The Philosophers

Reading back, I realize I owe Pezer a public apology, as I realize I did actually slander him here.
Not my finest moments. I should know how to handle his stings of disappointment a lot better.

Well this will have to do.

By Zeus, Sagittarius has no patience and does not compromise.

:laughing: Do you think that this apology could be improved upon ~~ just a tad?

I don’t know, its good to owe someone something sometimes.

Work is to be done on the planet.
VO kicks in like what kind of engine?

This is true. Most of the time.

Hahaha

So right.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCz7Vn5ErJ0[/youtube]

audiomack.com/song/fixed-cross/ramon

Om Nama Value Ontology. Self-valuing logic, Axiomatic Chaos Theory, now operates as seedling in the young, and as a Satan in the discourse of the old. In the former it was their vitality, vigour, virility that triggered a new courage in the mind, in the latter it was an old obedience that found in VO the perfect world to explore as that which is not true; the most scintillating vanity to posture in front of as the blind justice of “I know that I know not”. Demonstrating so palpably how shortsighted and dreamy the self-valuing can get to be able to persist, how such fragility necessarily accompanies the good, because in this best of all possible world, it is only the path of increase that offers sustenance. For there to be health, there must be weakness to be overcome, ever continuing, it is never going to end, it is only a matter of which side you spend your life on.

ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi … 7&start=25

Take her home boys.

OH BACK AT THEWELLLLL

"Book of Doves

Tell me who gave us the Book of Doves
[Alasdair Roberts]


Reality Failure
Ultimately, philosophy strains towards a reality.
Reality is that which we most avoid - even unthinkingly, unintentionally.


Philo-sophia
‘Philo-sophy’ should mean the attraction towards wisdom - i.e., traditional wisdom …
Vision and judgement, my friends.


Presocratics
The Presocratics were not merely the first scientists - they were the first metaphysicians too.


Thales was Right
All Aryan existence begins in rainfall.


Heroic

‘The world’ must be grasped both as Oneness and as Diversity.
This very contradiction is the barbed wire fence which rips the flesh and scars the spirit.
A Hero who is a Hero of Oneness is Doomed to fail just as the Hero who is a Hero of Diversity is Doomed to fail as both will be crushed in the Paradox.
Dionysos and Apollo symbolise this unending contradiction.


Violence

There is a Paganism of Oneness just as there is a Paganism of Diverisity.

Odin is a god of diverse masks, but he is also the Allfather, just as Nietzsche sees all Heroes as masks of Dionysos.
Likewise there is in Nietzsche the Oneness of the Will of Power and also the Diversity of the Perspectival.
The Tyrant is he who - heroically - attempts to “stamp Being on Becoming”, as Nietzsche has it.
That is ‘violence’.
The Tyrant is a Hero withal.


Witches’ Brew

“The mass death in the war for the glory of the German race is the apotheosis of this witches’ dance.” [Wilhelm Reich]

I seized upon the above quote in my Nietzschean Jim Morrison essay as it so obviously echoed Nietzsche’s view of the pure Dionysian [which is Oneness - i.e. the Dionysian without Apolline mediation] as being a “witches’ brew”.
As I say that phrase I can’t help but think of Miles’ Bitches Brew [with John McLaughlin on guitar] which is itself a very pure Dionysian music.
I think also of the view that the witch is a residue in Christian times of the Odinist seidh religion.

The difference between Paganism and Christianity, as Carlyle has it, is that the former divinises Nature while the latter divinises the Moral Law.
In so doing, Christianity transvalues Paganism. The witch is ‘evil’ to the Christian, while the ‘witch’ is ‘good’ to the Pagan. So Paganism’s ‘good and bad’ is transvalued to Christianity’s ‘evil and good’ respectively.

I think again of Miles’ ‘Live Evil’ [also with Johnny Mac]:- ‘Evil’ is itself ‘Life’. The same was thought by Blake too, who saw Evil as Energy.

Just as Odin became the horned Devil, so too is Hitler the personification of Evil.

Savitri Devi’s book The Lightning and the Sun, which deals with Gengis Khan, Akhnaton and Hitler, is a natural sequel to Carlyle’s Hero Worship which begins with Odin and ends with Naopleon.
Given that Nietzsche too affirmed the Heroic in Napoleon, we might see his Dionysian as the bridge between Carlyle’s and Devi’s conceptions.


This is Ragnarok

Despite what they say about Hilter, the West has yet to experience Nothingness: and it is fated that we will.
Ragnarok was/is ushered in by a deadly Winter of annihilation.
But this is like the Indian conception of cyclic ages, with the Kali Yuga being comparable to the age of the Ragnarok.
It is Zarathustra’s downgoing that is a necessary pre-requistite for the creation of the Overhuman.

This is not so much of an historical End Time, but rather a thorough experiencing of Nothingness and a complete oblivion.
This would be beyond all Time and Space.
Therefore it has no ‘when’.
It is beyond even ‘cycles’.
Western culture has always tried to avoid this abysm - our every breath is devoted to certain somethings, to History, to Being and to Becoming.
Unlike the East we have not … let go;
We can’t let go … yet.

Nihilism has yet to be plumbed in total.
Therefore we do not yet know Dionysos in his purest sense.

This Nihilism is the negating of all values known hitherto.
Until, ultimately we are left only with one value: negation itself.


Levels
The distinction between the exoteric and esoteric levels remains; the former is mythology, religion; the latter is philosophy, insight.
Omens
“Precisely because there are no revealed scriptures, the signs become the pre-eminent form of contact with the higher world and a mainstay of piety … To doubt the arts of divination is to fall under the suspicion of godlessness.”
[Burkert, Greek Religion p. 111]
In this form of piety, the whole world, from the smallest to the largest, has meaning.
The problem then becomes one of interpretation.


Hidden Agendas
If self-less morality is in reality self-ish, then is there a higher morality which actually is selfless?
To Nietzsche [e.g. BGE 222] pity, compassion, sympathy etc. are all forms of disguised self-contempt.
If that is so, then he must have thought that ruthlessness cruelty etc. are forms of disguised self-love - or at least of certain strength?
No - isn’t ruthlessness rather undisguised self-hatred?
Or is it more logical to suggest that those with with open self-contempt would have easy contempt for others?
Self-love would entail love for others.


Over-cooked Rococo
The art of 18th century France is a perfected art - a non plus ultra.
Or is it over-perfected.
Is excess of perfection, imperfect?
When the line of perfection is crossed - if there is such a line.


The Two Morrisons
Count the Lords amongst us
Rock and roll your sweet gypsy soul


Reward
Morrison’s recorded voice intoned:
“I tell us this, no eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn!”
And then I experienced - what? - an epiphany?
The soaring upwards of the soul …
transcending the everydayness of the spirit …
suddenly transported into that golden heaven …
The Morrison voice is a sacred message left behind …


The Fence of Offence
He feels offence at what you say?
Then by that he inadvertently admits that what you said was right.
[apologies to D 499]


No Shit-Hoarder
I want to possess nothing - not even this will to non-possession.


