I agree with you in a lot of ways. I think you’ve correctly identified the problems of subject/object dualism as well as epistemic crisis which is probably the most prominent philosophical problem of our era. It creates all sorts of social problems some of which you correctly identify.
I think when you criticize objectivity, what you are actually criticizing is positivism, or empiricism. When you eliminate objectivity you eliminate the object. I don’t think you’re a solipsist who believes that nothing exists “out there” and that the entire physical universe and everyone in it are reducible to your mere experience of it. You acknowledge a whole variety of ontologies or ways of determining truth, and that contradictions emerge between different ones. This is all extremely important to understand. The piece I think is missing, the flaw in your logic is that you never really escape subject/object dualism by doing away with objectivity; you merely concentrate totally on the subjective. I assume you’re working a lot of this stuff out on your own, which is amazing and precious – I don’t have much if any formal education beyond hs and a little art school myself and at one time not long ago arrived at very similar conclusions as yours. The formal logic I was missing was dialectical reasoning, the conclusion of which is a unity and interrelation between the subjective and objective. IMO fixation on the noumenal, that the physical world is inaccessible, is a dead end.
But I’m annoyed by all the down votes you are receiving when I think you are correct in identifying the problems – you’re still working out the solutions which is okay and good. But rather than have a discussion, we just down vote and go. Its incredible how attached people are to their deeply problematic ontological assumptions, despite not really understanding them. The fact is subject/object dualism as the basis of scientific inquiry (and hence industry) is woefully insufficient for interrogating reality. At one time it was historically progressive and relevant, but now it only serves to sustain existing power structures and the status quo.
I wish we had a chance to discuss this face to face, I’m sure it would be a lively debate and sharing of ideas! Given the medium unfortunately, I guess I’ll just see you around. Thanks for the detailed explanation and keep on questioning. In my experience, immediately after believing I have things figured out I gain a new perspective that changes everything. Really keeps things interesting for those of us who want to understand things and aren’t content with just taking it as it comes.
IMO fixation on the noumenal, that the physical world is inaccessible, is a dead end.
My perception is the opposite. Being trapped inside one universe is the dead end. Abandoning the universe lets you experience a multiverse. You can use magic and meet fantastic creatures like dragons and gods. Traversing the mythic plane, the world between worlds, is the route to greater knowledge. I never slowed down learning from this realisation. The pace just keeps accelerating.
You lost me. But imagination is rad and cool, and knowledge can be accessed through reason, and reason takes all different forms.
It almost sounds like you’re talking about mysticism but you were just trashing mysticism. In any case, mysticism such as hermetic, qabbalic or taoist mysticism is a fantastic way to learn practical dialectics. Lots of people act like they understand it but clearly don’t. Or don’t apply it evenly which is kind of the same thing.
But are you just talking about pure subjectivity, experiencing the self as the self experiencing itself? Kind of an unconventional and interesting way to search for truth and knowledge.
It’s not a joke. It’s just me dumbing down my spirituality to the level comprehensible by realists, because you said you were having trouble understanding it. Everything sounds dumb when you phrase it realistically, because reality is dumb.
You don’t understand my philosophy, don’t pretend to. I extended you the courtesy of a well thought out detailed and i think pretty intelligent response, and you talk to me about otherkin and dragons, supposedly because you think im too stupid for your spirituality. Enjoy your discord server.
I don’t talk to you about otherkin and dragons because I think you’re stupid, I talk to you about otherkin and dragons because I thought you were interested in understanding my metaphysical views. I interpreted your statement that you were having trouble understanding my conversations with dragons as a request that I make my speech more approachable. I failed to anticipate that you wanted me to pretend you understood perfectly after you said you were struggling and continue to be opaque. If you want me to ignore you when you ask for help and speak in riddles instead, I can certainly accommodate that wish.
I think I understand better now, thanks for clarifying. The otherkin discord server comment was so out of pocket I thought you were fucking with me. It actually wasn’t a very helpful example, but I think I understand your other comment better now. Sorry for getting aggravated, its hard not to be made to be cynical by the internet. Thanks for the clarification, good luck on your journey.
