My willingness to accept and then later reject suppositions probably does seem like a deception, or a specious argument. I also now understand why people could construe this a "troll-like" behavior, because it is essentially what trolls do. I will say that the goal is different though. Whereas trolls just want to get people frothing, that is merely a side effect of my methodology of understanding. I use these forums as a sounding board in order to better understand my ideas, and work through my own confusions and questions.
As for the "dihonesty" involved in this method, I will defer to ol' Max, "All things are nothing to me" - Stirner
I was actually waiting for you to talk about stirner so I could show you that he employs the three fundamental laws of logic at least 90% of the time, elsewise you wouldnt think he made any sense whatsoever. So please let us know what you find so persuasive about max stirner.
When you are master of the "spooks" in your brain, when you realize how ultimately absurd your pet theories are, then you are free to pick them up or put them down at will.
Malachi:How does initial acceptance and transient rejection of a supposition help to understand anything? Its kind of like clipping the elevator cable when you are between floors.
Perhaps for you. It helps me get a better grasp on the assumptions I have to make to hold a position.
As for the Stirner quote, it wasn't an appeal to authority. It was just a quote that sums up my position fairly well.
I'm not saying Stirner doesn't use logic. Like you say, it would be pretty hard to read if he didn't! Please refer to my signature to understand his opinion on the matter.
I'm not sure why I find Stirner so persuasive. Reading The Ego and It's Own was definitely a life changing experience. I guess because it laid bare all of the ideas I had been held captive by. It also helped reconcile the materialistic and the mystical worlds for me.
As far as nihilism being absurd, and action presupposing ideology, I'd have to say I hold an absurdist position. That is, we act for the sheer novelty of acting, not for any "purpose". This can help to understand why nihilists might bother writing books.
As for the Stirner quote, it wasn't an appeal to authority. It was just a quote that sums up my position fairly well. I'm not saying Stirner doesn't use logic. Like you say, it would be pretty hard to read if he didn't! Please refer to my signature to understand his opinion on the matter.
Malachi,
Malachi:Ideally you would shift positions as you realized that one was untenable, rather than ask someone to elucidate a belief based on an assumption and then clandestinely withdraw that assumpton from your own questioning.
Isn't that the same thing? As I said before, I tend to work off of what I'm handed. As we go along, the suppositions change as new concepts are asserted, or old ones withdrawn or modified. Just because no explicit position is taken by me, doesn't mean that this process would not happen.
I don't think Stirner means literally unsayable, rather the ideas he is attempting to express are on the ragged edge of languages ability to accurately convey a concept.
Novelty - newness, new experience, the "black swan", change
Something like that.
What quality, do you suppose, must an idea posess in order to be unsayable?
"In order to draw a limit to thinking we should have to be able to think both sides of this limit (we should therefore have to be able to think what cannot be thought)." -Wittgenstein
I don't know Stirner so I don't know if he means the same thing, but when we talk about the whole, we speak as if we are outside of it, even as we say that all things are in it. Thus, we are saying the sayable.
they said we would have an unfair fun advantage
Jackson LaRose:Isn't that the same thing?
As I said before, I tend to work off of what I'm handed. As we go along, the suppositions change as new concepts are asserted, or old ones withdrawn or modified.
but yah, the definitions of words are assumptions that cannot change without both parties to the conversation being aware. Otherwise it comes across as obfuscatory tactics.
Just because no explicit position is taken by me, doesn't mean that this process would not happen.
I dont know if the previous metaphor is useful to you or not. But if you are familiar with socratic discourse, you should realize a few things. Firstly, questions all contain implicit assumptions, to include definitions and premises. Second, some of the tenative argumentation positions of the questioner can sometimes be deduced by the answerer. Third, the answers by the answerer are guaranteed to also contain implicit assumptions, to include definitions and premises. Fourth, the definition of every word is a matter of which explicit definition is meant and understood to be meant (meaning definitions are intersubjective not objective), and which implications the audience associates with that specific verbum (meaning synonyms are not always synonymous). What this all means is that if you abandon an apparently minor assumption (one implication from one word) after that word has already been used in an exchange, it may confuse people and they might question your motives, including whether you were even engaging in good faith discussion. The fact that an explicit position was not taken by you does not mean that you did not take a position, and it does not mean that other people did not craft their answers taking into account certain implicit premises from the position they inferred from your question. You need to make these changes in definitions/premises explicit if you want to avoid confusion.
