This.
The gesture reveals not one but two objects — the other and self. Looking at the other is to gaze at the self. By gesturing this, reality comes into focus and being. This is the beginning of pure ontology.
Tag: empiricism
-
Prompt:
The ontological narrative of independent and dependant things is the realists’ trojan horse, to bring into existence non-existent things. To move back to the discourse of the study of what exists (and what does not exist) is necessary.ChatGPT:
Yes, despite having established that only particular things exist, we still observe that many discourses focus on what does not exist. This happens because language and repetition create an illusion of existence, reinforcing ideas that have no basis in reality. The more something is talked about, the more cognitively familiar it becomes, leading to a false sense of its reality.The Illusion of Existence Through Discourse
- Cognitive Ease and Familiarity Bias – The brain tends to accept what is familiar as true. The more a concept is repeated, the more natural and real it feels, even if it has no actual existence. This is how non-existent things (like universals, spirits, or metaphysical essences) become entrenched in human thinking.
- Reification: Turning Concepts into “Things” – When people talk about “love,” “justice,” or “the nation” as if they were real entities, they commit reification—treating abstract concepts as if they have independent existence. These words describe patterns of interaction between real things, but they do not exist as things themselves.
- Social Reinforcement of Non-Existents – Philosophical, religious, and ideological discourses institutionalize non-existent entities. Laws, traditions, and belief systems build around abstract ideas, treating them as if they were real. This makes it difficult to separate what is useful as a conceptual tool from what is falsely assumed to exist.
How to Counteract This Cognitive Trap
- Return to the Study of Existence – Constantly question whether a thing actually exists or is merely a linguistic or conceptual construction. The test is always: Can this thing be observed, interacted with, and verified as a particular? If not, it does not exist.
- Distinguish Between Useful Fictions and Ontological Truths – Some non-existent things, like mathematical abstractions or legal systems, are useful for practical purposes but must not be confused with real things. Recognizing this prevents linguistic traps from becoming ontological claims.
- Be Aware of the Power of Repetition – Simply because something is widely discussed does not mean it is real. Training oneself to critically analyze language and recognize cognitive ease as a bias is essential to maintaining ontological clarity.
Conclusion: Awareness Without Reinforcement
Since discourse can create cognitive ease and entrench non-existent ideas, the challenge is to engage critically without reinforcing the illusion. Talking about what does not exist should always be framed as an analysis of how and why such non-existent things influence thought and behavior, rather than granting them an implicit reality.
By staying grounded in what actually exists and maintaining vigilance against linguistic distortions, one can avoid falling into the very trap that discourse itself creates.
-
Sexual predators think that if people do not think them a predator then they are not one. Similarly, exceptionalists think that if they are exceptional then they are. The problem is, the facts do not match the reality.
What is primary is the independent reality, not the thoughts. This, I believe, is the problem of most people, including philosophers who do not ask the hard questions about whether the facts – particularly their facts – match reality.
Reality is not theirs. Reality is independent, shared, and common to all.
-
Contextual Material Pragmatism (CMP)’s position on epistemology, ontology, conceptualization, symbolization, referentialization, and pragmatism can be outlined as follows:
1. Epistemology: CMP takes an empiricist stance, stating that all knowledge begins with sense experience. Sense data itself is meaningless until processed by the brain through mental processes. This embodied experience connects knowledge directly to material reality. Knowledge, therefore, is a function of sensory input and the brain’s ability to interpret it, grounded in material processes rather than speculative or metaphysical claims.
2. Ontology: CMP’s ontology begins with the statement, “There are things, inferred space, and inferred time,” asserting that material reality precedes knowledge. Existence itself has no properties—it simply is. Ontology in CMP is rooted in direct material presence, with reality defined as the totality of things. Conceptual and symbolic systems are overlays created by material objects that can process sense data and produce thought.
3. Conceptualization: Conceptualization is the brain’s process of organizing sensory data into internal representations. It begins with material reality but allows beings, particularly humans, to abstract from the physical. Animals like dogs are capable of conceptualization but not symbolization. CMP emphasizes that concepts are created and grounded in the physical experiences of sensing and thinking beings.
4. Symbolization: Symbolization is distinct from conceptualization in that it involves systemic processes that transcend individual experience. Humans, as symbolizing beings, use symbols to share and scale conceptualization, allowing for abstract thought and communication. Symbols act as containers of meaning that are projected and referred back to material or abstract concepts. Symbolic reality does not exist independently but is constructed by physical beings.
