2010.07.17 01:00 - Husserl's Strip Club

    Table of contents
    No headers

     The Guardian for this meeting was Calvino Rabeni. The comments are by Calvino Rabeni.

    Hokon Cazalet: hi =)
    Calvino Rabeni: Hello Hokon
    Calvino Rabeni: What's keeping you occupied lately?
    Hokon Cazalet: reading husserl
    Calvino Rabeni: ooh
    Hokon Cazalet: early 20th century philosopher
    Hokon Cazalet: almost done with a book of his =)
    Calvino Rabeni: Which one, and how are you liking it?
    Hokon Cazalet: i like it alot =), "crisis of the ruopean sciences and transcendental phenomenology"
    Calvino Rabeni: What was the crisis, and was the transcendental phenomenology also in crisis, or was it a solution to the science crisis?
    Hokon Cazalet: a solution
    Hokon Cazalet: the crisis seems to be with psychology as a "retarded science" (slow to grow, always behind the other sciences); and natural science becoming so specializaed that it has a grounding that it needs, that is missing
    Hokon Cazalet: well not specialized

    Hokon Cazalet: but not paying attention to its grounding in our lived-experiences
    Hokon Cazalet: all begining with the cartesian split between objective (geometric bodies) and subjective (spirit), subjective getting the short end
    Calvino Rabeni: Husserl was proposing that would be a good way to ground the sciences - how did he argue that it would be useful to do that
    Hokon Cazalet: phenomenology explores where natural science does ground itself, in our lived-experiences of the world (yet natural science has never explored this realm as it is for itself)
    Hokon Cazalet: so through phenomenology, we can explain the validity of the objective sciences, so he thought
    Calvino Rabeni: I have a couple stereotypes about that claim - one is that he was opposed to naturalism in phenomenology, and the second was that he was kind of fundamentalist in implying that subjective is ALL that is needed
    Hokon Cazalet: well in the former, naturalized phenomenology is a contradiction in terms, you then have objective psychology (what we have now); in the latter, thats an issue i got also
    Hokon Cazalet: im concerned that grounding it all in the subjective, relativism could result or other absurdities
    Hokon Cazalet: well ok not relativism
    Hokon Cazalet doesnt know how to say it atm
    Calvino Rabeni: :) we can just assume the idea is there in spite of it not being satisfactorily expressed :)
    Hokon Cazalet: hehe
    Hokon Cazalet: i guess that i feel he is still into cartesian dualism by suppossing objective vs. subjective still
    Hokon Cazalet: which i think intentionality offers a way out of that dualism
    Calvino Rabeni: It seems that neurophilosophy is really hoping to be able to assimilate some insights from phenomenology, but that the classical definitions of pheno are resisting that attempt
    Hokon Cazalet: well phenomenology is concerned with the essential structures of experience, not the contingent facts about how our psyche is made
    Hokon Cazalet: the universal epoch?? is key to phenomenology
    Calvino Rabeni: Actually, now that you mentioned it, I guess I think intentionality is kind of a weak foundation for phenomenology
    Hokon Cazalet: to me intentionality seems to point me towards epistemological issues
    Calvino Rabeni: Now I'm thinking about epoche
    Hokon Cazalet: and i do wonder if issues of intentionality can be taken up by psychology
    Hokon Cazalet: that most of phenomenology can be absorbed by psychology
    Hokon Cazalet: ok =)
    Calvino Rabeni: My feeling about it is - intentionality isn't a well-defined thing to begin with, and that psychology or neurophilosophy has a better chance to give it meaning than a-priori philosophical analysis
    Hokon Cazalet: in some ways, it almost seems like phenomenology is meant to be a metaphysics of the subjective, i guess thats why i have doubts about phenomenology superceeding psychology
    Hokon Cazalet: well i think intentionality can be analyzed a priori, but theres no need for the whole appartus of phenomenology
    Hokon Cazalet: apparatus
    Hokon Cazalet: just like we dont need platonism to do geometry
    Hokon Cazalet: analogously
    Calvino Rabeni: It is certainly taken that way - maybe by purists who assume it can have a well-defined axiom-style basis
    Hokon Cazalet: well some i know would abhor axiom style setups
    Calvino Rabeni: but there could be a version of empirical subjectivity that doesn't come with that metaphysical package
    Hokon Cazalet: as thats reminicisnt of geometry and objectivist thought
    Hokon Cazalet: id agree
    Hokon Cazalet: i think all we need is a reform of psychology
    Calvino Rabeni: Perhaps it would be something like experimental philosophy
    Hokon Cazalet: and relgate intentional analysis to its specific domain like with geometry
    Calvino Rabeni: Well, Pema welcome
    Hokon Cazalet: hi =)
    Pema Pera: hi there!
    Calvino Rabeni: we were just deconstructing Husserlian phenomenology :)
    Pema Pera: I just saw the email by Scathach
    Hokon Cazalet: i think itll eventually no longer be part of philosophy
    Hokon Cazalet: hehe yup
    Pema Pera: asking for someone to pick up the chat log
    Pema Pera: but I guess you've already done so?
    Calvino Rabeni: I picked it up
    Pema Pera: thanks!

