Does this guy watch Leo?

[Nilsi]

13 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

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.

I see this forum more like a gallery, where I put up a metaphorical image for you to experience, rather than a place where we come together to uncover some divine logos that exists beyond the two of us, or whatever idealist bullshit.

Of course, I can wonder what prompted you to place this image here, and I might strike up a conversation with you. But it feels as inappropriate to ask an artist at their vernissage what they “meant” as it does here. Instead, I’d rather share a glass of wine, talk about whatever feels alive, and maybe catch a sense of what this person really is up to.

And to me this is just a microcosm of all human interaction.

Edited November 3 by Nilsi

[zurew]

17 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

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.

Im not a realist and I don't share your view about clarification. If I just use a very simple theory of meaning where we talk about the sense and reference distinction, then I can say that our sense is different, but I assume that our sense is not so much different that we are incapable to point to a referent .

So without being unnecessarily abstract all the time. If I bring up the sun, my assumption is that our sense of the sun will be slightly different, but you will still have an idea what im referring to. You don't need to have the exact same sense as me when I bring that phrase up in order for us  to talk about that object.

Clarification in this context could play out something like this:

I say the sun is hot, and you think by sun I mean a girl who has the name "sun" and who is hot. Then I clarify that Im not talking about a human being, im talking about a celestial object and suddenly you have a much clearer understanding of what I meant by Sun. You still probably don't have the exact same meaning in mind when I bring up the word Sun (since we probably experience that object in slightly different ways), but I still managed to bring you closer. - I would qualify this as clarification.

Edited November 3 by zurew

[Nilsi]

14 minutes ago, zurew said:

So without being unnecessarily abstract all the time. If I bring up the sun, my assumption is that our sense of the sun will be sligtly different, but when I bring up the word sun, you will still have an idea what im referring to. You don't need to have the exact same sense as me when I bring that phrase up in order for us to be able to talk about that object.

Clarification in this context could play out something like this:

I say the sun is hot, and you think by sun I mean a girl who has the name "sun" and who is hot. Then I clarify that Im not talking about a human being, im talking about a celestial object and suddenly you have a much clear understanding of what I meant by Sun. You still probably don't have the exact same meaning in mind when I bring up the word Sun (since we probably experience that object in slightly different ways), but I still managed to bring you closer. - I would qualify this as clarification.

But you're never just "bringing up the sun."

You create a singular text that might include the word “sun,” which, sure, we could both agree refers to a certain empirical reality - and we could do this word by word. But this is exactly where I’m saying that all intent would be lost. You’re clearly not using your limited time and energy just to point me toward some empirical reality. There’s a unique, non-fungible intensity that wants to express itself. This expression, this release of energy, is the point itself; it’s not some instrumental act meant to achieve a specific goal, but an act of self-affirmation.

Just as an artist doesn’t draw “the sun” to convey the empirical reality of “the sun” (which, in itself, is not a stable identity but an ever-changing intensity - you never experience the sun in the same way twice; or as Heraclitus said, “you never step into the same river twice”).

What I’m saying is: there is no stable reality I could clarify for you. If you ask me why I did what I did or said what I said five minutes ago, there’s no way to truly explain it. Reality has completely shifted by that point. Sure, we could analyze this from an evolutionary perspective, exploring why humans might have developed the need to suppress this constant flux of reality, and that would be an interesting discussion. But my interest lies in this kind of metaphysical framing, as opposed to the traditional Western view, with its stable identities and universal truths.

Edited November 3 by Nilsi

[Scholar]

1 minute ago, Nilsi said:

But you're never just "bringing up the sun."

You create a singular text that might include the word “sun,” which, sure, we could both agree refers to a certain empirical reality - and we could do this word by word. But this is exactly where I’m saying that all intent would be lost. You’re clearly not using your limited time and energy just to point me toward some mundane, empirical object. There’s a unique, non-fungible intensity within you that wants to express itself through your biological organism, typing away at your keyboard via the technology of language. This expression, this release of energy, is the point itself; it’s not some instrumental act meant to achieve a specific goal, but an act of self-affirmation.

