The problem with perspectivism

@hue-man,

nameless wrote:

Yes. If I were using a word that is right from the dictionary, I wouldn't use the semi-quotes. You seem, so far, to understand the reasoning for their use.

But you do use words that are right from the dictionary. Here's an example:

Quote:

'Metaphysics' (as well as quantum physics) demonstrates that the "substance of 'this' world" IS a "mental 'exercise'"!
It does reveal the reality that 'rocks' are not something 'out there' as naively thought, but that there is only perceived 'substance'/rock, found only in the mind. There is no 'out there' as 'naively' conceived, there is Here!, Mind!
We learn much about 'rocks' through all sorts of disciplines/avenues of investigation and examination.
All contribute to the complete description of a 'rock'.

"Metaphysics", "this", "exercise", "substance", "out" (and "there"), and "rock" are all in the dictionary. What possible other meaning did you intend for "rock" here? Are you simply trying to indicate that our conception of "rock" is flawed? We should approach all objects of the universe as some sort of... mental exercise, instead of approaching them as real objects? That is, if I were to look at a rock, I shouldn't consider it an object apart from mind, but a constituent of the mind, a constituent of this "one" perspective you speak of? Am I on the right track?

nameless wrote:

Also, there is a new world, we are on the cusp of a Golden Age of Consciousness, a whole new 'common' (like the hump of a bell curve) world view of 'reality' (wiggle room). New world views require attendant new language to describe it. Not 'cause and effect' but mutual arising features of the same event

This seems awfully exciting. I just wish I knew what in the world you were referring to. :bigsmile: What does "Golden Age of Consciousness" even mean? That, somehow, we're going to transcend our current consciousnesses (perspectives), and come to some sort of new... Perspective? And by "we", you're referring to only humans, or is the lowly earthworm also entering this "Golden Age of Consciousness"?

And, wait, our understanding of cause and effect is flawed? I suppose you're hinting at the non-linearity of time, again. Your influence being the new findings of quantum mechanics?

Quote:

I use that when intending an 'ultimate', as opposed to the near infinite 'realities' of unique individual Conscious Perspectives, us, that are features of 'Reality'. (semis for emphasis)

Reality, to you, equals the sum total of all "Individual Conscious Perspectives". This is why you use semi-quotes with "reality". Gotcha.

Quote:

"The complete universe, at any moment, is fully defined/described as the sum-total of all

Perspectives." -Book of Fudd (4:20)

So, you believe there is no universe outside of all conscious perspectives? What about those parts of the universe that aren't being consciously perceived?

Quote:

Because it is 'One' (wiggle room and emphasis)! The sum-total of all of us!
I find that this unique critter also deserves a respectful capital 'P'.

Why does the sum total equal one? Why not two, three, or four? The Christians would probably love you if you said three.

Quote:

So the old 'you're perspective' becomes obsolete and youPerspective defines both the Perspective to which I refer, without the inherent linguistic and egoic fallacy of a something possessing something, and points to the fact that we are Perspectives, our 'original face'.

Why is the acknowledgement of "self" egotistical to you?

Quote:

('Conscious Perspective' aka 'Soul').

I've never seen "Soul" used in this context. Soul is generally used as a metaphysical notion describing the essence of being. There is no evidence of soul, and every definition I've seen seems illogical.

Quote:

Perhaps my usage of those words will become clearer on the thoughtful reading of my posts. Sometimes a 'word' just isn't large enough to contain a particular concept.

I fear you are misinterpreted quite often, and this is why I wanted to begin discussing this. If you wish to communicate more effectively, you must attempt to use the syntax and semantics defined by our linguistics. The further you stray from convention, as much as this may make you feel enlightened, the further you stray from effective communication. Your understanding simply cannot be shared unless you make the effort to accommodate those who aren't willing to/can't decipher your every word. A word is not always large enough to contain a particular concept, but luckily, at least in this language, we have many other words to help cover our bases.

Quote:

I hope that this helps a bit. No "scare" semi-quotes here! *__-
Please, inquire anythime you feel a bit .. frustrated... with my honest attempts.

It has. Thanks for your time.

