The Process of Philosophy
Conditioning, Philosophy, Thinking and the Mind
Introduction
This material presented on this page comprises a series of observations/dialogue referring to the way in which the human mind processes and experiences philosophy, and how that process and its consequences relates to the rest of being.
The material originates from voluntary collaborative work, undertaken by a group in pursuance of the exploration of fundamental behaviours, in June 2001. A tidied up synopsis of the material explored is presented followed by a rough, colloquial transcript of the original 'as it happened'.
Although this page will quite adequately 'stand alone', the serious reader may find it useful to study it in conjunction with the closely associated pages on patterning, knowledge and science - all of which are available via the links.
Synopsis
The Epimistology of Philosophy and its Interaction With Knowledge
'What is the process of philosophy that works within us, and does it provide security of the brain?'
a) The word 'philosophy' derives from philos - love, and sophia - truth in the Greek. Hence the academic use of the word by those who would claim to 'love' 'truth' & then go on to hold interminable discussions based on the assumption that they can find and 'love' truth through words somehow.
b) we have to take on the academic aspects (but process only remember) since various 'academic' philosophies underpin our thought processes
c) basic tenet of most philosophical systems is that by thinking and manipulating symbols (e.g. language) one can come upon 'truth'… That's their raw process.
d) why was that basic assumption made? or why do we continue to make it? What other tool do we have?
e) definitions, irrespective of whether the subsequent symbol manipulations are words or otherwise, are made in commonly agreed (ha!) word forms we call language. Stage 1) definition?
f) in setting down basic assumptions as starting points, a system of knowledge or images of views is implied AND furthermore, for academic rigour, a carefully and explicitly agreed exact views. As discussed in the 'knowledging' dialogue, such are impossible
g) there is yet another assumption here if the philosophical process claims to ascertain 'truth' - that is apriori that 'truth' is amenable to thinking and symbolism and can be represented as such. Does the question: 'what is truth' ever get asked one wonders.
h) the associated assumption is that there is even such a thing as "truth".
j) It seems these assumptions are made as a matter of course and that does and that the answer is what we settle for... truth is what we 'think' is what we get: apparently a circular process.
k) further assumption here is that the participants know whent they have proven their 'truth' by recognising that they have come to it. How do they know they have achived 'truth' or 'proff' of their propositions?
l) it is done by vertification of the assumption made at the outset, truth is determined by the process of definition through language of some kind.
m) academically a philosopher makes a formal argument. this is done by establishing premises [premise=previous statement from which another statement is inferred], which taken together step by step lead to a conclusion.
n) It's clear that if we look for truth in thought (knowledge as previouslty discussed, assumption, assertion and hence premise - all of which may be accurate or otherwise) we will come up with assumptions and more thinking... so thinking (as a process of the manip[ulation of knowledge or image) may not lead to truth at all.
p) One thing all this depends upon is language of some kind (and that needs agreeing a lot of the time), symbol and common knowledge (common to the participants or thinker and audience). Each 'philosophy' therefore is a product of its supporting culture.
q) to generalise this a little into a process form...
- i) based on what we already know we make assumptions
- ii) using a symbol system that we are already conditioned with [also knowledge], we make extrapolations [extend the knowledge tentatively]
- iii) we then 'know' new things and we can test them with more of the symbol system [the tests - process and content being part of the extant knowledge]
- iv) given they pass all the tests, we then 'know' the new as 'safe' as it fits in with what went before: we have 'proven it' and extende the knowledge base by 'stretching it' - but still based on the original knowledge base
r) most modern day philosophers say they are 'pluralists', because it is obvious that no single philosophy - [or method of stucturing knowkledge and ideas] - can adequately explain or cover any issue, an issue being abortion, or capital punishment, whatever…
s) why and what is the process when we make assumptions upon assumptions and develop a world view and then make another assumption that the world view somehow represents reality?
t) we begin with an assumption that the language system or any method is valid and trustworthy: [a big assumption]. If the system used to begin with is faulty... ...what system would one use to test that original system... surely not the system itself.
