Philosophy Now Forum

I see topics that might actually be interesting. Then I see it's rorydop who posts them.

And my enthusiasm dies.

Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 5:10 pm There's nothing paradoxical or profound about it. It's just a misuse of language - a meaningless/useless string of scribbles. Just because you can arbitrarily arrange scribbles in a certain way that follows some arbitrary rules, does not mean that those scribbles refer to, or represent, anything useful.

U,s,e,f,u,l.

What does this letter-soup represent?

Maybe you need a healthy dose of anti-representationalism.

https://sites.pitt.edu/~rbrandom/Course ... 0%20a.html

Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 5:07 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 4:34 am

Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 5:36 pm So, your statement, "All language is a deception and all of humanity has fallen for it. This is the fundamental cause of all suffering." is a lie? If language is a deception, then how can you use language to inform me that it's use is deception?

It parallels his framing of Godel as saying that all systems of thought are false. Which is not what Godel showed or said.
It also contrasts with traditions that are critical of the effects of language on us, and who use non-verbal means to extricate people from the way thought functions in them. Not by arguing that it's all lies or false - which is, as you point out, self-contradictory - but by trying to give people experiences that are different from the ones they get when they relate to language and thought in the ways they currently do. Zen Buddhism, for example, with meditation, Koans and using language to point rather than to contain. I'm not arguing for Zen Buddhism, but it seems to understand or at least avoids the problems of arguing that language is all lies in a series of videos with all sorts of assertions in language about reality, what we should do, what is going on, what the problem is, what's coming in the world (if we don't listen to him also for us) and so on.

But how can you point to something in your imagination, or to something experienced before you could tell someone else about it? You cannot do any of that without using language to contain. Everyday language use does not only contain, but points as well. Having language that enables you to do both point and contain would be more useful than a language that only does one.

Language and math are approximations. Not lies or deceptions.

I agree. I mean my response in another context would be very complex, but 1) I don't agree that language is lying. 2) just because one statement causes problems does not mean all statements do. 3) my focus on Zen was not to say Zen was right or that language cannot contain or that containing and pointing are separate processes. It was more that they avoid the problems that you and I have both been pointing out, in that they don't go around saying 'language is a lie', but rather try to give a different way of experiencing. They, like Roy, value meditation. They have some things in common, but they don't make what consider a mistake and contradition in his process of 'helping' us.

And while I do not share the goal that Zen has, their centuries of experience have led them to methods that are effective. Which contrasts them with the solitary, bricoleur, undiscovered best philosopher in the world.

Roydop always blames the people who listen to him for any disagreement or confusion and here he does it preemptively. A warning that he must might not be the greatest philosopher in the world, but also that whatever his enlightenment is, it hasn't helped him interpersonally.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 8:47 am

Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 5:10 pm There's nothing paradoxical or profound about it. It's just a misuse of language - a meaningless/useless string of scribbles. Just because you can arbitrarily arrange scribbles in a certain way that follows some arbitrary rules, does not mean that those scribbles refer to, or represent, anything useful.

U,s,e,f,u,l.

What does this letter-soup represent?

Maybe you need a healthy dose of anti-representationalism.

https://sites.pitt.edu/~rbrandom/Course ... 0%20a.html

"Useful" is a scribble that represents the capacity to apply some knowledge you have to improve your life or to realize some goal.

Anti-representationalism = anti-realism.

If the mind is not a representation of the external world, then you are basically arguing that there is no external world - that the mind is the world, or solipsism.

Representation is a type of causal relationship. The relationship between cause and effect is information, or meaning. Effects represent their causes, and causes represent their effects. Effects inform us about their causes, and vice versa.

The scribbles that you typed and submitted and that I am now reading is a causal relationship. Those scribbles are more than just scribbles, they refer to your ideas and you goal to communicate them. If you did not have ideas and the intent to communicate them, your scribbles would not be on the screen for me to read.

What makes a scribble a word, and not just a scribble?

Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 5:07 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 8:47 am

Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 5:10 pm There's nothing paradoxical or profound about it. It's just a misuse of language - a meaningless/useless string of scribbles. Just because you can arbitrarily arrange scribbles in a certain way that follows some arbitrary rules, does not mean that those scribbles refer to, or represent, anything useful.

U,s,e,f,u,l.

What does this letter-soup represent?

Maybe you need a healthy dose of anti-representationalism.

https://sites.pitt.edu/~rbrandom/Course ... 0%20a.html

"Useful" is a scribble that represents the capacity to apply some knowledge you have to improve your life or to realize some goal.

Anti-representationalism = anti-realism.

If the mind is not a representation of the external world, then you are basically arguing that there is no external world - that the mind is the world, or solipsism.

Representation is a type of causal relationship. The relationship between cause and effect is information, or meaning. Effects represent their causes, and causes represent their effects. Effects inform us about their causes, and vice versa.

The scribbles that you typed and submitted and that I am now reading is a causal relationship. Those scribbles are more than just scribbles, they refer to your ideas and you goal to communicate them. If you did not have ideas and the intent to communicate them, your scribbles would not be on the screen for me to read.

What makes a scribble a word, and not just a scribble?

No, representationalism is idiotic.

Once the representationalist ideal is attained you'll have your mind mirroring reality. Why? What do you get for having two copies of the same thing?

What do you do next?

Seriously now. You really, really need a healthy dose of anti-representationalism...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosoph ... _of_Nature

"All language is a deception and all of humanity has fallen for it. This is the fundamental cause of all suffering."