I agree with you in a lot of ways. I think you’ve correctly identified the problems of subject/object dualism as well as epistemic crisis which is probably the most prominent philosophical problem of our era. It creates all sorts of social problems some of which you correctly identify.
I think when you criticize objectivity, what you are actually criticizing is positivism, or empiricism. When you eliminate objectivity you eliminate the object. I don’t think you’re a solipsist who believes that nothing exists “out there” and that the entire physical universe and everyone in it are reducible to your mere experience of it. You acknowledge a whole variety of ontologies or ways of determining truth, and that contradictions emerge between different ones. This is all extremely important to understand. The piece I think is missing, the flaw in your logic is that you never really escape subject/object dualism by doing away with objectivity; you merely concentrate totally on the subjective. I assume you’re working a lot of this stuff out on your own, which is amazing and precious – I don’t have much if any formal education beyond hs and a little art school myself and at one time not long ago arrived at very similar conclusions as yours. The formal logic I was missing was dialectical reasoning, the conclusion of which is a unity and interrelation between the subjective and objective. IMO fixation on the noumenal, that the physical world is inaccessible, is a dead end.
But I’m annoyed by all the down votes you are receiving when I think you are correct in identifying the problems – you’re still working out the solutions which is okay and good. But rather than have a discussion, we just down vote and go. Its incredible how attached people are to their deeply problematic ontological assumptions, despite not really understanding them. The fact is subject/object dualism as the basis of scientific inquiry (and hence industry) is woefully insufficient for interrogating reality. At one time it was historically progressive and relevant, but now it only serves to sustain existing power structures and the status quo.
I wish we had a chance to discuss this face to face, I’m sure it would be a lively debate and sharing of ideas! Given the medium unfortunately, I guess I’ll just see you around. Thanks for the detailed explanation and keep on questioning. In my experience, immediately after believing I have things figured out I gain a new perspective that changes everything. Really keeps things interesting for those of us who want to understand things and aren’t content with just taking it as it comes.
My perception is the opposite. Being trapped inside one universe is the dead end. Abandoning the universe lets you experience a multiverse. You can use magic and meet fantastic creatures like dragons and gods. Traversing the mythic plane, the world between worlds, is the route to greater knowledge. I never slowed down learning from this realisation. The pace just keeps accelerating.
You lost me. But imagination is rad and cool, and knowledge can be accessed through reason, and reason takes all different forms.
It almost sounds like you’re talking about mysticism but you were just trashing mysticism. In any case, mysticism such as hermetic, qabbalic or taoist mysticism is a fantastic way to learn practical dialectics. Lots of people act like they understand it but clearly don’t. Or don’t apply it evenly which is kind of the same thing.
But are you just talking about pure subjectivity, experiencing the self as the self experiencing itself? Kind of an unconventional and interesting way to search for truth and knowledge.
I’m talking about joining otherkin discord servers and watching OSP videos.
Oh har har
Why the fuck do I even bother I stg
It’s not a joke. It’s just me dumbing down my spirituality to the level comprehensible by realists, because you said you were having trouble understanding it. Everything sounds dumb when you phrase it realistically, because reality is dumb.
You don’t understand my philosophy, don’t pretend to. I extended you the courtesy of a well thought out detailed and i think pretty intelligent response, and you talk to me about otherkin and dragons, supposedly because you think im too stupid for your spirituality. Enjoy your discord server.
I don’t talk to you about otherkin and dragons because I think you’re stupid, I talk to you about otherkin and dragons because I thought you were interested in understanding my metaphysical views. I interpreted your statement that you were having trouble understanding my conversations with dragons as a request that I make my speech more approachable. I failed to anticipate that you wanted me to pretend you understood perfectly after you said you were struggling and continue to be opaque. If you want me to ignore you when you ask for help and speak in riddles instead, I can certainly accommodate that wish.
I think I understand better now, thanks for clarifying. The otherkin discord server comment was so out of pocket I thought you were fucking with me. It actually wasn’t a very helpful example, but I think I understand your other comment better now. Sorry for getting aggravated, its hard not to be made to be cynical by the internet. Thanks for the clarification, good luck on your journey.