'Mortal as I am, I know that I am born for a day. But when I follow at my pleasure the serried multitude of the stars in their circular course, my feet no longer touch the earth.'
 
HomeCalendarFAQSearchMemberlistRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Disbelief in the Real

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 245
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Disbelief in the Real   Fri Jan 13, 2012 10:38 pm

It is true that what we identify as "the real" or "reality" is always a deduction of the mind. But due to that, a common fallacious conclusion is drawn to claim that because it is merely deduced, it isn't real, rather merely "in the mind". Such a fallacy is largely founded on the idea that any deduction must be not only fallible, but in fact, false. And that such a notion is supportable by the number of times a person has been found to be or tricked into being in error. If he can be tricked, then he must not have any means to know that he isn't being tricked at any one moment and therefore must always have doubt and additionally must always be in error.

The promotion of doubt and discomfort throughout the Western world serves a purpose. And it isn't to serve the Western world.

Natural analytical thinking in even the most simple-minded creature allows the creature to deduce reality via its combined senses and memory of senses. Confuse its ability to deduce and its ability to know reality has been crippled. In effect, it has been blinded even though still capable of seeing, just not being able to tell what it is that it is seeing. Once the ability to deduce gets crippled, its cognitive reasoning has been weakened, the subject becomes suggestible and is far more easily persuaded into accepting any of many possibilities including the possibility that there is in fact, no such thing as reality at all. It can then be easily convinced that the good guys are the bad guys and vsvrsa and drawn into emotionalism concerning almost any issue.

It is all the result and fruit of an insidious art spelled out, among other places, in the Kabbalah and is used as one of the "black arts" to confuse and manipulate societies and individuals.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3599
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Will to Power

PostSubject: Re: Disbelief in the Real   Fri Jan 13, 2012 11:13 pm

Support your claims more. Of course the idea that merely because we can make errors in our deductions means our deductions are always or necessarily erroneous is, well, a false deduction. Of course it is also erroneous to say that we access reality "directly" or "perfectly" through the complex machinations of our minds/senses. Either extreme is just that, an extreme. A large part of what we experience as real is constructed in the mind. And yet these constructions do not become "unreal" for this. Nor do they fail in some manner or another to make contact with "real" conditions external to ourselves, which is to say, conditions of imposition and restraint to which we are subject.

Other than all that, which is all quite obvious, why should I believe you that there is some "insidious art" here? Defend this claim, make me believe you.

 

___________
"Since the old God has abdicated, I shall rule the world from now on." --Nietzsche

"It would be wise to exercise caution with one's wishes." --Penny Royal AI

Odinwar <---[truth]---> Jeraz

Peace. War. Love. Wordz


Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
without-music
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 37
Join date : 2011-11-16

PostSubject: Re: Disbelief in the Real   Sat Jan 14, 2012 2:24 am

Capable wrote:
A large part of what we experience as real is constructed in the mind. And yet these constructions do not become "unreal" for this.
Yes. We should remember Nietzsche: the distinction between ideal and apparent has collapsed. It seems to me, James, that while Nietzsche would have us affirm the apparent, for it is our only, you'd like to affirm the ideal -- to banish the apparent to the status of manipulative conjecture. I'm not sure how you want to accomplish such a task. The distinction between ideal and apparent is itself only an apparent distinction: the apparent is our means to the ideal; it is the condition for the possibility of the ideal, and not the other way around. I hesitate to use the term "real", for this is a Lacanian term designating that to which our minds give form, shape, legibility. It's nonsensical to speak as if the mind could give us the real; what it gives is of necessity an interpretation -- in Lacan's language. But Nietzsche's great contribution was to suggest that this real itself, this uninterpreted or pre-interpreted primordiality, is always-already an interpretation, always-already apparent.

James S Saint wrote:
Natural analytical thinking in even the most simple-minded creature allows the creature to deduce reality via its combined senses and memory of senses.
Does this statement not beg the question?

 

___________
“…to act is to modify the shape of the world…”
Back to top Go down
View user profile
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 245
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: Disbelief in the Real   Sat Jan 14, 2012 5:05 am

Capable wrote:
Support your claims more. Of course the idea that merely because we can make errors in our deductions means our deductions are always or necessarily erroneous is, well, a false deduction. Of course it is also erroneous to say that we access reality "directly" or "perfectly" through the complex machinations of our minds/senses. Either extreme is just that, an extreme. A large part of what we experience as real is constructed in the mind. And yet these constructions do not become "unreal" for this. Nor do they fail in some manner or another to make contact with "real" conditions external to ourselves, which is to say, conditions of imposition and restraint to which we are subject.

