Does this guy watch Leo?

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Yimpa said:

@Carl-Richard I have no idea what you just said, but boy was it intelligent! 

It's pretty impenetrable. Too many model words, being trigger-happy with semi-colons.

But I think trying to reduce it down too much kinda goes against the purpose of the post, which is to draw many connections between different ways of saying essentially the same thing. If I had just wanted to communicate the crux of the issue, I would have just said "content, structure, and their physical manifestations".

Edited November 3 by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

1 minute ago, zurew said:

Do you take Omniscience to mean knowing all true propositions, or do you take it to mean something different?

I take omniscience to mean God knowing everything in the universe, which is identical with being everything in the universe. If the knowing is identical to the being, then the knowing is simply a "what" ("it is what it is").

[zurew]

27 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I take omniscience to mean God knowing everything in the universe, which is identical with being everything in the universe. If the knowing is identical to the being, then the knowing is simply a "what" ("it is what it is").

Would you use the 4 ways of knowing model here or you don't find it useful in this specific case? (propositional, procedural, perspectival, participatory)

The clearest to me is propositional knowing, the other three are much more blurry when it comes to what they entail.

[Carl-Richard]

Just now, zurew said:

Would you use the 4 ways of knowing model here or you don't find it useful in this specific case? (propositional, procedural, perspectival, participatory)

The clearest to me is propositional knowing, the other three are much more blurry when it comes to what they entail.

I can't remember exactly how it goes. I'll review it and see how it fits.

[zurew]

14 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I'll review it and see how it fits.

You don't have to, I kind of get the sense where you are getting at, also I know this is not even relevant to your overall point.

I just find it interesting how many ways the meaning of omniscience can be cashed out.

[Carl-Richard]

31 minutes ago, zurew said:

Would you use the 4 ways of knowing model here or you don't find it useful in this specific case? (propositional, procedural, perspectival, participatory)

The clearest to me is propositional knowing, the other three are much more blurry when it comes to what they entail.

I think John puts it perfectly here. He said it's not about the "what" but the "how" (the 4P model). And I think that makes sense, non-trivially:

Again, I would have to review it more, but indeed it seems to deal with how cognitive agents relate to things in the world, i.e. relationships between things, parts; the "how".

The tricky thing of course is that the 4P's are in themselves "whats", the parts in the relationships being described are themselves "whats". Nevertheless, the focus is on the "how". Or in John's language: it's what's relevant 😜

Edited November 2 by Carl-Richard

[Nilsi]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

I can't stop myself, but the three O's (omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence) also seem to reflect the metaphysical tripartite structure (I'll name it the "MTS"). Omniscience is the knowing (of all) of being; the contents, the "what". Omnipotence is the shaping (of all) of reality; the structure, the "how". Omnipresence is the spatio-temporal manifestation (of all) of reality; the physical correlates, the "where".

And here is more: ontology is concerned with the "what" ("what is reality?"). Science is concerned with the "how" ("how does reality act or behave?"); causal relationships, correlative relationships, relationships between parts, structure. Applied sciences like technology and engineering is more concerned with the "where" (how does science get implemented in the physical world?). Now, there are of course overlaps: a lot of science is deeply concerned with physical processes, and proponents of science might even place these processes as the ontological primitive (physicalism). However, idealistically, or most fundamentally, these splits lean more to one of the sides than the others.

You might also feel Wilber's Four Quadrants sneaking up as an alternative. Now, it doesn't seem as much as a metaphysical model as a meta-theory for describing existing human knowledge. It's ironically very Interior-Collective in its approach. The Interior/Exterior dimension gives it a distinctly human flavor (mind vs. physicality), and of course the Individual/Collective dimension is rather explicitly human or macro level (or at least, that is what I can glean from the surface level descriptions from Google Images; I have not read the book).

Also, I don't know if it is able to describe different metaphysical theories well. The things it describes is sort of implied to not be "meta". For example, the "how" doesn't fall squarely within either Interior or Exterior, nor Individual or Collective (except of course at the macro level, i.e. social structures; unless again he has explicitly stated that these dimensions go all the way down to the most basic relationships, e.g. atom-atom interactions; again, I have not read the book).

