Metaphysic, Intuition, Intelligence

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

Etienne Gilson, in 'The Unity of Philosophical Experience':

[Diebert van Rhijn]

So even those definitions are not implying "inherent distinction", much like string theory in physics is not implying something distinct from the natural world either and yet we could never access the potential reality of it.

If it isn't distinct from our world then we are accessing its reality right here and now. What may be lacking is specific information/knowledge - the domain of science. For example you may not know anything about your pancreas or even know that you have one, but you do have one nevertheless. It influences you and vice versa regardless of your knowledge or understanding.

It's unclear to me how somebody believing in some "supernatural world" would reason differently from that. He'd surely say he's "tapping into" that supernatural order here and now but only doesn't have the specific information on the how. Perhaps the difference is that science requires certain types of evidence, repeatability or theoretical framework to critique, while the supernatural or even the mystics will invoke "direct experience" and will see any more detailed "revelation" and exposition as being in vain? Like saying the experience cannot be "carved" up by further analysis and questioning. Perhaps for this reason the biggest supernatural nonsense will be found in the "enlightenment business"?


PS, according to GB's signature: "GustavBjornstrand = AlexJacob". But he did share some terminology with Laird, that's correct.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

When you say 'critical theory', and when I say it, we mean something specific and this can be located and defined. But critical though cannot be the possession of anyone, can it? One could chose to define oneself as an Aristotelean engaged in 'critical projects'. Do you really think that 'traditional theorizing [is] geared to describing or understanding without any call for more'? I think that so-called traditionalism, as in the Catholic Counter-Reformation, is continually forced to respond critically, and thus is drawn into the critical project. But as you know early Christianity began in apologetics and polemics against paganism and so was forced to define itself and explain itself from the early days. It is part of our structure, isn't it?

Well, I was just referring to the standard definitions of critical theory linked to the Frankfurt School, basically starting from the position that "ideology is the principal obstacle to human liberation". And I added the emphasis here as I believe there's a larger "theological" framework implied which has already certain ideas in place about liberty and progress. That's already obvious since Hegel and earlier but evolved into modern liberalism, generally most of modern thought contains it and it's hardly being discussed.

I find this all very interesting to the present conversation. If one is going to broach a conversation that will touch on 'the truly important things' then one will have to take responsibility for such a decision and undertaking. And just as it says: The danger is not getting to the real root, or to the real water; and then also simply giving up and 'floating' as some here have said.

Getting to the roots or giving up and float are both potential endings to a particular journey. Both might not be the ultimate "meaning of life" and yet do happen. Like the gospel parable of the lost sheep, what causes one to stray and turn back or to be found again? What's the added value exactly to those involved? There's no good answer.

[jupiviv]

It's unclear to me how somebody believing in some "supernatural world" would reason differently from that.

I think he'd imagine it influencing him differently from the ordinary and boring things that physically surround him. He'd imagine a profound kind of bond between himself and that realm which is totally unlike the bond between himself and the realm that causes him suffering. Perhaps he would imagine that his earthly life is like a conduit which is transporting him to the perfection of heaven.

Perhaps the difference is that science requires certain types of evidence, repeatability or theoretical framework to critique, while the supernatural or even the mystics will invoke "direct experience" and will see any more detailed "revelation" and exposition as being in vain?

Ultimately there is only "direct experience", but ironically a competent scientist probably has more of it than a competent (i.e, popular) mystic.

PS, according to GB's signature: "GustavBjornstrand = AlexJacob". But he did share some terminology with Laird, that's correct.

Ah yes, the Talking Ass is back! To...er...talk, I guess. :-)

BTW, I thought Laird=Alex but apparently not. Still, I bet they're great chums. They seem to have the same perspective about the forum founders and their philosophy, and the same knack for waxing intellectual.

I also find it amusing that he's been here only a month and already his post count is almost equal to both of ours combined. Talk about a windbag!

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

FYI, Gustav is distinct in numerous ways from Alex (TTA). All personas are said to be constructs, to one degree or other, and any forum personality I think always takes on a certain persona. Don't want to amp that up too much but suffice to say that Gustav Bjornstrand is only interested in ideas, and discussing ideas, and the ideas have to be in relation to the thrust, in this case the OP. And part of discussing ideas must necessarily involve discussion of the ideas that the Founders have put forward. It would be dishonest to pretend that I did not have a critique. I do very much. And I have spent a great deal of time researching in many different areas so to put together a platform that I consider better and fuller. And so I intend to bring forward that platform of ideas that can be and I think are useful for a person who is researching that whole gamut of ideas and possibilities that can be contained under the topic 'spiritual life'. It is a very very wide subject. If you wished to link this statement with the general sense of the thread, certainly in relation to the FS, you could say that my approach is 100% dialectical.

[Bobo]

If one were to try to find a basis for traditions one would end up only with a structure of superstitions, without the particularities that make them different the beast is revealed by itself. So it is common to find a lot of intolerance in religion, having a holy book, a sacred prophet, is not something that is cherished between peoples, it makes religion to be a congregation of silly hats, therefore other religions must be destroyed, the Crusades could be seen as what were to have the christian religion as the main tradition of Europe at the time, and the metaphysical truth upheld by the church which was looting and murdering. The contradiction that a traditionalist will fail to see (they lack the intellect to) is that by pouring acid they will only speed up the 'acidic' process, anyway that must be a comfortable role for an atheist like yourself. (I mean tradionalists don't really believe in anything, right? And that's why you must feel attracted to these ideas).

[jupiviv]

FYI, Gustav is distinct in numerous ways from Alex (TTA).

He's not - well, as far as I can see. Both of them try to pretend they're part of some kind of intellectual tradition (some admixture of romanticism and classical liberalism?) by reading a wide variety of books on a wide variety of humanities-related subjects, but unfortunately only manage to come across a tiresome dilettante. Both lack intellectual substance and thus require the aid of torrents of frothing logorrhea to present the appearance of having it.

P.S - I misspoke in the previous post when I said that Alex's new avatar's post count is more than mine and Diebert's combined. I meant his post rate, i.e, the "posts per day" attribute of the profile stats.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

P.S - I misspoke in the previous post when I said that Alex's new avatar's post count is more than mine and Diebert's combined. I meant his post rate, i.e, the "posts per day" attribute of the profile stats.