Other than all that, which is all quite obvious, why should I believe you that there is some "insidious art" here? Defend this claim, make me believe you.
What? You want me to prove a conspiracy theory and on an occult forum no less? Yeah right.. Rolling Eyes
What exactly did you want for me to prove? That the occult actually exists? That people really attempt to manipulate others? I have to be a little curious what you would accept as valid proof of such things.

If you are expecting for Wikipedia to publish the written, or even worse the verbal, Kabbalah on their site, you might have quite a long wait. But I was curious what Wiki had to say about the "Occult";

Quote :
The word occult comes from the Latin word occultus (clandestine, hidden, secret), referring to "knowledge of the hidden".[1] In the medical sense it is used to refer to a structure or process that is hidden, e.g. an "occult bleed"[2] may be one detected indirectly by the presence of otherwise unexplained anemia.

The word has many uses in the English language, popularly meaning "knowledge of the paranormal", as opposed to "knowledge of the measurable",[3][4] usually referred to as science. The term is sometimes popularly taken to mean "knowledge meant only for certain people" or "knowledge that must be kept hidden", but for most practicing occultists it is simply the study of a deeper spiritual reality that extends beyond pure reason and the physical sciences.[5] The terms esoteric and arcane can have a very similar meaning, and the three terms are often interchangeable.[6][7]

The term occult is also used as a label given to a number of magical organizations or orders, the teachings and practices taught by them, and to a large body of current and historical literature and spiritual philosophy related to this subject....

In Rabbinic Judaism, an entire body of literature, collectively known as Kabbalah has been dedicated to what some might call occult science. Major books dedicated Kabbalah include Sefer Yetzirah, The Zohar, Pardes Rimonim, and Eitz Chaim.

Do I need to rewrite and list all of the methodologies drempt up since Aristotle to the present, and perhaps a few not yet realized, in effect rewriting the Kabbalah? I can certainly rewrite Genesis in modern precise terminology. But the question isn't really "could I", but even if I could, "should I?" And even if I did, by what means could I possibly convince you that such things had been and are being used?

This is one small respectable example of such things, Manipulation in the Media

But do I need perhaps a video of a few doctors, bankers, lawyers, and politicians all sitting in a circle around a 5 point star and goats head discussing their insidious plans concerning in what manner they are to say what to whom such as to confuse the masses? Wouldn't you be tempted to express disbelief in even that video? I would think such people would be certain that such videos never exist and thus I would have a hard time believing such a video myself. But perhaps a confessional report from each deceptive politician and authority figure revealed on the 10:00 American news? Now that would be an impressive feat.

Actually, all you really have to see is the last couple of weeks of discourse over at ILP in order to see a major trend and effort toward the rejection of the notion of "real" and any "reality".

But since it seems that we have just been provided a sample, let's take a close look and see what we can see;
Quote :
Yes. We should remember Nietzsche: the distinction between ideal and apparent has collapsed. It seems to me, James, that while Nietzsche would have us affirm the apparent, for it is our only, you'd like to affirm the ideal -- to banish the apparent to the status of manipulative conjecture. I'm not sure how you want to accomplish such a task. The distinction between ideal and apparent is itself only an apparent distinction: the apparent is our means to the ideal; it is the condition for the possibility of the ideal, and not the other way around. I hesitate to use the term "real", for this is a Lacanian term designating that to which our minds give form, shape, legibility. It's nonsensical to speak as if the mind could give us the real; what it gives is of necessity an interpretation -- in Lacan's language. But Nietzsche's great contribution was to suggest that this real itself, this uninterpreted or pre-interpreted primordiality, is always-already an interpretation, always-already apparent.
Note that it is always a good idea to begin any persuasion effort with an affirming that the speaker is on the side of the listener/reader/authority/victim. In this case, the commonly used and simple introduction word, "Yes" is utilized to subtly indicate, "I am on your side". Followed by signs of allegiance, "We should remember Nietzsche..". Somewhat reminiscent of the Southern Baptist preacher's introduction, "Praise the Lord, Hallalua Jesus brothers.."

"If you want to gain the King's ear, always present him a gift... before you speak."
"Always open the defensive ego door to the heart before you attempt to sneak through it."

And then of course, the real message of warnings of "the Devil" and "clear and present danger"..
"It seems to me, James,.."
Affirming the distinction between the adversary "you James" to the implied "us who are in agreement"...

