Finding my True Will
-
@Faus said
"@Berashith
That is something that actually sounds like logic.(Just to remember something Simon already said somewhere, there is no such thing as “explanatory power”, only predictive power)"
Well... first of all... a "given" is just a "given" and is only relevant to those who agree with it.
But also, ...even if there is no such thing as "explanatory power," then it's still true that experiences don't have it.
-
@Bereshith said
"Well... first of all... a "given" is just a "given" and is only relevant to those who agree with it."
So if I fall down a six metres high wall without braking the landing will only affect me adversely if I agree with that?
You are aware that you are indirectly claiming that there are no objective things, just subjective perspectives, yes?
-
@Simon Iff said
"
So if I fall down a six metres high wall without braking the landing will only affect me adversely if I agree with that?"Well, if you are on morphine there is a good chance you will not understand it as adverse. But there is the great chance that you will change your mind after the effect goes away.
-
@Bereshith said
"Also... I haven't worked through it yet, but.... it seems at some point, one would have to say that knowledge of one's True Will necessarily makes use of projected meaning.
"Good point. Meaning is distinctly a relationship between you and an experience, as is knowledge in general.
The strange effect in this case can be the fact that the TW is (as far as I know) the primal source of meanings that we attribute to stuff around us. -
@Simon Iff said
"
@Bereshith said
"Well... first of all... a "given" is just a "given" and is only relevant to those who agree with it."So if I fall down a six metres high wall without braking the landing will only affect me adversely if I agree with that?
You are aware that you are indirectly claiming that there are no objective things, just subjective perspectives, yes?"
I'm speaking within the context of following the logic of a syllogism. The givens are only meaningful for those who agree with them. I'm not attempting to speak to the objectivity of all givens ever given.
-
The meaning is its use.. Language doesnt function to a preset pattern, thinking has to to take place within the activity rather than on some intellectual platform suspended outside of life and beyond lived activity.
This where the verificationist types have to be cautious when they condemn religious language as meaningless, have they assumed too quickly what religious language is and does, and how it actually functions in the lives within those activities? -
@Bereshith said
"Food for thought"
Junk food, maybe.
"Meditation yields experiences, which have no explanatory power."
Right. The experience, all by itself, can't tell you what it was.
It's reasoning about the experience, after the fact, that stands a chance of telling you what it was.
If you look at the OP of the "Experience Has No Explanatory Power" thread, you'll see I give an example of Crowley appealing to this same principle, pointing out that the "experiences" of Mohammed and Christ, all by themselves, couldn't have told them that they "really" experienced Gabriel of Jehovah.
-
No what I meant by predictive value was, that anything, be it a model or idea about something else, irrelevant if the something else is objective, subjective, astral, religious, scientific in the hard sense, etc. - if it wants to be of value - must be able to make a prediction about its topic on the plane it is on or it is worthless drivel.
Examples:
A loves me. -> Testable prediction: A will behave really nice towards me, at least given time.
B's aura looks weak in the chest department. -> Testable prediction: B might have an illness or psychosomatic problem centered on their chest area, or might soon develop one.
If I let object C (say, a vase) go on a high cliff on earth it will most likely shatter and, for sure, arrive on the foot of the cliff soon afterwards. -> Testable prediction: C will perhaps shatter and surely fall if I let go under mentioned circumstances.
My self D is of a kind that I react really angry when someone does something particularly stupid. -> Testable prediction: I will get angry if someone does something I consider stupid.
These sentences above therefore have predictive value on their level, and can be veri- or falsified.
Other example:
Aliens from Sirius, that have secretly taken over earth, are watching me on this internet forum. -> Testable prediction: None. Untestable as such - useless drivel.
All clear Bereshit & co.? This is what I meant - the predictive value of any idea - or not - is relevant even if you do not agree. And that is very useful when differentiating chaff from wheat in many endeavours - including those which Los thinks don't exist.
Clearer what I meant?
-
@Simon Iff said
"
@Los said
"
@Bereshith said
"Food for thought"Junk food, maybe."
Los ... has someone explained the function of manners to you at any point in your life?
"Indeed.. And it illustrates my point, that its the behaviour of the individual that puts the experience.. that actual activity, into context.
Reasoning after only routinises the experience into an everyday language.
Compartmentalising the activity and removing it from its context after the fact as Los does wont tell you anything.
For instance he's either being rude, or he has no idea that he's being rude. -
@Los said
"Right. The experience, all by itself, can't tell you what it was.
It's reasoning about the experience, after the fact, that stands a chance of telling you what it was.
"Yes, precisely, and the above argument demonstrates that the same is true for both kinds of experiences.
Therefore, since the discernment process is always expected to require* "reasoning about the experience, after the fact," then either both types of experiences may legitimately be used in gaining knowledge of one's True Will, or neither type of experience may legitimately be used.