Absolute counts are hard to come by but Gustav: 54 + Alex T Jacob: 413 + Alex Jacob: 1671 + Talking Ass: 846 = 2984 posts, over four years is two posts a day. After being corrected by the mighty G himself, I'd have to add Alexis Jacobi: 166 to that which means 3150, nearing 2,2 posts a day already. Probably the most active poster here for the last four years -- together with Dennis basically drove the sunset years!

And of course a higher total post count than Jupiviv, early members like Kelly Jones (2665) and even the owner Kevin Solway(2579). Easily in the top 10 of all time here. This all meant as exercise in how to spin useless information into something almost meaningful without ever becoming that.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

If one were to try to find a basis for traditions one would end up only with a structure of superstitions, without the particularities that make them different the beast is revealed by itself.

Some of the so-called traditionalists say that a given tradition (Sufism, Vedism, Catholicism, Judaism, Zen, etc.) should be or must be practiced traditionally. That in order to *gain* from the system you have to invest in the system, become a part of the system. The traditionalists that I have read---I am thinking of Rama Coomeraswamy in 'The Destruction of the Christian Tradition', and here is a video where he expresses this specific opinion---all embed themselves in a traditional practice in ways that would likely be considered extremist from our angle. So, it is perhaps true that if one glossed all traditions and attempted to extract out of them valid essence, and then recombined them into something new, that some strange bastardisation would occur. But it is only an opinion to say that, stripped out of its context, some sort of 'beast' is revealed.

That is a reductive use of reason and it is a use of reasoning which is employed by the Founders, picked up by young devotees, and 'wielded' against what I think is a necessary fuller investigation of the issues. I think it arises from a kind of laziness really: a laziness which does not want to take the time to really look into questions. A laziness that is content to pipe forward some 'opinion' which sounds radical and exciting---certainly conclusive---but which leads to an end of thought and consideration. This is a fundamental criticism that could be brought against the Founders (speaking generally) and against those they have trained up, or those who imitate them. So, here you have a critique, expressed clearly and calmly, thoroughly understandable, and offered 'for your consideration'.

Bobo: You give evidence of exactly this style of thinking. You have half-baked some ideas and pulled them out of the mental oven too soon.

Another sort of approach is necessary if one wishes to extract valid and employable conclusions. The topic becomes complex and difficult and will require some months if not years of study. The first question in an order of questions has to do with the historical function of 'religion' in human culture. And then there are all manner of different questions that arise out of that.

But what you do is to start from an inherited opinion: someone else's conclusion: an a priori. You assume that stripped of its 'form' that you will only find a 'beast': but a more beastly beast than the first 'beast' you identify. What this would seem to indicate is not that you have or really are thinking about the topic, but rather you start from a foregone conclusion and apply your conclusion anytime you see or hear the word 'religion'. My view is that this visceral contempt, and this sort of blanket statement (about religion but it could be about anything) is a style of thinking that has roots and causes that can be located and then talked about. Apparently, it comes from social trends that are 'anti-intellectual' but also I have gathered from certain people who have become very frustrated with the world as-it-is. In any case, even if I am not accurate in my labelling of causes, is that this is a problem and a mistake.

However, your statement quoted above is certainly interesting and it opens up the possibility of a conversation if it were approached in good faith. I could see how, based out of that statement, one could formulate a group of questions that could then be investigated and discussed.

So it is common to find a lot of intolerance in religion, having a holy book, a sacred prophet, is not something that is cherished between peoples, it makes religion to be a congregation of silly hats, therefore other religions must be destroyed, the Crusades could be seen as what were to have the christian religion as the main tradition of Europe at the time, and the metaphysical truth upheld by the church which was looting and murdering.

This paragraph is chock-full of statements, and conclusions, that are more received-thoughts than anything else. Myself, I have noticed this lazy intellectual tendency in almost everything that you write, though there is often an interesting edge in some of your opinions. A challenge of sorts. I could spend a moment and unpack what you are saying here and demonstrate why your conclusions are 1) superficial (though they touch on 'truths', 2) run-of-the-mill and unoriginal (received), 3) charged with 'the grammar of self-intolerance' as Bowden chants about, and in this sense Marxian formulations which have become part-and-parcel of the structure of our thinking, and very likely more strongly so in your case as a Brazilian. There are trends in Latin American ideation which are nourished by terrible reductions on all levels. I would only make reference to Eduardo Galeano and 'Open Veins of Latin America' to indicate what I mean. What happens then is that someone formulates, charges, and sends out into the world some henid-like (I used the term 'larval') idea which catches hold of people's minds and travels like a meme. Suffice to say that this is utterly superficial and doesn't really involve thought. It essentially seeks to resonate with the emotional body and thus achieves its desired effect. It is not surprising that you, as Latin American, would have these feelings about Europe the Conquistador.

But with this there are two poles of approach (two poles and a range of possibilities strung between them): One would be to absorb your attitude and to hate and loath the Conqueror, to vilify that which conquered, to hate it and to seek to cast it off, to take visceral swipes at it whenever you could. The other pole is to identify with the Conqueror. To desire to be that Conqueror. The desire to continue conquest, and the will to continue conquest. To find within oneself, if you will, a will to rule, a will to decide, a will to 'organise a world'. If there is a centre position between the two, myself I desire to place myself much more toward the Conqueror's pole. So again, turning back to Bowden, is the possibility of turning against a whole installed and established 'grammar of self-intolerance'. And naturally that is part of this thread at a very basic level. I don't mean only my opinions but the larger and overall questions.

I say that to assert oneself spiritually---as a person of spirit, spiritedly, with spirit and also power---is very different from the weak and meek and modern definition of 'spirituality' as Gandhi-esque, Tolstoyan neo-Christian formulations. Even in their Marxian New School and Frankfurt School variations. It is literally *all this* that has to be gone through and talked about.

The contradiction that a traditionalist will fail to see (they lack the intellect to) is that by pouring acid they will only speed up the 'acidic' process, anyway that must be a comfortable role for an atheist like yourself. (I mean tradionalists don't really believe in anything, right? And that's why you must feel attracted to these ideas).

