A slapping of today's traditional thoughts on truth

[lancek4]

On another note: your premises contradict your proposal. in what way or manner is the mind not an object?

I never said the mind wasn't one. But I don't know what it even means for a mind to be an object... can you explain what it means that the mind is an object? Are you talking physical objects?

Or rather, it seems your definition or proposal of truth finds itself a product of an object that is called 'mind', or what may be worse, that truth somehow is a product of a mind that is not an object. But where is mind?

It seems to stem from the brain and extend into the human body through the nervous system among things, because those things seems to be where you can affect it. That being said, it's not particularly meaningful to talk about the whereabouts of the mind, in the same way we don't really care where the bytes in the computer lay at any point of time as it's rather their functionality that is important about them.

Is it not also an idea arrived at in the same way as 'reality' or 'truth'? It seems your argument necessarily leads to a terminal object that must be the base of these functions. What is it then?

Well yeah, it's nearly a theological question that one, because it's a bit like "if God created the universe then who created God?". But the answer is a lot more sophisticated, and it is that at some point of time in our development we start to conceive of ourselves as carriers of ideas, and what is the mind? Basically it's a container of ideas with other faculties of functionality working itself on those ideas. Those faculties, depending on who you ask will be part of the mind or not. If you ask me they are not part of the mind as to me the mind is just the container, and the functionality instead is a describing of the origin of the dynamics of the mind that causes our outer-worldly actions and our consciousness to be the way it is. It's all rather interdependent, but information is not concerned with how itself is produced, so is the mind not concerned with how itself is produced, only about its content.

The brain? But even this idea falls into you 'emergence' scheme. Are we thus left in a suspension of unknowing?

What is an "emergence scheme"? What is a "suspension of unknowing"?

It appears you take mind as a ground from which to work the object, as well as truth. Your presentation of the object/mind duality seems to exclude the mind as a derived idea. The mode of your thought here on truth appears thus to 'emerge' from a stew of momentary 'coalesced' thoughts, as if there is some foundation in 'thinking' even.

The idea of suspension reckons that objects form in reality correspondent with some sort of phenomenal-intensional event, and we determine thus truth.

Hence, what is foundational is upheld or suspended in the real-moment-thought-truth, so to speak, and what might be actually true is unknown.

At least, this is my question to you.

[The Voice of Time]

It appears you take mind as a ground from which to work the object, as well as truth.

You've still failed to tell me what the heck an object is to you! Object means many things, and I hardly think what I think when I talk about objects is the same as yours. We are you not addressing my questions to you and instead ignore them?

Your presentation of the object/mind duality seems to exclude the mind as a derived idea.

There is no duality here. Where do you see the duality? And when did I "exclude the mind as a derived idea"? I merely said the mind is something we figure out the whatabouts of as we grow up, in the same way we figure out our identity and such.

The mode of your thought here on truth appears thus to 'emerge' from a stew of momentary 'coalesced' thoughts, as if there is some foundation in 'thinking' even.

Why are my thoughts coalesced only momentary? And what do you mean by "foundation in thinking"? Your explanation was not very down-to-Earth. Please give an easier one if you can.

The idea of suspension reckons that objects form in reality correspondent with some sort of phenomenal-intensional event, and we determine thus truth.

So. I make an intention (in a phenomenological sense), see something, form an object from it, and make truth from that... is that what you are saying? I can't hardly imagine where you get the idea I have any such thoughts, as none of this thinking appears anywhere where I have written. My whole text was starting with a problem of separating the word "truth" from "correctness", and thereafter to define truth in terms that would encompass all former definitions of truth.

Since you like talking about objects so much, I might mention I'm objectifying truth by saying it is a thing produced in our minds as the process by which we administer our minds. I'm making it into something for which we can actually find in the physical world (given that we advance enough in neuroscience that we can find the physical representations of ideas, thoughts and the mind itself). In an evolutionary sense one of these administrations will be more effective than others, and so a greater truth than others. With the possibility you can also talk about it in part terms, with smaller pieces of a particular administrative process that are particularly valuable and can be adopted to other administrative faculties in other minds.

Hence, what is foundational is upheld or suspended in the real-moment-thought-truth

What does this mean?

, so to speak, and what might be actually true is unknown.

