'Xian' - what's all that about then?

[six45ive]

Do you feel quite comfortable that all 3 elements, are seperate entities; or would you see any cross-over, one element bleeding in to another?

 

I feel it's unimportant and irrelevent that all 3 elements, are seperate entities; or they may or may not cross-over, one element bleeding in to another?

 

Also, is catagorising all 3 elements as we have, not just another example of modelling reality (i.e. 'knowledge of the world')?

 

No, because as I implied earlier I don't necessarily accept the premise of organising those 3 elements like that but if I did I would probably describe those 3 elements as 'understanding reality' as opposed to 'modelling reality'.

[six45ive]

Not strictly true it was AJ Ayer who I referenced you to earlier who argued that point in "Language, Truth and Logic", the other logical positivists viewpoints were less extreme and more subtle.

 

And as I said when I mentioned it before and in AJ Ayers subsequent words... "I suppose the most important [defect]...was that nearly all of it was false."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism#Contemporary_status_within_philosophy

 

What's AJ Ayer got to do with anything? Philosophy has moved on substantially since then due, in no small part, to the further understanding that science gives us about things that were once thought only to be metaphysical.

 

My bold.

Thanks for your tentative step in acknowledging that I'm at least partly right.

[Wildcat]

What's AJ Ayer got to do with anything? Philosophy has moved on substantially since then due, in no small part, to the further understanding that science gives us about things that were once thought only to be metaphysical.

 

My bold.

Thanks for your tentative step in acknowledging that I'm at least partly right.

 

No respect for others and an inability to understand who said what, let alone the philosophy behind it.

 

Arguing with you is as pointless as arguing with Grahame, neither of you are interested in a debate and the exchange of ideas. Just defending your preconceived notions with whatever rhetorical devices you find at your disposal.

[Wildcat]

Sorry, Kan't.

 

 

The Architectonic of Pure Reason is hard to explain in several hundred pages let alone a forum post

[Wildcat]

I have never found that to be the case. I don't think it is useful in the study of anything.

 

Also, the word 'invoke' was clearly appropriate in the context I was using it. Wildcat presented a piece of music, a piece of art, and a writing by Kierkegaard as examples of things that somehow validate (by magic, or something) the concept of metaphysics. I contend that there is no need to invoke the concept of metaphysics to explain those things, or for that matter, anything.

 

I'm not, I'm just saying it's meaningless pretentious nonsense. And what are you referring to in your first clause here?

 

I do not see how that follows at all, I'm going to need you to explain more fully if I am to understand.

 

You can't get beyond solipsism without metaphysics.

[Wildcat]

Basically what fj said. Science understands not only the human need for conveying non literal information but can measure the value of it in a practical, physical way and science understands the physical responses to experiencing these phenomena and the effect they have on an individual or society in general and why the effect is the way it is.

This further reinforces my point of metaphysics being meaningless.

 

Here's just one link that explains music scientifically.

http://whatismusic.info/articles/ScientificallyOrthodox.html

 

There are plenty more links out there that disprove your assumption that music, art and literature can only be explained metaphysically if you're prepared to look but my guess is you won't.

 

How do you measure emotions with science?

 

How do you assign numbers to concepts like despair, angst, absurdity, alienation, or boredom? And why do you feel a need to?

 

Ps Not sure what your link is supposed to be proving. There of course rules to music, but as Jazz demonstrates we respond to the breaking of those rules more than we do conformity to them.

[flamingjimmy]

You can't get beyond solipsism without metaphysics.

 

Forgive my ignorance, but I'm going to have to ask you why?

 

What do I need to believe in that's not physical in order for me to believe that I can trust my senses (to an extent)?

[Grahame]

What's AJ Ayer got to do with anything? Philosophy has moved on substantially since then due, in no small part, to the further understanding that science gives us about things that were once thought only to be metaphysical.

 

My bold.

Thanks for your tentative step in acknowledging that I'm at least partly right.

 

Science cannot answer questions of the heart.

 

 

[Wildcat]

Forgive my ignorance, but I'm going to have to ask you why?

 

What do I need to believe in that's not physical in order for me to believe that I can trust my senses (to an extent)?

 

It takes a metaphysical leap of faith to rationalise the relationship between the self and experience.

[purdyamos]

It's a question of left v right brain thinking.*

 

Left: linear, logical, specific, verbal, measurable, analytical, literal thinking

 

Right: abstract, general, spatial, intuitive, 'whole'istic, creative, sensual, lateral thinking

 

One of the problems with right brain functions is that by definition they are not easily transmissible in wordy language, which is why descriptions and discussions of the arts, spiritual matters, etc, are often criticised as sounding pseudish or pretentious. They don't suit wordy analysis but have to be grasped and directly experienced to be understood properly.

 

It isn't a case of either/or, both modes are essential and the optimum ideal is for each mode to inform and complement the other. Some live only within one type of thinking and distain the other, which is a narrow, unhealthy and impoverished way to live whichever is the domineering mode.

 

Another way of looking at them is in terms of traditionally masculine or feminine traits. It is interesting that the predominant hyper-rationalist stance that the West has taken pride in still frequently distains and devalues the feminine traits just as the church did, although that has been changing in the last half century. The most effective approach could be said to be androgynous.

 

In terms of religious or philosophical arenas, the left side could be termed the 'fundamentalist' mode and the right side the 'mystical' mode. The wisest course is to find the co-operative balance between the two styles. Alan Watts summed up the difference between the two sides as being like Prickles and Goo. Being rigidly committed to one mode of thinking and against the other is not ultimately helpful. For best results aim for Prickly Goo.

 

 

 

* I don't know if they are always literally located in the left or right hemispheres, but it's become a term of general use to compare the two kinds of functions.