Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - H

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 172
Philosophy & Science / Re: The taboo against meaning?
« on: July 15, 2019, 10:06:56 pm »
I think knowing exactly what it is would be different than the logical reasoning for its existence? It seems Causation, at the least, is tied to that which we call Things-in-Themselves? For there to be relationally measured behaviors that we extrapolate into Laws of Nature there have to be relata acting out behavior we then circularly hold as obeying the Laws?

Hmm, this is likely out of my league.  But if all things are only things in relation to other things, then there could not be a thing-in-itself, because what would that be?  In other words, if there was nothing relational to It, It would have to be Everything, no?

But also, if things only behave in a way, relational to each other, then the relationship is the thing we are describing, not the quality of the thing-in-itself.  Because, since it only appears relationally, behaves relationally, then what are we describing but the relation?

This doesn't seem right, but also, I'm not sure how it is wrong, per se.

Philosophy & Science / Re: The taboo against meaning?
« on: July 15, 2019, 09:19:45 pm »
So it's relations all the way down? It seems there has to be relata?

Also it seems we can say some things about relata, insofar as we can speak of things-in-themselves?

Hmm, I don't know.  What could we speak of that would not need something else (related) to explain what it is?  Would this not be "Substance?"  If so, what could it be?

Philosophy & Science / Re: The taboo against meaning?
« on: July 15, 2019, 09:02:31 pm »
Well, science (at least physics, biology and chemistry) would seem to be concerned with "thing-in-themselves" rather than things-as-appearing.

I would dispute this. Take this passage from Smolin's Time Reborn:

'We don't know what a rock really is, or an atom, or an electron. We can only observe how they interact with other things and thereby describe their relational properties. Perhaps everything has external and internal aspects. The external properties are those that science can capture and describe - through interactions, in terms of relationships. The internal aspect is the intrinsic essence, it is the reality that is not expressible in the language of interactions and relations.'

Well, that is a good distinction actually.  I do like the idea that everything is relational (which, of course it must be, lest it be "Substance").  What I meant, more so though, was that it is not really concerned with what human consciousness "takes" things as.

So, for example, a scientific definition of "red" is not the experiential quality of "redness."  Or, for example, our experience that gravity functions as if a force, when it can be demonstrated that it is the nature of a curved spacetime.  So, perhaps "appearance" is not a good word to use.  Experiential character, perhaps?

Of course though, such is the case that we don't get immediate access to Noumena, so everything is mediated by consciousness in some way.  The thing is, it would seem to me, is that science wants to limit that as much as is possible.  That is, to get as close to Noumea as we could.  Perhaps math helps do that.

I don't know, maybe I am off the track though.

The Crabikiad / Re: Crabby Fails
« on: July 15, 2019, 08:41:16 pm »
Koringhus is a pretty extreme example of anything, and difficult to conclude much. However, his decision to save his son was instinctual. This is telling - the first thing he did was to save his son.

Its a peculiar trait of the True Ishual Anasurimbor Dunyain. Though its tangential, Koringhus ultimately goes mad Because of his son, that love. This time his son doesnt literally kill him, but the Qirri shoves a crazy man over the edge, and that mental state can be blamed pretty squarely on The Nameless One.

Its a repeating historical chain of events. Should The Nameless One have a son, I do imagine it will lead to his death.

Hmm, that is a fair point, but I think there is a different way to read Koringhus, where he actually isn't insane.  Rather, he is the most sane of all of them.

I mean, his "dividing" of himself is a bit pathological, but it does not seem to lead him to any detrimental behavior (yeah, wait).  In fact, it seems to be part of what keeps him, and the child, alive.  Granted, eventually he does kill himself, but only after the realization about the detrimental, essential lies, that he was raised on.