Conversely, mapping the tripartite structure onto the Individual/Collective dimension doesn't really seem to work either (except maybe for "where", which seems synonymous with Exterior). If not, what would be an example of a Collective "what" and a Collective "how" that does not merely exist on the macro level? Also, on the micro level, a Collective "what" seems like an oxymoron (it describes "one thing"), and a Collective "how" seems like it's redundant (it necessarily describes relationships between two or more things). On that, maybe it would be interesting to make a Four Quadrants -esque meta-theory on metaphysics (which might have been done already by people like David Chalmers).

I think the fourth "O" got lost somewhere in all the noise. I’m talking about “obscure,” which is concerned with the "why" (as in, “Why on earth am I reading this?”)

Seriously, though - I’m actually curious. It seems like you’re starting from a transcendental idealist stance, where a priori concepts ground your reality, rather than reality grounding those concepts (which I couldn’t be more opposed to, but that’s not the point). So, what’s your project here?

And this is a general question I have for you. What are you actually on about? I thought you were a psychologist, so supposedly you should be involved in some kind of actual research. Are you perceiving currently existing metapsychological paradigms as inadequate (theoretically and practically)?

I’m sorry for this inquiry, but as a good Nietzschean, I can’t help myself from asking these kinds of questions.

Edited November 2 by Nilsi

[UnbornTao]

I think you guys could start another thread for your discussion.

[Carl-Richard]

10 hours ago, Nilsi said:

I think the fourth "O" got lost somewhere in all the noise. I’m talking about “obscure,” which is concerned with the "why" (as in, “Why on earth am I reading this?”).

That's pretty funny.

 

10 hours ago, Nilsi said:

Seriously, though - I’m actually curious. It seems like you’re starting from a transcendental idealist stance, where a priori concepts ground your reality, rather than reality grounding those concepts (which I couldn’t be more opposed to, but that’s not the point). So, what’s your project here?

I don't know. I'm just finding different words for the same thing. It's great though. I'm taught to write very conservatively in terms of using one word for each concept throughout a text, but I think I'm more made for this. It's JP's style of thinking. When verbal abilities or right-brain dominates and overpowers the purely logical or left-brain. And I haven't even begun practicing Image Streaming yet 

 

10 hours ago, Nilsi said:

And this is a general question I have for you. What are you actually on about? I thought you were a psychologist, so supposedly you should be involved in some kind of actual research. Are you perceiving currently existing metapsychological paradigms as inadequate (theoretically and practically)?

What's a currently existing metapsychological paradigm?

 

10 hours ago, Nilsi said:

I’m sorry for this inquiry, but as a good Nietzschean, I can’t help myself from asking these kinds of questions.

"Nietzschean" reminds me of "Nisse" in my language. It's a sort of gnome 🧑‍🎄

Edited November 3 by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

9 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

I think you guys could start another thread for your discussion.

You dared standing up to Jordan Peterson interviewing himself on his own podcast? 😯 Jking.

I understand it's strictly speaking a tangent to the topic (whatever can be said for a topic consisting of a one-sentence question with an obvious answer), but.. the guy literally talked about structure vs. content 🤔

But sure, I can create another topic if I get the urge to dump more paragraphs.

However, imagine somebody posting the topic "does Peter Ralston watch Leo?" and watch it devolve into a discussion on solipsism 😆

Edited November 3 by Carl-Richard

[zurew]

9 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

The tricky thing of course is that the 4P's are in themselves "whats", the parts in the relationships being described are themselves "whats". 

I don't think thats necessarily an issue, especially once the context is clarified and specified. I think most language (the little I know of) about metaphysics is unnecessarily confusing. Just because something is expressed using a proposition that doesn't mean that the referent which contained within the proposition is itself a proposition.

Some issues could possibly come up if the model would be self-referential, but as far as I understand thats not the case.

Edited November 3 by zurew

[Carl-Richard]

3 hours ago, zurew said:

I don't think thats necessarily an issue, especially once the context is clarified and specified. I think most language (the little I know of) about metaphysics is unnecessarily confusing. Just because something is expressed using a proposition that doesn't mean that the referent which contained within the proposition is itself a proposition.

