Posted: Dec 07, 2016 7:59 am
Little Idiot wrote:Cito di Pense wrote:Little Idiot wrote:
Linguistic legerdemain and pedantic persnickety interlocution make a poor surrogate for metaphysical inquisition.
Bullshit. LL and PPI are the entirety of metaphysical waffle. There isn't anything into which to inquire, or we'd be there by now.
MI is not modeling, unless you're happy trying to instruct people about the content of the terms you use. If you spend all your time doing that, then you won't ever get to the modeling. That's par for the course in metaphysics.
You are half right and half wrong (as distinct from your other half being left).
You are right about some types of metaphysical inquiry, the type common in the way of thinking which is outwards looking. But you are mistaken to apply that to all inquiry. Inwards self enquiry needs none of that, no LL or PPI.
But there is little enough to gain from trading opinion about inquiry and more to be gained from the act of inquiring.
Well, let me suggest that in the future, you use a word like 'features' (suggesting something public or outer) in describing your 'model', and save a word like 'aspects' (suggesting something private or inner) for describing the abstraction you're trying to 'model'. But don't work too hard at it; the evidence is that you know fuck-all about 'modeling' pure abstractions. Don't feel too bad. Nobody else does, either. Maybe you should give up on calling it 'modeling' and stick with a wibbly term like 'explicating'.
That way, you could talk about some feature of your 'model', like < ... > that corresponds to some aspect < ... > of undivided awareness, and some other aspect involving individual awareness that corresponds to some other feature of your 'model'. Thus, the aspects are 'divided' and 'undivided', and we are back to square one.
One thing you know about 'features', of course, is the old question about whether something is a feature, or just a bug. How can we 'model' something where there is no observable to compare to the model? You seem to know fuck-all about modeling observables, too, which is why you're wallowing around claiming to be 'modeling' abstractions.