Systemization

This is a discussion between 2 youtuber 'philosophers' about the nature of truth. The main point of interest here is Eric Orwoll who is a christian platonist of some kind and his stubborn position that truth (or meaning or value or any sort of mental construct or model) is some fixed absolute which the human mind accesses or discovers in another realm, the realm of platonic forms where all truth resides.
Meaning therefore is something the human mind discovers 'out there', it's something that's found or received from a god.

It goes on for 3+ hours because Orwoll keeps circling the same set of ideas without any real communication or understanding occurring.
I remember he visited here briefly years ago but I can't even remember what he was talking to Satyr about. I'd expected more from him than this tbh.

I suppose the purpose of this thread is to ask - what is going on here?
1) I assume the need to think that meaning is discovered rather than created is the need to have their value system be intrinsic to the nature of the universe and so therefore unquestionable and so their authority as representatives of that meaning is unquestionable.
2) So it would follow that the inability for Orwoll to take the point the other guy is making follows from that. If mankind is the creator of value, value is not intrinsic to the universe and so his authority as the interpreter of all meaning and value is not unquestionable.

Was this a conscious decision on the part of christians to adopt platonism for this purpose, or was it just popular at the time and they associated themselves with it? Is there anything to it beyond social utility?

Aside from that, there's also the system of mathematics which is mentioned.
Mathematics is a representational language constructed by human minds but Orwoll interprets representations as reality, 1:1 the two are interchangeable. Mathematical law is how the universe functions. Humans didn't invent maths, they received it from the platonic realm presumably via the divine.

What is the psychology of a mind that overly-systematizes everything like this, to the point where the system gets in the way of what it is supposed to represent?

Can it be 'fixed'? Would it have been possible for the other guy Blithering Genius to get through to him, communicate the point of such systems being representational and even convince him of it? How could it be done?

Without listening to this...
Meaning - as I define the concept - is indeed discovered since it refers to ho phenomena inter-ralte.
Like a map has meaning only when it represents geographical places, real places - and describes or estimates their elevation, distances etc.
What do we mean when we say man creates his own purpose, which is not meaning.
Purpose refers to a destination, an objective, within a world of meaning.
Conventional thought uses these terms as synonyms.
"What tis the meaning of life?"....meaning "What is the purpose of life?"

Through meaning man can give himself purpose.
A meaningful purpose, meaning a realistic, realizable, purpose...and no an unrealizable, fantastic purpose that can never be achieved.
Unrealistic purposes are without meaning.
Their meaning is imaginary - like a map of Tolkien's Middle Earth.
It is a map, like any other, but it refers to no geography in reality and so whatever purpose we can derive form it is unattainable, or escapist, or used to excuse ourselves from reality.

As with everything...the correct definition and application of words is essential to meaning and purpose.
Otherwise, we might as well join postmodernists and their use of language to evade reality rather than engage it, or to fabricate imaginary purpsoes that will never be realized so as ot rpetend we are seeknig meaning in life, when all we secretly desire is meanignlesness as a way fo escaping failure.

This is what I mean when I say "definnig words out of existence".

Nihilism has been apropriated by nihilism, and meaning has been rendered meaningless when the words are used to disconenct rather than connect with existence.

Hypocrites and cowards use words to intentionally evade the utility of language, which is to connect the mind’s conceptions with a world independent from them.
This is most evident in postmodernism, where even the simple concept of male/female has been intentionally made meaningless by detaching the concept – via the word/symbol – from its independent referent.
Words can also be used to detach the mind form reality, as a defensive strategy to protect the mind form what it cannot endure.

So, even the concept of free-will – a synthesis of two concepts – can be made meaningless when it is detached from its interactive referent of “choice” – implying that there is an invisible, supernatural, or occult agency involved in the perceptible act of choosing.
Will refers to the focus of organic energies upon an objective, and free refers to an absence of coercion in the act of focusing, and the act of choosing what to focus upon.
The empirical act of choosing is denied relevance so as to give the concept a meaningless definition that can never be proven or disproven.
Cowards and hypocrites need to maintain words as disconnected abstractions, when most can be connected to experienced reality, such as specialized reproductive roles – male/female, or moral behaviours facilitating specific objectives.
By abstracting ideas to the degree where they are “defined out of existence” the charlatan produces dependence.
Concepts are no longer independently accessible to individuals but must go through a “mediating authority”, or “collective approval”.

