I seek to pose the fundamental question of Magick, which I believe may I may fairly call the fundamental question of religion or the grand unifying theory of physics
( Read more... )
- "Why" questions presuppose intentionality. So your answer to that question will depend on your answer to the more fundamental question "Who exists?" (not to mention, obviously, "What exists?")
- "objects that persist independent of experience" begs the question... how do you know they exist, if not by experiences of them?
To answer your question about e-prime, just google it, you will find all you need online.
> "Why" questions presuppose intentionality. So your answer to that question > will depend on your answer to the more fundamental question "Who exists?" > (not to mention, obviously, "What exists?")
I have difficulty forming this question correctly and wonder if it even can be formulated correctly. Perhaps substitutiong "how" for "why" would have gotten my meaning across better: "How does anything exist?", "How anything" or perhaps even more succinctly "WTF?"
But I complete agree, these questions all imply a do-er or a mechanism or more generally an effector. As a metaphysical explanation, I would need to then explain in what manner the effector exists and slide down an infinite regress.
The problems with these formulations really circle around the fundamental problem of how does something arise from nothing. I believe I can give a reasonable account of how something from nothing can make sense in a certain context... but that is for another post.
> "objects that persist independent of experience" begs the question... how > do you know they exist, if not by experiences of them?
Exactly. I only bring it up because I expect the common conception of "reality" roots itself in the notion of an objective existence that is independent of experience. I evoke the notion simply to banish it more completely.
> To answer your question about e-prime, just google it, you will find all > you need online.
*nods* I have been looking into it and attempting to stick to e-prime rules in my posts and comments. I don't think that e-prime makes any of the problems I am pondering go away, but it may help me communicate my ideas and avoid confusion.
The "Wheelbarrel test" strikes me as less useful however. It does nct appear to me that the distinction between verbs, nouns and adjectives genuinely denotes separate types of ideas.
BTW, thank you for your continued comments. I'm glad for your critical comments.
The wheelbarrel test only serves to help us classify a particular noun as a nominalization, versus a noun which refers to an object perceivable by the 5 bodily senses. Ala "Love" versus "oranges". You can put an orange in a wheelbarrel, but you can't put Love in one.
The importance of this relates to how we experience nominalizations versus the verbs from which they derive. Many people seem to have a slightly different experience of "loving" than they do "Love". But these differences often amount to just enough to cause all sorts of unecessary and unproductive disagreements between people, whereas when you de-nominalize a word at issue in the discussion, those disagreements often entirely unravel.
- "Why" questions presuppose intentionality. So your answer to that question will depend on your answer to the more fundamental question "Who exists?" (not to mention, obviously, "What exists?")
- "objects that persist independent of experience" begs the question... how do you know they exist, if not by experiences of them?
To answer your question about e-prime, just google it, you will find all you need online.
Reply
> will depend on your answer to the more fundamental question "Who exists?"
> (not to mention, obviously, "What exists?")
I have difficulty forming this question correctly and wonder if it even can be formulated correctly. Perhaps substitutiong "how" for "why" would have gotten my meaning across better: "How does anything exist?", "How anything" or perhaps even more succinctly "WTF?"
But I complete agree, these questions all imply a do-er or a mechanism or more generally an effector. As a metaphysical explanation, I would need to then explain in what manner the effector exists and slide down an infinite regress.
The problems with these formulations really circle around the fundamental problem of how does something arise from nothing. I believe I can give a reasonable account of how something from nothing can make sense in a certain context... but that is for another post.
Reply
> do you know they exist, if not by experiences of them?
Exactly. I only bring it up because I expect the common conception of "reality" roots itself in the notion of an objective existence that is independent of experience. I evoke the notion simply to banish it more completely.
Reply
> you need online.
*nods* I have been looking into it and attempting to stick to e-prime rules in my posts and comments. I don't think that e-prime makes any of the problems I am pondering go away, but it may help me communicate my ideas and avoid confusion.
The "Wheelbarrel test" strikes me as less useful however. It does nct appear to me that the distinction between verbs, nouns and adjectives genuinely denotes separate types of ideas.
BTW, thank you for your continued comments. I'm glad for your critical comments.
Reply
The importance of this relates to how we experience nominalizations versus the verbs from which they derive. Many people seem to have a slightly different experience of "loving" than they do "Love". But these differences often amount to just enough to cause all sorts of unecessary and unproductive disagreements between people, whereas when you de-nominalize a word at issue in the discussion, those disagreements often entirely unravel.
YMMV.
Reply
Leave a comment