Preliminary thoughts on the parameters of determination: Phenomenology and Object Orientation.

We already know how reality proceeds; there is no mystery about the mysterious part. We love mystery. We love figuring things out and we love not knowing; every time we come to know of something, then something else catches our attention. This is no mystery.

The Why of this process we also love to get into. We love to always withhold something or have something be withheld; that is what profit is, as well as magic, as well as the object of science. Even as we try to disclose everything, we always leave something out, and we love to find out what is it so we can have something else left out, to find that out. This also is no mystery, it happens all the time, everywhere.

Yes, the contingency of reality is why we live; we look into something, and everything changes . Despite my depressions and frustrations with how reality may be for any moment, these insecurities is indeed why I continue. They are not what I am attempting to overcome, they are the roots of the insecurities itself; a depression is weather; my insecurities inseparable from the realization of happiness except as we might speak of different centralized systems of motion ; they are what I withhold while I propose to be looking into them. As soon as I find a way to relive myself of the insecurity, another one pops up.

The manner, order and cause of these psychic contingencies occupy the totality of my concern; they inform to where my attention is focused. I may look outside these psychic events to events that are not psychic, and even though I may be the mediator and arbiter of such events and such objects, I am able to consider these occasions outside of the notion that they are occurring in my psyche. What this means then, is that such occurrences are not occurring as psychic events, but are indeed occurring as objects independent of the psychic occurrence. This means that to tie such moments together, the event of an object that is entirely of my psyche, and the event of the object that has nothing to do with my psyche, in a causal relation is problematic at least. As Saint Anslem: This is an unstable condition. We begin to understand how the philosophical turn that saw ‘language/discourse’ or ‘meaning/semiotics’ or ‘phenomenon’ as some sort of temporal historical stage, can itself be based in a misunderstanding of the issue involved with those very categories, and likewise how the turn to the object is most probably, by many, also misunderstood in its bases.

We might find the misunderstanding is founded in the “either/or” relation of reductive philosophy. Exactly how do we determine phenomenology from the rest of the western philosophical discourse is extending back to Spinoza or Locke or something ? We do it by ignoring the phenomenology of the situation and particularizing things that are phenomenon with other things that somehow fall out of the category of ‘phenomenon’ that we have to find arbitrarily along a continuum of traditional semantics . Likewise the idea that if we don’t adhere to this traditional lineage and don’t fall into the abyss of Progressive discursive formations then we are talking about nothing, that which has no definition at all: That resultant idea is an either/ or proclamation that excludes the phenomenon of its situation: It proclaims itself in a causal relationship of psyche and object, that this causation is necessary and determined by some as yet discovered “great power“; it is this put off great power that is being negated in the resultant default to nihilism, not the object-universe and definitely not humanity and most likely not civilization: It is entirely evidence by which we can describe what is occurring “Of the psyche”, which is to say phenomenologically. The former phenomenological derivations were or are not, in fact, speaking necessarily to nor about ‘original experiences’ that may be talked about in a unitive and omnipresent “greatest category” field which holds room for such ‘subjective reckonings’, wherein everyone gets to discover all the differences of personal experience. Indeed, in the field of social justice and politics, we do get to discover what has been hiding behind my own inherent prejudices and limitations I didn’t know existed, or perhaps I did but could not alleviate them, and so I get to work on them . But the event of the phenomenon is not based in such subjectivity, and the reasoning that says such discourses as pointing to some psychic event of individual experience is/was a misunderstanding of the notion of what the phenomenon might be. Hence, likewise, an inherent misunderstanding of what Object Orientation might entail.

The question always concerns thus if the authors which proclaim such philosophical categories themselves are misunderstanding their own position, and how that might be possible. We then come to what real motivators for identification of objects might say about the world we live in and even, indeed, if “we” live in such a world. Further, the very idea that arises when such ‘unfounded’ divergence from the ‘traditional’ narrative occurs is if such dichotomy of existence is a true situation that we then have to question; if the various notions that arrive for methodological procedures are really addressing valuable issues; how it is possible that we might be able to decide to dismiss an object sufficiently from the psychic occurrence, etc….

More later…

 

 

33 thoughts on “Preliminary thoughts on the parameters of determination: Phenomenology and Object Orientation.

  1. The other pragmatist question is “What difference does it make?” Suppose, for example, you were the only conscious being in the universe, and that you were sleeping, and all the rest was merely a dream you were having. What difference would it make if that were true?

    1. This kind of question also argues a determined course, as opposed to an activity that concerns choice. That the question is a loaded question.