Yes? How many Traditionalists have you read in depth? Like zero? ;-) You are just bullshitting here, unfortunately. Yet this fits into the style of this forum and the quality of person it often attracts. Make it better.

When one really enters into the questions here, one enters into a life-project and not some chirpy and childish pseudo-analysis that one can barf forth in a 5 minute interval. One cannot respond to what you have written because one first has to unpack why you have written such badly produced versions of ideas floating around out there. This last paragraph is completely female, Bobo (in the negative sense of femaleness: unthinking reaction). It is really a charged and emotional attempt to go on the offensive and to strike a coup but there is no real substance in it. It just falls to the ground.

If you really are serious about ideas you will have to do much much better.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

He's not - well, as far as I can see. Both of them try to pretend they're part of some kind of intellectual tradition (some admixture of romanticism and classical liberalism?) by reading a wide variety of books on a wide variety of humanities-related subjects, but unfortunately only manage to come across a tiresome dilettante. Both lack intellectual substance and thus require the aid of torrents of frothing logorrhea to present the appearance of having it.

More about Gustav Bjornstrand is found here.

Questions:

1) When does one not pretend to be part of an intellectual tradition and actually become part of that intellectual tradition?

2) Could one pretend for a certain amount of time and then (unseen and unheard) slide over into the specific tradition and thus be a representative of it?

3) What specific 'books' do you think are the most 'humanistic'? For example would you place Plato in the humanistic tradition? Aristotle?

3a) Have you ever read a novel? A novel that you liked? Which novel? Which writers do you like most? Who is your preferred philosopher? Do you have one? Poet? Artist? Musician?

4) What 'books' would you say are non-humanistic? Who best represents a non-humanistic tradition in your view?

5) What books have you read or are you reading now? Is there any established knowledge base, any literature or any texts, that you involve yourself with? Do you have any university education? What do you do for a living? What do your parents do? What strata of Indian society do you come from?

6) In relation to your chosen topic or area of interest do you consider yourself also a 'dilettante' on some level, or as fully accomplished? A dilettante is defined as: 'a person who cultivates an area of interest, such as the arts, without real commitment or knowledge'.

7) If as you say I do not show real commitment or knowledge (in my field of the humanities, at least as you have defined me), what will I need to do to improve? Can you give me some pointers as to how I can become a full humanist and not merely a superficial one?

8) Since you assert, I think, that humanistic concerns are not the way to go, can you define in a couple of paragraphs what you consider to be the right focus? What are you really doing?

9) Can you link to some of your own posts on this forum (or any other) which deal in real 'intellectual substance'? What is 'intellectual substance' in your view? What is the 'correct' substance for the intellect?

[jupiviv]

Questions:

1) When does one not pretend to be part of an intellectual tradition and actually become part of that intellectual tradition?

When one doesn't use it to play "look, I'm culturally erudite" and one's writings about it cannot be shown to be glib and fatuous by an actual member of that tradition.

3) What specific 'books' do you think are the most 'humanistic'? For example would you place Plato in the humanistic tradition? Aristotle?

I wrote humanities, not humanism.

3a) Have you ever read a novel? A novel that you liked? Which novel? Which writers do you like most? Who is your preferred philosopher? Do you have one? Poet? Artist? Musician?

In order - War and peace, the Buddha, Burns, Dali, Bach.

6) In relation to your chosen topic or area of interest do you consider yourself also a 'dilettante' on some level, or as fully accomplished? A dilettante is defined as: 'a person who cultivates an area of interest, such as the arts, without real commitment or knowledge'.

I am not a dilettante in any of the fields I engage in seriously.

[Bobo]

I am using redutionistic thinking when talking about religion as you are using ludicrous thinking, for example that we lost one metaphysical truth that exists secretly within religion. When I associated religion with bigotry you could only say that it was a form of reductionism, sure religion is not the only cause for bigotry but that is in part because religion is not that relevant in our world anymore, as in making identities, and in lookin by this angle your own vacuous thinking becomes more irrelevant yet.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

Here is a Wiki definition of humanities that we can use as a reference.

Here is the same for humanism.

Do you 'reject' these fields and areas of interest? If so, why?

When one doesn't use it to play "look, I'm culturally erudite" and one's writings about it cannot be shown to be glib and fatuous by an actual member of that tradition.

Glib indicates insincere or facile. Fatuous, silly, asinine or idiotic. Those are sharp critiques. But the question is can you support your critique by demonstrating how and also why this is so? I mean of course in relation to the ideas expressed in this thread.

Have you read all the posts in the thread? Have you read the pages that have been included? Are you saying that the ideas included in those pages are also 'glib' and 'fatuous' too?

What 'member of the tradition' can you refer to who would make that judgment? Are you a member of that tradition? If you are not, how could you make that assessment? Isn't your statement contradictory?

Are you a humanist and are you interested in the humanities? Is humanism and the humanities in your view a valid, or genuine, or necessary area of study? Or do you reject it?

How are you able to discern---accurately---if someone is 'playing' at erudition? Can you locate an example in what I have written in this thread that particularly illustrates what you think is false, or pretentious? And if you did so, don't you think it is best in a forum-environment, to set to work critiquing the ideas there? Or, in your view, is it best to focus on your perception (which could be wrong, couldn't it?) or pretence or dilettantism?

You wrote humanities and not humanism, but the question still stands: Do Plato and Aristotle have a solid place within humanities as a discipline, or no?

I am not a dilettante in any of the fields I engage in seriously.

Well, all this means is that, according to you, you are not a dilettante! It is just a statement of opinion and a vain one really. Are you saying that we are self-qualified to self-assess, or is it necessary to submit ourselves to an outside authority?

If you can say, about yourself, 'I am not a dilettante in any of the fields I engage in seriously' (a lovely tautological statement I should add), can everyone/anyone else do the same? It seems to me absurd that you can make a declaration about yourself but deny someone else seriousness ('non-delettantishness') to others. Do you see the difficulty?

Which 'Burns' are you referring to?

