I wrote this on my Notepad, because the forum engine seems to have a bug with IE when writing advances under the answering box bottom. It bounces back up. I doubt if I bother to comment anything that has been posted before this. Again I apologize for my grammar, spelling and the typos I make even when writing in my native language. Too lazy to use the Spell Checker
Different species perceive the world quite differently. If you were suddenly turned into a bat, you could make no sense of the world with your previous human "split" what things are.
Why not just use the word "perception" instead of "split"? It becomes vague when you use terms that are don't mean what you're using them for. If you're going to split the world, you're probably a super-villian with a giant laser, whereas someone who perceives the world differently is just focusing on different details.
Maybe I should use some more "official" philosophical terms from the western classical philosophy. Then my view would be "ontological relativism" against "ontological realism". The latter believes and searches that there is this absolute, non-subjective "one truth" somewhere behind of and separate from how we experience reality. Maybe as Plato's "ideas" hidden from us, maybe in some solid categorizing system like in Aristotle. Maybe in modern reductionism ("subatomic particles are the reality, more real that the objects we perceive", "the mind is only electrical currents" etc) I think that is a religious view and speculative theology. Believing in a thing that can't be proven and measured. THAT would ne "vague". (And now I bet you still don't get what I mean and say sure we can measure things. Things yes, but not that mystical out-there bottom reality that most of Western philosophy searches. I say that it doesn't exist. I say like to the theists: Show me your God)
In my wording I used "split" and "divide". "Slice" would be better. Slicing like a loaf of bread. "Categorize" might be best. (Damn this is not my native language, I can write only "Finglish" using words that first come to mind from my limited vocabulary
) A new use for those words yes, but functionally fitting. Happens all the time, nothing vague. Like is the newly found planet Eris (originally Xena) a planet or not. First it was, then they used the mental knife and cut, split, sliced or recategorized Eris (and Pluto too) from the planets. I am saying that this happens and has happened in everything. More than we realize.
You talking about a super-villain physically splitting the world, sadly tells me that you are like the philosophers I mocked in my "trying to show a two-dimensional creature that the third dimension exists"-parable above. Hopeless. You are just staying in your flat plane, seeing my stuff as "vague" dots that don't mean anything to you.
And why don't I use "perceive" instead of "split" (and divide and slice)? That question betrays too, that you can't understand me even enough to try and negate my view. Hey maybe I really am a genius, and been misunderstood is our lot, because the other people are stupid? I need a beer!
(After a 50 cl can of 4.6 % lager. Make that two: )
I don't think that I explain my point badly. Maybe people just are not able to grasp the concept. No words can help then.
I'll try. May this be the last time on this subject from me:
"Perceive" in everyday speech would imply that something is perceived. This something is out there and then the information from it is filtered through various sensory systems and cultural points of view. And so it happens. That is a valid view too. Not arguing against that.
But not at all what I mean when I'm battling typical Western philosophy and it's bogus questions.
"Perceive" tends to beg the philosophical question: "What really exists "an sich" behind our perception"? Enter the ontological realism, Platonism. Aristotle. Enter modern brainy but flatheaded philosophers like Popper who cleverly divided (split!) the world in three and then seems to think he discovered that's how the world really is. Enter the mind-body problem. And all could be easily dealt by using the Occams Razor-wise: If it cannot be seen what is out there beyond the ways of actually seeing it, if we can't measure it, if there is no way to prove even our mind organizes or categorizes the world is more true than the way some other culture or species would do it.... then it is safe to say that what philosophy searches does not exist. That kind of philosophy is religion. Providing a way to control people morally and politically and pay good money for hordes of philosophers thinking problems that are as real as how many angels fit on a needlepoint. Or in modern philosophy they have seriously formed schools of thought around the question are the natural laws empirical generalizations or logical necessities. It's both, you idiots!
The philosophical arguing on this tread is the same. Full of self created, unnecessary mental knots. Masochism? Stupidity?
Or if you think that there is something out there beyond our view of it or that there is one true way to categorize the world ontologically... who perceives it? You? Some group of philosophers? God? (Now I'm quessing you would answer scientific research and babble about new scientific discovery, still not getting what I mean).
I hear that some time the eskimos had the need for hundreds of colors describing ice. White man perceives and calls tem all as "white". It was the type of ice, not its color. We use the word "ice" to encompass everything because we don't need to know its minor properties for everyday use, but since they lived within an environment of ice, they needed to be able to distinguish its properties very quickly since ice made up so much of their environment.
If you have seen Monty Python's "Life of Brian" now you resemble the simple folks who did not understand when Brian tried to tell a parable, emulating Jesus. They started asking questions like what was the name of the man in the parable and hearing he had sons, asking how many of them. Completely unable to understand that the parable is pointing outside the story.
Likewise, ice in my anecdote was just an illustration of my point. Could have used anything, from mountains to subatomic particles. But unlike biblical parallels or typical anecdotes, real mountains or subatomic particles are a part of the story.
