On Jul 20, 6:24Â am, Publius
nospam.comcast.net> wrote:>>> As such it
>>> is a public enterprise. A term with no public markers has no public
>>> meaning, and thus cannot be used for communication.
>> Public can be broken down into subsections, such as sign language.
>> Of course, Â someone who has no concept of sign language would think he
>> is observing physical exercise.
>
> All the "subsections" have public markers. If you expect to communicate
> with others, you will need a common language whose terms have public
> markers, the relevant "public" being the target speech community. (You
> are very adept at evading the point and responding with something
> lacking relevance).
Such is the nature of public markers. I am making a point, not evading
one.
>
>>> Of course, you may
>>> coin a term and assign any private meaning to it you wish. But you
>>> will not be able to communicate the concept denoted to anyone else,
>>> and anyone hearing you use it will simply assign any meaning they
>>> wish to it, as you did.
>
>> Which is why I use 'I' when most use 'we' or 'they'.
>> 'They' are constantly searching for 'I' until they exhaust the search,
>> hence the directive "know thyself" was introduced. To achieve your
>> 'I'dentity involves a process of elimination.
>
> Another example. You respond to a point concerning communication with a
> comment about "achieving 'I'dentity." Care to address the argument made?
I dont see argument.
>
>>> Of course, you may claim that you know what others mean such terms as
>>> "spiritual," via some sort of ESP, divine insight, "empathy," or
>>> other magical cognitive tool.
>
>> When you said "you may claim", you are saying, "I give you
>> permission', by the rules of "English as it should be spoke", not the
>> US bespoke version.
>> It is not I that speak for others. Dont even use the 'royal we'.
>
> *Sigh*. The point at issue is what is required for one person to speak
> effectively to others. You respond with something about not speaking for
> others. Care to try again? Something on point this time?
Your point or mine?
>
>> We are each composed of 'magical cognitive tools'.
>
> Well, that probably explains your irrelevant comments. You consider
> discussion of the requirements for communication irrelevant because it
> all happens by magic anyway.
Very creative interpretation of what I actually said.
>
>>> But when you sit down with one of your fellow
>>> mystics and carefully compare notes (using your common language),
>>> you'll discover that you don't.
>
>> When did you discover that,or do I sense speculation?
>>> No doubt. It is bound to be misunderstood because it is meaningless
>>> (it has whatever meaning the hearer opts to assign to it).
>
>> If it said "Fred is the way" it would be much clearer.
>> To say "I" to people who only relate to 'we' is equivalent to the sign
>> language example
>
> No. "Fred is the way" would be just as vapid.
Only if you were Fred.
>
>>> The question
>>> involved the means for evaluating claims of "spirituality." It
>>> doesn't matter whether Tom declares himself to be spiritual, or
>>> declares that Dick and Harry are spiritual. How do we evaluate the
>>> claim in either case?
>
>> How would you (or did you _really_ mean 'we')..evaluate it?
>
> I don't evaluate it, because there are no applicable public truth
> conditions for that term. Hence its meaning (if it can be said to have
> one) will vary freely for each person who uses it. I could try to guess
> what it might mean to the person using it at the moment, but I'd
> probably be wrong, and would not be greatly interested in the answer
> anyway (I might be were I a psychiatrist trying to unravel one of my
> patient's delusions). But usually I'd just ignore it. In a philosophy
> forum one might fairly expect attempts to give the term some substantive
> meaning. Not in this case, apparen
>
>>> Useful analogy. Now you just have to point out the switch (just as
>>> you would for a Yanomamo asking how to see what is on television). In
>>> fact, you have removed the switch, namely, the public markers
>>> normally used to "turn on the television" and allow your pictures to
>>> be seen by others. So naturally the Yanomamo will fill in the missing
>>> images with those from his own imagination, and you are back in your
>>> tower of babble.
>> Like the "kingdom of god" analogy, the switch is always 'at hand'.
>> It means nothing unless you find it yourself. One way to identify true
>> masters, is to recognise they will never give you a direct answer,
>> knowing that to push it without developing the self discipline to find
>> it in the first place, is extremely damaging."Boy soldiers" just came
>> to mind.
>
> No, BF. You have removed the switch (the public truth conditions which
> could give the term a communicable meaning). There is nothing for me to
> "find." You are simply inviting me to invest the term with some private
> meaning of my choice. I could certainly do that, but wouldn't waste my
> time. Terms with private meanings are useless.
>
>>> For
>>> communication to occur, there must be consensus on the meanings of
>>> terms. If everyone supplies "their own answers," you have a tower of
>>> babble.
>> Not when those who have discovered the 'answers within' meet.
>> I know , from the outside, it would just appear to be as you said.
>
> There are (and have always been) thousands of cults, each characterized
> by a shared and proprietary catechism, vocabulary, and contellation of
> idols. They have rarely, if ever, produced any "answers" with any
> visible consequences, apart from the rituals performed by their members,
> which are sometimes entertaining, sometimes merely bizarre (and
> sometimes fatal).
You have described "group consciousness", applicable to political
parties, nations etc etc.
hence my constant references to 'group' language.
>
>> My understanding is one has empathy 'with', not 'for'
>> The best illustration was in the movie "The Doctor" with William Hurd.
>> The shift in consciousnes came about when the brilliant cardiac
>> surgeon suffered a heart attack, ans saw what it was like from both
>> sides.
>
> So that qualifies as a "shift in consciousness"?
Yes.
> Does everyone who
> tastes chocolate for the first time also undergo a shift in
> consciousness? Or smells ammonia? Everyone stung by a bee the first
> time? Isn't that a bit grandiose?
No. Thats an accumulation of sensual experiences. Ever tried to be
empathetic with a chocolate bar?
Many do :-)
>
>
>
>
>
>>> Otherwise you
>>> remain within your private world, contemplating the artifacts of your
>>> own imagination. Those can be very entertaining, like dreams, but
>>> they do not represent knowledge or insights into the nature or
>>> workings of "the world."
>
>> It is only from the "uncommon' can the full spectrum of common be
>> recognised.
>
>> I realized this after much frustration, believing if I could
>> understand this, anyone could, never having read any philosophy
>> whatever.
>
>> When I was resigned to this, a 'master' suggested I read Socrates Last
>> Days by Plato, and low and behold, Soc. had the same problem with
>> Plato.(or at least it appeared to be a problem to me at the time I was
>> reading it)
>
>> There is a 'world' of difference between information and confirmation,
>> as there is between sympathy and empathy (in the spiritual sense).
>
> Again, none of your words there address the point --- the absence of any
> insights into the nature or workings of "the world."
I am only expressing insights. They obviously dont resonate with
yours.
Interesting word 'in'sight.
> Instead you
> describe a path you have followed that has taken you nowhere (as far as
> I can see), except around in circles within your own head.
As opposed to 'group' head.? Cults, associations, societies ?
The path is an inner on, after all.
BOfL
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