So, in the questio for Absolute Freedom, he does take the one act that would have him be absolutely free.  Because all other actions would still have, at least, adhered to Rule Zero.  Which is actually the rule he was following all along, in saving the boy.  The Dunyain actually went right not wrong with Koringhus, because he is able to replace Rule One with Rule Zero, on the fly.  Something that, it seems from Koringhus' description of what the other Dunyain did during the assault, it seems few to none were able to do, that is, adapt.

This is part of what Koringhus says, in his revelations under Mimara's Eye.  That the Absolute, that is, perhaps Absolute Freedom, is not a passive thing.  It's not a state to reach, it's a radical action.  Not only that, but he takes the radical action the worked toward the survival of the child and not himself.  That is, he places another rule even before Rule Zero, because he, in the same sort of sense that Moe the Elder realizes, is that he is not the "future."

Of course, Moe and Kellhus do both die "hand the hands" of their sons, but also, Moe and Kellhus die due to critical misapprehentions about the Outside.  Moe in thinking that it does not matter and Kellhus in thinking it was a thing that could be harness and/or bested.  Koringhus seems, at least to me, to suffer neither of those.  He sees the lie his own self was built on and takes the only path he could to radical freedom, that is, to the thing closest to the Absolute.

Philosophy & Science / Re: The taboo against meaning?
« on: July 15, 2019, 03:05:30 pm »
Interesting. I do think science can proceed as a metaphysically neutral exploration of a subset of reality, so long as we don't confuse it with the totality.

Well, science (at least physics, biology and chemistry) would seem to be concerned with "thing-in-themselves" rather than things-as-appearing.  So, for example, what we would want is the "rules of gravitation" as-they-are, not as-they-appear.  Because, as seems to be the case, what we "see" as gravity's function on earth (basically Newton) is not gravity's function as-it-is, which apparently is what Eisenstein's Relativity gives us.

So, science's sort of "evolutionary" approach, because we cannot (along the Kantian lines) get at the Noumena, as Noumea in-itself, we sort of "peel back" the phenomena and draw closer and closer to Noumea-in-itself, even though, like Zeno's paradox, we will never get there.  Still, the idea seems "correct" at an "effective" level, that is, the level of "usefulness."

So, what the hell am I getting at?  I'm not sure.  But maybe it's that "meaning" (to me) is Phenomenological, that means (to me) eminently Subjective and so, it not a specifically quality of Noumena in-themselves, rather, Noumena as they appear, Phenomenologically.  And so, I think it is "correct" to a degree to specfically not "presuppose" meaning, in the same way that it would seem "correct" to me to not presuppose that objects only exist Phenolomenologically (even though there is no way to prove that).

I'm not sure I am even making sense now though.

Philosophy & Science / Re: The taboo against meaning?
« on: July 15, 2019, 01:30:16 pm »
What do you mean by Naturalistic?

"In philosophy, naturalism is the "idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world.""

Note though, I am not saying that this is "correct."  In fact, even Karl Popper was apt to point out the inherent "flaw" in this idea:
"A naturalistic methodology (sometimes called an "inductive theory of science") has its value, no doubt.... I reject the naturalistic view: It is uncritical. Its upholders fail to notice that whenever they believe to have discovered a fact, they have only proposed a convention. Hence the convention is liable to turn into a dogma. This criticism of the naturalistic view applies not only to its criterion of meaning, but also to its idea of science, and consequently to its idea of empirical method.

— Karl R. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery

However, I don't think, as Popper would later go on to espouce, that an "grounding" of "falsifiablity" really changes to scope of things in this context.  In the sense of, that we should not really be, scientifically, presupposing a given "meaning" or "intentionality" inherent in Noumena.  That seems to be to be the very realm of Phenomena...

Philosophy & Science / Re: The taboo against meaning?
« on: July 15, 2019, 12:11:13 pm »
I had half-written a response to this the other day, but ended up not posting it, because I wasn't exactly clear as to what I was saying.

I'm still not 100%, but I don't really agree with this article.  What, in this case, is "meaning" to which there is a taboo?  Is meaning here being used for "intentionality?"  The things is that I don't think there is intentionality a priori.  Which means, there is no "meaning" a priori.