Culture Vulture
We have need of art if we ourselves are bereft of inner creativity - this is why those who thirst for culture are disgusting, like starving men who suddenly and excessively glut themselves on food.
The culture-vulture quickly becomes obese with art.


Definitive
A thing cannot be defined into existence - it must be demonstrated.
A definition merely defines itself.


Artistic Order of Rank

  1. The Übermensch - he is a work of art
  2. The great artist - the creator
  3. The man of taste and appreciation for art
  4. Art workers
  5. Those in thrall to art
  6. Slaves too dull for art
    #1) is that which all art aspires to - the godly Dionysian man. He is a law unto himself.
    #2) is a step removed from #1) and creates in #1)'s likeness.

Double Takes
He gets all ‘meaningful’ and says, “life has no meaning”.
Another says that all things “happen for a reason” - but he cannot give a reason.
This other puts his faith in God’s providence [a sleepwalker, he], whilst he schemes and plans, plotting his future in detail.


Nationalism is Amoral - Good!
The nationalist is undermined by his own moralism as he seeks to use morality as a cushion for nationalism’s amoral separation. He doesn’t have the courage of his convictions.


The Nature of ‘Nature’

“Nature is always valueless.”
[Nietzsche GS 301]
‘Nature’ is a curious abstraction used without qualification to endorse a variety of positions.


Poets
“I am the sworn poet of every dauntless rebel the world over.”
[Whitman To a foil’d European revolutionaire 1955-81]
In ancient Greece the poet was called upon to save the City.


Novel Philosophy
Wilson says that all philosophers should attempt to put their ideas into the form of the novel.
The essay, after all, is merely a form for testing, experimenting; only a step on from the workshop that is a notebook.
But do you have a philosophy that can be put into a novel?


Inside Greek Philosophy
Colin Wilson doesn’t find an Outsider amongst the Greek philosophers.


The Hero
Someone who tries to live like an ancient Greek in a modern urban technocratic society?


Punny
“You can’t build a revolution on puns.”
[Russel Brand to Rainbow George 2008]


Death
Death is something complex - not just a ceasing of existence. This complexity is variously described metaphorically in mythology.


Moral Relativism
All morality is relative: we ought not to interfere in others’ morality - but ‘ought’ implies a moral imperative.


Reality as Perfection
This is my interest: the quest for perfected reality. To live in such a way that one is completely enmeshed in the real. Not, as one usually is - absent-mindedly, imaginatively, phantastically - transported ‘somewhere else’: in some suspended parallel state.
Destroy your reality.


Torture
“The personal cry for vengeance demands that before death the criminal must suffer long and severely; in other words, that torture must precede death.”
[Ryley Scott A History of Torture 1940 p. 7]


Trust No One
“Her legend was depicted by runes traced in gibbet dust.”
[James Havoc Satanskin 1992]
“Her face stank of lightning.”
[ib.]


Music Pass-ive Pass-ion
Is listening to music a passive act?
But consciousness is intentional - so listening is an intentional act.
Only meditation lacks intentionality - and that is in silence.
Sounds are not real: the body makes them like it makes sweat.


Rune Koans
The Zen Koans are reminiscent of Viking culture.
The meaning of ‘koan’ itself reminds one of the public rune-stones.
“A buried stone coffer was found. In it was a perfect circular mirror engraved on the back in runes were the words ‘Perfect Realisation’
Leave for a moment that perfect mirror buried underground: the perfect mirror at this instant in your hands, what is it?
Try and bring it out of its stone coffer.
When the stone-coffer is broken open, what is the perfect mirror like?”
[adapted from Leggett, Samurai Zen, Routledge 2003 p. 50]
Perefct realisation of Odin’s Discovery of the Runes -
Mirror - reflection in the Lake.
Sword in the Stone
Mirror Shield - a Shewer [OE sceawian]
Glinting Blade
Rune Coffer
The Shattered Reflection of Loss.


Meditation
The birds sing: thoughts drift by like clouds and disappear.
Dreams float to the surface and ‘pop’.
I dive to the depths of Nothingness.


Art
Art as a justification for life, or as a distraction from life.


Solid Air
The purest spiritual being cannot live.
Thta’s why all spirits are dead.


Hippie
The hippie movement wanted to go towards a pure spirituality and a higher culture. As Nietzsche notes, music is inimical to a higher culture.
The hippie movement was ultimately misled by i) drugs and ii) music.
These prevented a pure spitiuality and a higher culture from being created - No real spirituality was achieved. The Eastern spiritual genius was referred to, but it wasn’t taken any further because the West was not spiritual enough; it couldn’t pull its weight, let alone soar into the heights.


Morality undermines itself
If I do good deeds, I will get into Heaven - but you should do good deeds for themselves, not for selfish reasons … such as to get into Heaven.


Dionysos symbolises the exoteric knowledge of the void.
In the esoteric there are no rituals, no symbols, no art. There is no ‘clutter’.
The esoteric is beyond abstraction."

  • Bill “first over the wall” Boethius

Nietzsche sent us out there, we ran through the fire over the fields and reached the wall. We climbed it and took the citadel!

As the dark void creeps and stretches itself out over the world and closes in we reach for a way to act. It is here we find runes. Odin died - Long Live Odin!

All struggle is gain. It has hooks and turns, a sign we are, indicating now something.

James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: A Project that led to the ToE (Theory of Everything) Sat Dec 31, 2011 12:53 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
A Short Overview of the ToE/UFT/GUT Project
The project began in the field of Rational Metaphysics wherein Definitional Logic outlines details concerning why the universe exists at all. But more significantly, it lays a foundation from which an understanding of exactly why and how particles form, what form they take, and why they do what they do… all that they do. Basically it reveals an understanding of why the laws of physics are what they have been noted to be by contemporary physics.

In order to demonstrate the logic involved, a computer(s) (a single-bit-processor and a PC) had to be programmed to handle the issue of EM turbulence within a volume of space. In order to get that accomplished such that a small PC could handle the nearly infinite number of concerns involved, I had to come up with a method to describe generic turbulence such that calculations could be made concerning its interaction. I dubbed that method “Afflate Analysis” which is a combination of statistical analysis, analytic geometry, and tensor analysis.

An Afflate is merely an “affectence oblate” or simply put, “a clump of turbulence”. It is a statistical entity and a tensor field element. 200,000 afflates become a rudimentary model of an otherwise vacuous portion of space filled with turbulent EM noise/chaos. By applying the proper “rules of afflate engagement” equally to each and every afflate and letting logic take its course, particles begin to form. The particles choose to become positive, negative or neutral based on the particular balance of the turbulence that inspired them. Still without further instruction, the particles begin to display all of the known behaviors of subatomic particles including inertia, momentum, inverse squared mass attraction, inverse squared charge attraction and repulsion, quantization limits, strong and weak force bonding, spin, and so on.

