What u do when u run out of ideas---- On 4/28/11, the taoist shaman <bryan...@gmail.com> wrote: > what do u think of religion / god > > nominal9 wrote: >> Hi TS.... >> Don't get too involved in the links, if they bore or just confound >> you... it's something that anyone has to build up to, and you have to >> have an interest in the subjects...Anyway, as to Mind's Eye.... a >> fellow-friend of mine was from this Group... Chaz... was banned from >> Mind's Eye and although they didn't ban me... I left their group , >> then and there... I have this "thing" about censorship.... despise >> it... >> Anyway. nice making your acquaintance, anytime that you want to >> discuss any topic, I'd be glad to talk with you... I like politics a >> lot myself, and we appear to have the same "leanings"..... let's say >> NOT RIGHT WING..... >> nominal9 >> >> On Apr 27, 1:42 am, the taoist shaman <bryan...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > damn rigs was off hey lee >> > >> > the taoist shaman wrote: >> > > 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. > >
-- 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.