I definitely incorporate premise checking. There are large amounts of "so, what you're saying..." statements in my posts.
The rest of that post is understood, and duly noted.
As for your second post, Ithink we've reached the crux of the issue here. The identity axiom proves itself the moment I am attempting to convey an idea to you, since characterization, classifications, "selves", etc. are necessarily supposed by the act of conversation. In other words, it is as impossible to "explain" how A does not equal A, as it is to explain ego death, or to explain the color "red" to the blind. That is a limitation of ourselves. Hence,
"What Stirner says is a word, a thought, a concept; what he means is no word, no thought, no concept. What he says is not what is meant, and what he means is unsayable." - Stirner
Malachi:this implicitly recognizes the law of identity, because if "A" did not = "A" they would be unable to bring about meaningful new experience with the act of writing a book. The act of writing a grocery list would be just as novel.
Yes. That is enlightenment. Also known as Grace.
Mikachusetts,
That seems to be along the same lines, and I've heard and Wittgenstein can be considered "a chocolate/peanut butter type combination" with Stirner, so they must be quite complementary!
Looks like the forum cut off my response or something like that. Anyway, just in case:
Autolykos:
Yeah, that's not even what I'm saying. And even if it were the reason I was giving, it's not an absurd or uncommon line of thought.
What I am saying is that there's so much interplay between "body" and "self" that the dividing line doesn't really stand up. The interaction between a person and other things is a little more clear. Me and my room, for instance. Right now, this room is distinctly mine, and when I move out, it won't be the same room again. But, the room itself doesn't disappear, and hasn't disappeared before or after my arrival in it. With the body and mind I'm not so sure.
If 99% of a given community supports a decision; is it more likely they or the opposition is are despicable people?
I reject the idea that a large majority is more likely to make a correct decision. Nothing I have been exposed to in my reading of human history or observation of human behavior would suggest such a thing. In fact, I would be more likely to endorse the opposite. The higher the percentage of a state's population that supports a decision, the more likely that decision is to be foolish and counterproductive. Note that I dont explicitly endorse such a thing. But it is just as correct, imo, how are all those people supposed to be informed on all of the effects of that decision?
Ithink we've reached the crux of the issue here. The identity axiom proves itself the moment I am attempting to convey an idea to you, since characterization, classifications, "selves", etc. are necessarily supposed by the act of conversation.
In other words, it is as impossible to "explain" how A does not equal A, as it is to explain ego death, or to explain the color "red" to the blind. That is a limitation of ourselves.
"ego death" is best understood through the concepts of language, identity, and love. When subject loves object, subject identifies with object to such a degree that any event that affects object is emotionally perceived to affect subject to some extent. When subject rejects any distinction between himself and the universe as arbitary, subject identifies with all creation. This is said to be ego death. It can equally be said to be universal ego.
someone who is blind since birth still has the ability to perceive "redness" in his mind, but he may not do so. There may or may not be ways to convey this experience to him. You should know that one advanced segment of a specific martial art involves "sensing" colors without the sense of vision.
I dont consider the formality inherent in human thought where a concept is fixed until it becomes redefined, at which point it is fixed again, to be a limitation. I believe that if the universe did not conform to the laws of thought, then neither would our brains.
Jackson LaRose: Malachi:this implicitly recognizes the law of identity, because if "A" did not = "A" they would be unable to bring about meaningful new experience with the act of writing a book. The act of writing a grocery list would be just as novel. Yes. That is enlightenment. Also known as Grace.
Malachi:This is said to be ego death. It can equally be said to be universal ego.
Yes!
“The most important commandment,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these.” Mark 12.29-31
That is the end of distinction, the end of the observer-observed duality. "I" becomes "I am" A=A becomes A=w (that's omega btw)
Any fixture is inheirantly a limitation.
Malachi:"ego death" is best understood through the concepts of language, identity, and love. When subject loves object, subject identifies with object to such a degree that any event that affects object is emotionally perceived to affect subject to some extent. When subject rejects any distinction between himself and the universe as arbitary, subject identifies with all creation. This is said to be ego death. It can equally be said to be universal ego. [Emphasis added.]
Great minds think alike.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Malachi:Everyone acts for a purpose.
Let's not jump to conclusions here. All swans are not white. The fact that we are both unable to conceptualize this is our limitation.
Wu Wei
Stirner on the "self"
Karma Yoga
Malachi:Do you agree that those limitations are sometimes useful?