Just as an artist doesn’t draw “the sun” to convey the empirical reality of “the sun” (which, in itself, is not a stable identity but an ever-changing intensity - you never experience the sun in the same way twice; or as Heraclitus said, “you never step into the same river twice”).

All motions are an act of self-affirmation in this sense. All forms of existence are simply the assertion of it's own existence.

This is simply one way to look at existence, but it's still a construct.

 

Remember this will always be circular, in that in the end you ground the idea of the self-affirmation of existence as a result of the idea of the self-affirmation of existence.

[zurew]

8 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

But you're never just "bringing up the sun."

You create a singular text that might include the word “sun,” which, sure, we could both agree refers to a certain empirical reality - and we could do this word by word. But this is exactly where I’m saying that all intent would be lost. You’re clearly not using your limited time and energy just to point me toward some mundane, empirical object. There’s a unique, non-fungible intensity within you that wants to express itself through your biological organism, typing away at your keyboard via the technology of language. This expression, this release of energy, is the point itself; it’s not some instrumental act meant to achieve a specific goal, but an act of self-affirmation.

Just as an artist doesn’t draw “the sun” to convey the empirical reality of “the sun” (which, in itself, is not a stable identity but an ever-changing intensity - you never experience the sun in the same way twice; or as Heraclitus said, “you never step into the same river twice”).

Right now all I want to make sure first,  is that I track what we actually disagree about when it comes to the concept and utility of clarification.

It seems to me that you agree that there is such a thing as me getting you closer to what I mean about a given thing. Do you agree with that? (even if its just slightly closer)

Edited November 3 by zurew

[Nilsi]

14 minutes ago, Scholar said:

All motions are an act of self-affirmation in this sense. All forms of existence are simply the assertion of it's own existence.

This is simply one way to look at existence, but it's still a construct.

Yes, but it’s a way of looking at existence that reconciles the singularity of your immediate existence with eternity, without relying on external validation or symbolic mediation.

If you want your life to be meaningful only in relation to some transcendent reality, or the bottomless pit that is counter-intuitive scientific reasoning, you're welcome to do that.

Edited November 3 by Nilsi

[Scholar]

Just now, Nilsi said:

Yes, but it’s a way of looking at existence that reconciles the singularity of your immediate existence with eternity, without relying on external validation or symbolic mediation.

If you want your life to be meaningful only in relation to some transcendent reality, you're welcome to do that.

It's one way of looking at existence that way. But all the sets of problems that you are trying to solve are emergent in the first place. There is a complex web of forms of existence which then result in the solution that could be described as existing with the least amount of friction, in a conceptual sense, within the emergent environment.

Ideation of symoblism, externality, subjectivity and eternity are all emergent.

 

There are infinite possible expressions. In other words, you are not truly construct aware. If you knew, you'd realize how profoundly infinite existence is. It is indescribable, and it is infinitely describable, and it is neither.

 

The problems that you are so immersed in are a fabrication, the entire framing of what is perceived as existence is a fabrication, a result of dynamics that build upon each other, as they self-express themselves. And even this is one more way of reality self-asserting itself.

 

Existence can assert itself so profoundly boundlessly that it becomes meaningless to attempt to capture it. And furthermore, it is so profoundly boundless that it becomes meaningful to attempt to capture it. 

[Scholar]

You will never able to capture infinity. Your very existence is infinity capturing you.

[Nilsi]

15 minutes ago, Scholar said:

There are infinite possible expressions. In other words, you are not truly construct aware. If you knew, you'd realize how profoundly infinite existence is. It is indescribable, and it is infinitely describable, and it is neither.

Again, I'm affirming difference in itself, not some particular identity of "difference."

My whole point is that it’s impossible to “capture infinity.” Every affirmation is a singularity that doesn’t affirm anything but itself.

This is what I take Bob Dylan to mean when he says, “Inside the museums, Infinity goes up on trial.”

