A slapping of today's traditional thoughts on truth

[lancek4]

Oh by the way, I've been meaning to ask: what are the traditional thoughts on truth?

[lancek4]

Yes practical. An idea is a thing that can be used to situate or negotiate walking or money etc. but that only says that there is a scheme of meaning, definitions of things in a relation, by which one (you) make sense of the true thing called - again a definition - reality or the world. It's nice if I'm looking for such a scheme, like if I'm having problems with life and I need to situate some meaning so I can proceed to do things and not be confused or frustrated or whatever, but if not, then it is only your idea.

Here you are destroying all the essentials of my ideas without understanding them. Let me try to tell you again:

If you and I walk down a street and we both feel hungry for candy, then my idea of using the candy store to satisfy our desires will not only express itself through me and make me do it, but I may speak to you, communicate to you, and you because you have common courtesy, will listen to me, and in so doing I will "access" your mind, and if you have no particular hindrance you'll likely go along with me to the candy store and we'll buy candy and satisfy our desires for it.

This is what the practicality of ideas mean. It is not "scheme of meaning" merely, it is rooted in the world of causality, if I wanted to I could test it out like any scientific experiment, but long before I'd do that the idea should've caught minds because it's basically very intuitive. It gives a new fresh context for things we usually take for granted in our everyday lives, it's a perspective of inquiry, and when we use this perspective of inquiry with the terms coined for it we are able to do it in a very clear way, allowing for us to map data about the causal nature of it all and find working and optimal patterns.

In the candy-store example the perspective of inquiry would allow for me to try out different codes for accessing your mind given what I could discern about your state of mind. "Code" here is basically any sentence that achieves its target objective, like "I like
this shop over here, let's go and buy some!", and for the situation that may be enough to access your mind and make you follow me to buy some.
there would be many who would say this assumption, (In red) is highly suspect. I understand that you are framing this 'very practical', as in day to day, for my example. But say president Obama goes to N Korea and says 'hey...' Is it a mater of trying different codes for the two to access each others minds? I would say that this is just practical negotiation, and your idea of truth and how it is related to mind and idea is not necessary to access ones mind. In fact, often we might think we have accessed another's mind, but if you have ever been in a loving relationship, you might find that the other person could not care less about how you might feel you are accessing their mind or them not accessing yours. One might find that the assumption of 'codes' is thrown out the window. (You might look into an idea from the 60's that had to do with a science of how one 'appropriates' or discerns the meaning of any situation, and or how one comes to conclusions from another persons signals or codes. But you might not find anything on it though because it went nowhere; but there was a book on it that i happened to come across. It is called "Appropriation Process") Then what do you do? Well in the case of nations, as evidenced by colonial England, you make the other adhere to your codes so they can access your mind, and you don't worry about what mind they had; indeed this is the same in the matter of abusive relationships, where the, usually, man 'makes' the seemingly obstinate woman appropriate his codes.
What seems 'intuitive' for you does not seem too far removed from the 'intuition' that 'women are prone to hysteria, which was a common sense of established educated doctors up till perhaps the middle of the 20th century. It was not until feminist theory, i believe, that women began to be able to critically approach the nonsense of this and other hedgemonic notions sufficiently to be heard.

What I'm saying is that there is no necessary relation between your scheme and what you actually do.

Certainly there is. Because it is what you do! Are you trying to tell me that your mind does not affect your behaviour? That your muscles are not receiving instructions from a central processing unit, that is, your brain? My definitions put words to things that are already there, how more related can things be?
yes, thats what i said: your thoughts are you doing. you. I am not saying that i may not have thoughts. i am saying that knowledge of these ideas do not effect the practical activity of my life: they do not effect my life, they are me doing life, that my mind 'behaves' also. The problem arrives when i propose what may be going on in others as if there is a common truth of ideal reality. When i project myself onto another, as if there is a proper arrangement of ideal things (true objects), I am not only basing that assessment upon an assumption of an object in-itself, but I am assuming that that other person falls necessarily into my scheme of meaning as a subject of my truth. Not only that, I am over determining my presence I existence.

Also; Where do we start the cycle of describing the workings of the human? It's like trying to describe the motion of an electron and its position at the same time. The model of the body functioning, and its system, only comes pertinent when there is a problem with it. Then the method 'begins' and uses the model by which to solve the problem. But again, that you scheme of how truth comes about is not necessary for that model. There are many many many ideas of how such things link together. What about acupuncture and the model that informs how to go about addressing problems? What about psychology? What about all the various 'schools' of psychology and their various methods that don't agree. Do they all not work in practical application? So e better than others, sure, but in fact medicine finds often, for example, with cancer and drug addiction, that using multiple knowledges and methods that seem to contradict or even deny one another - or even sometimes do not have any 'reason' to function - work better than any one.