Maybe I am missing the point here, but indeed, if "science" should be somehow, Naturalistic, then, no, I don't really think that it should "presuppose"  something like "meaning."

General Misc. / Re: Board Games and Miniatures
« on: July 05, 2019, 11:35:21 am »
I sometimes browse the games workshop website while taking breaks from other stuff and I noticed they've got some new Slaanesh models. The Keeper of Secrets looks marvellous

Yeah, it is a nice kit, I'd have gotten one, but the price and the fact that I don't have time to build it/paint it/use it in the game has held me back.

General Misc. / Re: Quotes
« on: June 28, 2019, 06:10:10 pm »
In the case of all sciences, arts, skills, and crafts, people are convinced that a complex and laborious programme of learning and practice is necessary for competence. Yet when it comes to philosophy, it seems that the dominant prejudice is now that, although not everyone who has eyes and fingers, and gets leather and a tool, is thereby in a position to make shoes, everyone nevertheless immediately understands how to philosophize, and how to evaluate philosophy, since he possesses the yardstick for it in his natural reason—as if he did not equally possess the measure of a shoe in his own foot.—It seems that philosophical competence is made to consist precisely in lack of information and study, as though philosophy left off where they begin.

Hegel - The Phenomenology of Spirit

You funny Hegel...

General Misc. / Re: Quotes
« on: June 28, 2019, 12:55:58 pm »
Great quotes lately everyone.

AS we all know, I am apt of over-fit Bakker and Hegel, so, as to not disappoint my own caricature:

Spirit has not only lost its essential life; it is also conscious of this loss, and of the finitude that is its own content. Turning away from the husks, and confessing and cursing its sorry state, it now requires from philosophy, not so much knowledge of what it is, as philosophy’s help in establishing once more its substantiality and solidity of Being. Philosophy is supposed to meet this need, not by opening up the locked fastness of substance and raising this to self-consciousness, not by restoring its chaotic consciousness to the order of thought and the simplicity of the concept, but rather by blurring the distinctions of thought, by suppressing the differentiating concept and by establishing the feeling of the essence, providing edification rather than insight. The beautiful, the holy, the eternal, religion, and love are the bait required to arouse the desire to bite; not the concept, but ecstasy, not the cold advance of necessity in the Thing, but the ferment of enthusiasm, these are supposed to be what sustains and promotes the expansion of the wealth of substance.

Hegel - Phenomenology of Spirit

But the applicability comes, at least often enough, following the proof of truth. And to even debate the question coherently requires accepting the Truth of logic.

I say all this to point out the underlying foundation of science doesn't have empirical validity and in fact cannot...I think it's at least a starting step to get out of Scientism/Materialist mindset...

"There's got to be some kind of way out of here, said the Joker to the Thief..."

I think this is actually a way more complicated thing in practice.  The philosophy of science isn't anywhere near a settled thing.  Let alone the "truth of logic" let alone asking abut the "logic of truth."

It's hard enough to try to get scientist to agree on what science is, let alone is trying to do, not even going so far as to ask what science should be doing.  To ask the "common man" that is to likely confound them even more so.

It gets even worse if you really dive into a sort of epistemology and it doesn't get better from there, generally only worse.  Then, God help us if Hegel is sort of right and Logic just isn't quite as true as we think it is, with respect to A cannot equal Not A, because Time and Space.

The Universe is a mess, we just sort of maybe imagine it isn't because that is the only way we can imagine it.

What is the empirical evidence showing the authority of logic & mathematics?

Well, I think for "most people" the answer is sort of something like, "practical use."

So, physics is based off math and a certain sort of logical reason, people accept it, because airplanes do actually fly, radios and TVs function, and so on.  Is that actually authority though?  That I am not sure how to qualify, or perhaps quantize.

