion for the true and real; the latter conformist, restrictive and violent in its sanction of blameful moralisms.

An Apartheid state is a state with a racially based law system in peacetime, not a foreign military occupation imposing martial law to indigenous people. — neomac

I can accept that. But if they are both (potentially) racist, and oppressive, then so? What is the significance so great that it merits differentiation in the context of these discussions? That is, besides just that "analytical minds must repel classifications based on overstretched associations of ideas." Is Apartheid objectively more culpable than Colonial Occupation and the imposition of Martial Law against, and for the purposes of subjugating, indigenous people who are all painted with the same brush on the basis of their ethnicity?

Thank you for clarifying, and sorry for my recklessness. I know far too little about Berkeley to justify my claim above. I was admittingly using it as a stepping stool.

When you differentiate Mind and consciousness, I'm not saying I disagree. But when you have a second, can you provide me with a brief explanation. Do you mean human Mind and Human Consciousness? Are you being technical as in Mind is the proper subject of psychology and consciousness of metaphysics? And in my post, if I, as I believe, am referencing one, which one am I imprecisely or unknowingly referencing. What is Berkeley's focal point regarding his inqury into Reality for humans? Mind? Consciousness? The Brain? Or, (some privileged, none of the above) Being? Again, I'm seeking information. If and when...

At the end of the day, they're both human made.

Let's look at it, not from the Ominous Subject of God. Let's whiddle it down and see how they're both made up Narratives, each equally stubborn in its attachment to itself (I say, a built-in attachment but that's for another discussion).

Whiddled down, they both reveal their Fictional natures, stopping short of Truth, necessarily incapable of surpassing the final leap which inevitably settles at belief. (And this applies to theism/atheism).

Take. You believe, not necessarily that Jesus of Nazareth is God, but even if it comforts you to dilute the myth, and say, that he preached love your enemies to the poor and was executed by Rome. You don't know that for certain, but it was revealed to you by the Christian Bible, has been input into you since childhood, and seems to have been adopted by enough people that it is safely a convention. It is still mysterious and you don't fully understand it, but still you took the leap, even if opposing Signifiers reawaken the Dialectic from time to time.


Now take. Water is made of two hydrogen and one oxygen atom. You don't know that for certain, but it was revealed to you by the Scientists, has been input into you since childhood, and seems to have been adopted by enough people that it is safely a convention. It is still mysterious and you don't fully understand it, but still you took the leap, even if opposing Signifiers reawaken the Dialectic from time to time.

Ah, but the Science Narrative demurs, our belief is supported by observation and can be tested by experience. Maybe not everyone can or has tested it, but we have authorites which confirm it.

And so too does the Jesus camp. Our belief is supported by witnesses and can be tested by experience. Maybe not everyone can or has tested it, but we have authorites which confirm it.

And it is only because we stand from within the Science Narrative that we reject religion's right to make all of the same claims. From Religion's perspective, using their tools and definitions, their claims are tested everyday and prove to be true.


Yet all along, both are wrong. Neither is ever proving to be true. Both are constructing opposing Narratives out of tools particular to each, but in common, uaing the same Mind, and its same structure, Language; and, both require at the very last instance of the Dialectic, a settlement, and a leap to belief in that settlement as if it were True (thats built-in--by its evolution. But for another discussion).

And why should it be any different when we get way up there at God? Theism/Atheism, they're both Fictions, and Philosophy should at least, recognize that, just as it should recognize it in Itself. Afterall what is Logic and Reason, but made up tools constructing Narratives which can never be called True.

Test it. If you think anything I've said is true, isn't it because you believe it? And If you think anything I've said is untrue, isn't it because you believe something opposing?

At the end of the day... breathe. And let them each present their cases for belief.

But for God's sake, let them each present their cases.

I think Berkeley was (unwittingly(?)) referring to human Consciousness. For human Consciousness:

"to exist is to be perceived." — Corvus

; anything not perceived in/by Human Consciousness, does not exist for Human Consciousness.

