What is it to know? If there is no way to account for this, then we are lost. I mean, if language is only self referential, and one cannot grasp even in the imagination what, at the most basis level, of knowledge claims could even possibly be, then knowledge isexistentially without meaning. What do I mean by existentially? Reference is to existence, and existence refers to the palpable "sense" of being here, and this refers to not simply raw physical feels and impositions, but, thoughts, and affectivity (a broadly conceived affectivity that comprises our ethics and aesthetics). Do thoughts exist? Of course. Existence is not to be reduced to "metaphysical physics". Does affectivity exist? A foolish question, really: nothing could be more palpable.

I think language gets lost in language, and it is the familiarity of language that removes for our sight an original existence, not original in an historical sense, as if once long ago, but original as in something primordial and "under the skin" of what we call experience.
Easy to access, in a way, because while language creates an analytic divided world, it also puts it back to gether again; in other words, language is also redemptive when the direction of inquiry goes to basic questions: those words you're thinking now, from whence to they come? I am thinking of Beckett's book Molloy. the idea is how to get around the extraordinary claim that it is language that speaks! Not "me". Molloy/Molone is dying, but it is not the death of the body, but of language, and words that linger to the end, grasping for existence, knowing soon words will not sustain the monologue that is the self. — Astrophel

If knowledge is without meaning then how are you writing this and expecting others to communicate? How do you even know there are others to communicate with?

I think it's as I said before, you're kinda searching for something similar to Descartes except he had to invent god to get out of his funk. But life doesn't work like that, nothing can be definitively known beyond all doubt, it just doesn't exist. Still total certainty was always a myth anyway and we never needed it before.

certainly logic is not about nothing, nor is affectivity; but concepts like these that quantify and divide experience, because they are categories, do not represent the original uncategorized primordial whole. — Astrophel

"primordial whole"? Now I know you're talking nonsense.

That said I'm struggling to find the point to any of this. If it's suggesting that what we take as knowledge isn't reflective of reality, I'd hate to say that doesn't seem to be the case. The world outside our heads might be different than that which we experience every day, but unless you can provide evidence for such a thing it's useless speculation.

So far in my life everything I know seems to work out just fine and it's how we can interact and to some degree master the world as it is. Evolution may have evolved us for certain aspects of survival but I have no reason to doubt the world is what I see each day unless there is some dimensional break.

Though to be honest I've failing to see the point of your question or what you're aiming to achieve here since you're kinda all over the place. I'm guessing you're hounding for something that in reality doesn't exist, some foundational ground to make for knowledge. Hate to say it but there is no such thing. We take a few things as given, our axioms, and just hope for the best.

I will add that intuition isn't a special form of knowledge but still another form of cognition (something you seem to have a bone to pick with) as it is based on prior knowledge, culture, and personal experience. It's sort of like "thinking really fast". Even feelings are rooted in some form of cognition though not one you are aware of. Brains are weird.

PS: I do wonder if there is a way to write your stuff in a way that's easy to understand.

But this is just to the point I am making. But you need to make a further step into inquiry: when you analyze a star's light and bring forth a conclusion there is beneath this, or presupposed by it, a structured consciousness that does the bringing forth of the basic conditions for "receiving" anything at all.
What makes science singularly disqualified for philosophy is that it doesn't look at the world at this level of inquiry. Nor does it thematically take up the caring and value that you raise here. As a scientist you do indeed have more or less strong interest, occasionally exhilaration. But it goes further still: to speak at all, to have a thought and draw a conclusion or affirm a conditional or negation is inherently affective. the point I make here is that it is these analytical conditions, which are typical in everyday living, tend to reify the categorical analyses, reducing the world to its own abstract image. The actuality, intuitive givenness of things, if you will, of putting the eyes to the computer screen, implicitly drawing conclusions, rejecting others, then, consummating an inquiry! At this level the experience is a singularity. — Astrophel

Hate to break it to you but there isn't anything beyond that "abstract" image that you think science is reducing reality to, that's just what it is. It sounds like you really want reality to be something other than it is.

If anything a lot of these posts just sound like extreme frustration or dissatisfaction with how things work.

Considering how complex the brain is, no not really. And like was mentioned before ethics slows down progress (though as stated I'm glad for it).

Some problems in science are slower to progress than others, and it might involve some diverging paths. But so far all the evidence have points to it being a function of the brain and not some kinda "soul" or "ghost" like people think it is.

How though...well we're not quite there yet. I swear people really need to learn patience when it comes to science, these problems are hard. Just because humanity doesn't tolerate ambiguity well is no excuse, though I guess psychologically we do like filling in gaps just to feel better.

Again, you tell them that. If you look through my threads with them you'll see it's pointless.

Like in these threads for example:

https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?t=40294
https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?p=652138#p652138
https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?p=652127#p652127
https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?p=652119#p652119

It's more like they were trying to use the fact that meaning is subjective to say I can't say they're wrong. It's literally to just terminate argument.

You try arguing with them, I had an aneurysm from trying.

No that’s not socially correct either, again you’re just making stuff up to prop up your argument.

Also it doesn’t really matter what Shakespeare said.

Not necessarily. It’s also weird you’re calling it unresponsive to the situation like there is some objectively correct way to respond to situations.

Also you’re more reinforcing the notion that Buddhism talks about there being no self. So all these different “selves” really just prove there is no self just behavior.

Not something I believe in but for your case the more you argue the more you undermine your point.

I think you’re mistaken. I said I behave same no matter where I go, that “same” being who I am which is considerate.

I’m not a different person in different spaces, I’m the same person.

That’s why I said they’re just wrong that we all portray different selves to people across spaces. If anything that a psychological issue because it means you can’t be authentic and you’re just masking.

There isn’t a difference between “simple” and “complex concepts. You’re just inventing distinctions between the two.

And secondly you can absolutely be mistaken about having perceived something. It literally happens every day.

That said the only way for illusion to really carry any meaning is to know what is real and that’s a whole can of worms right there.

Usually when people say many X believe Y it’s usually none or little

I’d have to disagree with that link. Reality isn’t socially constructed IMO. It is very much an entity apart from us. It’s why you have some philosophies that claim to cut through all that to see reality as it truly is, behind what we paint over it, though if you believe such things.

Also how they’re staying you act differently depending on where you are, but this isn’t really the case for everyone. Me for example I act the same no matter where I’m at, same with others, so how do they explain that.

That’s why sociology is considered a soft science.

and how are they doing that in the links I give. I’ll give you that their knowledge of science poor but how is it the case in the links?

Though I’m also doubtful of their logic. It seems like only a few people there understand how it works. Like one person I was talking to saying:

Actually, I have an argument for the existence of the mind: Consider a change in a substance, X to Y. X and Y do not occur at the same point since otherwise there could be no change and the process is simultaneous. Therefore, X and Y should occur at different points in time. This means that there is a gap between X and Y so X cannot possibly cause Y. Therefore there must be a mind with the ability to experience X and cause Y.

Never mind that not only the logic doesn’t follow but also doesn’t demonstrate there is a mind or that the mind is responsible for what’s going on.

I think people on that forum as a whole don’t know enough about science to really cite it. The amount of misuses of quantum physics is already too many.

Though what did you mean by skin deep though?

Not everyone.

is that what you think is going on in the links?

I'm on the spectrum so....yeah, totally feel that.

That's fair, but I don't think they throw it about casually. There is a clear pattern of behavior in their posts that hints at something.

I know because I was the same, though not to that degree. The posts I would ask about stuff would just be me repeating the same thing again and again even though people either weren't bothered by it or understood and didn't care.

Judging from the other users who have more experience with that person than I do it's known, I just joined a week ago and while mental illness isn't something I'd say I can't deny something is really off about some of the users there.

Like I was saying before, they just want an audience for their views not a discussion.

I mean obviously right and wrong are "relative" in the sense that it depends on context, because in a different world then there would be a different framework based on what is right and wrong.

But what is going on with the person I mentioned in that they are using this to avoid criticisms of their points while also trying to use the same framework of meaning that even ENABLES them to argue their point.

But I don't think that's what the people in my quotes are saying.

I think it's more like just not doing anything since everything is just subjective then nothing is right or wrong and everything just "is". It seems more like a cop out to avoid criticism. If there is no objective meaning and everything is subjective then you can't say I'm wrong.

Which is kinda childish IMO.

That's the weird part, his own "logic" negates everything he is saying. Like if everything is subjective and according to you nobody is right or wrong about anything then...why should we listen? Better yet why are you talking, meaning is subjective so the words you use are too.

You see how quickly his own logic falls apart which is why I think he's mentally ill.

Though TBH the whole forum is full of nuts, case in point:

https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?p=652788#p652788

As for putting in the work, all one is required to do is do the no body home work. Which is simple and easy, a child can do it. Because there is no one that is taking occupancy in a child, not until the child comes into contact by association as and through this artificial illusory possession of knowledge, leading it back to it's original image, the illusion of it's reality. The image of the imageless.

It very easy, is hard work.

Which sounds like nonduality, but a horribly flawed version of it. Nevermind that that is not how the self works, that's more like a soul.

It's like I said, these people want an audience, not a discussion.

So pretty much there is no arguing with him over anything because meaning is subjective and everything just “is”.

Or

There is 'just is-ness'.

Which again sounds like Buddhism but that’s getting stuck at the “ultimate reality” and ignoring the “conventional” truth of reality. Or rather committing the mistake that thinking that something being conditional means it’s not real or doesn’t exist.

if you thought that was bad check out this gem:

But what is logic to you if meaning is subjective? Under your own logic there can be no objective logic.

If meaning is relative then everyone is right and wrong under one context or another. If there is no objective meaning then your statement is subjective and opinionated.

If I say everything results in paradox and contradiction then by default I and everyone else have to end in contradiction/paradox. If I contradict myself, and at the other end point to the contradictions in others, I am only proving further that everything ends in contradictions/paradox.

I am un-sensify things.

Apparently if meaning is subjective then everything means nothing and nothing is right or wrong. No sense in arguing or doing anything.

Pretty sure the dude is mentally ill. Even philosophies like Buddhism distinguish between conventional and ultimate reality.

What do you mean by insulation?

And if you weren't restrained?

You know I didn't realize that at first but a lot of his threads did have 4 7 and 10 of this or that.

It says it is but it's really not, and there's some users on there who know it.

There's more than a couple who just want the place to be an audience for their own views, and if you try to call them on their stuff they accuse you of not being certain or everything just being an opinion if meaning is relative in order to deflect.

Case in point with that Eodn whatever user I kept asking what was the point of any of the threads or reasoning and never got an answer. They just want an audience not a discussion.

Unfortunately I'm not well versed enough in philosophy to call them on the BS.

Yeah I've noticed that. The forum is part of a magazine that seems vetted but unfortunately the forum itself is not moderated, which explains a lot.

I'm just a little worried that the damage might be done.

So it truly is all bullshit then? I'm just asking for clarity. Let's just say I have a terrible track record when it comes to falling to crazy shit (hell I fell for the Illuminati conspiracy theory).

Did you have a look through the threads? I'm just wondering. I had a feeling in the back of my mind that it was just bullshit but for some reason there is a part of me that think's it's right and some secret wisdom.

Like, to give an example (beware migraines): https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?p=652101#p652101

If all meaning is assigned, then meaning is relative (right in one context and wrong in another) thus the points you make are just opinionated assertions from other points of view.

Dude is literally arguing against philosophy, meaning, and logic. Bear in mind this applies to HIS STUFF TOO!!!

Additionally from the same page:

As to the futility, if I practice philosophy it is futile. If I do not practice philosophy then I am practicing a philosophy of no philosophy and a contradiction occurs. I am simply pointing to the nature of contradiction in things, as well as absurdity, to practice 'unlearning' things.

As to point 2.

1. If we define terms we make distinctions.
2. If we make distinctions we make things which stand apart (otherwise there would be no distinction as there would be no comparison).
3. If we make things which stand apart then we make contradictions (as contradictions are that which stand apart, i.e. an opposition).
4. If we make things which contradict then it does not matter what results as the premises are grounded in contradiction.

Now as to a more precise explanation. If 'belief' and 'style' contradict then there is a continual opposition between the two, there is no way to present a unified argument where both work together (for if both worked together then in effect they would be "one" and creating the distinction between them would be pointless). If neither work together, i.e. are not 'one', then a continual string of opposing arguments and definitions follow and whatever results is grounded in opposition. If opposition is the end result, or just the form and manner of the continuum of arguments/definitions which follow from them, then anything can be justified including the observation that there can be a contradiction to the contradiction of 'belief' and 'style' (i.e. to oppose opposition).

You say that but if you take a look at my discussion with them in the threads where I replied it seemed like there wasn't any point to what they say. They're just asserting things and then when questioned attempt to refute me by saying what I am saying is a contradiction or paradox, even though every criticism could apply to them.

well if we are using two definitions then we’ll be arguing past each other. I would argue it is necessary because there are slippery folks out there who don’t clarify their position to hide behind the shield of being “taken of of context” or “misinterpreted” (cough Jordan Peterson cough).

so if it just stays in this obscure realm of “what if”?

Yeah unfortunately the forum I got it from has people who think that metaphysics means I can just say vaguely say spiritual bullshit and call it philosophy.

So it’s just nonsense?

you may have a point there. I guess some part of my brain thinks it’s some cryptic wisdom only discerning minds can understand

not some sort of secret mystical wisdom if you look hard enough?

Number 1 was about the most clear thing said, and that's being generous. Though transparency has more to do with making something understood. To make something clear means it's understood, like what someone means by a word or something.

Though number 4 is just...nonsense. Doesn't explain how order is a contradiction. It might have something to do with 2 but 2 is playing with a MASSIVELY loose definition of transparency. Though even by all definitions it still doesn't make sense. The word has nothing to do with barriers but understanding.

Overall though it's just a bunch of assertions without anything to back it.

I don’t know, ask that dude in the quote