What is interesting besides being able to see exactly why these phenomena are happening, is that with proper and precise mathematics and programming (very poorly done at the moment), the exact relations concerning the laws of physics can be calculated and even measured literally off of the computer screen. And what is more interesting about that is new relationships can be seen of which it appears contemporary physics is not yet aware.

The long shot of it is that the project offers to explain the “why” behind every known law and phenomena of physics and even explain things like the famous photon double slit experiment with ultimate detail and precision.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: A Project that led to the ToE (Theory of Everything) Sat Dec 31, 2011 12:54 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
There without-music, you can use this thread to whine about how impossible it is to understand anything.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: A Project that led to the ToE (Theory of Everything) Sun Jan 01, 2012 11:20 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Transferred from the Definitional Logic thread…

Fixed Cross wrote:
What is more, I would say that it is an interpretation that is in fact dictated by logic! The idea of objects, of particles, could not exist if not for rudimentarily logical processes of discernment of comparison. In this way, I can see that Saints might theoretically have accomplished what he says, that it may in fact be possible to re-create the universe as it is defined in scientific, rational, logical terms by using these terms directly, instead of what sciences does, to “objectively observe” (which is impossible) and then apply these terms to the observations.

If this is in fact accomplished, this is of course nothing short of revolutionary, not to mention rather dangerous. What would have been accomplished then, is that the rational man has managed to value the universe effectively in his own terms, and established his own ground-term, his self-valuing as a rational being, to perfection.

It is hard to say if the benefits or the danger outweighs.
Masterfully stated and better than I could have said it. Thank you, Fixed Cross.

without-music wrote:
Yes, well said, Fixed. I have to apologize for my lack of patience, but James and I have had this argument (as well as ones similar) a number of times on ILP.

Quote :
That it may work is not unimaginable, considering that “the physical” is itself an interpretation.

What is more, I would say that it is an interpretation that is in fact dictated by logic! The idea of objects, of particles, could not exist if not for rudimentarily logical processes of discernment of comparison. In this way, I can see that Saints might theoretically have accomplished what he says, that it may in fact be possible to re-create the universe as it is defined in scientific, rational, logical terms by using these terms directly, instead of what sciences does, to “objectively observe” (which is impossible) and then apply these terms to the observations.
Indeed. I have gotten at this idea with James before, the idea that the physical is itself a (certain, necessary, inevitable) falsification that is always-already human. If we can affirm this notion, and speak of the Real in terms of the Symbolic (which is to say, discard the Real altogether as unnecessary Platonism, as Nietzsche would have us do), then space is made in which a project like James’s can be allowed to take hold. I believe I have already illustrated the trouble I have with James’s project here, so I’ll leave it at that.

The comparison between Dionysian and Apollonian is apt. I suppose, in some sense, the conflict between James and I is a microcosm for the primordial conflict at the heart of the human condition, the conflict that gives birth to both life and art – and, with enough finesse, perhaps life as art.

Although I agree the with apparent analogy with Apollo and Dionysus, This project is merely a stepping stone of understanding to the greater accomplishment.

Because this project was founded, not in Science, but Metaphysics, ALL terms are stated as generically applicable concepts. The relations are necessarily true for any and all fields of thought or endeavor, every field of Science, every endeavor of societies, and every endeavor of any individual… every philosophy… “Theory of Everything” (and now “Law of Everything”).

It is above the concern of Chaos vs Order. It is the order of the their contest. Physical reality is merely one of its children.

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
avatar

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 30
Location : The Moon

PostSubject: Re: A Project that led to the ToE (Theory of Everything) Mon Jan 02, 2012 6:29 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
James S Saint wrote:
A Short Overview of the ToE/UFT/GUT Project
The project began in the field of Rational Metaphysics wherein Definitional Logic outlines details concerning why the universe exists at all. But more significantly, it lays a foundation from which an understanding of exactly why and how particles form, what form they take, and why they do what they do… all that they do. Basically it reveals an understanding of why the laws of physics are what they have been noted to be by contemporary physics.

In order to demonstrate the logic involved, a computer(s) (a single-bit-processor and a PC) had to be programmed to handle the issue of EM turbulence within a volume of space. In order to get that accomplished such that a small PC could handle the nearly infinite number of concerns involved, I had to come up with a method to describe generic turbulence such that calculations could be made concerning its interaction. I dubbed that method “Afflate Analysis” which is a combination of statistical analysis, analytic geometry, and tensor analysis.

An Afflate is merely an “affectence oblate” or simply put, “a clump of turbulence”. It is a statistical entity and a tensor field element. 200,000 afflates become a rudimentary model of an otherwise vacuous portion of space filled with turbulent EM noise/chaos. By applying the proper “rules of afflate engagement” equally to each and every afflate and letting logic take its course, particles begin to form. The particles choose to become positive, negative or neutral based on the particular balance of the turbulence that inspired them. Still without further instruction, the particles begin to display all of the known behaviors of subatomic particles including inertia, momentum, inverse squared mass attraction, inverse squared charge attraction and repulsion, quantization limits, strong and weak force bonding, spin, and so on.

What is interesting besides being able to see exactly why these phenomena are happening, is that with proper and precise mathematics and programming (very poorly done at the moment), the exact relations concerning the laws of physics can be calculated and even measured literally off of the computer screen. And what is more interesting about that is new relationships can be seen of which it appears contemporary physics is not yet aware.

The long shot of it is that the project offers to explain the “why” behind every known law and phenomena of physics and even explain things like the famous photon double slit experiment with ultimate detail and precision.
can you give an example of a “why”?
For example why is it that two different masses cannot occupy the same space at the same time?


“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” -Socrates
“Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God.” -Cicero
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily believing it.” -Aristotle
“I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.” -Aristotle
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: A Project that led to the ToE (Theory of Everything) Mon Jan 02, 2012 11:09 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Abstract wrote:
can you give an example of a “why”?
For example why is it that two different masses cannot occupy the same space at the same time?
Well, the simple reason for your question would be that if 2 masses were to be in the same location at the same time, they would be the same mass, merely twice as much of it. I could ask, “why can’t 2 clouds be in the same place at the same time?”

But to get into the really deep understanding requires a far more serious education on exactly what “mass” really means. Science doesn’t define it very exactly, thus RM doesn’t use the term. But inertia is effectively the same thing and RM does use the concept of inertia. What we call “mass” is really a culmination of turbulent energy. Energy isn’t a common term in RM either, but strongly relates to affectence. RM uses affectence, from affect, as its fundamental element of concern. Existence is affectence. Affectence then causes space, time, and all of the physical phenomena.

A very short and surprizing example of a why that Science apparently hasn’t figured out yet is why it is that an electron doesn’t go zipping into a proton and get annihilated. The surprising, yet provable answer is called “the weak force” in Science but is actually due to the fact that, believe it or not, the proton pushes it away out to its orbital radius. If it tries to leave its orbit, the proton will pull it back in, but will not allow it to get closer. Although I know exactly why it does that, which came as a stunning surprise to me, the whole thing is rather complex.

