TheLastAndBestOfMyWildMusings-HowStrangulationMadeMeSee(not literally, sorry)

[Terxpahseyton]

In my experience, there are those moment of clarity. I apologize for this pathetic (and used) first line, but the hope is that it leads to a slick enough introduction.
Now I said clarity – but not clarity with regards to knowledge. Just as much not clarity with regards to abstract constructs or theory, and not with regards to word structures/games or with regards to things of any kind. Rather, as my theory goes – those are all things we already have socially agreed upon (using language, I already opened a thread on that).
What actually lies at the bottom of my moment of clarity and which sparked this thread is a phenomena which can not be agreed upon, which can not be defined, not be put in relation to something else. But which truly is.
It is something..., but not A thing. It can not be captured like a fish, but it nevertheless is definitely there. A one.

I am sorry since I realize that this is confusing, but no worry – quick recap:
There are ideas we can name and mutually define. Ideas we have agreed upon. Images transcending personal and often enough - in this day and age - social bounds.
Examples: watering can, marriage, friendship, a fly, domination, plants.
And there are Absolutes which we can not name nor mutually define. Though, by the force of empathy, we can approach some kind of understanding in their case. Like the love of family members. Or friendship. Or plants, if you know more about them or associate different things with the word plants as somebody else, or 'domination' if the emotional landscape invoked by that word differs for you in comparison to what the average got invoked. If the idea of such an average even makes sense, that is.

So what are those things we have not agreed upon?

Good question, of course.
Yet, first, a bit more of qualification.
Perhaps those things we already have agreed upon also exist in themselves, and moments of clarity have certainly lead me to some of the images of some of them (like the mere word GREATNESS is associated to an image in my head) – but they themselves never had a direct link to my experience.
Saying: I never felt anything I knew how to directly tell anyone.
So that necessarily and eventually made those feelings and impressions a matter of indirection. Of indirect conclusions. Since I can not be more than what I experience / AM.

Those moments of clarity are there, floating in the air, however, I know them too intimate, too personal, there is too much me in them – sp too recall them in a way that would have allowed me to be express them in those already mentioned and to anyone who is not me more accurate terms. Those... words. Terms. Definitions. Understandings. Codes. Waffles. Pelicans. I am getting carried away...

Now I can not know what you - the reader - thinks of all that. In deed, I think any reader would be in his right mind to most of all quickly forget the useless crap he or she just did read. - but there is a final and grand reason to it all.
And it is arriving right now.

The most fundamental premise I have already introduced - which is that there are Absolutes. Things which are not relative, which can not be defined by comparing them to something else or which can not be divided into subcategories.
Things which are in the utmost purest of senses clear purity. Things which are and which are nothing but being what they are.
No more, no less.

Curiously - already those dame antique Greek philosophers (which incidentally hold a rather low opinion on my part) were already aware of how 'nature' necessarily presumed the existence of such Absolutes. The famous Zeno's paradox of the arrow has proven so much.
But that only referred to space.

What I am referring to is being. It is to have sensations and feelings to start with (and thought, but I am only saying thoughts specifically because some of you may "not be aware" that thoughts are only a product of sensation and feelings – I know, that may be hard to stomach – and it may very well be wrong, for that matter – but it seems kinda obvious to me once you manage to cut those presumed boarders of your perception (encapsulated by words) and have those perceptions flow as free as the fish in the water).

The point is – I think just as there got to be Absolutes to space, they got to be Absolutes to experience. Most of all – because absolutes are the only way we can truly fathom experience to begin with. What you feel – you feel. It is not defined by putting it in relation to something else. As time is. It in the end experience always stands for itself. It can be compared to other emotions and sensations, true enough. A time frame can be, as well. But experience is always its own nature, own modus operanti, way to be, its very own existence does not depend on other ways to be understood. Contrary to time, which does not even begin to make sense out of context.
So experience it is an absolute. A thing in itself. A constant.
It ~IS~.

Now, if – in the end – what I can experience is an unknown but - AND THAT IS IMPORTANT - absolute bundle of things which I can experience.... Like a steam locker of games - just that my game experience is 100% defined by the game.
If that is so – I feel and think that the society I am facing has done a terrible job in picking the right feelings out of the steam locker, or alternatively the right games.

