Assumed Foundations/Bill

[Guest guest]

At 11:08 AM 6/8/2004 -0400, Pedsie2 wrote:

>All thoughts, all concepts are based on assumptions.

>The assumptions may be far removed, or even hidden,

>but they are there. The most logic, most tested piece

>of reasoning is based on an act of faith. So it comes

>down to this, from the scientist to the mystic, we all

>pick the version of reality that suits our purpose, that

>fits our nature, that catch our fancy.

>

> For example, Greg, our resident philosopher, writes:

>

>N1. Start with the acceptance of the non-phenomenality of

consciousness.

>N2. Add your acceptance of the no-independent-material stuff idea.

>N3. And add your acceptance of the no-independent-NON-material stuff

idea.

>N1- is of course an assumption. There is no way to prove the non-

phenomenality of consciousness . It is an act of faith, which you

would adopt for any of the three reasons mentioned above: it suits

your purpose, nature, or fancy.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[Pn for " premise " . Cn for " consequent " . ]

 

P1. Assumptions inherently pertain to a context of *discussion*.

 

C1. Assumptions are inherently relative.

 

This is because by P1 assumptions are inherently context

bound, and any context is inherently relative.

 

C2. The most fundamental assumptions pertain to the business of

making assumptions, as " making assumptions " is the inherent

context of *any* assumption-making activity.

 

From P1. I.e. from P1 we can infer that P1 is of the

" most fundamental type " of assumptions.

 

The context of discussion on this list is one of discussion of

" approaches to truth " (from homepage). Also mentioned on the

homepage are " glimpsed your real nature " and " pointers to the

Ultimate. " I infer from the home page that the objective of this

list is discussion of approaches to one's real/Ultimate nature,

presumably with an intent to achieve/foster the achievement

of that which " cannot be achieved " per se, a " realization " of

some sort pertaining to one's inherent/real nature.

 

My point is that the *context* of discussion here embeds a

set of assumptions, not necessarily explicitly articulated.

So regarding the business of assumption-making it seems to

me straight-forward to start with the assumptions embedded

in the context of discussion. In the current context those

would be assumptions pertaining to " approaches to truth " ,

" pointers to the ultimate " etc.

 

For all the discussion of " consciousness " , I find that to

be not the fundamental idea at all. As I see it, the fundamental

idea is one of liberation from any belief in a " self that

efforts " .

 

Bill