*No one here argues against this. That's one of your strawmen, along with "goblins."
-
@Bereshith said
"Yes, precisely, and the above argument demonstrates that the same is true for both kinds of experiences. "
It doesn't demonstrate anything of the kind. You're just baldly asserting that the "experience" of ritual can enable a person to discover the True Will.
Someone could just as easily argue that taking out the garbage is an experience that has no explanatory power. Discovering the True Will requires experiences, which have no explanatory power. Discovering the True Will requires taking out the garbage, which has no explanatory power.
It's nonsense. You can say it, but that doesn't make it correct.
-
@Los said
"
@Bereshith said
"Yes, precisely, and the above argument demonstrates that the same is true for both kinds of experiences. "It doesn't demonstrate anything of the kind. You're just baldly asserting that the "experience" of ritual can enable a person to discover the True Will.
Someone could just as easily argue that taking out the garbage is an experience that has no explanatory power. Discovering the True Will requires experiences, which have no explanatory power. Discovering the True Will requires taking out the garbage, which has no explanatory power.
It's nonsense. You can say it, but that doesn't make it correct."
You are currently demonstrating an inability to follow logic.
Please review the argument.
Please state the specific Given, Premise, or Conclusion you would like to dispute.
I believe you missed a step here:
@Bereshith said
"Given: Knowledge is appropriately pursued through the means required to gain it.
Premise: Knowledge is appropriately pursued through the means required to gain it.
Premise: Gaining knowledge of one's True Will requires experiences, which have no explanatory power.
Conclusion: Gaining knowledge of one's True Will is appropriately pursued through the means of experiences, which have no explanatory power.
Premise: Gaining knowledge of one's True Will is appropriately pursued through the means of experiences, which have no explanatory power.
Premise: Meditation and ritual both yield experiences, which have no explanatory power.
Conclusion: Gaining knowledge of one's True Will is appropriately pursued through the experiences yielded by both meditation and ritual even though these experiences have no explanatory power." -
@Bereshith said
"You are currently demonstrating an inability to follow logic."
Sigh.
The problem occurs here:
" Premise: Gaining knowledge of one's True Will is appropriately pursued through the means of experiences, which have no explanatory power.
Premise: Meditation and ritual both yield experiences, which have no explanatory power.
"You correctly begin from the premise that discovering the True Will requires experience. You also tag on to that premise the point that I taught you, that experience, all by itself, has no explanatory power.
You then note that mediation and ritual both yield experiences (which, like all experiences of any kind, have no explanatory power).
But you give no reason for thinking that these particular experiences -- the ones yielded by mediation and ritual -- have anything to do with discovering the True Will.
Discovering the True Will indeed involves experience, but it involves a specific kind of experience -- not the experience yielded by yodeling or the experience yielded by watching a Breaking Bad marathon or the experience yielded by whatever. It involves the experience of the True Self, as distinguishable from one's thoughts about the Self.
You need to give a reason to think that the experiences of meditation or ritual have anything to do with discovering the True Will.
-
"You need to give a reason to think that the experiences of meditation or ritual have anything to do with discovering the True Will."
The experience of the ritual means something to somebody, its how the person lives that shapes the experience, the activity reveals itself in the way the person behaves and points only in the application that a living being makes of it.
Understanding that involves empathy, its not actually your objective property like the outward forms of the ritual may be.. its duration, what funny hats they were wearing etc.
Reason by itself has no explanatory power. -
@Los said
"But you give no reason for thinking that these particular experiences -- the ones yielded by mediation and ritual -- have anything to do with discovering the True Will."
You argue for what you believe should be present in the logic instead of disputing any presented Given, Premise, or Conclusion.
As such, you have not yet correctly disputed the logic as presented.
This is what I actually said:
"Given: Gaining knowledge of one's True Will requires experiences.
Premise: Gaining knowledge of one's True Will requires experiences.
Premise: Experiences have no explanatory power.
Conclusion: Gaining knowledge of one's True Will requires experiences, which have no explanatory power.
Given: Knowledge is appropriately pursued through the means required to gain it.
Premise: Knowledge is appropriately pursued through the means required to gain it.
Premise: Gaining knowledge of one's True Will requires experiences, which have no explanatory power.
Conclusion: Gaining knowledge of one's True Will is appropriately pursued through the means of experiences, which have no explanatory power."Allow me to clarify.
According to logic that you have not yet correctly disputed, all of the experiences of one's life, including taking out the garbage, appropriately go into the process of gaining knowledge of one's True Will.
I have argued specifically for consideration of experiences yielded by both meditation and ritual in this process of discernment because of your attempt to contrast the two and to disqualify those experiences yielded by ritual.