Contemporary physics has a few fundamental formula close to right, but not quite. One of those is the formula for charge and/mass attraction, Q1*Q2 / (4πε0r^2). That formula, as it turns out is very close to right as long as the particles are at a respectable distance. But when the particles get very close, that formula is too inaccurate to be used and doesn’t really apply. A negative particle when approaching a positive particle of greater inertia, will in fact be repelled. The particle will end up maintaining a distant orbit as it cannot get closer nor further away and thus we have atoms. Without that repulsion, there would be no atoms and no molecules and thus no life to wonder why.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: A Project that led to the ToE (Theory of Everything) Tue Jan 03, 2012 7:00 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
What is the source of this repulsive effect that “large mass” charged particles, such as protons, have on “low mass” inversely charged particles, such as electrons, over a very short distance? It may be complex, but surely you can give a basic explanation with appeal to a little math and some basic conceptual construction and reference.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: A Project that led to the ToE (Theory of Everything) Tue Jan 03, 2012 7:44 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
What is the source of this repulsive effect that “large mass” charged particles, such as protons, have on “low mass” inversely charged particles, such as electrons, over a very short distance? It may be complex, but surely you can give a basic explanation with appeal to a little math and some basic conceptual construction and reference.
One must be careful of what one says publicly before formal publication in the academic or scientific community. It is a bit like being an attorney in a murder trial. The academic world and the political world are pretty identical, a society of snakes in a land of lies. I have already run across someone trying to claim the theory as his own. And in their world, first publication gets the prize regardless of all else. I am also a little concerned as to exactly how the world is going to see the over-all implications of Jack. As someone recently stated, it is a bit dangerous. I’m not so much worried about the world knowing as much as in what order they learn.

But I will tell you that the proton actually sees the electron inside that radius as a positive particle. Cool
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: A Project that led to the ToE (Theory of Everything) Tue Jan 03, 2012 8:35 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Very well then. I would not encourage you to divulge more here than you are ready. I would perhaps encourage you to write a brief treatise of your findings and discoveries, and get it published somewhere, anywhere. That way you can be free from worry about your idea/s being stolen or discovered by someone else. That way you would be free to discuss and spread knowledge of your discoveries everywhere possible, which would be ideal if indeed your discoveries are what they claim to be.

That being said, I will move this in a different direction - utility, or hypothetical postulatory derivation of larger implications. Let us assume, for the moment, that what you claim to have done is correct, that you have indeed built a perfect “model” (or sub- or meta-reality) of existence with respect to particle formation, the natural laws and mathematical-logical relations of these, etc. Let us say you have derived reality.

Based on this assumption, what follows? What is the end-result, the implication/s of your discovery? We can assume for argument’s sake that a ToE is entirely possible and may/will be discovered in our lifetime, or at least quite soon. There are certain logical difficulties and philosophical problems associated with this assumption, but let us shelve those for the moment: assuming a true ToE, what follows from this, and in what sense/with respect to what, and why?


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: A Project that led to the ToE (Theory of Everything) Tue Jan 03, 2012 9:11 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster

  1. My first concern was that of the lust of Man for domination of Life.

Man always sees the most blatantly obvious tool for aggression over whoever he has seen as his enemy and lusts quickly to use it, leaving figuring out why he didn’t want to for later. In the West, that enemy is none other than the population itself. The ToE offers first a perspective to allow for the original division of heaven and Earth wherein the chosen isolate totally from the unchosen. The Chosen live in relative peace and the unchosen are governed by strife and endless struggle. The “Devil” is their warden. The ToE allows for such a paradigm to be mathematically precise and undauntable. That is the first most obvious “Weapon”.

The second most obvious weapon involves the ability to chose a target within perhaps 10,000 miles, push a button and then express shock and great concern that those bad guys over there did something to turn that satellite, submarine, underground bunker, aircraft, or even town into no more than dust and mush. Push a button in a basement in Virginia and shed a public tear for Peking’s recent “spontaneous disintegration” into dust and mush. It makes no difference whatsoever of what the material was made. But turn up the dial too far, and rather than mere disintegration, the sub atomic energy and mass becomes radiant energy, from which the sight of a 100 megaton nuclear explosion would appear as little more than a firecracker. Nothing could stop this weapon short of a black-hole (or turning up that dial too far).

The third weapon, not so obvious, is truly the Lord of All Weapons. I won’t go into what it does and certainly not how it does it, but the upshot is that it makes weapon 1 and 2 seem like teens with BB guns trying to protect the neighborhood corner territory as their domain. Even the black-hole can’t stop weapon 3.

  1. On the brighter side, very many advances in technologies become within reach such as communications, huge memory storage advance, nanotech, very endless “free” energy, and all the fun things you see being used in society to spawn greater rush into a non-human world.

  2. All religions, all governments, and all organizations of every type will change. Once it becomes clear what is really controlling what, “who’s the real boss” amongst all the noise, all else bows to what cannot be changed.

  3. Life begins to be about living again rather than conquering, about increasing its momentum of harmony, not the height of its pyramidic temples. Medicines return to being about curing, not controlling. Laws become about arbitrating, not controlling. Psychology becomes about increasing life’s harmony, not holding it in predesignated places.

  4. Laws and moralities get reduced to demographic concerns only, with freedom to find ones nitch. And the “Devil” is locked into a cage of light within which there are no shadows in which to hide or reach out to make that unseen touch.

Man’s 10,000 year dance with the Devil comes to an end for once and for all time.

Other than, I don’t really expect much will change. Smile

Quote :
Tethered by reality;

There is the ongoing cause of all that is.
There is the order and chaos brought about by that cause.
There is the adversary to every life.
And there is you… an instance of life.

The rest is just noise…


Amongst all the noise there are many entities great and small, all vying for attention and ultimate influence – “God wannabes”. Some are mindless formations propagating through their circumstances. Some are forms of life, temporarily struggling to survive, not really knowing why and certainly not how, but merely presuming a purpose, need, and desire. Most all merely adding their bit to the noise.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: A Project that led to the ToE (Theory of Everything) Tue Jan 03, 2012 10:16 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
James S Saint wrote:

  1. My first concern was that of the lust of Man for domination of Life.

Man always sees the most blatantly obvious tool for aggression over whoever he has seen as his enemy and lusts quickly to use it, leaving figuring out why he didn’t want to for later. In the West, that enemy is none other than the population itself. The ToE offers first a perspective to allow for the original division of heaven and Earth wherein the chosen isolate totally from the unchosen. The Chosen live in relative peace and the unchosen are governed by strife and endless struggle. The “Devil” is their warden. The ToE allows for such a paradigm to be mathematically precise and undauntable. That is the first most obvious “Weapon”.