v) on a particular 'issue', academic 'philosophers' would attempt to 'prove' it's value to society i.e., that capital punishment is a deterrent to crimes like murder, etc. They shouldn't be looking at 'value judgements' - good, bad, cost effective, fair, illogical, cruel, etc, etc. Deterrent is apparently either yes or no, but it copntains qualitative features. In a perfectly causal wprld (wher the effects of individual causes could be determined by measuerement), philosophy wouldn't come into it: in our statistically 'imperfect' world it comes down to philosophical debate and matter of opinion, (not fact). [Note that last sentence wrt difference in the scientific method dialogue]
w) Yes, it is opinion expressed by the use of premises, conclusions, definitions, symbol, etc, a waste of time mostly
x) it has a circular aspect Is the edifice that is created (as a knowledge form) an ideation, an imagined form? Yes and no. Thought does have some potential but rather than a building or layering it seems that it can negate. In other words realise its limitations and therefore throw out what it cannot determine by seeing its circle.
y) It all depends on 'extending' the start position of knowledge or ideation into the end position, the latter being initially (and finally stangely enough) a creation of the imagination. It is the movement, the expansion. of knowledge and a priori culture, language and conditioning… round and around in a self limiting, self referencing.circle. A language game, fun for all the family.
z) Language is obviously useful and can determine and fix things of unknown origin. However, as said before it gets outsid e of itself and seeks to "determine" and that is limited. It would seem that symbolic thinking or language or mathematics can determine fixed notions or concepts or even facts [within its self definining sphere] but to determine something universal and unlimited it cannot
How Does All This Fit Together in our Everyday Lives..?
aa)We are born into a world that has been established and maintained through the structure of thought. So every day of our lives from childhood on is an exercise in the employment of thought to direct and to attain... to dream and to grasp... all based on the assumptions we make and accept. [and the conclusions we reach - some of which then become our new assumptions a 'philosophical' process if unconstrained by the intervention of physical fact? See scientific method dialogue for parallel]
bb) It would seem that is not the case if we are seeking something unlimited and universal [outside of that circle]. To live and apply limitation to life it must inevitably limit itself and therefor cannot be applicable to all. As an example, 'capital punishment' and its 'philosphical' support may suit some, but it does not suit the whole and therefor is not 'truth'.
cc) So when we have the ordinary man in the street, and he says: 'my philosophy is X', what's actually going on in him then. Is it anything like what we've just discussed, or is it significantly different? Does he really mean 'philosophy'?
dd) (the ordinary guy's 'philosophy' is really a description of his conditioned behaviour - or his 'system of principles for conduct of life'.ore oftne, it's the former (based on people I know) - his conditioned opinion
ee) it has assumptions and so on in common with the other stuff and then his non-rigorous dialogue or argument on how he gets from state A to state B using his 'philosophy' or conditioning. Language gets used, as do assumption and imaging as before.- the informal process is a rough copy of the academic (but then rigour and definition are only relative aren't they?)
ff) Joe Public works a pattern of behaviour he is already familiar with (his 'philosophy'). An academic philosopher does the same thing - runs a pattern of behaviours - to get from A to B. The academic's patterns may be more convoluted and tightly defined than those of the ordinary Joe, but the process is the same - and it's process we're interested in here, not content
Part 2 of the original question is - 'does this philosophy business provide security for the brain?'
gg) If he were a Hindu academic, he could seek security by promulgating a theory of reincarnation, such that he could live forever through it... That would be a clever, security minded use of philosophy..That is escape isn't it? I am sure you know that but to cope is not to escape. If philosophy is obviously limited and that is the tool we use we are breeding our insecurity because we do not effectively cope.
