Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skepdick
Posts: 1498
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Skepdick » Fri Aug 16, 2019 1:15 pm

Arising_uk wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 12:33 pm
I thought you claimed there is no "objectivity"?
At least one of his perspectives claimed that anyway...

Some of his other perspectives agreed; and some disagreed. The rest were on the fence.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4721
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:34 pm

Age wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 12:15 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 12:01 pm
Age wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 3:22 am


I already have. You assume every thing.

You obviously missed it, this is because that brain believes it is an impossibility. Therefore, that brain is blocked from seeing and understanding it.
Nice assumption, evidence? Or will the brain be considered the origin source of all problems? Not Genetics, environment, emotional temperament, etc.?

Youn pick a portion of a phenomenon, brain in man, and assume that as the starting point.

Second...brain...why? Assumption because of no definition.

Third, brains causes the problems of the brain...it is circular.

Trillema.
You have STILL missed my example of some thing that is not assumed. Or, it is impossible for you to refute, and so instead you just try to deflect away from my example and try to move on to some thing else.

Until you do refute my example, it stands as NOT being some thing assumed. Therefore, until then, your assumption about some "trillema be unavoidable" IS WRONG.
You assumed I missed it.

I can see you are afraid of being wrong, so let me break it down so that a child can understand it:

The statements you made are composed of assumptions.

Those assumptions are letters, words, symbols and contexts (such as personal sensory experience, point of view etc.)

Words such as "I" and "you", because they are not defined, are assumed. They are defined within a specific context, however the context is also assumed as other contexts can be presented.

Stop projecting your assumptions, your "people are wired a certain way to not let go of there beliefs" is an undefined argument in the face of beliefs always in a process of change.

Face it, all is assumption, and proof is expansive definition and self referentiality.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4721
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:40 pm

Arising_uk wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 12:33 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: False, I am saying both exist and do not exist simultaneously because of context...it is an objective statement.
Not really it's a contradiction and as such is always false.

I thought you claimed there is no "objectivity"?
False, I never said that with that context.

Objectivity is multiple subjective states in agreement. Objectivity exists.

It occurs between individuals and groups (such as the Munchauseen trillema agreed upon as an existing fallacy) and within the individual (multiple aspects of the psyche aware of eachother through self reflection. For example a person can reflect upon the good/positive they have done from there bad/Negative persona and viceversa).

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4721
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:40 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 1:15 pm
Arising_uk wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 12:33 pm
I thought you claimed there is no "objectivity"?
At least one of his perspectives claimed that anyway...

Some of his other perspectives agreed; and some disagreed. The rest were on the fence.
Elaborate.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11929
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Arising_uk » Sat Aug 17, 2019 12:11 am

Eodnhoj7[/quote wrote:
False, I never said that with that context. ...
What context? You claim unicorns can exist and not exist which is a contradiction and always false. If by "context" you mean that real unicorns don't exist but conceptual ones do then they are not the same things and so of course one can exist and the other not at the same time.
Objectivity is multiple subjective states in agreement. Objectivity exists.
Are you slightly mental? As this is what I was telling you in the thread about your tin-foil experiments, it's called intersubjective agreement but there you argued against it or I think you did as it's hard to tell what you say aa it was your usual obtuse rambling.
It occurs between individuals and groups (such as the Munchauseen trillema agreed upon as an existing fallacy) and within the individual (multiple aspects of the psyche aware of eachother through self reflection. For example a person can reflect upon the good/positive they have done from there bad/Negative persona and viceversa).
For example.

Skepdick
Posts: 1498
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Skepdick » Sat Aug 17, 2019 12:20 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:40 pm
Skepdick wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 1:15 pm
Arising_uk wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 12:33 pm
I thought you claimed there is no "objectivity"?
At least one of his perspectives claimed that anyway...

Some of his other perspectives agreed; and some disagreed. The rest were on the fence.
Elaborate.
You are playing the perspectivist game. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspectivism
Different axioms in different contexts produce different conclusions/truths.

