u seem like ur Not a dumb F , ill take the time to read the links u previously sent , the people of minds eye r children who love to hate , i tend to lean to the 2nd intention but realize it hase limitations , if not u end up w/ people like the kkk . my 2nt intention is more focused on nature in relation to society and personal relation as well as philosophy and religion , --- does the name riggs ring a bell for you ? ~
nominal9 wrote: > reliying on logic can be dangerous , things are unpridictable , to > know is delusion , to not know is ignorance / TS > > I agree... Empiricism is at the root of, at least, Realism and > Nominalism.... > > Idealism and Phenomeology tend more toward "logic"... although there > really isn't much sense to most of their so-called "logic"... > > W. of Ockham is probably best appreciated by me for FIRST making "the" > distinction between the way the self-conscious mind understands > "reality" either through FIRST INTENTION or subsequently through > SECOND INTENTION > http://dictionary.die.net/first%20intention > > 5. (Logic) Any mental apprehension of an object. > > First intention (Logic), a conception of a thing formed by > the first or direct application of the mind to the > individual object; an idea or image; as, man, stone. > > Second intention (Logic), a conception generalized from > first intuition or apprehension already formed by the > mind; an abstract notion; especially, a classified notion, > as species, genus, whiteness. > > Anyway... FIRST INTENTION operates on what Ockham calls "intuition" > but nowadays is better understood as "Empirical Examination"... or > maybe direct "Factual Experimentation" on something... like dissecting > a frog... or putting some bit of matter stuff through a mass > specrtometer.... etc. that is to say... the conscious mind considers a > single and specific factual "thing"....or maybe even a mental thing, > off sorts, like the feeling of an emotion....but mental considerations > are mostly of the other sort... below > > SECOND INTENTION, according to Ockham, is when the conscious mind > thinks about all sorts of things in its memory and starts making > possible connections of all sorts between them... the more common ones > are like one man as distinguished from the generalized notion of all > men....Jim for example is different from Tom.... but they are alike in > at least some ways... they are both (or all) "men....the distinction > between the individual... the species and the genus... etc. but also > consider other sorts of "abstract" thinking... like numbers and doing > math... etc.... > > Anyway.... Ockham though this up... this separation between direct > empirical experience and abstracted "'thought" constructions.... > > Pretty fundamental stuff.... and really revolutionary, I think..... > but try to tell it to the strict Realists, Idealists or especially the > Phenomenologists.... they either don't get it.... or don't WANT to > get it.... > > ignorance... sure is possible even for Nominalists.... sometimes the > specific conscious mind either doesn't have the "brains" to come up > with the right idea... or sometimes the "thing" just can't be > experimented on in the right way to understand it.... Pretty much a > state of constant agnostiicism (Don't- Know- Itedness)....But with > time and more brains and progress working at it.... more "stuff" if > learned about more and more things.... > > PS... most of the "techie" guys around here don't know crap about this > stuff, either....HAR > > > > > > On Apr 20, 10:13 am, the taoist shaman <bryan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > reliying on logic can be dangerous , things are unpridictable , to > > know is delusion , to not know is ignorance > > > > nominal9 wrote: > > > Hi TS... nice to make your acquaintance....I guess you just don't have > > > the interest, now.... but if you ever do, I suggest that you try some > > > of the "classical" so-called philosophers... instead of taoist shamans > > > or metaphysical quasi-religious sorts , like buddhists or > > > tanscendentalists and such as a way toward understanding things... > > > folks like Plato ( beginning Idealism) or Aristotle (beginning > > > Realism) or Kant (beginning Phenomenology) or W.of Ockham (beginning > > > Nominalism) ... then you can go to the ones (other philosophers) who > > > took the original threads and carried them on in different > > > ways....Anyway, my own very general way of understanding it is that > > > there's a basic division in Reality and a thinking being's > > > understanding of it... a sort of interplay between the thinking brain > > > and the outside world it tries to understand (alog with self- > > > consciously understanding itself, of course)... the difference is > > > basically one between the Idea and the Thing... otherwise put as the > > > Concept and the Reference...Mind and Matter > > > > > Idealists think that both the Idea and the Thing are subjective, > > > entirely dependent on what the self-conscious brain ultimately thinks" > > > they (Concept and Reference) are... SUBJECTIVE > > > > > Realists think that both the Idea and the Thing are objective, > > > entirely dependent on what the Thing forces the self-conscious brain > > > to understand about them (Concept and Reference)... OBJECTIVE > > > > > Nominalists think that there's a split in the way the self-conscious > > > brain and the outside reality operate....The self -conscious brain > > > operates subjectively as to its own Ideas (or Concept) but the Thing > > > is completely separated or foreign from the self-conscious brain and > > > the Thing (or Reference) is itself objectively controlled by its own > > > ways and means of being and operation... SUBJECTIVE / OBJECTIVE > > > > > Phenomenologists also think that there's a split in the way the self- > > > conscious brain and the outside reality operate... but > > > Phenomenologists posit that the self-conscious brain operates > > > objectively and that the self conscious brain contains a perfect Idea > > > (or Concept) of what the Template or "Essence" of all outside reality > > > Things should be... the outside reality Things then become mere > > > subjective or imperfect manifestations of those perfect > > > Essences.....OBJECTIVE / SUBJECTIVE > > > > > Now, my guess is that as a self-described taoist shaman.... you might > > > tend toward the Phenomenological view of ideas and things.... > > > > > Whereas myself, I am a Nominalist leaning Person when it come to my > > > view of ideas and things... > > > > > Can You see that you and I would tend to think just the opposite at a > > > very fundamental level? > > > > > nominal9 > > > > > On Apr 13, 5:11 pm, the taoist shaman <bryan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > thats way too much reading , and very confusing , im not familiar w/ > > > > proper terms , am i a realist or a dreamer i think was the subject of > > > > the reading , but i only skimmed it so , ? all dreamers see themselves > > > > as realist or the dream would be dead. i am a defeated dreamer , like > > > > the living dead u know ! > > > > > > nominal9 wrote: > > > > > Ever Hear of William of Ockham.... Nominalism... more as an "empirical > > > > > way" to think rather that as the opinions that you or anyone should > > > > > hold....? > > > > >http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ockham/ > > > > >http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=Nominalism > > > > >http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nominalism-metaphysics/ > > > > >http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism/ > > > > > > > Idealism... Realism.... Phenomenology...Nominalism > > > > > > > Anyway... there's a lot of them... after a while... others (and after > > > > > them me too) started to see "patterns" or threads between them and > > > > > thought that most "philosophies" fall under one of the above broad > > > > > headings.... and that they differ > > > > > logically one heading from the nextr.... anyway, I chose > > > > > nominalism.... you may want to consider decidiing or trying to > > > > > understand which one you yourself prefer....I was about your age when > > > > > I tried to make my choice decision judgment.... > > > > > > > Mind's Eye.... > > > > > THAR be Censors THAR.... > > > > > Censors Be folks who thinks they knows it All... when they really > > > > > don't know shit... > > > > > It's important to know shit, at least. HAR.... > > > > > > > On Mar 30, 6:54 pm, the taoist shaman <bryan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > how long before all the welth is held by a small group , and what > > > > > > happens to the rest of us ? is there a way to stop the storm on the > > > > > > horizon , or is there no storm at all ? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
