| On use of experience and reason|
|22 Sep 2004 @ 23:22, by nednednerb|
Hey all. I've moved in and am attending classes, 2nd year university! Yay! English and Philosophy are fun! Here are some thoughts I wrote after thinking about a philosophy lecture.
Apparent avid communication exposes a light on reality that I think cannot be denied. When I look at the world and reflect on this, I see that human events and contexts are caught in a ‘neat’ way. I see that the keyboard and screen before me are undeniably bound by use in coordination with – here’s the important part - an intent of communication.
Philosophers debate what this intent might be, an intent that arises in a material world of precise ordering and seeming intellectual supplication, but that such an intent exists is really of no question. Any proposition must fail that does not charitably account as ‘intended’ what meaning we glean thru our communication, and must fail because you’re receptive to these words, expressive with your response, and meaningful. I assume this, drudgingly that is, because I feel I rather know others are coming across to me!
Is the ‘intent’ behind every event one kind? For example, in such forms as mechanical or magical (the former implies law-consequent necessities and the latter implies creations from our rules,) do either of these alone govern the outcome of every process and pattern that happens? Whatever the case, that intent must be at least partially cognitive, as to account for apparent meaning. The bodies respond to physical law yet minds are our domain, and a sense of communication easily verifies this. The ontological status should not be in doubt. Can’t you hear me??? I do not think all argument here depends on merely proving the extent of physics in our behaviour. There’s more to our world and us, seemingly.
I say this because to be realistic we must respect notions that our lives are physically embodied and that experience and expression in our psyche are enmeshed within interactions of that embodiment. Yet notions also are to be respected that at one important level of these interactions, sentience must be seen to guide results. I believe meaning and perception CANNOT be inherent or hidden in cause-effect material transitions. Human expression certainly uses those transitions however. I feel that what I believe is that this life is unbearable to live and impossible to understand if we restrain from acknowledging the status of our creative faculties.
I know some of our process must have what are deemed ‘mechanical’ restraints. By the above paragraphs it would be that my position entails that somehow for living systems of a particular sentient tuning, the mechanical restraints allow ‘say’ in the subatomic ‘decisions’ that, I argue as to make sense of our lives, we must infer as quite bound by sentient intent. I can only find sense in ordinary language that “there is what we intend to communicate and what we do communicate.”
I can only find sense in assuming we drive toward creating things like creative technology for personal and widespread discovery, rather than by means of the necessities of an overriding underlying force. I guess I see a pertinence to the notion of identity. I see that a living spiritual force that is you and is me underlies the actions of the bodies we ride in. Your messages make no sense if you don’t mean them is what I’m getting at. Eliminative materialism must fail, because you make sense to me sometimes!!! Does this sound weird or philosophically unsound a bit?
To be honest, I can’t imagine how, logically, someone might assume our thoughts have no momentum besides the physical momentum of particles in our brain. Minds are NOT physical. I believe thoughts are embodied physically and can be observed by scientists as happening in our brains, sure… but physical process is ‘blind.’ We behold beauty, bear witness to others’ messages, and we feel so much we cry now and then. “We” are not physical beings. We are spiritually anchored, physically enmeshed, and I believe this is undeniable if one seeks charity in their assessment of this world and if one seeks to avoid despair and delusion.
I don’t think we’re being used by any merely inalterable deity or physical logic, if there could be such things. I think we use our experience and reason for creation in a world for us to share. I see it in people talking to each other, desiring to share a unique perspective. I can imagine neither someone or something calling or necessitating the shots before all happens as we perceive our willing it.
The undeniable way we experience the world and reason about it entails wonder. All these many observables of the universe, our artifacts, those symbolic and technologic, must be properly regarded as belonging to our intentional use. The faculties of scientific inquiry have fallen to a dire state when only physical mechanism is assumes possible in explaining nature. Our avid communication must be seen as integral to nature, not as a byproduct of a nature that doesn't think.
Even Occam’s razor insists in our personal autonomy. What’s simpler than assuming we mean what we say and that from us do our intentions arise. Considering our actions must teleologically regarded beyond ordinary physical mechanics, then a natural way of describing human events is thru "a mechanics of magic.” Magic is your voice unanticipated nor contained within blind molecular motion. Choice acted upon is magic upon the flesh.
24 Sep 2004 @ 13:01 by : This has the ring of a philosopher
and it rings on and on and on and on and on. I could not explain the logic of what you wrote without finding a dictionary definition of each word and then finding definitions of each word in each definition. That would become a verrry long essay. It would probably become boring long before you reached the end of the seventeenth round of definitions of definitions.
How is it that we communicate without clear and complete logic?
8 Dec 2005 @ 17:11 by : In yoga science
there are electrical impulses connecting various parts of the body, nadi. They are contained within the aura, move the hand, or the heart, and physical embodiment transfers to thought via the brain. And, limitations were placed by God on understanding the universe, putting the accent on action or being, rather than thinking for thought' sake so as to have some fun somewhere please.
2 Jan 2016 @ 09:40 by @126.96.36.199 : telecherger jeux
Meilleurs Jeux de Moto Gratuits et Nouveautés 2015 : Envie de jouer aux meilleurs jeux de moto gratuits ? Bienvenue sur notre page moto.
Other entries in Philosophy
17 Jun 2010 @ 06:07: Stereotypes are circular and non-scientific
29 May 2010 @ 18:00: StereoTypes are debased Concepts
31 Mar 2010 @ 15:08: What's the line between "immersing in beauty" and exaltation?
26 Mar 2010 @ 14:47: Dialectical Analysis of Consciousness and Information
6 Mar 2010 @ 07:49: The word for World is Forest
17 Feb 2010 @ 15:55: Dialectical analysis of the Post-modern Epoch
10 Feb 2010 @ 18:50: Mindmap for Ifa for the 21st Century
19 Dec 2008 @ 09:42: Cosmic Egg, Cosmic Onion
4 Dec 2008 @ 03:58: Profound Metaphysical Questions to Ask Yourself
30 Nov 2008 @ 10:59: The Hard Problem of Conscious Experience