The notions *reality* and *existence* have their genesis, and derive their sense from within that "simulation", — Janus

Yes. We are all in this story together.

I feel like I sometimes have an intuitive feel for it. — Tom Storm

For me, the intuitive feel is what it's all about.

@Tom Storm

So you won't be confused - I deleted the text below from the post after I first posted it because I don't think it's relevant.

I started to be interested in eastern philosophies about 30 years ago. I started out with Alan Watts and finally came to the Tao Te Ching, where I immediately came to feel at home. For me, the wisdom in the Tao Te Ching is the most pragmatic, clear-eyed philosophy there is. It's philosophical engineering. — T Clark

As someone who is here mainly to see what he may have missed in not reading philosophy what do you think you have gained from all this reading? What were or are you looking for? If it's awareness... what does that mean in practice? — Tom Storm

I, like you, have not spent a lot of time reading philosophy. I even started a thread called "You don't need to read philosophy to be a philosopher." Even so, I have an experience that might be relevant.

As I've said many times, much of my interest in philosophy came from the same place that my attraction to engineering did. I don't know exactly what to call it - a temperamental curiosity. A desire to mess around with things and see how they fit together. During my engineering career, I became aware of a need to understand how I know the things I do, how certain I am. Engineers also need a strong instinct for practicality, pragmatism. Solving problems is what we do.

The forum and a couple of other similar ones are the first places I tried to do any formalish philosophy. That's not counting the two courses I took in college in the 1970s, which I didn't like at all. On the forum I found myself drawn to discussions of metaphysics and epistemology. About five years ago I started a thread called "An attempt to clarify my thoughts about metaphysics." The first responding post on that thread was from @tim wood. He recommended "An Essay on Metaphysics" by R.G. Collingwood.

I got the book. It's a bit dense and he uses some language different from what I was familiar with, but I was immediately struck. He was asking the same questions I was asking myself. His answers made sense and they gave me language to talk about those issues. I didn't agree with everything he wrote, but then I had to dig and figure out why I didn't. It also gave me a foundation on which I could build my understanding and my arguments. Now when I talk about metaphysics, I have confidence my way of seeing things is not alien to the kinds of philosophy everyone else is writing about, even if we disagree with each other. Whether or not it's a legitimate reason, I think having his name as a reference for some of my ideas adds legitimacy to my arguments in some people's eyes.

Naw, not at all. Maybe not the most natural reading, but I think that's part of what I really enjoy about reading and sharing readings of poetry -- what seems most natural at first isn't always the best reading, and sometimes our creative readings aren't quite natural, but all that meaning -- at least insofar as I understand poetic reading -- can still be found there. — Moliere

I like to read interpretations of poems on line sometimes. Most of them are terrible - smug in their certainty. After I wrote the posts above, I went and looked at some. I was surprised to see how many take the more serious, and even religious, view with no note of the irony.

And there are other paths to awareness than the philosophical project — Pantagruel

Yes, I agree.

I think has the feature or benefit that it strives for clarity and communicability. Perhaps the significance is that it is a kind of "objectification. — Pantagruel

I agree with this too. I tend to approach the world through my intellect and I think that is where I am most self-aware. I value clarity and communicability very highly. Objectification is the way we intellectuals examine our lives. Once we've done that, we can pick it up, turn it and twist it, and look at it from all sides. There are shortcomings to this way of doing things, but it has a lot of power.

Ahh, I didn't see the more universal reading at all, on first glance. — Moliere

I didn't really either, but since we are taking these examinations seriously, I thought I should try to think deeper. That's probably silly in this case.

What is the philosophical project? — Pantagruel

It struck me recently that the philosophical project, at least my philosophical project, is about awareness. Western philosophy focuses more on awareness of intellectual process and reason while eastern philosophies take on a broader range. As Socrates is supposed to have said, it's all about examining our lives.

I think that's an idiosyncratic view, but I don't really see it being in conflict with the one you've described.