Far from it. Anybody has a truth in their minds. When we speak of what is true in general we speak from a shared point of view with society-provided parameters, you could say it's a special administrative region of our minds that is special in-so-far as it bases itself largely on comparing things with factors not granted by itself. It's a cooperative administrative region, which works with other minds (other people) to land at a harmonious atmosphere between people of acting and being acted upon, the social truth, in other words, or alternatively, the common truth.

At least, this is my question to you.

Which I can't answer because I don't understand it entirely. But I'm thinking "no" as a short answer.

[SpheresOfBalance]

SoB has a version of reality and truth similar to Plato and his ideal forms. It is difficult to breach his idea. I have found it doesn't hold water in an extended analysis. It goes something like this: knowledge is privy to a true 'object in-itself' reality/universe, but we cannot know if at any time knowledge is reflecting that truth; but there are some knowledge that indeed does, like example: water freezes. It's a kind of 'correct' that he seems to advocate. It seems like sob may not have investigated Kant, or many other thinkers.

I have had interesting exchanges with you SoB. But you appear to be set in what I call a 'faith'. I think we've had that discussion too. .

You're opinion Lance, your opinion! But I do really appreciate all the time you gave to our extended conversation, thanks again. Have a good one.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Answers in red

SpheresOfBalance, I did not understand anything of that.
Really? I don't use extremely large words, purposely.

No, but your sentences stretch their distance away from my original subject more and more every time until I don't understand what you are talking about at all. It's like suddenly you should pop out an idea about cheese while we were discussing trains. There's no connection there, now you have a connection but it's getting really thin and that makes understand less and less what you are getting at.

You make claim after claim but they are not arguments,
I see that if they are different than yours, then they are arguments.

No, an argument must contain somehow an explanation, it consists of sentences building up under a way of thinking. To say "this is it" is very different from "this is how it is". If I say "Apples are red" and you say "Apples are green", neither of us are presenting arguments, if you believe that you have something fundamental to learn about philosophy. If you said "Apples are green... because <some explanation>" you are making an argument supporting your claim, if you just make the claim, that's all there is to it.

they are as much arguments as hitting somebody in the head with a hammer!
And then you should hit me over the head with a metaphorical hammer.

/facepalm

Arguments makes explanation, you on the other hand make demands (of not disputing your claim).
I don't see that, that is true, but apparently you do. You can dispute, if you so choose, actually I expect you to do so. Or how else does anyone learn? Unless you are saying that my arguments are so strong that you feel incapable of disputing them????

You are making demands because when I present you with something you make a different claim of which you provide no way of going around except agreeing with you. You have no explanation so there is no way I can dispute you except make a different claim, which gets us nowhere. You made your claim impenetrable by not providing for the opportunity of argumentation, or should I say refuse to offer your own argumentation (or forget? to provide it, whatever, you get the point).

And you are not tackling issues I've ever brought up,
I am talking about truth and reality, in my way, it would seem that you don't want me to participate unless I see it your way. Is that what you're trying to tell me with this line?

I want arguments and not just claims, that's what I want.

I didn't dispute the existence of anything, but everything must exist for something else,
I don't see that it must. I only see that it exists.

I'm starting to sense we're not talking with the same background knowledge. To be for something is not a matter of destination, but a matter of things existing in relation to its observer. It's a concept from phenomenology, that things exist for other things means they exist in a presented form, like a flower presents before us itself with colours, and that if we could just smell it, it would still exist, but it would not exist in the same way for us as for the person who could also see it.

or else it doesn't make sense to talk about.
I see that it may be difficult to talk about some things, that are as yet, not fully understood, but I don't see that it doesn't make sense.

If it's just a little bit understood, there exists a concept for it. Call it a proto-concept, but it's still a concept.

Fossils exist for us,
I don't see that they exist for us, just that they exist.

If not for us we couldn't see them.

and therefore they make sense to us.
I only see that we can try and understand what they mean, and try and extrapolate how it affects us, that we can possibly learn about ourselves and our world.

confusing, not actually talking about anything I said. I have no answer to that, except perhaps it seems somewhat narrow that it's the only thing you see

Reality and truth exist for us,
I do not see that this is true. I see it as arrogant to place oneself at the center, it was the same with religion as to the earth, pre-Copernicus. I, at least, have learned from it.

But you are at the centre of your own existence from the time you were born! Could you ever discard your own body and mind from the centrality it has to the world about you? And if you could, how could you move your arms when you did not first go to the roots of its ability to be used? That central knowledge about how to move it back and forth and up and down?