Some issues could possibly come up if the model would be self-referential, but as far as I understand thats not the case.

Yeh.

Speaking of clarifying, I just severely clarified the monstrosity of a post from earlier. I decided to conclude that Wilber's Four Quadrants probably could stretch down into the micro level (e.g. atoms), which made mapping it on to the tripartite structure much more straightforward. After all, the Interior-Individual quadrant clearly stretches down to individual perceptions and sensations, so why not the other quadrants as well?

[zurew]

53 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Speaking of clarifying, I just severely clarified the monstrosity of a post from earlier.

You seem to be the only person on this forum who is as obsessed with clarity and relevance as me. It feels like having a surface level understanding of different theories of meaning (specifically refering to semantics) could elevate the productivity of the convos on this forum.

Its sad to see sometimes clearly more intelligent or knowledgeable people than me missing the point or simply not using the heruistic of semantic analysis (clarifying the position and making sure both of you have roughly the same meaning in mind) before they want to deliver an objection or criticism.

[Nilsi]

13 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

What's a currently existing metapsychological paradigm?

How would I know? I'm not a psychologist.

I do recall a remarkable series of talks by Zak Stein on this subject, filled with the usual array of tripartite structures, labeled "Transcendence, Ensoulment, and Development."

My issue with this approach feels a lot like the frustration I had with mathematics in school. I could always solve the problems, but I had no idea why it worked or what the point of it all was.

In my own experience, there's nothing that suggests triples hold any special meaning. It feels more like an abstraction - something accessed through abstract reasoning and logic and then projected onto the world.

Nor do I see how this would be useful for anything, which is why I asked about your work as a psychologist. It seems like there's something I'm missing here, as you're clearly not the only person obsessed with this kind of structure.

[Nilsi]

51 minutes ago, zurew said:

Its sad to see sometimes clearly more intelligent or knowledgeable people than me missing the point or simply not using the heruistic of semantic analysis (clarifying the position and making sure both of you have roughly the same meaning in mind) before they want to deliver an objection or criticism.

That’s assuming quite a lot, though.

I firmly believe that if you want to understand a particular discourse, the responsibility is on you to engage with its specific language and framework.

For example, you could never fully grasp a Marxist discourse through psychological terms. To understand what Marx means by "alienation," you have to examine the historical material conditions of labor and production. Trying to frame it within Ken Wilber's quadrants would entirely miss the point. Marxist discourse is a singularity, and it’s up to you to engage with it seriously - or not at all.

This is why I’m much more interested in a Deleuzian metaphysics of difference, which he aptly calls "Transcendental Empiricism," rather than the usual "Transcendental Idealist" (I like to call it "Transcendental Imperialism") approach, where everything gets interpreted through some universal "Theory of Everything" or reduced to a reflection of some underlying identity or logos.

Edited November 3 by Nilsi

[zurew]

1 minute ago, Nilsi said:

I firmly believe that if you want to understand a particular discourse, the responsibility is on you to engage with its specific language and framework.

Thats all compatible with what I said and I obviously agree with that.  

All I tried to get across, is that before you want to object to a given thing make sure you understand what you are objecting to and you are not projecting your own meaning onto the phrases and sentences that were expressed by the other person (which is ironically what you did in this specific case).

This is why semantic analysis is needed , especially for philosophy, where a given phrase or sentence can be cashed out in many different ways.

10 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

That’s assuming quite a lot, though.

I don't know what Im assuming.

If I talk about concept X and you are objecting to concept Y, then its on you, because you havent  done the semantic analysis first to make sure we are on the same page. Or of course, it is possible that I expressed concept X so poorly that it seems that I talk about concept Y, but again, its good to have the herusitic of semantic analysis, especially when it comes to more complicated topics and subjects and its good to assume less and to ask more before you try to make an objection.

[Nilsi]

25 minutes ago, zurew said:

Thats all compatible with what I said and I obviously agree with that.  

All I tried to get across, is that before you want to object to a given thing make sure you understand what you are objecting to and you are not projecting your own meaning onto the phrases and sentences that were expressed by the other person (which is ironically what you did in this specific case).

