plaque flag

I'm adding some stuff from James that goes with the stream metaphor. Note his emphasis on the radical separation of streams. This separation is what m...

Now I'll touch on the perspectivism which can't be left out, though my influences usually neglect this aspect. Ontology assumes a shared world/ langua...

In the previous post, I claimed that the neutral stream (a perspectival perpetual becoming) was structured like a subject. But (crucially) it is not t...

I go on sketching a position for others who might be able to follow. While this is my current position, I may of course change my mind, but I'll prese...

.

I think the nondual view passes through indirect realism (like Kant's). Mach read Kant intensely when young. Wittgenstein studied Schopenhauer. James ...

There is no experiencer. Not fundamentally. The one Eiffel tower appears in many beingstreams (worldstreams, interpenetrating becomingstreams...) My o...

No solipsism. Even the opposite in some sense (pure/direct realism). But related to why Wittgenstein cared about solipsism, the problem of 'my' pain a...

Our human world is wrapped in darkness. Of course. The only impossibility is logical possibility. This (pseudo-)proposition, which I embrace, manifest...

First person consciousness is the being of the world given perspectively.

It's hard to beat what Witt did in the TLP, but he is so terse that he didn't get himself understood. Simple analogy: Multiplayer GoldenEye on the N64...

The 'soft' indirect realism of Hobbes and Locke does indeed make senes when applied to the worldly ego. Mach discusses this kind of functional relatio...

I got wind that Schlick was a neutral monist (I suspected that circle would be so to some degree, given W's proximity), and I found this. Schlick ( p....

So you claim, but one can also make the phrase 'round square.' I continue to claim that beyond all and any perspective is nonsense. Kant sometimes see...

As far as I can make out, you still don't get it, though it I admit that it's hard to find the right words. And it's hard to let go of indirect realis...

Any operational-scientific definition of consciousness will work just fine. We can agree to attribute 'consciousness' to this human body or that moon-...

I mentioned a famous very-early lecture by Heidegger above, and I hunted down some passages that some of you might like. https://ia903000.us.archive.o...

I think Mill was primarily just trying to make sense of matter, not limit all existence to sensation, but I'm not sure. This is an excellent issue in ...

I still think possibilities of experience works in say Husserl or Sartre, but what catches my eye here is that elicited question. Now it is of course ...

As Mach put it, we find functional relationships all the time between 'inner' and 'outer' things. This is the point of my Flat Ontology thread. It's a...

In case it's helpful for understanding my POV, I endorse this: The Ego is the specific object that intentional consciousness is directed upon when per...

:up: I think you've found a weak part in Mill's account. At the very least, he did not go into detail about the experienced unity of the object, what ...

Respectfully, what I'm hearing is platitudinal. To me it's such a truism that people think differently that I wouldn't think to mention it. This is a ...

As you should be. The theory is interesting because it challenges some vague but strong sense of there being more to physical being than our actual an...

Let's forget it then.

I don't think objects are very well defined. I think all people end up meaning...being able to find words for...is possibilities of perception. I have...

I can't recall the context, but I reject the speculative realists. I sometimes quote their presentations of correlationism, though, for it's one of 'e...

I could just say 'fruit' instead of 'experience of fruit' if I wasn't reacting against what I'd call the metaphysical fantasy of aperspectival reality...

That power is possibility. I perceive an apple tree, and I understand the possibility of fruit, given certain conditions. If I nurture the tree, if it...

Note that most of the objects in the world are not currently perceived (by this or that single person). And I've never seen the Eiffel Tower, but I th...

The point is an explication of the pre-theoretical view.

Sure, we start in the world of things, not as philosophers. Then we learn to analyze, account for the subjects and objects. But I object to 'non-perce...

. That's just a rephrasing, it seems to me.

Here's a classic passage that nails the spirit of phenomenology. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/ph/phprefac.htm My own philoso...

What previous definition ? People mostly use words like tools with pre-theoretical skill. We are concept-mongering practical primates. It's the worldl...

Come on though, that's presumption, as you say. Uncharitable. And Mill is dead. So please just try to understand me, and then defeat my position.

Explication (unfolding) is not redefinition.

As I've said, the issue is semantic. People sometimes worry about whether P is warranted. But they forget to check whether P is meaningful. Respectful...

I'd say you'd have to look into his 'deconstruction' of the self too. To be clear, I don't take Mill or anyone really as an authority. But Mill gets s...

:up: Of course. But most people aren't philosophers.

:up: I'm thinking of using Rashomon and As I Lay Dying as explications of the nondual perspectivist position. Both narratives give us the-world-for-ch...

:up: Since that went over well, I'll add some of Heidegger's updating of the software (of the software's self-articulation.) I got this nice quote fro...

Despite the occasional lip service, I don't think you understand the spirit of science, or that you are able or willing to get your story straight. So...

I won't go any more in this direction in this thread, but it's no small feature of 'mind' that it is profoundly timebinding and historical. The "might...

Actually that wasn't the point.

It seems to me that you are ultimately arguing that argument is not decisive. I hope you are offering more than the reminder that we could always be w...

So is the nature of argument at least truly universal and binding on all humans ?

I add this in case anyone wants to pick up the thread. (1) We 'can only ever speak' of being as something we are speaking about. This tautology is sup...

To me that's a bold claim which I very much dispute. I take an opposite Hegelian view. The timebinding philosophical Conversation is the actual protag...

:up: Sure. And that's the essence of my response.