Again you make a claim but no argument, only that as you say it is arrogance and compare it with a historical event. But to talk about arrogance is a bit moralistic, and I fail to see how it supports a question of the whatabouts of reality and truth unless it was anybody's primary goal to foremost adhere to some morality.

if it didn't exist for us it wouldn't have a place in our world that we could think about or talk about.
It sounds to me, that you believe in a god, a higher power, that gives his ultimate creation, man (you), things, exclusively.

I fail to see how you get that idea.

I'm an agnostic, and have views of both possibilities. The one that sees the possibility of a creator, believes it's much more, passive. It created the cosmos to work as it does, yielding life as it has, and that's pretty much it. Nothing is necessarily 'for' us, as that would imply that we were the ends, and there's no way that is true, what with the way we screw things up.

Look, I know we are different, we come from two different places, different ages, different experiences, and different languages, and that even though we are both speaking English, they are not exactly the same versions.

So is it your contention that I should go away, as I'm a bother, and never come back? I don't know what you expect out of me.

Certainly we are having a problem of communication here, like you very clearly did not get my reference to phenomenology. Only thing I expect out of you is what I said above. Give me arguments to chew on so I can throw some ball with you. Without arguments it's gonna be an invisible ball I'm throwing, and it's hard to catch invisible things!

I see things differently than many. As to phenomenology, and therefore Kant, I do not agree. I see that we, can know the object in and of itself. I think that many men that have said otherwise, have a different view of evolution than I do. They seemingly forget that we are in fact products of the truth of the reality of the universe, that we are an extension of it. I see that things in them selves gave rise to the senses in animals, that the senses came in a particular order, because of environment, (things in them selves). This is not to say that we currently have senses capable of knowing any particular object, completely, we have not evolved enough yet, but we may, still our senses are born of those things (objects) such that we do in fact know them in and of themselves. It is not a matter of phenomena but instead noumena. And I still say that to say that 'everything must exist for something else' does not speak of that which you say it does, at least not as I understand those words.

[The Voice of Time]

As to phenomenology, and therefore Kant, I do not agree.

Kant has nothing to do with phenomenology, nor have I, the dualism you are referring to is not phenomenology. The modern discipline of phenomenology didn't start properly before the 20th century, and is not a part of ontology, which is what you are thinking about.

If you need a quick definition, here's what Wikipedia has to say about phenomenology:

Phenomenology is the philosophical study of the structures of subjective experience and consciousness.

That being said, I think many people fail to understand the peculiarities of phenomenology, especially if they've seen titles like Hegel's "Phenomenology of the Spirit", which by the way neither has anything to do with the real phenomenology (although that is a point of argumentation, maybe foremost a question of whether spirit is something you can study phenomenologically, which I think most intellectuals do disagree including people like me because to me phenomenology has to contain qualia and be in direct relationship with the world and cannot base itself on things it's not actively experiencing). I've also seen people use terms like "phenomena-ontology" to make proper distinctions between when you are talking about the "nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality" (quoted from Wikipedia) of phenomena, and when you talk about the structures of subjective experience and consciousness.

[Ginkgo]

Throughout history there have been countless many ways to define truth. The latest and likely most extensively agreed upon is that truth is a correlation between the objective world (also called "reality") and our own. I want to slap this definition.

First of all, the definition overlaps with the word "correct", which means correlation between an ideal of an object and the experience of the same object. What many people forget is that "reality" is also an ideal, because how else could we conceive of it? How can we conceive of reality as independent of the mind if we could not first make it an idea of the mind? So reality is an idea, practically speaking and my objection is to say that "truth" is reflected in correctness when this is only a recent development historically speaking. Instead, correctness should be correctness, and truth should be truth.

So I came up with an idea myself about what truth is, one that tries to encompass all possible meanings of it, and that is that truth is a product of management of the mind. That is, any process of managing of our ideas leading up to a specific state of the mind with specific ideas and those beliefs that accompany those ideas. I also believe that's what it really, at the very abstract level, always has meant, and that every single definition has always been an instantiation of this abstract concept, an instance, so to speak, of a general concept. I'll also explain, that the reason why we find the current circulating definition so attractive (that truth = correlation between reality and contents of mind), is because of the battle we've had to make people seek answers in the sensuous world instead of ideology and religion, a battle which is still fought and finding recurrence every now and then. This however, is only an instance, and to understand how it is only an instance, can also help us understand when truth isn't true, that is, when we think perhaps that we are quite correct, but when our interpretations are hopelessly worthless (like when you interpret an illusion as literal and real, or if you focus wrongly so you don't get the really interesting about any situation), by allowing for multiple instances, we can compare them and figure out which one excels the best at its task, which in my world would be need satisfaction, but for other people might vary between other similar parameters.