This is why semantic analysis is needed , especially for philosophy, where a given phrase or sentence can be cashed out in many different ways.

I don't know what Im assuming.

If I talk about concept X and you are objecting to concept Y, then its on you, because you havent  done the semantic analysis first to make sure we are on the same page. Or of course, it is possible that I expressed concept X so poorly that it seems that I talk about concept Y, but again, its good to have the herusitic of semantic analysis, especially when it comes to more complicated topics and subjects and its good to assume less and to ask more before you try to make an objection.

I’m sorry, but I can’t help dramatizing this even further.

I’d argue that it’s fundamentally impossible for me to truly grasp what you mean - or for you to fully grasp what I mean - through any act of “clarification.” If you pressed me for clarity, I’d inevitably double down on the particular discourse I’m engaging in, desperately trying to circle back to the original; without this grounding, I’d lose its meaning entirely. And this is where I think you're still assuming that a given X remains the same X when reframed or translated into another context.

It’s akin to asking an artist to “clarify” a painting. There’s nothing he can do but point you back to the work itself, if you’re truly interested. X, in this sense, is a singularity; it resists any kind of clarification. There’s an endless range of interpretations, but none will fully capture what X “means.” Because X doesn’t mean or want anything - it simply exists as pure self-affirmation, an eternity unto itself.

This is where Nietzsche’s method of “Genealogy” comes into play. Rather than asking, “What does it mean?” he asks, “Who does it?” - thus bypassing the search for universal meaning, exposing the drives, motives, and “wills” that lie behind values. This is what Nietzsche calls the “Will to Power,” the underlying force driving each perspective or interpretation.

Edited November 3 by Nilsi

[zurew]

27 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

I’d argue that it’s fundamentally impossible for me to truly grasp what you mean - or for you to fully grasp what I mean - through any act of “clarification.” If you pressed me for clarity, I’d inevitably double down on the particular discourse I’m engaging in, desperately trying to circle back to the original; without this grounding, I’d lose its meaning entirely. And this is where I think you're still assuming that a given X remains the same X when reframed or translated into another context.

Im not sure I understand what you are trying to object to rn. What is the proposition or the set of propositions you think we disagree about ?

 

I am willing to get really autisitc about this, because im interested in updating my herusitics and even my theory of meaning.

28 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

This is where Nietzsche’s method of “Genealogy” comes into play. Rather than asking, “What does it mean?” he asks, “Who does it?” - thus bypassing the search for universal meaning, exposing the drives, motives, and “wills” that lie behind values.

I dont think what I said necessarily presupposes universal meaning.I don't know what "to truly grasp what you mean" exactly means, but surely you don't think that clarification only means that you 1:1 will have the exact same meaning in mind. Clarification can also mean getting slightly closer or a lot closer to what the other interlocutor means.

So ironically it might be the case that we mean different things by the phrase "clarification" and thats what partly the issue here. But we can clarify what we mean by clarification and then we can clear up things 

Edited November 3 by zurew

[Nilsi]

1 minute ago, zurew said:

Im not sure I understand what you are trying to object to rn. What is the proposition or the set of propositions you think we disagree about ?

I think we’re in disagreement about what we’re actually doing here. You think this is about truth; I see it as about power - but not in the vulgar sense of me wanting to dominate you. Rather, there’s something here (a “will to power”) that wants to assert itself through this text. That’s what I’m interested in understanding, while you seem focused on the text itself, which for me is meaningless on that level.

It’s like you’re working within a realist linguistic framework, where words and their combinations inherently mean something. I don’t share that view. For me, words don’t mean anything in themselves; they’re just the surface expressions of something deeper, something that resists “clarification.” This is why I don’t see this dialectical attempt to clarify our texts getting us anywhere - in fact, I think it takes us further from the actual intent.

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, zurew said:

You seem to be the only person on this forum who is as obsessed with clarity and relevance as me. It feels like having a surface level understanding of different theories of meaning (specifically refering to semantics) could elevate the productivity of the convos on this forum.

Honestly, just reading some bullet points on tips for academic writing could be sufficient. Our professor gave us this amazing list. I would have to fire it into Google Translate through.

Edited November 3 by Carl-Richard