Starting perspectives to see the world

[sqishy]

Here's another thread I'm setting up, quickly discussing what is involved when one starts to see and attempt to understand the world around them.

If some of us want to construct a worldview in some systematic manner, we will be starting with certain principles and a certain perspective with them.


For example, many people might want to start off by explaining the world through a god, gods, or other form of god-like entity. As a helpful picture (but only a picture), they start out 'at infinity' and then work 'inwards'/'downwards' toward eventually ourselves, the physical world usually being intermediate between the start and end of the descriptive journey.

For another example, many other people want to start off with ourselves, 'at zero', and then work outwards in explaining how we access the world out there, how things build up more in complexity and scale, and (for some people) eventually going beyond all this and associated physics, into
god/gods/ some transcendental entity/principle.

One can have a starting point and a resulting journey and endpoint that is somewhere 'between' these - those were just two polar examples and a classic philosophical spectrum of the self/ego, and the god/gods/'theo'.

Basically, there's a lot of potential variety.

- - - - - - - -

For me, the starting point (or initiator) of a larger fraction of the views and ideas I got going on, is the statement that we only have two things we can grasp with the best reliability.

These two things are experience, and memory.

Without these, we are certainly not in the world we know of, nor do we know anything, or even think or feel anything.

- - - - - - - -

I open the floor for those who suggest that we can do meaningful stuff without experience and memory.

I'm also interested to hear anyone else's starting points on how they see the world around them, and/or what is seen as most reliable to them in this approach.


Vlerchan Judean Zealot TheFlapjack Left Now phuckphace Giygas Reise Uniquemind

and anyone else I have forgot for the moment, but I would guess is interested.

[Flapjack]

Here's another thread I'm setting up, quickly discussing what is involved when one starts to see and attempt to understand the world around them.

If some of us want to construct a worldview in some systematic manner, we will be starting with certain principles and a certain perspective with them.


For example, many people might want to start off by explaining the world through a god, gods, or other form of god-like entity. As a helpful picture (but only a picture), they start out 'at infinity' and then work 'inwards'/'downwards' toward eventually ourselves, the physical world usually being intermediate between the start and end of the descriptive journey.

For another example, many other people want to start off with ourselves, 'at zero', and then work outwards in explaining how we access the world out there, how things build up more in complexity and scale, and (for some people) eventually going beyond all this and associated physics, into
god/gods/ some transcendental entity/principle.

One can have a starting point and a resulting journey and endpoint that is somewhere 'between' these - those were just two polar examples and a classic philosophical spectrum of the self/ego, and the god/gods/'theo'.

Basically, there's a lot of potential variety.

- - - - - - - -

For me, the starting point (or initiator) of a larger fraction of the views and ideas I got going on, is the statement that we only have two things we can grasp with the best reliability.

These two things are experience, and memory.

Without these, we are certainly not in the world we know of, nor do we know anything, or even think or feel anything.

- - - - - - - -

I open the floor for those who suggest that we can do meaningful stuff without experience and memory.

I'm also interested to hear anyone else's starting points on how they see the world around them, and/or what is seen as most reliable to them in this approach.


@Vlerchan (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/member.php?u=89715) @Judean Zealot (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/member.php?u=116847) @TheFlapjack (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/member.php?u=122060) @Left Now (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/member.php?u=76790) @phuckphace (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/member.php?u=72511) @Gigyas

and anyone else I have forgot for the moment, but I would guess is interested.
Wow this is an interesting thread! :) Btw I am lovinggg how you speak:')

I can see why people reply on their experiences and memories however I think this can be troubling as it can lead to stuff like people denying stuff like racism because they haven't seen it ya know?

I look more for data, if someone tells me there is a god or that we will are being pulled into a black hole where the laws of physics will be rewritten I ask why they think this, the same goes for how I form my political opinions.

[sqishy]

Wow this is an interesting thread! :) Btw I am lovinggg how you speak:')

You raise my mood well!


I can see why people reply on their experiences and memories however I think this can be troubling as it can lead to stuff like people denying stuff like racism because they haven't seen it ya know?

Ah yes, but I argue that the vast majority of all knowledge we have is indirect through testimony. I haven't ever seen the rings of Saturn, smelled pure chlorine gas, heard of Bernie Sanders, or touched a snake. We don't question the vast majority of what we perceive indirectly.


I look more for data, if someone tells me there is a god or that we will are being pulled into a black hole where the laws of physics will be rewritten I ask why they think this, the same goes for how I form my political opinions.

Could you look for data, if you had no capacity for memory?

I'm saying that languages, beliefs, thoughts, feelings, and the self are nothing, without memory.


I'm also saying that ' A = A ' , ' A = B ' , ' A ≠ C ' mean nothing without memory.

As example: Try to make sense of A = A without memory. You have A , =, and A, but there is no memory to connect them at all, because your concentration on it requires recalling of symbols recognised within, and without memory the content within each frame of concentration will be entirely lost when it goes outside the frame. Even recognition cannot happen without memory.

In your terms perhaps (not mine though), there is no data preservation. No data preservation, no principle of identity, or non-contradiction.

Going beyond 'is' and 'not' beingness is fine, but you cannot remember it, and you lose your self along the way, so what I just said makes no sense at all too! An oblivion of sorts, chaos.

Since I have heard of you seeing GoT, the Many-Faced God is a good place in that world to look to, for relevance here.

[StoppingTom]

Experience and memory are interesting because at first that's what I was thinking, then I remembered that quote that went like "The only thing we know for sure is that we know nothing." and that got me thinking, because while we do base a lot of our thoughts, ideas, and beliefs off of experience and memory, what's to say we aren't just perceiving reality one way, while we might, as my English teacher was so fond of saying, be brains in a jar just imagining things. My answer to your question would have to be Perception of reality around us and Personal experience within perceived reality.

[sqishy]

Experience and memory are interesting because at first that's what I was thinking, then I remembered that quote that went like "The only thing we know for sure is that we know nothing." and that got me thinking, because while we do base a lot of our thoughts, ideas, and beliefs off of experience and memory, what's to say we aren't just perceiving reality one way, while we might, as my English teacher was so fond of saying, be brains in a jar just imagining things. My answer to your question would have to be Perception of reality around us and Personal experience within perceived reality.

We could perceive 'reality' differently through psychotropic drugs, but we'd still only have experience and memory. My POV is that reality is an entity mentally constructed as a set of loads of stuff, with 'non-reality' being whatever stuff doesn't fit into that set. This can be argued for and counter-argued against in whatever way, but the entities of experience and memory are needed before the topic of reality comes up. Perception of a world requires experience and memory to work.

Only my thoughts, I don't intend to attack anything.

What do you mean by "personal experience within perceived reality"?

[DriveAlive]

I think we talked about perceived reality before when discussing transgenders and whether or not there are objective truthes and understandings that cannot (or should not) be altered based on a person's perception of them.

[StoppingTom]

What do you mean by "personal experience within perceived reality"?

It was just my personal amendment to your "experience" definition given in your OP to fit my idea.

[sqishy]

It was just my personal amendment to your "experience" definition given in your OP to fit my idea.

Alright, I get you now.


I think we talked about perceived reality before when discussing transgenders and whether or not there are objective truthes and understandings that cannot (or should not) be altered based on a person's perception of them.

We did, yes.