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

I am using redutionistic thinking when talking about religion as you are using ludicrous thinking, for example that we lost one metaphysical truth that exists secretly within religion. When I associated religion with bigotry you could only say that it was a form of reductionism, sure religion is not the only cause for bigotry but that is in part because religion is not that relevant in our world anymore, as in making identities, and in lookin by this angle your own vacuous thinking becomes more irrelevant yet.

You are again making statements without backup. You say:

That 'religion is not that relevant in our world anymore'. How do you know this? With what would you support the claim? Can you write about that? What have you read on this topic? Can you list the studies that you have accessed? The sociologists of religion? What do you base this opinion on? Opinion merely? Desire that it be so?

I would say quite the opposite: Religion (as in Christianity) is on the wane in Europe and is waxing quite evidently in most other parts of the world. Islam is expanding at a startling rate. And Pentecostalism is expanding at rapid rates in Latin America and Africa, in China and in the Third World. If you'd like I can point you in the direction of sources to back that up.

For now: Dr. Peter Berger on Pentecostalism. And here too. (Peter Berger wrote 'The Social Construction of Reality' (1966) and has studies the sociology of religion.)

Should it turn out that, in fact, religions and religious thinking is expanding, what shall we do with your loose conclusive statement that I am involved in 'vacuous thinking' which you have bizarrely linked? Mind you, no part of what I have written, or am interested in, has any relationship to the expansion of religions in the world. It is you that bring this up and link it.

You say [that I say] 'that we lost one metaphysical truth that exists secretly within religion'. But I have articulated no such phrase. What I am saying is very distinct. Is it possible that you have misread or are misreading? Or, that you cannot state clearly what you mean? I find that I have to guess at your meaning in much of what you write. I can make no comment until you clarify what you mean.

[Bobo]

You can see that religion is not influent anymore just by the fact that we don't live in a theocracy anymore. Pentecostalism too can be seen as the diversification of christianism where other traditions are more influent upon it other than the christian tradition. There's a trend where with higher levels of education, wealth, in a given region the levels of religiousness diminishes. Religion thrives on ignorance, that's more of the medieval model if you cannot discern it, where the masses were illitarate. By vacuous thinking I mean that you make no statements of the core of what you are supposed to explain. You feel that there's an acid in the modern occidental self, do I have to tell you how the discovery printing press is part of the acid you are talking about?

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

Esteemed Bobo:

It is true that we don't live under theocracies. It is not true that religion is no longer influential.

Pentecostalism, possibly in its origin, picked up from Black/African culture some of its more physical or 'trance' states which it then encouraged and cultivated. But Pentecostals read the Bible and even if you were to say that there were 'spiritist' or 'shamanic' elements that have made their way into it, you could not say that it is not Christian, nor that its influence is not essentially Christian as are so many other sects of Christianity. But I will grant you that Pentecostalism is uniquely geared toward and successful among the poor and the semi-literate.

While it seems true that with greater wealth, education and upward mobility that religiousness in some apsects diminishes, I am not inclined to completely accept that as an across-the-board fact. Certainly in Europe though that has been the case. But there are also many other different factors that would have to be considered.

Yet I am of the opinion that among certain people, the people with a certain preparation, that the stories that animate religion have become transparent and are seen as 'false'. Or, that people use a sort of doublethink when they think on religious truths as distinct from the truths and facts of everyday life. That is an interesting topic.

There are levels of religiosity that can be said, accurately, to thrive on 'ignorance', but a good deal of work would have to be done to accurately define 'ignorance'. And then to posit a comparable state that is its opposite. I would say that many people who have become 'educated', whom you might see as 'non-ignorant', cannot be said to be knowledgeable or wise (in respect to matters of religion). For example, I would have to say that you, Bobo, based on what I read, have no substantial knowledge at all about the topic you seem to be engaged in. Zero. None. But you will spout out all manner of different 'opinions' and half-thought theses, as if you had real knowledge.

Similarly, you could interview a cross section of folks with 4 years of Uni education and 98% of them would spout some received opinions/reductions about 'religion'. But there is all manner of complexity to the question. And allow me to say the following: Quinn and Solway and Rowden have been and are involved, essentially, in a religious project. It is religious at its core but yet cloaking itself in 'philosophy' and 'rationality' (a code term). It is a twist on bastard versions of Australian religiosity, and I mean that at a psychological level. It is a manifestation of religious sentiment, and religious desire, if I may put it like that. The one who seems to stand farthest outside of that tendency is Solway. But Quinn and Rowden are religionists. If you see this, if you can be made to understand what is happening in them, I imagine that it will be easier to understand even yourself. However, I don't have much of an idea of what you think or believe. I base this on general impression.

Also, religious impulse, even when the top-side of religious belief has been shall we say 'seen through' or diminished, tends to go underground, or underwater to push the psychological reference. It is possible therefor to cure or ameliorate 'ignorance' by teaching people to read or to juggle even elementarily some ideas, to give them some level of literacy, but literacy and the sort of knowledge to which you are referring does not have much of anything to do with the constellation of religiousness that is structured into people. What happens when you strip away a man's religion (again at that upper, mental level) is that the religious tendency, and the somatic tendency if you will, goes underground. But it does not simply disappear. You refer to 'knowledge' like Soviet or Chinese educators would use it (common in the Third World and in Brazil too): a sort of brainwashing. But one that operates against what is understood as an 'infection', something needing a cure. (I live in Latin America and in close proximity to the University and have a sense of what I am speaking about). But when the outer forms of an erstwhile religious culture is weakened or diminishes, the religious tendency does not diminish. It seeks religiosity in other ways and though other systems. The largest and the most important questions that a man can ask are, or become, essentially religious questions. And religious questions are answered religiously. I submit Quinn and Rowden as evidence.

To say that the Medieval model, or Medieval religiosity thrived on ignorance, is an ignorant statement. You did not take the name 'Bobo' fer nuthin, didja? The echelon of culture that concerned itself with religious and philosophical questions, and with grammar and the discipline of logic, was anything but 'ignorant'. It was hyper-intellectual. It was more intellectual than is common today. It required a severe intellectuality. Many people today who are called 'intellectuals' are really rationalists, and this is quite different. And part of this thread has to do with speaking about that difference.