I just thought of an example: anger. To me, the thoughts I have when I am angry are distorted and yield very little truth. Though at the time I am angry they seem to be yielding the actual truth. Can you comment on this phenomenon?

Coming to ideas about what or how such things relate is just another thing you do.

If you deny the existence of causality.
tell me of causality. What is causality? How is your theory of truth causing anything but ( at least) our discussion here? Orient 'causality' to how what you do and what I do is related necessarily to you scheme. Do you merely assume that I am not intelligent or am being obstinate ?

The only necessary relation is that you do ( go to the store) and do (coming up with an idea and writing about it): you do.

Causality does not find that things to be that poor of knowledge. tell me about this. I do not know what you are talking about, what this means.

It is not necessary for me

In a statistical-philosophical sense, yes, I guess "anything can happen", but I still find it way more practical to talk about the reliable causal nature of me wanting tea and me acquiring myself some tea. what is truth? The truth that there is tea? That I drink tea? The word 'tea'? That I am drinking tea now? I am losing your point.

it could be sufficient to help me with my problems, but since obviously I am fine without applying your scheme to my practical activities

It is not a matter of life and death no. why not? Are we not talking about truth? Isn't truth vital?

that which is really practical has been missed, maybe by both of us, and Something else must be going on.

And what is this something else? isn't this why are we discussing your idea? To find out where each of us may lack ?

Can you define for me 'ideology'?

Wikipedia does it for me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology Quotes from that thread have been used by me earlier in this thread, so the essential pieces should already be defined for you.

If not Wikipedia a shorter definition is found here: http://onelook.com/?w=ideology&ls=a

noun
▸a system of ideas and principles on which a political or economic theory is based
▸a set of ideas with a strong social influence

Ideology is not a "base word" if you can call it that, it's not a word dealing with simple descriptions you can easily recombine for your own use. It's a name denoting a particular fashion of creating and putting together ideas, with its own very complex history. A shopping list is a set of ideas (on display), it is not an ideology however. It's meaningless to stretch things so extremely out of their domain like you've tried to do with both ideology and religion, let things be themselves.

i would say: ideology is a meaningful scheme of truth, usually only applied against the presence of another scheme; for example, the ideology of American capitalism, Muslim ideology, feminist ideology, academic ideology, the ideology of righteousness.
A metaphysical proposition that gains adherents and thereby is put into action through its adherents believing the proposition (for example: there is a truth that can be known, and we know what it is, so we are going to go out and advocate for it, so everyone may know it) is an ideology. Where there is different practice it is accompanied by a justifying and motivating ideology. Where there is only practice without difference ( against another practice) no ideology exists. The notion of ideology, again, came out of the notion that there is one type of knowledge that has access to truth.

I am just suggesting that your idea holds on shaky ground, and that it seems at least a few of your ideas are based upon presumptions that have already proven themselves, through much trial and error, much destruction and violence, not soluble.

.

[lancek4]

Yes practical. An idea is a thing that can be used to situate or negotiate walking or money etc. but that only says that there is a scheme of meaning, definitions of things in a relation, by which one (you) make sense of the true thing called - again a definition - reality or the world. It's nice if I'm looking for such a scheme, like if I'm having problems with life and I need to situate some meaning so I can proceed to do things and not be confused or frustrated or whatever, but if not, then it is only your idea.

Here you are destroying all the essentials of my ideas without understanding them. Let me try to tell you again:

If you and I walk down a street and we both feel hungry for candy, then my idea of using the candy store to satisfy our desires will not only express itself through me and make me do it, but I may speak to you, communicate to you, and you because you have common courtesy, will listen to me, and in so doing I will "access" your mind, and if you have no particular hindrance you'll likely go along with me to the candy store and we'll buy candy and satisfy our desires for it.

This is what the practicality of ideas mean. It is not "scheme of meaning" merely, it is rooted in the world of causality, if I wanted to I could test it out like any scientific experiment, but long before I'd do that the idea should've caught minds because it's basically very intuitive. It gives a new fresh context for things we usually take for granted in our everyday lives, it's a perspective of inquiry, and when we use this perspective of inquiry with the terms coined for it we are able to do it in a very clear way, allowing for us to map data about the causal nature of it all and find working and optimal patterns.