It is very difficult to interpret a poem based on Irish/Galway culture. Whenever I read the poem I understand what it said but not what was the meaning so I had to translate it into my mother tongue.
As far as I understand the poem, I would say that the main subject is the blonde hair of a woman. I guess that would be a characteristic of beautiness. When the woman claims that she can get a hair-dryer and set the colour brown, black or carrot, she wonders if she would get love with a different colour anyway.
But the poem ends warning: "only God, my dear,
Could love you for yourself alone And not your yellow hair".
Conclusion: the blonde hair is a symbol of status and perfection of beauty. So, a blonde hair woman is what the poets considered as "aesthetic" — javi2541997

I think the way you've interpreted the poem makes sense, although I see it as much more ironic and lighthearted than you seem to. I don't see it as a serious statement about human nature or social expectations.

Part of me wonders who the speaker of the poem is. Not a young man, I imagine -- because a young man would be thrown into despair swearing their love, rather than informing the listener that their beauty draws in more people than actually loves them. — Moliere

I had always pictured the speaker as perhaps an older brother or uncle of the woman and her as a young adult. I spent some time on Wikipedia too. Turns out Anne Gregory was the granddaughter of Lady Gregory, one of Yeats' good friends. That would make him maybe Anne's grandfather's age. I got the feeling Anne might have been younger than I pictured too - maybe an older teenager. Not sure.

I can imagine him giving her the poem after talking about her boyfriend problems. I like the wry, ironic but lighthearted and sympathetic tone very much. I imagine them laughing about it together, perhaps with her rolling her eyes. That also makes the poem more personal than I had seen it. That makes me pull back from any broader ideas about it being a reflection on humanities inability to see beyond appearances. I never had any inclination to see it from a modern perspective as an example of the objectivization of women.

I think the old religious man is completely ironic and intended to be funny and silly. It makes me smile whenever I read it.

I've always thought you and I have really different ways of seeing the world. It's surprising, and gratifying, to find we are so much in sync on this.

@Moliere, @Amity, @Dawnstorm, @javi2541997

I have been really enjoying this discussion and I don't want it to end, so I thought I'd toss another fairly short poem into the blender. "For Anne Gregory" by W.B Yeats.

Never shall a young man,
Thrown into despair
By those great honey-coloured
Ramparts at your ear,
Love you for yourself alone
And not your yellow hair.'
"But I can get a hair-dye
And set such colour there,
Brown, or black, or carrot,
That young men in despair
May love me for myself alone
And not my yellow hair."
I heard an old religious man
But yesternight declare
That he had found a text to prove
That only God, my dear,
Could love you for yourself alone
And not your yellow hair

As I said, I like this poem, even if he does spell "color" wrong. It's funny and it gets to its humor with evocative language. I think of it when I see a woman with beautiful blond hair and find myself saying the last three lines under my breath.

Does anyone have thoughts before I give you my own?

In a similar way, I sing the chorus of a song I like by Steve Earl - "Galway Girl" when I see a woman with, appropriately, dark hair and blue eyes:

And I ask you now, tell me what would you do
If her hair was black and her eyes were blue
I've traveled around I've been all over this world
Boys I ain't never seen nothin' like a Galway girl

Not surprisingly I guess, this is a very popular song in Galway, Ireland. I posted a great rendition by the people of Galway in the "What are you listening to right now" thread in the Lounge. Here's a link to the post:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/profile/694/t-clark

A ‘useful fiction’ is like an heuristic device - at this metaphysical or quantum level it doesn’t matter whether or not something is ‘real’, but whether it is useful for accurate understanding and interacting with the world. This useful fiction is merely the story we know so far: subject to misinterpretation, distorted perspective and our own ignorance, affect or intentions. — Possibility

Until half way through your first paragraph I was revving up to engage in a dispute. But as I read on, I was really impressed. I think you have expressed my understanding of metaphysics much better than I have myself in my previous posts in this thread. I don't know if you think of what you've written as metaphysics. Whether or not you do, I think you have described the fundamental relationship between we humans and whatever constitutes reality.

As for the "useful fiction" designation, this is nothing new. 2,500 years ago they might have called it the illusion of the self. It's true it's a bit cold, but a lot of eastern religions and philosophies observe humanity from a distance.

I don't trust anyone who doesn't realize the world, as man knows it, is a phantasm. — neonspectraltoast

What an odd statement. I think it says more about you than it does about the rest of us.