The "you" which continues to exist in the dream state, is still Human Consciousness.

The you in deep dreamless sleep, is not "you" but the Real Organism which exists in Nature, independently of Consciousness, which "you" have displaced with your experiences constructed out images which must be perceived to exist.

That "you" the one presumably in deep sleep never goes out of existence, but for the dreaming or waking human, that Real You is overshadowed by the shadows in the cave; that is, by things (which must be) perceived.
And, to tie it back to the OP, math is one of those things, restricted to human Consciousness and, therefore, only "real" insofar as constructed and perceived.

In the logic thread I proposed "logos" for the logic-like function of the world. I wonder what a good term would be for "the apparently mathematical in nature?" — Count Timothy von Icarus

Isn't logos the beginning of everything humans experience, and therefore not inherent/imbedded in Nature? (And I'm not referencing so-called St. John). Isn't math, computer science, the periodic table, grammar, logic, the rules of Football, and so on, just numerical or other modified formations of the original word, Language? I say, in the beginning of the becoming of human Consciousness and History, was, the "word," all strictly human things were made by the word; and without the word was not any thing human made that was made.

then how do we come to the common agreement on these values and properties — Corvus

If you're hinting that a hypothesis of Mind constructing all meaning is negated by the fact that there are universals we all agree to, that question would most potently address the issue if you're premise is that our common agreement, even respecting these so called universals, is sufficient evidence of their Truth. The fact that we already know our common agreement is not necessarily True, supports rather than negates the chance that we can and do come to common agreement on meanings which we simply constructed.

Further, your comments make sense, and I cannot fault you or your questions, there are complexities that I did not address. For instance, not only does our common agreement not negate the fact that we are agreeing upon Fiction, even in universals, but, that, I submit is one of the very ways our constructions are adopted as belief: I.e. by convention. The meanings are constructed following an autonomous process regulated by evolved Laws and dynamics, and oversimplified, what gets settled upon as believed follows criteria like functionality, Reason, convention, sometimes fantasy, like religion, hope etc. And I'll stop here, apologizing for my necessary brevity.

but that doesn't seem to be a warrant for the solid consistent foundation for any sort of rational and consistent universal principles, which tends to suggest the strong hint of possibility of the meanings and truths committed into unreliable relativity. — Corvus

Firstly, unless I've misunderstood: yes, relativity. So? But as for unreliable, no. Mind (both individual and History) tests every belief through a dialectical process. Belief is that settlement or "synthesis" which is most fitting. Even so called universals are still meanings once constructed, continuing to evolve. . The so called universal principles, are not universal. They suit only the hosts of Human Mind.

What is the evidence for "I am" is a fiction? Are you not you are? — Corvus

What is the evidence of an "I" period? Let alone an I that is, and is a Being within the being. I only is in Language. My Body provides obvious evidence of its own Reality, without the need of a Fictional construction, a nevessary mechanism in Grammar and thus Mind. That,
i.e. the human animal, ought to have been the given; the pre-reflective, a priori, noumenal, etc. Truth. Not our ideas about it. If "I" isn't the so called being requiring evidence then why is it that "I" was the Subject of Descartes inquiry. And where did he locate the "I" ? In thinking. And what structures that thinking? Language including its laws and dynamics such as grammar/logic, meaning, difference, Dialectic, convention and belief.

Apology once again for the clearly simplistic reply to your complex points on a complex matter which should take up more mental preparation/organization and space than can justify in this communal context.

Sensory-motor embodied enactivist approaches to perception and consciousness are based on Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology of perception — Joshs

If Descarte's Real Self is an “I am,” a being within Being, unwittingly Fabricated and Fictional; and if—standing upon the shoulders of those, like Hegel, Husserl, and Heidegger, recognizing the Fiction of a being within yhe being, and resolving it with not a being within, but a disclosing of being, a becoming—Merleau-Ponty took the Real Being all the way to recognizing the Reality of the Body, but never getting over the obstacle of becoming, stopping short at I can.

I think we are heading in the direction of liberating Body from its misplacement; emancipating the Real-so-called-Self, once and for all, from the Fictions of both being within and becoming, and understang that it is not I am, not I can, not “I” anything wherein Being is accessed. Being is just the “is”; and one step more, to be precise, since “is” is an artificial “capturing” of Reality by Language, like a photograph, re-presenting, a construction of the Being within or of the Becoming, Mind; the Real self is just “Is-ing.”

Sensation—seeing, hearing, external feeling/touch, smelling, tasting, internal feeling/mood, image-ing—are is-ing.

Perception, takes sensation and in imperceptible time displaces it with meaning. Not discovers Real meaning. Where does the meaning come from? We construct it out of available Signifiers stored in memory operating in accordance with an evolved set of Laws and Dynamics, following sometimes lightning speed dialectic, and settling at belief, also a mechanism of the Fictional structure seen by us as Truth.

us being a 'different kind' from other animals is simply the same pattern repeated in nature again and again. Having an intellectual or consciousness gap between other animals does not mean we are separate from them. — Philosophim

I agree.

In fact we do share Real Consciousness with all other organisms once you remove the uniquely human experience of Mind from the equation.

Real Consciousness is an organism presently and actively aware-ing ("its"--- there is no "it") be-ing ("in" ---there is no separation of organism and world) the environment, having evolved for survival. A human aware-ing others for avoiding, consuming, mating and bonding. A plant aware-ing wetness and sunlight for growing towards. And so on.

If that is the extent of Real Consciousness why then the inquiry into Mind, Being, Reality? That is our "fall." The pursuit of knowledge over living (Genesis reference may not be coincidence but I am not claiming divine revelation either).

Because out of humans aware-ing Consciousness emerged the astronomical surplus use of Images for survival, therefore, over eons Language and an autonomous system of constructed Consciousness emerged. With that, meaning displaced survival as the drive. Constructing meaning in Time, or becoming, displaced being present. And much more I won't get into now.

But this Fictional Consciousness emerged, Mind; one which we construct and cling to at the expense of the Organic Reality our fellow creatures enjoy. And from that, our human made suffering, and the corresponding need to construct meaning to apply to our environment, incuding, inter alia, the Subject I, difference, Reason, and the linear Narrative form.

Hence what is Mind? It must be, we conclude, by necessity of the structure itself (Mind), something which extends beyond the brain. It must be a privelged Reality, which animals don't have. When really we have their Consciousness, and what we call Mind is a Fiction. And so on.

Either way, spirit or brain function, this function of wondering what my mind is, can only result in the embarrassment of looking for my glasses while wearing them; nowhere in sight can I possibly appear, because in everything I look at, in the looking itself, I am already there, and still I wonder "what is there?" — Fire Ologist

:up:

And, ironically, the "what" of the "what is there [wondering]" is the Language of the wondering.
But
The what of the True Being, that which we are truly after but ignore, even malign (see Plato; see everyone thereafter in search of Spirit or Soul; and their treatment of fles/body) does not wonder, is the "language-less" "wonder-less" organic Being, not in any transcendent substance, or substance grounding, or behind; not, like Mind, in the becoming, the always constructing itself, regulated by Time and the linear Narrative, but simply in that Organic Being's be-ing, in its is-ing; in its aware-ing; in any and every present participle verb it "partakes" in. Take one step beyond is-ing, and you have left that and "entered" the make-believe world of Mind, Time, and becoming etc etc

thinking of nothingness as though it was a thing - — Fire Ologist

We are trapped by the ghosts of philosophy past. Per Hegel, nothingness is indistinguishable from indeterminate being,
And
As both nothing and everything are that to which no thing can be added or taken away, they too are indistinguishable.
Sounds a bit "mystical," eh? Thus, is it that the East is too mystical? (As some might surmise) Or is it that while metaphysics might be accessed through reason, where principles like Logic can be applied ( "x" can br either/or; not both, etc) the pith and substance of Truth and any ontology of Reality (as opposed to/beyond Mind) cannot be accessed through Reason?

My mind is the activity, and not some fixed thing. My mind is becoming a mind as long as some mental construct is being constructed — Fire Ologist

Agreed, and further, Mind is, and only is, those constructions operating..., etc. And, thus, Mind is ultimately a fleeting, empty, Fiction accessible by its own means and tools, like reason. The "fixed thing," we are actually after, Real Being, is only accessible beyond Mind. And who knows? Maybe there is some light to be extracted from the east.

Thank you. Informative. And I agree with you about Plato, ultimately. I am being hyperbolic owing to my appreciation for silence. . . And yet, I chatter on driven by my autonomous desire to know, and my autonomous desire to make known.

Having read your thread, I like your take.

My earlier comment about epistemology was in jest, and yet that seems to have been your read on these Daoist "parables."

I think you agree that while for the West, epistemology represents the intellectual desire to know (even the "how we know")which is prevalent since Plato seemingly ignored Socrates and went on in a futile pursuit of knowledge.

While Zhuangzi was more "Socratic." For Zhuangzi, the exercise is fully practical. You cannot know, so be always open to the endless changes (I.e., the existential possibilities), like an uncarved block.

Thank you. I've never seen that "extended" (?) version. Zhuagzi, the Father of epistemology!?

I'll check out your thread!

Maybe the "walk through" mysticism from Western Philosophy is being done "backwards."

Maybe the approach could be to reflect on the concepts of import (to a given individual) from the western perspective (since same is unavoidable, like thinking in English is to me), and then, from there, find the parallels in Eastern traditions.

One eg., upon my own reflections, I come across the problem of Mind and conclude, on my own, from within my western narrative, that Mind might not have any corresponding Being, or Reality, "driving", "grounding" or "behind" it, and that it might just be structured by empty signifiers. Comparing that to eastern philosophies, I find the principle of Sunyata (emptiness of Reality). While I believe that the Mahayanists might have gone too far, and that Sunyata applies only to the constructed reality of human experience, yet still, there is a workable parallel.

We are all humans, East and West, drawing upon the same nascent constructions input into all of us, and developed collectively throughout the generations. It wasn't just Schopenhaur who first incorporated the East into Western philosophy. I may not be best suited to demonstrate this, but I feel it is not unreasonable for an historian of philosophy to find what is traditionally thought of as eastern patterns weaved through western thought and vice versa, since the presocratics, and likely much earlier.

Your "obstacles" 1 to 3, (which I know you are exposing and not endorsing) are ways in which we "deliberately" construct barriers out of prejudice. For instance,
1. "test" it? arguably the east has a better test, doing, i.e. yoga and meditation. If mind's conclusions are admittedly questionable (hence, phenomenology), what better test than to silence mind?
(I am not prepared to endorse meditation as any certain test, just saying we could open ourselves to that if we are seriously pursuing Truth and not just fetishizing it and or its pursuit)
2. "physical world?" arguably sitting in meditation for the purposes of silencing the chatter and perceiving the world through the Body for a change, is exactly approaching reality through the physical world. What is more empirical than what your body tells you without interference of concepts?
3. "subjugation of mind to soul?" Firstly, that is the problem I see with western metaphysics in the traditions of Plato, Descartes, Hegel etc. Moreover, Mahayana blatantly denies the "soul." The subjugation part, the so called goal to reach Satori/Kensho or Moksa, is intended to liberate you from the mundane chattering of the Subject Self. Descartes tried to do the same but got stuck in the chattering and gave privileged status to the Subject Self, I (see Heidegger's ontic, everyday vs ontological Being, which I think, he ultimately remains in the ontic everyday, but that's another discussion). And so on...