Ontologically-challenged

gekokujo

I've always wondered where this comment of AsiaWest's is coming from:

AsiaWest wrote: »

Having lashed-out, so to speak, on certain groups of theists, I will have one comment (for now) to give about atheists, particularly in this thread: Atheists are simply "ontologically-challenged."

apparently, however, it's related to this metaphor posted on one of my older threads:

AsiaWest wrote: »

Allow me if I may to use the metaphor of a sphere. The physical realm is the order of reality confined to the “outer layer” or surface of a sphere, the ontological realm refers to the order one sees when the sphere is cut to a cross section revealing layers down to its core. One may confine one’s movement around the sphere eternally, thinking that that’s all there is, but without “plunging into its innermost core”—i.e. engaging one’s mind into what is referred to as an ontological or metaphysical analysis of reality, then one will not see the other layers of this reality from which the outer surface of the sphere is just a manifestation of.

I deliberately left AsiaWest the last word on that thread. but I think it's time to examine the metaphor. so, anyone and everyone:

Atheists are simply "ontologically-challenged."

agree or disagree?

micketymoc

Sayang walang definition of terms. So I'll make a wild stab at a definition: "Ontologically-challenged: limited where one's theories of existence are concerned"?

I'll make another wild stab at a reply to this definition, which is: "as an atheist, I don't bother to posit a God where certain questions of existence still exist. Why should I?"

vinta18

Magkakasundo kaya sila ni visionarylink?

Frank_Mackey

Dunno about atheists, but if by implication the scientific world-view is also considered 'ontologically-challenged', we must still acknowledge its power and potency (at least in the physical realm, which, in fact, is the one realm where our existence seems to be rooted in completely) compared to all other modes of thought we have so far witnessed.

Frank_Mackey

One may confine one’s movement around the sphere eternally, thinking that that’s all there is, but without “plunging into its innermost core”—i.e. engaging one’s mind into what is referred to as an ontological or metaphysical analysis of reality, then one will not see the other layers of this reality from which the outer surface of the sphere is just a manifestation of.

"engaging one's 'mind'"... yes... but if i understood what I was reading in books like 'Tao of Physics' and 'Tao of Symbols', these so-called 'inner layers' are inaccessible to language.

So much so that like gekokujo mentioned earlier, Kant and Hume tells us to give up on them.

Frank_Mackey

One may confine one’s movement around the sphere eternally, thinking that that’s all there is,

This is what the 'tile-building' in here seems to be about...

micketymoc

Allow me if I may to use the metaphor of a sphere. The physical realm is the order of reality confined to the “outer layer” or surface of a sphere, the ontological realm refers to the order one sees when the sphere is cut to a cross section revealing layers down to its core. One may confine one’s movement around the sphere eternally, thinking that that’s all there is, but without “plunging into its innermost core”—i.e. engaging one’s mind into what is referred to as an ontological or metaphysical analysis of reality, then one will not see the other layers of this reality from which the outer surface of the sphere is just a manifestation of.

So, what underpins the physical world? I would suggest atoms and quarks, possibly superstrings and multiple unseen dimensions… if one believes that the physical world is all there is (as I do), I would look at the ontology of the world and see purely physical processes. I would dive under the sphere and look at processes illuminated by the works of Schrodinger and Einstein; I would see no Gods behind it all.

Would AsiaWest suggest, perhaps, that such a scientific viewpoint takes away from the wonder that a less scientifically-minded philosopher might feel? The wonder’s still there – in fact, I feel greater wonder for a natural process that I understand in a much deeper sense.

Richard Feynman, the physicist, is always good for a quote, and here’s an appropriate quote of his now:

“I have a friend who’s an artist and he’s sometimes taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say, ‘Look how beautiful it is,’ and I’ll agree, I think. And he says—‘you see, I as an artist can see how beautiful this is, but you as a scientist, oh, take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing.’ And I think that he’s kind of nutty.