But moreover, I think the society I am facing is not even aware of the locker-system. Does not care of it. I think my society is a blind cripple stooping on a path lead by blindness. And because that path happens to lead the blind to an area of improved climate and hence food and health and comfort – the blind cheer and praise the way of the blind.

That is okay, on the one hand. The followed path has lead us to where it is really warm. And fuzzy, at times. It can have me forget most of the things I naturally will want to forget.


But
if you know you are blind, you will never stop wondering what there is to see.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Whut?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I just reread the OP and it confused myself even though I knew what it said.

Well the synopsis is actually quit straight-forward, in spite of the OP.

It comes down to the assumption that experience knows a predetermined range of absolute stages.
Which renders a lot of our culture as bloated smoke and mirrors.

 

[Kyriakos]

Eh...

I read half of your OP. If even i cannot be bothered to read it, chances are very few other posters here will!

As for your post #3 and the condensed form there: those are not new ideas in philosophy. Already around since the 5th century BC at the latest (likely at least one aeon prior to that too).

You could pick up Plato's dialogue of Socrates with Parmenides, or with Theaetetos. They both are about lack of a concrete ability to define actual knowledge, and issues with language and levels of abstractions in terms and forms of meaning.

Or if you are lazier: you can read wiki's article on Idealism. It is not that great (of course), but it is about the general view that what we identify in the external world is not independent of unknown and crucial variables of our mental world, and thus is not the actual external thing, but merely a phenomenon.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Eh...

I read half of your OP. If even i cannot be bothered to read it, chances are very few other posters here will!

That cracked me up good.

The OP is a train wreck, I guess. Too bad. Not faulting anyone for not bothering with it. Still am kinda glad I made it though. I feel wiser for it. And I still like what it is saying, which is not always the case after I posted some of those threads.
Even though I am pretty much talking to myself in there at this point.

As for your post #3 and the condensed form there: those are not new ideas in philosophy.

Oh I know that the themes of my argument are not new at all.

But the conclusion I drew from there - well frankly I do not know if it is new. But it is new to me. And going by what you said you do not seem to have encountered it so far yourself, actually.

 

[Kyriakos]

Actually i live and breathe in such thoughts

Keep in mind that i am somewhat schizoid at any rate. Most of my thinking is about examining what i am thinking and what that means for myself.

Of course no two thinkers will note down the same (issues with communication tend to become far more notable/detrimental the more one analyses something), but in general the view that our senses and mental abilities transform anything we view/sense (or even think, to some degree, but that is another issue and has to do with language and other stuff) to something very crucially altered from the thing-in-itself we supposedly observed, is a very stable idea.
I think that it could be argued to begin in set form in the discussions between the Eleatic and the Abderan philosophers (early 5th century BC)

Eg: "Man is the meter of all things" is a tied quote, by Protagoras. Various by Plato as well.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I am the one to be confused for a change.
What thoughts do you mean?

 

[Kyriakos]

Examining what 'thinking' means, what the thinker is in regards to his thinking, what other notions break down to or feed down to, what consciousness is, etc.

Of course one cannot realistically get to the bottom of this issue, cause if a human could actually grasp his entire mental existence then what would he be falling back to while grasping that which already was on the forefront?

Ie think of someone trying to lift his own self up by pulling his head with his hands.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Oh I missed your massive edit of your post before your last post.

Keep in mind that i am somewhat schizoid at any rate. Most of my thinking is about examining what i am thinking and what that means for myself.

To reflect on oneself is in many ways a good habit - but I can not help but feel that this sounds unhealthy and I can not help but tell you so.
Anyway

Of course no two thinkers will note down the same (issues with communication tend to become far more notable/detrimental the more one analyses something), but in general the view that our senses and mental abilities transform anything we view/sense (or even think, to some degree, but that is another issue and has to do with language and other stuff) to something very crucially altered from the thing-in-itself we supposedly observed, is a very stable idea.
I think that it could be argued to begin in set form in the discussions between the Eleatic and the Abderan philosophers (early 5th century BC)

Eg: "Man is the meter of all things" is a tied quote, by Protagoras. Various by Plato as well.