      I think there is a difference in what we you and I , each are taking about . Perhaps we might be able to find what this difference is.

    2. See; in a certain sense I have a different definition of practical. To me what is practical is right here right in front of me I’m walking my dog I’m taking steps I make choices to make my dog go this way, I pick up her poop or I don’t pick up her poop; everything that I’m doing right now is extremely practical. It is matter fact the thing that’s holding this whole experience together is the fact that I’m not doing any sort of reflection upon how it’s possible that I making choices and such, or how it is that I perceive the grass green over here and that tree over there, or that it’s autumn whatever sort of conceptions of perceptions that I have that I might question into.

      Do unity that is myself behaves this way. It is very practical.

      But is soon as I take a step into asking myself why I chose to pick up my dogs poop today where as yesterday I did not, I began to step into a room that more and more argues my practical unity as indeed an over arching while separate aspect of the universe.

      I say that the second kind of approach it’s not practical, because then we come upon situations such as you have in your essay here where we have to discover what the difference between illusion and maybe truth might be. We begin to have to distinguish one thing over another thing in its truth. I simply say that the perception of free will is real and that there is no illusion involved in this free will. Indeed at every moment of my practical experience I exercise free well there is no contradiction in this there is no some underlying truth that somehow I’m avoiding or denying in my coming up on reality through this free will of choice. It is simply there and as we begin to discuss all these kind of metaphysical truths about illusions and what may be more true than another truth, all these are merely discourses they’re merely consciousness playing with itself, maintaining its self as a central unity that is able to come upon things that are more true or less true about it’s reality. All these kind of designations and ideas and rationales about what is more true or less true are all Real. They play out in this certain arena that consciousness erects for the purpose of having a world.

      The only illusions that we can possibly have are real illusions, which when we think about it is a contradiction in terms, and in the end perhaps is the reason why we have such ideas as spirituality and such.

      1. The mind constructs a model of external reality. To the degree that the model is useful in dealing with reality, we call it real. I reach for an apple, pick it up, smell it, take a bite, and it’s really an apple.

        To the degree that our model is inaccurate, we call it illusion. I reach for an apple, pick it up, but it feels lighter. I tap on it, and discover it is hollow. Someone has placed a bowl of artificial fruit on the table, giving the illusion of apples, but not real apples.

        To me, the function of Religion is to provide spiritual support for morality. That’s how it appears to me to be operating in the real world.

        I’m not sure I know how to operationally define “metaphysics”. I read someplace that it originally just referred to Aristotle’s books that followed the ones he wrote on Physics, making them “beyond physics” or simply “after physics”.

        I’ve also had the impression that “meta” refers to the a priori principles that underlie something. Like, “meta-ethics” would refer to the purpose of ethics.

      2. I’m making a post of my reply. If you want to move the conversation over there. Or not. It doesn’t matter. 👍🏽

    1. Rockish punk psychedelic folky sometimes. 👨🏽‍🚀 I have another Page there in my blog of links: “The Covert Sound Philosophy”. Those links are long jam songs. If you google it comes up SoundCloud and reverbnation. I haven’t updated those in a while. But there’s a good spread of my variety, but not my latest stuff. 👨🏼‍🎨. If you like any of it, and if ud like , you could give me your email and when I make tunes I can email you MP3s Let me know.

      1. Okay Enchilada’s a little harsh for me. But I loved the drum work in Give Me the Night. Played that one all the way through. Do you do all the instruments on the keyboard?

        (I was raised on religion and rock and roll. Developed a taste for all -brass bands via Salvation Army ministers for parents. I used to play baritone horn. These days I sing in the Unitarian Universalist church choir. Our choir director is a music professor who I think did his doctorate thesis in jazz. My favorite jazz is Stan Kenton’s West Side Story. But jazz isn’t my favorite genre either. I guess I’m mostly pop).

      2. Wow. Someone who was actually raised by Salvation Army people. That’s kinda wild. Lol

        So do u like the faster more maybe punk rock tunes?

        I have : long grateful dead Kinda jams.
        Punk rock Kinda stuff
        Electronic Trippy stuff

        It’s all triply stuff lol

        Ballady tunes. Folky bluegrass

        A make al sorts of music.

      3. On the crazy side I like the “Love that Giant” album by Vincent and the Talking Heads guy. Also bought a bunch of Regina Spektor albums recently. Favorite oldies include Peter Paul and Mary’s “Late Again”, anything by Paul Simon esp “Rhythm of the Saints”, and Manfred Mann’s rendition of “Blinded by the Light” is really cool. Also enjoy Brazilian Anthony Carlos Jobim a lot, and from him I got into Elis Regina (You gotta check out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QF_Ekf6nHj8 ). It is the most fun you can have even not knowing Spanish. I could go on and on.