Edited November 3 by Nilsi

[zurew]

47 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

What I’m saying is: there is no stable reality I could clarify for you. If you ask me why I did what I did or said what I said five minutes ago, there’s no way to truly explain it. Reality has completely shifted by that point. Sure, we could analyze this from an evolutionary perspective, exploring why humans might have developed the need to suppress this constant flux of reality, and that would be an interesting discussion. But my interest lies in this kind of metaphysical framing, as opposed to the traditional Western view, with its stable identities and universal truths.

For the sake of the argument I can grant all that underlying metaphysics and your theory of meaning. I don't see how under all of that, clarification is not possible or not useful. 

Again clarification in my view doesn't mean that you transfer meaning 1:1 exactly as it is.

Clarification under your framework where the referent always changes would just mean you outline what you mean by that phrase under your understanding at that given moment. If at t1 by X you mean Y1 , it might be the case that when you reflect on it at t2 you wont be able to describe Y1 but you will describe Y2, but thats fine with me. 

We dont have such a sophisticated meaning detector (at least I don't) where an infinitely miniscule change in context will competely throw me off from getting a sense what you are trying to refer to. But you desribing Y2 at t2 is still better than you not giving me anything.

 

Edited November 3 by zurew

[Scholar]

Just now, Nilsi said:

Again, I'm affirming difference in itself, not some particular identity of "difference."

My whole point is that it’s impossible to “capture infinity.” Every affirmation is a singularity that doesn’t affirm anything but itself.

This is what I take Bob Dylan to mean when he says, “Inside the Museum, Infinity goes up on trial.”

No, look at it. This is just existence.

 

It is possible to capture infinity! That's what infinity is. The affirmation of itself is what infinity is.

 

But notice further more, that this entire construct, this entire thought, this entire space of existence which you are currently emerged in, is merely one more of such self-affirmation.

It is a self-affirmation loop. You have manifested this whole idea, it has manifested itself. This is what infinity is. It is impossible, but Infinity is Impossibility itself. It has no limitations, this is the demonstration of it's limitlessness.

 

Anything that you bound yourself by will be a bounding. But all things are bounds, unless they are not.

Infinity can do whatever it wants, it can do the impossible, it can do the possible, it can do neither and both. There is no such thing as difference itself, unless Existence says so, and even when it says so, there is no such thing, unless it says so. 

This is infinity, look at it.

[Nilsi]

53 minutes ago, Scholar said:

It is a self-affirmation loop. You have manifested this whole idea, it has manifested itself. This is what infinity is. It is impossible, but Infinity is Impossibility itself. It has no limitations, this is the demonstration of it's limitlessness.

Yes. It’s a self-affirmation loop. But each repetition is different, because it’s difference affirming itself.

And that’s far preferable to a self-negation loop - which is what most of Western metaphysics is concerned with.

Edited November 3 by Nilsi

[Nilsi]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

For the sake of the argument I can grant all that underlying metaphysics and your theory of meaning. I don't see how under all of that, clarification is not possible or not useful. 

Again clarification in my view doesn't mean that you transfer meaning 1:1 exactly as it is.

Clarification under your framework where the referent always changes would just mean you outline what you mean by that phrase under your understanding at that given moment. If at t1 by X you mean Y1 , it might be the case that when you reflect on it at t2 you wont be able to describe Y1 but you will describe Y2, but thats fine with me. 

We dont have such a sophisticated meaning detector (at least I don't) where an infinitely miniscule change in context will competely throw me off from getting a sense what you are trying to refer to. But you desribing Y2 at t2 is still better than you not giving me anything.

 

At the end of the day, it just pisses me off because I communicated exactly what I meant in the way I wanted. If I use the word “difference,” it’s because I want to use that word. When you ask me to use different words instead, it loses all its meaning. I’d much rather give - and receive - the benefit of the doubt that the words used were intentional.