Anybody finds this reasonable? Anything objectionable?

This might help.

www.iep.utm.edu/supermin/

[The Voice of Time]

This might help.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/supermin/

Might I ask what I'm looking for? At first few reads I don't see anything that has a connection with what I'm talking about, care to show me where that is?

[The Voice of Time]

SoB, that things exist for something else, means and is as I said "a matter of things existing in relation to its observer", and "that things exist for other things means they exist in a presented form". If you want to know whether that is true you simply have to ask yourself whether there is a structure at all to the things you experience (which would imply a presentation, a particular arrangement that you can observe as meta-data to just seeing qualia) or whether things come to you without a structure of either positioning in space or time or an arrangement of colour or smells or sounds and so forth.

Who or what provides it, is not interesting, the interesting part in phenomenology is that it is there. In Norway phenomenology has actually become a profession and is used in science. How I don't know, but there are text-books about it, I saw a text book once, and philosophers form part of research groups, so I guess they apply phenomenology among things there.

[lancek4]

Throughout history there have been countless many ways to define truth. The latest and likely most extensively agreed upon is that truth is a correlation between the objective world (also called "reality") and our own. I want to slap this definition.

First of all, the definition overlaps with the word "correct", which means correlation between an ideal of an object and the experience of the same object. What many people forget is that "reality" is also an ideal, because how else could we conceive of it? How can we conceive of reality as independent of the mind if we could not first make it an idea of the mind? So reality is an idea, practically speaking and my objection is to say that "truth" is reflected in correctness when this is only a recent development historically speaking. Instead, correctness should be correctness, and truth should be truth.

Truth has to do with the object. I think you have said as much. And, you have asked What I mean by object-
So I came up with an idea myself about what truth is, one that tries to encompass all possible meanings of it, and that is that truth is a product of management of the mind.Here it appears that you are making mind foundational
That is, any process of managing of our ideas leading up to a specific state of the mind with specific ideas and those beliefs that accompany those ideas. I also believe that's what it really, at the very abstract level, always has meant, and that every single definition has always been an instantiation of this abstract concept, an instance, so to speak, of a general concept. I'll also explain, that the reason why we find the current circulating definition so attractive (that truth = correlation between reality and contents of mind), is because of the battle we've had to make people seek answers in the sensuous world instead of ideology and religion, a battle which is still fought and finding recurrence every now and then. I would say that any position of truth that correlates with an object (out there, physical) is both ideological and religious.
This however, is only an instance, and to understand how it is only an instance, can also help us understand when truth isn't true, that is, when we think perhaps that we are quite correct, but when our interpretations are hopelessly worthless (like when you interpret an illusion as literal and real, or if you focus wrongly so you don't get the really interesting about any situation), by allowing for multiple instances, we can compare them and figure out which one excels the best at its task, which in my world would be need satisfaction, but for other people might vary between other similar parameters.i see this as a very narrow version of what truth may be. It 'behaves' as if in a container of 'true/untrue', as if such contingencies are not based in a medium of truth. Example: { True is not false; false is not true} is True. That set is not false. What is true is never false, but what is false is always true in its being false. Thus the solution to what is true cannot solve itself through parameters of contradiction, such as the {} set: your situating of truth falls in the set that is " suspended " in contradiction; it does not include contradiction within its set, such truth is defined by contradiction as 'end'. Where there is 'end', there an object is defined 'in-itself'. This type of truth is de facto ideological, and religious by the nature of it being ideological.
What then 'manages'? The mind?
So again I return your question to me: what is the object? If it is of mind then the possibility of management has also been determined as a necessary 'thought' of the objects under consideration. When 'mind' becomes such object, then your idea fails.

The solution to this paradox cannot be situated within the set that is established by the same paradox. Thus what is true must be found in the situation that encompasses and includes paradox. Such a situation thus necessarily must see that 'management' does not occur of 'mind' but something that determines the relation by which 'mind' and 'management' find themselves as 'objects' of consideration.