@hue-man,

Kudos for the thread, it's an interesting one, I only wish my home internet were working so I had more time to debate this rather than being on the library internet.
Admittedly there is something of a logical fallacy to Nietzchean skepticism in that it is rather self-refuting. However I do think it's possible to see it in a way that is not always self-refuting, if it is applied merely to yourself then there is some value to be found from it as a method of reasserting what you believe to be true through a process of tracing the genealogical roots of your beliefs if that is possible. However to apply this process to others is not really appropriate as it has little or no empirical basis to it; it's merely an inductive methodology therefore it has no more validity as an objective methodology than Cartesianism, at least with regard to other people. I think in some sense it is more valid for using on yourself than Cartesianism as it does take into consideration the external world rather than being based wholly on the senses.
I can see how it is impossible to abide by in the Analytic tradition as the tradition seems to rely on abiding by a coherent world view, and for it to be coherent you have to believe it to be true. I'm still slightly on the fence on this matter. Little pushed for time so my reply may be somewhat senseless! Apologies if it is.

@Nameless 23232,

Nameless_23232;72676 wrote:

Kudos for the thread, it's an interesting one, I only wish my home internet were working so I had more time to debate this rather than being on the library internet.
Admittedly there is something of a logical fallacy to Nietzchean skepticism in that it is rather self-refuting. However I do think it's possible to see it in a way that is not always self-refuting, if it is applied merely to yourself then there is some value to be found from it as a method of reasserting what you believe to be true through a process of tracing the genealogical roots of your beliefs if that is possible. However to apply this process to others is not really appropriate as it has little or no empirical basis to it; it's merely an inductive methodology therefore it has no more validity as an objective methodology than Cartesianism, at least with regard to other people. I think in some sense it is more valid for using on yourself than Cartesianism as it does take into consideration the external world rather than being based wholly on the senses.
I can see how it is impossible to abide by in the Analytic tradition as the tradition seems to rely on abiding by a coherent world view, and for it to be coherent you have to believe it to be true. I'm still slightly on the fence on this matter. Little pushed for time so my reply may be somewhat senseless! Apologies if it is.

Imagine! Relying on a coherent world view. Who would ever do such a crazy thing! What has philosophy come to?!

@hue-man,

Talking about an individual perspective makes as much sense as talking about a private language; the absolute uniqueness puts it (or rather that part of a Self's perspective) beyond the pale of communication and knowledge.

@jgweed,

jgweed;72696 wrote:

Talking about an individual perspective makes as much sense as talking about a private language; the absolute uniqueness puts it (or rather that part of a Self's perspective) beyond the pale of communication and knowledge.

But, I feel, that is all there is in human communications. E.g. Reaching consensus and creating via that consensus.

Rich

@richrf,

richrf;72711 wrote:

But, I feel, that is all there is in human communications. E.g. Reaching consensus and creating via that consensus.

Rich

The Nazi's reached a consensus, and wow, did they create! The best way to confirm one's view is simply to ignore any negative evidence. Cognitive scientists call that, confirmation bias. It nearly always works. But I needn't tell you that. You practically invented the idea.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;72715 wrote:

The Nazi's reached a consensus, and wow, did they create! The best way to confirm one's view is simply to ignore any negative evidence. Cognitive scientists call that, confirmation bias. It nearly always works. But I needn't tell you that. You practically invented the idea.

Yep, they sure did, and they had their own scientists to provide all the evidence they needed. And those who didn't believe in the Truth? Well, they were either executed or fled to countries who were more tolerant of different viewpoints.

Rich

@richrf,

richrf;72742 wrote:

Yep, they sure did, and they had their own scientists to provide all the evidence they needed. And those who didn't believe in the Truth? Well, they were either executed or fled to countries who were more tolerant of different viewpoints.

Rich

Yes, so consensus is not so wonderful, and consensus is no guarantee of the truth. Or even of the Truth (whatever that may be). You seem to be another one who likes to put capital letters where they don't belong. Apparently, though, you are not tolerant of the Nazi perspective. Or am I mistaken about that? And I happen not to be tolerant of the universal tolerance perspective. But you should be tolerant of intolerance. After all, that's just another perspective, isn't it. I rather resent your intolerance of intolerance. As Mr. King asked, "Why can't we all just get along?"

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;72761 wrote:

Yes, so consensus is not so wonderful, and consensus is no guarantee of the truth.

I never suggested that consensus was wonderful. Only, that is what we do as human beings. As for truth, that is your belief not mine. You are looking for something that is independent of observers. Good luck in observing it.

Rich

@richrf,

richrf;72771 wrote:

I never suggested that consensus was wonderful. Only, that is what we do as human beings. As for truth, that is your belief not mine. You are looking for something that is independent of observers. Good luck in observing it.