I remember the transition from manual to keyboard writing. For a while, it seemed my brain couldn't adapt to transferring thoughts to a screen. I had to write the text out, then copy it word for word.
Then, the pathways changed. Voila! It was like a new awareness, a connection...
The words flowed easier. — Amity

I remember that too. I used to write out my reports and letters on a yellow legal pad then give it to someone in administration to be typed. I wasn't happy with the change, but I adjusted quickly. I think I was helped by the fact that I had taken a brief course in typing in high school. I've often said it was the most useful course I took in high school. Now I can't imagine writing things by hand.

When I was first introduced to a philosophy forum, I lurked for so long. Being out of my comfort zone, that first post felt like quite the achievement. A leap of faith. It took time to find my voice. Even yet, I write posts and cringe. That's not me. Why did I write that?! — Amity

This is exactly why intellectual self-awareness is so important to me. Knowing something and how I came to know it, how certain I am, and what will happen if I'm wrong gives me the confidence to lay my ideas out for dismantling by others. Over the past few years I've come to see I sometimes have skimped on the justifications for my claims. I've worked to remedy that by spending more time making sure the things I spout out are reasonable.

Re: paying attention. I found this article on the merits of handwriting: — Amity

That makes sense to me. I think doing things the hard way before you start taking short cuts helps you understand what your gaining and what your loosing by taking that path. I've seen myself how easy it is to use a computer to perform calculations and run models without understanding the underlying principles. When you do that, it's hard to know whether the results you get make sense. It's surprising how often they don't.

Even though I would like to respond to your post more fully...particularly with regard to emotional awareness. — Amity

This was a very useful exercise for me. Making me inspect the ways I am aware of things was interesting and enlightening. And fun.

I could not call these points [1] through [10] metaphysics, rather, points of belief. — god must be atheist

There's not much else for us to discuss then.

I've tended to notice that some or even many of the people who support a merit-based immigration policy balk at the idea of the state having a voluntary (key word here being "voluntary") eugenics policy in regards to reproduction: As in, encouraging (through incentives) the best and brightest to breed more while also encouraging (again, through incentives) the dullest to breed less. — Xanatos

Some thoughts:

"Merit-based" just means the advantaged, your "best and brightest," get more advantages and the less advantaged get fewer. Let's reward people for being rewarded. That might be ok for an immigration policy. It's unfair I guess, but it's unfair to people who aren't our citizens. For biological engineering it's different. The government has an obligation to look out for everyone, not just the most fortunate.

It won't work. The only mass attempt to control the demographics of a country I know of is China and their one-child policy. It's been a disaster. Also - there is zero chance the policy would be managed equitably.

You say "A state is choosing new residents and eventually citizens on the basis of desirable traits, with those who fail to qualify often being condemned to lifetimes of poverty, misery, and/or oppression." Do you have any evidence to show this is true?

And just what are these desirable traits you speak of? I'm sure intelligence as measured by IQ testing is on the list. You must know the controversy over whether those tests are accurate and fair. What else?

The likely effect of the eugenics policy you describe will be to decrease the country's birth rate. Maybe you think that's a good thing, but demographers are saying that the biggest population and economic problem for the US and all the developed world in the next 100 years will be population decline.

You say "because you're too dull, low-skilled, and/or old." I don't think there will be any problem with old people having too many more children.

I think your characterization - "best and brightest" and "dullest" says everything that needs to be said. You show your contempt for poor people, perhaps minorities, who are obviously, from your point of view, among the dullest.

I'd like to hear more if you wish, about the effects of this practice in other areas of self-development.
For example, in your writing? — Amity

In my writing, hmm... I've been writing so long I can't remember how it felt when I started. I know how it feels now - just like talking. Words flow out like water from a hose, sometimes a firehose. I don't always pay attention to what comes out until I go back and edit later. The right word just feels right. If one comes out that doesn't feel right, I change it. I'll often to go the thesaurus to find a better one. I tend to be very aware of the structure of what I'm writing, even while I'm writing. The flow. The arc. Where it starts, where it ends, how it gets there. The story I'm telling, even in a post like this one. This one's easy. You asked for examples, I'll give you examples. Good and linear with no side spurs.

Another one... Emotions and ideas. If I have to figure out how to express an idea or feeling, for example, if someone asks a question, I often don't know right away. I have to stop and pay attention. When I look inside, it feels like a small pool or basin, empty. While I wait, water flows in to fill it. When it's full, I can answer.