In the candy-store example the perspective of inquiry would allow for me to try out different codes for accessing your mind given what I could discern about your state of mind. "Code" here is basically any sentence that achieves its target objective, like "I like
this shop over here, let's go and buy some!", and for the situation that may be enough to access your mind and make you follow me to buy some.
there would be many who would say this assumption, (In red) is highly suspect. I understand that you are framing this 'very practical', as in day to day, for my example. But say president Obama goes to N Korea and says 'hey...' Is it a mater of trying different codes for the two to access each others minds? I would say that this is just practical negotiation, and your idea of truth and how it is related to mind and idea is not necessary to access ones mind. In fact, often we might think we have accessed another's mind, but if you have ever been in a loving relationship, you might find that the other person could not care less about how you might feel you are accessing their mind or them not accessing yours. One might find that the assumption of 'codes' is thrown out the window. (You might look into an idea from the 60's that had to do with a science of how one 'appropriates' or discerns the meaning of any situation, and or how one comes to conclusions from another persons signals or codes. But you might not find anything on it though because it went nowhere; but there was a book on it that i happened to come across. It is called "Appropriation Process") Then what do you do? Well in the case of nations, as evidenced by colonial England, you make the other adhere to your codes so they can access your mind, and you don't worry about what mind they had; indeed this is the same in the matter of abusive relationships, where the, usually, man 'makes' the seemingly obstinate woman appropriate his codes.
What seems 'intuitive' for you does not seem too far removed from the 'intuition' that 'women are prone to hysteria, which was a common sense of established educated doctors up till perhaps the middle of the 20th century. It was not until feminist theory, i believe, that women began to be able to critically approach the nonsense of this and other hedgemonic notions sufficiently to be heard.

What I'm saying is that there is no necessary relation between your scheme and what you actually do.

Certainly there is. Because it is what you do! Are you trying to tell me that your mind does not affect your behaviour? That your muscles are not receiving instructions from a central processing unit, that is, your brain? My definitions put words to things that are already there, how more related can things be?
yes, thats what i said: your thoughts are you doing. you. I am not saying that i may not have thoughts. i am saying that knowledge of these ideas do not effect the practical activity of my life: they do not effect my life, they are me doing life, that my mind 'behaves' also. The problem arrives when i propose what may be going on in others as if there is a common truth of ideal reality. When i project myself onto another, as if there is a proper arrangement of ideal things (true objects), I am not only basing that assessment upon an assumption of an object in-itself, but I am assuming that that other person falls necessarily into my scheme of meaning as a subject of my truth. Not only that, I am over determining my presence I existence.

Also; Where do we start the cycle of describing the workings of the human? It's like trying to describe the motion of an electron and its position at the same time. The model of the body functioning, and its system, only comes pertinent when there is a problem with it. Then the method 'begins' and uses the model by which to solve the problem. But again, that you scheme of how truth comes about is not necessary for that model. There are many many many ideas of how such things link together. What about acupuncture and the model that informs how to go about addressing problems? What about psychology? What about all the various 'schools' of psychology and their various methods that don't agree. Do they all not work in practical application? So e better than others, sure, but in fact medicine finds often, for example, with cancer and drug addiction, that using multiple knowledges and methods that seem to contradict or even deny one another - or even sometimes do not have any 'reason' to function - work better than any one.

I just thought of an example: anger. To me, the thoughts I have when I am angry are distorted and yield very little truth. Though at the time I am angry they seem to be yielding the actual truth. Can you comment on this phenomenon?

Coming to ideas about what or how such things relate is just another thing you do.

If you deny the existence of causality.
tell me of causality. What is causality? How is your theory of truth causing anything but ( at least) our discussion here? Orient 'causality' to how what you do and what I do is related necessarily to you scheme. Do you merely assume that I am not intelligent or am being obstinate ?

The only necessary relation is that you do ( go to the store) and do (coming up with an idea and writing about it): you do.

Causality does not find that things to be that poor of knowledge. tell me about this. I do not know what you are talking about, what this means.

It is not necessary for me

In a statistical-philosophical sense, yes, I guess "anything can happen", but I still find it way more practical to talk about the reliable causal nature of me wanting tea and me acquiring myself some tea. what is truth? The truth that there is tea? That I drink tea? The word 'tea'? That I am drinking tea now? I am losing your point.

it could be sufficient to help me with my problems, but since obviously I am fine without applying your scheme to my practical activities

It is not a matter of life and death no. why not? Are we not talking about truth? Isn't truth vital?

that which is really practical has been missed, maybe by both of us, and Something else must be going on.

And what is this something else? isn't this why are we discussing your idea? To find out where each of us may lack ?

Can you define for me 'ideology'?

Wikipedia does it for me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology Quotes from that thread have been used by me earlier in this thread, so the essential pieces should already be defined for you.

If not Wikipedia a shorter definition is found here: http://onelook.com/?w=ideology&ls=a

noun
▸a system of ideas and principles on which a political or economic theory is based
▸a set of ideas with a strong social influence

Ideology is not a "base word" if you can call it that, it's not a word dealing with simple descriptions you can easily recombine for your own use. It's a name denoting a particular fashion of creating and putting together ideas, with its own very complex history. A shopping list is a set of ideas (on display), it is not an ideology however. It's meaningless to stretch things so extremely out of their domain like you've tried to do with both ideology and religion, let things be themselves.

i would say: ideology is a meaningful scheme of truth, usually only applied against the presence of another scheme; for example, the ideology of American capitalism, Muslim ideology, feminist ideology, academic ideology, the ideology of righteousness.
A metaphysical proposition that gains adherents and thereby is put into action through its adherents believing the proposition (for example: there is a truth that can be known, and we know what it is, so we are going to go out and advocate for it, so everyone may know it) is an ideology. Where there is different practice it is accompanied by a justifying and motivating ideology. Where there is only practice without difference ( against another practice) no ideology exists. The notion of ideology, again, came out of the notion that there is one type of knowledge that has access to truth.