However, I will grant you that there existed a whole culture outside of Medieval intellectualism that quite literally was ignorant and illiterate. That was a culture in which superstition and more traditional folk-beliefs had sway and on many levels Christianity represented superior structure. I also admit that these are interesting areas of investigation.

By vacuous thinking I mean that you make no statements of the core of what you are supposed to explain.

That is so funny to me that it is almost cute.

It is more accurate to say that no matter what gets said, or how it is said, that you will not be able to understand what is being said. When you understand this you may also understand that it is time to stop up the mouth---to stop spouting BS---and to take the general study of these questions and problems more seriously. It has to be pointed out though that you are a derivative of a style of thinking that is peculiar to the Founders and which is condemnable and really rather wretched. Thus, you can see evidence of ignorance among those who for all intents and purposes should not be ignorant. Get it?

[jupiviv]

Have you read all the posts in the thread? Have you read the pages that have been included? Are you saying that the ideas included in those pages are also 'glib' and 'fatuous' too?

I asked you to provide a short description of your view of metaphysics. You still haven't provided one, and instead provided more words that other people have written. That is your problem as I see it - you're incapable of thinking for yourself. You require the constant company of books to maintain this worldview of words for yourself.

What 'member of the tradition' can you refer to who would make that judgment? Are you a member of that tradition? If you are not, how could you make that assessment? Isn't your statement contradictory?

Any genuine member of any intellectual tradition can be recognised by the fact that they have themselves assimilated that tradition within themselves and can speak on their own authority about subjects or ideas that fall within its scope - this doesn't even mean that they speak wisely, only that they have sincerely devoted themselves to that tradition. That is something you never do. Also, they would not be bothered like you obviously are when someone calls their erudition to question - they're far more concerned about the tradition itself, which is precisely what evinces their erudition.

All I have to do is call you a pseudo-intellectual and the carefree dilettante exterior gives way to the irascible intellectual wannabe. Your ramblings belong in a well-written role playing game, not serious discussion.

You wrote humanities and not humanism, but the question still stands: Do Plato and Aristotle have a solid place within humanities as a discipline, or no?

No it doesn't stand because you misread something I wrote for something else entirely, but apparently you're too pompous to admit even that.

Well, all this means is that, according to you, you are not a dilettante! It is just a statement of opinion and a vain one really. Are you saying that we are self-qualified to self-assess, or is it necessary to submit ourselves to an outside authority?

The one thing I engage in seriously above all else is the pursuit of truth, and I've been shooting pearls of wisdom towards your face for the entire duration of our conversation. If you disagree then prove that I have been dishonest or irrational in any instance.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

I wrote out a (relatively) short response (my understanding of the word 'metaphysic') here. It must have gotten by you.

The rest of what you have written is silliness and if you are satisfied with that, so be it.

These are keepers:

All I have to do is call you a pseudo-intellectual and the carefree dilettante exterior gives way to the irascible intellectual wannabe. Your ramblings belong in a well-written role playing game, not serious discussion.

The one thing I engage in seriously above all else is the pursuit of truth, and I've been shooting pearls of wisdom towards your face for the entire duration of our conversation. If you disagree then prove that I have been dishonest or irrational in any instance.

There are just so many of them, I don't know which to pick up first. It's like a kid in a candy shop only its not candy but the most important stuff a person can think about ...

[Bobo]

I don't get it. It is not a matter of interpretation that your posts are filled with interpretation and without consideration to the subject, you present the subject too subjectively for it to be considered.

[jupiviv]

@Alex, I didn't read that post because as usual it was a wall of text with attached snapshots of pages. I dismissed it as just more pointless babble. But you've gone on record referring to it as a summary of your view of metaphysics, so fair enough. I'll respond to it when I find time.

[jupiviv]

Myself, I have a few ways to describe my concept of metaphysic. One is simple and yet it is non-communicable. It has to do with the question of intelligibility that came up a few posts back. In my view here is much that is intelligible about this reality where we find ourselves, but there is more, or I should say there is a larger piece of it, that is non-intelligible and non-communicable.

If some aspect of reality is non-intelligible and non-communicable, then nothing whatsoever can be asserted about it - not even that it is non-intelligible.

The part of myself that *knows* this (feels it, understands it, believes it) is the part of me that is 'metaphysical to my existence'.

I am guessing you are still describing the non-communicable part of your description, so I'll just skip ahead if you don't mind.

So, intelligibility depends on one side on rationality. To seek and to remember facts. To organise and cultivate the mind so to be able to do that. But on the other, intelligibility depends on intuition (and intuition stands over reason). And it is this skill or in any case this endeavour (of cultivating intuition) that is not rational, or it is not in the same domain as 'logical thinking' and what we normally understand as ratiocination. However, as I define it, that is the point where metaphysic comes into play. It is on one hand the *sense* that there are higher dimensions of knowing which transcend physicality, or body-specificity (in time, in a given place, etc.), and a *sense* of connection to other, distinct, and 'higher' dimensions of thought or perception.

This is all very confusing. First you distinguish intelligibility from non-intelligibility and then you make the latter dominant in your definition of the former. In your view, is there ultimately only non-intelligibility as the basis of all thought and reason?

Metaphysic definitely implies a 'rational soul' in the Aristotelean and Thomist sense---in other words we are not mere mechanical robots and we have the unique capacities of volition and the sort of motion that conscious volition allows. As one develops the notion of what is meant by 'metaphysic', one would begin to describe what a 'rational soul' is capable of doing, and indeed what the psyche really does do in our world, and to begin to posit a nomenclature about that would, I am sure, involve metaphysical concepts and even postulates.

Extending the former question - is the basis of our rational soul also non-intelligible? Do its judgments, choices and motivations arise from a non-intelligible source?

On a more simple level I see simple mental activity---that anyone has a mind (and even I would include dogs and birds who seem really exceptionally aware, in some ways: shining awarenesses and often with something like a sense of humour)---as being metaphysical to mere inanimate matter. Because I do not see human consciousness as being a full product of physicality or material processes, I am inclined to see animal awareness as also 'metaphysical' to pure materialism and physicality. (I do not deny that whatever our consciousness is, is bound---as a tree is bound by roots---to the physical matrix. But biology and matter alone do not produce it, nor explain it. And therein is the impossible aspect of the mystery of life and awareness).

