Quote:
|
Originally Posted by harmonygirl Well, Guille, I don't agree that DNA is nothing. I agree with you that it is the language of our physical existence (I don't agree with you that it, like all other languages, doesn't have physical existence, I think this is contradictory). It certainly has nothing to do with a discussion of inner and outer and the illusory nature of either or both. |
That YOU don't see there is a connection between the discussion doesn't mean it doesn't exist. In fact, this is the fatal problem to the philosophy of phenomenology (what is exist is what I percieve).
What are words? We can say they are objects of language. But imagine you are talking to a being that is intelligent enough to understand the most complex objects of human thought but doesn't have a language nor can understand what it is or 'communication'. Of course, it is paradoxical that you have to communicate him what communication is, but that's not my point. The being would have the definition: that words are ink drawings on papers ussually made of several symbols with particular shape that are understood by human minds as meanings of percepts/concepts/actions/descriptions... But the words themselves don't exist physically, we cannot percieve words, we cannot smeell them, nor taste them, nor touch them, nor hear them, nor see them. All we can do is periceve the things which are described by the non-communicative being, and convert them into objects of our thought. Now what is the contradictory of saying that language (a tool of conception to represent perception and communicate perception) is not a perception? If I want to tell you "my computer is behing" I don't get a computer and put it behind you, that is already the situation. People are more than actors, no matter how much the system (capitalism-globalization-materialism-hypermodernism) wants us to reduce us to actors. Read Habermas.
Maybe you know what is playing with language. Or maybe not, and I have to explain you. When I say that DNA is nothing it is an example of playing with language. It is not exactly what the words mean, it is a kind of irony. Look it up in the dictionary... Yes, it's the book which you use to stabilize the table or whatever...
And this all has to do with the discussion about 'inner' and 'outer' as concepts and/or as illusions. First, we should define if minds are inner to a bigger supermind (as mkirkpatrik has proposed in other threads) or in an interactive existence, or outer in it, and can't interact. This important because we could know if really thoughts can be exchanged and 'communicated' directly, as this would mean the end of art, of science, and of philosophy (more than an end, actually, a new era). And are bodies inner to the world or outer is also important, for if they are inner then it means that all those stories about twins being sad at the same time, or sick or etz, would be proven true or false, and we might one day develop a way to create good things from it if it's true, liek to give lots of pleasure to lots of people (but having seen the stupidity of humans, we would probably use this ability to create hurt on lots, it would be the ultimate weapon of war).
Second, it is important to determine if body and mind are inner or outer each other. Not only that if they coudl exist alone, but also in that if our personalities are related to our genetics (which is true), or if, for example, we can have a fire on us but our mind not produce the feeling of hurt by burn, as Buddhist believe we can, and the famous image of a Buddhist burning sitting down should be rolling in the floor of hurt, but he is not, he doesn't feel.
Third, it is important to determine whether language is inner or outer to the physical world. Even though it is not part of it, it is not an object of perception, still it could be inner or outer of it in relationship. If it is inner, we can conclude (as language, generalised to communication, is the reduction of our ideas) that outer is an illusion of conception, but not vice versa, for if it is outer, still inner could be in our perception. Then we conclude fromt his something important: if inner is in language-->world, then there is no outer, but if outer is in language-->world then there still can be inner, in experience-->world.
Now we come back to phenomenology: are our experiences inner to the world, the objects? And from this question, discussed totally in
Logical Investigations, Philosophy as Science Exerts and
Ideas to a pure Phenomenology, we derive the whole philosophical discourse of the twentieth century, as Russell indicates in
The Roots of Twentieth Centuy Philosophy. 
your reality depends on your perspective -
03-08-2006, 07:09 PM
Re: All is within,without is an illusion. -
02-24-2007, 07:43 PM
Linear Mode