      4. I took a year of piano as a kid but went to SA band camp with my baritone and learned some music theory. To sing the rock music, I’d annotate the guitar chords so I could transpose them, (T, 2M, 3M, 4, 57, 6m, etc.) to get them in my voice range. Then in my left hand I’d alternate between the octave and 5th of the chord to the beat, while playing the chord with my right hand. That let me sing from the Beatles, etc. song books.

      5. Oh, and on the classical side, anything Russian, everything Tchaikovsky, Alexander Borodin (Kismet), several requiems esp 1st two tracks of Duruffle’s. Sebelius’s Violin Concerto in D. The violin concerto of that guy who wrote Peter and the Wolf. And on and on.

      1. It was the Zen story from Suzuki’s book, that described how a zen master’s experience of reality progressed over 30 years of study. If I may quote it from Wikipedia:

        “Before I had studied Chan (Zen) for thirty years, I saw mountains as mountains, and rivers as rivers. When I arrived at a more intimate knowledge, I came to the point where I saw that mountains are not mountains, and rivers are not rivers. But now that I have got its very substance I am at rest. For it’s just that I see mountains once again as mountains, and rivers once again as rivers.”

        Buddhism & Science: A Guide for the Perplexed Donald S. Lopez, P. 227

      2. It is an interesting polemic, or at least inherent dichotomy. I am not sure how up you are on Philosophy now days, but in the past say 10 years there’s been a stream of thinkers a couple of which brought up the idea of magical thinking, that we need to get over magical thinking. Well I have a idea about what they’re talking about, I understand their point, but then when some of their ideas hinge on a polemic of reason and superstition, i’ve come around to ask just what this magical thinking is that is so terrible and upon which a lot of their philosophy rests.

        But if you are up on current philosophical streams of some areas then you might understand how or why I say that we really haven’t gotten anywhere philosophically in 200 years.

        It really does come back to a kind of Buddhist/Hindu kind a Vedic thing of the in substantial or stream like motion of objects coming into existence fading out of existence, having their existence be nothing, and having nothing actually existent.

        I wonder though, about these philosophers that continually try to approach reality and real objects as if they’re trying to get some big T truth of the matter. I wonder if they’re just doing that because they found themselves in a career of doing such things, and so have to continue on in a certain manner because that’s how they make money, and yet they really kind of know this Buddhist matter whatever you might call it, or if they really do believe that their mind is coming to some larger significant substance big T truth of the world, How objects actually are, how reason is a much superior matter of coming to the truth of things as opposed to this “magical thinking”.

        And so I ask how they discern magical thinking from reasonable thinking.

      3. I don’t generally read modern philosophy. I converted to William James Pragmatism early in life. Truth is what works. Reality is usually as it seems before we confuse it with words. (In Alan Watts’s “The Way of Zen”, he says that Zen masters call anything that is spoken or written about Zen, “Zen-Trash”). Thus, the mountain and the river are just the mountain and the river.

        So I tend to lean toward Voltaire’s “Candide” and Ecclesiastes suggestion that the best we can do is to tend our own garden. But, if your garden is modern philosophy, then tend away.

        I was drawn to your article because I scan for “determinism”. One of the flowers in my garden is to explain how determinism and free will are compatible. And that involves the distinction between objects and concepts, an issue as to what is real.

        But I’m a bit over my head in trying to understand your article.

      4. It doesn’t appear that its over your head.

        I do hesitate in abiding by absolutes, and I like Alan Watts, what Ive heard and read here and there. But even that approach tends to becomes a kind foabsolute kind of reckoning, as you said of “zen-trash”. It may be trash if indeed what we find that of things there is this ‘intemperance’ that is the final truth of all existence. I weight more in the middle, but a middle that is not a fashionable middle.

        I have difficulty with the idea that my (our) capacity, ability, and propensity to use words is somehow ‘less than’, or not a valid manner. Im not sure if I can subordinate aspects of being human. It appears that we enact various aspects of Being upon different occasions. For example, on the occasion of observing things and or investigating them, in the end, we can find the transient nature of existence.

        Indeed there are transformative events of meaning that seem to correspond with various events, of course. The transformative event that is Being itself is the unitive occasion, such as when we reflect upon, perhaps, our personal ‘self’.

