|
Others ~ Selected Correspondence Relativism, Subjectivism
OK if this is so, does that mean that my experience of seeing the twig is therefore somehow different from the twig? Yes. There is the twig and there is your experience of the twig. Two different ‘things.’ I would have to believe your words on that one as I can only experience seeing or touching etc. To then say that there is anything outside of that such as an external world etc would have to be a belief. If you want to play the game of methodological doubt, there is no way out of solipsism. Have fun – been there, done that – no fun, and not practical. If you really want to push it – how do you know what the word ‘belief’ means? How do you know that the story you are telling yourself about what you don’t ‘know’ makes any sense? Do the words you are telling yourself have any meaning? How do you know? You have to start somewhere – otherwise, you will be nowhere but confusion. * In other words by saying the universe was there before sense organs existed, you are implying that my direct experience of the visual shape that I call twig is secondary/ different to the actual twig. Do you call a ‘visual shape of a twig’ a ‘twig?’ I certainly don’t. I call a twig a ‘twig.’ How else do you experience a twig other than as a visual shape (ok it can be experienced as a sensation on the skin too etc). My point was simply that you are calling a ‘visual shape of a twig’ a ‘twig.’ You are merely replacing ‘twig’ with ‘visual shape of a twig.’ If there is such a thing as a ‘visual shape’ – then it is certainly not the same as the twig. If you think so, you are pretty darned confused. For all you know, I am merely a mental concept and might not exist in actuality – why would you write an email to a mental concept? Once you fess up, you will realize that you know more than you are admitting. * You are then turning the twig into something which I cannot directly experience. How so? There is the twig – then there is the experience of the twig – your experience of the twig is not the twig. Ok then without using sensual experience how can the twig be described? How do I access this other world where the twig exists independently of an observing mechanism? You do it all the time. If you don’t think/know the universe existed before you were born, you’re in a real mess! * Surely you are creating and observer and an object to be observed? How do you mean? By saying that there is the twig and then the experience of the twig. You are creating something extra than what is experienceable. I am not creating it. It was here before I was born. It ‘created’ me [your word]. * Surely there is just seeing a shape and that’s it. Any theories about the experience of seeing taking place at another time are just theories compared to the actual experience of seeing now? If you think that your memory of what happened 10 minutes ago is a ‘theory’ – there’s nothing I can say to convince you otherwise – for all you know, I don’t exist. Surely all there is – is your experience of <Respondent>? Nope – I’m right here – I can confirm that theory is wrong. Until you plunk for common sense – this game will go nowhere. * Let me ask you... How do you know that the universe didn’t just ‘pop’ into existence 2 minutes ago, an hour ago, or 2 seconds ago fully formed? Are you ‘theorizing’ when you remember what you had for breakfast? It is a mental memory now what I had for breakfast. My breakfast is not actual now. It was then but now I can only experience a mental image of it which is obviously not the real thing. The real thing is gone now never to return. My breakfast is not still there on the plate, although I remember what it looked like when it was. Maybe the universe is popping in and out of existence every moment? I don’t really know… This is where common sense is important. To say you don’t know that the universe isn’t going in and out of existence every moment is to give up your common sense for epistemological games and confusion. Been there, done that – good luck. * Seems to me that you are starting down the road to solipsism – as in, how do I know that the ‘external world’ exists, or other people, or the past, or the future, or even ‘me?’ Why? I just think it’s sensible to go on what are the facts of your existence. I.e. if I haven’t directly experienced it then I must doubt it until it is directly experienced. OK – let me reiterate – how do you know that any of the words you are saying here make any sense or have any meaning at all? The very meanings of words depends on memory. Push the doubt further and you will see that you are merely pretending to doubt while taking much for granted. I know that seeing happens, I don’t have to use common sense or someone else’s ideas. I can’t doubt that seeing happens. Close your eyes. I thought the whole point of actual freedom was that ‘me’ does not actually exist; although it seems very real? That’s right. What I was talking about was ‘me’ as in flesh and blood body – your methodological doubt will not even allow you to ‘know’ that you are a body, have a body, or however you want to put it. * At some point, one realizes it’s better to go with ‘common sense.’ Methodological doubt is a dead-end – aka ‘solipsism.’ Aren’t big bang theories etc just mental add-ons to what is actually experienced in the moment: hearing seeing touching etc? I’m not sure what point you are making about the big bang being a mental add-on. For an actualist, the big bang is a theory only – and a false one, but it’s not false because it lies outside experience – it’s false because the PCE contradicts a finite universe. No 37 to No 61
