What Is Adamic Language? Adam And Pre-Adamites

[Cobalt-70]

Now to me, that is psychotic in itself if one said that seriously, all the recent Matrix type movies and tv shows notwithstanding. When you are awake, does anyone healthy really think that they might be dreaming?

If so, I would you get yourself to the nearest hospital asap!

We all live in the matrix. But the matrix is not some huge external computer into which we can "jack in" our brains. The matrix is our brains, which are themselves very powerful simulation computers, which take limited light, sound, and touch signals and turn them into a huge world of our own making. Therefore, unlike in the movie, we can never "jack out." Moreover, the brains of millions of us are linked together in a giant simulation network, which we call "culture."

Edited June 26, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[mfbukowski]

My point is not that there is a reality that "exists." My point is that reality cannot be apprehended. I use the words "reality" and "be" under erasure--which means that I use the words, but in a way that they are undermined, to demonstrate my point. It is fair to say that I don't believe that "reality does not exist."

What philosopher holds that position? Probably none, because this is not philosophy. It is criticism of philosophy.

I think there are many other reasons no philosopher holds those positions. And incidentally, what philosophers mostly do is criticize philosophy.

[mfbukowski]

Your memories that you call "experience" are a representation of something now absent.

There is no way you could know this. That is like saying "everything you know is wrong". You are still stuck talking about things which cannot be experienced or known. Metaphysical hocus-pocus.

[Ron Beron]

Now to me, that is psychotic in itself if one said that seriously, all the recent Matrix type movies and tv shows notwithstanding. When you are awake, does anyone healthy really think that they might be dreaming?

If so, I would you get yourself to the nearest hospital asap!

Of course it is psychotic and Lao Tzu says so because a rational individual has a consciousness which relates to what is real while a butterfly cannot. The difference is what is real is what we experience is immediate. In other words, I agree with your premise.

[mfbukowski]

Of course it is psychotic and Lao Tzu says so because a rational individual has a consciousness which relates to what is real while a butterfly cannot. The difference is what is real is what we experience is immediate. In other words, I agree with your premise.

Well I thought that you did! Incidentally there is no question that the view I take which is actually a Western view in cultural terms comes very close to Eastern thought, so that is not surprising.

The goal is really to do away with both epistemology and metaphysics in one position which denies the basic dualistic premises of both.

Edited June 26, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Cobalt-70]

I think there are many other reasons no philosopher holds those positions. And incidentally, what philosophers mostly do is criticize philosophy.

They may criticize certain schools of philosophy, but only for the purpose of promoting their own.

[Cobalt-70]

There is no way you could know this. That is like saying "everything you know is wrong". You are still stuck talking about things which cannot be experienced or known. Metaphysical hocus-pocus.

Everything you know is not wrong. Everything you know is a memory, which is different from, and delayed from, the perceived "reality" which you call "experience."

How do I know that? Because you said, "But for the reality we DO experience, all we have is our experience of it. When you think about it, all we can know is the common pool of human experience all written down, or spoken, in language, PLUS what we have experienced for ourselves." You also made references to "the experiences I personally have had." So you believe that the experiences you "have had" are in the past, and therefore not currently happening, or in other words absent. You "have had" them, but you no longer "have" them. You also claim that your "experience" is something that you can "know." Thus, you recognize a difference and a time delay between "experience" and "knowledge of experience."

Edited June 26, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[mfbukowski]

Everything you know is not wrong. Everything you know is a memory, which is different from, and delayed from, the perceived "reality" which you call "experience."

How do I know that? Because you said, "But for the reality we DO experience, all we have is our experience of it. When you think about it, all we can know is the common pool of human experience all written down, or spoken, in language, PLUS what we have experienced for ourselves." You also made references to "the experiences I personally have had." So you believe that the experiences you "have had" are in the past, and therefore not currently happening, or in other words absent. You "have had" them, but you no longer "have" them. You also claim that your "experience" is something that you can "know." Thus, you recognize a difference and a time delay between "experience" and "knowledge of experience."

I never used the phrase "knowledge of experience" nor would I. Experience IS knowledge- yet of course there are different degrees of certainty and sometimes we use the word "knowledge" to describe a degree of certainty beyond what we use for the word "belief".

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/dewey.htm

[Cobalt-70]

I never used the phrase "knowledge of experience" nor would I. Experience IS knowledge- yet of course there are different degrees of certainty and sometimes we use the word "knowledge" to describe a degree of certainty beyond what we use for the word "belief".

http://www.marxists....ks/us/dewey.htm

But if you claim to know (or believe, based on experience) that knowledge/belief is experience, then you are claiming to have knowledge of knowledge, or in other words, knowledge of experience. Either way, you have not escaped the big ontological IS. It doesn't really matter whether knowledge/experience IS certainty or IS belief--in either case, it IS. And the implications of that are the same as the implications for all Western metaphysics. (Such as, that Being is understood as presence, but with a usually-hidden invagination of absence.)

[mfbukowski]

But if you claim to know (or believe, based on experience) that knowledge/belief is experience, then you are claiming to have knowledge of knowledge, or in other words, knowledge of experience. Either way, you have not escaped the big ontological IS. It doesn't really matter whether knowledge/experience IS certainty or IS belief--in either case, it IS. And the implications of that are the same as the implications for all Western metaphysics. (Such as, that Being is understood as presence, but with a usually-hidden invagination of absence.)

Please read the link I gave you. I am trying to help you understand these issues better, but you are not cooperating. I'm about done unless you have something to say relevant to the chapter of the book I linked to. The last part is most relevant.