The second most obvious weapon involves the ability to chose a target within perhaps 10,000 miles, push a button and then express shock and great concern that those bad guys over there did something to turn that satellite, submarine, underground bunker, aircraft, or even town into no more than dust and mush. Push a button in a basement in Virginia and shed a public tear for Peking’s recent “spontaneous disintegration” into dust and mush. It makes no difference whatsoever of what the material was made. But turn up the dial too far, and rather than mere disintegration, the sub atomic energy and mass becomes radiant energy, from which the sight of a 100 megaton nuclear explosion would appear as little more than a firecracker. Nothing could stop this weapon short of a black-hole (or turning up that dial too far).

The third weapon, not so obvious, is truly the Lord of All Weapons. I won’t go into what it does and certainly not how it does it, but the upshot is that it makes weapon 1 and 2 seem like teens with BB guns trying to protect the neighborhood corner territory as their domain. Even the black-hole can’t stop weapon 3.

With respect to this need to dominate-control: I argue that only an ‘evolution of conscience’ can address this. This must be based in a philosophical increase in self-understanding, not just of the various modes and means of thought and action but more essentially of emotion and feeling, intention and affect, expectation and will and hope. What man needs is new capacity to envision, imagine how life/self COULD be, which invariably leads into how it OUGHT to be. Man must come to the threshold of self-disclosure that affords him such immense vastness of self-encounter that he either perishes under the weight of it or assumes the self-responsibility and fortitude to bear it. What is the instinct/drive to dominate-control but mere animality unrestrained, unspiritualized, by this I mean unconditioned by subtler self-understandings of conscience?

It may be the case that these sort of higher possibilities of conscience may actualize only when man reaches the limit of his ability to bear the crude self-destructivity of his unrestrained animality. Technology is a means to actualizing the human, be it “good” or “bad”, healthy or harmful, constructive or destructive. All is edified by technology, save… conscience itself. The means are increased many-fold, but the more essential ground from which these more fundamentally spring can remain cloaked and veiled, and even become more so at the hands of technological progress. Technology and science tend to insulate man within surface environments and the various logics and conditions of these environments, at the expense of subtler more “spiritual” holistic possibilities - this is because technology/science creates of this surface a new world, new possibilities for reality and life. That these are often lacking in the “spiritual” nature, more comprehensive and affective self-envisioning and grander understandings does not belie the fact that these new scientific-technical grounds themselves tend to supplant what came before them.

If the ToE is indeed true and acts to most fundamentally ground the scientific-technical paradigm, this would certainly act to begin effacing that which came before, the poetic-emotive-affective natures of man, in short his conscience, which speaks to his aesthetics and capacities for valuation. This is largely because these capacities have tended to survive unconsciously, largely unknown by man, veiled yet kept alive therein by appeal to Gods, metaphysics, universalities, whatever. This religious appeal, despite warping man, has also allowed for the preservation of these elements of conscience, albeit in a mostly simplistic and undeveloped form. The threat of technology and science is that it effaces even this veiling, it makes these elements no longer necessary to (social, interpersonal and personal) life. A life built upon a scientific-technical paradigm grounded firmly in a ToE need make no use whatsoever of these “atavisms” of man’s past being/s. Conscience may have no place in the human world of the future.

Yet we can also side with Heidegger perhaps and note that technology-science, especially through the ToE represents the highest peak of resistance against which man may come into the highest self-awareness and self-realization. Science may destroy the mysticisms but leave intact the jewels which these mysticisms have served to guard for thousands of years. This would be a “spiritualized” science, one not wontonly destructive or “for its own sake”, one without ultimately closed logics, but with broader appeal to the world, to the human past-experiential and historical contents which still, despite modernity, serve to provide the basis for “what it means to be human”. When science can respect the contents as well as the forms of the human being, then science will perhaps sufficiently humanize so as to be capable of edifying man without instead effacing him.

Quote :
2) On the brighter side, very many advances in technologies become within reach such as communications, huge memory storage advance, nanotech, very endless “free” energy, and all the fun things you see being used in society to spawn greater rush into a non-human world.

Yes, and my previous commentary applies here as much as it does to the weaponizing of technological progress. Man rushes head-first into his own dehumanization, eager (he thinks) to rid himself of the burden of living. Only by directly understanding that to live is to suffer, to be burdened, and that seeking escape is seeking one’s own self-annihilation at the hands of one’s own assumed self-impossibility, will man perhaps overcome this. We NEED these sort of technological possibilities if we are to survive, grow and evolve, become something grand and make of man a truly rational, sane and civilized entity.

Quote :
3) All religions, all governments, and all organizations of every type will change. Once it becomes clear what is really controlling what, “who’s the real boss” amongst all the noise, all else bows to what cannot be changed.

This is probably deserving of an entirely separate topic in itself. I would encourage you to frame this question and then post it within either the Social Theory & Economics or the Religion forum here, depending on which you feel best serves the substance of this potential inquiring.

Quote :
4) Life begins to be about living again rather than conquering, about increasing its momentum of harmony, not the height of its pyramidic temples. Medicines return to being about curing, not controlling. Laws become about arbitrating, not controlling. Psychology becomes about increasing life’s harmony, not holding it in predesignated places.

Aye that is possible, but again without a likewise philosophical uplift this technological possibility only further enslaves man. It is possible that man must be enslaved in order to break free from all possibility of enslavement. If man is truly in need, as a species, of such crude methods of reactionary stimulus then we can hope that the destructive possibilities ushered in by a ToE (a self-edified and firmly grounded, universally applicable science) would come slowly enough to allow for the reactions to build their own momentums and ultimately break out of the enslavement. It may be the case that SPEED, time (which is of course to say simply quantity of intensity of force with respect to the potential destabilizing effects of this intensity) is the most crucial factor here, maybe the only one that really counts for anything at all.

Quote :
5) Laws and moralities get reduced to demographic concerns only, with freedom to find ones nitch. And the “Devil” is locked into a cage of light within which there are no shadows in which to hide or reach out to make that unseen touch.

Man’s 10,000 year dance with the Devil comes to an end for once and for all time.

I am not so sure about this. Morality is based on far more than physical/metaphysical uncertainty. If we remove uncertainty from man’s relationship to the universe, have we really removed the impetus for morality? I see the genesis of morality within the deepest most fundamental spheres of man himself, his consciousness and the subjective self-encounters and conditions of its possibilities. I suppose I am largely sceptical that even a ToE as you describe it could unveil the inner subjective nature of the human being. I do not think that ANY outside-imposed understanding, even a ToE, could bring about the ‘apotheosis of self-consciousness’ as higher and more comprehensive/self-creative understanding and will-vision. The more man learns about himself “from the outside”, which is to say from scientific objectification under theorizing or model-building or crude grasping manipulation, the more he can be drawn away from self-oriented discovery and focus. That being said, of course the scientific paradigm also affords the opposite possibility as well, if taken from the right perspective.