I am just suggesting that your idea holds on shaky ground, and that it seems at least a few of your ideas are based upon presumptions that have already proven themselves, through much trial and error, much destruction and violence, not soluble.

.

[lancek4]

An ideology is a set of conscious and unconscious ideas that constitute one's goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology is a comprehensive vision, a way of looking at things (compare worldview) as in several philosophical tendencies (see political ideologies), or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society (a "received consciousness" or product of socialization).

That is from your wiki link. I think I have said as much. And I think my relation in the post earlier make sense in this regard.

So how about religion.

I think I said something like the assertion of the true object is a metaphysics, when extended to society it is ideology, when concerning the group, religion.

[lancek4]

Whoa. Think my reply posted twice.. Not sure why.

[lancek4]

shapes, color, etc, are all things of knowledge. Topology, philosophically speaking, has to do with how knowledge is constituted for meaning. The 'forms','surfaces','depths', 'shapes' of knowledge, and what these are able to mean and how.

Never heard of it, therefore, I cannot speak of it; I do not know the subject.

i would say that it is consciousness that allows the world to be known.

I don't see the necessity in that. Is a computer conscious? Can it still not know the world? Or is knowledge something unique to you that only certain things like humans have, and in that case, what is this special thing about knowledge that means a computer cannot have it?

In the process of doing this, consciousness must distinguish things

Why must it do so?

and it does this, as an operation, by putting itself in a category of meaning equal, so far as to 'thing-ness', as to itself being likewise a thing among things of the one universe, equal in possibility to other things.

You dare speak of "necessity" when there's not a trace of necessity in any of this? Never have I experienced my consciousness do this kind of thing, is your consciousness fundamentally different than mine? I have experienced the faculties of my mind do labour, but never has it appeared in my consciousness as anything but results, and I'm incapable of confirming that what you say there is something my mind has ever done either.

On the other hand I've quite often experienced my mind treat things that appear similar when recognized with indiscriminate responses. A very classic example is how we will react to very high temperature of an object in an indiscriminate "aaauh!", only as long as they are all hot, we won't care so much what the object is (unless we are about to loose our cup or food in the ground or something precious to us, we might try to catch it in spite of the knowledge it is warm but in desperation not to loose it).

This allows for then a 'privileging' of itself, as well its effort to close the discrepancy between objects through knowledge, which is a process of coordinating reality back to itself in meaning. Yet, because consciousness as an extistant cannot include its own 'meaninglessness' ( there is no object 'in-itself', not even for consciousness) into its own meaning, since consciousness is the base, the initiator of meaning, it tends to reify the true object in the attempt to avoid its own nothingness. It 'pushes' the object 'away from itself back into meaning in order to establish identity in the world.

This is a story. I do not, at any point of time in that writing, see a reference to something which I've ever experienced, and I'm curious as to what "plane of existence" it happens on as you lack a reference to the physical world. Does this happen in the brain? In the mind? Is that what you are saying?

It feels much more down-to-Earth to say consciousness privileges the mind and the body because there's more of the self in the mind than any other thing; after all we live with our bodies and experience it at any point of time, how could anything else be more privileged to access our minds than our own bodies which continuously are fed into our minds and which constitute our most basic identity of self?

Consciousness certainly has a meaning to itself. It's the direction from which the stream of information is coming from. To say it has no meaning is like saying the upriver has no meaning to the downriver, however, if you stood at the downriver you would find that things changed and that the river is not the same at any point of time, so you'd divide the river up into "incoming, passing by, and past by", to keep track of the same spot of river and not follow the same spots of water as it goes downwards.

In a network of ideas constantly evolving with each other, ideas will acquire the information which makes them what they are from a place, from a somewhere, and if I were to know about consciousness right now there would have to be a way for me to directly tap into it. Tapping into it a pattern would emerge, since information is basically patterns and ideas are run by acquiring and maintaining patterns, the ideas would have to acquire information from the tapping, and in so doing they would already have an identity for consciousness, namely: consciousness is what it presents.

Because of this people will have different experiences of what their consciousness exactly is, since consciousness would present itself differently based on its content, like I mentioned earlier with some people thinking in words and some people thinking in imagery.

If consciousness is a stream of information, it is because consciousness has identified itself with reference to a thing out there not itself, here called 'information', and establishes and refines itself in truth, in reality, in meaning, as not a 'thing distanced from its own actuality', but indeed a 'thing that is coming closer to understanding its own truth'.