    Pema Pera: I can't stay long -- was about to go out
    Hokon Cazalet: one thing i know, husserl was into transcendental idealism (which i think has huge problems, kantianism has major contradictions in it, either way, kant's views have huge metaphysical implications as well as epistemological); bye perma =)
    Pema Pera: I'd love to hear more about phenomenology though :)
    Hokon Cazalet: =)
    Calvino Rabeni: I agree with that Hokon
    Hokon Cazalet: im next gonna read heidegger, see if his form of phenomenology works
    Hokon Cazalet: =)
    Hokon Cazalet: actually its good to discuss this, this is helping me work out the concerns ive had while reading this book =)
    Hokon Cazalet: Yaaaaayyyyyyyy!
    Hokon Cazalet: ty
    Calvino Rabeni: There appear to be phenomenologists of all stripes and persuasions
    Hokon Cazalet: yup
    Hokon Cazalet: thats another problem in itself
    Calvino Rabeni: problem?
    Pema Pera: I think reading Husserl as a transcendent idealist is only one option -- I don't think Husserl would have been happy with that :-)
    Calvino Rabeni: If not that, then what do you see him as, Pema?
    Hokon Cazalet: he did admit later on he was a fan of transcendental idealism, but yeah that might be a strawman or ad hominem of his phenomenology perma
    Pema Pera: I see him as Husserl, not as an xxx-ist
    Hokon Cazalet: if phenomenology is to be a science, geometry began as one geometry, not many geometries
    Hokon Cazalet: well i try to read husserl on his own comments, eh i guess your right perma =)
    Pema Pera: He was original in trying to establish philosophy as something you do, rather than speculate about -- in that sense he was trying to follow science
    Calvino Rabeni: He was following a popular trend of his era
    Pema Pera: but he had a few strikes against him: his writing was dry and not very inspiring; and he was a Jew when the Nazis took over
    Hokon Cazalet: hm i guess one way i disagree with husserl already is i cant see epistemology not being the first science; he saw phenomenology as the first science
    Hokon Cazalet: yup =(
    Hokon Cazalet: though i like his writing style lol
    Calvino Rabeni: many people were excited by the idea of applying systematic empiricism to whatever area they were interested in
    Hokon Cazalet: yes
    Hokon Cazalet: logical positivism was big too
    Pema Pera: I'm looking forward to continue this topic -- some other time!
    Hokon Cazalet: =)
    Calvino Rabeni: See you later, Pema, enjoy your day
    Pema Pera: sorry, have to go now -- be well !
    Hokon Cazalet: see ya perma
    Hokon Cazalet: either way, im almost done with this book, after i finish (probably tomorrow or tonight) ill make my judgment upon phenomenology of the husserlian flavor
    Hokon Cazalet: then ill taste heidegger lol
    Calvino Rabeni: Watch out
    Hokon Cazalet: hehe
    Calvino Rabeni: BTW, how about Hegel?
    Hokon Cazalet: his phenomenology is nothing like husserls' they are related by name only
    Calvino Rabeni: so I gather, I wonder why they use the same name
    Hokon Cazalet: dunno
    Calvino Rabeni: The neurophilosophers seem to be appropriating some aspects of phenomenology
    Calvino Rabeni: but shying away from the transcendental idealism
    Hokon Cazalet: i think neuroscience will take up the work of psychology and phenomenology alot
    Bertram Jacobus: hi there ! :-)
    Calvino Rabeni: I believe, they well create a new synthesis, eventually
    Hokon Cazalet: hi =)
    Calvino Rabeni: Hi Bert :)
    Hokon Cazalet: maybe
    Hokon Cazalet: yeah probably, esp when we can record experiences and play them back
    Hokon Cazalet: make the private world no longer private
    Calvino Rabeni: But I assume there will be holdouts to the analytical purism of idealism
    Hokon Cazalet: yeah but itll eventually fade away
    Hokon Cazalet: as the new science of the psychic makes huge leaps while phenomenology sits back in confusion, itll fall away
    Calvino Rabeni: I sort of expect that for some reason
    Calvino Rabeni: Yes
    Calvino Rabeni: In a way, classical pheno isn't paying the bills
    Hokon Cazalet: ansd any a priori aspects will be delegated as topics in ontology
    Hokon Cazalet: yes
    Calvino Rabeni: the pheno that wiil survive, will be what fits into a scheme of assigning neural correlates of consciousness
    Hokon Cazalet: yeah in a few days i may remove the phenomenologist tag in my profile :??
    Calvino Rabeni: hehe
    Calvino Rabeni: a kind of dual theory
    Hokon Cazalet: i think even that will collapse
    Calvino Rabeni: how so?
    Hokon Cazalet: eventually once we know how the physical makes the psychical, there will be no need of dualism
    Calvino Rabeni: Do you mean, the vocabulary of subjectivity will fade away?
    Hokon Cazalet: no
    Hokon Cazalet: ah
    Hokon Cazalet: i see what you mean =)
    Calvino Rabeni: Well the kind of dualism I'm referring to is not ontological dualism

