Philosophical Speculations

Posted: **Mon May 03, 2021 10:32 pm**

Eugene I wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 10:28 pm what is experienced are ideations, true, but those are forms. The experiencing itself is not an idea, not a form, but the experiencing of any form/ideation. If there would be no experiencing, what would be ideations without experiencing them?

He is talking about "meaning" as fundamental over and over again. That is idea not mere experience.

Posted: **Mon May 03, 2021 10:44 pm**

oh sure, there are meanings as ideas, they are talking about higher and deeper meanings and their importance in our life. But he never said that they are "fundamental" in any "ontic" sense, nether he said that there is such thing as "universal meaning"

Posted: **Mon May 03, 2021 10:44 pm**

Eugene I wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 10:28 pm what is experienced are ideations, true, but those are forms. The experiencing itself is not an idea, not a form, but the experiencing of any form/ideation. If there would be no experiencing, what would be ideations without experiencing them?

We've been through this before, as has Scott, clearly to no avail, so it seems we're not going to get beyond our different ideas of what idealism entails, and I see no point in going through it all again, just out of the joy of arguing.

Posted: **Mon May 03, 2021 10:56 pm**

ok, last argument: how one idea (the idea of experience) can experience another idea (idea of an apple)? An idea cannot experience anything, any idea is what IS experienced (while not being separate from its experiencing)

Posted: **Mon May 03, 2021 11:03 pm**

Eugene I wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 10:44 pm oh sure, there are meanings as ideas, they are talking about higher and deeper meanings and their importance in our life. But he never said that they are "fundamental" in any "ontic" sense, nether he said that there is such thing as "universal meaning"

Yes, he did say meaning is fundamental. They were discussing ontology and the "meaning crisis" when he said it. Sorry but BK is not aligned with you on this one, which of course does not mean you are wrong, but simply that he disagrees.

Posted: **Mon May 03, 2021 11:10 pm**

AshvinP wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 11:03 pm
Eugene I wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 10:44 pm oh sure, there are meanings as ideas, they are talking about higher and deeper meanings and their importance in our life. But he never said that they are "fundamental" in any "ontic" sense, nether he said that there is such thing as "universal meaning"
Yes, he did say meaning is fundamental. They were discussing ontology and the "meaning crisis" when he said it. Sorry but BK is not aligned with you on this one, which of course does not mean you are wrong, but simply that he disagrees.

I would also point out BK liked and retweeted the essay on Incarnating the Christ, which he does not do for everything I send his way, so he is not really aligned with you on that one either.

Posted: **Mon May 03, 2021 11:27 pm**

AshvinP wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 11:03 pm Yes, he did say meaning is fundamental. They were discussing ontology and the "meaning crisis" when he said it.

May be I missed that. If ontology can solve the meaning crisis, that does not mean that the meaning is ontological. It means that a better ontology can bring better meanings to us. But anyway, if you can find any BK's quote where he states that the meaning is ontically fundamental, that would definitely help

Posted: **Tue May 04, 2021 12:10 am**

BK is now saying that subject combination problem makes panpsychism fundamentally incoherent. Which means he does accept that the subject combination problem is an argument/criterium that can make an ontology incoherent.

Posted: **Tue May 04, 2021 12:27 am**

BK states that intentionality is and emergent functionality not immanent to MAL. John says that such position runs into the "Chinese room" problem

Posted: **Tue May 04, 2021 12:36 am**

Eugene I wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 11:27 pm
AshvinP wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 11:03 pm Yes, he did say meaning is fundamental. They were discussing ontology and the "meaning crisis" when he said it.
May be I missed that. If ontology can solve the meaning crisis, that does not mean that the meaning is ontological. It means that a better ontology can bring better meanings to us. But anyway, if you can find any BK's quote where he states that the meaning is ontically fundamental, that would definitely help

Go to 1:40 timestamp of "Meaning and Ontology" - BK discusses Schopenhauer's criticism of Kantian epistemology and then goes into a discussion of whether depth psychology can address the absence of meaning, i.e. the fundamental issue of our day, without also discussing ontology. He says, "either meaning is really there, or my giving meaning to things is self-deception" and asks, "do you think we can solve the meaning crisis without addressing ontology head on?"

Philosophical Speculations

Curt Jaimungal announces a 3 way conversation between himself, Hoffman, and Kastrup is coming!

Re: Curt Jaimungal announces a 3 way conversation between himself, Hoffman, and Kastrup is coming!

Re: Curt Jaimungal announces a 3 way conversation between himself, Hoffman, and Kastrup is coming!

Re: Curt Jaimungal announces a 3 way conversation between himself, Hoffman, and Kastrup is coming!

Re: Curt Jaimungal announces a 3 way conversation between himself, Hoffman, and Kastrup is coming!

Re: Curt Jaimungal announces a 3 way conversation between himself, Hoffman, and Kastrup is coming!

Re: Curt Jaimungal announces a 3 way conversation between himself, Hoffman, and Kastrup is coming!

Re: Curt Jaimungal announces a 3 way conversation between himself, Hoffman, and Kastrup is coming!

Re: Curt Jaimungal announces a 3 way conversation between himself, Hoffman, and Kastrup is coming!

Re: Curt Jaimungal announces a 3 way conversation between himself, Hoffman, and Kastrup is coming!

Re: Curt Jaimungal announces a 3 way conversation between himself, Hoffman, and Kastrup is coming!