This is your own belief, and it is an incorrect one. There is no reason not to view consciousness as a product of material processes. Consciousness resides in the brain, and the brain is a material thing just like inanimate objects.

That's all I can respond to until you decide to answer my question above. You really despise clarity don't you? I didn't have that many exchanges with you, but I descried some of your discussions and wondered why so many of the posters seemed to have a problem with you. Now I know.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

If some aspect of reality is non-intelligible and non-communicable, then nothing whatsoever can be asserted about it - not even that it is non-intelligible.

I think that there are limits to what is intelligible and that one can easily designate that area that is non-intelligible simply by referring to it as such. It is a way of saying that it is not understood. I think that knowledge can expand into areas that are not intelligible, as with increasing physical knowledge of the world, but it is my view and understanding that there is a limit to what it is possible to know, and the extreme example is that it is not possible to answer the question 'Why do things exist' (or 'Why do I exist'). When I use the word 'non-communicable' it is connected to other definitions that have to be included. For example, the inner meaning, that is to me, of certain of my experiences which are the basis of my *understanding* of myself, and my existence here, are non-communicable to many and possibly most others. When I refer to non-communicability I am referring to knowledge and knowing of that order. Additionally, and independent of my take on the matter, the question of intelligibility is central to philosophy generally. Some schools tend toward the pole of non-intelligibility and others to intelligibility. I am not sure it there is an absolute answer.

I am guessing you are still describing the non-communicable part of your description, so I'll just skip ahead if you don't mind.

In combative and polemical conversation, and especially if one begins with a desire 'not to understand' or a refusal to make the effort, I suppose that all is permissible! However, if you avoid what you call 'walls of text' because it is rambling, babble, and what-have-you, I think you are functioning within a sort of hard-headedness which is---rather obviously---destructive to communication. In short it renders it impossible. So, while you can certainly skip over what you wish to skip over, to understand what I mean would mean staying with the text and taking it as a whole.

This is all very confusing. First you distinguish intelligibility from non-intelligibility and then you make the latter dominant in your definition of the former. In your view, is there ultimately only non-intelligibility as the basis of all thought and reason?

Once again I will refer to a Platonic definition. One reason is because it is particularly eloquent, and the second is that it connects to 'ways of knowing' that are foundational to Occidental culture. The passage is this:

• But thus much I can certainly declare concerning all these writers, or prospective writers, who claim to know the subjects which I seriously study, whether as hearers of mine or of other teachers, or from their own discoveries; it is impossible, in my judgement at least, that these men should understand anything about this subject. There does not exist, nor will there ever exist, any treatise of mine dealing therewith. For it does not at all admit of verbal expression like other studies, but, as a result of continued application to the subject itself and communion therewith, it is brought to birth in the soul on a sudden, as light that is kindled by a leaping spark, and thereafter it nourishes itself. Notwithstanding, of thus much I am certain, that the best statement of these doctrines in writing or in speech would be my own statement; and further, that if they should be badly stated in writing, it is I who would be the person most deeply pained. And if I had thought that these subjects ought to be fully stated in writing or in speech to the public, what nobler action could I have performed in my life than that of writing what is of great benefit to mankind and bringing forth to the light for all men the nature of reality? But were I to undertake this task it would not, as I think, prove a good thing for men, save for some few who are able to discover the truth themselves with but little instruction; for as to the rest, some it would most unseasonably fill with a mistaken contempt, and others with an overweening and empty aspiration, as though they had learnt some sublime mysteries.

The part I have underlined corresponds quite nicely with my own conception. Though I admit that to say that the non-intelligible can or does inform the rationally knowable is a problematic statement. In my own case I have often been baffled, or impressed, and sometimes stymied and even confused, by the apparent fact that my rational ability to *understand* has limits. I think it is a problem that is peculiar to men generally but is a large problem in the Occident because of the contrast between two definitions of how knowing arises, or how knowledge is gained. It is a question and problem that runs through all of Western ideation, and philosophy, and literature and art, and then of course Occidental mysticism. Poets and musicians seem to understand the matter, I have found. I think it is expressed, or alluded to quite well, in Blake's:

• This life's five windows of the soul
  Distorts the Heavens from pole to pole,
  And leads you to believe a lie
  When you see with, not through, the eye.

jupiviv: 'Is there ultimately only non-intelligibility as the basis of all thought and reason?'

My answer to that is that I think it is the question that has more relevance and value than a specific answer. The reason is because I do not think the question has been answered, either by science and scientism nor by philosophy. In my own case it is pretty much as I have stated it: There are domains of knowing, there are domains of knowledgeability, which are very open to us, and we have certainly opened them. The Seventeenth Century seems to stand as an epoch in which new ways of knowing were discovered and applied. This is rational knowledge, the knowledge of quotients or the behaviour of substances, and is focussed on 'bodies' and tangibilities. But there is another order of knowledge which is obtained through other avenues of thinking and the use of intellect which is expressed (in just one example) as [being] 'brought to birth in the soul on a sudden, as light that is kindled by a leaping spark, and thereafter it nourishes itself'.

To speak about this contrast, or the problem of knowledge, is a rather complex subject. There are philosophers and historians of intellect who have gone into the question. Basil Willey is one of them in The Seventeenth Century Background. I think, though I can't be sure, that you might consider his analysis of the problem as just another 'wall of text'. But I don't and indeed I can't. I admit that my understanding---in terms of what is conversable and has to do with ideation---is part-and-parcel of a context of ideas. I do not at all see myself as independent of that discursive tradition. I don't think it is wise to imagine oneself, intellectually, in that way. Mystics seem to have the luxury of forms of independence though.

Extending the former question - is the basis of our rational soul also non-intelligible? Do its judgments, choices and motivations arise from a non-intelligible source?

Again, it is the posing of the Question that has more value than a specific answer. This is and these are after all the Core questions of philosophy and religion and, for some, of existence itself.