Those who seek explanations in psychologism might (mis?)diagnose you with multiple personality disorder.

Skepdick
Posts: 1498
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Skepdick » Sat Aug 17, 2019 12:42 am

Arising_uk wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 12:11 am
What context? You claim unicorns can exist and not exist which is a contradiction and always false.
It depends on what is meant by "exist".
Arising_uk wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 12:11 am
If by "context" you mean that real unicorns don't exist but conceptual ones do then they are not the same things and so of course one can exist and the other not at the same time.
Pause the movie right here. This is the usual paradox that emerges between dualists and monists because the word "exists" is being equivocated.

Going to switch unicorns for horses so we don't get stuck bickering about rainbows and glitter.

That the concept of a horse is not the same ontological thing as an actual horse is not disputed or assumed by either side (i think).
The problem is that when you say "concepts of horses exist" and "horses exist" you are using "exists" in two different senses.

And just as much a contradiction is an error, so is equivocating existence. This is the fundamental flaw and undoing of dualist and pluralist philosophies IF you subscribe to the axiom of identity.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11929
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Arising_uk » Sat Aug 17, 2019 1:23 am

Skepdick wrote: It depends on what is meant by "exist".
My point I'd have thought?
Pause the movie right here. This is the usual paradox that emerges between dualists and monists because the word "exists" is being equivocated.

Going to switch unicorns for horses so we don't get stuck bickering about rainbows and glitter.

That the concept of a horse is not the same ontological thing as an actual horse is not disputed or assumed by either side (i think)....
I's it not? Johndoe pretty much argued exactly this when faced with a cat sitting on a mat. He claimed it existed and didn't st the same time and I'm pretty sure he meant the actual cat.
The problem is that when you say "concepts of horses exist" and "horses exist" you are using "exists" in two different senses ...
How so? As the context is clarified in the word "concept" or idea if you like. So both the idea of a horse and a horse exist in the world but only one exists outside of ourselves.
And just as much a contradiction is an error, so is equivocating existence. This is the fundamental flaw and undoing of dualist and pluralist philosophies IF you subscribe to the axiom of identity.
Since I generally just use propositional logic it's not an issue for me.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4721
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Aug 17, 2019 5:20 am

Skepdick wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 12:20 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:40 pm
Skepdick wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 1:15 pm

At least one of his perspectives claimed that anyway...

Some of his other perspectives agreed; and some disagreed. The rest were on the fence.
Elaborate.
You are playing the perspectivist game. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspectivism
Different axioms in different contexts produce different conclusions/truths.

Those who seek explanations in psychologism might (mis?)diagnose you with multiple personality disorder.
Trillema.

Psychologism is a perspective, assuming the axiom of perspective as the starting point.

Various perspectives are defined through various other perspectives and there relations and they all cycle back to the original premise.

Putting a label on one degree of reality, in this case perspective, is a localization of it. Under psychologism, perspective is the assumed starting point, and it is assumed considering there are various other means and manners to build a specific foundation for defining reality.

The problem occurs, fundamentally, in where/when to place the assumed starting point of any conceivable definition as to what reality is. This is undefined, unless assumption itself, through a self referencing and change is the starting point.

The nature of axioms and contexts, while existing through perspective, is not limited to the context of perspective alone. This is considering certain axioms exist relative to other axioms, euclidean geometry is an example. A line between two points, as an axiom, exists relative to the axiom of 2 90 angles being the same.

Certain axioms are inherently connected within a specific context, change the context and certain axioms again are connected in a seperate context, change the context again...and again...and again...and all axioms are effectively connected as a continuum.

The problem with programming is that you have to create labels and then apply them as variables for the programming to works. Even the functions through which programming occurs, for example subsets, is still a label.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4721
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Aug 17, 2019 5:36 am

Arising_uk wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 12:11 am
Eodnhoj7[/quote wrote:
False, I never said that with that context. ...
What context? You claim unicorns can exist and not exist which is a contradiction and always false. If by "context" you mean that real unicorns don't exist but conceptual ones do then they are not the same things and so of course one can exist and the other not at the same time.


