Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
User avatar
Tomas
Posts: 4328
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Post by Tomas »

Samadhi wrote:
Tomas wrote:You too? Brokenhead was a manager of an Asian art gallery, in New York, too.

The odds.
Really? Maybe I knew him.
Will you get a life already?
You were at your best when you were Samadhi. The Crucible debate. Too bad David banned you, really. Oh well.

Maestro is gone now, too. He's another that altered a couple thought processes via blockages that unhinged back in the early 1970s. It's good to be alive.
Don't run to your death
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Post by guest_of_logic »

guest_of_logic: and that this meaning could be said to "exist" in the same independent sense in which mathematical and logical truths exist

Dennis: Doesn't exist independant of mind.
My response to that is implied in the rest of my sentence (which you didn't quote): "i.e. that it holds regardless of whether it is currently the subject of a conscious thought". In other words, I would say that the apprehension of meaning depends on a mind, but that the meaning itself, as an abstract entity like a mathematical or logical truth, does not.

By the way, it's spelt "independent".
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Post by David Quinn »

guest_of_logic wrote:
guest_of_logic: and that this meaning could be said to "exist" in the same independent sense in which mathematical and logical truths exist
Dennis: Doesn't exist independant of mind.
My response to that is implied in the rest of my sentence (which you didn't quote): "i.e. that it holds regardless of whether it is currently the subject of a conscious thought". In other words, I would say that the apprehension of meaning depends on a mind, but that the meaning itself, as an abstract entity like a mathematical or logical truth, does not.

This line of thinking doesn't work. Meaning is purely a conceptual creation that involves the mind linking things together from a particular perspective. Since this linking together is a mental act, meaning exists entirely within the conceptual construction and nowhere else. A logical truth, by contrast, extends out from the conceptualizing mind and embraces all points in the Universe out of logical necessity. It always remains true regardless of what a person is perceiving or thinking.

1+1=2 is true in all points of the Universe out of logical necessity. The meaning of the word "fish" or "politics" is localized to the mind that conceives of it and can disappear or change in an instant.

One person looks at a hinge on the door and sees a useful joint that connects the door to the wall. Another person might see it as an interesting example of engineering. Yet another might see it as a musical instrument that has a nice sqeak, or as a lump of metal that could be melted down and used elsewhere. An ant might see it as a bridge. A spider might see it as a convenient place to attach its web. So what is its meaning, really? It depends on your point of view.

-
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Post by guest_of_logic »

David,
David Quinn wrote:
guest_of_logic wrote:
guest_of_logic: and that this meaning could be said to "exist" in the same independent sense in which mathematical and logical truths exist
Dennis: Doesn't exist independant of mind.
My response to that is implied in the rest of my sentence (which you didn't quote): "i.e. that it holds regardless of whether it is currently the subject of a conscious thought". In other words, I would say that the apprehension of meaning depends on a mind, but that the meaning itself, as an abstract entity like a mathematical or logical truth, does not.

This line of thinking doesn't work. Meaning is purely a conceptual creation that involves the mind linking things together from a particular perspective. Since this linking together is a mental act, meaning exists entirely within the conceptual construction and nowhere else. A logical truth, by contrast, extends out from the conceptualizing mind and embraces all points in the Universe out of logical necessity. It always remains true regardless of what a person is perceiving or thinking.

1+1=2 is true in all points of the Universe out of logical necessity. The meaning of the word "fish" or "politics" is localized to the mind that conceives of it and can disappear or change in an instant.
Even if I agreed that it were a "localized" (why use the American spelling?) meaning, such a localised meaning can very easily be reframed as a universal/necessary truth of the same type as 1+1=2. Can you see how?