Rich

You think that consensus guarantees the truth. Or do you think it is true that there is no truth. Come to think of it, just what do you think? Apparently you think that perspectivism is true. Don't you? Or is that just your perspective? Well, then, it must be true that it is just your perspective. What you don't realize is true is that when you state anything, anything at all, you are stating what you think is true. That is how statements work. To state that the cat is on the mat is equivalent to stating that the statement, "The cat is on the mat" is true. If you disagree with that, you cannot make any statements at all.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;72810 wrote:

You think that consensus guarantees the truth. Or do you think it is true that there is no truth. Come to think of it, just what do you think? Apparently you think that perspectivism is true. Don't you? Or is that just your perspective? Well, then, it must be true that it is just your perspective. What you don't realize is true is that when you state anything, anything at all, you are stating what you think is true. That is how statements work. To state that the cat is on the mat is equivalent to stating that the statement, "The cat is on the mat" is true. If you disagree with that, you cannot make any statements at all.

Sorry. We are just not communicating.

Rich

@richrf,

richrf;72815 wrote:

Sorry. We are just not communicating.

Rich

Of course we are. You think that because we disagree we are not communicating? That is a very peculiar point of view indeed. When the head of the prison said to the character, played by Paul Newman, while he was beating Newman up, "what we have here is a failure to communicate", do you think he was right? If only they could communicate everything would be hunky-dory?

@hue-man,

I don't think he means "communicating" literally. He's more than likely using "communicating" as a synonym for "understanding". He's basically saying there's misunderstanding in your conversation.

I would have to agree.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;72848 wrote:

I don't think he means "communicating" literally. He's more than likely using "communicating" as a synonym for "understanding". He's basically saying there's misunderstanding in your conversation.

I would have to agree.

What is the misunderstanding? I think I understand him very well. That is why I think he is confused. Suppose you say what the misunderstanding is supposed to be. Both of you say there is one. Why don't either of you tell be what it is? If you know, of course.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;72819 wrote:

Of course we are. You think that because we disagree we are not communicating? That is a very peculiar point of view indeed. When the head of the prison said to the character, played by Paul Newman, while he was beating Newman up, "what we have here is a failure to communicate", do you think he was right? If only they could communicate everything would be hunky-dory?

Nope. Trust me. You are not following what I am saying. It may be my poor description of what I am saying.

Rich

@richrf,

richrf;72856 wrote:

Nope. Trust me. You are not following what I am saying. It may be my poor description of what I am saying.

Rich

Yes, it must then be that if I disagree with you, then it follows I do not understand you. Is that your view? If not, then maybe you had better say what it is that you think I do not understand.

@kennethamy,

Hi,

Let's give a rest for a while. It is not that important. Maybe we can come back to it at a later time.

Rich

@hue-man,

Nameless,

Whenever you have time, could you comment on my post #121? Thanks.

@richrf,

richrf;72934 wrote:

Hi,

Let's give a rest for a while. It is not that important. Maybe we can come back to it at a later time.

Rich

When you say what is false, I will let you know. You need not reply. And you need not say what is false, either.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;72667 wrote:

nameless wrote:

Yes. If I were using a word that is right from the dictionary, I wouldn't use the semi-quotes. You seem, so far, to understand the reasoning for their use.

But you do use words that are right from the dictionary.

Well, all the words that I use are in the dictionary.
I don't understand why you are arguing with me about my usage of language. I thought that you asked a respectful question (hence the response) and asked for information so that you may understand. Now you appear to be getting argumentative, why? Do you think that I'm being dishonest? That I would take all this time crafting meaningful and thoughtful responses just to promote some ego image game, or downright lie?
Whats really going on?

I'll answer this one question, until I feel better about continuing;

Quote:

Quote:
Quote: nameless;
All contribute to the complete description of a 'rock'.

...and "rock" are all in the dictionary. What possible other meaning did you intend for "rock" here?

The definition that I offered for a rock varied from (and improved upon) the notion of a rock as presented in a dictionary of your choice. As the definition varied/added to the dictionary, the 'rock' that I am presenting is not the same notion of a rock as found in the dictionary. It is a whole different critter. That was the reason for the semi-quotes around the 'rock' that I was describing.
Perhaps you might consuly the dictionary regarding commonly accepted usages for the semi-quote. Perhaps that might help. That would cover much of what you ask. And we are off on a tangent hi-way anyway. I feel that I have sufficiently put forth effort to aid the understanding of someone who wishes to understand. I don't mind elucidating, but I need justify myself to no man.
And, with that, my discussion on my usage of language. I hope that you can get past the irritants, to the meat.
"The growth of a soul in man is as that of a pearl in an oyster, a result of irritation." -Plato

Quote:

Are you simply trying to indicate that our conception of "rock" is flawed?

