Brendon, you have provided me with too much information to go through line by line without writing a novel :) So instead I will address what I think is the more important aspects of my disagreement. I appreciate, by the way, that you welcome such skepticism and do not react negatively. I thank you for that. To begin, I submit a portion of your latest response:
"...you get caught up in the words and you loose the wisdom that i am trying to tap into. you search your mind for areas that these words have been referenced in your experience, but that hinders your growth because you are unwilling to accept my redefinitions because i do not have the credentials"I do get caught up in the words. I know that there is supposedly a higher wisdom, but the words are all that I have to rely on so yes, I dogmatically insist that they be, at least, internally consistent. Yes there is a spirit to the words but when the words do nothing to help convey this spirit, you might as well rely on using your pineal gland telepathy.
I would be willing to accept your redefinitions, on the one condition that you explicitly provide them. You do not redefine words. You simply use them in previously incorrect ways without taking due time to explain that there has been a change. Many philosophers change definitions or invent new words, but when they do they typically (with the exception of Husserl and Heidegger) provide the new definitions prior to using them.
My main problem is not with your philosophy, not with the conclusions you reach. Though yes, I am very skeptical. My problem is with your method of explanation and articulation. You consistently use language in new ways, as expressed above, and you perpetually rely on words and phrases that are saturated with vagueness and ambiguity. Yes, clear, precise words are confining, but there is a virtue in that: it makes them understandable.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletei understand your criticism, it shows up especially in academia. it might not be the worst thing to write a novel though! perhaps we could write one together and i could bend your mind into new landscapes and you could curb mine back into where it can be understood by other people haha. i will be the first to admit that i am not a good artist in any form, but only in substance. i assure you that my intention is to clarify and not to be vague hoping that you assume i know what i am talking about or that others couldn't pin point my flaw by being elusive.
ReplyDeletewords are like a street map, but experience is like being in the street itself, words can help direct (guide) experience, but without the direct (unfiltered) experience, there is no substance to resonate.
why are words the best tool that we have to rely on? the ability to expand our consciousness brings the substance to the extent that i had to change my views. i was raised catholic, once i was old enough to question i became an atheist, but realized both were related by belief so i became an agnostic, which opened me up from some real (divine) experience, where there was something communicating with me, it was like thinking but not conscious, and this revelation was perfect. every time it happens, it would be an understatement to say it is an "ah-hah" moment because the essence of the wisdom (as opposed to knowledge or information) is extremely important, and i beam, and can't wipe the smile from my face. so i was forced to leave agnosticism because i no longer believe that i don't know enough to know, because i have experienced; which has almost ironically brought me closer to religion than ever, but not any specific religion or form of organization or religion.
if my blogs explaining the way i understand certain words are not sufficient, i am willing to go as far as it takes to help anyone understand. i know that different people require different modes and means of conviction and i am willing to cater to each individual person if i have to but ultimately i understand that i can't tell anyone anything if it does not resonate inside them. constructivism and the "subjectivity is truth" are similar with the tao in this fashion.
when you say that i use new words consistently, do you think that i simply use many words different than their classical meaning? or rather, that i use the same words different from classical denotation but consistent from time to time that i use them? it could just be semantics but i think it is important to distinguish.