Why trust our direct experience?

[Fran11]

1 hour ago, Gesundheit said:

Elaborate pls.

Language is a consensus.

Each word is a label/symbol. In order for language to work, we must first agree on what aspects of our direct experience we are going to apply a particulat label or not.  

The label/symbol itself is greatly arbitrary. A cat doesn't look like the word "cat". It's just something we agree upon because it's useful.

This consensus is imperfect for two reasons:

- Many objects are going to share the same label (all the "cats" in the world, we call them like that).

- And more importantly, there will be disagreements on wether some things diserve that label or not (which is why in this forum people discuss things like if we should say reality is everythingness/nothingness/both/whatever).

Because of this two factors, we cannot convey absolute truth (direct experience) using language.

When we use language, if we both agree that it corresponds with our direct experience we will say it's a true. But a third person may not agree with our use of labels and consider it false, this happens because it dependends on our prior consensus, which is imperfect. Therefore, a statement being true/false is relative. 

These disagreements happen all the time in everyday life, so it's not about being "overly-techincal". What counts as "cheating in a relationship" for example, is not the same for everyone. . For some a kiss will be chating, and for some only sex will be cheating. People use labels differently

This happens because what we are transmitting is not our direct experience. 

I hope this helps .

 

 

Edited September 2, 2020 by Fran11

[Gesundheit]

55 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

ISness is what IS, it is not limited to an idea called "nothing".

Exactly, and the word nothing describes what is perfectly, under one condition, which is not to restrict it with the word "only" or anything like that. Ex: being is only nothing. That is a false statement because it leaves out everything/phenomenon/perception/appearance.

56 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

You are using a different context of "everything". If ISness is everything, then it includes ALL distinctions. Thus, it has no contrast to distinguish itself and it no longer exists as a separate "thing".

If it ever existed as a separate thing, then it was never the absolute truth. I am saying that nothing = everything, meaning that there's no distinction between nothing and everything. Nothing and everything exist as one thing and at the same time creating a distinction between them is valid. 

1 hour ago, Forestluv said:

My impression is that you are creating constructs of "nothing" and "everything".

I am creating these constructs, yes. Not because I want to extract some value out of them, but because they have to be. These constructs are true, and the distinction between them is true. At least that's how it is to me. If these true constructs didn't exist, other false constructs would replace them and that would make me deluded.

[Gesundheit]

1 hour ago, Fran11 said:

Language is a consensus.

Each word is a label/symbol. In order for language to work, we must first agree on what aspects of our direct experience we are going to apply a particulat label or not.  

The label/symbol itself is greatly arbitrary. A cat doesn't look like the word "cat". It's just something we agree upon because it's useful.

This consensus is imperfect for two reasons:

- Many objects are going to share the same label (all the "cats" in the world, we call them like that).

- And more importantly, there will be disagreements on wether some things diserve that label or not (which is why in this forum people discuss things like if we should say reality is everythingness/nothingness/both/whatever).

Because of this two factors, we cannot convey absolute truth (direct experience) using language.

When we use language, if we both agree that it corresponds with our direct experience we will say it's a true. But a third person may not agree with our use of labels and consider it false, this happens because it dependends on our prior consensus, which is imperfect. Therefore, a statement being true/false is relative. 

These disagreements happen all the time in everyday life, so it's not about being "overly-techincal". What counts as "cheating in a relationship" for example, is not the same for everyone. . For some a kiss will be chating, and for some only sex will be cheating. People use labels differently

This happens because what we are transmitting is not our direct experience. 

I hope this helps .

Thank you. I will contemplate and reflect on what you said here.

[Forestluv]

@Gesundheit My impression is that you are shifted far into theoretical grounding. That’s great in some contexts, yet there is also a price to pay in other contexts. 

[Danioover9000]

@Knowledge

On 8/28/2020 at 5:03 PM, Knowledge said:

Why trust it when we know that we can be tricked by a simple sleight of hand?

 

   I'm typing. Is my direct experience lying?

[Johnny5]

17 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Knowledge

   I'm typing. Is my direct experience lying?

Yes, definitely and knowably.

[Gesundheit]

7 hours ago, Forestluv said:

@Gesundheit My impression is that you are shifted far into theoretical grounding. That’s great in some contexts, yet there is also a price to pay in other contexts. 

Perhaps.