I see a clear place for ethics and law within a post-human world: these would be firmly rooted in value, in the capacities for valuation which are the basis of all human action, thought and feeling. Knowledge subordinated to wisdom is what I am trying to get at here. Thus far the scientific paradigm has been trying to push the opposing perspective, wisdom subordiante to knowledge, wisdom AS knowledge. Perhaps no greater mantra for science can be conceived than ‘wisdom as knowledge’. We see the clear folly of such an approach, however, and it seems that this folly is rooted most essentially within the ethical conscience of man, meaning that a future “humanized/spiritualized” science would not efface this ethical conscience but rather free it entirely and lift it up, making of it a center and new beginning.

Of course I could be wrong here, and perhaps there is indeed no place for law and ethic in a post-human scientific world. I tend to see both possibilities as competing for the future. I would like to work toward actualizing the possibilities of the one over the other, for obvious reasons and because I tend to associate the latter with the total self-destruction and annihilation of the human being itself at the hands of the (unrestrained/unconditioned) scientific-technical paradigm. Interestingly there is nothing I can see about the ToE which tends it more toward one of these possibly futures rather than another. I wonder if you see it differently - what sort of future possibility, with respect to the vision/conscience of the human being that I outline above, or perhaps simply with respect to destructive vs creative-constructive, do you think is necessitated by your ToE, if any?


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: A Project that led to the ToE (Theory of Everything) Tue Jan 03, 2012 12:21 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I sit at the edge of Socrates’ cave, one hand in, one hand out, one eye in, one eye out (which btw can lead to horrendous headaches).

You swthrt, speak of widening the cave entrance such that light may enter, removing the protection so diligently sought by those within. I on the other hand, speak of a multitude of mirrors positioned in my right hand so as to reflect such illumination within the cave, that there is no shadow or doubt, no fear of what is without, for what is above is so all around. We both speak of change and illuminating the darkness. I just prefer less taking away of the protections enamored by hearts immersed in their fear.

But contemplation of the destination is merely distraction from paving the path.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: A Project that led to the ToE (Theory of Everything) Tue Jan 03, 2012 1:07 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
James S Saint wrote:
I sit at the edge of Socrates’ cave, one hand in, one hand out, one eye in, one eye out (which btw can lead to horrendous headaches).

You swthrt, speak of widening the cave entrance such that light may enter, removing the protection so diligently sought by those within. I on the other hand, speak of a multitude of mirrors positioned in my right hand so as to reflect such illumination within the cave, that there is no shadow or doubt, no fear of what is without, for what is above is so all around. We both speak of change and illuminating the darkness. I just prefer less taking away of the protections enamored by hearts immersed in their fear.

I am not familiar with the acronym or term “swthrt”, was this a typo on your part?

I speak of more than widening the cave entrance. Perhaps you are intending to refer to Plato’s analogy of the cave wall? Regardless what I speak of is highly pertinent, that we spend at least equal time contemplating the concerns related to ethics and practical possibilities of application and the implications of a ToE as we do actually developing and spreading the ToE itself unto humanity. This great truth would need much preparation, much laying of groundwork before it were revealed to mankind. This concept is well-known in occult circles, that generally speaking mankind must be wel prepared in advance of revolutionary discoveries and radical new possibilities. Knowledge in the wrong hands is terribly destructive, and often humanity itself is nothing more than a “wrong hands”, until it has spent sufficient time contemplating and conceiving for itself a means to VALUE what has become a new tool in its hand.

The a-moral scientist cares not how his discoveries are to be used, he merely focuses on whether or not he can do what he conceives as possible. Discovery for its own sake, without appeal to conscience, possibile implication/s or ethics. This is dangerous and is one severe limit which mankind has yet to surpass. When man can conceive alongside his technical prowess and will to create a likewise ethical appeal to implication and likely outcome - when he can subordinate the will to truth to a higher ethic and law, which is to say to a philosophy of value - then and only then will science serve mankind.

Quote :
But contemplation of the destination is merely distraction from paving the path.

Absolutely not. Without such contemplation one cannot even be sure as to what path one is on, least of all where it is taking him.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: A Project that led to the ToE (Theory of Everything) Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:08 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Perhaps not, but I would think that your advice toward anyone would change depending on what you discovered actually worked or didn’t work. Doesn’t ethics depend at least to some degree on what will actually take place upon a given action? Or do you propose ethics that are absolute and regardless of all else?

Until you actually know the LoE (not the mere ToE), how would know what ethics to promote or be guided by?
And having learned the actual LoE, don’t you supposed that it might have an effect upon what you chose to do?
If the proposed ToE, has no effect upon any activity, ethic, or decision, how could it be an LoE?

“I have in this book the answer to what should be done with anything. What pray tell should I do with it?”

Until you read it, what is the point of speculating?

Or perhaps if I put it this way;
“Hey, I have God Himself on the phone, what should I do?”
“Not to overstate the obvious, but why in this Hell are you asking Me? You’re the one on the phone.”

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: A Project that led to the ToE (Theory of Everything) Tue Jan 03, 2012 4:50 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Additional thoughts…

Apparently long ago they thought they had the “God Formula” and from it presumptuously proceeded to do “the right thing”. They created a “Garden of Eden”, a “paradise”. Within that paradise, they maintained the trees of the philosophies and constructed Ahdam so as to keep the garden. And they said, “this is good”.

Now, I happen to also have the ToL, the “Theory of Life”, which is not a theory concerning from whence life came, but rather the theory on exactly what it is and thus what absolutely must be done to maintain it as a whole or any instance of it (“Tree of Life”). But Ahdam, it seems, wasn’t designed just right else the entire story of Ahdam and Eve would not have taken place. This indicates that either they didn’t follow their formula properly, or it wasn’t the real formula, merely a ToE, not The LoE.

I could be so presumptuous myself and also create and Ahdam and a Garden. But that is where I stop and ask, is that really the right thing to do. The real “God Formula”, the “LoE”, or even my ToE, must be consulted in order to answer that question. If I presume to already know that a Garden and an Ahdam are “the right thing”, then I have committed the “original sin” all over again. To sin merely means to make an erroneous presumption, a moment of poor judgment.

So when it comes to “what shall we do with this knowledge”, any step taken that is not inline with what the LoE would sustain as truly “good” or correctly designed in accord with the ToL, leads to the very trouble that the world already is in or some variation of it. What would be the point of that.

My point is that we cannot presume to assess and judge what is or isn’t “good” or better. What works is what works, all else is what doesn’t work, no matter how appealing it might seem.

And btw, your “Value-Ontology” is the “Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil” - a philosophy distinguishing value, a ToV.
…but I also have that one in my lil bag. Smile
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
avatar

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 30
Location : The Moon

PostSubject: Re: A Project that led to the ToE (Theory of Everything) Wed Jan 04, 2012 5:29 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
James S Saint wrote:
Abstract wrote:
can you give an example of a “why”?
For example why is it that two different masses cannot occupy the same space at the same time?
Well, the simple reason for your question would be that if 2 masses were to be in the same location at the same time, they would be the same mass, merely twice as much of it. I could ask, “why can’t 2 clouds be in the same place at the same time?”