"It seems to me, James, that while Nietzsche would have us affirm the apparent, for it is our only, you'd like to affirm the ideal -- to banish the apparent to the status of manipulative conjecture."
Is that really what James said?

Note that James spoke of the use of confusion such as to manipulate and create emotionalism. Often such is in the form of equivocations slipped in under the radar. Did James actually say anything about the "Ideal" or did he say, the "real"/"reality".

Let's remove the equivocation fallacy and see what that same line would say;
"It seems to me, James, that while Nietzsche would have us affirm the apparent, for it is our only, you'd like to affirm the real-- to banish the apparent to the status of manipulative conjecture."

Hmm.. "Affirm the real" and "banish the apparent to the status of manipulative conjecture."
Well, I don't think that is exactly what James said, but it does seem like something James would lean toward. But it is certainly different than what was implied by the critic.

The critic continues using the word "ideal" in place of James' word "real" all the way up to the point of reversing the equivocation when going back to quoting Nietzsche;
"But Nietzsche's great contribution was to suggest that this real itself, this uninterpreted or pre-interpreted primordiality, is always-already an interpretation, always-already apparent."

The "But.." of course directly implies some contradiction between Nietzsche and James. So let's see what James actually said;
"Natural analytical thinking in even the most simple-minded creature allows the creature to deduce reality via its combined senses and memory of senses."

See the conflict? I don't.
It seems to me that Nietzsche and James had said the same thing, merely in different words. But James had also claimed that people often intentionally equivocate so as to confuse the cognitive mind and manipulate the heart.

Was it intentional? Maybe just an accidental mistaken choice of words that happen to lead to the appearance, "the apparent" adversarial stance of the devil James against "Us" and "Our worshipful Lord Nietzsche".

You want me to prove it wasn't accidental? To prove who the real serpent in the crib is? Well, I probably can't do that.



Back to top Go down
View user profile
without-music
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 37
Join date : 2011-11-16

PostSubject: Re: Disbelief in the Real   Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:06 pm

In a word, James: Nietzsche affirms the apparent, doing away with the real; you (seem to want to) affirm the real, doing away with the apparent. But even still, Nietzsche's apparent is by no means "unreal" -- as Capable's already pointed out. But this is all common-speak by now. And I did explain my hesitation around the term "real" for its Lacanian baggage. Other than that: I'm quite pleased with what you've done with my post.

 

___________
“…to act is to modify the shape of the world…”
Back to top Go down
View user profile
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 245
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: Disbelief in the Real   Sat Jan 14, 2012 3:01 pm

Yes, let's affirm the apparent. There is no real. Only the apparent is emm.. real.
"How do you know that you are not merely dreaming?"
And of course, if one could not know that he wasn't dreaming, then he must be merely dreaming.
Note the logical fallacy afore mentioned by James in the OP?
How could there be a mere dream, without there being a reality to be ignoring while in the dream?
How could appearances be deceiving without there being something to be deceived about?

Doubt and Discomfort (the double Ds of the Devil) so as to give room for the influence of deception to take affect over the truth. "Take advantage of their inability to think clearly. Keep them dumbfounded, in a cloud, so as to keep them down and easily manipulated." And of course, be proud that you are superior, the user; the lust for dominance.

Since arranging deception, disease, and entropy is so much easier than establishing truth, health, and self-harmony, let's all simply do that instead. A world of nothing but serpents and vampires, feeding on whom, deceiving whom.. but each other? Generation after generation, inheriting the sins of the fathers to the sons. Eternally trapped and blinded in a maze of deception and disease.

I think they once referred that as fiery Gehenna and the "eternal Hell"; the "under, lower world" wherein discomfort and disease are assured.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
without-music
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 37
Join date : 2011-11-16