    Hokon Cazalet: ok
    Hokon Cazalet: yeah i see now
    Hokon Cazalet: ok that wont go away
    Hokon Cazalet: ok so that aspect might keep the skeleton of phenomenology around, but it may be renamed to fit the new role
    Hokon Cazalet: maybe reflective psychology or something, or ontology of the mental
    Calvino Rabeni: The position seems to be epistemological dualism with ontological monism
    Hokon Cazalet: oh i spoke during the quiet period
    Hokon Cazalet: eep! o.O
    Calvino Rabeni: Perhaps even more diversity than the word dualism suggests
    Hokon Cazalet: i think the epistemological dualism can be breached, so its not two worlds, eh
    Hokon Cazalet: dunno how to say it
    Calvino Rabeni: hopefully so
    Hokon Cazalet: i just feel psychophysical parrellism will fall
    Hokon Cazalet: eh but theres the language part lol
    Hokon Cazalet: i guess i dunno overall :??
    Hokon Cazalet: this is fun, philosophy is fun when your exploring ideas =)
    Calvino Rabeni: the parallelism seems to hinge on certain ideas about causality that seem pretty "classical"
    Hokon Cazalet: yes
    Calvino Rabeni: like - can a brain and a mind affect one another, and if so how?
    Hokon Cazalet: yup
    Calvino Rabeni: In a way they are still struggling to cross that same old cartesian gap
    Hokon Cazalet: yup
    Hokon Cazalet: arg descartes! :??
    Hokon Cazalet: naw i like descartes
    Calvino Rabeni: It's like, the philosophers aren't going to get anywhere until they can cross that gap in some "pure" analytical way, and the scientists are going to forge ahead not worrying about it
    Hokon Cazalet: yeah
    Calvino Rabeni: Like - well let's just assume that brains and minds are part of the same process, even if we haven't discovered the all the details yet
    Hokon Cazalet: ok
    Calvino Rabeni: But no one will get a lot of recognition in philosophy for making an assumption like that
    Hokon Cazalet: a few do, but yeah they arent payed attention to much
    Calvino Rabeni: however, science can move along, as mathematics could, without having a foundation
    Hokon Cazalet: yup
    Calvino Rabeni: What names come to mind, with your last comment?
    Hokon Cazalet: none lol
    Hokon Cazalet: i just assume theres always somebody of position X
    Hokon Cazalet: cuz it is brought up sometimes
    Calvino Rabeni: That makes sense, it usually happens that way
    Hokon Cazalet: the view
    Hokon Cazalet: brb
    Hokon Cazalet: back
    Calvino Rabeni: wb
    Hokon Cazalet: ty =)
    Bertram Jacobus: i??ll take a look elsewhere - may be, ill be back soon - enjoy(ed) to listen to your words / conversation - ty ! - and : may all beings be happy plz ...
    Hokon Cazalet: yup, have fun =)
    Calvino Rabeni: See you later Bert, be welll and happy please :)