I hear you.
But the thing is, Greek philosophers may have had sophisticated images of what it means to be human, they may have had sophisticated arguments about what what we are and do.
But in the end it amounted to sheet. At least that was my general impression since forever and furthermore this was an impression which had been strongly reinforced by the one instance I actually bothered to concern myself with antique Greek philosophy in great depth (in the course of an argument of mine with Plotinus in the Star Trek thread)).
And why was it sheet? Because they never realized the implications. Because they combined their good thoughts with utterly stupid thoughts. For instance: the thought that there was the 'one' way to live and that this one way was defined by 'Purity'. And that line of thinking was exactly as ridiculous as I just made it sound. Its underlining reasoning was just as hollow and flimsy.
In the end, they practiced great intellect, but they did so while trapped in a prison of myths and word games ( way more gamey than what Wittgenstein would later decry), deep down in the ground of fundamental antique ignorance.

My conclusion would be incomprehensible to those ancient Greeks. But whereas it is incomprehensible to this forum because people got better things to do, it is incomprehensible to those ancient Greeks because they are utter fools, full of foolish ideas. I mean the readers of this forum are often full of foolish ideas themselves, but they, usually, in many areas anyway, at least got all the tools to unravel the truth. Those ancient Greeks were just primitive in some areas.

Of course one cannot realistically get to the bottom of this issue, cause if a human could actually grasp his entire mental existence then what would he be falling back to while grasping that which already was on the forefront?

Ie think of someone trying to lift his own self up by pulling his head with his hands.

Yep, again, I hear you. It is fascinating really. How we are trapped in a web of determination (even if not hard but soft determination [cue quantum physics]).
A process and the product of that process at the same time.

It comes down to that consciousness is in the end not fully comprehensible, I think anyway. Most of what we can say based on our knowledge of it is, is that all kinds of nice ideas are unlikely and practically just wrong.

But the point of my OP is to look at what it likely and practically just right. And to draw the according conclusions.

 

[Kyriakos]

Eh... those things were already said by those you termed 'foolish'

Eg Parmenides argued that not only are the senses and human thought creating mere illusions, but possibly they are illusions of a chaotic manner as well, ie not even tied to a shadow of a shadow of a shadow of non-illusion.
Plato took a step back, trying to claim (although there is no conclusion on this, much to his honor as a philosopher) that it is probable that we have at least a shadow of a shadow of some 'reality' which is archetypal and not in our own mental realm, not accessible. As Socrates notes in his cave allegory: 'one cannot stare right at the Sun, since he will ruin his sight, but at least he can try to look at the Sun's reflection on the flowing stream of water'.

Tldr: your view of Greek philosophy is not a correct one
+ Wittgenstein needs a haircut, and less snarky forewords to his pompous latin-titled books

 

[Hygro]

I read the OP fairly carefully.

I believe what you are talking about are feelings. You can call them "absolutes" if you want, but I'm pretty sure they are just distinct feelings that happen in your body and are demi-consciously recognized in your mind. People try to capture the meaning of feeling through metaphor, tropes, art, and indeed, relationships between things.

I find it intriguing that you decided to refer to nameable specific concrete things as not absolutes and named nonspecific, relational, in-concrete things as absolutes. I think I know what you mean, though.

Kind of reminds me of a thread I've been meaning to post about logical vs emotional correctness, and how some posters conflate the two.

 

[Borachio]

"Mad as a biscuit!" is my first reaction.

(But then nearly all the best people are.)

I don't have a clue what this thread is about, though.

 

[Kyriakos]

"Mad as a biscuit!" is my first reaction.

(But then nearly all the best people are.)

I don't have a clue what this thread is about, though.

Cookie monsters.

 

[Senethro]

I think cubic, I am wisest.

 

[warpus]

I also read the OP carefully and to me it reads like that website with that timecube thing on it. Random font changes, random colour changes, etc.

So in conclusion I disagree that timecube.

 

[timtofly]

Absolutes are absolutely maddening.