Isn't a map just a representation?
Isn't it a creation of humans for the purpose of representing a top down view of geography?

It's 'meaning' is that it represents the real, from a particular point of view, for a particular purpose. Navigation, let's say. The objective would be to navigate from A to B, represented on the map. The map provides knowledge about the terrain between A and B, aiding in the objective.

My point with this thread was to ask what is the psychology of the mind that would confuse the map for the terrain it represented.
Confusion of representation for reality.
The map has little names on it, dots, points of interest, lines indicating elevation, blue blobs indicating bodies of water. These marks in the representation don't correspond exactly with the reality to which they refer.
The representation is not accurate, nor can it be. There can only be a degree of accuracy.
This conflict of accuracy leads to error because the representation does not correspond to the reality and could for example lead the navigator to C instead of B.

Is it possible to bring a mind out of over-systemization, to communicate that the representational is not interchangeable with the reality it describes?

apaosha wrote:

Isn't a map just a representation?

Yes, language (art) is a representation of a representation.

apaosha wrote:

Isn't it a creation of humans for the purpose of representing a top down view of geography?

I call it the middle, physis, the apparent.
Metaphysics below and ideology above.

Bottom<>Up begins with the apparent, rejecting the idea that it is illusory.

Top<>Down begins with the ideology, the dogma, so that it does not have to connect it to the experienced, the apparent.
Its presumption is that the apparent is illusion. Mine is that the apparent is an interpretation of what exists, the actual, even if not completely perceived since it is also dynamic and it changes.

apaosha wrote:

It's 'meaning' is that it represents the real, from a particular point of view, for a particular purpose. Navigation, let's say. The objective would be to navigate from A to B, represented on the map. The map provides knowledge about the terrain between A and B, aiding in the objective.

Yes, so the perspective has to be based no something independent from all perspectives.
Its objective must me placed within existence.
A map represents existence. The points on the map parts of existence of interest to the one who uses it, and the one who made the map.

apaosha wrote:

My point with this thread was to ask what is the psychology of the mind that would confuse the map for the terrain it represented.

The motive is obvious.
Humans need to reduce reality to a level they can process and they can change.
A map can be altered,a t will, the geography it represents cannot as easily be altered. A man can leave out of his map places that make him anxious or he wishes did not exists, but by leaving them out of his map doesn't erase them form existence - or altering distanced or elevations or palce-named doesn't affect the geographical locations, it simply makes the one who chooses to arbitrarily corrupt his map feel better.
If this practice is collectivised - as with postmodernity - then the initiated may even forget the geography can come to believe there is only a map, which they can alter at will.
So, a social agreement has to be established so as to not contradict the varying ways they can alter the map - an addended to the already agreed that none will "ever go there", viz., will never travel, physically, to the places not included on the map.
They need to do this to maintain a shared delusion/lie.

apaosha wrote:

Confusion of representation for reality.
The map has little names on it, dots, points of interest, lines indicating elevation, blue blobs indicating bodies of water. These marks in the representation don't correspond exactly with the reality to which they refer.
The representation is not accurate, nor can it be. There can only be a degree of accuracy.
This conflict of accuracy leads to error because the representation does not correspond to the reality and could for example lead the navigator to C instead of B.

Is it possible to bring a mind out of over-systemization, to communicate that the representational is not interchangeable with the reality it describes?[/quote]They deal with all subsequent errors by denying there are errors, or by renaming or redefining words, such as distance, elevation etc.., in a way that nobody can go from A to C when he wanted to go to B because there is no difference, or B = C, tautologies.
The delusional sharing an intentionally useless map recognizes no difference between A, B, C.... they simply start walking and go wherever the roads takes them.
There is no goal, no destination.
It's about the trip.
Nothing is attained because there is nothing to attain - nothing to be reached. Only a stroll in the park with no wild beasts, no dangers.
If something happens to them it is never their fault, or it was meant to be and they could not have avoided it.
Innocence.