Not so. A stream of information is not all it is, it is just an easy way of talking about it. What it is, is imagery, sound and the products of other senses and feelings, all this happening in a stream. To say that this "is out there" is preposterous! When you are unconscious, do you have consciousness then? So how come these things you called consciousness has now suddenly disappeared! Does this mean what is out there has disappeared? No! And any normal mind would not be so stupid as to believe that.

So it's quite contradictory to say we somehow define our consciousness by exterior means (at least necessarily, you can of course be taking mindblowing drugs or just be plain stupid and then find the idea working for you), when there's nothing more close to us than consciousness, and nothing so simple for us to know about. This is of course not to say we do not use worldly matters to expand on our understandings of our own consciousness.

Like an argument for the existence for consciousness could be as simple as a matter of closing your eyes and experience the shift in the world of being for you and ask yourself whether the world truly disappeared, this would be defined in your ability to close your eyes, and would be a worldly reference and not consciousness itself but a function related to it.

this is called a "parallax view". Perhaps read Zizek's book of e same name. He is a contemporary cultural theorist. Look him up on line, there's a bunch of stuff.

I'm familiar with Zizek. But he talks way more than he makes sense. An interesting fellow, but not sure I'm too much capable of taking him seriously always.

as to my last post; because the idea is not necessary to account for action, but only individual action, the tendency for an individual to proclaim reality can be called a meta-physics.

Physics is not necessary to account for the action of a fist hitting a wall, all you have to say is "it was painful, and John says I got bruises from it". It fully accounts for it event, but it's rather shallow, doesn't offer much practicality. With knowledge of physics you can bend the variables of the universe to your advantage and make another punch that might leave no bruises because you found the physical conditions that create them and have avoided those conditions.

In the same way my ideas are not necessary to account for action and events, but without them things are more shallow.

Kant was dealing with just this issue. In his 'critique of pure reason' he was trying to present a metaphysics that indeed was true, but in his process he destroyed it, but ironically affirmed a 'new' way of establishing what may be true. His "pure reason" was his necessary base from which all truth must proceed. His "categorical imperative" was his way of describing any true thing that the individual thought so: such a true thing (a category) is 'imperative' for the individual's being able to have reality. The problem has to do with why these never comes true in critical discussion. Hence his analyses of analytical and synthetical a priori and a posteriori. '

... Okay... that was Kant.

*

The reason I tend to speak so 'T' where did this come from?? I put 'rudimentarily'. How funny!

Dunno, I must've marked the word perhaps and the computer changed it without me realizing it. It probably happened when I looked it up in the dictionary.

well, we all are in a process of learning.

Yes, but not necessarily all things we wish to know. For instance, I can very much do without knowing Mongolian. In fact, I think I'd rather not ever learn it even if I could learn it instantaneously, as it would just mess up my mind with lots of purposeless ideas deriving from it that I have little to no use for.

FKG CHst! Gddm PN timeout crap! I just went through and responded to this and it timed out and lost it all. Screw it. I'm not doing it again.
Oh well, moving on...

[The Voice of Time]

Oh by the way, I've been meaning to ask: what are the traditional thoughts on truth?

That's way more complicated than reality. But I guess that the tradition that shines the most out in societies today is the one created by scientists and empiricists, the such-called "empirical truth". It's not entirely clear and is quite complex because, well, it's science, and science always need a bit of adapting for each discipline it creates, so every discipline has its version of what truth is, and somehow they all work together.

[The Voice of Time]

An ideology is a set of conscious and unconscious ideas that constitute one's goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology is a comprehensive vision, a way of looking at things (compare worldview) as in several philosophical tendencies (see political ideologies), or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society (a "received consciousness" or product of socialization).

That is from your wiki link. I think I have said as much. And I think my relation in the post earlier make sense in this regard.

¨

Let me read that "relation in the post earlier" one more time... no, it still doesn't make sense. And there is no such thing as "the ideology of righteousness", there are ideologies which speak about righteousness, but there is no "one" ideology for righteousness alone, and what is "academic ideology" supposed to mean? That somebody who happened to be working in an academy wrote it?

Your definition that "ideology is a meaningful scheme of truth, usually only applied against the presence of another scheme" contradicts the wiki-article because the wiki-article has already defined itself. You could of course say that what you are saying is just an "addition" to what the Wiki-article says but if you go for that then your definition doesn't cover me because you'd still need all the other definitions supplied by the Wiki-article to fulfil the new total of requirements.

I do not talk about a "comprehensive vision" which by far is the most striking characteristic of ideologies if you've ever read one. The comprehensive vision is where the ideology portrays its own results and lays down its dogma. An ideology without an ascertaining of the results of its own application is not an ideology at all if we shall judge those things that actually are ideologies.

