THIS IS FOR ANAND KAVIRAJ

Blog number 533 ******** 16 October 2011


This entry has been taken from a series of postings on a message board posted a couple of years ago. 

                           *************
EthnAlln: Language has a huge amount of variety. I still regard myself as a novice in what Bertrand Russell called the "philosophy of logical analysis," so I make any pronouncements very hesitatingly.

I'm reading early Wittgenstein right now in my spare time


kennethamy: Early Wittgenstein is passe'. That doesn't mean it isn't true. Just passe'. But then, so is late Wittgenstein.

Bodhimalik: These two posts above illustrate the deficiencies of philosophy students. It has been said correctly, that they herd other people's cattle.

kennethamy: To cite a philosopher is not necessarily to argue from authority. It may be simply because the philosopher has put what I want to say, better. Or it may be to put what I want to say in context. In any case, you can't detach philosophy from the history of philosophy, in the way you can physics from the history of physics. Philosophy is imbedded in its history.

Bodhimalik: Yes, I agree with what you say here. You are correct.  

But since philosophy is what we call one's opinions about what is, is there really such a thing as a "history of philosophy?"  A history of opinions?  Or even a science of opinions?


I am not against an occasional quote where it fits better than anything I could think of. I am against hearing someone else's thoughts about existence when I could hear a direct account.

I have talked with people who, when asked a question, invariably answer with, "Well, Sarte said..." Drives me nuts. It's like someone telling you about a movie instead of letting you see it.


You see that all through posts on philosophy. "Fill-In-The-Blank said..." "Yeah, but didn't Fill-In-Another-Blank say...?"


These later posts, here - these people, and you, are describing their direct experience. Very refreshing for me. I hope for others too.

EthnAlln: What in hell is wrong with testing my own thoughts against what has been said by people of great intelligence and power of expression?

Bodhimalik:  I am not arguing that.  What I am arguing is, why use what you read as a benchmark for what is true?  Why quote an "authority" as if that alone makes what is said, true?  Picasso scribbles a line of random marks, it sells for thousands.  I make the same exact marks, it gets thrown in the trash.  Where does truth, where do facts, where does "what is" come up in this? 

Your first beliefs were "borrowed" from your parents. "Daddy says..., so it must be true." Later on it becomes, "Teacher says..." And still later, "experts say..."  Facts determined not from what "is," but from "who says?"

What you believe now - about God, Life, America, is borrowed beliefs from your culture. Any new belief, in order to be accepted, must have all beliefs "rearranged" until the new belief will fit in. You never "test" your thoughts against others (look at what you do with my beliefs, for instance), you merely look for agreement for what you already "know."


kennethamy: The French writer, Madame de Stael, once wrote:  "Tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner" which in English means, "To understand all, is to forgive all". I think that's not only false, it is nefarious. No matter how much I would understand why Saddam did what he did, I would not forgive it.


The word, "understand" has two different meanings, often confused. It may simply mean that one knows why someone acted as he did. The explanation, in other words. But, it also means to sympathize with someone. de Stael's apothegm trades in on this ambiguity. (Semantics!). Do you agree with it?


Bodhimalik: I think "To understand all, is to forgive all". might be more acceptable if one were to use it in the same sense one may understand one's own behavior, given the same circumstances, thoughts, memory, instincts, emotions, etc.

In other words, if one were to look back on some horrible thing one did and realize that if everything were exactly the same - like a returning to the past, then one would have to do exactly the same thing again.

Using this idea then, if one were to have Saddam's exact memory, instincts, emotions, thoughts, circumstances, etc, then one would do exactly as Saddam did. Then one would understand and one would have to forgive, since it was completely out of the person's hands.

We are all exactly where we are today because of our past and our future - over both of which we have no control.

No es verdad?


Darth Dane: If there is no free will, and everything falls as domino pieces, no one/nothing has any responsibility: How could anyone/anything have behaved any different?


No free will is the same as everything is destined to behave in certain ways.

Bodhimalik: What you say is undoubtedly true. The only quarrel I have with any of it is that free will is either given to us or not given to us. We have no choice in the matter.

Responsibility is not a matter of what "is" - of fact.  It is a matter of opinion - of thought - of belief. 

I can see clearly that I have no free will, but that gives me an immense freedom. I cannot sin, I have no responsibity.  I get to ride the roller coaster at no cost and no effort on my part.


I have had people argue that this philosophy gives a person the right to rob and murder.  They always go on to say, "I would not do this, but he might." 

My argument with this argument is based upon fact.  I have this philosophy and I don't rob and murder. 

Garrett: You have no ability to make conscious decisions?

Bodhimalik: No more than does a computer. My decisions are made for me by my remembrances, my instincts, my desires, my thoughts, my emotions, my ambitions, and so forth - none of these of which I get to choose. They choose me. I can't even "not do something." That is chosen for me also.