I’m sure Carl specifically chose the word “omniscience” in that context, and I’d much rather inquire into why he used that word than ask him to use something else, or superimpose my own conceptual framework on it. Although he admitted to "finding different words for the same thing," so maybe I should just let you two play your transcendental idealist games, if that's what get's you off.

To me this is like asking Van Gogh to repaint The Starry Night in a more realistic and "clear" style - as if that wouldn’t entirely defeat the purpose of his art.

[zurew]

40 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

At the end of the day, it just pisses me off because I communicated exactly what I meant in the way I wanted. If I use the word “difference,” it’s because I want to use that word. When you ask me to use different words instead, it loses all its meaning. I’d much rather give - and receive - the benefit of the doubt that the words used were intentional.

I dont care about you using a specific phrase for a given meaning  , Im interested in understanding the meaning behind your sentences and words . Im not interested in forcing my semantics onto you, you can use whatever semantics you want, but I want to understand the meaning behind the semantics you use.

 Clarification in my view just means specifying the context a given phrased is used in.

40 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

To me this is like asking Van Gogh to repaint The Starry Night in a more realistic and "clear" style - as if that wouldn’t entirely defeat the purpose of his art.

Dude, we made this big ass tangent about theories of meaning and about metaphysics but at the end of the day, all we seem to relevantly disagree about is communication norms.

You could have just said that you are not interested in clarifying your terms, without pushing the convo into unnecessary rabbitholes (theory of meaning and metaphysics).

None of the disagreements about metaphysics or about theory of meaning was relevant or necessary for me to understand the fact that you don't want to play by the same communication norms.

Edited November 3 by zurew

[Yimpa]

I think this topic has completely derailed 

[Nilsi]

14 minutes ago, zurew said:

None of the disagreements about metaphysics or about theory of meaning was relevant or necessary for me to understand the fact that you don't want to play by the same communication norms.

It actually would have been relevant to understand why I’m not interested in that form of communication.

[zurew]

4 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

It actually would have been relevant to understand why I’m not interested in that form of communication.

Sure, but even your framework is compatible with clarification the way I outlined it.

The real reason is not your theory of meaning or your metaphysics , the real reason is your preference. 

[Nilsi]

6 minutes ago, zurew said:

Sure, but even your framework is compatible with clarification the way I outlined it.

The real reason is not your theory of meaning or your metaphysics , the real reason is your preference. 

You’re acting as if one’s subjectivity and metaphysics aren’t deeply enmeshed with each other.

You can’t just ignore my argument and then pretend you’ve concluded that it has nothing to do with what we were discussing.

[zurew]

18 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

You’re acting as if one’s subjectivity and metaphysics aren’t deeply enmeshed with each other.

You can’t just ignore my argument and then pretend you’ve concluded that it has nothing to do with what we were discussing.

Im not saying it has nothing to do with it, but what im saying is still true.

You could in principle maintain all your views and still engage in clarification.

 

There is a difference between your metapysics constraining and limiting and informing what kind of norms you can  engage in and your subjective preferences informing the same. 

Talking about metaphysics in this case is a big red-herring.

 

 

Edited November 3 by zurew

[Nilsi]

11 minutes ago, zurew said:

Im not saying it has nothing to do with it, but what im saying is still true.

You could in principle maintain all your views and still engage in clarification.

 

There is a difference between your metapysics constraining and limiting and informing what kind of norms you can  engage in and between your subjective preferences informing the same. 

Talking about metaphysics in this case is a big red-herring.

 

 

Again, you’re assuming there’s some underlying Platonic idea or truth in what I’m saying, just obscured by my idiosyncratic use of language, which you could uncover through some dialectical process of “clarifying.”

But, as I’ve been saying, the entire point of this “big ass tangent” was to argue why I hold difference as a more fundamental category than identity (or truth, for that matter) - a point I illustrated with several analogies, like the absurdity of asking an artist to clarify their art.

You’re projecting your metaphysical framework onto mine, when all I asked was to keep yours and let me keep mine, if you’re not interested in engaging with my argument.

Edited November 3 by Nilsi