But to get into the really deep understanding requires a far more serious education on exactly what “mass” really means. Science doesn’t define it very exactly, thus RM doesn’t use the term. But inertia is effectively the same thing and RM does use the concept of inertia. What we call “mass” is really a culmination of turbulent energy. Energy isn’t a common term in RM either, but strongly relates to affectence. RM uses affectence, from affect, as its fundamental element of concern. Existence is affectence. Affectence then causes space, time, and all of the physical phenomena.

A very short and surprizing example of a why that Science apparently hasn’t figured out yet is why it is that an electron doesn’t go zipping into a proton and get annihilated. The surprising, yet provable answer is called “the weak force” in Science but is actually due to the fact that, believe it or not, the proton pushes it away out to its orbital radius. If it tries to leave its orbit, the proton will pull it back in, but will not allow it to get closer. Although I know exactly why it does that, which came as a stunning surprise to me, the whole thing is rather complex.

Contemporary physics has a few fundamental formula close to right, but not quite. One of those is the formula for charge and/mass attraction, Q1*Q2 / (4πε0r^2). That formula, as it turns out is very close to right as long as the particles are at a respectable distance. But when the particles get very close, that formula is too inaccurate to be used and doesn’t really apply. A negative particle when approaching a positive particle of greater inertia, will in fact be repelled. The particle will end up maintaining a distant orbit as it cannot get closer nor further away and thus we have atoms. Without that repulsion, there would be no atoms and no molecules and thus no life to wonder why.
But my point is that the only reason you think that two clouds would be the same cloud or what have you when in the same place at the same time is because you exist and have grown up in a world that prevents you from contemplating an alternative mode of workings of things… alternative laws… In other words why do we have these laws and not some laws that say two things can be two totally different things and occupy the same place at the same time… sort of but not exactly like phasing or something…

Values did man only assign to things in order to maintain himself- he created only the significance of things, a human significance! Therefore, calleth he himself “man,” that is, the valuator.
(Zarathustra, of the Thousand and One Goals)

If, as Zarathustra says, fundamental to mans being is his valuing, then logically this valuing he must do in terms of himself, for it to amount to his consistent being-man. By such consistently specific valuing, man assimilates material and grows as himself. By this valuing in terms of himself he does not, from the moment of his conception disintegrate by the laws of entropy that seem to govern the universe, but grows, from human cell to human emryo to human being. This was already understood, in a rudimentary form, by Nietzsche. But with this understanding a new question arose: how is a consistent valuing possible? The simple answer would be: by being a consistent subject. But this only create a circular argument, and leaves open the question: how there can be a valuing, a being? How does a subject maintain its perspectival consistency, its structural integrity, whereby it values in terms of itself? To explain this we must posit a self-valuing, which is to say, a holding-oneself-as-value, whereby this “oneself” is nothing else than this consistent holding-as-value, in engaging the outer world. This consistency of a self-holding standard-value, is what amounts to being, the accomulation of more and more material to feed and sustain a structurally consistent growing, “a becoming”.

With this logical deepening of the concept valuing, we are faced with the problem of identifying technically what this self valuing is. At this point, this holding-oneself-as-consistent in the face of otherness, the outer, to which I will refer as self-valuing, has been inferred , as a necessity to the possibility of valuing, which amounts the activity of manifest being, i.e. interacting with “the world” and thereby assimilating materials to grow, for example from atom to molecule, from molecule to cell, from cell to organism, etcetera. Other than such this inferring, it may not be possible to directly define self-valuing. We may not be able to describe or define it in the terms we are used to, in which we like to acquire knowledge, the terms which are developed to describe the manifest in exact measurements. The collection of these terms and their proper logic, that of mathematics, is what we refer to as exact science.

Observing the manifest world in scientific terms, we use principles such as quantity, causality, energy-tranferring and interacting, motion, temporality. All these are enabled and interconnected by the laws of mathematics, which is the logic of objective equalies. It relies on given and exactly determined values, which can be defined in terms of each other. It is here that the philosophy of value ontology posits a break with the method of science. The philosopher is not satisfied with positing values as if they are unquestionably given, it is his task to investigate why, or more precisely, how they are given. Mathematics can not provide an answer to this, as such would go directly against the axioms of this science, which include always the word “if”. If A is given as A, then A is given as A. It does not posit that A is given as A. Since the root-logic of science must keep from answering the question why or how, the sciences following from this logic must also keep from this. Science can therefore only describe, not explain.

Philosophy wants to venture where mathematics and its children the sciences, can not go. It wants to posit a value not predicated by an if, it wants to posit that A is given as A. The great philosophersof the modern age have attemped such positive statements in various ways, beginning with Descartes, who posited the certainty “I think therefore I am”, or, read properly in context, “I question that anything is, therefore I am”. Nietzsche and others observed that this “I” who questions is not actually given as an exactly understandable unit. What is this “I” who is, and who questions that anything is, and who posits that he is because he questions that anything is? Descartes accomplished bringing himself the logical certainty that he exists. He does not bring the certainty that anything else is, in fact he calls this very much into question. If the only ground for knowledge of what is (ontology) is to cognate in the way Descartes was doing, then only philosophers can be known to exist, and only by themselves. Clearly this is not a useful definition of being. It is also not an exact application of logic, as it assumes the “I” both in I think. And I exist. The terms “I”, “exist” and “think” are not a mathematical terms: “I exist” can not mathematically be inferred from “I think”.

To correct Descartes logic, we must draw back to the meaning of the word “Am” in “I Am”. We must correctly observe the meaning of the verb “To be”. We must logically be satisfied with the given that what we call “being” by definition exists / is –this is the only meaningful and correct way to employ the verb at all. The correct phrase would be: “I am, therefore I am”. By this phrase, “I” is defined, namely, as that which, apparently, is said by itself to exist. What have we come to know by this? Nothing. We must start all over.

It is here that philosophy must break from science, from the pretense to be able to define the terms “I” and “exist” and “cognate” in terms of each other by exact inference. We must simply be honest, and admit that all three of these terms are simply understood by us, to mean precisely – what we understand by them. No further explication is necessary, no more exact explication is possible. The terms were called into being to describe exactly what we mean when we use the terms. They hold no deeper meaning than what they were invented to convey.

But fear not for the sake of philosophy, it will still find a way. What the terms “I” and “think” and “exist” were invented to convey may possibly be explicated further, deeper, more exact than these terms. To see how this is the case, observe that these terms all three of them refer to the very same thing. “I”, “think” and “am” are all words indicating the same, which also includes the things to which other terms refer, such as “eat” or “walk”. As true as “I think, therefore I am” is, is also “I eat, therefore I am”. By the correction of Descartes logic, we see that the “I” is posited as a condition of “think”, as much as “think” is a condition of “I”. Therefore, when I posit that “I eat”, I posit an “I” which, by common interpretation of grammar, means that I posit that (an) “I” exist(s).

