S
smcder
Guest
His 10 pt manifesto at the end - every line is quotable ...
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 3
- Thread starter Gene Steinberg
- Start date
Free episodes:
- Status
His 10 pt manifesto at the end - every line is quotable ...
I get so excited!!
http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/coretexts/riegler2005editorial.pdf
I should just copy and paste the WHOLE thing ...
I'm trying to convert it from PDF to Word now ...
Isn't there some better way of getting this stuff in your head, besides reading it?
Agreed all around. I also get frustrated by the inability to quote and paste from PDFs. About a year ago I had a paid-for device that enabled me to transfer PDFs to Word documents for about year. I have to find where to go to resubscribe to that capability. Is that what you working on now? If you find the link to enabling such conversion, please post it.
At the end of Mind in Life, or of The Embodied Mind? I've lost track of my copy of the latter.
S
smcder
Guest
#5 on agnosticism ... now I have to find that bit ... let's see on OOO I think - you linked it ... let me go and find it, first here is #5
5. Constructivist approaches entertain an agnostic relationship with reality, which is considered beyond our cognitive horizon. Any reference to it should be refrained from. This position is not necessarily limited to skeptical philosophies.
Positivist Rudolf Carnap expressed the necessity of this aspect in his
1935 book saying that “we reject the thesis of the Reality of the physical world;
but we do not reject it as false,
but as having no sense, and its Idealistic anti-thesis is subject to exactly the same rejection.
We neither assert nor deny these theses, we reject the whole question.”
5. Constructivist approaches entertain an agnostic relationship with reality, which is considered beyond our cognitive horizon. Any reference to it should be refrained from. This position is not necessarily limited to skeptical philosophies.
Positivist Rudolf Carnap expressed the necessity of this aspect in his
1935 book saying that “we reject the thesis of the Reality of the physical world;
but we do not reject it as false,
but as having no sense, and its Idealistic anti-thesis is subject to exactly the same rejection.
We neither assert nor deny these theses, we reject the whole question.”
S
smcder
Guest
Sorry ... at the same link, the editorial
http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/coretexts/riegler2005editorial.pdf
page four - it's "constructivist program" not manifesto, sorry ...
S
smcder
Guest
Agreed all around. I also get frustrated by the inability to quote and paste from PDFs. About a year ago I had a paid-for device that enabled me to transfer PDFs to Word documents for about year. I have to find where to go to resubscribe to that capability. Is that what you working on now? If you find the link to enabling such conversion, please post it.
I used a free one on the web ... but it's not much better than cutting and pasting into word
from there I run a find/replace on paragraph marks and then you have to go through and let the grammar function run and click change or ignore about 1500 times ...
When I'm at work I print them out, but it's 10 cent a page ...
There's nothing to me like paper though, because I can mark it up and physically move it around how I need it, a truly remarkable technology that has no
e - quivalent
S
smcder
Guest
OK back to the agnostic relationship with reality:
5. Constructivist approaches entertain an agnostic relationship with reality, which is considered beyond our cognitive horizon. Any reference to it should be refrained from. This position is not necessarily limited to skeptical philosophies.
Positivist Rudolf Carnap expressed the necessity of this aspect in his
1935 book saying that “we reject the thesis of the Reality of the physical world;
but we do not reject it as false,
but as having no sense, and its Idealistic anti-thesis is subject to exactly the same rejection.
We neither assert nor deny these theses, we reject the whole question.”
It reminded me of this article:
brief SR/OOO tutorial | Object-Oriented Philosophy
So I'm comparing this agnosticism with speculative realism
“Speculative realism” is an extremely broad term. All it takes to be a speculative realist is to be opposed to “correlationism,” Meillassoux’s term for the sort of philosophy (still dominant today) that bases all philosophy on the mutual interplay of human and world.
Please note that the speculative realists don’t even agree about what is wrong with correlationism! For example, what Meillassoux hates about correlationism is its commitment to “finitude,” the notion that absolute knowledge of any sort is impossible.
But now I'm not sure what to make of the comparison ... it's not exactly what I thought it was at first ...
Constructivism
Speculative Realism
5. Constructivist approaches entertain an agnostic relationship with reality, which is considered beyond our cognitive horizon. Any reference to it should be refrained from. This position is not necessarily limited to skeptical philosophies.
Positivist Rudolf Carnap expressed the necessity of this aspect in his
1935 book saying that “we reject the thesis of the Reality of the physical world;
but we do not reject it as false,
but as having no sense, and its Idealistic anti-thesis is subject to exactly the same rejection.
We neither assert nor deny these theses, we reject the whole question.”
It reminded me of this article:
brief SR/OOO tutorial | Object-Oriented Philosophy
So I'm comparing this agnosticism with speculative realism
“Speculative realism” is an extremely broad term. All it takes to be a speculative realist is to be opposed to “correlationism,” Meillassoux’s term for the sort of philosophy (still dominant today) that bases all philosophy on the mutual interplay of human and world.
Please note that the speculative realists don’t even agree about what is wrong with correlationism! For example, what Meillassoux hates about correlationism is its commitment to “finitude,” the notion that absolute knowledge of any sort is impossible.
But now I'm not sure what to make of the comparison ... it's not exactly what I thought it was at first ...
Constructivism
Speculative Realism
S
smcder
Guest
@Soupie
brief SR/OOO tutorial | Object-Oriented Philosophy
To be an object-oriented philosopher, what you need to do is hold that individual entities of various different scales are the ultimate stuff of the cosmos. Note that this includes both Latour and Whitehead as well; I define the term in such a way that Latour’s actors and Whitehead’s actual entities (and possibly even societies) also count as “objects” in the widest sense.
brief SR/OOO tutorial | Object-Oriented Philosophy
To be an object-oriented philosopher, what you need to do is hold that individual entities of various different scales are the ultimate stuff of the cosmos. Note that this includes both Latour and Whitehead as well; I define the term in such a way that Latour’s actors and Whitehead’s actual entities (and possibly even societies) also count as “objects” in the widest sense.
S
smcder
Guest
Dog just had it in her mouth ... does anyone know about caring for baby rabbits?
S
smcder
Guest
Dog just had it in her mouth ... does anyone know about caring for baby rabbits?
Best bet, from what I can tell, is to replace it outdoors, I can't assess the extent of injury - and check it in the morning for signs the mother fed it ... if not, take it to a wildlife rehabilitator - vets usually can't handle these cases very well.
How adorable. I'm so glad you got her/him out of the dog's mouth. Yes I know about rabbits. My daughter and I had ten of them. The babies need a warm and comforting place to sleep, maybe a hollow formed in a flannel blanket. They love to be handled by humans when you get them this young. They need their mother's milk when they're newborn and a while after, but this little one looks like he's been out and about and is ready to nibble on lettuce and other garden vegetables and will probably drink milk out of a small bowl. He'll also nibble on hay and will love its smell. Ours all loved basil, which I grew in a huge hedge-like row near their hutches. Maybe look for advice on whether milk from the store is okay for young rabbits. Keep a waterbowl near him; he might like a small box-like enclosure to sleep in, one that he can get in and out of. Good luck!!! Rabbits are a joy forever.
I don't think you should put him/her outdoors. If he can't run he might be recaptured by one of your outdoor animals or a wild animal. Give him some lettuce and other leafy vegetables and some hay if you have any. If you have a wildlife sanctuary, they'll do well by him. Even good-hearted vets (in my experience all vets love animals) will take in and keep an animal like this if they have an available cage. A wildlife sanctuary would be the best possibility if you don't want to raise him yourself.
Soupie
Paranormal Adept
I read this when you posted it previously. OOO strikes me as an exclusively 3rd person perspective philosophy, whereas Constructivism (which I haven't read about yet) is an "expansionist" philosophy incorporating both 1st and 3rd povs?
S
smcder
Guest
You know a lot, for to have not read anything about it ... ;-)
I hope I won't have to list all the defintions like I have for the hard problem ...
Last edited by a moderator:
S
smcder
Guest
Not sure how you could have an exclusively third person philosophy ... ?
See the last statement in this post
(you say the strangest things ... you could be the Yogi Berra of philosophy!)
I am intrigued by it ... hope it will prove to be something different ...
I am savoring this statement:
To be an object-oriented philosopher, what you need to do is hold that individual entities of various different scales are the ultimate stuff of the cosmos.
1. Individual entities of various different scales (not just tiny quarks and electrons) are the ultimate stuff of the cosmos.
2. These entities are never exhausted by any of their relations or even by their sum of all possible relations. Objects withdraw from relation.
Now what does all that mean? ignorance and the grasping for an out of it ... are the most stimulating states!
Object-oriented ontology (OOO) is a metaphysical movement that rejects the privileging of human existence over the existence of nonhuman objects.[1]
Specifically, object-oriented ontology opposes the anthropocentrism of Immanuel Kant's Copernican Revolution, whereby objects are said to conform to the mind of the subject and, in turn, become products of human cognition.[2]
In contrast to Kant's view, object-oriented philosophers maintain that objects exist independently of human perception and are not ontologically exhausted by their relations with humans or other objects.[3]
Thus, for object-oriented ontologists, all relations, including those between nonhumans, distort their related objects in the same basic manner as human consciousness and exist on an equal footing with one another.[4]
See the last statement in this post
(you say the strangest things ... you could be the Yogi Berra of philosophy!)
I am intrigued by it ... hope it will prove to be something different ...
I am savoring this statement:
To be an object-oriented philosopher, what you need to do is hold that individual entities of various different scales are the ultimate stuff of the cosmos.
1. Individual entities of various different scales (not just tiny quarks and electrons) are the ultimate stuff of the cosmos.
2. These entities are never exhausted by any of their relations or even by their sum of all possible relations. Objects withdraw from relation.
Now what does all that mean? ignorance and the grasping for an out of it ... are the most stimulating states!
Object-oriented ontology (OOO) is a metaphysical movement that rejects the privileging of human existence over the existence of nonhuman objects.[1]
Specifically, object-oriented ontology opposes the anthropocentrism of Immanuel Kant's Copernican Revolution, whereby objects are said to conform to the mind of the subject and, in turn, become products of human cognition.[2]
In contrast to Kant's view, object-oriented philosophers maintain that objects exist independently of human perception and are not ontologically exhausted by their relations with humans or other objects.[3]
Thus, for object-oriented ontologists, all relations, including those between nonhumans, distort their related objects in the same basic manner as human consciousness and exist on an equal footing with one another.[4]
S
smcder
Guest
Excelllllent ... continue to let me shape your mind and everything will be just fine ...
you are getting very relaxed, you notice your mind is no longer green ... it was never green ... you can hardly hold your head up as you read these words, listen only to my words ...
S
smcder
Guest
What does this mean?
Withdrawal
Object-oriented ontology holds that objects are independent not only of other objects, but also from the qualities they animate at any specific spatiotemporal location. Accordingly, objects cannot be exhausted by their relations with humans or other objects in theory or practice, meaning that the reality of objects is always present-at-hand. The retainment by an object of a reality in excess of any relation is known as withdrawal.
Withdrawal
Object-oriented ontology holds that objects are independent not only of other objects, but also from the qualities they animate at any specific spatiotemporal location. Accordingly, objects cannot be exhausted by their relations with humans or other objects in theory or practice, meaning that the reality of objects is always present-at-hand. The retainment by an object of a reality in excess of any relation is known as withdrawal.
S
smcder
Guest
the term “withdrawal” | Object-Oriented Philosophy
Theories that are obsessed with epistemologies of representation never come close to accounting for this fact. They always fall back on some sort of structural isomorphy between representation and thing, and in so doing they always fail to provide a good theory about what the difference really is between a tree and an excellent scientific theory about a tree.
They also fail to explain why the magical rift of “representation” should ever have arisen, except through some vague claim that neuroscience might some day explain it. Žižek is far more honest and tries to come up with a wild speculative theory of how the subject must have emerged, and I have to say, it’s a lot wilder than anything in my own metaphysics. Meillassoux simply tells us that it can’t be explained, but that matter, life, and thought simply emerged as radical cuts in the cosmos for no reason at all, just as the World of justice and its corresponding virtual God might some day arise for no reason at all.
object oriented ontology
withdrawal
Theories that are obsessed with epistemologies of representation never come close to accounting for this fact. They always fall back on some sort of structural isomorphy between representation and thing, and in so doing they always fail to provide a good theory about what the difference really is between a tree and an excellent scientific theory about a tree.
They also fail to explain why the magical rift of “representation” should ever have arisen, except through some vague claim that neuroscience might some day explain it. Žižek is far more honest and tries to come up with a wild speculative theory of how the subject must have emerged, and I have to say, it’s a lot wilder than anything in my own metaphysics. Meillassoux simply tells us that it can’t be explained, but that matter, life, and thought simply emerged as radical cuts in the cosmos for no reason at all, just as the World of justice and its corresponding virtual God might some day arise for no reason at all.
object oriented ontology
withdrawal
- Status