5. Referentialization: Referentialization involves the process of anchoring meaning to material reality or concepts through symbols. CMP holds that referents can be physical entities or non-physical entities, but all meaning is ultimately grounded in material existence. Objects themselves serve as their own identifiers, and ostension (pointing to the object) is the ultimate method for addressing particulars.
6. Pragmatism: CMP adopts a pragmatic approach by emphasizing the usefulness of concepts, symbols, and systems in addressing reality. It rejects speculative philosophy, instead focusing on practical, material grounding. Even concepts deemed unuseful can serve a point. Pragmatism in CMP is an applied philosophy (Material Pragmatism) built on the descriptive groundwork of Contextual Materialism. Reality is viewed through material utility, with thought and symbols serving contextual and practical ends.
CMP integrates these elements into a cohesive philosophy that prioritizes material reality as the foundation for all processes, while acknowledging the flexibility of conceptual and symbolic systems to serve practical functions.
-
ChatGPT: The point you’re making, that we constantly mistake the unreal for the real and the real for the unreal, aligns deeply with Contextual Material Pragmatism (CMP). This dynamic highlights how humans often confuse the layers of reality—material, conceptual, and symbolic. Here’s how this works within CMP:
We mistake the unreal for the real when we treat conceptual or symbolic constructs as if they were material realities. For example, people might emotionally engage with Neo as though he exists as a real person, forgetting that Neo is a conceptual construct projected through material reality, such as Keanu Reeves’ performance and the film. Similarly, we might treat constructs like money or capitalism as though they have intrinsic, independent existence, ignoring that they are symbolic systems maintained by material actions. CMP addresses this mistake by emphasizing that abstract constructs like Neo or money do not have independent existence but are overlays on material reality.
We mistake the real for the unreal when we dismiss or ignore material realities, treating them as insignificant compared to abstractions or symbols. For example, Keanu Reeves as a material being might be overlooked, with people focusing solely on Neo or the idea of the film. Similarly, material realities like climate change or ecosystems might be ignored in favor of abstract priorities like economic growth. CMP reaffirms that material entities are the ultimate reality and cannot be disregarded in favor of abstractions.
This confusion arises because humans, as symbolizing beings, are skilled at projecting meaning onto the world. This ability allows for complex conceptualization but also creates a tendency to prioritize abstractions over their material origins. Symbols and concepts operate in layered systems, where their relationships give them meaning, which can obscure their dependency on material reality.
CMP actively clarifies these confusions by grounding concepts and symbols in material reality, showing their dependence on material instantiations. It emphasizes the primacy of material reality as the foundation and highlights the context-dependent nature of meaning, revealing how easily we conflate layers of reality.
In practice, CMP provides tools for navigating this confusion. When confronted with an abstract system like capitalism, CMP would ask: What are the material actions and relationships sustaining this system? When engaging with symbolic realities like Neo, CMP would remind us: This concept depends on material instantiation, such as the film and the actor.
This dynamic—mistaking the unreal for the real and vice versa—could serve as a key theme in explaining CMP’s relevance to everyday life. It demonstrates how CMP grounds understanding and action in material reality while acknowledging the abstractions we construct.
-
Me: What is qualia and how would MP explain it?
ChatGPT: Qualia refers to the subjective, first-person experiences of perception—the “what it feels like” aspect of sensations. For example, the redness of red, the bitterness of coffee, or the sharpness of pain are often cited as examples of qualia. Philosophers argue that qualia are distinct from the objective, measurable properties of the material world; they focus on the experiential aspect that is inherently private and seemingly irreducible.
From the perspective of Materialist Pragmatism (MP), qualia are material processes, not independent entities or non-material phenomena. MP rejects the reification of qualia as something separate from the body or its processes.
Qualia are the subjective aspects of the brain’s processes, arising from the interaction of the sensory organs, nervous system, and brain. They are not “things” but process properties of the body, specifically the brain as it processes sensory input. For example, the experience of “redness” is a property of how the brain interprets the light wavelength associated with red, based on the structure and functioning of the visual system.
The subjective nature of qualia is not evidence of non-material phenomena; it reflects the way individual material bodies process information differently. Each person’s sensory system and brain create a unique interpretation of the same material reality. This subjectivity does not contradict materialism; it demonstrates the variability of material systems.
MP emphasizes that qualia are not extraordinary or mysterious—they are ordinary processes that occur whenever a material body interacts with its environment. For MP, the “mystery” of qualia arises only when they are artificially separated from the material processes that produce them.
