The Concept Paradox

[NikitaW]

Seeing in a materialist way, is seeing the concepts as the reality that you life in.

Going beyond concepts, you see reality undefined as the absolute that it is.

But looking deeply even concepts are a part of the ultimate reality as a finitude in the infinite.

So concepts exist and do not at the same time,

like this concept about concepts.

[Neo]

Quote

"concepts are a part of the ultimate reality"

Are they? I would question this bit. ULTIMATE REALITY.

Edited March 14, 2018 by Neo

[Leo Gura]

Of course concepts are things.

A photo of Santa Claus is a real object. It's just not Santa Claus.

The map is not the territory, but a map is still part of the territory.

What you are talking about here is becoming conscious of what a symbol is.

I have an important video about this topic: Grasping The Illusory Nature Of Thought.

[Joseph Maynor]

Here's a deep question: What is a concept?

Notice that even asking this question has some philosophical baggage to it.  What am I presupposing to even ask this question?  What are my expectations for what the answer should look like?

Edited March 14, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[NikitaW]

 The very fact that you can read these words right in this moment shows that concepts exist, even though words are empty without you knowing their meaning. Like a language that you don't know, you only see letters that are mixed together. It is your experience with these concepts that are now stored in your memory and are put together while you are reading this to make sense of it.

[NikitaW]

Like the notion that people think that you reach enlightenment merely by reaching the point of no thought. Is not true. It might be a stage that will bring you peace and joy like you never felt before, but ultimately the concept of a separate self is still in your perception. To get rid or rather see the true nature of this concept is a mind bending task to do.

[tsuki]

51 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Here's a deep question: What is a concept?

Notice that even asking this question has some philosophical baggage to it.  What am I presupposing to even ask this question?  What are my expectations for what the answer should look like?

@Joseph Maynor It is very similar to asking what is truth. In both cases you ask what is X of X?
What is truth about truth?
What is the concept of concept?

41 minutes ago, NikitaW said:

 The very fact that you can read these words right in this moment shows that concepts exist, even though words are empty without you knowing their meaning. Like a language that you don't know, you only see letters that are mixed together. It is your experience with these concepts that are now stored in your memory and are put together while you are reading this to make sense of it.

@NikitaW  The funny thing is that once you start to answer questions about concepts, you use concepts.
Once you start asking "What is X?" you need assume that every concept you bring to table while explaining is understood.

This of course brings us to experiences that are inexpressible, like: "what it means to be?". You ARE, as you ask this question. It's like the part to @Joseph Maynor : What is X of X? There are no linguistical answers to that question.

Quote

“Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.” 
― Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

 

Edited March 14, 2018 by tsuki
Last paragraph

[NikitaW]

10 minutes ago, tsuki said:

@NikitaW  The funny thing is that once you start to answer questions about concepts, you use concepts.
Once you start asking "What is X?" you need assume that every concept you bring to table while explaining is understood.
This is of course total bullshit, as nobody even knows what it means to be.

Yes that is the funny thing about language. It becomes problematic when your concepts differ and you misunderstand each other. 

When talking about what it means to be I go even so far and say that it can deceive you and you will just build up a concept that will satisfy your ego in already having reached that point of being that is talked about. Need to be very careful at that point and mindful of the subtle action of ones own self-deceptive mechanisms.

[tsuki]

21 minutes ago, NikitaW said:

Yes that is the funny thing about language. It becomes problematic when your concepts differ and you misunderstand each other. 

I don't think that there is ever a misunderstanding of concepts. My understanding of concepts is no better or worse than yours as long as we use logic to validate them. What logic is is simply a feeling of coherence between thoughts. My thoughts are coherent and your thoughts are coherent in our separate contexts.

When we talk and "misunderstand" each other, all we do is build a shared coherence of thoughts. In a certain sense we become a single person and blend our physical worlds together.

21 minutes ago, NikitaW said:

When talking about what it means to be I go even so far and say that it can deceive you and you will just build up a concept that will satisfy your ego in already having reached that point of being that is talked about. Need to be very careful at that point and mindful of the subtle action of ones own self-deceptive mechanisms.

See, there is no deception! Even if my mode of being is different than yours - I AM what I AM. There is no lie in that!

What concepts I take to be true is what shapes the world around me. Any concepts may be true as long as they are coherent and they will  be the answer to a question "what does it mean to be?". Ego is simply the thing that prevents the shift of  true concepts one holds, but it is false in the sense that any concepts may become true as long as you build the bridge of consistency between your current self and what is "misunderstood".

Edited March 14, 2018 by tsuki
imply -> simply

[NikitaW]

 

1 hour ago, tsuki said:

I don't think that there is ever a misunderstanding of concepts. My understanding of concepts is no better or worse than yours as long as we use logic to validate them. What logic is is simply a feeling of coherence between thoughts. My thoughts are coherent and your thoughts are coherent in our separate contexts.

When we talk and "misunderstand" each other, all we do is build a shared coherence of thoughts. In a certain sense we become a single person and blend our physical worlds together.

So see what understanding means is relative to the thing that you want to understand. Thru that it is a concept and in this very concept we can have a different understanding of what to understanding.  So their we have already a misunderstanding that my concept is that i want to understand your point of view, but how can i truly do it without being you other than merely see my own thought coherence to MY logic and feeling to your words? And logic, feeling and thoughts are just concepts again.

1 hour ago, tsuki said:

See, there is no deception! Even if my mode of being is different than yours - I AM what I AM. There is no lie in that!

This is relative to what you consider as truth.

 

1 hour ago, tsuki said:

What concepts I take to be true is what shapes the world around me. Any concepts may be true as long as they are coherent and they will  be the answer to a question "what does it mean to be?"

Yes that is right as long you are not on the path to find what is the absolute truth. For that you have to transcendent your own concepts and don't fall for that what you are exactly saying.

 

Haha but what is this here right now, Just a clashing of concepts nothing more. Their is no truth whatsoever in it.    

[tsuki]

46 minutes ago, NikitaW said:

So see what understanding means is relative to the thing that you want to understand. Thru that it is a concept and in this very concept we can have a different understanding of what to understanding.

Yes, this game of communication is relative and agreement on meaning can be achieved in many dimensions.

When one states that two objects A and B are in relation R, the other may try to understand how objects A and B are such that relation R occurs, or  may understand how relation R is such that it links A and B.

You can change the game by moving the pieces according to rules, but you can also change the rules so that the game is different without moving the pieces. What I claim is that the two are identical, or equivalent, in the game of communication.

46 minutes ago, NikitaW said:

So their we have already a misunderstanding that my concept is that i want to understand your point of view, but how can i truly do it without being you other than merely see my own thought coherence to MY logic and feeling to your words?

By the mere act of seeing your coherence in my words that were previously "unknown" you expand your notion of truth. It is not the same truth as mine, but they overlap in a sense. We are playing two separate games, but the rules and positions of pieces are "understood".

This first-hand experience of "understanding" of things is nothing else than "lack of surprise" so that Ego is calm. There is no tension between us. In this sense there is one ego that encompasses both of us and we may defend our understanding once a third party challenges it. This is nothing else than culture, or society.

46 minutes ago, NikitaW said:

[...]

This is relative to what you consider as truth.

[...]

Yes that is right as long you are not on the path to find what is the absolute truth. For that you have to transcendent your own concepts and don't fall for that what you are exactly saying.

Once you say that truth is absolutely relative, you are simultaneously saying that relativity is the absolute truth. 
 

Edited March 14, 2018 by tsuki