Re: Skepticism

Posted by Laurence on September 07, 2000 at 05:35:56:

In Reply to: Re: Skepticism posted by Sambersil on September 07, 2000 at 00:39:51:

This fact is trivial to a NLP practitioner, it is part of what is called a "cognitive strategy". WHen I used the word "science", it is to indicate a higher level of awareness and discipline in the way facts are gathered and processed from actual observation. Any mature scientist, read D.Bohm or interviews with other great researchers, they all know the big part of irrational that goes on "under the hood", but they also know the value of rules and structure in helping shaping useful maps of the world. Take an exemple of how we structure reality, which differs greatly depending on your native culture, say a chair, people will have an image of it as you say the word, this is their experience, but a chair has a meaning to them as something they sit on, relative to a specific function, etc....So the chair will be defined at lower level by its function, then by its style, affective links attached to it, associated memories, etc..., see how then things become more subjective and individual, and a chair will make sense for a cat, but not for a cow! Etc...

: I completely agree with you, and that's a very good way to put it. You raise a nice point about how logic is just what "feels right". I should take lessons from you on presentation (or maybe I just feel overly warm toward you because you think the same as I) I don't think that "isness" is certain, but I believe it is. (belief = not proven idea, or idea that cannot be proven) I wouldn't call it a paradox, though - it falls a bit outside the realm of paradox, with its proviso that by its very existence it cannot be disproven. For more philosophy, I would appreciate your reading my other comments, especially "A clarification" (its a respond to one of my posts if you have trouble finding it). I always need more critics. Just one question - why did you title this "skepticism"? You seem to agree with me on every point.

: : I know where you're coming from and I believe the same thing. Since I do not want to get into a long discussion of WHY I think this way (it's something you have to mentally experience first hand) I believe that nothing is certain except "isness", Being, existence, God, whatever you want to call it. I believe everything can be reduced down to this single Existence.

: : One variation of your logical mistake paradox or whatever goes like this...

: : 1) We can sometimes seem 100% certain of something but end up being wrong.
: : 2) When we are 100% certain but wrong, we don't know

: : Therefore
: : 3) We can never be 100% certain about something because there is a possibility we are wrong.

: : Also, I take the radical view that logic is based on FEELING. When you add 1 and 1, you get 2, right? Well, all we can know for sure is that we get a feeling that 2 is the correct answer. I call this "truth-feeling". It is the feeling of certainty we get when we understand logic. If A = B, and B = C, then A = C. I don't KNOW that it's 100% certain, it just Feels Right to me.

: : My definition of KNOW is actually, by definition, impossible. To Know is to understand something with 100% certainty, and since certainty cannot be totally attained, it's impossible to Know, only believe.

: : I haven't really ruminated over philosophy in the longest time, so I am a bit rusty of what conclusions I made some years back. But ok, long story short, everything is uncertain and we make irrational (chaotic) choices. I believe philosophy and logic are 100% subjective and based on how the human mind interprets the world, and if you can somehow change the mind, it's perception and logic would change. Truth be told, my mind is actually trying to understand dozens of philosophical concepts at once and I feel so very very confused.

: : -Cory

: : BTW, for my money, the only real philosophy worth pursuing is something that is practical and addresses how you should live. Thinking of the Kantian thing-in-itself or Hegel's universal idealism won't really help you with major life changes and circumstances, you know? This is why I think reading philosophers like Kierkegaard are much more worthwhile.

: : Post-post-script: One might assume from my brainy interests that I am a 5, but I'm also so overwhelmingly concerned with image (not enough to be a 3, but too much for a 5). I'm also an INFP which is proof that you don't need to be a nerdy NT to understand this jargon =o)

Follow Ups:

• Re: Skepticism Sambersil 15:21:58 09/07/00 (1)
  • what I mean by trivial Laurence 08:47:20 09/08/00 (0)

Post a Followup