I do not ascertain my results, I lay down a framework by which any results can be achieved, and I have no dogma, only my proposals which I defend as long as they make sense. The only ideology I cling to in this is the one that descends from a positive outlook on science and what it can deliver the individuals and society at large. That is an ideology, with very good empirical evidence, laying spread across my room in the form of technology, and shaping my everyday-life with all its influence upon society.

I think I said something like the assertion of the true object is a metaphysics, when extended to society it is ideology, when concerning the group, religion.

¨

Senseless. Does not relate to what those words are used for.

[The Voice of Time]

FKG CHst! Gddm PN timeout crap! I just went through and responded to this and it timed out and lost it all. Screw it. I'm not doing it again.
Oh well, moving on...

If you're directed to a different page you only have to press the back-key or the arrow in your browser that takes you back.

In Google Chrome, my browser, Google stores all the text for me, so I don't have to worry. If I need to navigate away from the page I can always just copy the text over anyways.

[lancek4]

FKG CHst! Gddm PN timeout crap! I just went through and responded to this and it timed out and lost it all. Screw it. I'm not doing it again.
Oh well, moving on...

If you're directed to a different page you only have to press the back-key or the arrow in your browser that takes you back.

In Google Chrome, my browser, Google stores all the text for me, so I don't have to worry. If I need to navigate away from the page I can always just copy the text over anyways.

Everyone says this. This has never been the case with any device I'm using at the time whether it be my computer or my iPad. If I back up, it just returns to the reply page, but in its original state, before I wrote stuff.

I'm not sure where the text is stored in google ; do you mean auto backup like in word processors?

[The Voice of Time]

access your mind

there would be many who would say this assumption, (In red) is highly suspect.

Why is it suspect? Doesn't it make sense that if I hadn't done it you wouldn't had walked into shop, perhaps you weren't looking in that direction, for instance? And would your body without your mind walk to the shop? No, you would say. And shouldn't we therefore be able to agree that I have to affect your mind in order for your body to move along with me to the candy store? And could I affect your mind if I was not able to access it for delivering the message?

When I joke around with my buddy I can very reliably make him laugh and or at least say "lol" to me or behave in many other ways quite reliably by talking about specific types of subjects. In order to make this happen however, I must first come up with a "code", which is an instance of sentences about the subject at hand, dirty jokes particularly, and of course in the right circumstances. If I say the same one twice he'll likely just say "you've told me it before" or something along those lines, if I get a new one, which I occasionally do, it'll work by large.

I understand that you are framing this 'very practical', as in day to day, for my example.

No, it's not day-to-day, it is whenever you need it. Every time you talk to a person, you'll have to have access to that person's mind to be able to have a common understanding with that person; an understanding that makes things work between you two in the way you want it to.

But say president Obama goes to N Korea and says 'hey...' Is it a mater of trying different codes for the two to access each others minds? I would say that this is just practical negotiation, and your idea of truth and how it is related to mind and idea is not necessary to access ones mind.

No, you don't have to know my terminology to access another mind, which I've already told you before, it'll just be more shallow an understanding of the situation at hand. But yes, Obama would be trying out different codes, and some might work for some things, and sometimes he'll hit Kim Jong-un's firewall of mind, that is, Kim Jong-un and the leaders will not allow him access and will ignore him for instance or downplay him.

In fact, often we might think we have accessed another's mind, but if you have ever been in a loving relationship, you might find that the other person could not care less about how you might feel you are accessing their mind or them not accessing yours.

That is entirely different game, you are not doing science or being rational when you are in love, at least not if you're somewhat normal. Typically you'd be filled with excessive expectations and you'll be quite irrational. To talk about access of mind you'll have to be an outside observer and see how they are affecting each other, when you are in love you might want to presume things that are unrealistic because they are just so fantastic in your mind, you're not trying to be real enough. You might be obsessed with desire even.

One might find that the assumption of 'codes' is thrown out the window.

It's not an assumption. It's just saying that "whatever words I need to make this individual do this/or this in that/or that situation is called a code", if there are no codes that can achieve the task at hand, then there are no codes. To show it's not an assumption I'm saying it means those things that have already worked in a causal nature, like the woman in the cafeteria every day yelling "next!" and that causes the next man in the queue to walk up to her and pay for his food.

When that has happened every day for a while, it has been tried out a lot, and more robust is hard to ask for, it's causal in a social-psychological sense.

Then what do you do? Well in the case of nations

Nations don't have minds.

, as evidenced by colonial England, you make the other adhere to your codes so they can access your mind

To make them you first have to access their minds. You are trying to reduce a million actions to something simple, it is invalid thinking. You can talk about a few seconds of two people talking to each other, you can't reduce macro-events to the same thing, with the possible exception of speeches to figure general patterns across a crowd, or something like that, but again, only a brief time will it work, beyond that time the information will likely get way too complex with too many things happening for a simple observer to make sense of it using my terminology.

, and you don't worry about what mind they had; indeed this is the same in the matter of abusive relationships, where the, usually, man 'makes' the seemingly obstinate woman appropriate his codes.

random talk...