hh) The theme would of course relate to the philosophy issue and its limitation. Limitation cannot possible cover all situations because of unlimitedness. [in other words, 'philosophy will never understand 'what is'']
jj) Or the guy in the street could say: 'well my philosophy is to lead a good life, believe in Jesus and go to heaven'. More security - just observing the kinds of things people do...The process is one of imagining continuity.- Jesus or Muhhamed or Zoroaster or whatever may very well be 'true' indeed to the believer's 'philosophy', however, one would project the future and avoid the present in such ideas
kk) What causes this avoidance of now? Jesus or Buddha or any other religion may be true as an end result of a projected 'heaven' or what not but the brain uses them as escape from present situations. The brain wants security and it seeks all ways or beliefs to give it that. I cant know what security is but one can negate and see what it isn't.
ll) And now for the stun grenade: we seem to have described the process of philosophy in both the academic and normal spheres and found parallels. We see that we can use this process to attempt to give security for the brain. Now, what if we assume as a root, primary state that the observer and the observed are one. Does this change what we have, and if so in what way? Does philosophy even matter? One can see separation though yet that may be belief. At this levelI don't think it does.
- When we grasp the fallacy of the structure - manipulating thought forms with language. Reiterating fixed process patterns again and again.- Is there an all encompassing philosophy of life? (no)... assuming either way is part of the problem. Actually assuming is the problem. Yet we see that there is ineffective coping.- The only possibility of physical security, which is what people want, is in 'belief' in illusions such as re-incarnation, heaven etc, which does not represent physical security at all.
mm) The topic was can we find security through this philosophy. It cant.
nn) We see how we will use philosophy - the definition of and shifting of structures in existing knowledge, using existing knowledge to make new structures
pp)To make a statement correcting our earlier discussion. When one asks Mr. Man In The Street why is philosophy about X is, then nine out of ten times, he replies with his opinion. This is an important distinction in that it is ready made and usually fixed. It is further important in that the same process people use to generate philosophy they use to generate opinion. One, the academic kind, may be rigorous: the other - common or garden - will generally not be, but the PROCESS remains the same
qq) The process of philosophy manipulates symbols, taking them from one position (definition and or proposal)) to another ('proof') by means of using other predefined symbols. It therefore works entirely with the field of the known and may extend that field - but only according to a priori defined or 'known' artefacts. Two plus two only equals four according to one particular system of rules.
(Note - in order to prevent confusion - that unless indicated otherwise, the observations and commentaries given above are original to the members of the group who participated in the dialogue.)
A full rough transcript of this particular dialogue is presented below.
Transcript
06/8/01 Philosophy
- Don't want to direct a discussion... is there a K related topic anyone would like to explore?
- I would like to discuss the security of the brain unless you have something intriguing.
- I'm quite willing to go for something deep. Earlier in the week we discussed the epistemology - the roots - of the process of knowledge, how it works.
- Scientifically or psychologically?
- We came into that as part of a general topic of 'patterning', identifying the knowledge process as one form of it… (both) This patterning makes up our conditioning in toto - the root ways we behave… and another one, besides 'knowledge', is 'philosophy'. We all of us have, overtly or covertly, philosophies of some kind. – It's interesting to me how we form basic beliefs and then layer them with experience and build up an intricate structure of interacting assumptions.- I don't want to discuss any philosophy in particular, but the process of, and the reasons why, we have it. Now, can that be merged with the other topic of 'the security of the brain'… Yes David. One of those is a process of philosophy. Can you merge the two, Ryan?
- They sound directly related actually. Any conditioning and holding belief or "philosophies" are part of that. So yes.
- But you wanted to discuss the security of the brain (or did I misunderstand...)
- Yes, security. I am looking at all this from a daily perspective and how we seek to have or build these images and then hold them to protect ourselves. - How about: 'What is the process of philosophy that works within us, and does it provide security of the brain?'
- Yes. That sounds like a good place to begin.
- OK…
- You seem to be on the ball with the philosophy part Morf so would you do the honour and lead us off?
- OK. We need to keep in mind that we are looking at the epistemology - the method/process/grounds - of philosophy rather than philosophy itself (we fell off the rails a few times when we did knowledge). David, can you begin?
