![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
symbioidljI'm posting this because I'm at work, and I need to copy it into a document at home. I would appreciate any comments if you care to trudge through what I've written, but that's not my purpose in posting it at this point. Any clarifications required, or debate I would appreciate so I can refine my statements.
This is not a coherent picture, nor is it complete, nor is it the best phrasing possible at this point. And I'm sure there are many many weaknesses that can be found. This is not an attempt to state with no uncertain terms the absolute truth. It's merely a way for me to explicate my personal foundation of knowledge...
--------------------
One of the first questions that must be asked, is one that approaches the root epistemology: What can ultimately be known? In taking on this question, I can only accept a doctrine of Temporal Solipsist Experientialism. To explain this concept, each word must be defined as part of this aggregate term. Temporal, here, takes upon itself the common interpretation: the connotation of time. Solipsist, however, differs from its vulgar usage. I do not intend to use this term merely as equivocating reality with a self-determined creation, or that the world of phenomena is merely in my mind. I do however use it in a sense whereby that which I can experience is the only thing that I can ultimately “know”. In this sense there is a form of solipsism at play, because there is not an absolute verifiable way to guarantee that there is an external world “out there”. However, I use the term experientialism to indicate that there is still a perception of experience that must, somehow, be acknowledged.
To break it down into its pure essence, what I mean by Temporal Solipsist Experientialism, is that there is an appearance of phenomena that I perceive at any given time, and at that time, that experience is the only absolute thing I can know. In actuality, it must be stated the term experience is indicative only of the seemingly objective world, which appears to be outside of my own physiological form.
It is this world of phenomenon that I perceive as “real” at any given instance. However, the fact remains that there is an interior, subjective reality which I can paint onto this world, a reality of my own thought processes and feelings which, though are only apparent to me, are still quite real, at least in regards to my own perception of reality.
Due to the fact that there appears, in this subjective realm of experience, to be a memory of processes happening in a linear sequence that lead to this specific instant of time, I assume that there is a moment in time called past, and, also, in this recollection of said past, there is a realization that there is a moment ahead of any given instant of time. This is considered to be the future. The present moment is but a mere future to the past, and, if my memory and subjective experience stands correct, this present moment (fleeting as it is), must become a past to the future moment, in a never ending flux of potentiality, being, and dissipation.
It can be said then that there are two states of experience: the subjective and the objective. When it comes to ultimate experience, however, there is only that which one perceives, and as such it is subjective. This subjectivity of experience, however, does not make it any less real than an “objective” world, for the fact is, that my perceptions, which are necessarily subjective, are the mediator between the internal and external. The subjective and objective are not mutually exclusive facets of reality. The subjective experience is the only way in which I can experience a seemingly external world of objects.
Because I experience a seemingly objective world of occurrence, and also, because I have a “memory” of ordinal events which have transpired and given an appearance of cause and effect, I can only base my reality and my foundation of knowledge upon that which I subjectively perceive.
Whether the world of objects are an illusion or not, the fact is that I perceive a world of objects. I see a color, I touch and feel the texture of a fabric, I taste a flavor of a ripe apple, and I can smell the fresh air on a cool spring day. This perception alone is enough to justify my epistemology.
In the same way that the present is all I can know, and that the past moments are “mere” memories, it thus rings true that the future is unknown. Also, there can be no certitude of any given thing except for the specific experience of which I am going through at that given moment (the present). Because of this, I believe that the future is merely a statistical likelihood. By this, I mean that just because the seeming present moment is a unified reality that seems to follow (based upon my subjective memories of past behavior and conditions of cause and effect), there is no reason to believe with 100 percent certainty that events will continue to transpire as they always have. An example is a “sunrise”(which, as we all “know”, is that effect of an appearance of the sun rising over the horizon when the earth spins on it’s axis). The idea is that there is a tendency for the earth to revolve on it’s axis, and as such, will, unless interfered by an external force, will continue to do so.