All perceptions are incomplete. I offered a complete (how's that, like italics better?) definition that is not based on any single incomplete perception/Perspective.

Quote:

We should approach all objects of the universe as some sort of... mental exercise, instead of approaching them as real objects?

The question is too 'loaded' for me to respond.
I'm not saying that you 'should' do anything.

Quote:

That is, if I were to look at a rock, I shouldn't consider it an object apart from mind, but a constituent of the mind, a constituent of this "one" perspective you speak of? Am I on the right track?

There are many Perspectives. We each are 'one' unique Conscious Perspective (of 'One Consciousness').
Read some of Bishop Berkeley's writings to get a bit of perspective of what I'm saying. The only evidence available, all of it, is that 'things' exist in the mind. A rock is a feature of the observed Universe.

Quote:

This seems awfully exciting.

Is that my sarcasm detector going off?

Quote:

And, wait, our understanding of cause and effect is flawed?

Yep, that's my sarcasm detector going off...

Quote:

I suppose you're hinting at the non-linearity of time, again.

That would be an oxymoron. Linearity is time.

Quote:

Your influence being the new findings of quantum mechanics?

If you are asking this so that you can argue with me, my response is;
Nah, I was influenced by Chinese fortune cookies!
I hope that I am misinterpreting the 'attitude' that I am perceiving. You'll let me know?

The evidence is here, discover it and interpret it as you must. As I said, every Perspective is unique and there is it's polar opposite.

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:"The complete universe, at any moment, is fully defined/described as the sum-total of all Perspectives." -Book of Fudd (4:20)

So, you believe there is no universe outside of all conscious perspectives?

No, I 'think' so.

Quote:

What about those parts of the universe that aren't being consciously perceived?

Show me the evidence that there are any such "parts of the universe", beyond your imagination, that is.

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:Because it is 'One' (wiggle room and emphasis)! The sum-total of all of us!
I find that this unique critter also deserves a respectful capital 'P'.

Why does the sum total equal one? Why not two, three, or four? The Christians would probably love you if you said three.

To fully define anything requires including the context of that 'thing'. The full context of anything, required for a complete definition/description, requires the entire Universe in said description. Everything is necessary to define anything in this tapestry of moments...
That seems to add up to 'one' from here.

Quote:

Why is the acknowledgement of "self" egotistical to you?

That is ego, thinking oneself as 'autonomous', an 'island', 'in here' vs 'out there'. That is egoPerspective. The 'Self' which is the 'matrix' in which egoPerspective exists is Conscious Perspective.

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:('Conscious Perspective' aka 'Soul').

I've never seen "Soul" used in this context.

Ok, so there's some food for thought.

Quote:

Soul is generally used as a metaphysical notion describing the essence of being.

One interpretation of QM (Copenhagen interpretation) says that "Consciousness is the Ground of All Being". Pretty mystical/metaphysical stuff...

Quote:

There is no evidence of soul, and every definition I've seen seems illogical.

Yet you completely ignore the definition that I offer. Perhaps because there is evidence of 'Consciousness' and there is evidence of 'Perspective' and there is evidence of 'Conscious Perspective', and what I offer is completely logical and rational?
You seem to be so heavily invested in your; "There is no evidence of soul, and every definition I've seen seems illogical." that you ignored my definition completely. Not as easy to dismiss?

Quote:

If you wish to communicate more effectively,

I do fine, thanx anyway. What I offer is not for everyone. I don't really care that some don't care or arent able to understand. If someone is sufficiently able to understand, they can, as you have, ask questions to get into it furthr. If you don't like the apples, don't shake the tree. I communicate quite well, perhaps the 'problem' is in your ability to understand? Is that possible?
I am perfectly comfortable with my communication skills as they stand, but thank you for your interest.
And I'm done with that subject.

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:I hope that this helps a bit. No "scare" semi-quotes here! *__-
Please, inquire anythime you feel a bit .. frustrated... with my honest attempts.

It has. Thanks for your time.

You are welcome.

nameless out

Philosophy Forum

The problem with perspectivism

Quick Links

My Account

able2know