Skip navigation

Tag Archives: epistemology

In all dualities we want to go to one side (that is, MIND, and the release from inertia and the enhancement of freedom), but the means to do it always seem to lie exactly in the side that negates it (that is BODY, and the power of presence and of being concretely real). In the end, we want more MIND in order to get more BODY. But every time we go in this direction we get farther and farther from what we want, exactly as we are getting nearer.

In fact, we try to go to a third world, a third point beyond the dichotomy, and it becomes an impossible goal which we can’t stop following.

[world 1 = BODY] >> [world 2 = MIND] >> [world 3 = TRUTH]

This third shade, this World-3, is not less direct than World-1, nor less real, it is just different. But contrary to World-1, you can never tackle it quantitatively. It is never possible to brute-force World-3, neither with muscle, nor money, nor spam. Thus, BODY-through-MIND is always difficult. Read More »

Trapped by their fears, Realists retreat screaming whenever faced with a Relativist idea. Simply can’t swallow it. And they retreat into exactly the same lack of intellectual discipline they accuse litcrit of. Conditioned by our cruel education system, that treats children as cattle, they refrain from any philosophy not geared towards providing “correct answers to the test”. To win the argument, then, you should proceed not with sound argumentation — that would only lead them into rationalization — but instead with masking relativism’s sour taste of personal responsibility. Read More »

Ursula K. Le Guin’s “The Dispossessed” goes around praising Einstein for not dabbling in relativism:

Ainsetain had known that; with endearing caution he had admitted that he believed his physics did, indeed, describe reality.

Which supposedly means words are all about truth and not about word games. All faith goes to truth. This even comes {facepalm} from a general-semanticist, someone who few pages latter will allude to the uselessness of quantifying direct experience.

Do Einstein’s Relativity describe reality? It does. So does Newton. And so does a Monet painting. Or a love letter. And Tolkien’s Lord of the Ring. Or brown-journalism. And lies. What’s special, at all, about this? Read More »

When i say

Trezentos e setenta e quatro mais setecentos e noventa e oito é igual a mil cento e setenta e dois.

(brazilian portuguese for 374+789=1172) do i cause it to become true? Do i magically create this fact by uttering the phrase? I guess most everyone would have a gut feeling that no. That the calculation has nothing to do with the way i speak or the characters i use to write it down. But if we can refrain our guts from interfering we might just as well see this hypothesis as more promising than it at first seems.

Newspaper saying "Gravity Revoked", people falling into air

Obviously, i do not think that saying 2+2=4 magically makes it come into being. If i said “Gravity doesn’t exist” that wouldn’t cause things to start floating around. But i don’t think the (seemingly) opposed proposition is any better. Namely, that ideas don’t need anyone to think them. That 2+2=4 is «independent reality».

To accept that 374+789=1172 is part of reality, that it exists independently of someone who says it, seems innocent enough, safe enough. It is problematic, though, in that it does not explain why some ideas are more powerful than others, or why some people can «see the truth» and others can’t — and for that i have this nagging suspicion it leads to atrocity. Read More »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 109 other followers