What's it all about...............Alfie

[Nearly Sane]

Are you therefore sneering at those whom for whom getting the details of life isn't enough?

No. Because that would presume the details of life are an 'it'. They aren't. They are what wigginhall sees with no itness attached.

[Nearly Sane]

When did you find that ''it'' was mythical rather than something you didn't want to bother about?

when I stopped beating my wife. I suggest if you want to have a sensible discussion on a topic you don't make assumptions and then challenge people for being wrong if something is based on their non acceptance of those assumptions. Or to misrepresent what they have said to imply that they did accept those assumptions

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No. Because that would presume the details of life are an 'it'. They aren't. They are what wigginhall sees with no itness attached.

I see itness in terms of  connection, unification, logos and a few technical terms i couldnt spell.

How does methodology fit in with a non newtonian philosphy like your own?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

when I stopped beating my wife. I suggest if you want to have a sensible discussion on a topic you don't make assumptions and then challenge people for being wrong if something is based on their non acceptance of those assumptions.

was the phrase 'mythical it' not yours then?

[Nearly Sane]

was the phrase 'mythical it' not yours then?

And yet your question implied that I had decided to avoid something that I knew existed. It is exactly a when did you stop beating your wife question. Stop with the dishonest tactics and engage.

[Nearly Sane]

I see itness in terms of  connection, unification, logos and a few technical terms i couldnt spell.

How does methodology fit in with a non newtonian philosphy like your own?

I have no idea what your first sentence means



And as for your second, this is your old trope that people have coherent and consistent philosophies, which at least in my case I don't think I have.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And yet your question implied that I had decided to avoid something that I knew existed. It is exactly a when did you stop beating your wife question. Stop with the dishonest tactics and engage.

I'm sorry you see it like that. But IMHO you have tended to look down on those who ask the ''bigger questions'' rather than living what IMHO you see to be a more authentic existence which is living in the quotidian.

[wigginhall]

Agree with NS - coherence and consistency have gone for me.   There is no 'worldview' anymore.   Generalities appal.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm sorry you see it like that. But IMHO you have tended to look down on those who ask the ''bigger questions'' rather than living what IMHO you see to be a more authentic existence which is living in the quotidian.

And I'm sorry if I have given such an impression. I don't think that there is a superior here as that implies a big question. I'm not seeking to, nor do I understand how to, communicate that sort of 'better', 'more right', 'more authentic' or whatever. I can only try and cover how it looks to me.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Agree with NS - coherence and consistency have gone for me.   There is no 'worldview' anymore.   Generalities appal.

Then to you both...........I am therefore slightly puzzled as to why you would choose to be on a forum which could be described as 'worldview rich'. Is there not an an ever so slight possibility that in some sense you have either acquired resolution of something big and/or wish others to find this settlement in themselves? 

[Sebastian Toe]

Yes, I kind of half put it in because it was Sebastian Toe and I like to shock him now and then.

Don't fret Vlad. It hasn't  happened yet but be assured  I'll  let you know the first time it does. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't fret Vlad. It hasn't  happened yet

Damn!

[Nearly Sane]

Then to you both...........I am therefore slightly puzzled as to why you would choose to be on a forum which could be described as 'worldview rich'. Is there not an an ever so slight possibility that in some sense you have either acquired resolution of something big and/or wish others to find this settlement in themselves?

What does 'acquired resolution of something big' mean to you? It' s not a term that I have an understanding of.

Is the board 'worldview rich', whatever that means?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What does 'acquired resolution of something big' mean to you? It' s not a term that I have an understanding of.

Is the board 'worldview rich', whatever that means?

Ah yes .....are you a contented non possessor of a world view of coherence,consistency and generalities?

Well IMHO you know what a worldview is because you don't have one.....................Am I right?

And religions and naturalism are world views.........and if I were looking for one of these represented this would be the forum as opposed to say ''Remembering fizzy sweets of the sixties.co.uk''.

[Nearly Sane]

Ah yes .....are you a contented non possessor of a world view of coherence,consistency and generalities?

Well IMHO you know what a worldview is because you don't have one.....................Am I right?

And religions and naturalism are world views.........and if I were looking for one of these represented this would be the forum as opposed to say ''Remembering fizzy sweets of the sixties.co.uk''.

Are religions worldviews? Surely that depends on both the religion and the individual. I don't see any religions posting on here, just individuals and I try to relate to what they say. As for naturalism, I presume you are here talking about the philosophical type, rather than the methodological type, based on your past posts. It also seems a reluctant poster, and an opinion that despite you saying others are, they seem to deny consistently.


As for 'contented', you jeep trying to shoehorn in a judgement thati have a view that I have chosen because of its qualities. I don't know if that makes any srnse , it's just the way I have ended up thinking. And I don't seem able to apply consistency and coherency to it.

I am also struggling as to (a) why you think that that not believing one has a worldview that is coherent and consistent means you are precluded from talking about things, and (b) whether you actually need a coherent and consistent worldview to be allowed to talk about things as might be taken as the implication?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Are religions worldviews? Surely that depends on both the religion and the individual. I don't see any religions posting on here, just individuals and I try to relate to what they say. As for naturalism, I presume you are here talking about the philosophical type, rather than the methodological type, based on your past posts. It also seems a reluctant poster, and an opinion that despite you saying others are, they seem to deny consistently.