I do think, perhaps, as I think I heard someone say somewhere, at least in my mind, that perhaps math is so effective because we don't allow it to not be.  Perhaps, relatedly, I head Brian Greene talking about Sting Theory, where it seems to really be a legitimate question of if any of it is "real" or if it is more the case that we are just really clever with math and can make math "work" for nearly anything, if need be.

I can't help but sort of fall back to a sort of view of the world as fundamentally ambiguous, in the way of de Beauvoir.  The trouble, maybe, of "science-ism" is that empiricism is not the sort of "be-all, end-all" for various reasons.  But I do think we are sort of culturally conditioned in that way, despite the fact that almost none of us act that way.  So, almost no one votes for who they vote for due to some careful empirical valuation of policy, probable adherence to promises, or really anything besides what "sounds good."

But "mind" sure is a tricky thing.  It's hard for me to "buy" materialism, but also hard for me to "sell" it too.  However, I do think that it could be likely that what we experience as "mind" is not exactly what "mind" is.  So, our subjective experience is likely real, but also likely to some degree an illusion.  But everyone (to return to de Beauvoir, in a way) wants things to be simple.  It is either one or the other.  A Zero or a One.  But even light tells us that maybe what separates the idea of a wave and a particle is not a point of fact, but a point of conceptual frame of understanding.

But we have, culturally, sort of rejected anything non-empirical these days I think, perhaps with a hand-wave to "use" or to "practicality" or to the idea of "objectivity."  Perhaps thought there is a price to be paid in any case.

The Unholy Consult / Re: [TUC SPOILERS] Tidbits from Wert
« on: June 17, 2019, 07:07:50 pm »
North of the Sea of Cerish is... a lot farther north than where I thought the Gates of Earwa were. I always assumed Emwama to be a Kian type desert people, rather than ranging in the far north.

Well, the 5 tribes likely had different ranges, but maybe this comes from the fact of the sort of "last known" Emwama are to the south and it's alluded that they might still have contact Jekhia (IIRC).

Since we know where Siöl is/was, we know that the Braking of the Gates must have happened that far north.

The Unholy Consult / Re: [TUC Spoiler] Heron Spear?
« on: June 17, 2019, 06:59:37 pm »
We know that Markless magic is a thing, if we're calling it thaumaturgy due to it being God(s) (markless) magic  then I'm cool with that.

Is the Chorae itself actually material in the function of the object Mimara created? I don't know if that's actually the case - but certainly it can be easier to change the function of something than to create from scratch. Mimara and Kellhus' thaumaturgy are obviously going to be invoked in different ways. Kellhus directs things to happen through force of thought, Mimara through force of will. She thaumatically wills the chorae to function as she needs.

Achamian is confused when he sees Kellhus floating and whatever else markless magic , so him having no useful insight for what Mimar did is no surprise.

Yeah, sorry, I am terrible with involving my own personal jargon into things.  Indeed, I refer to Magic of a "Divine" nature, and so Markless, as "thaumaturgy."  I think both those aspects are key, as the Psûhke is Markless, but not what I would call thuamaturgy, specifically because the further factor of a Chorae not working on it.

Ultimately it's kind of unclear just what Kellhus is actually doing to get Markless sorcery.  It might be thuamaturgy, as I'd call it, via Ajokli, or it might actually be something like Titirga's proto-Psûhke.

In any case, I think the end product is slightly different, because in Mimara's case, her "power" seems to be in Judgement, in "setting the frame" of the world.  In Ajokli (and maybe Kellhus') case, it's about manifest power over objects in the world.  But that could well just be part and parcel of the source of each of their "power."  Mimara's come from the Cubit, which is the "passive" Frame of the universe.  Ajokli, et al, comes from a very different place, metaphysically speaking, a place necessarily within the Frame of the Cubit.

Anyway, in the case of Emilidis, my guess, based on nothing at all, is that he was an amoral tinkerer and likely did what he did by ruthlessly trapping and exploiting souls.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 172