by this , of this

Phenomenology, or phenomenalism, or the idea that the mind is the center of all things knowable, is analogous to saying that the only thing that …

by this body of this body

——

Modernity agrees with this reduction formulation. Yes. I am not saying that modernity is that wrong. I am saying that modernity allows for particular organizations of meaning. Because I too am involved in this organization of meaning, it is ridiculous to argue any sort of either/or condition which falls outside of the modern formulation.

For example. The mind and body must be correlated in some manner. To argue that the mind and body must not be formulated in some sort of relation makes no sense. It simply has no sense. But just because there is this necessary correlation, does not mean that the correlation itself is essential, removed from all other possibility.

In the formulation that you’re giving me here, you’re basically assuming That a proper conceptualization Of relation must agree that mind is such and such a definition, and body is such and such a definition.

My rebuttal would go to how much definition must I need to give before we find out what “body” is, and “mind” is to them show that we can then take this correlation to see that mind and body must relate in such in such a way?

It is as I have said over and over again. There is no argument that that can get a particular way of thinking over to another way of thinking. And this is because there is some thing that is informing that first particular way of thinking that is not being addressed by the other way of thinking.

What I’m trying to show you is that what you’re telling me is not sufficient to up and or change the facts by which I come upon the truth of reality.

And likewise you with what I’m saying.

It really is, ironically, the name of this blog, “prior convictions“.

I don’t believe that you’re not really trying to understand what I’m saying. And I hope you don’t think I’m just being stubborn. Indeed, it appears to me as if you are just being dense and obstinate, but I don’t really believe that by the sheer fact of some 15 years of having the same discussions with numerous people. It is not just that people are being stubborn or that I’m being obstinate or just being a devils advocate for the sake of being an asshole. Lol

But I would ask you this basic question:

What would you have me say so you could understand what I’m trying to tell you?

And, I’m just gonna take a guess; I would have to be able to convince you.

And my answer again would be, how do I go about doing that? You and die in our own conversations have been going back-and-forth for a long time. I think it’s a couple years maybe but maybe it’s only a year.

I have had many of the same kinds of conversations. And then each of them I spend much concerted effort in trying to describe or explain the situation in terms that the other person can understand. It seems to me that in all of those instances I get to a point, actually we get to a point where it seems like we are coming together, it appears that we’re moving along lines where we are going to understand each other. And then all of a sudden it falls apart

All of a sudden we bounce back like two rubber balls hitting each other, or two magnets being repulsed. Not some of the times, but every time I get into a Discussion with a particular kind of reasoning. Because I’m getting in a discussion with a particular kind of reasoning; sure, I’m having an interaction with individual people, and I try to interact and be genuine with each of those individual people. But what I come upon inevitably is a particular kind of reasoning. A particular method which assumes certain things that I am unable to challenge. I am unable to challenge them because whenever we approach the basis of that method it’s as if all the sudden the record skips.

And the really interesting thing about it is if I go back and try to indicate that point at which the argument shifted, when the record skipped, so to speak, when the individual I’m talking to suddenly jumps track it starts to move on a different line, I am unable to get that person to see how they have shifted gears, I am unable to get that person to see where the reasoning was moving along track a and then suddenly shifted to move along a different track.

And if you’re really considering what I’m writing here..: I cannot put it off to that someone is stupid, or that they are blind. I have to put it off to something or some manner of viewing the situation is in forming their ability to reason. Because the situation, it necessarily means that there is not one unitive category of “reason“ that we are both involved with. And in actuality I referred to this as the two routes. It has nothing to do with “communication“. It has everything to do with a underlying assumption that is not being revealed in the interaction. And one of the obstacles, I feel, is that the party that I’m talking to understands “reason“ and a bunch other names for categories, as common between us, when obviously they are not.

Again, it is if I’m talking about the actuality of snow, to someone who has never experienced snow.

It literally is as if the person who has never experienced snow assumes that because I can talk about snow with them that they must be there for able to describe to me the aspects of the actuality of snow. And as I continually correct them in their descriptions of snow, they counter that there is no such actuality of snow. In fact the basis of their argument is that they have never experienced snow. So for me to continually describe to them the actual substance that is snow achieves nothing for them, because their position is that there is no such actuality of snow because they have never experienced it in actuality, and only in the discourse that we are presently having.

The person who has never experienced the actuality of snow is there by taking me talking about the actuality of snow as if I am saying something that is wrong with them that they are missing something, that something is inherently flawed in there being. But, again in actuality, I merely describing the situation up there never having experienced snow, and not judging them for their lack of actual experience .

One thought on “by this , of this

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s