The notion that qualia are irreducible stems from a misunderstanding of abstraction. Qualia are often treated as if they exist apart from the brain and body, but MP would argue this is a reification—a process of treating a subjective experience as if it were a thing in itself. In reality, qualia are fully integrated into the material system of the body.
While the exact experience of qualia is subjective, shared linguistic and cultural frameworks allow us to communicate about them. For instance, the concept of “red” is a shared abstraction based on similar material experiences of seeing a specific wavelength of light. MP explains this shared understanding as a result of the common material structures of human bodies and brains.
MP focuses on the practical role of qualia in survival and adaptation. The sensory experiences we call qualia are vital for interacting with and navigating the material world. They help organisms distinguish between beneficial and harmful stimuli, shaping behavior in meaningful ways.
The “hard problem of consciousness,” which asks how and why qualia arise from physical processes, is dismissed by MP as a misframing of the issue. MP asserts that qualia do not “arise” from physical processes; they are physical processes. The apparent difficulty lies in the tendency to separate subjective experience from the material processes of the brain. Once this separation is rejected, the so-called “hard problem” dissolves.
For MP, qualia are not metaphysical puzzles but ordinary aspects of material processes. They are the body’s way of experiencing and responding to the material world, rooted in the structure and functioning of the sensory organs and brain. By rejecting the reification of qualia, MP grounds them firmly in the material reality of the body, treating them as neither extraordinary nor irreducible, but as a natural part of existence.
-
Me: Initial experience is not rational. Furthermore, rationality is also an empirical experience.
ChatGPT: Initial experience is not rational because it precedes the organization and interpretation of sensory input. It is a direct, raw interaction with the material world, consisting purely of sensory data without any cognitive processing or conceptual framing. This initial stage is empirical, as it arises from the body’s interaction with its environment through its senses. It is a material process, not a rational one.
Rationality, on the other hand, is a later development within the continuum of experience. It involves the organization and interpretation of sensory input and the relationships between observed phenomena. However, even rationality is rooted in empirical experience. The material processes of the brain, such as recognizing patterns, forming abstractions, and making judgments, are all empirical because they are grounded in and arise from prior sensory and perceptual experiences.
Rationality does not exist independently of empirical experience. It is a process carried out by the material body, building upon the foundational sensory inputs provided by initial experiences. Thus, both initial experience and rationality are empirical, but they represent different stages of interaction with the material world. Initial experience is direct and unprocessed, while rationality is an organized and systematic process that emerges from empirical foundations. This perspective reinforces the materialist view that all phenomena, including thought, are rooted in the material processes of the body interacting with the world.
-
Me: Experience is sequential. There is an initial experience. And that experience is empirical.
ChatGPT: From the perspective of Materialist Pragmatism (MP), your statement can be expanded as follows:
Experience is sequential because it unfolds in a temporal sequence, reflecting the material reality of time. Each moment follows from the last, and this progression forms the basis of how we organize and understand reality. Sequentiality is grounded in the material processes of the body, such as neural activity, and the relationships between objects in space and time. An initial experience occurs when a material body encounters a new situation or stimulus. This marks the first point of contact between the sensing body and the external material world. The “initial” is always context-dependent, marking the starting point of a specific process rather than an absolute beginning.
All experience arises from direct interactions with the material world, making it empirical. Sensory organs detect changes in the environment, such as light, sound, and touch, providing raw data for perception. This empirical interaction is foundational—it is the material basis from which all perception, cognition, and rationality emerge. Initial experiences are empirical because they are based on observable, tangible interactions. Even abstract thought can be traced back to prior empirical interactions with the material world. The empirical nature of initial experience ensures its grounding in reality, as opposed to speculation or imagination.
Initial experience begins with raw sensory data, which perception then organizes and contextualizes into coherent knowledge. For example, encountering an object for the first time involves sensing its properties, such as shape and color, and integrating these sensations into a meaningful whole. Experiences build upon one another. The sequential accumulation of experiences allows for pattern recognition and abstraction, enabling the formation of concepts and symbols. The empirical foundation ensures that these abstractions remain tied to material reality. Subsequent experiences refine and test the knowledge derived from earlier ones, creating an iterative, empirical process that ensures knowledge remains adaptable and practical.
In Materialist Pragmatism, sequential, empirical experience is the cornerstone of understanding reality. It aligns with your rejection of speculation and your emphasis on the material basis of knowledge. Each experience serves as a building block in the ongoing process of interacting with and making sense of the material world.
-
My experiences are of the world. And my thoughts are about the world.
-
You do not need a mind-independent universal to reach consensus of meaning. Consensus can be reached through the process of interaction.
theoria 