But I see it in this way though I may repeat what I have said before or in other ways: I see our rational mind as ensconced in our physical, bodily, and material existence. Certainly the brain is a biological and material instrument, this is a fact and cannot be denied. In this sense, I see our 'matrix' as being more or less intelligible to the rational tools we call science. And we have access to, and indeed have built-up and assembled, a whole body of knowledge and the storing-up of perceptions within the physical matrix. So, it is possible to say that the basis of our rational soul is intelligible insofar as it is the brain itself, or our body.

But the issue is not that simple, nor does it end there, in my view. 'Consciousness' is another domain. And 'conscious realisation', as I have made so many efforts in all the pages you have not read and will not read to point toward, has a metaphysical dimension. I am speaking at an Aristotelean level though the question has been taken up by many others. And to understand what is meant by 'metaphysical dimension' involves a longish conversation on that topic. You ask for my own view and here it is: It is in our own consciousness that we discover a domain, or a possibility, or an awareness, of a 'higher order of existence', or of ways that we are connected through our physical being to domains of knowledge, and orders of being, which are meta-physical.

'Metaphysics is finding of bad reasons to support what we believe of instinct', said Bradley in the definition from the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. It is a funny way to put it, yet true. In the platonic sense, one has to have 'done the work' in order to gain the realisation.

This is your own belief, and it is an incorrect one.

These sorts of statements are humorous to me. But it does, in my view, indicate what sort of a philosopher you are. You can make definite statements even if the question is seen as being open, or inconclusive, or requiring further analysis. It really is a complex philosophical problem, that is 'the body-mind problem', and though you indeed seem to believe that it is not a philosophical problem for you, in my view it still very much stands as one. And I could refer you to those for whom it still very much is a problem.

That's all I can respond to until you decide to answer my question above. You really despise clarity don't you? I didn't have that many exchanges with you, but I descried some of your discussions and wondered why so many of the posters seemed to have a problem with you. Now I know.

For you, I think, clarity means the statement of a complex problem as a reduction. You have, as I said, the ability to make definite statements about very very complex and knotty philosophical and ontological questions, and you seem to feel that you can reduce these things to short and terse phrasings. I simply, and honestly, do not see things in that way. So clarity means something very different for me. In my own view, if 'posters had a problem with me', it has to do with the fact and the problem that they, and you too I feel, function within a limited, and a limiting, binary mental structure. This description is important. In my view---and you or anyone can have a different view and any view that you desire and seems reasonable---you function with a limited mind, and you have a limited knowledge base, and you are brash, overconfident, anti-intellectual in a peculiar way, and uniquely focussed on one attribute or aptitude of mind: the 'rational' approach. To speak about what I mean by this approach would mean to open up the conversation into wider areas within philosophy and the history of ideas of which, it seems, you are unaware and not interested in.

Clarity indeed ...

[jupiviv]

If some aspect of reality is non-intelligible and non-communicable, then nothing whatsoever can be asserted about it - not even that it is non-intelligible.

I think that there are limits to what is intelligible and that one can easily designate that area that is non-intelligible simply by referring to it as such.

There are only the limits imposed by circumstances, not limits in a fundamental sense. There is nothing finite that is inherently inaccessible to human consciousness (or any kind of consciousness). Only the infinite is beyond consciousness, and that is because it necessarily includes consciousness.

it is my view and understanding that there is a limit to what it is possible to know, and the extreme example is that it is not possible to answer the question 'Why do things exist' (or 'Why do I exist').

Things exist because they are caused to exist by other things, and ultimately by the infinite.

When I use the word 'non-communicable' it is connected to other definitions that have to be included. For example, the inner meaning, that is to me, of certain of my experiences which are the basis of my *understanding* of myself, and my existence here, are non-communicable to many and possibly most others. When I refer to non-communicability I am referring to knowledge and knowing of that order.

A person may not want to communicate certain things like experiences, but they are still communicable. Other people can intentionally or accidentally find out those same things without said person's consent or knowledge, and communicate them to others if they want. You are creating a distinction that doesn't even exist to support your position, and justifying by calling it a "definition that has to be included". This buffoonery might impress a dunce, who would perhaps think, "well, it is after all a 'definition that has to be included', so it must make some kind of sense!" But it doesn't fool anyone who actually bothers to comprehend it.

Additionally, and independent of my take on the matter, the question of intelligibility is central to philosophy generally. Some schools tend toward the pole of non-intelligibility and others to intelligibility. I am not sure it there is an absolute answer.

Wait, some philosophical schools tend towards non-intelligibility? You're a buffoon, Alex. 300 years ago you'd be a castrato in an opera house.

I am guessing you are still describing the non-communicable part of your description, so I'll just skip ahead if you don't mind.

In combative and polemical conversation, and especially if one begins with a desire 'not to understand' or a refusal to make the effort, I suppose that all is permissible! However, if you avoid what you call 'walls of text' because it is rambling, babble, and what-have-you, I think you are functioning within a sort of hard-headedness which is---rather obviously---destructive to communication. In short it renders it impossible. So, while you can certainly skip over what you wish to skip over, to understand what I mean would mean staying with the text and taking it as a whole.

Are you chiding me for not making the effort to understand what you yourself termed "non-communicable"? You were right Alex, the lulz in this instance are truly non-communicable!

This is all very confusing. First you distinguish intelligibility from non-intelligibility and then you make the latter dominant in your definition of the former. In your view, is there ultimately only non-intelligibility as the basis of all thought and reason?

Once again I will refer to a Platonic definition. One reason is because it is particularly eloquent, and the second is that it connects to 'ways of knowing' that are foundational to Occidental culture. The passage is this:

• But thus much I can certainly declare concerning all these writers, or prospective writers, who claim to know the subjects which I seriously study, whether as hearers of mine or of other teachers, or from their own discoveries; it is impossible, in my judgement at least, that these men should understand anything about this subject. There does not exist, nor will there ever exist, any treatise of mine dealing therewith. For it does not at all admit of verbal expression like other studies, but, as a result of continued application to the subject itself and communion therewith, it is brought to birth in the soul on a sudden, as light that is kindled by a leaping spark, and thereafter it nourishes itself. Notwithstanding, of thus much I am certain, that the best statement of these doctrines in writing or in speech would be my own statement; and further, that if they should be badly stated in writing, it is I who would be the person most deeply pained. And if I had thought that these subjects ought to be fully stated in writing or in speech to the public, what nobler action could I have performed in my life than that of writing what is of great benefit to mankind and bringing forth to the light for all men the nature of reality? But were I to undertake this task it would not, as I think, prove a good thing for men, save for some few who are able to discover the truth themselves with but little instruction; for as to the rest, some it would most unseasonably fill with a mistaken contempt, and others with an overweening and empty aspiration, as though they had learnt some sublime mysteries.

