why series

[bricklayer]

Why series questions seem to beg a common context.

A regresive series of "why" questions will continue until the answer is within the inquisiter's conceptual context.

As one who does not believe in material necessity or independent trials,
I do not share a common context with many.

How I was left to believe what I am left to believe may be exhaustive,
but why I am left to believe what I'm left to believe seems to be presuppositional.

This seems to beg a necessary presuppositional context.

 

[jacks]

Does it also make a certain presuppositional interpretation necessary. That is could we find a common "why" if our interpretation of the define revelation is different?

 

[bricklayer]

Presupposition appears to be necessary.
One cannot deny presuppositional reasoning without empolying presuppositional reasoning.

Interpretations are varied and contextual, because they are contingent.
The neceaasry preuppositions are efficient, uncaused-causes.

For a proper understanding of any interpretation,
we must remember that none of us are objective.
We are contingent.
We are left to believe what we are left to believe, emote what we emote,
and are what we are contingently.
We are not objective, and we are certinly not necessary.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think that if there are any proper presuppositions, from the philosophical perspective, they might be innate mechanisms of perception or thought (like depth perception, or an innate tendency towards viewing things in terms of causality), which might be seen to a degree to be the scientific confirmation of Kant's categories of the sensibility and understanding. We are not responsible for them, but are born with them, and can do little about it.

Then, I think that the foundations of our beliefs come not from more presuppositions, but (in the normal human) experience of the preceptual world, where "seeing is believing". Perceptual knowledge comes first. We also apparently have an language aquisition device, and soon learn the likes of the name "Mummy" and "Daddy", and from there develop our first propositional knowledge (like, "Daddy is in the kitchen.")

I believe these are at the foundation of our knowledge about the world, and we will return to them if we want to get back to basics, or to find some commonality between us.

 

[bricklayer]

That is a very interesting, allbeit anthropocentric, starting point, growing smaller.

For me, the foundation is metaphysical.
Experiencially, chronologically the order is as you say.
Ontologically, however, I cannot affirm my sensibilities as being necessarily accurate.

Personally, I must reduce a proposition to the self-evident to affirm it.
I reguard such as: existence, identity, non-contradiction, exclusion, causality, contingency, necessity, the corespondence of truth, and the like, to be the self-evident.

In other words,
although I saw and heard before I reasoned,
I have come to trust reason more than what I see and hear.

As to Kant, he affirmed material necessity and independant trials.
I could not be further from the man.

 

[tucker58]

That is a very interesting, allbeit anthropocentric, starting point, growing smaller.

For me, the foundation is metaphysical.
Experiencially, chronologically the order is as you say.
Ontologically, however, I cannot affirm my sensibilities as being necessarily accurate.

Personally, I must reduce a proposition to the self-evident to affirm it.
I reguard such as: existence, identity, non-contradiction, exclusion, causality, contingency, necessity, the corespondence of truth, and the like, to be the self-evident.

In other words,
although I saw and heard before I reasoned,
I have come to trust reason more than what I see and hear.

As to Kant, he affirmed material necessity and independant trials.
I could not be further from the man.

Bricklayer, my foundation is metaphysical also, so may I ask you this, "How does your relationship with the "intuitive mind" effect your perception of reality (what you perceive as reality)?"

love,

tuck

 

[quatona]

Presupposition appears to be necessary.

Necessary for what and in regards to which purpose?

One cannot deny presuppositional reasoning without empolying presuppositional reasoning.

Why not?

Interpretations are varied and contextual, because they are contingent.

I´m not questioning that interpretations are varied and contextual but so far I fail to see how contingency is the reason for that.

The neceaasry preuppositions are efficient, uncaused-causes.

I´m confused for two reasons:
1. Initially you said that "presuppositions are necessary", and now talk about "the neceaasry (sic!) preuppositions (sic!)" (emphasis), which seems to imply that there are but certain presuppositions you regard necessary.
Could you clarify?
2. How exactly do you get from "necessary" to "uncaused"?

For a proper understanding of any interpretation,
we must remember that none of us are objective.
We are contingent.

I find the dichotomy "objective vs. contigent" not really convincing.

We are left to believe what we are left to believe, emote what we emote,

and are what we are contingently.

Doesn´t follow.

We are not objective,

What would "I am objective" even mean?

and we are certinly not necessary.

Not necessary for what?

 

[tucker58]

Necessary for what and in regards to which purpose?


Why not?


I´m not questioning that interpretations are varied and contextual but so far I fail to see how contingency is the reason for that.


