Are Symbols "primary"?

Discuss arguments for existence of God and faith in general. Any aspect of any orientation toward religion/spirituality, as long as it is based upon a positive open to other people attitude.

Moderator: Metacrock

User avatar
met
Posts: 2808
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: Are Symbols "primary"? T

Post by met » Sat Dec 10, 2016 10:20 pm

Jim B. wrote:
Yes, but the way I read it, that would be realism, that the world is inexhaustible in terms of what our minds can grasp. And this inexhaustibility almost certainly extends to our own sentience and the workings of our minds!
Not meaning to double-team you along with st here (nor come off as an over-romantic) but how do you get from there to realism? It seems to me like us not being able to remember our origin - our coming into the world -would have to be seen as a "gap" or breach in our ability to grasp the Real - & an expression of our alienation from "reality"?
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

User avatar
sgttomas
Posts: 2424
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:20 am

Re: Are Symbols "primary"?

Post by sgttomas » Sat Dec 10, 2016 10:27 pm

...I'll watch from the sidelines. :)
Prophet Muhammad (God send peace and blessings upon him) is reported to have said, "God says 'I am as My servant thinks I am' " ~ Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol 9 #502 (Chapter 93, "Oneness of God")

Jim B.
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:36 am

Re: Are Symbols "primary"? T

Post by Jim B. » Sun Dec 11, 2016 3:38 pm

met wrote:
Jim B. wrote:
Yes, but the way I read it, that would be realism, that the world is inexhaustible in terms of what our minds can grasp. And this inexhaustibility almost certainly extends to our own sentience and the workings of our minds!
Not meaning to double-team you along with st here (nor come off as an over-romantic) but how do you get from there to realism? It seems to me like us not being able to remember our origin - our coming into the world -would have to be seen as a "gap" or breach in our ability to grasp the Real - & an expression of our alienation from "reality"?
Maye I'm not f :geek: ollowing you, but I agree with you that there are (necessarily?) gaps or breeches. The possibility of alienation could be read as an indication of realism. If we were constructing reality out of ourselves, out of categories that are intrinsic to us, it's more likely we'd feel at home in the world. What's real and what we know would be closer to coinciding. The world would be more 'comfy chair'-like and less broken glass-like?

Jim B.
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:36 am

Re: Are Symbols "primary"? T

Post by Jim B. » Sun Dec 11, 2016 3:42 pm

sgttomas wrote:
Jim B. wrote:
sgttomas wrote:
&, as I read it, st's little domestic story adds to this, pointing out there may be some things, some kinds of knowledge or some perspectives, that are lost to us - or at least hidden from our access - as we become inscribed in a Symbolic order. Which further complicates the matter, since if we don't even fully know how our own sentience works, how are we gonna create superior ones out of our "symbolic knowledge base?" Since there may be critical aspects of sentience that aren't even in our (accessible) knowledge base.
Yes, but the way I read it, that would be realism, that the world is inexhaustible in terms of what our minds can grasp. And this inexhaustibility almost certainly extends to our own sentience and the workings of our minds!
That's essentially the same thing Quantum Troll says about computer science.

Wouldn't a single contrary piece of evidence destroy this belief?

Peace,
-sgttomas
I'm afraid I didn't express myself very well there or maybe I'm not following your point. I meant that our minds cannot exhaust the real. It's not taht we can't know anything independent of our mindsw but we can't know everything, or anything even remotely close.

User avatar
met
Posts: 2808
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: Are Symbols "primary"? T

Post by met » Mon Dec 12, 2016 3:16 pm

Jim B. wrote:
met wrote:
Jim B. wrote:
Yes, but the way I read it, that would be realism, that the world is inexhaustible in terms of what our minds can grasp. And this inexhaustibility almost certainly extends to our own sentience and the workings of our minds!
Not meaning to double-team you along with st here (nor come off as an over-romantic) but how do you get from there to realism? It seems to me like us not being able to remember our origin - our coming into the world -would have to be seen as a "gap" or breach in our ability to grasp the Real - & an expression of our alienation from "reality"?
Maye I'm not f :geek: ollowing you, but I agree with you that there are (necessarily?) gaps or breeches. The possibility of alienation could be read as an indication of realism. If we were constructing reality out of ourselves, out of categories that are intrinsic to us, it's more likely we'd feel at home in the world. What's real and what we know would be closer to coinciding. The world would be more 'comfy chair'-like and less broken glass-like?
Jim, interesting perspective, & as I suggested to you before, reminiscent to me of Graham Harmon's object-oriented realism. I have a lot of thoughts... that I need to organize!