This is a fundamental, Newtonian rule of motion. I know this, because I recall being taught this by my science teachers. I also recall a consistent unity of behavioral pattern by the external, objective world that follows this. I do not take the word of my science teachers as the foundation of my knowledge of this process, but rather, the memories of my experiences are the source of this knowledge. In one case, there is a mediated experience given to me by language (in one case, a vernacular language, and in another case, the mathematical language). In each case, however, the knowledge I gained is merely a descriptor of probabilities and relations of external event.
The foundation of knowledge that I utilize to infer a consistent pattern of behavior is my own memory. I have seen and felt this experience myself.
Based upon a principle of causality, I rationalize that this is a pattern of behavior that will continue to hold into the future as it has in my memory of the past. However, there is no absolute guarantee of any such fact. In a sense of phenomenal knowledge, I cannot make any such statement that “The sun shall rise tomorrow”, I can merely conjecture based upon my apparent memory of past precedence that such a process shall happen.
It is only through the recollection of seeming tendencies that I can live my life. In other words, it is irrelevant whether the world is illusion or not, because my experience tells me that it isn’t. And as such, I have to live my life as if the world itself is NOT an illusion, and that the trends that I remember will consistently hold into the future.
It is my memory of these potentialities, becomings, and passings that I base my knowledge of action upon. I live my life according to principles that I have perceived and have retained in my memory. I do not go to jump off a cliff, because I hold it to be true that if I do so, the effect of gravity will pull me ever downwards ending my subjective experience of reality. I do not wish to end my subjective experience of reality, and as such, I do not jump of the cliff. It may be the case that it is an illusion, but I live my life by a principle of knowledge based upon an apparent memory of past experience, and conjecture of probabilities where that which has happened is most likely to continue to happen.
It is better to state that the probability of something occurring is more likely to happen where there is no conscious interaction involved. Where the appearance of a non-willing object exists and interacts with other non-willing entities. This is the realm where science holds steadfast in its descriptive framework of reality. I accept the conjectures of science, so far as they have verified my perception of reality, and continue to function as a valid language of description of the forces of these impersonal, non-sentient objects.
Eventually, the question must come in this writing: What is sentience. And it will. But for now, I am merely attempting to give an account for what I perceive as real, why I perceive it as real, and why I accept the appearance for itself as real. With this foundation laid, I have to further go onto the issue of consciousness and language and all other things that related to my philosophy of the world.
This is not a coherent picture, nor is it complete, nor is it the best phrasing possible at this point. And I'm sure there are many many weaknesses that can be found. This is not an attempt to state with no uncertain terms the absolute truth. It's merely a way for me to explicate my personal foundation of knowledge...
--------------------
One of the first questions that must be asked, is one that approaches the root epistemology: What can ultimately be known? In taking on this question, I can only accept a doctrine of Temporal Solipsist Experientialism. To explain this concept, each word must be defined as part of this aggregate term. Temporal, here, takes upon itself the common interpretation: the connotation of time. Solipsist, however, differs from its vulgar usage. I do not intend to use this term merely as equivocating reality with a self-determined creation, or that the world of phenomena is merely in my mind. I do however use it in a sense whereby that which I can experience is the only thing that I can ultimately “know”. In this sense there is a form of solipsism at play, because there is not an absolute verifiable way to guarantee that there is an external world “out there”. However, I use the term experientialism to indicate that there is still a perception of experience that must, somehow, be acknowledged.
To break it down into its pure essence, what I mean by Temporal Solipsist Experientialism, is that there is an appearance of phenomena that I perceive at any given time, and at that time, that experience is the only absolute thing I can know. In actuality, it must be stated the term experience is indicative only of the seemingly objective world, which appears to be outside of my own physiological form.
It is this world of phenomenon that I perceive as “real” at any given instance. However, the fact remains that there is an interior, subjective reality which I can paint onto this world, a reality of my own thought processes and feelings which, though are only apparent to me, are still quite real, at least in regards to my own perception of reality.
Due to the fact that there appears, in this subjective realm of experience, to be a memory of processes happening in a linear sequence that lead to this specific instant of time, I assume that there is a moment in time called past, and, also, in this recollection of said past, there is a realization that there is a moment ahead of any given instant of time. This is considered to be the future. The present moment is but a mere future to the past, and, if my memory and subjective experience stands correct, this present moment (fleeting as it is), must become a past to the future moment, in a never ending flux of potentiality, being, and dissipation.