As for 'contented', you jeep trying to shoehorn in a judgement thati have a view that I have chosen because of its qualities. I don't know if that makes any srnse , it's just the way I have ended up thinking. And I don't seem able to apply consistency and coherency to it.

I am also struggling as to (a) why you think that that not believing one has a worldview that is coherent and consistent means you are precluded from talking about things, and (b) whether you actually need a coherent and consistent worldview to be allowed to talk about things as might be taken as the implication?

I kind of liken our positions to a newtonian view and a non newtonian view in which the worldviewist sees consistency,coherence and interconnection between phenomena against treating each phenomena as seperate.....is this fair?

[Nearly Sane]

I kind of liken our positions to a newtonian view and a non newtonian view in which the worldviewist sees consistency,coherence and interconnection between phenomena against treating each phenomena as seperate.....is this fair?

Seems very binary to me, and not something I recognise it also seems to ignore my questions

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Seems very binary to me, and not something I recognise it also seems to ignore my questions

Binary in what way? Are you saying that you are prepared to counter consistency,coherence and generality.......to borrow from Wigginhall?

Now to your questions. Of course you are not barred from talking about anything....but aren't there topics around newtonian philosphical principles that yuo might gate because they are general and holistic?

You have the advantage over me if you have the power to think and operate in newtonian philosophy when I cannot imagine thinking of stuff in the way you suggest as completely non related phenomena.

[Nearly Sane]

Binary in what way? Are you saying that you are prepared to counter consistency,coherence and generality.......to borrow from Wigginhall?

Now to your questions. Of course you are not barred from talking about anything....but aren't there topics around newtonian philosphical principles that yuo might gate because they are general and holistic?

You have the advantage over me if you have the power to think and operate in newtonian philosophy when I cannot imagine thinking of stuff in the way you suggest as completely non related phenomena.

binary in the sense that not necessarily believing that all phenomena are connected, doesn't mean that you believe all phenomena have no connection.
You seem to be taking a position that if I don't think I have a world view that is coherent, I think nothing can be coherent. That's once again creating a weird conflation of my statements into your binary world. I think you also need to be careful of using the term Newtonian beyond physics, I know some have tried but I don't think it lends itself well to this sort of split. At base I see people, not these abstractions you seem to see

[Walt Zingmatilder]

binary in the sense that not necessarily believing that all phenomena are connected, doesn't mean that you believe all phenomena have no connection.
You seem to be taking a position that if I don't think I have a world view that is coherent, I think nothing can be coherent. That's once again creating a weird conflation of my statements into your binary world. I think you also need to be careful of using the term Newtonian beyond physics, I know some have tried but I don't think it lends itself well to this sort of split. At base I see people, not these abstractions you seem to see

No, IMHO Phenomena can be internally coherent so it is not the case that I think you think nothing can be coherent .....although in some way Wiggs takes exception to coherence,consistency and generality.

The puzzle therefore is not why do you not have coherence but where does the cut off point come. What is it that you think has no coherence consistency and generality?

I don't see what the danger of using the Newtonian philosophical principles beyond physics is.....in fact I would hazard that it comes dangerously close to the lost methodology.

[Nearly Sane]

No, IMHO Phenomena can be internally coherent so it is not the case that I think you think nothing can be coherent .....although in some way Wiggs takes exception to coherence,consistency and generality.

The puzzle therefore is not why do you not have coherence but where does the cut off point come. What is it that you think has no coherence consistency and generality?

I don't see what the danger of using the Newtonian philosophical principles beyond physics is.....in fact I would hazard that it comes dangerously close to the lost methodology.

Again you seem to see things as abstractions, what does it mean to say I might have coherence? Are you talking that I might believe in coherence in some circumstances?  Again you seem to be using coherence and consistency to talk about things when I've been talking about whether what I believe in has or needs to have internal consistency and coherence.


If you think Newtonianism works beyond physics you are going to have tonoutline how.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

I don't see what the danger of using the Newtonian philosophical principles beyond physics is.....in fact I would hazard that it comes dangerously close to the lost methodology.

Seriously I would be very cautious of using the phrase Newtonian. I did make me smile.

As someone who studies the microstructure and rheology of liquids and soft solids (amongst other things) it did make me laugh (in a nice way).

Based on my experience so far I would say that Human and indeed any other animal I can think of are non Newtonian, in that there viscosity probably does change with the amount of physical stress applied. If I had a big enough rheometer then maybe you would volunteer to get between it's parallel plates?

Although the ethics committee might have something to say about it.

[wigginhall]

Is that a serene Zen response?

That's quite funny.   I have seen Zen retreats that were definitely non-serene, more like a scene from Invasion of the Bodysnatchers.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Again you seem to see things as abstractions, what does it mean to say I might have coherence? Are you talking that I might believe in coherence in some circumstances?  Again you seem to be using coherence and consistency to talk about things when I've been talking about whether what I believe in has or needs to have internal consistency and coherence.


If you think Newtonianism works beyond physics you are going to have tonoutline how.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtonianism

[Nearly Sane]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtonianism

And? Do you think that four lines in a Wiki entry gets round the problems? Could you outline MacLaurin's thesis and how you think it works? Moreover given the challenge you have been asked for before where does it link to any of your claims?