We cannot figure it all out, so we must rely ever more on gut. ah.... this brings me back to Kant's 'proof' in the Critique of Pure Reason that we can never prove the existence of God, the soul, and immortality of said soul.
Or, in other words, there is no ultimate question.
Life is - elegantly - without objective meaning.
Originally Posted by Samuel De Mazarin
pure logical speculation only works off of earlier conclusions, which are all logical, but due to the fact that they are founded on the world's contingencies, may not be ultimately 'true', if there even is such a thing... so what I'm saying is, there's a very good PERSONAL reason, for instance, for a Democrat to have chosen the Democratic party and Republican the Republican party... we just can't observe all the millions and billions etc. of questions and logical yes-no sequences that went into building up that decision.... countless binary left-right decisions to make, consequent firings... there's a lot of contingency in how the brain grows up, but it's eminently traceable (by a supermind).... so, really, all of our 'personality' and 'dilemmas' are really just that... so many sets of "two lemmas"... problems figuring out unperceived axiomatic questions... axons waiting to link up two neurons which, when linked solve the problem at hand... solve the lingering doubt... once resolved, everything makes sense... in other words, we're biological supercomputers... so all choices are really evolved from earlier choices which may have been purely out of our hands... there were many questions to which we had to say yes, steps in a logical chain which ultimately determine all that comes after... we'll never really come to the end of this whole Great Chain of Reasoning because then we're dead.... the computer just shuts down...
You might benefit from an earlier post I made to Owl on the fallibility of logic. I recall you and Owl having similar socio-theistic beliefs.
Originally Posted by Night
Logic is ultimately a series of learned cues designed to stabilize us towards a certain threshold - the specifics of which is relative to the institution one is consigned (academics; politics; theism; etc...)
As such, the error (or strength...) is in our inherent vulnerability to the system by which we are fed our logic.
As human thought is only able to concisely interpret pattern against the directives of his education/intuition (not MBTI; more like visceral intelligence); he is unavoidably distanced from the interrelationships that flutter inches (or miles, depending...) from his intellectual fingertips...
Take our conversation. As we both offer unique insight (funneled extravagantly through subconscious cognitive "filters" (ranging from the simple - how tired/hungry/sick/etc... we are, to the abstract - Aristotelean logic comfort/discomfort; Theistic background; comfort with uncertainty; etc...)), we are each proffering incredible sacrifices to arrive at an approximate accord (comprehension as agree/disagree/uncertain) as a way to increase our individual understanding to achieve an end intimate to our personal desire...
The dramatics of which make legitimate connection/communication nigh impossible...
Think of how profound this problem becomes when we use other people's poetry as our braille.
There's a lot in your quoted post, but this line was aphoristic in the best sense possible...
"Think of how profound this problem becomes when we use other people's poetry as our braille."
I actually had a signature quote, my own, when I first joined MBTIc... if I remember it correctly, it was something like "You can never fully describe context, so just live in it." I agree that these are all clues to the similarity of our (incl. Owl's and others') respective weltanschauungs, if I may be so arch in my diction.
I love your description of how we have to make compromises (sacrifices) in order to come to an accord, or a simulated mutual understanding with our interlocutors... the problem is that we'll never fully be able to describe all the choices, discoveries, reasonings, that lead us to a final idea... it is the final idea that we attempt to communicate, but we leave out so much... which is why Proust's Remembrance of Things Past is such a crazy exercise... and the more Proust put in, the more he left out... the more one specifies, the more one denies and excludes.
Your first few statements might lead one to suspect that the differences between people in different professions is greater than some would like to believe... the institutionalized thinking of an economics professor or financial representative as opposed to the (equally) institutionalized thinking of poets or philosophy professors.
For instance, while we obviously share very many insights, how have the different foci in our educations affected our dialogues (you: more physics, mathematics, the sciences... I: more philosophy and deconstruction, 19th and 20th century literature, linguistics...) We've obviously had exposure to each other's fields of enquiry, though I would suspect you've had more philosophy than I've had physics/math... and if it's all a human thing, then how does the institutionalized logic affect the way we communicate those human experiences which we hold in common?
Might two people in total disagreement disagree merely because they don't understand that they agree? Perhaps I'm just babbling.
Madman's azure lie: a zen miasma ruled.
Realize us, Madman!
I razed a slum, Amen.