Has anyone seen my neutral pointer?

[Excited Penguin]

Let me try to explain the neutral pointer concept in a different way.  Imagine there is a box and we can hear an animal moving inside.  We don’t know what it is.  Let’s suppose, however, that all our lives we “knew” (this is just a made up story, so go with me on this) that animals in boxes are cats.  If, for some reason one suspects that it might not be a cat inside, how would one pose the question of what it is?

(In this analogy, the “knowledge” that the animal in the box is a cat is analogous to the common sense “knowledge” that this experience is a material world. )

Now, if I want to ask myself what is in the box, I don’t want to say “what kind of cat is in the box?” No.   I want a “neutral pointer” – a way of referring to what is in the box while implying as little as possible about its nature.  I might say, “what kind of animal is in the box.”  “Animal” is my neutral pointer.  My question now expresses, implicitly, that I don’t know what kind of animal is in the box.  It might be a cat.  But it might be a ferret, too.  It also puts my mind in an implicit “I don’t know what is in the box” frame of mind, where as calling it a cat puts me back in the habitual mode of thinking.

The neutral point SAYS NOTHING about what is in the box.  It is a conceptual tool used to REFER to what is in there without any conceptual or (in the case of this experience) ontological baggage.  It’s like putting it in a box labeled “I don’t know what this is and I’m trying to find out.”  It is merely a way of referring to something of which I don’t know the real identity, nature, etc.  It’s something I use to refer to some thing or concept when I’m trying to understanding what it really is, NOT TO MAKE STATEMENTS ABOUT WHAT IT REALLY IS.

This may seem like a silly little thing, but I’ve found it very helpful.  In my experience, one of the most important things I can do when trying to make sense of something is to be careful how I label it, and to be careful to make distinctions – not only where I KNOW there is a difference, but even more so where I THINK THERE MIGHT BE A DIFFERENCE.  An example of this, for me, is between the concepts of material world and physical world.  (That’s another topic for another day.)  My neutral pointer for what we learn to call "the material world" is "this experience."  It works for me.  I know this might seem very "pedestrian" to people used to thinking in fifty dollar philosophical phrases, but I don't think well that way.  I do the best I can with what God gave me.  (Ouch!)

That analogy is so fucking stupid I won't even touch it.

There's no need for a neutral pointer. It's nonsense. It doesn't add anything to anything. It doesn't help with your reasoning. It's completely and utterly useless.

Normal people already can think of things without adding unnecessary characteristics to them. Maybe you can't. That would be a very serious mental problem, I think, one that would show itself more readily than what I'm seeing with you. So I think this is just a peculiarity of yours and you feel very special for trying to play at philosophy here.

I'm sorry to be so dismissive, but this is so fucking stupid I would have to write 10 pages for every paragraph you wrote in this post to explain why, and I'd still not get anywhere with you. Believe me, I just tried to touch that analogy of yours. I would have to write a whole posts's worth just to explain to you why it's a bad analogy and what would be a good analogy, as well as improve it for you.


Again, apologies for the aggressive response, but until you make one iota of sense I simply cannot respond to anything you write. You have to make some sense at least. Any sense at all. That I could work with.

---

OP, try harder. If you're onto something here, I'm not seeing it.