(I originally heard that eskimo-stuff as types of ice or rather snow. Lately I read that they had those hundreds of colors for ice too, and that seemed a good example for my use. In Finland we don't have inuits, we have the Sami. But maybe you know inuits or you are an inuit and you know these facts better. But that's totally beside my point!)
It isn't that they see ice that only exists in their "world", which is what you seem to be implying, but that they are better able to recognize the minutia about ice faster than someone from the equator. It would be possible, however, to point out the differences so another could recognize it. The world the eskimos live in is the same world the Australians live in - because all the hard data is identical. The only difference between our "splits", as you call them, is the details we individually focus on.
Also; I don't call ice white, I call it clear - usually with a blueish tint.
Yeah, here you go. Proving that you don't understand. All you do is give me straw man arguments.
I ask again: Where were the "details we focus on" when the human species or the culture that just "focuses" on those details as you say, did not exist? Where are they when the human species is gone? Do you understand what the zen-koan: "If a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody there, does it make a sound" tries to show you? We are not just focusing on stuff, we are creating a "split" or categorization which brings these things in existence as separate entities. WE create them when it is useful. Where was "zero" in mathematics before the arabs invented it? You might think that it was always in existence, but really it was a new creation. And yes, where were the "minute details" of whatever that the eskimos recognize.. where were they as SEPARATE ENTITIES before the eskimos recognized them? They were not, nor will they be when the inuit culture is gone. There might come new separate entities or details in ice to recognize, but nobody can see them now, because they have not yet been "split" from the world. And what about the categories for reindeer of the Scandinavian and Finnish Sami people? The reindeer themselves sure don't need it or perceive that way, nor anyone who doesn't herd reindeer. Or is in your metaphysics some cosmic Bank, maybe the Mind of God, that stores these and makes them exist even before they are used? Show that bank to me.
"Hard data being identical" is no proof against my relativistic "splitting" or "slicing" either. Of course the hard data, if being accurate, tells us of the world. But don´t you get that data comes from answering questions, that are not absolute but relativistic according the needs of the culture or species who asks those questions? According to their special point of view, rising drom their needs. It would be philosophical BS again to claim that there is no other reality than is perceived trough the viewpoint of OUR questions. There are limitless angles to ask or collect data. Who are you to claim that some species that sees the world totally differently that us, just has not "recognized" the "hard data" we search through OUR questions? Who made you God?
Our questions to the world being answered first seems to imply, that there really is "something out there" in the philosophical sense. But since we can't perceive or talk about the reality in any way than trough our varied viewpoints and questions asked from them, it is nonsense to claim that there is such secret reality. The reality IS these everyday bits and pieces we gather asking questions from our differing points of views. Not otherworldly, and not forced to a certain way to divide the world. Created and not created by us. Thats why I posted that Gospel of Thomas- quote before. Putting a leg in place of a leg and still making inside outside etc. If Jesus really said what is in Thomas, the poor bastard got badly misunderstood by his stupid pupils.
This is not overreaching like everyone could command what reality is. So when say Fundamentalist Christianity claims that the world is 6000 years old and there was a Biblical flood, they are asking questions that science asks, they are entering the viewpoint and "split" or categorization that science uses. And most often the Christian hypothesis are proven wrong. But they don't care
But there are paraller ways to "split" or "slice" the world.
Take one example more: Discovery of Acupuncture.
Now please don't get pedantic again like with the ice. I have not been acupunctured, I'm not going to and I don't know much about it. This example is just an illustration too. Acupuncture (unlike some New Age shit like homeopathy) has actually proved to work in some medical conditions. Western medicine accepts it. But the western explanation of the phenomena is yet unsure and very complicated. Nerv cells and hormones, reactions to a small amout of irritation and so on. The Chinese have a theory, that a life-force flows through meridians and when the crossing points of these are manipulated, the energy changes direction and the person is healed or feels better. Now, western medicine or physiology can detect no such energy and no meridians. From the western perspective they don't exist, and I agree. They really do not exist when asking questions and slicing the world like we do. But using the western point of view acupuncture propably never would have been invented nor could it be properly used! So I think that the Chinese view is totally as real as ours. Allthough it splits or divides the world so differently than us, that even their "energy" is not our energy. It is not meant to fit among our slicing of the world, it has its own way to do that. The proof of its reality is that acupuncture works. Pragmatic need is the root of all our world views, slicings and dividings. Categorizations of the world are just tools.
Likewise I think some shamanistic practices might be useful and true, as long as they are not taken as direct claims aiming to contradict our physical world view. Art too is a way to understand truths and create new ways of thinking, allthough that idiot Plato despised art because to him it was just emulating what is "Really" real. Many commoners still take art only as pictures and descriptions of the real world. Bad philosophy at work.
Now you propably just think this as some lame "vague" mysticism. You don't get it. Maybe you are just unable? And where has my sixpax disappeared?