• Sapientia
    5.1k
    Silence!TimeLine

    Nicely said.
  • Hanover
    3.2k
    And as an aside, I really do believe in the ineffability of thought and ideas. In fact, so much so, that I find those philosophies that deny it completely incomprehensible. — Hanover
    I hope you mean some thoughts and ideas.
    TimeLine
    Some
  • T Clark
    2.6k


    :snicker:

    :yikes:
  • TimeLine
    2.4k
    My experience is exactly the opposite. For me, the internal voice examining and reexamining everything used to cut off any connection to, awareness of, internal life. The process of healing has involved learning self-awareness without the intercession of words.T Clark

    I understand this and I admire this, but surely there are limitations to it, perhaps even your awareness of the fact that something you read, something you heard or spoke about helped articulate it without being conscious that in fact it was this improvement in your thought or opinion that helped shape that self-awareness. You can paint a picture and it may have no words, but it could symbolise something that interconnects or pieces together the puzzle.

    What is unreasonable, irrational, about my statement? I'm not being sarcastic. I think this issue highlights a weakness in your philosophy, one you don't see. I don't think I'll convince you of that, but I'd like to give you what I got from that previous discussion - an accurate understanding of where I stand. Of an alternate way of seeing things.T Clark

    My issue is that I believe you failed to understand my argument and have simply injected your personal experiences on the subject - which I respect - without consideration to what is exactly being discussed, and that makes me doubt the integrity of your position. I need more than that.

    I'm the one who used the word "veneer." Thinking about it, maybe "armor" or "shield" is better. The "intuitive experience" does not need to be "interpreted." It is perfectly capable of speaking for itself, without words of course. The idea that intention and action must be mediated by conscious thought is an illusion. In my experience, most of the things I do go from wherever they come from straight to action without passing through words. And I'm not just talking about reflexive actions like breathing or repetitive, physical actions like riding a bike. I include complex social activities like interacting with people or groups of people.T Clark

    When you look at an image, say for instance the swastika, it does not have words but it explains something evil, bad, and thus it is actually speaking but without having to say anything. We create meaning and we communicate this or understand this and incorporate it into our subjective interpretations; we see an object, we interpret it and give it meaning. We have experienced, we have been taught, we understand that it is evil and nothing else needs to be explained. If someone wears the swastika on their arm, they are telling you something. It is communication, that is point.

    Your intuition is there to tell you something you already understand but sometimes the capacity to interpret is not there, it is blurred and we're unable to understand or make a relation, the discourse is missing. What you have in your mind is completely different to what you feel. If you grow up in an environment, for instance, where your parents taught you very racist things, and when grown up you encounter the object of this disdain, you will feel hatred or fear for that person and not know why and you can try and articulate justifications (look at holocaust deniers), but there is a broken narrative between the two.

    That is clearly an extreme case, but it explains the dynamic that leaves one experiencing the emotions without adequately understanding why at a rational level. One needs to go back, the reflective practice that takes those emotions to try and link it with the past experience and that means talking about the past, reflecting, being honest with yourself. This is how you challenge and change yourself and start articulating rationally with yourself in order to transcend those experiences, familiarise yourself with a past that has become embedded into your psyche without you knowing why.

    It is not to say that my experience is not as you say, it is. But only partially. The dynamics is much more complex than that, hence the relationship.
  • Hanover
    3.2k
    The book "Blink" is on the topic of instantaneous understanding without internal deliberation.

    en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blink:_The_Power_of_Thinking_Without_Thinking

    I've not read it, but I own it. I thought I could blink and immediately know what it said.

    When you look at an image, say for instance the swastika, it does not have words but it explains something evil, bad, and thus it is actually speaking but without having to say anything.TimeLine

    I'd say the same for everything, including rocks and sticks. Everything is a representation. The distinction between the rock that you see and the word "rock" is arbitrary. Both are knowable only as symbols.

    POW! That was your mind blowing. :fire:
  • T Clark
    2.6k
    ...something you heard or spoke about helped articulate it without being conscious that in fact it was this improvement in your thought or opinion that helped shape that self-awareness.TimeLine

    Of course. It would be laughable for me to deny I am a person of words. Words bubble from my brain and out my mouth continually. Continuously. If I close my mouth, they bubble out my nose and ears. My fingers for goodness' sake. I am moved and influenced by words all the time. I come to the forum for the words and ideas - to express mine and read others'.

    For me, the experience, what we are calling intuition, comes first. Much of the experience never gets put into words. There's no need. Lao Tzu writes about "action without action." Much of what I do is without conscious intention or motivation. Sometimes it does get put into words. Generally, that's a matter of communication - I communicate my experiences to others but probably more often to myself. Sometimes, often, for me, that's a self-destructive thing. Words overwhelm the experience and it gets lost.

    Yes, of course, all the time I read things that I recognize immediately. That clarify my own thoughts and experiences and lead me off in new directions. You won't find me ever denying the value of words and ideas. I love them. I am them. That's probably why they are so much of a problem for me. Our weaknesses are our strengths. Our strengths are our weaknesses.

    My issue is that I believe you failed to understand my argument and have simply injected your personal experiences on the subject - which I respect - without consideration to what is exactly being discussed, and that makes me doubt the integrity of your position. I need more than that.TimeLine

    I don't think I misunderstood it. I don't even reject it or deny it. My only point is that it's not the only way. It's not my way. I called it blindness because you don't seem to be able to see that.

    That is clearly an extreme case, but it explains the dynamic that leaves one experiencing the emotions without adequately understanding why at a rational level. One needs to go back, the reflective practice that takes those emotions to try and link it with the past experience and that means talking about the past, reflecting, being honest with yourself. This is how you challenge and change yourself and start articulating rationally with yourself in order to transcend those experiences, familiarise yourself with a past that has become embedded into your psyche without you knowing why.TimeLine

    I don't really disagree with this description of the process - re-experiencing feelings from a position of strength rather than weakness so I can deal with them. For me, that's an act of surrender, acceptance. Facing the emotion without protection, justification. Opening myself to whatever damage it can do. It seems to me that for you it's different. Why would I expect that it wouldn't be?

    It is not to say that my experience is not as you say, it is. But only partially. The dynamics is much more complex than that, hence the relationship.TimeLine

    I'm not claiming your experience is the same as mine, although I think we have a lot in common. Just this - there is more than just one path. There are more than two.
  • T Clark
    2.6k


    I wonder if our differences don't just come down to the idea of action without action. Acting, living, without conscious reflection. Action flowing from the heart directly to the arm holding the hammer. I make no claim I live my life that way on any consistent basis, but I know what it feels like and I know I'm happier and better when I do.

    I'm not saying it's the path you should follow. You couldn't if you wanted to. It's not your way.
  • TimeLine
    2.4k
    For me, the experience, what we are calling intuition, comes first. Much of the experience never gets put into words. There's no need. Lao Tzu writes about "action without action."T Clark

    My interpretation of reason is an acknowledgement of what you already know because your intuition is a form of communication and how that intuition manifests without words does not make it without meaning formed by prior experiences, symbolic in nature. How you reach that acknowledgement appears blurred to you, as though you just "blinked" and there you are. A martial artist practices, learns through trial and error until they reach that point where what they learn is forgotten and it becomes a part of them, embedded to an almost instinctual level. You are ignoring everything about that process, as though suddenly he just has that skill. Language and how you speak is the same. That is what action without action is and it is telling that you speak of Lao Tzu and yet speak of a schism between reason and intuition, the very philosophy of unity.

    My only point is that it's not the only way. It's not my way. I called it blindness because you don't seem to be able to see that.T Clark

    You have produced zero arguments, quite literally, nothing at all other than "this is my way and you are blind" and while I am trying to have a conversation where I have already mentioned that this communication between reason and intuition involves a number of factors, you are still fluffing on about something you failed to understand. You haven't and I highly doubt can even explain what "your way" is and I have read over your posts wondering whether you are even talking to me.

    I don't really disagree with this description of the process - re-experiencing feelings from a position of strength rather than weakness so I can deal with them. For me, that's an act of surrender, acceptance. Facing the emotion without protection, justification. Opening myself to whatever damage it can do. It seems to me that for you it's different. Why would I expect that it wouldn't be?T Clark

    ?
  • TimeLine
    2.4k
    I'd say the same for everything, including rocks and sticks. Everything is a representation. The distinction between the rock that you see and the word "rock" is arbitrary. Both are knowable only as symbols.Hanover

    Is not that distinction still dependent on a linguistic structure? Indeed, these connections are learned because what is communicated is always a learning process over time but the problem is not the signifier but the signified, what is understood. Using arbitrary icons misses the point, basically.
  • T Clark
    2.6k


    I'm disappointed. I thought you and I could reach an understanding if not agreement. From my side, it feels as though I am trying to find common ground while you are resisting.

    As I said at the beginning, my main purpose here is to present my understanding to my own satisfaction, which I didn't think I had done before. Now I feel as though I have. Anything more I say will just be repetition.
  • ArguingWAristotleTiff
    2.3k
    Chocolate needs to be the last word. :heart:
  • Sapientia
    5.1k
    Our weaknesses are our strengths. Our strengths are our weaknesses.T Clark

    My house is on fire. My fire is on house.
  • T Clark
    2.6k
    My house is on fire. My fire is on house.Sapientia

    Oh, Sapientia, you little dickens. You're so cute. I just want to pinch your cheek.
  • Sir2u
    1k
    Chocolate needs to be the last word. :heart:ArguingWAristotleTiff

    No, shut the bloody door was always the last words I heard as I left the house.
  • TimeLine
    2.4k
    Oh, Sapientia, you little dickens. You're so cute. I just want to pinch your cheek.T Clark

    Tad bit awkward. :brow:
  • ArguingWAristotleTiff
    2.3k
    No, shut the bloody door was always the last words I heard as I left the house.Sir2u

    I remember that one! Followed quickly by "Quit slamming the front door!". It was a no win situation!
    Irony? Both kids slammed the door UNTIL the oldest started staying the night at his girlfriend's house (she still lives at home) and now, all of a sudden, he is VERY good at taking the time to close the door silently. :kiss:
    He still gets busted coming home late because Rotties are around and have a tendency to announce people coming in the door in the middle of the night. :wink:
  • XTG
    28
    I believe my first combination of phonemes was: ”bip guck”.

    My first words where: ”I’m Thirsty”

    Somehow I think my last words will be something like: ”That’s not exactly what I had in mind...” Or: ”Well that was interesting...”
  • ArguingWAristotleTiff
    2.3k
    Somehow I think my last words will be something like: ”That’s not exactly what I had in mind...” Or: ”Well that was interesting...”XTG

    Or I woud likely say: "Hmm I wonder what that button does?" :lol:
  • Sir2u
    1k
    Somehow I think my last words will be something like: ”That’s not exactly what I had in mind...” Or: ”Well that was interesting...”XTG

    Mine would probably be "OH well, WTF."
  • Hanover
    3.2k
    Is not that distinction still dependent on a linguistic structure? Indeed, these connections are learned because what is communicated is always a learning process over time but the problem is not the signifier but the signified, what is understood. Using arbitrary icons misses the point, basically.TimeLine

    Not sure exactly what you mean. Linguistic structure includes my dog scratching at the door, which is no more or less an arbitrary icon as the sounds "let me out." The phenomenal state of the door is also just as much an icon, a representation of something real.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.