From that universalisation, it's easy to see how meaning itself (independent of the universalising truth in which it is couched) can be regarded as mind-independent, in the same way that 1+1=2 is.
David Quinn wrote:One person looks at a hinge on the door and sees a useful joint that connects the door to the wall. Another person might see it as an interesting example of engineering. Yet another might see it as a musical instrument that has a nice sqeak, or as a lump of metal that could be melted down and used elsewhere. An ant might see it as a bridge. A spider might see it as a convenient place to attach its web. So what is its meaning, really? It depends on your point of view.
Doesn't all of this point to a richness of meaning rather than a paucity? I definitely don't get "meaningless" from all of that.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Post by David Quinn »

guest_of_logic wrote:Even if I agreed that it were a "localized" (why use the American spelling?) meaning, such a localised meaning can very easily be reframed as a universal/necessary truth of the same type as 1+1=2. Can you see how?
I can't, no. But feel free to give it a try.

From that universalisation, it's easy to see how meaning itself (independent of the universalising truth in which it is couched) can be regarded as mind-independent, in the same way that 1+1=2 is.

A particular logical truth, such as 1+1=2, is true for all minds and all perspectives, whereas a particular meaning is dependant upon a particular mind and a particular perspective. As such, logical truths possess an objective quality that meanings lack.

guest_of_logic wrote:
David Quinn wrote:One person looks at a hinge on the door and sees a useful joint that connects the door to the wall. Another person might see it as an interesting example of engineering. Yet another might see it as a musical instrument that has a nice sqeak, or as a lump of metal that could be melted down and used elsewhere. An ant might see it as a bridge. A spider might see it as a convenient place to attach its web. So what is its meaning, really? It depends on your point of view.
Doesn't all of this point to a richness of meaning rather than a paucity? I definitely don't get "meaningless" from all of that.
It points to the diversity of subjective meanings and the lack of objective meaning.

-
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Post by Dennis Mahar »

You were referring to a hinge Laird.

The truth of a hinge is that it is produced out of causes/ conditions and subject to causes/conditions it will disappear.
It has no absolute existence.
It is ultimately meaningless.
It is empty of inherent existence.

What we're looking for is stable data.

We can't say a hinge doesn't exist, we want to know how it exists.

Everything in the world that we conceive of and experience is related to the human mind.
Piaget notes,
a child first constructs a concept related to the world and then projects it out into the world.The concept is externalised so that it appears to be a perceptually given object or property, independent of the subject's own mental activity.
The phenomena that we percieve in the external world appears to exist independently of our perceptions and conceptions.
Believing in a world independent of mind is the distortion, even if it appears that way.
Does the world in fact exist the way it appears or is its mode of existence incongruous with its mode of appearance.
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Post by cousinbasil »

Our good guest wrote: From there it's possible to contemplate more and more complex meanings and see that exactly the same can be said of them too, even of those which at first glance we'd term "personal" or "subjective" - I think there's a very good argument to be made that all meaning of all types is implicit in reality and that we simply "access" it. The perspective entailed by this argument is in total contrast to the view that "it's all empty and meaningless" - on the contrary, it's all utterly brimming with an infinitude of meaning.
This of course is a heartening thing to hear uttered. When I have this web site open and read something heartening, I look over my shoulder in knee-jerk fashion, as if waiting for the salvo of objection that is sure to follow.

Your observation is in concurrence with my thought that, for example, mathematical ideas are discovered rather than invented. You take it further.

Here is my timid support for these thoughts, Laird. Let us take the example of a newborn being held by a young parent. The meaning flooding that new parent is much more like the discovery you describe than an invention being imparted, consciously or otherwise. There is no one meaning, there is rather and endless flow of meaning. What's more, the "infinitude" of which you speak becomes evident as that infant becomes a child then a youngster, then a teenager, then an adult. Uncle Brokie might say "he has my nose" while cousinbasil might declare "his eyes are blue like mine." There is no ultimate meaning here, but no lack of it either, as each of these relatives might buy the little bugger a savings bond.
Dennis wrote:Doesn't exist independant of mind.
Follow the bouncing ball please.
Well, what does? BTW, the correct spelling is "independent." Borrow Donna's "Strunk and Wagner."
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Post by guest_of_logic »

guest_of_logic: Even if I agreed that it were a "localized" (why use the American spelling?) meaning, such a localised meaning can very easily be reframed as a universal/necessary truth of the same type as 1+1=2. Can you see how?

