Only 5 senses for nominalists... the "standard" number... The mind... for the nominalist... is where the "CONCEPTUS" (Idea or concept) is formed usually (or in the first instance) from an examination by the "senses" of something outside of the mind... the "something " outside of the mind is called the "RES" ( or thing) Reference FIRST INTENTION...this happens through direct experience or empirical contact with the RES but the mind can also deal in "conceptus" (idea or concept) all on its own... without having the RES (thing or reference) before it SECOND INTENTION this happens through memory or abstraction.... anyway, the operations of the mind, which can either be mistaken in its First or Second Intentions or which can (mind) itself Choose" to fantasize or lie... gives rise to varuious possibilities in "ontology".... is some Speoh=ken of or communicated "Res" or Conceptus... whether orFIRST OR SECOND INTENTION.... REAL OR NOT?... WHICH IS TO SAY, IT IF FACTUAL OR IS IT FICTI0NAL.... BUT IT GETS A BIT MORE COMPLICATED WHEN YOU START TO ASK... WELL. HOW OR IN WHAT WAYIS IT fACTUAL OR FICTIONAL
Let's say that a person sets out to lie about something that he or she wants to communjcate.... what are the range of possiblitities of the realm of lies? also, what are the possible ways in which the communication can be received by the person addressed? there are "language" level ontological questions to answer... is the person sending the message telling the truth (as the person understands it) and what about the person receiving it... does that person receive the message as the truth? fact vs fancy(in mind)..... manifest vs. conceal (as communicated)..... if I have the fact... stone in mind... do I communicate it manifestly as stone or do I communicate it in a concealed manner as marshmallow... biting into a stone is different from biting into a marshmallow... what about the person receicving the message... does the "addressee" see the manifest stone as a stone o does the "addresssee" the manifest stone and think it is a marshmallow... same goes for a fancy... unicorn... do I communicate the message manifestly as a unicorn.. or do I communicate it in a concealed manner as a horse... the addressee person receiving the manifest message unicorn... does he or she recognize that the unicorn is a fancy or does the addressee think the manifest unicorn is a fact..... what if the addressee thinks that the manifest unicorn is really a horse that is being concealed by the message sender.....and on and on.... ru through all the various permutated combinations of fact vs fancy combined with manifest vs. concealed from the standpoints of both the sender and the address... keep in mind that one or the other or both could be ignorant as to what they are talking about (which complicates things greatly)... and consider that maybe there are some paradoxes involved if people happen to mix up certain specific fact vs fancy or manifest vs. conceal "expectations".... I tried to figure the "finite" but still fairly extensive range of possibilities.... it's daunting.... anyway.... how about some of the things that your Buddhism article posits or hypothesizes....how old are they?....given your modern-day knowledge... do you think that they are fact or fancy... manifest or concealed? On Jun 8, 5:27 pm, "Serenity Smiles" <gentle.esse...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > I am glad you raised the subject of senses, in buddhism the calculation of > actual senses within the mortal vehicle is 6 but, of course, that is not the > end I submit this article for consideration > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayatana. I am interested in how it compares > with a nominalists viewpoint. > > -----Original Message----- > From: nominal9 > Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 9:44 PM > To: Epistemology > Subject: [epistemology 12116] Re: OT For joke lovers > > So far as universals are concerned regarding the supposed opinions of > Nominalists, I claim that universals are convenient for categorizing > specifics into sets of similar observables. To the extent that every > observation (regardless of how focused) includes the context in which > the > observation occurs, and the mental status of the observer, there > exists a > diminishing probability that any observation can be duplicated, even > if the > observer's attention remains fixed upon an inanimate object. The > appearance > of duplicated observations is due to insufficient precision of the > observation, creating the appearance of identical results. > > Nominalism is a bit "shy" about granting any actual standing to > "universals".... beginning Scholasticism dealt in "universals"... then > came along William of Ockham... the "first" nominalist....(more or > less... mostly more).... > Anyway, Ockham says tht Universals do not actually "exist" in > reality... but that they are, at best, "abstracted thoughts" regarding > very similar (in many Physical senses "clone" identical) particular > things..... Ockhams' greatest contribution to Nominalism (to my > thinking) was distinguishing between levels of "Intention"... First > and Second....http://www.thefreedictionary.com/First+intention > 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. > > http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Second+intention > 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. > > Universals are... second intentions.... > > As to your observations about "appearance"... that smacks of what I > used to hear was called the "fallibilist" argument... which pretty > much amounts to the assertion that "one" can't trust one's own > senses.... > > http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Fallibilist > Fallibilism (from medieval Latin fallibilis, "liable to err") is the > philosophical doctrine that all claims of knowledge could, in > principle, be mistaken. Some fallibilists go further, arguing that > absolute certainty about knowledge is impossible. As a formal > doctrine, it is most strongly associated with Charles Sanders Peirce, > John Dewey, and other pragmatists, who use it in their attacks on > foundationalism. > > However, it is already present in the views of some ancient > philosophers, including Xenophanes, Socrates, and Plato. > > In fact, it had a such a direct philosphical relationship with > Pyrrhonistic Skepticism, that Pyrrhonists of history are sometimes > referred to as fallibilists, and modern fallibilists as Pyrrhonists.