I was raised Catholic... loosely.... I've read a few sort or "religious literary books".... Dante's Divine Commedy... Poems by monks and such....but as to strict "church" religion, I"m fairly but not expertly knowledgeable.... I am an "agnostic"... I don't know about the "existence" of God... one way or the other... I can't go as far as an Atheist because I am not certain that God DOES NOT exist... but then, I can't go as far as a "theist" (?) or believer because I am not sure that God DOES EXIST, either......Faith.... it's something that I still question....
Pretty standard reply... I think.... Same goes for other religions or such views... nominal9 On Apr 28, 2:47 am, 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 > > ... > > read more » -- 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.