 Garrett: I am sorry for your lack. I make conscious decisions, and commit voluntary actions. The world pushes me around, sure, but I push back on purpose.

Bodhimalik: You are a machine that thinks it has free will, is all. That's not a bad thing to be. A machine. There are immediate advantages.

Look closely at what you can "do." Grow another arm? Be interested in something that doesn't interest you - in other words, pick your interests? Choose what thoughts to have - how to make a time machine, for instance? Grow a different color bunch of hair? Digest rocks? Not digest bread?

Do you consciously raise your arm - pick which muscles to do what, or do you just will it to rise and it rises in a way totally unknown by you? Do you pick when to have your heart beat or lungs breathe? Do you pick when to get sexually aroused or when to get sleepy or hungry? Do you pick what to dream? Or when? Do you pick what your eyes are to see? Do you choose what sound is sensed by your brain? Do you choose what level of pain you wish?

What is it that YOU can "do"?

Hoodoo Ulove: You seem to be saying that because I can't do a lot of things, including wanting to do what I don't want to do, that I can't do anything.

Bodhimalik: No, I am saying that because you can't "do" anything - i.e., be the originator of an action, that you can't "do" anything. Ipso facto.

A plant can grow, and thus DO something, but can it "do" anything? Is the plant then a machine like you, or free willed like you?

Bye the bye, for various and sundry reasons, your belief in having free will is not in any way amenable to being changed. Why? Because your "free will" will not let you change.

A conundrum you say? You betchum, Red Ryder
         
Bodhimalik: To be conscious is to be aware. Having consciousness is to be conscious.

What are you people doing, complicating something so simple? Why do you have to add so many wines and herbs to a pair of fried eggs?


If you want to do some pondering, ponder upon your own consciousness. That'll keep you busy for your lifetime.


Besides that, by trying to comprehend consciousness, you must of necessity use consciousness to comprehend it, which is impossible.


The eye cannot see itself, the finger cannot touch itself, the ear cannot hear itself. These thing are impossible and with a little thought you could have figured this out for yourself. Don't be so lazy with your thinking. Stop looking for thoughts in other people. Do your own work. It might turn out to be fun.
                          
jaboteer: With epistemology in mind, I doubt the validity of your arguments in such a way that the scorching conclusions you have made falls to ashes like a burnt house of cards.

Bodhimalik: I don't especially like dealing with arguments. Something is either true (real) or it is not. What I or anyone else thinks about it is irrelevant.

Besides, it is the facts upon which arguments are based that causes disagreements, not the opinions or thinking, as commonly believed.


What I said is either true or it is not. It doesn't change in response to our opinions."The eye cannot see itself." How can there be an argument about that? 


jaboteer:The claim of impossibility needs to be adjusted seeing the same could have been said about trying to comprehend your thoughts. How could a thought comprehend a thought? 

Bodhimalik: Well, first of all, thoughts can't think.  And as far as being conscious of consciousness, You are conscious of the heavens - the stars, the space. You would not expect that you could be able to comprehend the inner workings of all matter of which you are conscious.

You do not comprehend exactly how it is that your digestive system turns carrots into blood, skin and hair. If you cannot comprehend just these small things that are in your consciousness, how can you expect to comprehend all of your consciousness? How can you ever expect to comprehend consciousness?


jaboteer: Do you doubt there has been advances in thinking?


Bodhimalik: : I don't know what you mean by this. Do I think people think better now than they did in olden days? Do I think that thinking has been built on previous thought?

jaboteer: why do you submit such an argument restricting our search for truth?

Bodhimalik: It is not the search for truth that I advocate restricting. It is the search for answers that are impossible to find that I do not recommend.

jaboteer:  What may be impossible is the mathematical truth you have insinuated, but that very mathematical truth is based on another mathematical truth which may very well turn out to be false after all.

Bodhimalik: I didn't mean to insinuate a mathematical truth. What I am trying to do is to take things out of the mind and place them in their proper place as what "is."

As an example only, realize that mathematics is a made up game that humans play. There never was a mathematics "out there" waiting to be discovered. It was made up. Invented, not discovered. Logic and proofs deal properly with invented things. Another Mind is needed in order to deal with "discovered things".

Consciousness is a discovered thing.

Garrett: Quote:Bodhimalik "The eye cannot see itself." How can there be an argument about that?

The hand picks up a mirror - and lo!  The eye sees itself!

Quote: Bodhimalik: "Consciousness is a discovered thing."

Garrett: Consciousness is an experienced thing. You had to have been there.

Ierrellus: If you believe Putnam, a mind is inadequate for the purposes of exploring the complexities of consciousness. Sorry, Putnam. A mind is all we've got for such exploring.


Bodhimalik: And it remains inadequate.