- Would it be appropriate to look at one of our most basic assumptions and how we developed it and what springs from it... such as the assumption of "I am" and its opposite negative fear "I am not".
- Dave made an interesting bit about layering. We do this in a general way of building things up and then making assumptions about them. …I think so David. Go ahead with your idea.
- The word 'philosophy' derives from philos - love and sophia - truth in the Greek. Hence the academic use of the word by those who would claim to 'love' 'truth' & then go on to hold interminable discussions based on the assumption that they can find and 'love' truth through words somehow.- Much thinking for me guys I much prefer reality.
- Do we want to examine the academic aspects of the process (perhaps we should), or do we focus on the everyday use (maybe the latter depends on/merges with/is a derivative of the former...)
- ... it seems we grasp at the assumptions that we deem positive or good and push away those that we deem negative... the fears of the opposite... ( he just said it .what we prefer is what we take for the reality we want).
- Yes, perhaps we have to drink the castor oil as well as the honey (hi Dave - process of philosophy is topic)- It seems if we were only able to be open to the negative... I am no... the fear.... if we could let it go there would be no need to assert the positive "I am".
- I think we have to take on the academic aspects (but process only remember) since various 'academic' philosophies underpin our thought processes
- Such as? - You'll have to clarify or go a little further for me to understand your meaning Morf.
- A basic tenet of most philosophical systems is that by thinking and manipulating symbols (e.g. language) one can come upon 'truth'… That's their raw process.
- ...and why was that basic assumption made? or why do we continue to make it?
- (Wittgenstein said philosophical puzzles are actually just the confusion of language, or something like that)
- What other tool do we have? Perhaps that is the question. We do everything by this manipulation of language or as we know to be thought.
- Dunno. Can anybody think of an exception of that raw assumption in any recognised 'system' of philosophy (I don't know too many of 'em)
- ...their may be more basic historical philosophical assumptions though... of mysticism... Buddhism... etc. shaman ism etc...
- They all define themselves through language.
- How do you feel about atheism? I would assume if was looked at intricately it is defined yet it is the absence of belief. What you see is what you get.
- Yes. Definitions in language. Is this the process, I know you've studied this, DaveA. Stage 1) definition?
- Some say mathematics proves logic, does exist and can define the universe, but that is only in the sense of measurement.
- Its the opposite assumption of believing 'in something... each contains and implies the other.
- Hang on, we aren't talking religion, but philosophy – that is non theist in principle
.- OK
- We are talking basic "assumption" aren't we? world views.
- Yes. Let me get the 'process brief' I wrote a minute ago….A basic tenet of most philosophical systems is that by thinking and manipulating symbols (e.g. language) one can come upon 'truth'.
- To believe in or not to believe in... basic assumptions to hold in thought as if thought is the only legitimate environment to see with.
- In that case I can think of none. The very definition discards any possibility of another process.
- Implicit in that assumption is another assumption - that 'truth' is amenable to thinking and symbolism and can be represented as such. Does the question: 'what is truth' ever get asked one wonders.
- Well, it assumes that there is even such a thing as "truth".
- It does and the answer is what we settle for... truth is what we 'think' is what we get.
- Yes, and furthermore that the participants somehow know what it is and will recognise it when (if) they come upon it. How do the philosophers 'know' they have reached the 'truth' DaveA?
- Sorry not to wait on DaveA but it is an assumption again that they have arrived.
- If their assumption is verified... which means if they can fit what they want into the result.
- So it is like forming a theory and then trying to prove it? I can make a milk shake a hundred ways.
- The term 'truth' seems to denote a property, expressed by the predicate 'is truth'
- Of what is truth a property? What are the primary 'bearers of truth? ( and falsity) …the assumption is reason and logic and mathematics... measures ( I'm quoting 'the Oxford companion to philosophy')
- I see this on one level. But truth is assumed to be something definite and limited here. It must return to "what is truth?" Or the goal is misunderstood on this end.- It goes on to say what we already decided, that truth is determined by the process of definition through language.