    Hokon Cazalet: i also had a thought about the epoch??: does it need to be so radical that we resort to a priori procedures? when i study the biology of the tree i perform a level of epoch?? in that i ignore other aspects of the world
    Hokon Cazalet: but i dont need to perform an a priori analysis of the eidos of the tree to know what it is
    Calvino Rabeni: I think what is going on there, is a kind of soteriological act of faith
    Hokon Cazalet: what is soteriological?
    Calvino Rabeni: It means, concerning salvation
    Hokon Cazalet: oh
    Hokon Cazalet: well the crisis book is kinda written that way =P
    Calvino Rabeni: In other words, like looking for enlightenment
    Hokon Cazalet: yeah
    Calvino Rabeni: Which is hard to make a non-faith-based case for
    Hokon Cazalet: yeah
    Calvino Rabeni: but you can see its presence
    Calvino Rabeni: by assertions that radical purity, effort, etc is needed
    Calvino Rabeni: and then .. maybe magic will happen
    Hokon Cazalet: for me i continually ask myself while reading "ok what i thought cartesian dualism was bad, now its ok" and vice versa
    Hokon Cazalet: hehe
    Calvino Rabeni: That is, the methodology doesn't pay off under observable common conditions
    Hokon Cazalet: he comments on that reaction to his ideas in the section i just read today
    Hokon Cazalet: well id argue the self is far from transparent, so reflection is not the best method to know oneself
    Calvino Rabeni: some authors take it to a point almost of mysticism or maybe, mythology
    Hokon Cazalet: yeah
    Calvino Rabeni: I doubt Husserl was that one-sided
    Hokon Cazalet: no he wasnt
    Calvino Rabeni: I agree with your statement about self
    Calvino Rabeni: the last pheno paper I read, seemed pretty incoherent to me
    Hokon Cazalet: hehe
    Calvino Rabeni: it was about phenomenology of imagination
    Hokon Cazalet: yeah i kinda fear reading heidegger ill go wtf
    Calvino Rabeni: but was reasoned almost completely from a-priori grounds
    Hokon Cazalet: for me an analysis of imagination id write in a few paragraphs
    Calvino Rabeni: no observation needed, apparently
    Calvino Rabeni: The thought experiments were hypothetical
    Hokon Cazalet: sometimes a priori methods work, but im hard pressed to know why phenomenology's subject matter requires that in such a radical form
    Hokon Cazalet: yeah that can lead to problems
    Hokon Cazalet: though a priori stuff does work in some places, such as geometry
    Calvino Rabeni: of the form - let's suppose someone imagined a cat hiding behind a suitcase - if they did, then it would appear as such and so based on our knowledge of intentionality,blah blah
    Hokon Cazalet: ok
    Calvino Rabeni: for instance, he actually said, if someone imagined a cat behind a suitcase, they would only imaging the front surface of the imaginary cat, since that's how pheno says that objects appear
    Hokon Cazalet: omg
    Calvino Rabeni: heheh
    Hokon Cazalet: id say thats completely backwards
    Calvino Rabeni: yeah, completely
    Calvino Rabeni: the reasonable approach is to try to be empirical
    Hokon Cazalet: and my argument would be one sentence
    Calvino Rabeni: and get some number of people to report on their ACTUAL experiences of imagining a cat
    Hokon Cazalet: i dont think one has to resort to the empirical, for me its basic enough to rest it a priori
    Hokon Cazalet: though i do see your point
    Hokon Cazalet: which is where i am torn
    Calvino Rabeni: Well, subjective experiences are the crux of pheno, I think
    Hokon Cazalet: it seems the line between a posteriori (psychology) and a priori is not well drawn
    Hokon Cazalet: yes
    Calvino Rabeni: and apriori assumptions don't capture them well at all
    Hokon Cazalet: but an eidetic study of them
    Hokon Cazalet: i think they can, to an extent, just as geometry is a priori knowledge about bodies
    Calvino Rabeni: Eidetic - I've heard various senses of it ...
    Hokon Cazalet: but just as geometry cant make physics alone, you cant make psychology alone from a priori analysis
    Hokon Cazalet: eidetic is just husserl's modern term for essential
    Calvino Rabeni: true
    Calvino Rabeni: a specialized use of the word
    Hokon Cazalet: for me im leaning that way, that phenomenology has a valid point, but it overextends its reach waaaaaay too far
    Hokon Cazalet: and givne the lack of scientific rigor in phenomenology the past 80 yrs, i think my case is solid :??
    Calvino Rabeni: more generally, virtually anything about how imagination simulates sensation, not just visually but with a preference for that
    Hokon Cazalet: yup id agree
    Hokon Cazalet: for me if i imagine something vividly enough (visualize it deeply) i begin to feel the presence of the imaginary object
    Calvino Rabeni: I agree, it overextends, in my opinion simply from a misguided desire for ideologial purity
    Hokon Cazalet: well thats an issue for any a priori pursuit, it has no limitations from the outside, all limits have to be set upfront
    Calvino Rabeni: What can we make of that observation?
    Hokon Cazalet: just that imagiations are sensual in part
    Hokon Cazalet: thats all i extract from it
    Calvino Rabeni: ok
    Hokon Cazalet: i dont feel confident to extract much more
    Hokon Cazalet: also that imagination is partially an intellectual operation