I´m confused for two reasons:
1. Initially you said that "presuppositions are necessary", and now talk about "the neceaasry (sic!) preuppositions (sic!)" (emphasis), which seems to imply that there are but certain presuppositions you regard necessary.
Could you clarify?
2. How exactly do you get from "necessary" to "uncaused"?


I find the dichotomy "objective vs. contigent" not really convincing.


Doesn´t follow.

What would "I am objective" even mean?

Not necessary for what?

Hi quatona you are not a mystic. The mystic reality is a whole different world. A mystic is always out there exploring the unknown and exploring it as a personal experience.

Can a person actually share with others what they have learned from their mystic experience as explorers? Quatona, what your post and questions have created, is an interesting challenge to the mystic dilemma.

Bricklayer, this person has just got interesting

love,

tuck

 

[quatona]

Hi quatona you are not a mystic. The mystic reality is a whole different world.

I guess being a mystic is one of those necessary presuppositions the OP has been talking about?

A mystic is always out there exploring the unknown and exploring it as a personal experience.

I´m all for exploring the unknown, and I have a lot of personal experience with not knowing something.

Can a person actually share with others what they have learned from their mystic experience as explorers?

I suspect that your idea of "mystic" precludes intersubjective evidence by its very definition (correct me if I am wrong).

Quatona, what your post and questions have created, is an interesting challenge to the mystic dilemma.

Yes, we´ve been there before: any time your exceptional claims can - by the unbiased bystander - not be distinguished from illusions or even delusions you run into serious problems concerning intersubjective acceptance.
...but we are either digressing, or we have just refuted the idea of the OP: there´s nothing necessary about making mystic presuppositions.

 

[bricklayer]

When I refer to necessary, I mean it in an efficient sense,
thus as an uncaused-cause.

I am left to believe, for reasons that would require another thread,
that the time-space-matter continuum is a closed system.
This begs an efficient cause.

My relationship with the "intuitive mind" is as one of its constructs.

I am left to believe that we make choices, but none of them by chance.

The difference between an author and a character is incalcuable, but it is finite. The author is finite, and the character is finite, so the difference between them is finite.
The difference between Creator and creature is infinite.
It seems to me to be infinitely more absurd to think that creatures could write the story of creation than characters could write a book.

To know a thing objectively is to know a thing as it is.
To know a thing necessarily is to know a thing apart from its being.
To know a thing contingently is to know a thing apart from a complete context, therefore "through a glass dimly".

I am left to believe that no one occupies an objective postion.

I actually exist, but I have the potential to not exist.
I do not exist necessarily.
I am not necessary.

(have to go make a buck, talk later)

 

[tucker58]

I guess being a mystic is one of those necessary presuppositions the OP has been talking about?


I´m all for exploring the unknown, and I have a lot of personal experience with not knowing something.



I suspect that your idea of "mystic" precludes intersubjective evidence by its very definition (correct me if I am wrong).

Yes, we´ve been there before: any time your exceptional claims can - by the unbiased bystander - not be distinguished from illusions or even delusions you run into serious problems concerning intersubjective acceptance.
...but we are either digressing, or we have just refuted the idea of the OP: there´s nothing necessary about making mystic presuppositions.

Quatona, what you do not understand is that you are necessary. Bricklayer and I are not necessary. You are contained in a "set pattern" reality, we are not contained in a "set pattern" reality. Bricklayer and I each in our own way are thinking and experiencing out side of the box. To you the box is the only reality and you and other box dwellers fight to maintain the walls of the box. Folks like Bricklayer and I are constantly exploring expanding the walls of the box. But what we do needs reality reference and you quatone and others like are that reality reference, this is what makes you necessary .

love,

tuck

 

[quatona]

Quatona, what you do not understand is that you are necessary. Bricklayer and I are not necessary. You are contained in a "set pattern" reality, we are not contained in a "set pattern" reality. Bricklayer and I each in our own way are thinking and experiencing out side of the box. To you the box is the only reality and you and other box dwellers fight to maintain the walls of the box. Folks like Bricklayer and I are constantly exploring expanding the walls of the box. But what we do needs reality reference and you quatone and others like are that reality reference, this is what makes you necessary .

love,

tuck

You know too little about me for talking so much about me.
But whatever helps you pat your own back is fine with me.

 

[tucker58]

You know too little about me for talking so much about me.
But whatever helps you pat your own back is fine with me.

Cool!

love,

tuck