David: I can't, no. But feel free to give it a try.
It's simple - it can be framed like this: "There is a possible world in which a particular person at a particular time apprehends the particular meaning [insert 'localised' meaning here]". Now, the statement is a universal and necessary truth, because, out of all possible worlds, such a possibility necessarily exists.

Going further (which, depending on how 'localised' the meaning is, we won't always be able to do), we can frame it as: "There is a possible world in which multiple people at a multiple times apprehend the particular meaning [insert 'localised' meaning here]". This universalises the truth - and the meaning - further, and separates it further from any individual mind.

Going even further (which, again, we won't always be able to do), we can frame it as: "There is a possible world in which all people all the time apprehend the particular meaning [insert 'localised' meaning here]". This universalises the truth and the meaning as much as it can be universalised without stripping away references to particulars.
guest_of_logic: From that universalisation, it's easy to see how meaning itself (independent of the universalising truth in which it is couched) can be regarded as mind-independent, in the same way that 1+1=2 is.

David: A particular logical truth, such as 1+1=2, is true for all minds and all perspectives, whereas a particular meaning is dependant upon a particular mind and a particular perspective. As such, logical truths possess an objective quality that meanings lack.
As I've demonstrated above, though, "localised" meanings can be turned into universal logical truths. Granted, given that they refer to particulars, they are not as truly universal as such logical truths as 1+1=2, but here's where I can make good on what you just quoted me as saying - we can take the universalisation above even further, by stripping away all references to particulars (except that of a possible world), and simply write:

"There is a possible world in which there exists a meaning [insert 'localised' meaning here]".

Going the whole hog, we can arguably even strip out even reference to a possible word, and simply write:

"There exists a meaning [insert 'localised' meaning here]".

As for objectivity, I deal with that in my elaboration further below.

I think that perhaps Dennis has (and perhaps you have too) misunderstood what I mean by mind-independent. I'm not trying to argue that context, including the context of the mind in which the meaning is apprehended, is always irrelevant to the informational content of the meaning, but that much should be obvious - I'm not an idiot. Instead, by "mind-independent" I mean that:
1. meaning, consisting in information, can be seen as existing independently in the abstract, regardless of whether it is currently being apprehended by a mind, and that
2. the informational content of all meaning (that can be seen as existing in the abstract) is implicate in reality - in other words, that minds do not "create" meaning but instead "apprehend" it, just as minds do not "create" the truth that 1+1=2, but rather "apprehend" it.
David: One person looks at a hinge on the door and sees a useful joint that connects the door to the wall. Another person might see it as an interesting example of engineering. Yet another might see it as a musical instrument that has a nice sqeak, or as a lump of metal that could be melted down and used elsewhere. An ant might see it as a bridge. A spider might see it as a convenient place to attach its web. So what is its meaning, really? It depends on your point of view.

guest_of_logic: Doesn't all of this point to a richness of meaning rather than a paucity? I definitely don't get "meaningless" from all of that.

David: It points to the diversity of subjective meanings and the lack of objective meaning.
I phrased my question as I did because I'm concerned with the repetition on this forum of the notion that everything is "meaningless". Can you agree that this multiplicity of meanings is exactly the opposite of "meaningless"?

In any case, I'll elaborate on my line of thought a little more and maybe you'll be able to follow it. It blurs the distinction between "subjective" and "objective" meaning by suggesting that even apparently "subjective" meanings are objectively implicit in reality. I'm not intending to reduce the distinction between these two words ("subjective" and "objective") to meaninglessness, though - I can still see a role for "subjective meaning" as referring to a meaning that, in terms I'm about to elaborate on below, has not been "accessed" by more than one person (or that has only been "accessed" by a very few people). Nevertheless, that "subjective" meaning is in another sense "objectively implicit" in reality - it is an "access" of that objectively implicit meaning. Anyhow, I'll get on with the elaboration, trying to keep it in terms that you might be comfortable with.