    Hokon Cazalet: this talk is helping me alot, ty =)
    Calvino Rabeni: Which philosopher had a crack about buying a tightrope-walking outfit?
    Hokon Cazalet: even though we dont fully agree on all points, its helping me alot
    Hokon Cazalet: probably nietzsche
    Hokon Cazalet: he uses a tightrope walker as a symbol for man
    Calvino Rabeni: I'm not aware of having decided I have any disagreements, what are you thinking they might be?
    Hokon Cazalet: oh its just small points here and there, nothing major
    Hokon Cazalet: im detial obessed :??
    Hokon Cazalet: i like to judge a persons ideas as a whole, and in parts
    Calvino Rabeni: That could be a help and a hindrance, for philosphy
    Calvino Rabeni: I meant, the detail part
    Calvino Rabeni: if the whole is not also seen
    Hokon Cazalet: id agree
    Hokon Cazalet: i try to balance out the two
    Hokon Cazalet: no we're on the same line of thought overall
    Calvino Rabeni: One way to assess, is to consider the tacit motivations of that person
    Calvino Rabeni: because it doesn't get represented in their conceptual structures
    Hokon Cazalet: eh i prefer not to
    Calvino Rabeni: Well, it's rather influential
    Hokon Cazalet: it is, but if the idea is true, it is regardless of the person's motives
    Calvino Rabeni: Suppose someone sees epoche as a mystical practice
    Hokon Cazalet: ok
    Hokon Cazalet: oh
    Hokon Cazalet: i see what you mean now
    Calvino Rabeni: then to that degree they doh't use it as an observational method
    Hokon Cazalet: ok id agree
    Calvino Rabeni: I think phenomenology as a subtle bias towards the idea that what mind does is interpret sensations
    Hokon Cazalet: yes it does
    Calvino Rabeni: It would be something "inherited" from the science of the time
    Hokon Cazalet: btw, you may know this, im not familiar with 20th century thought much except up until the 1930s: what happened in the line of phenomenological philosophy since husserl and existentialism?
    Calvino Rabeni: to the extent it does that, it reinforces the subject/object dualism
    Hokon Cazalet: yup
    Hokon Cazalet: thats a huge problem i got with husserl
    Hokon Cazalet: and the lockean assumption that sensations is what we know
    Calvino Rabeni: and the idea of intentionality seems to almost axiomatize that dualism
    Calvino Rabeni: right
    Hokon Cazalet: i think intentionality can avoid it
    Calvino Rabeni: interesting
    Hokon Cazalet: just needs to remove its lockean assumptions, and adopt the ancient/medevial assumption about ideas
    Calvino Rabeni: can you flesh that out ... and could it be useful for the modern app of pheno to neurophilosphy?
    Hokon Cazalet: sure
    Hokon Cazalet: gimmie a sec

    A visitor shows up and offers us a 3-meter long "spliff".