        Im beginning to throw around possibilities involved with determinism in the way. One of the first things that comes to mind is how the occasion of Being (knowledge) opens up the possibility for contingency and or choice. I feel there must be some sort of ‘barrier’ or ‘partition’ that functions to keep choice and determination separate in meaning, but function also. What I call “two routes”. Choice, or the ability to freely choose upon options, does not necessarily bring all under its affect or purview; likewise, being determined excludes the possilbity of having free will. The two simply cannot conflate or reduce to the other in a cognition, but maybe only on concept. The concept thus might be the issue that concerns to unifying of Being as a contradictory entity.

        I could go on..
        thanks for your thoughts.

      5. It is a question of definitions (says the Pragmatist). If we define determinism as “the absence of free will” or define free will as “the absence of determinism”, then they would obviously be incompatible. So, we should stop doing that. Ordinary people never do that.

        Free will is what we call it when we decide for ourselves what we “will” do, when “free” of coercion (literal or figurative “gun to the head”) or other undue influence (hypnosis, mental illness, etc.)

        That is how ordinary people apply the concept in nearly all practical scenarios. It requires nothing supernatural. It makes no assertion of being “uncaused” (just ask the guy and he’ll happily list the reasons why his choice was best). And yet the ordinary definition is all that is required for both moral and legal responsibility.

        Determinism is the belief that the objects and forces of the physical universe behave in a rational and reliable fashion, so reliable that any future event could, in theory but not practice, be predicted with 100% certain from any prior point in eternity.

        Causal necessity is not a meaningful constraint. It is not something we can or need to be “free of”. What we inevitably do is exactly identical to what we would have done anyway. It is precisely us being us, doing what we do, and choosing what we choose.

        Two things are simultaneously true whenever we make a decision of our own free will:
        (A) The choice is made by us, according to our own purpose and our own reasons. Therefore it is made of our own free will.
        (B) The choice is made by us, according to our own purpose and our own reasons. Therefore it is deterministically predictable.

        Paradox resolved. The issue is not whether the choice was causally inevitable, the issue is who or what made the choice. And I’m pretty sure neuroscience will confirm that it was our own brain (and therefore us) that made the choice.

        Hope that helps.

      6. Well; this should be interesting.
        Most often, I only encounter and have input put people who generally are into the same ‘kind’ of philosophy, what we could generally call continental. (though I have issues with that); even if they have issue with what I say, we generally have a similar understanding of what we are talking about.

        So it is refreshing to engage with someone who, from my angle, has a different viewpoint.

        Gimme a little bit and Ill have a response .. ;))

      7. It appears to me in your conclusion is not accounting for many things.

        I’m glad you came right out and identified yourself as a pragmatist.

        I think what I see missing in your conclusion might be available in your defining yourself as a pragmatist.

        So given, often enough, that we need to define terms, how would you define pragmatist?

        I guess I could go to wiki and I think I look over there but it would be cool to know how you define yourself as a pragmatist.

        I mean, if you don’t mind getting a little bit of a philosophical discussion that may not end in one or two replies😁 and indeed one or more of us might actually get challenged!

        But it’s perfectly OK if you’re not looking for involved discussion.

      8. The “cash value” of a concept is how it is applied in the world. I often speak of “operational” definitions, which is based upon how the concept actually “works” in the practical contexts in which it is normally used.

        For example, the single causal inevitability has no impact at all upon what we call “possibilities”. The one thing that inevitably “will” happen in no way restricts what “can” and “cannot” happen.

        If you don’t mind me quoting myself from my blog:

        Yes, I Could Have Done Otherwise (the Semantics of Possibilities)

        Deterministic inevitability is about what will happen in the real world. But this in no way restricts what can and cannot happen. The inevitable and the possible exist in separate semantic contexts.

        When speaking of what we can and cannot do, our context is the mental process of imagination. We use our imagination to play out possible futures, to estimate what comes of choosing this option rather than that option.

        We can have as many possibilities as we can imagine. If we foresee an insurmountable roadblock for one possibility, then we may discard it as an “impossibility”. If a possibility is not feasible to implement, then we say it is not a “real” possibility. But all possibilities that could be implemented, if chosen, are referred to as real possibilities.

        The possibility that we implement becomes the inevitable actuality. Our choice is the inevitable result of our purpose and our reasons. Our purpose and our reasons are the inevitable result of who we are at that moment. Who we are at that moment, is the inevitable result of our interactions with our physical and social environment up to that point, including all the other choices we made along the way. We are active participants in causally determining who we become.

        So, we begin with multiple possibilities, and from them we choose what will become the single inevitable actuality.

        Now, if things don’t turn out as we imagined they would, then we may reconsider our choice, and consider what we could have done otherwise. This mental process of reconsideration is how we learn from our mistakes, and how we adjust our future choices to produce better outcomes.

        If we had more than one real possibility, then it is always true that we could have done otherwise. But, it is also true that we wouldn’t have done otherwise, at that unique point in time.

        The “hard” determinist’s assertion that we could not have done otherwise, because everything we do is inevitable, would be ass-backwards. We begin with what we could do, and from that we choose the inevitable actuality.

      9. I like your reconciliation. ” If we had more than one real possibility, then it is always true that we could have done otherwise. But, it is also true that we wouldn’t have done otherwise, at that unique point in time.”

        It appears to me this might resemble what I mean by two routes. on the one hand…one the other hand. At no time do these situation s conflate; or, only in the consideration of the specific issue might they conflate. So there is a question if such knowledge is ‘suspended’, if you will, somewhere, like a place holder, or a Truth, if there is an actual Truth-Being Metaphysical essence that we can know, or that functions like knowing.

        Also, you appear to represent a “wave collapse” in your estimations. That all possibility is present until the moment of observation, where then just one and only one possibility occurs.

        Yet, I suppose I am looking into the Hard problem: How might it be possible that we could not have done otherwise? Given our current condition (for example, of Wave collapse) what conditions must occur for no possibility to have been possible before the collapse? What if there in no collapse? and by this I mean something quite particular as it brings into question what might be practical. This is why I ask for your definition of “pragmatist”.

        Nevertheless, my proposals come up against what I consider, in a general form, ‘practical’: I do not see myself as making any sort of argument, rather, I am describing the situation. Fro my perspective, I am being quite practical in describing the situation, quite matter of fact and, strangely enough, applicable to how I behave in reality.

        I realize, though, that it is almost (given to certain conditions) inevitable that what I say will be understood in the form of an argument, and so my question really goes beyond what, perhaps, pragmatists might consider possible to consider, or at least impractical.

        But to counter this kind of practicality, I must then offer that indeed I must be existing with a practicality that is not commonly understood. Hence, again, why I ask for you definition.

        The Hard form of determinism would then have to propose in the only manner that could be proposed regardless of what possibilities might have informed the determined option. The possibilities would be likewise confined by a particular set of possibilities that are defined by that option which actually occurs, for we would have no way to define a set of possibilities without the determination of what that category might be, which then determines that set of possibility. When do we stop, or maybe more correctly, when are we not seeing that we have stopped to there by allow for possibility before the collapse? Is not the very idea that there is possibility, itself a collapsed possibility?

        What I consider is that such practical view might likewise be a view that is determined by a particular set of organizers, aka “possibilities”?

        Similarly, the idea that I we come upon certain mathematic or physical notions of predictability seems to occur in a very practical arena: One that does not reflect upon itself in the moment of using the idea. There seems to be a particular manner that accompanies a manner that is not recognized, both occurring at the same time, one viewed, one not viewed.

        The ideas seem to be understood to have arisen “from somewhere else”. From where do these possibilities arise, and how is it that (the brain) has access to possibilities that do not contain the brain’s operation to conceive the definite situation of (indefinite) possibility?

        So you see, a lot hinges on what exactly ‘practical’ means? and, of course, if you want to get into the juicy parts of discussion.

      10. They’re not as juicy as you may be hoping. The fact is that everything that happens is always causally inevitable. And it is the very ubiquity of this fact that makes it totally useless in any practical situation. It is like a constant on both sides of every equation, taken for granted, and may be subtracted from both sides without ever affecting the result.

        All of the practical benefits of reliable causation come from knowing the specific causes of specific effects. Knowing the cause of a disease gives us control so that we may avoid, immunize, or even cure it. Knowing how agriculture works allows us to increase the world food supply. Knowing physics allows us to walk around on the moon and come back safely.

        And that is why science embraces determinism, because it means that we might discover how things work, and by that knowledge increase our options to control our destiny.

        However, there are some traditional but very dumb ideas about determinism out there. Most of them are promoted by the so-called “hard” determinists.

        For example, they often insist that the laws of physics account for all events. But the laws of physics cannot explain why a car stops at a red light. You’ll need the life sciences and the social sciences to do that.

        Hard determinsts they imagine causal inevitability to be a force of nature that controls what we do. It is not. Rather it is a descriptive comment, describing what we do. We actually control things. Causal inevitability simply says that our behavior can be fully explained by some combination of physical, biological, and rational causation.

        But determinism is not an actor on the stage of reality. Only the actual objects and forces of the universe can cause stuff. Determinism is neither an object nor a force. But we are.

        As physical objects, we behave passively in response to physical forces. As living organisms, we behave purposefully, to survive, thrive, and reproduce. As an intelligent species, we can imagine alternative ways to accomplish that purpose, estimate the outcomes of our choices, and select the option that best suits our own purpose and our own reasons.

        And when we act upon our choice, we are forces of nature.

        This is a practical description of the empirical reality most relevant to the discussion of determinism and free will.

        Let me know what you think.

      11. ITs juicy to me because I get to discuss things with a person who obviously has different ideas about things than I do!

        There are some definitions that come in between us, for sure.

        The “causation” element. It seems you define determinism with reference to a kind of causation. Yet, earlier you said something to the effect that cause is not involved in this aspect (of free will and determinism).

        Also, I think I frame determinism with respect to contingency. I think maybe free will involve different issues than contingency.

        Because I would consider myself, at this moment, considering the Hard problem of determinism, I like how you say that it “..is not an actor on the stage of reality”. Yet, while there are a lot of floating definitions here, I would say that your statement defines why I say there is two routes.

        And this:
        “As physical objects, we behave passively in response to physical forces. As living organisms, we behave purposefully, to survive, thrive, and reproduce. As an intelligent species, we can imagine alternative ways to accomplish that purpose, estimate the outcomes of our choices, and select the option that best suits our own purpose and our own reasons.”

        I like the statement, but the issue I have with it it that it relies upon a contradiction. I think you are saying that as living organisms we commandeer the imperative of objects to ‘behave passively’ to thus be ‘active’. I see an issue with the idea of “passive” also, but I think you are saying that human beings arise out of the determined state into a state where we are able to effect universal objects and structures from “the outside”. How are we able to exit ourselves from the universe of objects, indeed, our objectivity, to be able to act independently from the functioning universe?

        I suggest that there is no reconciliation between these states, that any reconciliation is merely a conceptual default that is supported by its lack, basically, an effective denial of the situation: choice. The consideration of the other possibility is already denied in the choice to consider the possibilities.

        Hence you might see my meaning when I say that we are objects ultimately determined in everything we do, but the operation of the course occurs in the object that is the human being “thinking” its way. Yet, this is not to say that one reduces to the other; I am not suggesting that there is not free will Because we are determined objects; neither am I saying that free will allows human beings to arise out of our object-ness to be able to act upon objects from outside of the universal system. I am saying that Both occur: Both are true. One does not Mean the negation of the other.But indeed the choice I make I could not have decided differently. this statement shows no leaning in either direction, but supplies both at the same time: I made a choice and I could not have made a different one. The possibilities that I had to choose from were determined with in a semantic scheme that was based around the condition of knowing that established the only manner that I could have noticed such choices, such that, upon analysis, I could have only chose one of those, the one I did choose. The motion of possibility is already collapsed by the time I am presented with the options for the decision. Yet I still must choose. I do not ‘use’ the reduction to justify why I do no make a choice (or the failure), I merely note it and make choice anyways. The reasoning that would logically indicate that I do not ‘actually’ choose is one that must occur; the choice I make I do freely. these are conditions of knowledge, the condition that exists for me to be able to Be.

        I use the analogy of physics; what does it present? It presents two complete systems which describe the substance and motions of objects, but do not have a provable relation to one another: quantum physics defies classical mechanical operations, and classical mechanics seems to ignore the quantum. One is not “more true” that the other.

        **

        Yes, I can see that is very ‘practical’. OK good. It is what I might call the “real” route. This is why I am looking into the conditions that could be involved with a determined situation given this condition.

        To rephrase: I indeed behave in a contingent world. Yet, upon reflection, I find that there is only a loose and basically contradictory rationale behind my ability to choose. In fact, I find, the more complete explanation tells me that I am just behaving, and, really, any choice I have I am unsure if indeed I made a ‘choice’ in the sense that I commonly know it. Some sort of short circuit has occurred. lol. Its not that I don’t make ‘good’ choices; it only upon critical reflection that I become unsure. Like the Buddhist thing.

      12. Okay, back to Pragmatism:

        Operational definition of “choosing”: (1) two or more options are input, (2) some relevant comparative evaluation takes place, (3) the most satisfactory option is output. When that process empirically happens in the real world, we humans call it “choosing”.

        Operational definition of “free will”: a person chooses for themselves what they “will” do, when “free” of coercion or other undue influence. When this event empirically occurs in the real world, we humans call this “a freely chosen will”, or simply “free will”.

        And when the person’s choice is not his own will, but is either imposed upon him by someone else or by another undue influence, then we say this was “not of his own free will”.

        Again, whether it was or wasn’t “free will” is a matter of which scenario actually occurred in the real world.

        Now, there are three impossible freedoms: freedom from causation, freedom from oneself, and freedom from reality. Since these are impossible, it is irrational to suggest that any practical use of the term “free” implies any one of them. Since it cannot, it does not.

        This is especially true of the “free” in “free will”. If the will were free from reliable cause and effect, it could no longer reliably cause any effect. And you’d have no freedom to do anything at all! “Freedom from causation” is thus an oxymoron, a self-contradiction.

        If the will were free from oneself, then it would be somebody else’s will.

        If the will were free from reality, then it would no longer be a “will”, but only a “wish” within a “dream”.

        You seem caught up in the traditional bait-and-switch error of supposing that free will implies freedom from causation or freedom from oneself. It can’t, so it don’t.

        Everything that happens is always causally inevitable. So free will does not mean the choice was not causally inevitable. It was. But, as we discussed before, this is not a meaningful constraint, and no one experiences as a constraint. However, they do experience a gun to the head as a meaningful and relevant constraint.

        It was inevitable that you would confront the decision. It was inevitable, because of who you were at the moment, that certain thoughts and feelings would occur within you as you dealt with the issue at hand. It was inevitable that one of your choices would seem better to you than the others, and, because of this, it was inevitable that it would become your choice.

        And it will either be inevitable that (A) you will be free to make this choice for yourself, or it will be inevitable that (B) someone else will step in and force you to make a choice they impose upon you against your will.

        We humans call the first inevitable scenario “free will” and the second inevitable scenario “coercion”.

        Now, from a Pragmatic viewpoint, we can simplify that description by dropping all of the references to “inevitability”. And the brain, a notable calorie consumer, will avoid concepts that have no relevance to the final outcome, simply for the sake of efficiency.

        So, again, it is a question of definitions. Once we’re clear on the definitions, there is no conflict.

        It remains the case that, in a perfectly deterministic universe, the object that we call “us” is identical to that which performs the actual act of choosing what will in fact be the inevitable outcome.

        Inevitability does not mean that the choosing does not take place. Quite the opposite. The choosing event is inevitable, and it is inevitable that it will be us (or the guy with the gun) that performs the choosing.

      13. Sorry my replies are getting longer and longer and the window we leave the replies and it’s so small you can’t really see everything you’re writing. Lol

        Here goes: That is excellent! I have never really looked into Pragmatics , but it appears to round out what I call reality. Thank you for thisZ

        This helps me. A primary concern of my work is to explain religion. As I see it, What has occurred historically with philosophy, as a ‘definitive category’ is that it perpetually flattens everything out to what I could, now, generally call Pragmatics, but very generally. You are Helping me notice that my tenadnacy, despite some of my more basic tenants (of my work, that I am developing), is to rejoin with aspects of what you just said, but I do not actually see this as productive, since I see the ‘practical’ manner as a necessary manner; you put it very well, although differently that I would, Your I think does better than my approaches, probably because you yourself approach that (practical) manner (as opposed to me ascertaining what it might be).

        Such practical approach is necessary. And I do not see any ‘practical’ reason why I would attempt to pull apart to degrade the mere factual and obvious situations you put forth so clearly. Only if I was invested I proclaiming my righteousness would I do so.

        Such practicality is a inevitable part of the human experience, but not the whole part, even as it functions to supply a whole world, as well as manners to behave, intellectually defaults and possibilities of acting, etc…

        I do not think we can fully grasp what religion is through what is practical. Religion, I think, functions for what is practical, not through practical explanations, but through what while still reasonable and explainable, is not practical, it has no application (yet) into how or why we behave or rationals for negotiating life. Religion is that manner that informs us of what is practical in an active sense. So it is that you are helping me by seeing how I agree with this ‘pragmatic’ even as I am not involved with into or using such thoughtful attributes of myself toward an analysis of how I behave in a practical, what are very truthfully call “real“, world. To me, I just behave I just act, I make choices; the reasons why I do these things are ultimately inevitable and lead to contradictions in myself if I was to look into them to deeply; it is not that I don’t look into reasons I may behave in such away, but that along that level I have to stop myself because I tend to kind of fall into a certain hopelessness and self defeat is them when I come up on the ridiculousness of the end result involved in the basic nothing but lies underneath my behaviour. There arecontradictions that cannot be explained through for looking further into that behavior. This is what I mean by religion: religion is that which is propped up on the nothingness. And so my investigation into the origins of religion really are not practical at all because they’re actually go to the foundation of what I am using to develop definition in a practical sense. The practical use of any definition of religion in the common sense/institutional/spiritual is very practical because I’m using “believe“ as a means to justify my behavior’s and behaviours that I witness in the world. So it it is that what happens when I come across contradiction in the extensive analysis of my behaviour I necessarily stop analyzing and start to come up with definitions to justify my behaviour and other people‘s behaviour in the world: religion in the conventional sense. But this type of analysis also only go so deep, it only gets so thorough, it to has a limitation at the limits of the practical self, which I am proposing to not have the capacity to explain all that might occur: I am not the totality of my practical aspirations and behaviour, but nor does this mean that I cannot explain it. There’s something that necessarily falls outside of these kind of definitional maxims.

        So Innoway I’m looking outside of history in order to describe why history may have occurred in that way, but through this explanation of religion which tends to fall or tends to appear as if it is orderly determined, a description of how what is “larger“ then my behaviours of personal and subjective self has been determined by this kind of historical motion.

        So it is that I even say like with the Alan Watts or the Buddhist kind of describing what is included in the limitation and then making suppositions about what might be outside of the limitation, these kinds of subjective discursive reductions are themselves part of the limitation: this limitation is religious and so I’m attempting to get explain religion.

        Does that make any sense?

        I enjoy engaging with people who have ideas that are different than mine because it helps me realize where I am limited in my appropriation or in my description or just in my work in general. Well I definitely enjoy and appreciate people that already understand and already come from my pedagogical area, I think often enough I get more out of people that are completely outside of it. While I need support, I also need challenges. (but in fact I find the people that do tend to stem or be involved with this arena or whatever you call it that I’m in, many of them get more of an attitude because they get very self righteous in their approach. I understand the self-righteousness and I understand how we tend to approach all either discourses, but I think there’s something more going on something that I tried to deny by sorting my righteousness upon everything else; I see people doing this all the time I don’t think it really gets anywhere except a sort of intellectualism and I get to prop myself up and shoot other people down).

        Anyways …I tend to ramble.

      14. So, this is a change of subject. But it’s fine. To approach religion pragmatically, we need an operational definition. So, begin by asking yourself, “What is the purpose of Religion?”, “How does Religion function within the real world to make things better?”

        If you find yourself stuck, the answers are in my blog under the category of “Religion”.

      15. I am not sure of the practical explanation of religion give us a full response as to why is arises. It does give us large justifications for the creations of institutions, but when we look into these practical reasons, we are left with how did I even come to be able to have reason for that institution.

        I do not hold to the view that practicality explains everything; it indeed give us justifications for our view of place, activity and such, but I think it misses the question of why or what we are justifying. It leaves something out.

        the issue I have is then that the practical view often merely places “everything that is left out” into a category that is unknowable, or a very practical mode such as spiritual and psychological and such, then these all go to justifying why the practical view is most salient.

        I see there is something that is being left out , not merely as a sort of ‘ineffable’ presence, or ‘spiritual’ center, but as indeed a situation that is “made to” be excluded, for the purpose of allowing such practical ideals to exist and indeed be effective for granting particular formations and concepts by which we negotiate a particular arena, that I generalize as “reality”.

        the question is always: How is it that I am able to only have definitions and such? Am I not relying upon something that is excluded in my reckoning of such categories (the category where by definitions hold the entirety of what is allowed to be true, albeit in negotiation with others)? The usual default is a kind of ‘unknowable’ soul, or spirit, or even the more empirical emergent processes that produce consciousness. But these categories mere reproduce themselves in other items of cognition for which the emergent consciousness is excluded. The only manner by which to hold these items together is by a counter-partial ‘unity’ that we usually call “the thinker”, or regularly, the Self, or whatever sort of unitive centralized operator of consciousness we wish to define.

        I do not hod that such unitive essences are but one manner of understanding things; this manner I call ‘real’. And with reference to this reality, a reality that is contingent and based in free will, there is an element that does not reduce nor is reducible, two routes that are mutually exclusive — this other route upon things thus “not-real”.

        this aspect is what ‘real’ discourses tend to ‘leave out’ and Id say by design, but imperative. Hence we can ay that all real discourses are religious discourses. This, of course is not a very popular idea, because no one really likes to think they they are not a unity, not a Self that is contained as a single and essential object of the universe. This is also why I can define subjects of real discourse as religious subjects, because there is an inherent offense and prohibition involved in the ascertaining the this unitive reality.

        Im am playing around wit various conditional discourses that might involve how such unitive agents are indeed determined.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s