The Absurdity of 'Thinking in Language'

the author's site ^ | 1972 | Dallas Willard

[Hank Kerchief]

The idea that only what you deem "useful" to you constitutes thought is laughable.

So long as your were entertained, that is enough. I know we aren't going to agree, so I'm glad if you could at least have a good laugh.

Hank

[Hank Kerchief]

PHILOSOPHY PING

If your already on this thread, please ignore this ping.

Some of you may find this discussion interesting. It will be good for a laugh to others of you.

(If you want on or off this list please freepmail me.)

Hank

[unspun]

The only arbiter of truth is reality. It will not matter a fig if the entire world laughs at and repudiates what one believes if it is the truth.

And for one to presume that he knows enough of reality by only what he determines is of some apparent but obviously incomplete and non-basic "laws of physics," is a very sad refusal of reality.

[Hank Kerchief]

Egocentism is itself, a fallacy. I think one can say it is the fallacy.

One can say anything, true or untrue.

A fallacy, by the way, only applies to a logical argument. Unless you mean by "egocentrism" a particular argument, to call it a fallacy, is a mistake.

But then, one can say anything.

Hank

[unspun]

I am not the only being, therefore egocentism is a fallacy.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your great posts, unspun!

I very much agree with your statement (emphasis mine:)

Egocentrism is itself, a fallacy. I think one can say it is the fallacy.

It seems to me that “looking out for number one” is contentious in every dimension, thus the polar opposite of peaceful. It has no appeal whatsoever to me.

Isn't it refreshing when the truth stares you in the face and it is seen as the simple truth and one can agree with it? Also, isn't it refreshing to understand that there is more to our lives than the only kinds of things we can master for ourselves?

Yes and yes! On the first point, I really like the “purple elephants outside the picture window in the front room” metaphor used by William Terrell. If you see them everyday, you get so used to them that they no longer seem marvelous (until someone asserts that there are no such things.) On the second point, that refreshing can be a life-changing epiphany!

You almost got into the “physics of consciousness” with dark_lord. That happens to be a favorite subject at least to betty boop, Phaedrus and me.

There is no definitive answer to the physics of consciousness at this time nor could we anticipate one. On the one hand, the metaphysical naturalist view promoted by Crick and held by atheists and some agnostics is that consciousness is a manifestation of the physical brain. On the other hand, there is a view that the brain is a transmitter/receiver for the spirit which exists separately and continually. I hold that view, that consciousness is non-spatial, non-temporal and non-corporeal.

One cannot be proven to the exclusion of the other – because even though an area of mental function can be mapped to a topological frame in the brain, one cannot prove whether that function existed wholly within that gray matter or whether that topological frame was only a mechanism within the transmitter/receiver. The effects would be the same either way.

So that leaves the question open for personal exploration. Finally, I suspect that those whose mindset exists within the boundary of "knowledge, logic, and reason" may be loathe to look beyond.

[tpaine]

VadeRetro:
You read the article and it's got all this "intentional states" (is "internal" meant here?), "flowing t-states," "signs," "operating with signs," "imaging a word" (not to be confused with "using a word"), "conditions, state, relations, or properties of y ..."


unspun:
But let me ask you, why do you want to describe something as nebulous (and even that term is too concrete) as the intentional life of man in concrete terms?
That is like trying to knock a hammer into the breeze.



VadeR, -- I think you've 'nailed' one of the breezers..

Your obsevation on the:
--- "article such as this one written entirely in vague, undefined, unexampled terms tends to mean different things to anyone who hears it." --
-- Is dead on, as we can see from the comments of those who pretend to find some type of message in it.

-- None are so confused as the self deluded.

[Hank Kerchief]

I am not the only being, therefore egocentism is a fallacy.

That is an egocentric statement and therefore self-conradictory.

Your statement begins, "I am," meaning, before you can recognize others, you must recognize yourself. Egocentrism does not exclude others, it is the only moral view that makes one worthy of relationships with other.

Hank

[Lorianne]

One of my favorite quotes. Thanks for reminding me of it.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post, Hank!

Thank you for allowing me to have my views.

LOLOL! I didn’t mean it that way. I meant that I am on no mission to change you, Hank. We don’t have the same Spirit, but I love you anyway - over all your objections noted on a previous thread.

I see you have taken offense at my use of the word doctrine. I stand by the word choice, because it means “a teaching” – and you have been promoting The Autonomist on several threads.

It will not matter a fig if the entire world laughs at and repudiates what one believes if it is the truth.

That’s something I do agree with. Yeehaw!

It is frequently the case that people use their intellect without understanding what they are doing. This is especially true of those with highly but narrowly developed intellects, such as Einstein, who was, outside his specialty, often not far from an idiot.

Do you have any sources to back up those statements or are they your opinions?

[unspun]

Thanks for the tips, tt. The discipline of epistemology hardly began with Ayn Rand. She merely placed curtains around her chosen aspects of it, not too unlike Miss Havisham.

The fact that she concocted what may seem a theoretically working model to some, does not mean that her theories match up with reality. But perhaps you have already taken the blue pill on objectivism.

[Alamo-Girl]

Aha! I was wondering where that essay went! Thank you so much for the links! Hugs!

[thinktwice]

Another pearl ...

Heresy, however, to mysticists.

[unspun]

Your statement begins, "I am," meaning, before you can recognize others, you must recognize yourself.

No. "Before" is not necessary, to either what I was saying, nor to understanding. But it is critical to recognize oneself for what one is and is not.

Of course as I understand, all things begin with "I AM," but I am not the one who said this.

[thrcanbonly1]

I remember reading that a long time ago. I found it facinating. Thanks for the reminder, I will have to read it again.

[tpaine]

Egocentism is itself, a fallacy. I think one can say it is the fallacy.
171 -unspun-


Declaring so is in itself a very egocentric/self centered act, seeing that you present no support for your personal opinion.
Do you consider your pronouncements infallible?

[stands2reason]

Bump for home....

[unspun]

'Of course as I understand, all things begin with "I AM," but I am not the one who said this...'

...He was heard by it, and by it I found myself to be who I am.

I have responsibility for myself. That is a world away from saying I have autonomy in and of myself.

Now God-and-me, there is autonomy.

[unspun]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/916821/posts?page=198#198

[tpaine]

"Now God-and-me, there is autonomy."


That is like trying to knock a hammer into the breeze.