    Calvino Rabeni: Hello Visitor
    Hokon Cazalet: um can you remove that, Visitor, lol your covering me up
    Hokon Cazalet: ok ty
    Calvino Rabeni: By the way Visitor, the conversations here are recorded, it is something we ask visitors to give their OK
    Hokon Cazalet: hm actually i dunno, i havnt worked it out myself yet lol
    Hokon Cazalet: just an idea i had now

    Hokon Cazalet: well if sensations are "transparent" it would remove husserl's reduction of natural science to being a mere abstraction of the world; we know the essence of the exterior world (res extensa), so we can applied mathematics to the outer world transparently (so thatd help science and phenomenology be better pals)
    Hokon Cazalet: the grounding of natural science is no longer a mystery, in other words
    Hokon Cazalet: no need for the whole edifice husserl makes
    Calvino Rabeni: Transparent? I think psychology shows sensations are quite far from transparent
    Calvino Rabeni: so it makes them not a very good neutral basis for reasoning abut
    Hokon Cazalet: well psychology has a hard time being scientific about the mind, so that view may change later on

    Visitor: what is this shit you're talking?
    Calvino Rabeni: We are talking philosophy
    Hokon Cazalet: Philosophy - the love of wisdom, the pursuit of Reason
    Visitor: for what? peace of world?
    Hokon Cazalet: no
    Hokon Cazalet: not me anyways
    Calvino Rabeni: Nor I
    Visitor: get lost
    Hokon Cazalet: wow
    Hokon Cazalet: thats rude, Visitor
    Hokon Cazalet: you come here and insult us
    Hokon Cazalet: if you hate it that much, you can take a hike
    Visitor: Sorry
    Visitor: keep going, i will just listen
    Hokon Cazalet: lol why are you hovering calvino
    Calvino Rabeni: I don't know actually - sometimes things just happen in SL
    Hokon Cazalet: your arm is missing too
    Hokon Cazalet: one of them
    Visitor: i guess he is dangerous man, i've seen many guys

    I wondered if Visitor had been frightened by a movie that showed the villainous "One Armed Man".  From my own perspective I appeared to retain a full complement of limbs.

    Hokon Cazalet: lol
    Hokon Cazalet: he is tame compared to me
    Hokon Cazalet: MWHAHAHA!!!
    Calvino Rabeni: hehehe
    Hokon Cazalet: hi stephanie
    Visitor: talking about philosophy bla bla.... it' s easy to cook girls
    Hokon Cazalet: no it isnt
    Hokon Cazalet: try reading about it before you judge it lol
    Visitor: be careful
    Hokon Cazalet: philosophy doesnt care about anybodies opinions
    Visitor: i've seen many case in news
    Hokon Cazalet: ok anyways

    During this time we were somewhat distracted by a nude dancing display in the PlayAsBeing fountain.  I actually didn't catch it until nearly the end of the show, because my camera was elsewhere.  And then ...