[The Voice of Time]

Throughout history there have been countless many ways to define truth. The latest and likely most extensively agreed upon is that truth is a correlation between the objective world (also called "reality") and our own. I want to slap this definition.

First of all, the definition overlaps with the word "correct", which means correlation between an ideal of an object and the experience of the same object. What many people forget is that "reality" is also an ideal, because how else could we conceive of it? How can we conceive of reality as independent of the mind if we could not first make it an idea of the mind? So reality is an idea, practically speaking and my objection is to say that "truth" is reflected in correctness when this is only a recent development historically speaking. Instead, correctness should be correctness, and truth should be truth.

Truth has to do with the object. I think you have said as much. And, you have asked "What I mean by object"

You've still not answered, is it a physical object? Logical object? Other object? I said other people believe truth is about the "objective world" (which is sometimes a synonym for reality depending on how you use it), my objection was that this is not so (only at least, this is where it gets complicated because my definition recognizes this definition but puts itself as a dominant definition in the top of a two-staged hierarchy where it resides alone looking down on all other definitions, you could say).

So I came up with an idea myself about what truth is, one that tries to encompass all possible meanings of it, and that is that truth is a product of management of the mind.

Here it appears that you are making mind foundational

I'm only saying truth in whatever form it arrives from is a product of the management of the mind, I'm not saying the mind precedes the outer world or the outer world precedes the mind. I'm saying that the "practical idea" of truth, which we create by being alive each and every one of us for ourselves, in our biological brains (and whatever else science will come up with), which we might say is separate from the ideal "THE TRUTH" (which in my world doesn't exist because it's a meaningless concept, unless it would become a description for any practical truth that they are improvable), in the same way that a code of honour is different from the ideal concept "HONOUR". You understand?

That is, any process of managing of our ideas leading up to a specific state of the mind with specific ideas and those beliefs that accompany those ideas. I also believe that's what it really, at the very abstract level, always has meant, and that every single definition has always been an instantiation of this abstract concept, an instance, so to speak, of a general concept. I'll also explain, that the reason why we find the current circulating definition so attractive (that truth = correlation between reality and contents of mind), is because of the battle we've had to make people seek answers in the sensuous world instead of ideology and religion, a battle which is still fought and finding recurrence every now and then.

I would say that any position of truth that correlates with an object (out there, physical) is both ideological and religious.

"Position of truth"? That's not a real term, truth does not have a position (humans do though), but I'll go along with it. How exactly is it ideological to say that an apple carrying the colour red is red when you see it as such? How exactly is it religious? No matter how much you stretch those terms, ideology and religion as well are disciplines that in themselves deal with quite different kinds of thought. From Wikipedia:

An ideology is a set of conscious and unconscious ideas that constitute one's goals, expectations, and actions...

That is perhaps the end of your reading? Because it goes on rather importantly...

...Ideologies are systems of abstract thought applied to public matters and thus make this concept central to politics...

Ideology is not interchangeable with ideas. They are strictly separate. Like I described for SoB that Kant's phenomena-ontology is not phenomenology, but are strictly separate ways of thinking.

This however, is only an instance, and to understand how it is only an instance, can also help us understand when truth isn't true, that is, when we think perhaps that we are quite correct, but when our interpretations are hopelessly worthless (like when you interpret an illusion as literal and real, or if you focus wrongly so you don't get the really interesting about any situation), by allowing for multiple instances, we can compare them and figure out which one excels the best at its task, which in my world would be need satisfaction, but for other people might vary between other similar parameters.

i see this as a very narrow version of what truth may be. It 'behaves' as if in a container of 'true/untrue', as if such contingencies are not based in a medium of truth. Example: { True is not false; false is not true} is True. That set is not false. What is true is never false, but what is false is always true in its being false. Thus the solution to what is true cannot solve itself through parameters of contradiction, such as the {} set: your situating of truth falls in the set that is " suspended " in contradiction; it does not include contradiction within its set, such truth is defined by contradiction as 'end'. Where there is 'end', there an object is defined 'in-itself'. This type of truth is de facto ideological, and religious by the nature of it being ideological.