It is not a contradiction. Unicorns do not exist as an empirical reality. They exist as imaginary entities.

Empirical reality, and imaginary entities are both contexts.

Thus the unicorn, because of context can both exist and not exist at the same time. Truth is determined as having value through context. This recurssion of context, however is an absolute truth. Thus relative truth is an approximation of one truth: context through various contexts.
Objectivity is multiple subjective states in agreement. Objectivity exists.
Are you slightly mental? As this is what I was telling you in the thread about your tin-foil experiments, it's called intersubjective agreement but there you argued against it or I think you did as it's hard to tell what you say aa it was your usual obtuse rambling.

False, there is no agreed upon definition to objectivity, in philosophy or the sciences, that does not depend on agreement. The subjective states can be viewed as objective points that effectively are given form by connecting into a pattern. This pattern, or interpretation, is the means through which reality is given form and measured.

Group agreement is a pattern of dynamic behavior, as this agreement (such as the objective notion that the Hadron collider needed to be built (cause) for particles to be broken down and studied (effect)) bends time and space (hadron collider is built).


It occurs between individuals and groups (such as the Munchauseen trillema agreed upon as an existing fallacy) and within the individual (multiple aspects of the psyche aware of eachother through self reflection. For example a person can reflect upon the good/positive they have done from there bad/Negative persona and viceversa).
For example.

For example. I am over come by desire and eat too much food. My perspective, is changed and from one of being in a state of equilibrium.

I eat the food, get sick. My perspective again is changed to where I should never had eaten the food at all.

It goes from one extreme, of excessive desire to another state of repulsion.

These desires and repulsions, however form the nature of the personality.

We hear this all the time in real life. "That is so and so when they dont eat ever few hours, when so and so eats so and so acts this way."


Now if I reflect on both states of being from a third vantage point of the personality, one that exists in a state neither desire nor repulsion I can observe not only various facets of my psyche that exist because of certain contexts, but I can also observe how aspects of the self are dependent upon specific contexts...thus the "I" becomes an objective entity.

The objectification of the self occurs through self reflective meditation.


"

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4721
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Aug 17, 2019 5:38 am

Arising_uk wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 1:23 am
Skepdick wrote: It depends on what is meant by "exist".
My point I'd have thought?
Pause the movie right here. This is the usual paradox that emerges between dualists and monists because the word "exists" is being equivocated.

Going to switch unicorns for horses so we don't get stuck bickering about rainbows and glitter.

That the concept of a horse is not the same ontological thing as an actual horse is not disputed or assumed by either side (i think)....
I's it not? Johndoe pretty much argued exactly this when faced with a cat sitting on a mat. He claimed it existed and didn't st the same time and I'm pretty sure he meant the actual cat.

Over the time zone of 25 years, with the cat existing as a time zone, the cat exists and does not exist given a specific context. That is the point...and yes I am talking about the empirical cat for this example.
The problem is that when you say "concepts of horses exist" and "horses exist" you are using "exists" in two different senses ...
How so? As the context is clarified in the word "concept" or idea if you like. So both the idea of a horse and a horse exist in the world but only one exists outside of ourselves.
And just as much a contradiction is an error, so is equivocating existence. This is the fundamental flaw and undoing of dualist and pluralist philosophies IF you subscribe to the axiom of identity.
Since I generally just use propositional logic it's not an issue for me.

Age
Posts: 3147
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Age » Sat Aug 17, 2019 7:32 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:34 pm
Age wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 12:15 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 12:01 pm


Nice assumption, evidence? Or will the brain be considered the origin source of all problems? Not Genetics, environment, emotional temperament, etc.?

Youn pick a portion of a phenomenon, brain in man, and assume that as the starting point.

Second...brain...why? Assumption because of no definition.

Third, brains causes the problems of the brain...it is circular.

Trillema.
You have STILL missed my example of some thing that is not assumed. Or, it is impossible for you to refute, and so instead you just try to deflect away from my example and try to move on to some thing else.

Until you do refute my example, it stands as NOT being some thing assumed. Therefore, until then, your assumption about some "trillema be unavoidable" IS WRONG.
You assumed I missed it.
Besides your assumption is completely and utterly wrong. It is wrong for two reasons:

1. I added the word 'OR' so I never even assumed what you thought/assumed I did.
2.Even if I had assumed what you thought/assumed I did your insistence OR inability to not even provide the example, and try and refute it, helps in provinh my example is 100% True, Right, and Correct, for two reasons:

1. You are proving my view of hoe the brain works.
2. From what I have observed so far there is no possible way you could refute my example of what is not assumed.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:34 pm
I can see you are afraid of being wrong, so let me break it down so that a child can understand it:
Another wrong assumption you make here.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:34 pm
The statements you made are composed of assumptions.
Another wrong assumption you make here
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:34 pm
Those assumptions are letters, words, symbols and contexts (such as personal sensory experience, point of view etc.)

Words such as "I" and "you", because they are not defined, are assumed. They are defined within a specific context, however the context is also assumed as other contexts can be presented.
Another wrong assumption you make here
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:34 pm
Stop projecting your assumptions, your "people are wired a certain way to not let go of there beliefs" is an undefined argument in the face of beliefs always in a process of change.
Another wrong assumption you make here
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:34 pm
Face it, all is assumption, and proof is expansive definition and self referentiality.
Another wrong assumption you make here. You can not prove this assumption is even close to be correct, so what is the point of continually expressing your assumption/s?

Your attempt at a theory can not even be proven false, so again what is the point of continually reiterating some thing that is completely worthless and useless?

If you want me to provide my example of 'what is not assumed', then I will. I have nothing to hide so I can keep presenting my example and proving it correct if you like. But if you are to afraid that I can do this, and do you will keep ignoring it, then so be it. Your continual ignorance of my example shows anyway, and thus proves, that what I am saying is true and correct also. So, either way I am happy.

Both all of your responses as well as your non responses continually proves that what I KNOW and am saying is True, Right, and Correct. You, unfortunately for you, NEVER know if you are correct or not, and you are NEVER able to prove any thing you assume and say.

Skepdick
Posts: 1498
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Skepdick » Sat Aug 17, 2019 7:40 am

Arising_uk wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 1:23 am
My point I'd have thought?
Clarification then: It depends on how many different ways you are using 'exists'
Arising_uk wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 1:23 am
So both the idea of a horse and a horse exist in the world but only one exists outside of ourselves.
Hence dualism. You've invented a line between "world' and "ourselves".

Obviously we all do that without blinking an eye, but if you were to decide to practice the principle of charity (with the knowledge that Johndoe is defending monism e.g one context, an undivided whole ), you could trivially read "unicorns can exist and not exist" as

"[concepts of unicorns; and actual unicorns] can exist and not exist at the same time".
concept -> exists
unicorn -> does-not-exist

Which is true.
Arising_uk wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 1:23 am
Since I generally just use propositional logic it's not an issue for me.
Propositional logic uses axioms. You used the axiom of non-contradiction to draw conclusions about the statement.
Last edited by Skepdick on Sat Aug 17, 2019 7:53 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4721
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Aug 17, 2019 7:47 am

Age wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 7:32 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:34 pm
Age wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 12:15 pm


You have STILL missed my example of some thing that is not assumed. Or, it is impossible for you to refute, and so instead you just try to deflect away from my example and try to move on to some thing else.

Until you do refute my example, it stands as NOT being some thing assumed. Therefore, until then, your assumption about some "trillema be unavoidable" IS WRONG.
You assumed I missed it.
Besides your assumption is completely and utterly wrong. It is wrong for two reasons:

1. I added the word 'OR' so I never even assumed what you thought/assumed I did.

Actually you assumed probabilistic behavior, it was defined by a specific number of categories.

2.Even if I had assumed what you thought/assumed I did your insistence OR inability to not even provide the example, and try and refute it, helps in provinh my example is 100% True, Right, and Correct, for two reasons:

Dude, learn to read. I explained in multiple examples how your ideas are both assumptions and composed of assumptions

1. You are proving my view of hoe the brain works.

Not really, external environmental factors determine various functions of the brain. It may not be the brain but the environment causing the brain to act a certain way. You want to originate it with the brain....but this is an assumption.


2. From what I have observed so far there is no possible way you could refute my example of what is not assumed.

Yes, from what you assume there is no possible way to refute your assumptions that your arguments are not assumptions...I agree.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:34 pm
I can see you are afraid of being wrong, so let me break it down so that a child can understand it:
Another wrong assumption you make here.

False, you said everyone's brain is locked in a certain way of defending there beleifs thus yours is as well.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:34 pm
The statements you made are composed of assumptions.
Another wrong assumption you make here

Good, then tell me why...other wise it is just and assumption.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:34 pm
Those assumptions are letters, words, symbols and contexts (such as personal sensory experience, point of view etc.)

Words such as "I" and "you", because they are not defined, are assumed. They are defined within a specific context, however the context is also assumed as other contexts can be presented.
Another wrong assumption you make here

Duh...duh...duh... seriously? Throw in a stutter, like petey, and you will be more convincing.

I enjoy how you are assuming everyone understands why saying "your wrong" constitutes a good explanation.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:34 pm
Stop projecting your assumptions, your "people are wired a certain way to not let go of there beliefs" is an undefined argument in the face of beliefs always in a process of change.
Another wrong assumption you make here

why?
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:34 pm
Face it, all is assumption, and proof is expansive definition and self referentiality.
Another wrong assumption you make here. You can not prove this assumption is even close to be correct, so what is the point of continually expressing your assumption/s?

Actually I can prove it considering proof is merely definition. The nature of math being grounded in the assumption of 1 proves this. Basic 1 is an assumption, yet this assumption defines itself through recurssion into a proof. The relation of 1 and 1, as many numbers Inverts isomorphically to 2 as 1 number. Equations are isomorphic in nature. It argues how many parts invert to one...in this case number.

Your attempt at a theory can not even be proven false, so again what is the point of continually reiterating some thing that is completely worthless and useless?

Anything can be proven false given a context change.

If you want me to provide my example of 'what is not assumed', then I will. I have nothing to hide so I can keep presenting my example and proving it correct if you like. But if you are to afraid that I can do this, and do you will keep ignoring it, then so be it. Your continual ignorance of my example shows anyway, and thus proves, that what I am saying is true and correct also. So, either way I am happy.

Yes please, provide it.

Both all of your responses as well as your non responses continually proves that what I KNOW and am saying is True, Right, and Correct. You, unfortunately for you, NEVER know if you are correct or not, and you are NEVER able to prove any thing you assume and say.

False, assumption is truth. Disconnected truths are false. All contradiction is grounded in the fragmentation of truths, hence the fragmentation of assumptions.

The connection of assumptions mandates truth, as this connection allows for an inherent form which exists as is. Form is inseperable from assumption as assumption takes on a projective and receptive nature. Truth is grounded in form.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4721
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Aug 17, 2019 7:48 am

Skepdick wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 7:40 am
Arising_uk wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 1:23 am
My point I'd have thought?
Clarification then: It depends on how many different ways you are using 'exists'
Arising_uk wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 1:23 am
So both the idea of a horse and a horse exist in the world but only one exists outside of ourselves.
Hence dualism. You've invented a line between "world' and "ourselves"
Arising_uk wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 1:23 am
Since I generally just use propositional logic it's not an issue for me.
Propositional logic uses axioms. You used the axiom of non-contradiction to draw conclusions about the statement.
Agreed.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: RCSaunders and 3 guests