- To return to 'what is truth' is to return to thought ... it returns us to ideas.
- Truth is arrived at by the use of facts.
-..and facts are what... assumptions of truth.
- Yes it does return to thought. As the dictionary says it also something already determined. Being determined is thought making assumption by use of any method it wishes.
- Even though we may have ideas that thought is something else the question must be asked. In fact it is the same trap that assumes Truth is something else.
- Academically a philosopher makes a formal argument. this is done by establishing premises, which taken together step by step lead to a conclusion.
- It's clear that if we look for truth in thought we will come up with assumptions and more thought... so we realise that thought may not lead to truth at all... but a relative coming close to the physical world.
- I read some of this stuff years ago. One thing it does depend upon is language (and that needs agreeing a lot of the time), symbol and common knowledge (common to the participants or thinker and audience). Each philosophy therefore is a product of its supporting culture.
- David is correct. So thought can at least arrive at an area that can discard itself though not arriving at a conclusion as to what thought is but rather what it is not. Negation.
- So to generalise this a little into the process...
- a) based on what we already know we make assumptions
- b) using a symbol system that we are already conditioned with, we make extrapolations
- c) we then 'know' new things and we can test them with more of the symbol system
- d) given they pass all the tests, we then 'know' the new as 'safe' as it fits in with what went before: we have 'proven it'
- Does that sound about right for the process?
- Most modern day philosophers, certainly the ones i met, say they are 'pluralists', because it is obvious that no single philosophy can adequately explain or cover any issue, an issue being abortion, or capital punishment, whatever… that's a reasonable summary, yes Morf.
- what would these philosophers try to 'prove' for example on capital punishment.
- ...but we have not touched on why and what is the process of when we make assumptions upon assumptions and develop a world view and then make another assumption that the world view is reality.
- Hang on David, we're getting there.
- It does Morf and as I am sure we all see we begin with an assumption that the language system or any method is valid and trustworthy. Is the system used to begin with faulty and if so what system would one use to test that original system... surely not the system itself. Am I jumping the gun or are you wanting to pick out something else? DaveA
- They would attempt to 'prove' it's value to society i.e., that capital punishment is a deterrent to crimes like murder, (which it isn't, by the way)- right, so they're looking at 'value judgements' - god, bad, cost effective, fair, illogical, cruel, etc, etc. (that's probably next step, Ryan - not sure yet) But deterrent is either yes or no (or is it?) (I would say that's not something you could prove by argument - more by statistics. Whether it is or it isn't is otherwise a matter of opinion, not fact?)
- Capital punishment a side issue that may take us away from our thread.
- Yes, it is opinion expressed by the use of premises, conclusions etc, a waste of time mostly I decided after getting an honours degree in it (philosophy)
- (I can see it has indeed a circular aspect) Is the edifice that is created (as a knowledge form) an ideation, an imagined form?
- Yes and no Morf. Thought does have some potential but rather than a building or layering as David put it, it seems that it can negate. In other words realise its limitations and therefor throw out what it cannot determine by seeing its circle.
- ' I state an argument, you, or someone, counters it, with further argument, onlookers choose which they prefer, until someone adds to the body of argument, and on it goes, ad infinitum'.
- And it all depends on 'extending' the start position into the end position, the latter being a creation of the imagination.
- Most modern philosophers, that I met, are pluralists because they acknowledge that no one philosophy covers an issue completely.
- By extend, I mean it's the movement of knowledge and a priori culture, language and conditioning… Yes, but we are seeking the process.
- Round and round... self limiting, self referencing... circle.
- A language game, fun for all the family.
- Well, language is obviously useful and can determine and fix things of unknown origin. However, as said before it seeks to "determine" and that is limited. It would seem that thought or language or math can determine fixed notions or concepts or even facts but to determine something universal and unlimited it cannot.
- Right David and Ryan, you've been chomping at the bit: how doers all this fit in with everyday life and everyday 'philosophy'? Over to you two for a bit...
- We are born into a world that has been established and maintained through the structure of thought. So every day of our lives from childhood on is an exercise in the employment of thought to direct and to attain... to dream and to grasp... all based on the assumptions we make and accept.
- We are assuming that life and all circumstances within it are limited as individual cases. It would seem that is not the case if we are seeking something unlimited and universal. To live and apply limitation to life it must inevitably limit itself and therefor cannot be applicable to all. As capital punishment may suit some it does not suit the whole and therefor is not truth.
- So this gets back to the idea of security for me if we can look that direction for a bit. We realise that by this perception of limitation and maintaining the structure as David says we are limiting ourselves and not secure. We are actually breeding insecurity and lack. The world situations prove that hands down as well as our individual lives that obviously make the world.
- Come on guys, stay on topic
- the process of philosophy, not content and does it provide security for the brain. Are you saying that these are your conditioned 'philosophies'…
- ... when we make an assumption there is structure to it... the structure includes the stated, and its opposite also... looking at this structure we can uncover process.
- That comes out of knowledge.
- It comes from observation.
- So when we have the ordinary man in the street, and he says: 'my philosophy is X', what's actually going on in him then. Is it anything like what we've just discussed, or is it significantly different? Does he really mean 'philosophy'?
- If one backs up from languaging... back further to preverbal... one uncovers a unity of structure.
- Yes,
- I said before that observation of the process of knowledge may use knowledge yet it has the potential to see it cannot move or insight may happen to realise its lack. I don't think he sees it that completely Morf. He makes assumptions as we saw before as being the ground of all this conditioning.
- He lives in fear and that is what motivates this whole process of philosophy. Philosophy to overcome fear of circumstance. Is this moving away?
- …And the assumptions includes the thinking process that excludes opposites... a dichotomy of perception… so at what point in the process is your awareness... from the point or perspective that you are looking.
- If I see it rightly pain becomes my awareness.
- So the ordinary guy's 'philosophy' is really a description of his conditioned behaviour ) it has assumptions and so on in common with the other stuff) and then his dialogue or argument on how he gets from state A to state B using his 'philosophy' or conditioning. Language gets used, as do assumption and imaging as before.- Yes M, but does it have to be that way?
- He works a pattern of behaviour he is already familiar with (his philosophy). An academic philosopher does the same thing - runs a pattern of behaviours - to get from A to B. (Nothing has to be anything) I'm watching myself as I write this. The academic's patterns may be more convoluted than the ordinary Joe, but the process is the same.
- Morf... that is reasonable. I am hinting at what causes this behaviour or conditioning to occur. Obviously the man on the street is not seeing all this. However, he does feel pain and pleasure. He seeks out of lack right? Or philosophy to explain lack?
- Ah, cause, effect and motive are something else - I was only going for the process.
Part 2 of the question is - 'does this philosophy business provide security for the brain?'
- Yes, part 2. He doesn't understand and he seeks security which to me is absence of pain and not seeking pleasure necessarily. The general theme would to be able to cope with all situations effectively.
- If he were a Hindu academic, he could seek security by promulgating a theory of reincarnation, such that he could live forever through it... That would be a clever, security minded use of philosophy..
- The theme would of course relate to the philosophy issue and its limitation. Limitation cannot possible cover all situations because of unlimitedness. That is escape isn't it Morf? I am sure you know that but to cope is not to escape. If philosophy is obviously limited and that is the tool we use we are breeding our insecurity because we do not effectively cope.
- Or the guy in the street could say: 'well my philosophy is to lead a good life, believe in Jesus and go to heaven'. More security. I'm just observing the kinds of things people do...The process is one of imagining continuity.- Jesus may very well be true indeed. However, we do project the future and avoid the present in such ideas. Yes Morf.
- But 'he who says he knows, does not know', so take no notice of me.
- What causes this avoidance of now? Jesus or Buddha or any other religion may be true as an end result of heaven or what not but the brain uses them as escape from present situations. The brain wants security and it seeks all ways or beliefs to give it that. Philosophy to deal with situations and events yet the ground is the same. To find security we would again project a meaning or is it negation as said earlier that sees its movement as the breeding of insecurity? I cant know what security is but one can negate and see what it isn't.
- And now for the stun grenade: we seem to have described the process of philosophy in both the academic and normal spheres and found parallels. We see that we can use this process to attempt to give security for the brain. Now, what if we assume as a root, primary state that the observer and the observed are one. Does this change what we have, and if so in what way? Does philosophy even matter?
- One can see separation though yet that may be belief. At this level Morf I don't think it does.
- When we grasp the fallacy of the structure - manipulating thought forms with language. Reiterating fixed process patterns again and again.- Is there an all encompassing philosophy of life? (no)
- Dave... assuming either way is part of the problem. Actually assuming is the problem. Yet we see that there is ineffective coping.- The only possibility of physical security, which is what people want, is in 'belief' in illusions such as re-incarnation, heaven etc, which does not represent physical security at all.
- We cannot know security yet we can see what breeds insecurity (not arguing opposites here.) If we seek something not knowable all we can do is throw out all that is known. In the same way to find if there is security all one can do is negate that which is breeding insecurity to find out. We don't know so we discard the known.
- If 'I' can't have physical security, I'll settle for psychological security, or illusion.
- Dave, we see that "I" doesn't have psychological security either. We don't know security but we do KNOW insecurity. The very search which is the known is insecurity. So seeking security becomes the problem.
- 'There are only two kinds of creatures on this planet: those that are dead, and those that are going to die.' (with apologies to Robert Mitchum) Only the 'I' has insecurity. The body is perfectly secure - and will normally remain so. Do we now realise how the philosophy process works? If we do, we've made some significant process - and it'll never capture us again (Wittgenstein? Spittgenstein! - don't talk like a Kant)
- Or thought or philosophy or belief and so on and so on. Psychologically it is the known and a division in the brain as the activity that separates the two. So all we can know is insecurity psychologically. So what one is seeing is that to search for it is the movement of the known or insecurity trying to find security where it isn't. We (memory) cant know security.
- Em... The topic was can we find security through this philosophy. It cant.
- We see how we will use philosophy - the definition of and shifting of structures in existing knowledge, using existing knowledge to make new structures
- how we will use that in an attempt to obtain security. The known moves in the known to support the known and give security to the known.
- Yes it tries anyway. We see thought that the very movement of that structure or process is limited and is breeding insecurity. It would seem that the very process itself IS insecurity isn't it? The brain wants security so badly. It has to have it whether it attempts that in illusions or no. But we are seeing that it isn't finding it there... not really. These shifting structure are unstable and the stacking of them as you say is making the building more prone to being unsafe. This is what happens to all of us who are trapped in our opinions and philosophies.- So what are we to do?- It seems that what we can do is be aware of our illusions... attention to what is false and how we create the false.- the early dialogue defined 'knowledging' to some extent, this one has shown how we stretch and push knowledge into new and imaginary forms, but forms we will treat with equal validity to the forms of 'hard' knowledge. One thing it has done for me, and maybe the rest of you, is give me a fairly in depth appreciation of the philosophical process such that I would now be quite happy to tell any 'philosopher' who came in here laying down the odds that he was talking shallow, circular pap.
- To make a statement correcting our earlier discussion. When one asks Mr. Man In The Street why is philosophy about X is, then nine out of ten times, he replies with his opinion. This is an important distinction in that it is ready made. It is further important in that the same process people use to generate philosophy they use to generate opinion. One, the academic kind, may be rigorous: the other - common or garden - will generally not be, but the PROCESS remains the same. Hope that helps.
Dan Scorpio Home
Kinfo Home (Prince and Magician)
Process & Effects of Patterning
Process & Epimestology of Knowledge
Process and Epimestology of Science
Practical Choiceless Awareness
Dialogues on the Nature of Language
Some Conditioning Influences
Spare
Spare
Email: Dan.Scorpio@btinternet.com