Aaah, you mean my definition is not "transcendent"? It doesn't go beyond itself? Well that's where you are mistaking, practically speaking, because anyone can produce a new set of thoughts to redefine truth, because anyone can manage their minds in a different manner than any other person. However, when we use truth at any point of time as a practical fundamental tool for getting something done, we must select among many choices, and then we select the one which we find most likely to excel the most at the task it has at hand. For instance, most people would likely agree that a 40 year old sailor is a better man for advice on sailing than a four-year-old who just learned how to speak, this is not always the case, so some of us would still listen to what the four-year-old has to say about the matter, because maybe the kid has a fundamentally different point of view than the sailor which becomes of its fundamental character can also be fundamentally better. It's well known how kids tend to ask questions about the world that other of us just take for granted for instance. But again, the sailor is the man whose truth we would value most likely the most because the evidence of his experiences and the like which would likely give him a more robust way of thinking about his job.

What then 'manages'? The mind?

The mind manages itself yes, in the way that a person might manage their own business.

So again I return your question to me: what is the object?

What the heck why can't you just tell me instead of prolonging this to eternity! I mean, what the fuck how am I supposed to know the answer? I don't even know what an object is yet!

If it is of mind then the possibility of management has also been determined as a necessary 'thought' of the objects under consideration.

What? You lost me there completely.

When 'mind' becomes such object, then your idea fails.

Such what object?

The solution to this paradox cannot be situated within the set that is established by the same paradox. Thus what is true must be found in the situation that encompasses and includes paradox.

You're faintly getting me back I think. I think I can say, yes, my definition does allow paradox solving, in fact, its whole practical existence is a process of solving paradoxes! Contradictions, remember, the simplest paradox. You and I have two different products of management of the mind, so we have two different truths, and what we are doing now, argumenting, is a solving of that paradox.

Such a situation thus necessarily must see that 'management' does not occur of 'mind' but something that determines the relation by which 'mind' and 'management' find themselves as 'objects' of consideration.

You lost me again.

[Ginkgo]

This might help.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/supermin/

Might I ask what I'm looking for? At first few reads I don't see anything that has a connection with what I'm talking about, care to show me where that is?

A fair question.

You start off by asking a question in relation to the possibility of something like scientific realism or naive realism seriously claiming that reality can exist 'out there' independent of the mind. In other words, how can reality exists as a 'thing' that is not mind dependent.The alternative is to say that reality has an existence independently of the information we can gain through experience.

I think you saying that reality must be an idea prior to they being any conceiving minds, Furthermore, we can put this to the test by determining the "correctness" of the idea in terms of how it relates or manifests itself within he mind. At least I think this is what you are saying.

If this is the case then this is why I suggested supervenience may be of some help. More specifically supervenience and how it relates to the mind and physicalism.

It was just a suggestion.

[The Voice of Time]

A fair question.

You start off by asking a question in relation to the possibility of something like scientific realism or naive realism seriously claiming that reality can exist 'out there' independent of the mind. In other words, how can reality exists as a 'thing' that is not mind dependent.The alternative is to say that reality has an existence independently of the information we can gain through experience.

I think you saying that reality must be an idea prior to they being any conceiving minds, Furthermore, we can put this to the test by determining the "correctness" of the idea in terms of how it relates or manifests itself within he mind. At least I think this is what you are saying.

If this is the case then this is why I suggested supervenience may be of some help. More specifically supervenience and how it relates to the mind and physicalism.

It was just a suggestion.

Okay, so now I get it. Well my stance is that it's not really interesting to talk about existence when it makes no difference. So my charge is that why suppose something is any particular way without it having any implication? So when I say reality is an idea I'm saying that the only practical purpose of the notion of reality is contained within ideas about it.

So I could never stand for a statement like "reality must be an idea prior to there being any conceiving minds", no, because that doesn't mean anything practical, what is practical is the ideas we already have about reality, and how they come to develop in us as we grow up.

That which you said about correctness is completely wrong (at least the claim that it was what I tried to show), that was just a quick definition to show how it differs from truth while being at the same time used interchangeably with it.

[lancek4]

Thanks ginkgo for that post, I think it help to clarify the issue.
So, VoT, how are you situating 'practical'? I think this is just as much a problem as your question of my definition of 'object'.
'Practical' seems to assume as common 'object '.

[The Voice of Time]

...........................W...........................H...........................A...........................T...........................

O...........................B...........................J...........................E...........................C...........................T

[lancek4]

Lol What is the object toward which you propose 'practical'? What is 'practical'? Of practice? Upon what does 'practical' take 'form'? What do you mean by 'practical'?