You will, I expect, agree that we can describe events and objects, and that some of those descriptions are statements of meaning. Now, I hope that you will agree that there are objective ways to make statements of meaning about an object or event. I'm thinking, for example, of such an objective statement of meaning as: "The object on the ground over there absorbs all wavelengths of light visible to the human eye except red, meaning that a normally functioning (i.e. non-blind-or-colour-blind) human eye will perceive it as red in colour". This, I think we can both agree, is an objective, mind-independent statement of meaning. I think, too, that we can both agree that it is, as I have been trying to argue, a meaning that is implicit in reality - it is true and meaningful regardless of whether any mind is currently apprehending it.

Now, we can add in elements to make it more subjective. We can, for example, add in the element that the object was used for a time as a cup by a particular family. So, we can make a new statement of meaning: "The object on the ground over there was used as a cup by this family, so that it is associated (a type of meaning) in objective reality with the drinking of water, and that by virtue of their perspective, this family have access to that meaning". Here, through the reframing, we can see that even a subjective meaning ("red object means 'drink water'") can be seen as one that is objectively implicit in reality i.e. in the reality of what has occurred in the past between objects in reality; in this case, between the red object and the family - the family simply "accesses" (or "accedes to") the implicit meaning rather than "creates" it.

We can apply this process, or at least an extended variation of it, to any level of apparent subjectivity of meaning, framing that meaning so as to make clear its objective implicitness in reality. Take, for example, the higher meaning that an artist associates with his/her artwork. We can account for the objective implicitness of the simpler (let's call them "lower-order") meanings out of which the more abstract (let's call them "higher-order") meanings are formed in the exact same way in which we accounted for the association by the family of the red object with the drinking of water: an objective association exists with some object or event in external reality, from which the person (or other people who later communicate this meaning to him/her) "take" meaning.

Now, we can account for the objective implicitness of the higher-order meanings as follows: once the lower-order meanings are established within people's minds, they become part of a reality that is analogous to the "physical" reality in which the red object existed: a "conceptual" reality of lower-order meanings. In the same way that these lower-order meanings are implicit in the objective associations between events and objects in "physical" reality, so the higher-order meanings are implicit in the objective associations between lower-order meanings in "conceptual" reality.

So, the artist "apprehends" (or "notices" or "recognises") an association between the lower-order meanings of two words in his/her poem (an association that is objectively implicit between those words), and chooses that as the meaning that he/she wishes to convey to other people. In pleasing support of - or, at the very least, lack of disagreement with - my argument that this meaning is objectively implicit in reality is the fact that, very often, other people will "access" the same meaning that the artist intended to communicate.

And so ends my little sketch of my thesis. It took a little longer to explain than I had anticipated, but hopefully it's clear now. As with much of what I post to GF, I post in the spirit of offering an alternative to what has been framed as "the" way to see things: that reality is ultimately meaningless; my argument here is intended to show that this is not necessarily the only way to view things, that it is possible to instead see reality as brimming with embedded meaning.

Even if it has no value to anyone else, I hope that at least cousinbasil appreciates it. Enjoy.

[Edited to clarify the red-object-as-cup example]
Last edited by guest_of_logic on Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Post by cousinbasil »

DQ wrote:A particular logical truth, such as 1+1=2, is true for all minds and all perspectives, whereas a particular meaning is dependant upon a particular mind and a particular perspective. As such, logical truths possess an objective quality that meanings lack.
I will go you one further, David. It is precisely this so-called lack of meaning one encounters when first discovering a logical truth that hinders learning or understanding that truth. One need only observe the glazed-over eyes of students in a math class, especially the female students.