See now i was thinkin the opposite. Language is the single greatest tool we've ever had that's helped us minimize suffering the most. The opposable thumb being a close second.

And c'mon Roy, you're missing even the simplest logical problem with your thesis there. If all language is a deception, and your post is written with language, then your post is a deception and i can dismiss anything said in it.

So obviously that can't be the case. U gotta rethink that premise, bro.

roydop wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 5:13 pm

In discovering no-thought, one discovers a timeless state that cannot be disturbed by thought, or circumstance, or human corruption.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 5:24 pm
No, representationalism is idiotic.

Once the representationalist ideal is attained you'll have your mind mirroring reality. Why? What do you get for having two copies of the same thing?

What do you do next?

Seriously now. You really, really need a healthy dose of anti-representationalism...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosoph ... _of_Nature

In what way did I say, or imply, that mind is mirroring reality? There are two different kinds of realism - direct and indirect. Your arguments seem to be directed against the former rather than the latter. In what way does a STOP sign mirror the action of stopping? In what way do the scribbles on this screen mirror what it is that they represent? How does the black scribble, "red" on white background mirror the actual color red? In what way does the color red mirror a wavelength of electromagnetic energy? There are no colors in the world, only in your head - as representations, not mirrors, of what is actual there. Only naive (direct) realists interpret the mind as a mirror of reality.

You really need a healthy does of realism.

Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 3:08 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 5:24 pm
No, representationalism is idiotic.

Once the representationalist ideal is attained you'll have your mind mirroring reality. Why? What do you get for having two copies of the same thing?

What do you do next?

Seriously now. You really, really need a healthy dose of anti-representationalism...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosoph ... _of_Nature

In what way did I say, or imply, that mind is mirroring reality?

In your perpetual peddling of the minds representing reality.

Here is the letter E. It represents everything. ALL of reality. Including you. Including me. Including you. Including itself.

And now what?

Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 3:08 pm There are two different kinds of realism - direct and indirect. Your arguments seem to be directed against the former rather than the latter.

No. My argument is against all kinds of realism.

Thus I give you E. It represents and corresponds to Everything.

And now what?

Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 3:08 pm In what way does a STOP sign mirror the action of stopping?

STOP signs aren't representations. They are imperatives. STOP!!!!!!

Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 3:08 pm In what way do the scribbles on this screen mirror what it is that they represent?

So the scribbles on the screen aren't an accurate representation of your thoughts? Great!

Want to paraphrase your scribbles then?

Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 3:08 pm How does the black scribble, "red" on white background mirror the actual color red?

You are talking about the actual color red while pretending to be a realist ?!?!

Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 3:08 pm In what way does the color red mirror a wavelength of electromagnetic energy?

You think energy exists "out there"? You haven't grasped the fact that energy is just a useful concept. A handle we use to get a grasp on the world?

Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 3:08 pm There are no colors in the world, only in your head - as representations, not mirrors, of what is actual there.

A representation doesn't mirror the represented? Great! So the representation doesn't correspond to reality.

Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 3:08 pm You really need a healthy does of realism.

No, thanks. I am almost a decade sober.

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 3:53 pm

roydop wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 3:26 pm "This statement is not being read."



https://youtu.be/Dy-4zt_ebRY?si=jgSV8TRGfN-3cel3

I managed 9 minutes, roy, and then the tedium engulfed me.

During that 9 minutes, did he happen to explain how "This statement is not being read" is a paradox rather than just being a proposition that is sometimes true and sometimes false?

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2024 3:16 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 3:53 pm

roydop wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 3:26 pm "This statement is not being read."



https://youtu.be/Dy-4zt_ebRY?si=jgSV8TRGfN-3cel3

I managed 9 minutes, roy, and then the tedium engulfed me.

During that 9 minutes, did he happen to explain how "This statement is not being read" is a paradox rather than just being a proposition that is sometimes true and sometimes false?

He spent the entire time explaining, yet nothing was ever explained. I think he might be a genius.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2024 4:19 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2024 3:16 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 3:53 pm

I managed 9 minutes, roy, and then the tedium engulfed me.

During that 9 minutes, did he happen to explain how "This statement is not being read" is a paradox rather than just being a proposition that is sometimes true and sometimes false?

He spent the entire time explaining, yet nothing was ever explained. I think he might be a genius.

I hear these Zen masters can do keep explaining for days on end without ever quite arriving at the point of explanation.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2024 6:57 am

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2024 4:19 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2024 3:16 pm
During that 9 minutes, did he happen to explain how "This statement is not being read" is a paradox rather than just being a proposition that is sometimes true and sometimes false?

He spent the entire time explaining, yet nothing was ever explained. I think he might be a genius.

I hear these Zen masters can do keep explaining for days on end without ever quite arriving at the point of explanation.

No, no. Don't categorize roydop as a Zen Master. I'm not a fan of Zen, but they are vastly more consistent than he is and they avoid the obvious hypocrisy that his video is a perfect example of.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 7:11 pm And c'mon Roy, you're missing even the simplest logical problem with your thesis there. If all language is a deception, and your post is written with language, then your post is a deception and i can dismiss anything said in it.

So obviously that can't be the case. U gotta rethink that premise, bro.

That's why these revelations are in the form of MESSAGE. I explain this here:

https://youtu.be/tXc6MeXqjJU?si=2cKkeuHE_U_hqVg1

And if you're not willing to watch the whole thing then you're not worthy of the understanding it brings