Another... Dreams - I dream a lot. Maybe I always have, but I only in the past 10 years or so have I paid attention. I'll wake up with a mood, often anxiety. I won't know why. As I think about it images will come to me and I'll realize they're from a dream. I tend to have anxiety dreams. When I realize it was a dream, I feel a tremendous sense of relief that there's nothing real I have to worry about.

One more... getting sick. Lots of times, if I'm getting a cold or sick to my stomach, I don't recognize it till it's full blown. Other times I'll feel it coming early. That tickle again. A feeling of discomfort. Like a storm coming, hearing a little rumble of thunder in the distance, maybe not sure if it's that or a truck going by. Then I can keep track of the storm, my sickness, as it gets closer. Then it's here and I feel miserable. If I'm really paying attention, I'll take some tylenol or stomach medicine early in the process to try to cut it off at the pass. That doesn't usually help much.

You talk past my point about counterfactuals. — apokrisis

Can you clarify what you mean.

Metaphysical claims are empty if they are "not even wrong" as theories. But if they claim something measurable, then you have something to compare and contrast. — apokrisis

According to my formulation, metaphysics does not include things that are measurable. Can you give me an example of what you mean.

This discussion may resemble other discussions. But my "catch" was that you said metaphysical statements can't be true or false. That is false. — god must be atheist

You participated heavily in this exact discussion four months ago.

@god must be atheist, @180 Proof, @Janus, @apokrisis, @Srap Tasmaner, @Darkneos

I'm getting way behind on responses and comments are coming in from all directions. I don't think this will answer all the questions out there, but it may answer some of them. It may at least make it clear what I mean when I talk about metaphysics. It comes from a post I made in the "Metaphysics of Materialism" thread a few months ago.

R.G. Collingwood wrote that metaphysics is the study of absolute presuppositions. Absolute presuppositions are the unspoken, perhaps unconscious, assumptions that underpin how we understand reality. Collingwood wrote that absolute presuppositions are neither true nor false, but we won’t get into that argument here. I would like to enumerate and discuss the absolute presuppositions, the underlying assumptions, of classical physics/materialism. In my OP, I specified only presuppositions relevant to science before 1905 would be included. Here is a provisional list.

[1] We live in an ordered universe that can be understood by humans.
[2] The universe consists entirely of physical substances - matter and energy.
[3] These substances behave in accordance with scientific principles, laws.
[4] Scientific laws are mathematical in nature.
[5] The same scientific laws apply throughout the universe and at all times.
[6] The behaviors of substances are caused.
[7] Substances are indestructible, although they can change to something else.
[8] The universe is continuous. Between any two points there is at least one other point.[/quote]
[9] Space and time are separate and absolute.
[10] Something can not be created from nothing.

My intention is not to reopen this discussion. I won't participate if anyone else decides to do so. I am only trying to show what I mean when I say metaphysics.

Prediction - This will not end well.

To say that these are metaphysical positions, you have to define "metaphysical" first. — god must be atheist

A presupposition is an assumption that establishes the context for a philosophical discussion.

This from "An Essay on Metaphysics" by R.G. Collingwood:

An absolute presupposition is one which stands, relatively to all questions to which it is related, as a presupposition, never as an answer.

Metaphysics is the attempt to find out what absolute presuppositions have been made by this or that person or group of persons, on this or that occasion or group of occasions, in the course of this or that piece of thinking...

...the logical efficacy of an absolute presupposition is independent of its being true: it is that the distinction between truth and falsehood does not apply to absolute presuppositions at all, that distinction being peculiar to propositions...

I think you are being disingenuous in your posts. You have participated in discussions in the past where these issues were discussed, so you should be familiar with the distinctions that are being made, even if you do not agree with them.

You start to argue about that? On what basis? — god must be atheist

On the basis that the examples you gave, e.g. "my spirit is green," are not metaphysical statements.

I think you might agree with this take I found: — Darkneos

Yes. I might quibble with one or two points, but that is generally consistent with how I see things. Where is it from?

What's an example you reach for to explain this idea? (This is Collingwood, right?) — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, Collingwood. Example - materialism, realism, physicalism, idealism, anti-realism, monism, dualism, solipsism, and all the other ontological isms are metaphysical positions. Determinism and free will are also. I don't know if Collingwood would agree with these examples or not, but he's dead so I can say what I want.

I like the poem. It's simple, descriptive. Maybe a little sad. When I read it, I wanted to do this. Forgive me.
— T Clark

Thanks, and no need for forgiveness. I find edits interesting. — Dawnstorm

I didn't edit your poem, I shanghaied it.

"My spirit is green." metaphysical claim.

"My spirit is green and my spirit is not green." Metaphysical claim that is necessarily false.

"My spirit is green or my spirit is not green. " Metaphysical claim that is necessarily true. — god must be atheist

@180 Proof says your statements are "conceptually incoherent." I say they are meaningless. I think we're both saying the same thing.

What? — apokrisis

My one unending, drum beating message for almost all the time I've been on the forum has been that metaphysical statements are not true or false. They have not truth value. They are only more or less useful in specific situations. I've written exactly that statement dozens of times in many different discussions.

They are how we can even derive counterfactuals to test. They are the axiomatic basis of truth claims. — apokrisis

Agreed. Axioms are statements not subject to empirical verification. Thus they are not true or false.

Interesting (I guess 'analytical') approach — 180 Proof

Is it reductionist metaphysics? I wonder if I've overstated my case.

But just not at the metaphysics of being apparently. So why hang around these threads to tell folk that? — apokrisis

It's the world that's wonderful. I love metaphysics, but I see that it's just a bunch of stories people have made up to explain it to themselves. We get to choose the one that works best right now and right here. Why shouldn't I tell people how I see it.

The logic of the dialectic is so strong, nothing escapes it. The desire to reject metaphysics is itself what must manifest metaphysics as the “other” which has been placed at the greatest possible distance. — apokrisis

I don't reject metaphysics at all. Along with epistemology it's the part of philosophy that interests me the most. As I've noted elsewhere, it represents the essence of intellectual self-awareness. I've said it dozens of times here on the forum - metaphysical claims have no truth value.

I bought a cat today
She came to me to play
And play we did and it was fun
She went away when she was done

What makes the above seem like a poem in the first place is: linebreaks, no punctuiation, rhythm and rhyme. — Dawnstorm

I like the poem. It's simple, descriptive. Maybe a little sad. When I read it, I wanted to do this. Forgive me.

I bought a cat today
She came to me to play
And play we did
And it was fun
She went away
When she was done.

The monotonous repetition of short declarative statements, the choppiness, changes the tone for me. Maybe less sad and more resigned.

I think I did find the basic experience you described -- the experience of being awoken from a gloomy day-dream. That clicked for me. And then upon reading what you shared I could see how the bird was playing a kind of joke -- and to set up a contrast between that joke and the sadness of gloomy daydreams. I liked you highlighting that for me because I could see it there on a second reading when I didn't on the first. — Moliere

Keeping in mind that this is my idiosyncratic experience. I think other people would get different feelings.

I'd like to hear more if you wish, about the effects of this practice in other areas of self-development.
For example, in your writing? — Amity

I'll respond, but it's taking me some time to figure out what I want to say.

I think that means you're wrong. — frank

I'm not surprised at your conclusion.

This is a bit of a cheat, but I want to repost something I wrote about a year ago in the "Metaphysics of Poetry" discussion. This is my attempt to give my idea of a description of the experience of reading a poem.

I think that poetry doesn’t mean anything beyond the experience of reading it or listening to it. As an illustration, I’ll provide a description of my experience of a poem I really like. “Dust of Snow,” as always, Robert Frost.

The way a crow
Shook down on me
The dust of snow
From a hemlock tree

Has given my heart
A change of mood
And saved some part
Of a day I had rued.

I really like this poem. First off - it’s really short. It was easy to memorize and when I quote it, people think I’m erudite. I tried to memorize “Two Tramps in Mud Time” once - nine stanzas, 72 lines. That didn’t turn out well. Also, it’s funny and Frost uses one of my favorite animals, no surprise, a crow. Not everyone sees the humor in the poem and I get that. I don’t know how idiosyncratic my reading is.

