|
On April 10 2015 05:35 farvacola wrote:I think the concept of the Knight of Mirrors is fascinating as hell. I was kinda pissed when he turned out to be a bitter village kid lol. On a side note, has anyone read this? I can't decide if I should write it off at the gate or dive right in. ![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8b/Mind_and_Cosmos_cover.JPG)
it was fine imo
i think you should dive in.
|
|
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
you kids stay off of my lawn. bookwyrm posted some stuff about a highly regarded work in a field that he has demonstrably little knowledge in, i shot it down. that's it. if i were to go off about how foucault is a shitter etc without actually reading the book, then i expect some hostile reactions as well.
|
Lawns are bad for the environment.
|
On April 10 2015 20:34 oneofthem wrote:
you kids stay off of my lawn. bookwyrm posted some stuff about a highly regarded work in a field that he has demonstrably little knowledge in, i shot it down. that's it. if i were to go off about how foucault is a shitter etc without actually reading the book, then i expect some hostile reactions as well.
You didn't shot anything down, didn't present any argument, and had nothing to say besides "this is not what the book says".. First post I was kinda interested in reading your suggestion, now it seems I have better things to do than reading a book you can't even sum up quickly to defend. My loss I guess.
Actually saying something would mean engaging in a fruitful discussion though, and I've come to know that's not something to expect from you. Pity.
Edit : my bad, you did engage in that one post where summed up bookwyrm's position by "Heiddeger and continental philosophy". And complained about people simplifying your position. lol
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i asked him to clarify what 'process' meant in his posts and got gibberish in return.
i made the analogy that i thought was conclusive of the discussion, even though i don't know what he's talking about, in response to a post entirely consisting of flippant misreadings.
if you want to explain to me how "everything is a process" contributes here, i could maybe read it and respond. but it's simply gibberish until this elaboration.
edit: i took the effort to research this opaque 'process' idea and learned the existence of this "process philosophy." looks like a collection of duh mixed with an inexplicable dichotomy between the study of objects and process." the result of this confusion seems to be a crippling inability to distinguish between meta level and object level discussion, (charitably) making my analogy prescient as well as accurate. i don't see how this stuff contributes at all to either ontology in general or in the analysis of consciousness.
as far as calling metzinger's book correct, i have my good reasons.
|
On April 11 2015 00:38 oneofthem wrote:
as far as calling metzinger's book correct, i have my good reasons.
And I'd like to know them rather than your opinion on what is gibberish and what is not.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i wasn't intent on making a 50 page post on the subject, you'll have to take it or leave it when it comes to my evaluation of metzinger. his arguments can stand on their own and my primary concern is resolving the status of subjective experience in a way that is ontologically deflating about the experience itself, but preserves the content of that experience in terms of representational content etc. it's basically an extension of reformed naive truth theory but in the area of mental representation.
what i've called gibberish is the process stuff. the involvement of concept choice in our ontology is a duh 'insight' that is accepted after quine. the proper understanding of 'process' etc is just an additional dimension of inquiry, or a pluralistic choice of concepts wtih which to understand the world. this sensible understanding of process is not going to produce statements like "everything is a process" and nor does it replace discussion of specific problems in our conceptual stock, such as consciousness.
if your maths class is asking for a proof of cauchy convergence or something and you write, "EVERYTHING IS A PROCESS, ONTOLOGY A LIE" do you think you can pass?
|
Nope but if you ask me wether I think Lang's Algebra is a good introductive work to modern number theory I can say a bit more than "duh just trust me it isn't" and I don't have to write a 50 page essay.
Also "that is accepted after quine" by whom may I ask ? The mysteries of what analytic philosopher thinksthey are will never cease to amuse me I guess.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
ive said plenty including identifying metzinger's core approach. you can try to read
|
Sure...
Oh, on a lighter tone, I'll share a bit of my life with the people who hate or don't hate Derrida here. For my grandfather's burial, a priest of his friends, a dominican who also married my parents, did the ceremony, which was some serious troll for the roman catholic church with stuff like "don't worry, they weren't only 13 at the Cene and there were woman" "I tried to rewrite to Prodigal son with women" "people who are trying to reform our church at last, but from within, not like the maybe too fast Reformed Churches" "you guys should read protestant theologian on this" and so on every single second. And so this guy was a very good friend of Derrida, whom he met in prépa, and he still knows his wife. Lots of theological discussions with him apparently... And yeah, apparently the question really is why did he felt so bad he had to write this way^^
|
from p 208 of metzinger:
"The self is not a thing but a process. "
LOL gibberish.
so, like I say, follows a fortiori from what all intelligent philosophers have known for most of the 20th century, which is that everything is not a thing but a process. so we hardly need this book to tell us this!!
On April 11 2015 01:46 oneofthem wrote:
my primary concern is resolving the status of subjective experience in a way that is ontologically deflating about the experience itself, but preserves the content of that experience in terms of representational content etc. it's basically an extension of reformed naive truth theory but in the area of mental representation.
so cute. you went to school and learned how to make obvious things sound smart with jargon. Why not just say, "consciousness is clearly real, because i'm experiencing it, but it doesn't seem to fit into my ontology, and so I'm trying to figure out how these can both be true." nothing in what you say says more than this.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
yes? ive already explained why that process is different from your puff metaphysical notion. what do they teach you guys up at deleuze camp
|
i like how your argumentative strategy is just to claim that you've already explained things and never actually explain them
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
and 'everything is relative' establishes the superfluous status of einstein.
you can actually read and understand what was already posted. given your glue like reading ability this is pretty pointless.
|
lol that seemed more like story than a comic book review to me, but it was a good story. I am now a fan.
|
Not comparable. The point is that this guy is debunking a 'common sense' notion of the self which nobody has believed in since , like, freud. So maybe this is news to 12 year olds but everybody I know already k mm ows that the seld doesnt exist in the way we think it does, that its a process not a thing, etc etc. And theyve known it for a long time and didnt even need neuroscience to tell them this. I mean, im glad youre catching up with the sixties and everything but have a little humility.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
you are confusing a general doctrine for specific knowledge. much like the relativist in my example. your statesments are without content.
ur process philosophy would be perfectly useless against anyone but randoids, so at least it is not rand level bad
|
No YOUR statements are without content. Neener neener!
|
Hey, is this the materialists bookclub?! I haven't given up the Cartesian self!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