What seems 'intuitive' for you does not seem too far removed from the 'intuition' that 'women are prone to hysteria, which was a common sense of established educated doctors up till perhaps the middle of the 20th century.

Talking about abusive, this statement is quite abusive and offensive of you, and so far from real as is possible to be, there's no relationship what so ever, except what ever perverted dream you suddenly now infused to it.

yes, thats what i said: your thoughts are you doing. you.

You didn't get it. I was not talking about thoughts, you have a tendency to look at what I read and talk as if I was writing something entirely different, it's very annoying because it means you are actively avoiding me. I said, and I quote in bold to make it clear: "Are you trying to tell me that your mind does not affect your behaviour? That your muscles are not receiving instructions from a central processing unit, that is, your brain?".

I am not saying that i may not have thoughts. i am saying that knowledge of these ideas do not effect the practical activity of my life: they do not effect my life, they are me doing life, that my mind 'behaves' also.

"effect the practical activity of my life" they very much do, practical you must remember means something for which you can do something about or with in order to achieve your goals, your ends, and practical activity would then be activity that is about some other thing that has a lot of things about it or a lot of value in those things you can do (they very effectively achieve your ends).

The application of this perspective of inquiry would help keep track of and record what works and what not and calculate the likelihood of any particular thing also working later on. Btw I was neither talking about the mind behaving, but about the mind causing your body to behave, see the quote in bold I gave above.

The problem arrives when i propose what may be going on in others as if there is a common truth of ideal reality.

The idea is not that we know what goes on but what most likely (with a calculation of likelihood) must go on in order for the behaviour of a person to be explained, and then reacted upon. Any socialization is a product of this form of "accessing" of each other, by finding evidence and interpreting it. From person to person it will vary how reliable any given evidence is and also how reliable ones interpretations are, but sometimes, like with my buddy, they are quite reliable.

When i project myself onto another, as if there is a proper arrangement of ideal things (true objects), I am not only basing that assessment upon an assumption of an object in-itself, but I am assuming that that other person falls necessarily into my scheme of meaning as a subject of my truth. Not only that, I am over determining my presence I existence.

aaah, you mean, in normal language, that somehow person "a" assumes person "b" to be a topic with determined explanation in person a's own way of thinking? If that's true, next time you can save me some decoding.

Also; Where do we start the cycle of describing the workings of the human?

At their conception.

It's like trying to describe the motion of an electron and its position at the same time.

No it's not.

The model of the body functioning, and its system, only comes pertinent when there is a problem with it. Then the method 'begins' and uses the model by which to solve the problem.

A situation would be welcome? You use way too much generalization. Talk like you did with candy store, it's much easier to imagine and argue with, since it's reference to the physical world.

But again, that you scheme of how truth comes about is not necessary for that model.

I'd like to put "a truth" and not "truth", I'm not talking about any all-encompassing truth after all, just the truths by which we work with in our lives and that we use to make accomplishments, small or big.

There are many many many ideas of how such things link together. What about acupuncture and the model that informs how to go about addressing problems? What about psychology? What about all the various 'schools' of psychology and their various methods that don't agree. Do they all not work in practical application?

Not all of them no, some of them are quite absurd. Freud's own motto was basically "tell, and let the person solve his/hers own problems", that is not very practical, although for some people it was a relief.

So e better than others, sure, but in fact medicine finds often, for example, with cancer and drug addiction, that using multiple knowledges and methods that seem to contradict or even deny one another - or even sometimes do not have any 'reason' to function - work better than any one.

I don't know what you mean, you might explain this? Maybe I have a different perspective than you upon what constitutes contradiction.

I just thought of an example: anger. To me, the thoughts I have when I am angry are distorted and yield very little truth. Though at the time I am angry they seem to be yielding the actual truth. Can you comment on this phenomenon?

Yes, truth is not a matter of hammer or saw, but having both of them in your toolbox. Your mind is that toolbox, and you can bring out either when your body needs to. Therefore also we've found that there are times when we accept anger (although some cultures, families or societies never accept it and practice instead some form of absolute pacifism) and there are times when we don't, since we already have both there.

For instance you could be allowed to be angry if somebody just killed your son in an accident, and although your ideas might be different than from if you'd just focus your grief on being sad (maybe anger would make you want to lay responsibility on the person in a very destructive manner and want the person persecuted or pay a cost or if you're extreme with emotion maybe even demand execution or life-long imprisonment, while your pacifist grief would just make you partially or wholly forget about the agent of your son's death and instead focus you inward towards commemoration and letting your despair of lost love come out and express itself as neediness), both could work for people around you as regardless of which one is the "most true" or whether one of them is even untrue to some extent they both work as a means of expressing suffering, however, you might not be allowed to be angry when you didn't get the food you wanted for dinner by your wife or husband, and that is because for your wife or husband, only one truth works, and that is that you appreciate the food you get.

tell me of causality. What is causality? How is your theory of truth causing anything but ( at least) our discussion here? Orient 'causality' to how what you do and what I do is related necessarily to you scheme. Do you merely assume that I am not intelligent or am being obstinate ?