First stanza. Light, amusing. Very visual. I can see the man walking through the woods after a snow. That’s something that happens regularly in Frost poems. The snow is deep. He’s wearing boots. I can see the tree with the crow sitting at the top. Hemlocks are dark green with short needles ranked on many short branchlets. If that's a word. I’ve seen crows in the tops of trees plenty of times. Sometimes one, sometimes five, sometimes more. They’re usually noisy. Rambunctious. Very social. They’re really smart. It was clear to me the first time I read this poem that the crow shook the snow down on the man on purpose. That image always makes me smile. Having snow fall down on me from a tree branch has happened to me plenty of times. I can feel it going down my neck. Annoying.

Second stanza - More serious. Darker. It also makes me look back at the first stanza and think more about it. It seems like something has happened that the man regrets. So, he feels unhappy, sad, maybe guilty. It’s later in the day. Maybe he’s walking home afterwards or maybe he’s walking in the woods to think things over, brood, head down, not paying attention to where he’s going. And then the crow. He looks up. He sees the crow. He can see the crow looking down at him. He smiles. Maybe he laughs a little.

Why does this change his mood. I can think of a couple of reasons. First, it makes him break out of his introspection and look around at the day, the woods. That’s happened to me plenty of times. You just shake your head and get on with things. There’s another way to think about it that I really like. I like to think that at the moment the crow and the man are looking at each other, there’s a recognition. The crow made a joke. They both know it’s funny. Maybe the crow would cackle a little. I guess not. Frost would have mentioned that. The crow should have cackled. It’s hard to brood when your dignity has been tweaked. When someone has seen you for what you are.

As I said, this is not what the poem means. It is how it makes me feel. What it makes me see, think, feel. I don't expect anyone else to get the same things as I did or see it the same way.

There is no absolute space and time, so no, we don't live there. — frank

You and I see things differently. I doubt there's any middle ground in our views.

So I was reading you as restricting poetic meaning to the experience, rather than making a distinction between meaning and experience. — Moliere

You're right. In discussions like this, sometimes I say "art has no meaning" and sometimes I say "art has no meaning beyond the audience's experience." Those are similar but different statements, but I mixed them all up together in my posts here.

But your body and brain depend on being able to harness quantum chemistry. Life and mind start at the quasi-classical nanoscale of molecular machines where proteins can beat the classical odds by employing quantum tricks. — apokrisis

And the success of a cake recipe depends on chemical reactions which take place when you add heat to processed chemical and biological material. But I just want to eat a piece of cake. I know I sound flip, but I'm serious about this. When I'm figuring out how long a train takes to get from Preston MD to Cincinnati OH I don't need to think about relativity. That's a trick example. There is no rail service to Preston.

I think you are just too dismissive of the quantum realm. It is how there could even be the classical realm as its “other”. — apokrisis

I'm not dismissive at all, at least not of the science. I am a bit dismissive about overcomplicating the metaphysics. I think you and I have a different understanding about the value and use of metaphysics. I guess that's metaphysics too, or maybe meta-metaphysics.

It is crazy that nature even exists in one form. It is doubly crazy that a second form hatches emergently from that. It is triply crazy that even the quantum form has to be emergent - or at least that is an implication of the success of quantum field theory.

So stand back and marvel of all that we have discovered - some of it only very recently. — apokrisis

I do. I marvel all the time.

And, if accepted, it would make your distinction between art and reality, as you've acknowledged, ultimately artificial. — Hanover

Maybe I've misunderstood. I wasn't discussing the distinction between art and reality. I was talking about the distinction between fictional, poetic, or artistic communication on the one hand and purely descriptive, technical, or explanatory communication on the other.

Oh... I thought we were disagreeing.
— T Clark

Well, we're not!

So there! — Moliere

Well, good. I guess. But then when I read your ideas it does seem like we're disagreeing.

So you would claim that "poetic meaning" in reference to "meaning" is more or less an equivocation, that these are actually separate things. Do I have you right?

That is fine by me, because I'm also actually interested in the aesthetics of poetry unto itself -- and actually put this in aesthetics with the idea of exploring that more than the usual reductions, with the idea of it generating more shared thoughts to build from.

And, even more than that, while I have this odd suspicion, it is just an odd suspicion. And it's a lot easier to talk about how poems work and how it is they mean or what it is they mean. — Moliere

I'm confused. You keep talking about poetic meaning, but I said poems, art in general, don't mean anything. How can we be agreeing.