In order to learn, one applies. In applying, one assigns meaning. Meanings change constantly - it is the very persistence of a logical truth through these changes that makes such a truth so powerful. By itself, any abstract logical truth has no power.

It is only when it becomes apparent that the truth is there for everyone that the assignation of meaning begins. The accountant, for example, had to be convinced of the permanent truths involved in the process of addition and subtraction before 1+1=2 became $1+$1=$2.

I am with Laird in seeing the infinitude of meanings rather than a paucity.
User avatar
Alex Jacob
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Post by Alex Jacob »

And, with little fanfare as would ill-suit the moment, The Alexians and the Ass of God (I actually wanted to change the username but Dan, humorlessly, would not allow it), also cast their votes for a plethora of meaning. Though they fully understand the 'utility' of a philosophical structure that proposes-enforces 'emptiness & meaningless', it is an unattainable abstraction. Let's not reify it, m'kay?
Ni ange, ni bête
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Post by Dennis Mahar »

empty means arises out of causes/conditions.
meaningless means ultimately of no account.

what arises out of causes/conditions has no absolute existence.

will you read with comprehension please.

your problem is you have not glimpsed absolute.

if you think this world is meaningful.

you are stark raving fucking mad.

get off the piss.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Post by Kunga »

there is no piss
there is no pot
there is nothing that is not

all that is
is is is is
even that that
isn't is isn't

all this nothingness
has the same mother
a love child born
without a father

there is only nothing
but it looks like something
like a dream....

now forget all i say as true
conceptual thoughts
are like glue

break the chain
that keeps you bound
there is no you
to be found

you were born into this place
but your mother is
empty space

empty space is all that is
phenomena like a bubble
awareness of this state of mind
will keep you out of trouble

ha ha ha
keep you out of trouble ?
trouble is my middle name
and so i end this dribble
User avatar
Alex Jacob
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Post by Alex Jacob »

...you are stark raving fucking mad.
Like a Mad Hatter? Is that what you mean?

I have noticed 2 interesting 'touchy points' with you. One is I think the terror and the pain of facing dissolution.

Another seems to be...possibly an inability or confusion about reconciling competing and conlicting meanings (?) that exist in this 'crazy fucking world' (which is implied though you didn't edge those words up together as I am now doing).
empty means arises out of causes/conditions.
meaningless means ultimately of no account.
Myself, I have always had very much the opposite sense, at least in relation to my own self, my own being: 'everything' always has meaning, and everything seems to be 'of account'.

What I am not sure that YOU understand is the implications for the ideas (values, anti-values) you preach. If it really is of no account, there is no use at all in doing anything, being anything, achieving anything. But no one who preaches these ideas lives valuelessly or meaninglessly. And no one comes to hear the teaching because they desire valuelessness or meaninglessness. Quite the opposite!

The idea of 'meaninglessness and valuelessness' is, it seems to me, a kind of meditation (an unlinking from) one can engage in to put in a new perspective one's life. It is an abstract idea that can be used like a medicine. It can I think really sober someone up (and this is how David expressed it). But no man can live, in fact, without values and some sort of meaningfullness. It is simply impossible.

So, the whole argument seems to fall on its face.
Ni ange, ni bête
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Post by Kunga »

what does the face
of unborn space
appear to be ?

it is he
it is you
it is all
in this zoo

connect it together
unlink the chain
it falls to
the ground
the ground
of eternity
which is nowhere
to be found

it is everywhere
yet nowhere....
concepts fuck yo
mind
deconceptualize the broadband
integrate
sublime
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Post by Dan Rowden »

The point, good people, is not one of the richness or paucity of meaning present in things. The point, the actual point here, is that things inherently lack meaning (or meaninglessness) until it is assigned by a discriminating consciousness. Beyond that, whether ones further sees paucity or richness is entirely a personal position, like half empty or half full glasses.