I’m not sure I follow exactly. What I was saying is that the universe will exist after you and I are dead. Only for those who happen to be alive. When you die, if consciousness ceases and its all snuffed out, how can you talk of anything existing or not existing? Maybe you would want to tackle the question of whether your bed exists while you are sleeping? Or maybe whether the moon exists when you aren’t looking at it? It’s not that I would be talking about anything existing or not when I am dead – I’m talking about it now – that the universe will exist even after I die. If you don’t think that is true, sensible, certain, etc – then you may really be a solipsist. There have been a number of philosophers (Wittgenstein being one) who tried to console themselves about their own deaths because they can’t experience it. From a purely subjective point of view – ‘there is no death’ – because no one can experience their own death – so Wittgenstein said that meant that his life was ‘eternal’ – as in without boundary. Maybe that sort of view is to your liking? I can buy the universe being infinite in that there is noting outside of it but it just doesn’t sit with me that it can carry on existing whilst I am dead. Surely, I am as much part of the universe as anything else. Would you also say that it doesn’t ‘sit’ with you that it could exist prior to you being alive? It’s not much different than your proposal that maybe it won’t continue after you die. If so, how do you propose you got here? Actually thinking about it more, if I am actually just this physical body (and its consciousness – it being a by-product) then I can’t die anyway. The body can only change its appearance so much so that it can no longer be called No 61. Are you saying that nothing ever dies? Matter is only rearranging itself? That’s cute, but of no consolation. Put it another way, when you die, the matter that makes up Jason will disintegrate – discontinuing consciousness forever – never to be reformed again as the same person. Matter rearranges at death, but the state that allowed what is known as ‘Jason’ will stop at some point. Unless of course, you think it is uncertain that any of this will happen, being that all you say you can be certain of is your present experience. * I would agree that consciousness is a by-product of the physical body, but I’m not sure why you add the word ‘merely’ – I’m guessing since you add the word ‘merely’ that you see that as ‘reductionism?’ Ok if consciousness is a by-product of materiality, then show me some consciousness. Where is it located? Call me old fashioned but saying that materiality can exist without consciousness is like saying colours can exist without light. Hmm – I have a red van that stays red even when it’s dark outside. By ‘by-product’ I mean state of matter – not another substance – nobody can show you consciousness, even though you already admit it exists in some sense by the fact that you are talking about it. I’m curious, if you turn the clock back about 4 billion years – prior to the emergence of life on earth – what would exist? Would you say we can’t talk about it? Nothing existed? Something indeterminate existed? I’m just curious how you would account for the existence and evolution of life prior to Jason if you have difficulty admitting that the universe will exist after you die and prior to your birth. Also you might want to consider the question of when your consciousness brought your biological mother into existence? At what point did your consciousness make your mom and the rest of the universe? * Does that mean that you are a dualist? Do you believe that ‘mentality’ can exist without ‘physicality?’ No I don’t believe that either. Why do I have to plump for either the chicken or the egg? What does that make me? (don’t say indecisive..) So, are you saying that the mental and physical ‘come into existence together?’ Possibly two aspects of something underlying them both? If so, the only term I can think of to describe it is a ‘neutral monist.’ William James and Bertrand Russell tried a similar view – not that that means much, except that they are the ones who coined the term. Basically, the idea is that both subject and object are two poles of a single experience – and that both spring into existence together, creating consciousness and it’s object – mind and matter, two aspects of one event. Actually, the more I think of it, the more I think this is what you might be going for. Here’s the paper that Mr William James wrote published in 1904 on the subject (you may find it of interest) – http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/James/consciousness.htm. Interestingly enough, he uses the term ‘pure experience’ to describe the ‘stuff’ of the universe. No 37 to No 61 Web page designed by The Actual Freedom Trust |