    Hokon Cazalet: [2:47] Calvino Rabeni: Transparent? I think psychology shows sensations are quite far from transparent
    Hokon Cazalet: tbh your probably right calvino
    Calvino Rabeni: I have a book about the construction of perception
    Calvino Rabeni: "The First Half Second"
    Hokon Cazalet: cool =)
    Visitor: yes exactly the guy always talking gentely and
    Calvino Rabeni: as you may know, in the past , it has been assumed mostly static
    Hokon Cazalet: yes
    Hokon Cazalet: and passive
    Visitor: later and later......
    Calvino Rabeni: but now it's possible to study its "microgenesis"
    Hokon Cazalet: Yaaaaayyyyyyyy!
    Visitor: Sorry
    Calvino Rabeni: If you want I'll give a link
    Hokon Cazalet: see i think that, is a topic for psychology and neuroscience
    Hokon Cazalet: sure
    Calvino Rabeni: http://www.amazon.com/First-Half-Second-Microgenesis-Unconscious/dp/0262651076/
    Hokon Cazalet: i guess my other reason why i want some a priori phenomenology is to deal with radical skepticism
    Hokon Cazalet: ok
    Calvino Rabeni: How can that help?
    Hokon Cazalet: well to get past solipsism: if we know how the mind presents exterior sensations (perceptions) vs. self-generated ones (imaginations), one could go "hey, a priori, we know this here is a perception, ergo solipsism is false"
    Calvino Rabeni: I guess I don't really understand a-priori as a mode of thinking
    Hokon Cazalet: lol i mostly want to use phenomenology to resolve some specific philosophical issues
    Hokon Cazalet: a priori is a mode in geometry
    Hokon Cazalet: geometry is an a priori science
    Hokon Cazalet: hm
    Hokon Cazalet: hehe i have an idea
    Hokon Cazalet: but its not original lol
    Calvino Rabeni: For instance, I somewhat assume, a priori reasoning is mostly used to reason one's way out of the unnnecessary dilemmas caused by a-prori categorical thinking
    Hokon Cazalet: well a priori thinking can do more, it furnishes geometry and calculus
    Hokon Cazalet: clkaculus does not reference experience
    Hokon Cazalet: you can do calculus with pencil and paper
    Visitor: what are you looking at?
    Hokon Cazalet: at his keyboard atm
    Calvino Rabeni: So if you assume imagination is a completely separate thing from perception, then you have to deal with a thing called solipsism, which only may only exist because of that assumption
    Hokon Cazalet: i dont think its separate, but it is a different process
    Hokon Cazalet: also, that distinction doesn't lead necessarily to solipsism, thats a strawman
    Calvino Rabeni: What would that be based on, to call them separate processes
    Calvino Rabeni: Hello Adoro
    Hokon Cazalet: imagination comes from within, it is an autonomous function of the mind; perception comes from without, it is a heteronoums process
    adoro Rhapsody: hi
    Hokon Cazalet: hi =)
    Hokon Cazalet: id say the distinction can prove solipsism is false
    Calvino Rabeni: Hokon, that definition came from somewhere
    Hokon Cazalet: if you cant distinguish them, you cant ever say a perception is indeed a perception, since you cant tell them apart
    Calvino Rabeni: and if it isn't true, it can't be used to do anything with solipsism
    Hokon Cazalet: i can invent any definitions i want, this isnt about language
    adoro Rhapsody: what is solipism ?
    Calvino Rabeni: Solopsism is an imagination exercise of philosophers
    Hokon Cazalet: i create an idea, then see if X conforms to this idea
    adoro Rhapsody: wow
    Visitor: get your wikidipia
    adoro Rhapsody: ok
    Hokon Cazalet: solipsism - only my mind exists
    adoro Rhapsody: i understand
    Calvino Rabeni: Are you a male or a female, Visitor?
    Visitor: i am les
    Hokon Cazalet: he is a male in rl
    Hokon Cazalet: just like me
    Visitor: i am les
    adoro Rhapsody: im bi
    Hokon Cazalet: ok lying, thats nice . . . lesbians in sl will get pissed at you btw
    Visitor: dirty
    adoro Rhapsody: male and female are part of the same ying yang symbol
    Hokon Cazalet: yup =)
    Visitor: cheers
    adoro Rhapsody: cheers
    adoro Rhapsody: prosit
    adoro Rhapsody: salut
    Hokon Cazalet: Weeee! ^.^
    Visitor: froust
    Visitor: siloncha
    adoro Rhapsody: daar ga je
    Visitor: Ganbbai
    adoro Rhapsody: good luck
    adoro Rhapsody: mmm tats good
    Hokon Cazalet: hehe
    adoro Rhapsody: tatste
    Hokon Cazalet: Tasty Juice... Drink it then convert it to pee.
    adoro Rhapsody: taste
    adoro Rhapsody: ok
    adoro Rhapsody: i feel like flying
    Hokon Cazalet: hehe
    Hokon Cazalet: me too
    Visitor: oh~ you fly on the air
    Hokon Cazalet: you can fly in sl =)