And now, ladies and gentlemen, our very own singing donkey-boy, Alex the Amazing, will shock the very foundations of your content and natural persuasion by emulating the great philosopher Plato! See how his tiny hoof-toes rap the ground as he blares out some obscure paragraph he's gleaned from a piece of parchment before delegating it to his ample tummy just this morning! Though devoid of Man's faculty of discernment, he possesses profoundly the capacity for retention often observed in the higher animals in connection to their preferred comestibles. Oh, and just look at that little tail bobbing up and down! All the ladies love it!

The part I have underlined corresponds quite nicely with my own conception. Though I admit that to say that the non-intelligible can or does inform the rationally knowable is a problematic statement. In my own case I have often been baffled, or impressed, and sometimes stymied and even confused, by the apparent fact that my rational ability to *understand* has limits. I think it is a problem that is peculiar to men generally but is a large problem in the Occident because of the contrast between two definitions of how knowing arises, or how knowledge is gained. It is a question and problem that runs through all of Western ideation, and philosophy, and literature and art, and then of course Occidental mysticism. Poets and musicians seem to understand the matter, I have found. I think it is expressed, or alluded to quite well, in Blake's:

• This life's five windows of the soul
  Distorts the Heavens from pole to pole,
  And leads you to believe a lie
  When you see with, not through, the eye.

Do you realise how ridiculous you will look in any genuine intellectual/academic scene when you try to support your arguments by appealing to "Occidental culture"? The way things are in the humanities nowadays, you'd be better off channeling Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, or even Rihanna.

jupiviv: 'Is there ultimately only non-intelligibility as the basis of all thought and reason?'

My answer to that is that I think it is the question that has more relevance and value than a specific answer. The reason is because I do not think the question has been answered, either by science and scientism nor by philosophy. In my own case it is pretty much as I have stated it: There are domains of knowing, there are domains of knowledgeability, which are very open to us, and we have certainly opened them. The Seventeenth Century seems to stand as an epoch in which new ways of knowing were discovered and applied. This is rational knowledge, the knowledge of quotients or the behaviour of substances, and is focussed on 'bodies' and tangibilities. But there is another order of knowledge which is obtained through other avenues of thinking and the use of intellect which is expressed (in just one example) as [being] 'brought to birth in the soul on a sudden, as light that is kindled by a leaping spark, and thereafter it nourishes itself'.

This is bunkum. You're like a 1st year philosophy student trying to impress their professor.

You ask for my own view and here it is: It is in our own consciousness that we discover a domain, or a possibility, or an awareness, of a 'higher order of existence', or of ways that we are connected through our physical being to domains of knowledge, and orders of being, which are meta-physical.

All you have to offer is speculation, and unintelligible speculation at that, viz., "a domain, or a possibility, or an awareness". No arguments, no propositions, no consistent references. If someone asks you to clarify something, you quote someone. If they ask you to explain your quote, you quote someone else.

These sorts of statements are humorous to me. But it does, in my view, indicate what sort of a philosopher you are. You can make definite statements even if the question is seen as being open, or inconclusive, or requiring further analysis.

You mean I am like philosophers in general. Have you ever read a philosopher who didn't state anything definite about a disputed issue?

Not to mention that you have made definite statements about hotly debated issues in this post. But I guess you can't be similarly faulted because you've read books where people have said similar things.

For you, I think, clarity means the statement of a complex problem as a reduction. You have, as I said, the ability to make definite statements about very very complex and knotty philosophical and ontological questions, and you seem to feel that you can reduce these things to short and terse phrasings. I simply, and honestly, do not see things in that way. So clarity means something very different for me. In my own view, if 'posters had a problem with me', it has to do with the fact and the problem that they, and you too I feel, function within a limited, and a limiting, binary mental structure. This description is important. In my view---and you or anyone can have a different view and any view that you desire and seems reasonable---you function with a limited mind, and you have a limited knowledge base, and you are brash, overconfident, anti-intellectual in a peculiar way, and uniquely focussed on one attribute or aptitude of mind: the 'rational' approach. To speak about what I mean by this approach would mean to open up the conversation into wider areas within philosophy and the history of ideas of which, it seems, you are unaware and not interested in.

Clarity indeed ...

Clarity always means the reduction of complexity, so long as the complexity is needless. You revel in needless complexity because that is precisely what allows you to indulge your fantasies.

As for conversation into wide areas within philosophy - it's not that I am not interested in it, but that I believe that the prerequisite for doing so is precisely the rational approach you fault me for obsessing over. I don't see the value in initiating such a conversation with someone who quite obviously lacks any notion of what the rational approach is. And moreover, doesn't have a clue how a conversation is supposed to work, and thinks that the history of ideas is some adamantine wall of text one can wield against anyone who threatens their delusions.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

The interesting thing about your 'style' is that there is no argument (or perspective, or idea) that you cannot defeat. You simply act as if you have defeated it, and pretend you have. That is all that is needed. I've noticed it enacted by people here, chiefly by Quinn who is the master of it. I think it arises out of a philosophical grandiosity and a grandiosity arising out of a form of hubris. I also think it is a mistake. So, that is really the only comment I have to make on your interesting post. You put some time into it, and that is appreciated. You asked me to 'decide to answer your questions', I did, and you have offered me your response. We're done now, right?

[Bobo]

Maybe it's just the set up for a strawman fallacy where you misrepresent the opponent's opinion. There's some space for doubt if it is a fallacy or not when the argument isn't well presented. I say that because I think I saw this happening too, I recall the word unconscious being used binarily. I think it may be a form of overcompensation of a philosophy that has propositions like 'things do not inherently exist' and 'there's no inherent self', such propositions taken in a binary form can be turned around into a denial of existence.