PostSubject: Re: Disbelief in the Real   Sat Jan 14, 2012 9:22 pm

I conceptualize the real as the excess beyond that which we apprehend, that which is "given" to consciousness, that which forms the world of the apparent. This apparent world is emphatically not disconnected from the real, but rather the real remains in excess of that which thought thinks. Zizek conceives this excess as a vulgar excremental horror, pure un-shaped ontological shit. Merleau-Ponty conceives it as a gift, reminiscent of the excess in love, the superabundance in bestowal. In both cases, the real represents an excess. This is the thought I hold onto. It seems folly to suppose that human consciousness has reached the furthest expanses of the un-thought flux, to suppose the shores of thinking the edges of the real itself. What we do with this excess, what it is made to do for us -- that is another question. And again, that the real remains in excess of the symbolic, in Lacanian terms, does nothing to denigrate the symbolic, it only curbs it, circumscribes it, keeps thought humble, in a sense. So, to respond to the title of the thread: it is not that I disbelieve in the Real, not that I want to do away with the Real altogether, but precisely the opposite: I want to hold the thought that the real exceeds thought in thought -- I want to press this difficulty, this paradox, tarry with it and force thought to think that which exceeds it. Consciousness is capable of growth, surely -- it can become more. In my eyes, we can force this growth by resisting the conception that it has already apprehended all there is to apprehend. As long as there is more for thought to appropriate, there is more work for consciousness, more room for consciousness to grow. This is the arrow shot by the act of thinking, is it not?

 

___________
“…to act is to modify the shape of the world…”
Back to top Go down
View user profile
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 245
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: Disbelief in the Real   Sun Jan 15, 2012 2:01 am

Well, at least you have conceded a belief in the real. Now you are merely deliberating the nature of it.

I have to wonder why you focus on some old philosophers who could themselves only identify it as being some form of "excess". Do these homosapians have some supreme gift of true sight unbestowed upon the rest of us?

When the mind sees only hints of order amidst the massive volume of disorder, it sees only vulgarity. When the mind sees only hints of disorder amidst the flowing order, it sees only the beauty. Beauty and order are indelibly bonded.

Neither of such minds have cause to say that they see with greater clarity than the other. They each value what they see by their own method of recognizing relevance, "value-ontology". But it seems that neither has valued accuracy in the seeing itself fore that which is, cannot ever also be that which is excess of what it is, but merely in excess of what has been assessed by chosen value.

When your value system doesn't match reality, of what value is the system?
And if it does match reality, then in what way can reality be "in excess"?

"Consciousness is capable of growth, surely -- it can become more. In my eyes, we can force this growth by resisting the conception that it has already apprehended all there is to apprehend."

And there is the bane and curse of modern Man, presuming that he has found the end to a road and now must go to extremes to alter his course. But he was not at the end of that road, merely typically presumptuous as usual. If he were at the true end of that road, his consciousness would be developing faster than he could comprehend. He burns down his house so as to avoid the cold winter he speculates is outside his very door.

"As long as there is more for thought to appropriate, there is more work for consciousness, more room for consciousness to grow. This is the arrow shot by the act of thinking, is it not?"

That is the arrow shot by presumption (not thinking enough before acting), the very seed of ALL error.

The fear of Heaven;
"I am nearly at Heaven. Oh no, the journey's end! I must tear it all down and start over else all is lost."

If you are fearing it, obviously it wasn't Heaven that you were seeing.
Heaven is an eternal, never ending swirling waltz, ever expanding, never in need of a higher goal than the one from which it was formed and the one of which it can never complete.

Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3599
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Will to Power

PostSubject: Re: Disbelief in the Real   Sat Jun 30, 2012 8:13 am

I see how this is really only a consequence of (the failure of) (some people's capacity for/use of) language. Without-music is correct in how he points to the real, and what this can and does signify to/for us. James is also correct that what this represents is a difference in how certain people think the nature of the real. But James, unlike W-m, fails to draw the furthest implications from the fact of these differences, of what they indicate.

How we think is bound up with/in the language which we use; logos is the form of rational thought, but not (necessarily) its (only) condition. Stating that we want to hold in thought the limits of thought, to hold in thought that which nevertheless and otherwise moves beyond the possibility of thinking, as W-m eloquently put it, is to say that we want to apprehend the limits and conditions of thinking as much as the structure and logic of thinking. These are not (necessarily) the same thing.

Real thought begins here, at the threshold of the possibility of being able to apprehend and articulate -- thus to draw within, to make use of, which is also to say to value -- both the limits-conditions and the structures-logics of consciousness, of which thinking is, at least to our manner of "human-like" consciousness, an integral part. Getting bogged down in disputes over the language and motives employed by people here, at the expense of actually moving into an understanding of this language and of the necessary and/or sufficient motives behind the possibility of it's proper use is only to replace semantic quibbling and mundane psychological inference for genuine philosophy.

 

___________
"Since the old God has abdicated, I shall rule the world from now on." --Nietzsche

"It would be wise to exercise caution with one's wishes." --Penny Royal AI

Odinwar <---[truth]---> Jeraz

Peace. War. Love. Wordz


Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Disbelief in the Real   

Back to top Go down
 
Disbelief in the Real
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Before The Light :: Tree :: Lodge-
Jump to: