Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Order of Rank?) (Humans)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, February 06, 2011, 15:58 (4847 days ago) @ dhw

MATT: My goal in beginning the epistemological framework thread was to ultimately build to an attempt at solving the problem of rank.
> 
> I hate to cast my sceptical shadow over your ambition, but I think there is a very good reason why this problem can never be solved, and you've summed it up at the beginning of your post:
> 
> MATT: I assert that rank begins with knowledge. [...] I've said many times that it is normative epistemology that causes disagreements between people on the issues surrounding agnosticism...QED?
> 
> ... Therefore our epistemological framework can only solve the problem of rank if it excludes every subject that cannot be "known"...QED?
> -Let me posit something that might help us and salvage my goal...-What is the value of a belief if we're trying to penetrate the nature of the cosmos? I would argue that beliefs in general should be excluded.-You say that you shift your rank of order around depending on the subject, but couldn't this precisely be why the question seems impenetrable? -> On the subject of oneness, I had said that it was not knowable or testable. If you say that it is one of the few immutable truths revealed by science, I will take your word for it. My own focus was on the intuitive sensation of oneness with the universe and everything in it rather than on an intellectual acknowledgement through scientific information. Poetry rather than prose, if you like.
> -If you ever spent time practicing with a Sangha of Buddhists, you would discover that much of the practices they use are to reproduce this experience with everyone who joins their ranks. The experience has been replicable for millions that have followed the path since Siddhartha. Not all who join ever attain this--it is considered the "penultimate" stage of enlightenment. But the tools of Zen seem to be able to reproduce results. -> Maybe I haven't earned your thanks, though, for distinguishing between poetry and prose, because I don't understand some of your comments. I argued that I could keep whispering about the future, the past, God etc. and still have the rose in my hand. You have responded: "Philosophy serving only you! If we mean it to serve other people, we must sacrifice some things. The rose or the whisper..."
> 
> ... Unless I've misunderstood you (and this part of your post is not easy to understand), I think it's the same problem as before: philosophy does not consist of one solid block, but is a vast collection of different subjects, some of which can't be subjected to any normative hierarchy....-IN translating philosophy to all, we dilute perspectives to feed the lowest common denominator... and the philosophy for ourselves is the only philosophy that is divine--only we reveal to ourselves!-The only divine revelation is what secrets we choose to reveal to ourselves... dilution will be discussed shortly. -Philosophy that serves all serves none--yet philosophy that serves yourself serves no one else. Where is the perspective in that?-We only learn about the world really--from ourselves. That's why in my own personal definitions of knowledge that I was attempting to establish here previously, I attach the function of 'knowing' only upon those things that one has ultimately experienced for oneself; have you actually conducted the experiment? If not, then you don't know... you only accept someone else's judgment and explanation. Knowing is intrinsically personal, and each of us ultimately only knows a very few things that we share with everyone else.-Any philosophy that suits oneself will necessarily be incompatible if you're trying to build a philosophy for all; in this case, answering the questions we're trying to ask. There are things you need to give up to do this to satisfy the crowd. (giving up your whisper) Or, we impose ours. (thus giving up the rose.) -If you try to take a middle road here, you'll either have only thorny stems with no petals, or whatever is less than a whisper.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"