    Calvino Rabeni: Any more philosophy on your mind, Hokon? It's always fun to kick it around with you, by the way.
    Hokon Cazalet: hehe ty
    Hokon Cazalet: Weeee! ^.^
    Hokon Cazalet: thats it atm
    Visitor: where are you from?
    Hokon Cazalet: i have other stuff, but husserl/phenomenology is my focus atm, how and where to apply it, if at all
    adoro Rhapsody: europe
    Visitor: Asia
    adoro Rhapsody: what time in rl ?
    Visitor: 720
    adoro Rhapsody: 12.17 here
    Hokon Cazalet: 5:17 for me
    Visitor: 717 pm here
    adoro Rhapsody: so we all have diferent fases
    adoro Rhapsody: i m lunchtime
    Visitor: 17th of july 2010 7:17 pm here
    adoro Rhapsody: u dinner time ?
    Visitor: i had hotdog
    Calvino Rabeni: I live in SLT zone
    Hokon Cazalet: yummy
    Visitor: wasnt good
    Hokon Cazalet: eep! o.O
    adoro Rhapsody: i had soup
    Calvino Rabeni: I had soup envy :)
    Hokon Cazalet: lol
    Visitor: what is that hokon?
    Hokon Cazalet: hot dog
    adoro Rhapsody: so calvino is in early morning ?
    Hokon Cazalet: me too
    Visitor: subway
    Visitor: give me one
    Hokon Cazalet: sure
    Calvino Rabeni: The birds aren't singing quite yet
    adoro Rhapsody: i see
    Calvino Rabeni: but they are where Hokon is
    adoro Rhapsody: u not sleepy cal ?
    Hokon Cazalet: hehe yup calvino
    Calvino Rabeni: Yes a little, adoro
    adoro Rhapsody: i hear birds here on sl
    Calvino Rabeni: Visitor, do you want to be in our blog?
    Visitor: no thanks
    adoro Rhapsody: hokon is magic musterdsauce
    Hokon Cazalet: lol
    adoro Rhapsody: on hamburger
    Visitor: subway
    adoro Rhapsody: or hot dog
    adoro Rhapsody: wow
    adoro Rhapsody: what an act
    adoro Rhapsody: ever lasting musterdsauce
    Hokon Cazalet: hehe
    Visitor: i love honey musterd
    adoro Rhapsody: u must be manager at mc donalds
    Hokon Cazalet: lol
    Hokon Cazalet: yummy id like to be a manager, eat extra burgers
    adoro Rhapsody: they look great
    adoro Rhapsody: the proof of the hotdog id in the eating
    adoro Rhapsody: is
    Visitor: 5 yesar ago. i joined the army. and i had a 1st meal in army camp
    Calvino Rabeni: I learned a couple of good SL commands
    Visitor: i never tried honeymusterd before
    Calvino Rabeni: of course, Ctl-Q is pretty famous and useful
    Hokon Cazalet: yup
    Calvino Rabeni: but also I discovered Ctrl-Shift-Alt-4 recently
    Hokon Cazalet: =)
    Visitor: i eat honeymusterd 3years and i hate that
    Hokon Cazalet: aw
    adoro Rhapsody: what a personal discoveries Cal
    adoro Rhapsody: your ears are blinging
    adoro Rhapsody: sayuri
    Hokon Cazalet: my thoughts bling
    Visitor: thank you
    Calvino Rabeni: and ctrl-SHift-alt- -, which is good for flying sometimes
    adoro Rhapsody: i m getting hypnotized by it
    adoro Rhapsody: and i am not over your first appearance some minutes ago
    adoro Rhapsody: in the fountain'
    Hokon Cazalet: hehe
    adoro Rhapsody: its gettting darker here
    Hokon Cazalet: eep! o.O
    adoro Rhapsody: sunset ?
    adoro Rhapsody: hearing chrirp chirp
    Hokon Cazalet: hehe
    adoro Rhapsody: how romantic
    Hokon Cazalet: cricket
    Hokon Cazalet: <...crickets...>

    adoro Rhapsody: well i have to go do some shopping
    Hokon Cazalet: okies
    Hokon Cazalet: have fun =)
    adoro Rhapsody: on saturday afternoon
    adoro Rhapsody: bye and thnx for the performances
    Visitor: see you guys
    Hokon Cazalet: byes
    Calvino Rabeni: Good bye :) Y'all come back now some time :)
    Hokon Cazalet: hehe

    The thread of philosophy talk had gone underground into IM as a result of the distracting shenanigans of the Visitor - that underground river re-emerged near the end of the session after the visitor departed.

    Calvino Rabeni: Not aristotle?
    Hokon Cazalet: hm?
    Calvino Rabeni: Thanks for the chat, Hokon
    Calvino Rabeni: See you later
    Hokon Cazalet: no aristotle didnt see philosophy as being like math
    Hokon Cazalet waves
    Hokon Cazalet: Weeee! ^.^
    Calvino Rabeni: the idea of the usefulness of constructing simple models...
    Calvino Rabeni: Bye

    Tag page (Edit tags)
    You must login to post a comment.
    Powered by MindTouch Core