Of course. We are having this conversation, after all!
and thats why karma is true, when you hurt others you are only hurting yourself. Which is one route to my theorem "all moral behavior is profitable behavior in the long term."
Jackson LaRose: Malachi:Do you agree that those limitations are sometimes useful? Of course. We are having this conversation, after all!
You've already proven that I must utilize thm in order to have this discussion. So at this moment it seems necessary that I would find them useful.
Though, in the grand scheme of things, leaning on these illusory distinctions is likely an impediment to spiritual progress.
I can't say with any confidence if those factors would remain in such a state. I would doubt it, but I'm just guessing.
I can tell you that I've experienced altered states in which severe time dialation and dissilution of the ego have happened together.
Jackson LaRose:You've already proven that I must utilize thm in order to have this discussion. So at this moment it seems necessary that I would find them useful. Though, in the grand scheme of things, leaning on these illusory distinctions is likely an impediment to spiritual progress.
What in the world does "spiritual progress" have to do with the concept of self-ownership?
Little to nothing.
Jackson LaRose: Malachi:This is said to be ego death. It can equally be said to be universal ego. Yes! “The most important commandment,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these.” Mark 12.29-31 That is the end of distinction, the end of the observer-observed duality. "I" becomes "I am" A=A becomes A=w (that's omega btw) Any fixture is inheirantly a limitation.
If you're trying to disprove the Law of Identity here, I'll have you know that you've committed a performative contradiction. By saying anything at all, you're presuming the Law of Identity.
And what do you mean by "limitation"? How is the Law of Identity a limitation to anything?
Jackson LaRose:["Spiritual progress" has l]ittle to nothing [to do with the concept of self-ownership].
Then why bring up "spiritual progress"?
Autolykos,
Yep, contradiction. take a look at the sig.
I brought up spiritual progress because malachi had asked me if I thought the Five aggregates were useful. My answer was in the short term, yes, but are probably an impediment to my spiritual progress, so in the long term, no.
Autolykos: Jackson LaRose:You've already proven that I must utilize thm in order to have this discussion. So at this moment it seems necessary that I would find them useful. Though, in the grand scheme of things, leaning on these illusory distinctions is likely an impediment to spiritual progress. What in the world does "spiritual progress" have to do with the concept of self-ownership?
Ask someone who is no longer mired in Dukkha! It certainly ain't me! The progress is from ignorance to wisdom.
Jackson LaRose:Autolykos, Yep, contradiction. take a look at the sig.
I have. So by admitting to committing a performative contradiction, you (and Stirner) have effectively conceded the debate.
Jackson LaRose:I brought up spiritual progress because malachi had asked me if I thought the Five aggregates were useful. My answer was in the short term, yes, but are probably an impediment to my spiritual progress, so in the long term, no.
Fair enough.
I'd say "radical agnostic".
"I know one thing, that I know nothing" - Socrates
If one considers "enlightenment" as "ultimate understanding", than Sophia is my desired end, hopefully one that will end desire completely.
Autolykos:by admitting to committing a performative contradiction, you (and Stirner) have effectively conceded the debate.
I'd like to think that I've demonstrated the limitations of language. I cannot "explain" a concept to you that is contradicted by the act of explanation. That is a limit of ourselves, rather than proving or disproving the validity of (un)said concept.
Jackson LaRose:I'd like to think that I've demonstrated the limitations of language. I cannot "explain" a concept to you that is contradicted by the act of explanation. That is a limit of ourselves, rather than proving or disproving the validity of (un)said concept.
How do you know it's a limitation? How can you prove it's a limitation? What do you mean by "validity"?
I don't understand what you are asking. That I prove language does not completely convey concepts? That would just be telepathy.
Validity as in "trueness" or "rightness"
read about kurt godel and his incompleteness theorems.
Jackson LaRose: Malachi:Everyone acts for a purpose. Let's not jump to conclusions here. All swans are not white. The fact that we are both unable to conceptualize this is our limitation. Wu Wei Stirner on the "self" Karma Yoga
Jackson LaRose: I'd say "radical agnostic". "I know one thing, that I know nothing" - Socrates If one considers "enlightenment" as "ultimate understanding", than Sophia is my desired end, hopefully one that will end desire completely.
Presumably, dead people have no desires. So it's not like there's nothing you could do to achieve your desired end. Just saying. But don't try to use logic to imply anything from what I just said, as A may not be A, dead people may not be dead, and be may not be be, after all.
Malachi I've been busy I'll respond soon.
But this thread has turned very Clintonian.... if you all catch my drift
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin