the value of philosophy

[Lacewing]

The more broadly we consider, obviously the broader the possibilities we have access to. Whereas, if we lock ourselves down to a specific model, inflexible due to our ego, agenda, or resolve, we are limited to that (which is more a self-serving fragment of possibility than of any broader truth). I think the best and truest kind of philosophy is that which thoughtfully questions continually -- so as not to be a servant of smaller and limited ideas/agendas.

That's the cult of open-mindedness. The purpose of all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding is actionable certainty, and that means finding answers you can depend upon Without continuously questioning them. Intellectual maturity is the process of Closing your mind!

It is possible to function very effectively while continually being open to new information that can be learned/utilized and/or that clearly outdates old information. It is foolish to condemn such a thing. It is not a cult. It can be a demonstration of courage and vision and ability.

The world would be very small and stupid if not for explorers and visionaries who continually realize what ELSE there is beyond currently limited and rigid beliefs that are maintained and justified in service to those who cling to them.

we should Not exhaustively suspect ourselves of bias or everyone else of wisdom.

I don't think anyone suggested such a thing.

[Advocate]

[quote=Lacewing post_id=486544 time=1609088257 user_id=11228]
[quote=Advocate post_id=486359 time=1609010534 user_id=15238]
[quote=Lacewing post_id=486355 time=1609008926 user_id=11228]
The more broadly we consider, obviously the broader the possibilities we have access to. Whereas, if we lock ourselves down to a specific model, inflexible due to our ego, agenda, or resolve, we are limited to [u][i]that[/i][/u] (which is more a self-serving fragment of possibility than of any broader truth). I think the best and truest kind of philosophy is that which thoughtfully questions continually -- so as not to be a servant of smaller and limited ideas/agendas.
[/quote]
That's the cult of open-mindedness. The purpose of all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding is actionable certainty, and that means finding answers you can depend upon Without continuously questioning them. Intellectual maturity is the process of Closing your mind![/quote]
:lol:

It is possible to function very effectively while continually being open to new information that can be learned/utilized and/or that clearly outdates old information. It is foolish to condemn such a thing. It is not a cult. It can be a demonstration of courage and vision and ability.

The world would be very small and stupid if not for explorers and visionaries who continually realize what ELSE there is beyond currently limited and rigid beliefs that are maintained and justified in service to those who cling to them.

[quote=Advocate post_id=486359 time=1609010534 user_id=15238]
we should Not exhaustively suspect ourselves of bias or everyone else of wisdom.
[/quote]
I don't think anyone suggested such a thing.
[/quote]

What i'm getting at is this: When you're on the Plateau of Truth, there's confirmation bias everywhere you look because everything actually makes sense from your actually accurate understanding of actual reality. Likewise, you can recognize with immediacy and efficiency whether something violates that standard. From a pragmatic perspective there is limited time for vetting ideas and you'd have discovered most of the important ones by then anyhow. There's a point of diminishing returns on accepting outside information on any subject you're a legitimate expert in. Anyone who has reached The Plateau understands where they are and what the landscape indicates.

[Veritas Aequitas]

We are already in la la land if all is a hallucination made by the mind according to you.

Nope you are leaping into la la land a sub-hallucination within the main-hallucination.

But all is a hallucination according to you.

You need to differentiate between the meta-hallucination and the various types of hallucinations of the senses, reason, etc.

What is meta-hallucination [all is a hallucination] is acceptable to all humans are 'normal' and conventional reality.

Your leaping into la la land is abnormal, i.e. it a sub-hallucination out of pure reason.

[Advocate]

[quote="Veritas Aequitas" post_id=486614 time=1609145117 user_id=7896]
[quote=Eodnhoj7 post_id=486540 time=1609087172 user_id=14533]
[quote="Veritas Aequitas" post_id=486456 time=1609048027 user_id=7896]

Nope you are leaping into la la land a sub-hallucination within the main-hallucination.
[/quote]

But all is a hallucination according to you.
[/quote]
You need to differentiate between the [b]meta-hallucination[/b] and the various types of hallucinations of the senses, reason, etc.

What is meta-hallucination [all is a hallucination] is acceptable to all humans are 'normal' and conventional reality.

Your leaping into la la land is abnormal, i.e. it a sub-hallucination out of pure reason.
[/quote]

That's not how the word hallucination works. Reality is this experience we're sharing, even if it does turn out to be a fantasy by some as-of-yet undiscovered criteria.

[Eodnhoj7]

Nope you are leaping into la la land a sub-hallucination within the main-hallucination.

But all is a hallucination according to you.

You need to differentiate between the meta-hallucination and the various types of hallucinations of the senses, reason, etc.

What is meta-hallucination [all is a hallucination] is acceptable to all humans are 'normal' and conventional reality.

Your leaping into la la land is abnormal, i.e. it a sub-hallucination out of pure reason.

A meta hallucination is still an hallucination.

[Advocate]

"An experience involving the apparent perception of something not present.

This does not apply to reality. Reality is something present. If you think you're hallucinating when you look at reality, it's probably an illusion.

[Veritas Aequitas]

But all is a hallucination according to you.

You need to differentiate between the meta-hallucination and the various types of hallucinations of the senses, reason, etc.

What is meta-hallucination [all is a hallucination] is acceptable to all humans are 'normal' and conventional reality.

Your leaping into la la land is abnormal, i.e. it a sub-hallucination out of pure reason.

A meta hallucination is still an hallucination.

Try to learn how to differentiate between what is meta- and what is typical.

[Lacewing]

That's the cult of open-mindedness. The purpose of all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding is actionable certainty, and that means finding answers you can depend upon Without continuously questioning them. Intellectual maturity is the process of Closing your mind!

It is possible to function very effectively while continually being open to new information that can be learned/utilized and/or that clearly outdates old information. It is foolish to condemn such a thing. It is not a cult. It can be a demonstration of courage and vision and ability.

The world would be very small and stupid if not for explorers and visionaries who continually realize what ELSE there is beyond currently limited and rigid beliefs that are maintained and justified in service to those who cling to them.

we should Not exhaustively suspect ourselves of bias or everyone else of wisdom.

I don't think anyone suggested such a thing.

What i'm getting at is this: When you're on the Plateau of Truth, there's confirmation bias everywhere you look because everything actually makes sense from your actually accurate understanding of actual reality. Likewise, you can recognize with immediacy and efficiency whether something violates that standard. From a pragmatic perspective there is limited time for vetting ideas and you'd have discovered most of the important ones by then anyhow. There's a point of diminishing returns on accepting outside information on any subject you're a legitimate expert in. Anyone who has reached The Plateau understands where they are and what the landscape indicates.

So, which plateau is that: the one you're on right now? And if you spend a great deal of your life on that plateau, do you think that gives the plateau or you some sort of special validity? How long did humans believe the Earth was flat?

If you're comfortable on your plateau, great! But I don't think a limited viewpoint is an indication of "maturity". Rather, it's more of a controlled/manipulative state for reassuring one's ego: to continue believing/insisting that you've been right, and that you are right and will continue to be right (according to your plateau's limited set of chosen information).

[Advocate]

>So, which plateau is that: the one you're on right now? And if you spend a great deal of your life on that plateau, do you think that gives the plateau or you some sort of special validity? How [i]long [/i]did humans believe the Earth was flat?

a) yes
b) no. The point of being on it is that you know Why your beliefs are true and they are never refuted by additional evidence. Truth is knowledge (justified belief) that lasts over time. Whether your beliefs are justified in the first place is a completely different variable than how long you believe so.
c) You need not have understood the cutting edge of cosmology then to understand Truth any more than you need to understand the cutting edge of physics now to do so. Whether a presentation of information is worth incorporating requires you have your basics correct, not that you have a full knowledge of everything. If a flat earth doesn't contradict what you know about physics (which is only relevant to physical questions, all of which are empirical) or that people lie to uphold their own beliefs/authority/power (which was an available understanding of bullshit all through history) and so forth, then you; someone standing on the Plateau, can recognize it. Even if you're misled on occasion, it will only be because the Truth isn't available from where you are, not that you won't recognize it when it is. You can't have full information about everything, and that exhaustiveness is not a valid criteria.

You know you're right when you can explain Why you're right, and you know other people are wrong when you can explain Why they're wrong, and if you can do those things, you've got the framework to understand anything that is accurately presented to you. None of this implies you can have magical powers of vetting, only that when Truth is made apparent, not hidden, you'll recognize it for what it is, and when bullshit is presented as Truth, you'll recognize that too. There's plenty of room for evolution of Truth in expanding and polishing, gathering new information, or discovering it, such as the cosmological shape of planets.

>If you're comfortable on your plateau, great! But I don't think a limited viewpoint is an indication of "maturity". Rather, it's more of a controlled/manipulative state for reassuring one's ego: to continue believing/insisting that you've been right, and that you are right and will continue to be right (according to your plateau's limited set of chosen information).

I speak of "actual truth" and you respond with "limited viewpoint". This isn't a valid comparison. Every viewpoint is limited and having an unlimited one is not a criteria for recognizing truth. However, Limiting your viewpoint absolutely is an indication of intellectual maturity. The amount of information in the universe is infinite and the amount of bullshit on earth is practically infinite. You Must vet the fuck out of both, and that is by definition an act of limitation. The fact that people can also limit themselves to bullshit doesn't change the fact that Truth requires limitation. The Truth, when properly understood, is always the simplest possible answer, but never simpler. Where i say "intellectual maturity is the process of closing your mind", you've substituted a non-process of doing whatever feels good in the moment, with no interest in truth whatsoever. Not a valid comparison.

Say for the sake of argument that everything you believe is true. Would that not require that you can tie it all together without any discrepancies? Would it not require that the meaning of the words you use is both necessary and sufficient for the job of communicating that understanding? When you're on the plateau, you can know you're on it by justified belief. If you find any holes, you're not there yet. This is not the same as a full understanding, it's the same as no bullshit:

the first step is to understand and be able to filter out bullshit
the second step is to fill in the gaps in your current knowledge
the third step is filling in the edges where you haven't previously needed the information or where it was not previously available

If you can do the first, you'll be up here on The Plateau. If you can do the second, you'll be able to recognize it and being to express how it works and predict it's implications. To do the third is an infinite task - guru territory.

But i've rambled on long enough for first think in the morning when my brain isn't even in gear.

[Lacewing]

So, which plateau is that: the one you're on right now?

The point of being on it is that you know Why your beliefs are true and they are never refuted by additional evidence.

Never? Wow.

Truth is knowledge (justified belief) that lasts over time.

Knowledge and belief are limited, and change over time. You are always free to expand beyond the small limits of previous truths, thereby rendering those previous truths not really truths.

Whether your beliefs are justified in the first place is a completely different variable than how long you believe so.

Then why do you use time as an indicator?

If a flat earth doesn't contradict what you know about physics (which is only relevant to physical questions, all of which are empirical) or that people lie to uphold their own beliefs/authority/power (which was an available understanding of bullshit all through history) and so forth, then you; someone standing on the Plateau, can recognize it.

What does it mean when people on different plateaus see different things?

Even if you're misled on occasion, it will only be because the Truth isn't available from where you are, not that you won't recognize it when it is.

So your needs and beliefs and ego and programming and intoxication don't impact what you see?

You can't have full information about everything, and that exhaustiveness is not a valid criteria.

I would never imagine such a thing. What I imagine (based on history, logic, and experience) is that there is always more to consider, "know", and explore/discover. What I see is that we habitually limit ourselves to serve our agendas, which require us to insist that such limitations are some kind of profound knowledge/truth.

You know you're right when you can explain Why you're right, and you know other people are wrong when you can explain Why they're wrong

Lots of people on this forum demonstrate this continually. What's that really worth?

and if you can do those things, you've got the framework to understand anything that is accurately presented to you.

It's all dependent on the beliefs and intelligence and awareness of one's particular limited plateau, yes?

None of this implies you can have magical powers of vetting, only that when Truth is made apparent, not hidden, you'll recognize it for what it is, and when bullshit is presented as Truth, you'll recognize that too.

Clearly, truth and bullshit appear differently for people, depending on whether it conflicts with what they want to see/believe.

I speak of "actual truth" and you respond with "limited viewpoint".

"Actual truth" according to who?

Every viewpoint is limited and having an unlimited one is not a criteria for recognizing truth. However, Limiting your viewpoint absolutely is an indication of intellectual maturity. The amount of information in the universe is infinite and the amount of bullshit on earth is practically infinite. You Must vet the fuck out of both, and that is by definition an act of limitation.

To (as you say) "vet the fuck out of both", you must be open to doing so, which doesn't really jive with limiting your viewpoint based on a self-sustaining network of prior conclusions of the truth.

Of course I understand that a person cannot just believe everything or believe nothing -- discernment can still work alongside questioning.

People have countless ways for insisting that they know "the truth"... and that their particular path or position sees truth most clearly. The issue I see is that it becomes a position to be championed, defended, glorified, etc... and by its very nature, it denounces/condemns and rises above anything not perceived/imagined as that position. It is a pinnacle of correctness and truth... whether it be a religion, a supernatural knowing, a plateau of truth, a political standing... there is no limit to the manifestations of it. And the proclaimer of it is ALWAYS IN POSSESSION OF IT.

I challenge positions for truth and bullshit, moment to moment, situation to situation. Not to any fanatical degree, just to whatever degree seems helpful/entertaining for the moment.

The Truth, when properly understood, is always the simplest possible answer

How many people and variations of "The Truth" are there, and which ones are accurate?

Where i say "intellectual maturity is the process of closing your mind", you've substituted a non-process of doing whatever feels good in the moment, with no interest in truth whatsoever.

Well, that's not true at all. I am expressing a lot that (I think) can be clearly and logically understood and seen -- but I cannot prevent you or anyone from distorting it in order to maintain their favored plateau of truth.

Say for the sake of argument that everything you believe is true. Would that not require that you can tie it all together without any discrepancies?

Well, this question makes no sense to the way I think. Positions can become our masters, and blind us to other potential. It is not wishy washy to simply recognize that every moment has many options -- some options resonate with truth, and others resonate with bullshit -- regardless of the language/model being used. Regardless of the person or situation. It is a moving canvas of many moving parts and shifting players. It is NOT magic or woo woo or simply "feeling" that informs or identifies amidst this landscape. It is a combination of many things, none of which are formulated into a particular "truth" or position.

When you're on the plateau, you can know you're on it by justified belief. If you find any holes, you're not there yet.

How many people on this forum see the holes in their beliefs and absurd claims/platforms and acknowledge that they're "not there" yet?

the first step is to understand and be able to filter out bullshit
the second step is to fill in the gaps in your current knowledge
the third step is filling in the edges where you haven't previously needed the information or where it was not previously available...

If you can do the first, you'll be up here on The Plateau. If you can do the second, you'll be able to recognize it and being to express how it works and predict it's implications. To do the third is an infinite task - guru territory.

Well, you've got this all figured out, and you explain it real pretty... but from my perspective it has holes and can always be further vetted.

i've rambled on long enough for first think in the morning when my brain isn't even in gear.

It was enjoyable to consider and respond to.

[Eodnhoj7]

You need to differentiate between the meta-hallucination and the various types of hallucinations of the senses, reason, etc.

What is meta-hallucination [all is a hallucination] is acceptable to all humans are 'normal' and conventional reality.

Your leaping into la la land is abnormal, i.e. it a sub-hallucination out of pure reason.

A meta hallucination is still an hallucination.

Try to learn how to differentiate between what is meta- and what is typical.

Meta is the repeatability of a phenomenon through a different context. It is the same thing expressed through variation.

If all is an hallucination then a higher reality results given a hallucination is the mirroring of some actual phenomenon.

[Advocate]

>>The point of being on it is that you know Why your beliefs are true and they are never refuted by additional evidence.[/quote]
>Never? Wow.

It's not hard tbh. The truth is a set of rather simple understandings which just happen to cover everything in the universe, material and "spiritual". And it's not really wow either, if you're actually right, what could possibly refute it? Do tell!

>Knowledge and belief are limited, and change over time. You are always free to expand beyond the small limits of previous truths, thereby rendering those previous truths [i][u]not[/u][/i] really truths.

They change over time but that doesn't mean the basics ever change, only perspectives, priorities, new variables, etc. Truth wouldn't be truth if it was subject to refutation. That doesn't mean it's not subject to change in any other sense. If you're expanding your truth "beyond" anything, that means you're working at a different level of understanding. Newton wasn't refuted by Einstein, Einstein was just more complete by incorporating a lower level of understanding that frankly wouldn't be relevant in Newton's time because they wouldn't have been able to measure or manage things at that level.

>>Whether your beliefs are justified in the first place is a completely different variable than how long you believe so.[/quote]
>Then why do you use time as an indicator?

To indicate the durability of the justification. It also depends, of course, on whether you're keeping your eyes open for relevant information that may affect your prior or burying your head in the sand because of ego.

>What does it mean when people on different plateaus see different things?

It means they should have a conversation because they could be the best possible thing for each other's intellectual growth. If they're both at a different place on the plateau, they will eventually meet through consilience in stage 3. It would only be different from their momentary perspective.

>>Even if you're misled on occasion, it will only be because the Truth isn't available from where you are, not that you won't recognize it when it is.
>So your needs and beliefs and ego and programming and intoxication don't impact what you see?

They can be accounted for. Absolute precision is rarely required, what's needed is good Enough, and that's usually a very low bar, intellectually speaking. I know i have biases, but i also know that because i know that i have biases i can be careful to be neutral at times when bias matters. Likewise you can correct for logical fallacies if you have generally good critical thinking skills. None of this is a high bar, except in relation to most people who don't even try or who have absurd priors.

>I would never imagine such a thing. What I imagine (based on history, logic, and experience) is that there is always more to consider, "know", and explore/discover. What I see is that we habitually limit ourselves to serve our agendas, which require us to insist that such limitations are some kind of profound knowledge/truth.

Yes, there's always more to know, but when you start from solid ground, that's only ever going to be an expansion or a clarification or adding nuance or showing the relevance of additional factors, and so forth, all of which is a facade on the fundamental correctness of the central understanding. If you've got the basics right, the rest is details relevant to particular uses of that answer. There will always be infinitely more to know. That will never upset the apple cart of truth. It's truth, after all. It literally cannot be wrong, and whether you've got it can be verified.

>>being able to prove yourself
>Lots of people on this forum demonstrate this continually. What's that really worth?

They claim to offer an explanation. If it's correct there will be no way to prove it wrong. That's the nature of truth. But most claims to be able to show the problems with x are straw man arguments, as i believe you're aware. The worth is that there are more correct and less correct ways to view the universe, more useful and less useful, and by whatever standard of better, truth will get you there; faster, safer, better predictive power, and on and on. The actual truth is the most useful tool possible. Being able to show why you're right or someone else is wrong doesn't mean being able to spout words, it means that your argument cuts all the way to the core of metaphysics, to each individual's own cogito, if so required. A partial explanation is no better than a guess unless the boundary is pragmatic.

>>and if you can do those things, you've got the framework to understand anything that is accurately presented to you.[/quote]
>It's all dependent on the beliefs and intelligence and awareness of one's particular limited plateau, yes?

I will resort to my understanding of the application of intelligence in this regard because i believe the answer would be similar. There are three factors inbetween raw mental processing ability and worldly success, namely; first the inherent ability, regardless of it's application, second, what you choose to apply it to, and third, what society allows you to apply it to, ie. circumstance. So, each person will reach the plateau at a different point. Whether or not they can see each other depends on similar things; use of language, time spent contemplating how their truth relates to others, whether and how they account for salience, and so forth. That's philosophical work that has yet to be done as far as i know. All versions of truth that don't include bullshit are compatible and ultimately the same story, with different perspectives and emphases. Also, i'm convinced that intelligent people of "good faith" never actually disagree, they only need to actively account for those differences.

>>None of this implies you can have magical powers of vetting, only that when Truth is made apparent, not hidden, you'll recognize it for what it is, and when bullshit is presented as Truth, you'll recognize that too.[/quote]
>Clearly, truth and bullshit appear differently for people, depending on whether it conflicts with what they want to see/believe.

But you see, seeing what you want to see is bullshit.

>"Actual truth" according to who?

I can verify and validate my version. I can also point you to certain other people that have certain parts of it and explain why they're also correct, and i can explain all the details of why it's correct, as indicated above, all the way to each individual seeker's cogito, if so required. Is that sufficient? If not, what criteria could be better? Let's use it.

>To (as you say) "vet the fuck out of both", you must be open to doing so, which doesn't really jive with limiting your viewpoint based on a self-sustaining network of prior conclusions of the truth. :)

It's a matter of logistics. You can't verify everything directly, but you can have a verified understanding of truth and critical thinking skills. You should only be open to those ideas which you know you don't have a solution to, or for which you know your solution isn't sufficient. If you value truth as your first priority, sufficient will be as vetted as possible or as vetted as practicable, as circumstances dictate. When you understand The Truth, for it not to be self-sustaining would merely mean it wasn't the truth at all, notwithstanding that illusions can also be self-sustaining, because the difference is in the proof. Illusions cannot withstand skepticism, while the truth will convert even the most ardent skeptic as long as they legitimately value truth and have some sufficient tools with which to recognize it.

>Of course I understand that a person cannot just believe everything or believe nothing -- discernment can still work alongside questioning.

>People have countless ways for insisting that they know "the truth"... and that their particular path or position sees truth most clearly. The issue I see is that it becomes a [i]position[/i] to be championed, defended, glorified, etc... and by its very nature, it denounces/condemns and rises above anything not perceived/imagined as that position. It is a pinnacle of correctness and truth... whether it be a religion, a supernatural knowing, a plateau of truth, a political standing... there is no limit to the manifestations of it. And the proclaimer of it is ALWAYS IN POSSESSION OF IT. :D

In what sense could the actual truth not be a position to be championed etc.? The rules are different up here. There is no direction but down. Truth only loses in compromise. The way to recognize the difference is simply in the explanation behind it. One will always be more rational than the others, by whatever standard of rationality. We, the human species, have come a long way toward being able to make those determinations and we can bloody well do it. Separating the wheat from the chaff is not a problem for someone who recognizes the truth, or for someone who believes they recognize the truth wrongly, but one of those people will be able to answer all relevant questions, the other will make shit up sooner or later and have to go deeper and deeper (more and more obvious) into bullshit to defend their position.

>I challenge positions for truth and bullshit, moment to moment, situation to situation. Not to any fanatical degree, just to whatever degree seems helpful/entertaining for the moment.

That seems to bound the pragmatic use of your position to individual circumstances. What's the coherency glue that holds them together without hypocrisy?

>How many people and variations of "The Truth" are there, and which ones are accurate?

I don't know of many people who have any semblance of it or any who have it all together, but i can point to some who have portions of it correct. Sean Carroll's (Yale) Poetic Naturalism is the true story of metaphysics, as has been espoused by many, but he doesn't know he's on the plateau because he either doesn't trust himself sufficiently, hasn't yet taken his understanding to it's logical extreme, or trusts others too much, maybe all three.

[quote=Advocate post_id=486835 time=1609256793 user_id=15238]Where i say "intellectual maturity is the process of closing your mind", you've substituted a non-process of doing whatever feels good in the moment, with no interest in truth whatsoever.[/quote]
Well, that's not true at all. I am expressing a lot that (I think) can be clearly and logically understood and seen -- but I cannot prevent you or anyone from distorting it in order to maintain their favored plateau of truth.

>Say for the sake of argument that everything you believe is true. Would that not require that you can tie it all together without any discrepancies?
>Well, this question makes no sense to the way I think. Positions can become our masters, and blind us to other potential. It is not wishy washy to simply recognize that every moment has many options -- some options resonate with truth, and others resonate with bullshit -- regardless of the language/model being used. Regardless of the person or situation. It is a moving canvas of many moving parts and shifting players. It is NOT magic or woo woo or simply "feeling" that informs or identifies amidst this landscape. It is a combination of many things, none of which are formulated into a particular "truth" or position.

OK then, approaching it from a different angle; the purpose of all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding is actionable certainty, and the certainty part is best served by understanding that which is least contingent, most logically necessary. That's the Truth.

>How many people on this forum see the holes in their beliefs and absurd claims/platforms and acknowledge that they're "not there" yet?

I don't know of any. I see some holes in mine, but they're not at the level of epistemology or metaphysics, they're more contingent points of interest like ethics or consciousness. Just for the sake of argument, i grant everyone who shows up here is a truth-seeker in some respect, even if they have utterly counter-productive ways of going about it.

>Well, you've got this all figured out, and you explain it real pretty... but from my perspective it has holes and can always be further vetted. :)

I'd be happy to explain how any perceived holes aren't, if you care for it. It can always be further vetted, and i'd welcome the opportunity to do so in some forum where it matters, but i haven't been able to scrape that up yet. But i think the more damning refutation is that it's not yet elegant. I can explain it fully but i don't concur that i can do so "real pretty"... yet.

>It was enjoyable to consider and respond to.

Wat is this past-tense bullshit?!

[Veritas Aequitas]

A meta hallucination is still an hallucination.

Try to learn how to differentiate between what is meta- and what is typical.

Meta is the repeatability of a phenomenon through a different context. It is the same thing expressed through variation.

If all is an hallucination then a higher reality results given a hallucination is the mirroring of some actual phenomenon.

As I had stated there is nothing to mirror about a hallucination.
A hallucination is merely activities in the brain.

The phenomenon itself is the meta-hallucination,
However what mirrors the phenomenon is the noumenon.
The noumenon is a sub-hallucination of the meta-hallucination.

Prove to me a higher reality exists as real beyond the meta-hallucination?
If you cannot prove it as real, then it is unreal.

[Lacewing]

It was enjoyable to consider and respond to.

Wat is this past-tense bullshit?!

I am moving on. I enjoyed the discussion. Thank you for your thoughtful responses. I think we've both expressed well enough what we think/view/perceive. There are areas that converge, and others that diverge. It's all fine. Yes? Happy New Year!

[Eodnhoj7]

Try to learn how to differentiate between what is meta- and what is typical.

Meta is the repeatability of a phenomenon through a different context. It is the same thing expressed through variation.

If all is an hallucination then a higher reality results given a hallucination is the mirroring of some actual phenomenon.

As I had stated there is nothing to mirror about a hallucination.
A hallucination is merely activities in the brain.

The phenomenon itself is the meta-hallucination,
However what mirrors the phenomenon is the noumenon.
The noumenon is a sub-hallucination of the meta-hallucination.

Prove to me a higher reality exists as real beyond the meta-hallucination?
If you cannot prove it as real, then it is unreal.

1. Yet hallucinations are composed of images of already existing phenomenon, they are images seperated from the source much in the same manner the mirage of water is the image of water seperated from the source.

2. If all is a hallucination then the activities of the brain are hallucinations as well.

3. What constitutes proof?