It can be said then that there are two states of experience: the subjective and the objective. When it comes to ultimate experience, however, there is only that which one perceives, and as such it is subjective. This subjectivity of experience, however, does not make it any less real than an “objective” world, for the fact is, that my perceptions, which are necessarily subjective, are the mediator between the internal and external. The subjective and objective are not mutually exclusive facets of reality. The subjective experience is the only way in which I can experience a seemingly external world of objects.
Because I experience a seemingly objective world of occurrence, and also, because I have a “memory” of ordinal events which have transpired and given an appearance of cause and effect, I can only base my reality and my foundation of knowledge upon that which I subjectively perceive.
Whether the world of objects are an illusion or not, the fact is that I perceive a world of objects. I see a color, I touch and feel the texture of a fabric, I taste a flavor of a ripe apple, and I can smell the fresh air on a cool spring day. This perception alone is enough to justify my epistemology.
In the same way that the present is all I can know, and that the past moments are “mere” memories, it thus rings true that the future is unknown. Also, there can be no certitude of any given thing except for the specific experience of which I am going through at that given moment (the present). Because of this, I believe that the future is merely a statistical likelihood. By this, I mean that just because the seeming present moment is a unified reality that seems to follow (based upon my subjective memories of past behavior and conditions of cause and effect), there is no reason to believe with 100 percent certainty that events will continue to transpire as they always have. An example is a “sunrise”(which, as we all “know”, is that effect of an appearance of the sun rising over the horizon when the earth spins on it’s axis). The idea is that there is a tendency for the earth to revolve on it’s axis, and as such, will, unless interfered by an external force, will continue to do so.
This is a fundamental, Newtonian rule of motion. I know this, because I recall being taught this by my science teachers. I also recall a consistent unity of behavioral pattern by the external, objective world that follows this. I do not take the word of my science teachers as the foundation of my knowledge of this process, but rather, the memories of my experiences are the source of this knowledge. In one case, there is a mediated experience given to me by language (in one case, a vernacular language, and in another case, the mathematical language). In each case, however, the knowledge I gained is merely a descriptor of probabilities and relations of external event.
The foundation of knowledge that I utilize to infer a consistent pattern of behavior is my own memory. I have seen and felt this experience myself.
Based upon a principle of causality, I rationalize that this is a pattern of behavior that will continue to hold into the future as it has in my memory of the past. However, there is no absolute guarantee of any such fact. In a sense of phenomenal knowledge, I cannot make any such statement that “The sun shall rise tomorrow”, I can merely conjecture based upon my apparent memory of past precedence that such a process shall happen.
It is only through the recollection of seeming tendencies that I can live my life. In other words, it is irrelevant whether the world is illusion or not, because my experience tells me that it isn’t. And as such, I have to live my life as if the world itself is NOT an illusion, and that the trends that I remember will consistently hold into the future.
It is my memory of these potentialities, becomings, and passings that I base my knowledge of action upon. I live my life according to principles that I have perceived and have retained in my memory. I do not go to jump off a cliff, because I hold it to be true that if I do so, the effect of gravity will pull me ever downwards ending my subjective experience of reality. I do not wish to end my subjective experience of reality, and as such, I do not jump of the cliff. It may be the case that it is an illusion, but I live my life by a principle of knowledge based upon an apparent memory of past experience, and conjecture of probabilities where that which has happened is most likely to continue to happen.
It is better to state that the probability of something occurring is more likely to happen where there is no conscious interaction involved. Where the appearance of a non-willing object exists and interacts with other non-willing entities. This is the realm where science holds steadfast in its descriptive framework of reality. I accept the conjectures of science, so far as they have verified my perception of reality, and continue to function as a valid language of description of the forces of these impersonal, non-sentient objects.
Eventually, the question must come in this writing: What is sentience. And it will. But for now, I am merely attempting to give an account for what I perceive as real, why I perceive it as real, and why I accept the appearance for itself as real. With this foundation laid, I have to further go onto the issue of consciousness and language and all other things that related to my philosophy of the world.
