IndieAgora

I'll add that the thing without meaning is not the same as the thing with meaning.

This illusion greatly confuses people and leads to dispute.

It is a very subtle point that requires a very keen and sharp awareness.

The dispute arises regarding objects in experience. Some say the object has no meaning, few say it does, while it seems to go mostly unnoticed by the disputants that the same object is not being referred to at all.

The one experiencing the object without meaning is experiencing a completely different object than the one saying otherwise, even if they are experiencing something and there appears to be some agreement going on about aspects of what is being spoken about.

This is because the individual can only experience a particular set of inclusive information and not the same stuff present for anyone else.

Each person, if they are experiencing anything at all, is never experiencing the same "stuff" anyone else is. One can be standing one place, another can be standing next to them, looking at an object they agree on, except one is seeing something entirely different than the other, a completely different screen and set of pixels or whatever one wants to imagine it as.

So not only are two things ever being discussed if there are two people involved, but they hold the sovereign opinion over what only they can see or experience which only they know and can pretend to verify what they say. If a person sees an object and has an associated meaning with it or it means something to them, what they are seeing, the whole of it, is unique to them.

In our world, all we experience is the surface, the them in our world is an entirely distinct set of information than the them in their world if they have a world at all.

This has major implications and can influence the behavior and thinking of people if understood.

It does not mean that people aren't wrong or can't say wrong or false things, but it does mean that an object that has no apprehensible meaning for someone, if they are indeed having an experience and speaking honestly about it, actually is the way they are saying for them, while an object that does have meaning for me can be explained as coming coupled with these other ideas or feelings or meanings, and there is no real way to dispute this since two objects are being spoken about anyway. The one object the person insists has no meaning, the other object the person insists has or brings up these meanings.

We can distinguish between primary and secondary qualities if that helps ?  primary qualties are fundamental to that object belonging to a certain category, secondary are not necessary qualities. Primary qualities are usually agreed upon by definition. For example all bachelors are unmarried. Or all tables have surfaces to put things on. Secondary qualities may be things like colour,  they are particular to that object and not always the same to all tables or bachelors etc.

Oh yeah, that is true. What I was saying though was that the stuff we eat, the pixels in our mind or eye are not pixels anyone else is eating really, they are completely different pixels. The thing being seen is a different thing being seen and agreement is only convenience or appearance, there is a table for every viewer and the table is made out of different particles than the other tables and the table in one person's mind is mixed with things that it isn't for another.

So the idea here is that two people are taking in two different pictures, the whole object they are devouring is incomparable really to the other which may exist and will never ever be the same even if the person stands in the same place that object is inaccessible and gone and eaten as is and by the other.

We skip over this for the sake of normal conversations which can not be verified as anything more than an act or charade where pleasantness and avoiding attack or getting certain reactions is more accessible seeming but deludes the participant into momentarily forgetting that we can never truly talk about the same things.

Okay, in Welsh there are not seperate words for green and blue, lets call them one word, grue. Does that mean that a Welsh man's experience of green is different from an English man's ? I would guess yes. Leading to the conclusion that language informs our experience. As to experience informing language, that is a different question.
However I think you are saying that there are no things in themselves without our experiencing them. The question does a tree make a sound in the woods when it falls down and there is no one to hear it ?

Okay, in Welsh there are not seperate words for green and blue, lets call them one word, grue. Does that mean that a Welsh man's experience of green is different from an English man's ? I would guess yes.


https://ontic-philosophy.com/Thread-The-Language-Instinct

Very cool stuff! I wonder if Ontical can also take a guess at what I might be saying, since it is pretty important to me but I have had a tremendous amount of difficulty getting anyone to appear to really understand it as I wish since it isn't quite as straightforward as people having different ideas about the same things or looking at one thing but having different languages regarding it or what they can put into words in their own minds, so my latest attempt was to talk about two different photos. Now I can go further and talk about two different bowls of food with entirely different ingredients.

So the idea here is that two people are taking in two different pictures, the whole object they are devouring is incomparable really to the other which may exist and will never ever be the same even if the person stands in the same place that object is inaccessible and gone and eaten as is and by the other.

Ok. How about we try to dive into each other's worlds a little bit, using imagination in the process?

Haha, well we will never know if its at all true or referring to anything which exists at all but we can try.

My world right now is yellow tinted. My whole physical space seems to be a tiny bathroom but even the distance between me and the door is imaginary really, I am just a flat screen of information and my feelings are a bit mixed. I have a limited amount of pdf files that I can have opened on my phone but I also kind of want one or two or three more opened even though I can't read them right now anyway. The third of those I'm not even surehow I can search or find on my phone but is about forests in sanskrit literature, but when I think about it, I already know it quite well, and can instead of that open the Vendidad and Bundahisn but then I might as well open the whole Avestan scriptures. I can only read a little before falling right off to sleep sometimes if I haven't slept well. I have numerous things opened on my phone which I don't know when I will read, stuff I know somehow pretty much anyway but are refreshers for a few themes I am working on that are overall intertwined.

I wanted to look at other stuff on the phone while in here but I lost the feeling to do that too. I feel a kind of burning in my chest, part might be costrochondritis while the other might be the spicy nachos I made earlier or acid reflux. I feel very far from good or well physically, but feel fired up somewhat intellectually or mentally. A kind of intellectual fever that has been going on, but not being in pain and feeling light and free and healthy feels really good and its been a while since I have felt that. Pretty much all my parts are ok except my chest area and back of it. The weather outside which I can't see but can hear through the supposed sounds of cars is wet as the wheels tear through water on the road and its supposedly darkish outside due to heavy overcast, but all I see is this yellow door made yellow by the tint of the light and this yellower floor because it already has a tint to it, and this pink tub and yellow cabinets with silver knobs and white but yellow strange lifted sink and a mirror now that I can see if I look up but since I amdown here on the toilet I can't see my face in it but instead the shower curtain pole thing and towel hanging on the door. There are other things too but if anyone is thinking then I have just contributed to the generation of others or a multitude of these little yellow chambers.

Nice! But is it a world of things or of ideas?

Great question actually. I suppose all I can in any sense create for others through description is a world of ideas, which are things too or made of things but I can't get my things to them, I can only assume they are generating things which are at least close enough conceptually to agree upon or pretend we are understood.