“First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me, too, I believe, although I might not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is; but I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time I see much more about the flower than he sees. I can imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside which also have a beauty. I mean it’s not just beauty at this dimension of one centimeter, there is also beauty at a smaller dimension, the inner structure. Also the processes, the fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting—it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: Does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which shows that a science knowledge only adds to the excitement and mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds; I don’t understand how it subtracts.

Frank_Mackey

micketymoc wrote: »

So, what underpins the physical world? I would suggest atoms and quarks, possibly superstrings and multiple unseen dimensions… if one believes that the physical world is all there is (as I do), I would look at the ontology of the world and see purely physical processes. I would dive under the sphere and look at processes illuminated by the works of Schrodinger and Einstein; I would see no Gods behind it all.

But that is what is so strange... physicists attempt to explain the world in purely physical terms but they have hit a wall and encountered phenomena that steadfastly refuses to conform to our common sense notions of how a purely physical world would operate. You can claim by definition that it is physical phenomena, but it sure as heck violates our intuitions of how physical existence is supposed to work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_slit_experiment

Oneiros

Ontologically-challenged=lack of imagination?

As the Bard hath saith:
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy,"

MirrorMask

Ouch. And due to the lack of imagination, the dullard is unable to imagine his lack.

Oneiros

I smell an alternick.

MirrorMask

To earn this



you must relearn to R E L A X, slacker, by asking yourself "why is it automatic with me to comment on the messenger not the message, and does that practice help sharpen my analytic faculties?"

micketymoc

MirrorMask wrote:

Ouch. And due to the lack of imagination, the dullard is unable to imagine his lack.

Pogi, 'di lang malinaw ang tinutukoy mo rito. Who lacks imagination? And - assuming something is imperceptible from lack of imagination, what is this lack the subject is unable to imagine? What is missing?

MirrorMask

Hint: It isn't rocket science.

You fancy yourself a smart boy; figure it out. You may already have, in more ways than one.

Oneiros

*sniff* *sniff*

The smell lingers. Evasive. Check.

And no...

...Virginia, there is no Santa Claus.

Pots and kettles anyone?

Next!

MirrorMask

And you felt you needed to share that percept because?

I A M N O T O U T T O G E T Y O U.

I found your exegesis of the adjective in question to be accurate, that is to say, it tallies with mine. It is evident from your corpus of writing that you are not easily influenced by the more orthodox views floating around, that you are quietly building an independent mind. For that to be possible requires imagination - finish with the conclusion.

Since we are mining bygone users for their insightful gems, ruminate on the three-year old observations of this passer-by

hipshot wrote: »

And so it stares at us. What really is amiss in this eb.

Of the 90,603 members registered in this forum, only a very few can cut it in the ROT. Of these very few, only some can express themselves to the others' satisfaction. And for those who can actually express themselves, they do so in an adversarial vein, as if all the arguments that they meet are competitive. They are close-minded and hate to lose. Lose what? The argument, or the pride?

Most of the topics that are attempting to start a discusion ends up hitting a wall everytime the answer to the question is given. Look at the above posts---they are dead! Nobody makes a reply, as if they will be up against insurmountable arguments if they do.

Perhaps those that make this ROT exciting to read are now gone, leaving the board dejected by the personal tirades that they received. I daresay that those people were professionals. Teachers were they, authors, writers, engineers, lawyers, politicians, newsmen. We can't blame them for leaving can we?

And then again you have a quest for the truth. Maybe this is the truth. It should not end this board, of course, as it ends I.

micketymoc

MirrorMask wrote: »

Hint: It isn't rocket science.

You fancy yourself a smart boy; figure it out. You may already have, in more ways than one.

I only ask that you define your terms. There's no sense in being needlessly vague for the sake of scoring a few brownie points of your own.

Let's not be unnecessarily prickly. Just say what you want to say as clearly as possible.

Who lacks imagination? And - assuming something is imperceptible from lack of imagination, what is this lack the subject is unable to imagine? What is missing?

gekokujo

rocket art?

vinta18

rocket philosophy!

MirrorMask

Brownies? For me? I have no such lofty ambitions. Instead, witness wits persevere. Join.

micketymoc

This rocket's fizzled.

You obviously have nothing to add to the discussion.