Here we go.

[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

'Causuality' means "Cause and effect". In this sense of the word it makes perfect sense, in order for you to experience anything something must happen first. Pretty fucking simple. Also, in order for your perception to record that experience, your self must exist first. Pretty damned simple.

Just because occurance A happened and occurance B followed does not imply that A caused B. One could simply have happened and the other followed.

Going further into causality it explains that in order for you to even exist, your parents had to fuck. Thus, a cause and effect to allow you to even exist. Go ahead and roll it back, there's plenty of causes and effects that, if they didn't happen, your self wouldn't exist(at least in this 'form') in order to be experiencing. Without burdening ourselves with the usual bullshit surrounding causality, I think that will be enough.

If causuality were entirely consistent, the very universe could not exist.

I can deny the existence of the world and yet, without putting a bullet in my head(some kind of causality), I'm still going to wake up in the morning existing in this world(probably). Although, that could be argued in some ways I guess.

False analogy. You still see the world when you wake up. It is not the same in my case. I no longer interpret cause and effect when I remove assumptions. I have done just what Kant said is impossible.

Again, who cares? People can pretend all kinds of things. It doesn't change anything nor make it true/false, just like your perception is just that-- a perception. I don't know who told you that philosophical ideas have to be held by you in order for them to work, but I think it's really holding you back. If anything, philosophy is something that exists regardless of if people believe in them(ideally, and depentant on the philosophy I guess). Just like gravity.

The starting point for philosophy must be the individual. Any other starting point automatically loses its validity.

Again, the conception in itself doesn't matter, just what is. There's a reason why we are born with these preconceptions, and you must consider them in a sense of development-- or if you will 'causal'.

Here you missing a key point. I am not denying that causuality exists; that would be just as bad as affirming it. However, I feel that for causuality to bear any valid meaning it must have a slight change. I will address this soon.

Also, according to most anybody your logical faculties don't really develop until a certain age, so we aren't so much BORN with it, but more it develops by means of causality.

Irrelevant.

That's possibly quite true. However, you still have to pay homage to your basic human facets that allowed you to 'causal' to what you are today. It's possible that, by the combining of Causality, logic and the 'I' you could easily disestablish yourself. Just by Causality and logic, really, the I's only there because you're the one doing it sort of.

I'm not sure if I understand your point.

Why? This makes no sense, you just sound like a pretentious fuck. How is language an assumption? If you were removing all assumptions you'd remove the assumption that you were even correct in the first place, thus voiding the reason to communicate your opus.

Only in the beginning do I remove assumptions. At this point I am merely explicating my experience.

I wouldn't really call actions a perception, but Okay. Do you know what absolute means, especially when you say it's "Not circumstantial"? Everything is circumstantial, all the way down to you being able to post your opus on this message board. Circumstance. The only way what you're saying would be absolute is if you removed all instances of causality, all instances of self and all instances of assumption while still retaining the ability to move, think or act. Impossible. First, you need a cause and effect to put you where you are now, second you need your sense of self to realize that you want to move and third you need your assumption that you need to move in the first place.

By "not circumstancial," I mean capable of being exercised in all circumstances.

Not true, if you win the lottery once does that guarantee you a win in the future? No. If you are bringing this down to psychological and perceptual levels... maybe in some senses. A very loose sense. Through the power of the combination of self, logic and causality people can usually manage to learn through their mistakes or even fortunes. If you are talking about people continually doing things they know that work... congrats or something.

The observations are intertemporal.

You mean like how if you're posting asinine things you're likely to continue posting them in the future? Probably, but what does this have to do with "Reality" so much as the reality of your own self?
How is "Reality" responsible(/a reflection) for you?

I don't understand what you're getting at here.

I seriously don't understand what you're getting at, I'm assuming you have some stupid point to make but the basis of the point is fucking retarded. Occasionally, in some CIRCUMSTANCES things will continue to happen because they work. They don't necessarily occur more often. And in any sense, there's too many exceptions.

I don't disagree with you here. I'm not proclaiming induction to be universally valid.

Great. I remember when I was interested in 'perceptions' too. It's probably the most natural thing in the world to look at in the begining. However, there are easily recognizable things outside and beyond your perception. Use your logic of 'Causality' to find them.

No, there aren't. That's technically impossible. Read some Hume.

Bubba - What exactly is there that you want me to define?