But in the Deutschian view, the inexplicit and nebulous can in principle be made explicit and precise. In the McGilchrist view, this can’t be done without loss of meaning. Fallibilism doesn’t get you irreducible nebulosity.
-
-
Replying to @JakeOrthwein @reasonisfun and
(I don’t know about CRs specifically but) this distinction between ontological nebulosity and epistemic uncertainty is the central thing rationalists (other brands at least) don’t understand (and often seem to actively resist understanding for emotional safety reasons)
3 replies 0 retweets 19 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @JakeOrthwein and
in your terms, ontological nebulosity is distinct and prior to epistemic uncertainty; y/n?
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
-
Replying to @Meaningness @JakeOrthwein and
another one if in the mood: in your terms, emptiness is distinct and prior to nebulosity; nebulosity has a bit more of conceptual flavor, but they are close; y/n?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @meditationstuff @JakeOrthwein and
mm, not so much… I haven’t tried to clarify this because afaict “emptiness” is somewhat a “floating signifier” in Buddhism; different people use it to mean different things, none of which are clearly defined. “Nebulosity” is also not clearly defined, so… https://meaningness.com/terminology/emptiness-form-nebulosity-pattern …pic.twitter.com/vuimwgG9hM
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @JakeOrthwein and
I want to gently push back on the emptiness thing. I'll be just another voice in the cacophony, but it seems like you take a very scholarly approach to emptiness (which is excellent and critically valuable) but what about the direct experience part?
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @meditationstuff @Meaningness and
Agreed that there are exoteric and esoteric usages of the term, and dharma battles, and scholarly debates. But, I'll personally bite "emptiness is a phenomenological referential quality that confers immediate knowledge of something like 'that seeming territory is actually map'"
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @meditationstuff @JakeOrthwein and
Well… most of the words in that are not used in any traditional explanation. They don’t unambiguously correspond to any traditional vocabulary, afaik? So what you are describing might be a thing, which might or might not be the same as some version of “emptiness”?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @JakeOrthwein and
That's very true. But, if there's a landscape, and there's salient things in a landscape, and they're somewhat spaced apart. One can point, and even if the pointing is vague, people often look in the direction of finger and get same referent.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
Ah, yes, same metaphor I was using! So, my vague feeling is that the landscape is less distinct than it seems you take it to be. I am quite unsure about this, though.
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @meditationstuff and
Somewhat tangentially, I’ve been working on-and-off on a post that says “I don’t understand the map-vs-territory distinction” for about five years now. I’ve failed to finish it because I don’t even understand what I don’t understand… It’s been “nearly done” that whole time tho
2 replies 0 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @JakeOrthwein and
It seems like some people seemingly intuitively understand it (e.g. LessWrong, general semantics) and some people seemingly understand it but think it's contradictory
@aphercotropist.3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes - 14 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.