I'm not assuming you're not intelligent but our discussions tend to be "messy" because you write very confusing and I have to use a lot of time decoding in my head what you mean, you lack often a down-to-Earth way of writing. If you don't believe in causality, however, there's no way I can't call you an idiot, you are of course free to dispute the existence of causality, but you'd have to deal with me shaking my head in dismay along the way.

My proposal about truth is not a "theory" but more of a definition on those things already there, and it certainly doesn't' cause anything in specific. My perspective of inquiry, which contains the terminology I use about the mind like "access", "faculties of mind" and "affect" and my theory of ideas, that combined is perhaps a theory of mind, but many of those individual components like "access" and "faculty of mind" are not theories but names to what is already there.

The faculties of mind already exist, I'm just putting them together in a soupy category and call it "the faculties of the mind", individuals of them might be theories, but the faculties themselves is just a name to a category. "Access" also already exist because it's a condition for my word to reach your head, to talk about it like a theory is treating it as being more than it is. It's point and name, very simple.

Causality does not find things to be that poor of knowledge.

tell me about this. I do not know what you are talking about, what this means.

You say that all there is to something is that it does. Causality says that including to do, things also causes. So if you don't see causality you are in very poor knowledge, in fact, you'd not have the knowledge to do anything at all, you'd be dumber than a zombie, you'd be a corpse, lying still and being acted upon and never taking action yourself.

what is truth? The truth that there is tea? That I drink tea? The word 'tea'? That I am drinking tea now? I am losing your point.

That I want tea, and this wanting tends to cause me to acquire some tea to satisfy my want. So "the truth" I guess, which is not what I speak of when I talk about "a truth", is that there is not just things doing or being but things also causing, and that's also my point. When you say "It is not necessary for me" I'm answering you in the context that you've just claimed the only necessary relationship between anything is that things are being done, and I'm reacting saying that in a dreamy sense anything can happen out of anything, but they don't, they happen because of causes.

It is not a matter of life and death no.

why not? Are we not talking about truth? Isn't truth vital?

No we are not talking about truth, but about the perspective of inquiry. You are confusing yourself. If you want to talk about a specific subject you'll have to stick to that subject yourself, I'm answering what you are talking about.

isn't this why are we discussing your idea? To find out where each of us may lack ?

Yes. But do you know what this something is or did you just make it up?

I am just suggesting that your idea holds on shaky ground

Why? I've not seen any places where it gives in to anything, you might explain me where? You've come with many arguments but I've refuted them all. Seems quite solid, sturdy and robust to me.

, and that it seems at least a few of your ideas are based upon presumptions that have already proven themselves, through much trial and error, much destruction and violence, not soluble.

You might tell me which and how they've proven themselves in that way? Because it's certainly not here you can be talking about.

PS: the other big chunk of what you wrote down at the bottom I answered in my previous post.

[The Voice of Time]

Everyone says this. This has never been the case with any device I'm using at the time whether it be my computer or my iPad. If I back up, it just returns to the reply page, but in its original state, before I wrote stuff.

I'm not sure where the text is stored in google ; do you mean auto backup like in word processors?

The text is stored in the form. All the data you've typed in is already there like as if you hadn't moved at all. I don't know about iPads, I don't have one, and I don't know about my Android tablet, I can't remember to have tried, but it functions differently for both better than worse.

You might have to navigate more than one page. Try right-clicking the arrow-symbol to get a list of available pages you've been to recently. If you get a blank form you've either accidently navigated wrongly or clicked the refresh button instead, which if you click that you loose everything (as far as I know).

[The Voice of Time]

fuck that reply of mine was long O.o I spent hours making it!

[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.ok What many people forget is that "reality" is also an ideal, because how else could we conceive of it?ok, I think we agree there How can we conceive of reality as independent of the mind if we could not first make it an idea of the mind? its strange how we debate over our different ways of putting it. LolSo 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.ok

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. okThat 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 ok. I would say this is a function of consciousness. But I don't think the terms matter too much.. 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. so, a battle because of the 'either/or situation'.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.ironically, because you have told me you are not so much into Non-philosophy, you seems to be approaching from a non-philosophical angle. Where to truth can be found 'within' the situation given as the particular 'either/or'.
Is this a fair rendering of your idea?

Anybody finds this reasonable? Anything objectionable?

i just edited this post in Red - ish colors.
I think we got off on tangents that were blurring the issue. I apologize for my part.

[lancek4]

fuck that reply of mine was long O.o I spent hours making it!

Yes and spent probly that long replying to it . Only for it to disappear. Perhaps I'll try again; maybe it was a sign. Lol