One question: Your view of realism, iirc, also doesn't really require a God to illuminate the mind directly, correct?
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

Jim B.
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:36 am

Re: Are Symbols "primary"? T

Post by Jim B. » Mon Dec 12, 2016 4:33 pm

met wrote:
Jim, interesting perspective, & as I suggested to you before, reminiscent to me of Graham Harmon's object-oriented realism. I have a lot of thoughts... that I need to organize!

One question: Your view of realism, iirc, also doesn't really require a God to illuminate the mind directly, correct?
Correct. I don't have anything to back this up; I'm just winging it. :shock: BTW, when I originally talked about realism, I meant realism regarding universals, but now it's bled over into realism in the broader sense.

User avatar
sgttomas
Posts: 2424
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:20 am

Re: Are Symbols "primary"? T

Post by sgttomas » Wed Dec 14, 2016 2:41 pm

Jim B. wrote: I'm afraid I didn't express myself very well there or maybe I'm not following your point. I meant that our minds cannot exhaust the real. It's not taht we can't know anything independent of our mindsw but we can't know everything, or anything even remotely close.
Oh! Heh, I managed to read that exactly opposite to how you intended it.

-sgtt
Prophet Muhammad (God send peace and blessings upon him) is reported to have said, "God says 'I am as My servant thinks I am' " ~ Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol 9 #502 (Chapter 93, "Oneness of God")

User avatar
met
Posts: 2808
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: Are Symbols "primary"? T

Post by met » Thu Dec 15, 2016 3:31 pm

Jim B. wrote:
met wrote:
Jim, interesting perspective, & as I suggested to you before, reminiscent to me of Graham Harmon's object-oriented realism. I have a lot of thoughts... that I need to organize!

One question: Your view of realism, iirc, also doesn't really require a God to illuminate the mind directly, correct?
Correct. I don't have anything to back this up; I'm just winging it. :shock: BTW, when I originally talked about realism, I meant realism regarding universals, but now it's bled over into realism in the broader sense.
So, is your concept of realism essentially a mathematical one, then? Based in the objectivity of maths, and grounded in set theory that proves the formal, objectifiable nature of mathematical thought itself, which mirrors the objectifivity of mathematized scientific observation , and gives us a way to "think the real outside the subjectivite limits of human thought?"
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

Jim B.
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:36 am

Re: Are Symbols "primary"? T

Post by Jim B. » Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:17 pm

met wrote: So, is your concept of realism essentially a mathematical one, then? Based in the objectivity of maths, and grounded in set theory that proves the formal, objectifiable nature of mathematical thought itself, which mirrors the objectifivity of mathematized scientific observation , and gives us a way to "think the real outside the subjectivite limits of human thought?"
No, it's not essentially mathematical. Has more to do with the conditions and the possibility of thought. It's a middle position between skepticism and reductionism, which is a form of idealism, ie the real is what can be thought about. We humans can know some things but there's no reason to think there's an epistemological criterion for what's real. A lot of theists, including maybe meta would object to that last part, especially if they think reality is a thought in God's mind. And if we are created in God's image, then the world would be what we could, in principle, think about. I'm not sure how to answer that objection, but it just seems to make God and reality far too anthropomorphic. The world's far stranger than any human mind could have possibly imagined, even in principle, imo!

User avatar
met
Posts: 2808
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: Are Symbols "primary"?

Post by met » Sun Dec 18, 2016 9:48 pm

Jim, if you mean to say that in a non theistic way, it sounds suspiciously like correlationism, by Meiil's definition....
I speak of ‘correlationism’, Meillassoux’s name for the dominant ontological background of the continental phi- losophy of the past century. Authors working in the continental tradition have generally claimed to stand beyond the traditional dispute between realism (‘reality exists outside our mind’) and idealism (‘reality exists only in the mind’). The correlationist alternative, so dominant that it is often left unstated by its adher- ents, is to assume that we can think neither of human without world nor of world without human, but only of a primordial correlation or rapport between the two.

(from Harmon's discussion)
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

Post Reply