The religious experience vs. the experience of reality

[_Tarski]

Actually Tarski, you'd be surprised... this is how 'imaginary particles' work inside of black holes. They both exist and don't exist at the same time.

TAO,
Please don't lecture me about blackholes and quantum physics. This is something I actually have some understanding of while you only imagine that you do.

What does one call this?

A and (not A)

Normally, this is called a contradiction and cannot be true in any possible world. Without my help, can you come up with a reason why we should take the statement "both exist and don't exist at the same time" seriously? What is the precise sense of it?

Also, what do you mean by "imaginary particle"? Do you mean "virtual particle" or do you perhaps mean a particle whose mass is a multiple of the square root of -1?
(So called imaginary numbers)
Or is it both.


Or.....maybe you don't know what you are talking about.

[_mfbukowski]

Mark's position seems to be that the spiritual "knowing" that the church is true is outside of interpretation, spirit-to-spirit communication not involving language; it just is. Never mind that there is no comparable experience out there.

Perception involves interpretation and contextualization. We see a beautiful sunset, and it's beautiful. Take the same pattern and combination of colors and put it on a burn victim's skin or on the surface of a glass of milk, and it's horrifying. How do we know it's beautiful in one context and not in another? That is interpretation, which is a function of language.

No, I was talking about all experience not just spiritual experience. Don't know where you got the idea I was talking only about spiritual experience- I was trying to decide if there was ever a "non-interpreted" portion of experience we could in some sense talk about in general terms.

For me, that's all I was exploring here on this thread.

And I decided that it was a mistaken notion and that I was going to stick with Wittgenstein and call that "non-interpreted" portion the "unspeakable".

So I will be consistent and stop speaking about it.

[_mfbukowski]

I don't think so. No experience is uninterpreted or without context. There are no bare facts--not even subjective ones.

Another question for you. Do you believe in evolution? What is or was the ontological status of dinosaurs (since they lived before we knew about them)?

I don't know how you square these two statement/questions. I guess the dinosaurs were interpreting their own ontological status. Good for them. Those pea-brains had a lot more going on than I thought.

My answer is that they had no "ontological status" until somebody invented that language.

As far as causation, I think Hume pretty much laid that to rest. Causation is in the eye of the beholder. What was your "cause"? The gleam in your father's eye, or the first blob of protoplasm who learned how to reproduce?

Pick anything else in between- it doesn't matter much.

[_mfbukowski]

I can not fathom your patience, runtu.

Yeah, I must be a little crazy.

Thank you, wise one.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Or.....maybe you don't know what you are talking about.

This reminds me of that scene in A Serious Man, where Larry says, " You can't understand the physics without understanding the math, the stories I just give are fables.....even I don't understand the dead cat."

lol, starts at the 50 second mark

[_Runtu]

No, I was talking about all experience not just spiritual experience. Don't know where you got the idea I was talking only about spiritual experience- I was trying to decide if there was ever a "non-interpreted" portion of experience we could in some sense talk about in general terms.

For me, that's all I was exploring here on this thread.

I misspoke. But, yes, you seemed to believe that there is some uninterpreted experience. I cannot imagine it.

[quote[And I decided that it was a mistaken notion and that I was going to stick with Wittgenstein and call that "non-interpreted" portion the "unspeakable".

So I will be consistent and stop speaking about it.[/quote]

If you can describe it, even just to yourself, it can't be unspeakable.

[_Runtu]

Thank you, wise one.

That wasn't aimed at you but at myself. I must indeed be crazy in thinking I can express what I think about this issue in terms that make sense to anyone but myself and maybe a few others.

[_mfbukowski]

If you can describe it, even just to yourself, it can't be unspeakable.

I agree.

I seldom talk to myself, especially to describe sunsets I have experienced.

[_mfbukowski]

I must indeed be crazy in thinking I can express what I think about this issue in terms that make sense to anyone but myself and maybe a few others.

That's actually my point. Certain things are unspeakable.

If you look back in the thread, I mentioned "picking the right word" and the experience of that.

How do we know when we get the right word? What are we comparing it to?

And yet picking the right word is what makes the difference between Shakespeare and me.

But we decided we can't talk about that- so there is nothing called a "problem" here.

Otherwise we would have something "pre-linguistic", wouldn't we?

[_Runtu]

That's actually my point. Certain things are unspeakable.

If you look back in the thread, I mentioned "picking the right word" and the experience of that.

How do we know when we get the right word? What are we comparing it to?

And yet picking the right word is what makes the difference between Shakespeare and me.

But we decided we can't talk about that- so there is nothing called a "problem" here.

Otherwise we would have something "pre-linguistic", wouldn't we?

The last thing I need tonight is mocking sophistry.