To paraphrase Nietzsche: there are no meaningful phenomena, only meaningful interpretations of phenomena.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Post by Dennis Mahar »

So, the whole argument seems to fall on its face.
So, that's the next big move cheetah?

(gaming the ol' Bob's a bit rough even by your standards)
User avatar
Alex Jacob
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Post by Alex Jacob »

Dan, though much appreciated, I believe I can say with authority that your clarification was unnecessary. It is understood.

I would retort: meaning arises with conceptual beings because Meaning, like mathematical relationships (a substratum of logic) is 'part-and-parcel' of the cosmos, the manifestation, if you'll permit me such a term.

The part that has me stymied is how to explain Dennis Mahar. Is he also part of the 'manifestation' and do his analogues also arise necessarily?

Oh God Oh God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Ni ange, ni bête
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Oh God Oh God, why hast thou forsaken me?
He hasn't.
You're here for potty training.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Post by Kunga »

Dennis Mahar wrote:
Oh God Oh God, why hast thou forsaken me?
He hasn't.
You're here for potty training.
He's been shitting on you
like a newspaper
so be happy !
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Now for the news.
The good news:
its empty.
The bad news:
its empty.
The news behind the news:
its empty that its empty.
empty is empty.
User avatar
Alex Jacob
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Post by Alex Jacob »

Potties have no inherent existence and I assert they exist only in your head.

And if they may be said to 'exist' there, still they always seem to me 'empty & meaningless.

;-)
Ni ange, ni bête
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Post by guest_of_logic »

Dan Rowden wrote:The point, the actual point here, is that things inherently lack meaning (or meaninglessness) until it is assigned by a discriminating consciousness.
Dan, that "actual" point is the exact same one I spent hundreds of words outlining an argument against in my previous post. Do you happen to have a specific rebuttal to it?
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Human beings define the objects and events of the world from the context of human being.
Their very existence, as we define them, depends on our conceptual designations.
Not saying they don't exist.
How they exist.

Things do not show up self-defined.
They are bombarded with significance.

They appear to have independent existence, exist intrinsically and have absolute existence.
Factually, they exist in relation to human being.

What object can be found that exists in its own nature, independent of conceptual designation?
Every thing is empty of an intrinsic identity and that emptiness is its essential nature.

When phenomena are not closely examined they appear to exist in their own nature, independent of conceptual constructs.
Objects exist relatively to the theory laden mind experiencing them.
The theories are handed down generationally.

Each conceptual construct is an artificial chopping up of the continuous spread and flow of existence in a different way.

All that constitutes relative existence.

If one has not accessed absolute by way of facing brutal facts,
please,
permit the notion, as a possibility,
that there is existence that is independent of all verbal and conceptual designation.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Post by Dan Rowden »

Alex Jacob wrote:Dan, though much appreciated, I believe I can say with authority that your clarification was unnecessary. It is understood.
Oh, no, no my old friend, it isn't understood at all. If it really were there'd be no further discussion/debate, other than betwixt the aesthetics who can never stop getting off on things.
I would retort: meaning arises with conceptual beings because Meaning, like mathematical relationships (a substratum of logic) is 'part-and-parcel' of the cosmos, the manifestation, if you'll permit me such a term.
Anything that exists at all is part and parcel of the Cosmos, so what you said looks like a bit of redundant, poetic fluff to me. But then, you aesthetics just can't help but throw pretty colours over the obvious whenever you get the chance. Fair enough, I suppose, up to the point it becomes obfuscation.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Post by Dan Rowden »

guest_of_logic wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:The point, the actual point here, is that things inherently lack meaning (or meaninglessness) until it is assigned by a discriminating consciousness.
Dan, that "actual" point is the exact same one I spent hundreds of words outlining an argument against in my previous post. Do you happen to have a specific rebuttal to it?
Aww Mum! Laird's making me read one of his posts again! Make him stop!
Locked