[1] > [2] > > Another proponent of fallibilism is Karl Popper, who builds his theory > of knowledge, critical rationalism, on fallibilistic presuppositions. > Fallibilism has been employed by Willard Van Orman Quine to attack, > among other things, the distinction between analytic and synthetic > statements. > > Unlike scepticism, fallibilism does not imply the need to abandon our > knowledge - we needn't have logically conclusive justifications for > what we know. Rather, it is an admission that, because empirical > knowledge can be revised by further observation, any of the things we > take as knowledge might possibly turn out to be false. Some > fallibilists make an exception for things that are axiomatically true > (such as mathematical and logical knowledge). Others remain > fallibilists about these as well, on the basis that, even if these > axiomatic systems are in a sense infallible, we are still capable of > error when working with these systems. The critical rationalist Hans > Albert argues that it is impossible to prove any truth with certainty, > even in logic and mathematics. This argument is called the M nchhausen > Trilemma. > > Fallibilism will often discard absolute doctrines such as papal > infallibility, claiming that they are merely authority-based > arguments. > > My quick reply to "fallibilism is.... That's what measurement or > other such observation "tools" are made for.....don't trust your > eyes?... get a telescope or a microscope... same goes for other > senses... can't remember right?... record it....In other words... you > can get around.... "apperances"....not a problem to actual > "knowledge"....But the Jack-ass Phenomenologists (like even Kant).... > make a big to-do about it..... > > On Jun 8, 12:53 pm, Lonnie Clay <claylon...@comcast.net> wrote: > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalism > > > Hmm. I'm glad that we can agree to refrain from combat. Verbal jousting > > becomes tedious after repetition. > > > So far as universals are concerned regarding the supposed opinions of > > Nominalists, I claim that universals are convenient for categorizing > > specifics into sets of similar observables. To the extent that every > > observation (regardless of how focused) includes the context in which the > > observation occurs, and the mental status of the observer, there exists a > > diminishing probability that any observation can be duplicated, even if > > the > > observer's attention remains fixed upon an inanimate object. The > > appearance > > of duplicated observations is due to insufficient precision of the > > observation, creating the appearance of identical results. However, the > > need > > to go about one's business makes this irrelevant and a satisfactory > > performance of one's tasks can be attained by merely a casual glance at > > most > > observables, with the observation filed away along with similar inaccurate > > observations in one's memory. If some problem results due to that casual > > approach to life, then and only then do *I* take a closer look to see what > > went awry... > > > I guess that you could say that I am superciliously superficial, shallow > > even... > > > Lonnie Courtney Clay > > > On Wednesday, June 8, 2011 9:23:25 AM UTC-7, nominal9 wrote: > > > > I don't like slinging mud or fighting wars with other posters.... I > > > prefer to reserve my bile and vitriol for "Public figures".... or > > > points of argument... > > > No need to get personal with me... unless you want to..... > > > I like Anarchists.... don't like Libertarians... some say Libertarians > > > are anarchists.... couldn't be farther from the truth....Libertarians > > > like the State, to protect their Contract Rights..... A true > > > Anarchist..... thinks a "contract" IS THE STATE..... I prefer > > > individual rights... political, human, whatever.... any encroachment > > > on individual rights.....I look at very suspiciously.... > > > Ever hear of "Nominalism"... as distinguished from Idealism... > > > Realism... or Phenomenology?... that's my take on > > > epistemologies....pretty much four branches to it (give or take > > > variations in all branches)... I prefer the Nominalist branch, but I > > > think I understand the others well enough.... at least to know what I > > > dislike about them.... > > > Nice to meet you, maybe "we" can discuss "things".... without getting > > > "personal".... > > > > On Jun 8, 11:23 am, Lonnie Clay <clayl...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > >https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lonnie-courtney-clay/sYe16Qq5iTA > > > > > Perhaps you should read at the link above. I despise authoritarianism. > > > > My > > > > > desires for government power border upon anarchy. I have been on the > > > > internet since 1997, active in 2001, 2007, 2010 until now. I dropped > > > > in > > > on > > > > epistemology early this year, where I have contributed my bombast from > > > time > > > > to time. If we are to engage in a flame war, then let's confine it to > > > this > > > > thread, since the pathetic sight of otherwise reasonable persons > > > > slinging > > > > > mud and feces will be in context... > > > > > Lonnie Courtney Clay > > > > > On Wednesday, June 8, 2011 7:56:37 AM UTC-7, nominal9 wrote: > > > > > > Ah... a man "above" getting his hands dirty.....with measly > > > > > politics...even the "ethics" (or lack) thereof... a man perched in a > > > > > gilded cage... in an ivory tower.... aloof.... elite.... superior > > > > > and > > > > > refined.... wagnerian.... perhaps nazi-esque.... > > > > > > PS... I come here every so often.... to speak to some of the > > > > > locals.... don't recall seeing you here before....speaking of taking > > > > > a > > > > > hike.... > > > > > > On Jun 7, 10:14 pm, Lonnie Clay <clay...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > Yep, she is a Titan, though definitely not of intellect. You on > > > > > > the > > > other > > > > > > > hand appear to be a mite, exerting all of your might (utterly > > > negligible) > > > > > in > > > > > > an attempt to derail clean (more or less) humor onto the tracks of > > > > > political > > > > > > dissent. That won't work (because I consider politics beneath > > > > > > notice) > > > due > > > > > to > > > > > > the entire topic being suffused with emotions which positively > > > > > > ooze > > > > > > testosterone, with very little concealing perfume or deodorant. > > > > > > Take > > > a > > > > > hike, > > > > > > or joust here, as you please. > > > > > > > Lonnie Courtney Clay > > > > > > > On Tuesday, June 7, 2011 4:28:51 PM UTC-7, nominal9 wrote: > > > > > > > > Yo Momma (Sarah Palin's) Ass is so big...... the National Parks > > > > > > > Service offers donkey rides down the sides of her Butt Crack.... > > > > > > > > On May 28, 12:54 pm, Lonnie Clay <cla...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > >https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lonnie-courtney-clay/ckETvke2mOE > > > > > > > > > Has some of my original jokes. Want more? > > > > > > > > > Lonnie Courtney Clay > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > ... > > 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.