We see that “I” simply means “existing” and that this existing can be expressed in the endless variety of verbs that may pertain to a posited I. Now, the question becomes simply, what do all these verbs, by the grace of which the “I” can be explicated, have in common?

I will cut to the chase and propose that they are all functions of the the verb “valuing”. There is no other activity that propoerly explicates an “I” that is not directly the result of this one. Whether I walk, talk, think, eat or pray, I do so because I move towards an aim. In other words, I act because I seek to obtain a value. I seek to obtain a value because I have established this value to myself, in the form of an object (in the sense of “thing” and/or “goal”) And since all that I actively do is predicated by a value I have established to me, and since “I” can only be explicated in terms of such activites, the I is nothing besides this establishing-value-to-me (this “I”).

Furthermore, in all cases wherein this value-establishing to this “I” lead to a continuation of experience as this I, this I must be understood as a constant, which, as it is explained in terms of value establishment, means a standard value, which is constantly re-established with every act of and following from the act of valuing, as itself, which means that its consistency must itself be understood as an activity.

We can see that this does indeed describe physical reality accurately if we look at the periodic table, at what makes for a consistency of an elements. We may consider the most consistent to be those which are least influenced by other elements or energies. Thse are the “noble elements”, in case of the metals, platinum, gold, silver. What make as an element “noble” is that all of its electron rings are filled. It holds little potential for change, for interaction, but in itself it holds the greatest potential relative to the “atomic infrastructure”. Gold is, considered as itself, relatively extremely active, in that it holds in its structure the maximum amount “activities”. By this maximization of activity within a given structure, amounts to a maximal consistency.

Contemplate now the correspondence between activity, “noble elements”, consistency, and value.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides

Last edited by Fixed Cross on Mon Oct 15, 2012 3:49 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
without-music
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 37
Join date : 2011-11-16

PostSubject: Re: Consistency as Prime Mover Sun Jan 08, 2012 7:38 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Interesting. Value-ontology may also hold the key to deepening the distinction between activity and re-activity in Nietzschean ontology. Active self-valuing, valuing in terms of oneself actively, freely, affirmatively, is noble, while valuing in terms of oneself resentfully, reactively, in a petty, small and cramped manner is decadent and slavish. As you’ve identified: gold is noble, in a sense, for its “self-value” admits of the least possibility for change and influence by outer elements. Its self-value is purely active and affirmative, contained strongly within itself. A slavish self-value would admit of a high potential for influence by outer elements, a sort of vulnerability, so to speak. This provides us a nice means toward an exegesis of slavishness/nobility in terms of value-ontology. Deleuze furthered Nietzsche’s project of understanding the will to power in terms of the quantity of force, positing a relation between quantity and quality: that is, between amount of force and whether or not that force was active or re-active. On this basis, this dichotomy – active/reactive – he was able to consolidate and focus the Nietzschean ontology. Of course, with value-ontology, there exists the means to consolidate further such a project, from a dichotomy to a single concept: self-value.

Subject: A Contempory Philosophy Sun Jan 01, 2012 11:50 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Tethered by reality;
There is the ongoing cause of all that is.
There is the order and chaos brought about by that cause.
There is the adversary to every life.
And there is you… an instance of life.

The rest is just noise…


Amongst all the noise there are many entities great and small, all vying for attention and ultimate influence – “God wannabes”. Some are mindless formations propagating through their circumstances. Some are forms of life, temporarily struggling to survive, not really knowing why and certainly not how, but merely presuming a purpose, need, and desire. Most all merely adding their bit to the noise.


Coming up next;
THE Unified Field Theory/Law and Grand Unified Theory/Law - Theory/Law of Everything
– The now proven and demonstrable law/s that govern ALL noise.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: A Contempory Philosophy Tue Jan 03, 2012 10:56 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
James S Saint wrote:
Tethered by reality;
There is the ongoing cause of all that is.
There is the order and chaos brought about by that cause.
There is the adversary to every life.
And there is you… an instance of life.

The rest is just noise…


Amongst all the noise there are many entities great and small, all vying for attention and ultimate influence – “God wannabes”. Some are mindless formations propagating through their circumstances. Some are forms of life, temporarily struggling to survive, not really knowing why and certainly not how, but merely presuming a purpose, need, and desire. Most all merely adding their bit to the noise.


Coming up next;
THE Unified Field Theory/Law and Grand Unified Theory/Law - Theory/Law of Everything
– The now proven and demonstrable law/s that govern ALL noise.

I often think on the “noise” in life, the chaos embedded perhaps most saliently within human relations. “Every human chaotically impacts the humans it comes into contact with”. This is the starting-point for a new direction of exploration in the vein of implications steming from the further explication of value-ontology. To reduce human interaction to this level of, at best, controlled chaos brings about many possibilities… “Amongst all the noise there are many entities great and small, all vying for attention and ultimate influence – “God wannabes”. Some are mindless formations propagating through their circumstances. Some are forms of life, temporarily struggling to survive, not really knowing why and certainly not how, but merely presuming a purpose, need, and desire. Most all merely adding their bit to the noise.” This is undeniably true, and beautifully stated.

How should we seek to introduce order into this chaos, and to what extent is this chaos required even? To side entirely with order would certainly be folly, but we can neither condone the present state of things as they are. What is the unconsciousness of man, his mere animalistic automatism and reactionism, but unordered (or rather insufficiently ordered) chaos? This chaotic being impacts the beings of others that it comes into contact with, creating a largely unstable field of effects and outcomes.

Is it wise to seek the “proven and demonstrable law/s that govern all noise”? Is this a power that can be placed into the hands of those chaotic beings for whom such a law would prove so aptly descriptive? The APPLICATION of such knowledge is a thing entirely different from the knowledge itself, and I fear not even a ToE can cross this intermedial divide spanning theory and practice.

Should we be focusing instead on a truly contemporary philosophy and the possibilities for and of it, rather than on delivering man into the practical-applied means of “ordering” the total expanse of his “chaos”? Even granted that this ordering would not reach inward down into the more essential “spiritual” elements of the human consciousness and its generative-sustaining conditions and possibilities, which I affirm it would not necessarily do (although it may), the risk of explicating a ToE without much prior work on developing and spreading the ground of a philosophical basis for such a theory could prove catastrophic.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: A Contempory Philosophy Tue Jan 03, 2012 12:24 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
and I fear not even a ToE can cross this intermedial divide spanning theory and practice.
Only the exact right one can…
…and does.

…all else is but more noise with unpredictable amplitude and vector.

So sayeth the LoE Wink

Don’t fail to understand from atop which mountain I speak.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: A Contempory Philosophy Tue Jan 03, 2012 12:58 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
James S Saint wrote:
Capable wrote:
and I fear not even a ToE can cross this intermedial divide spanning theory and practice.
Only the exact right one can…
…and does.

…all else is but more noise with unpredictable amplitude and vector.

So sayeth the LoE Wink

Don’t fail to understand from atop which mountain I speak.

It is not only a question of whether the ToE can, in itself, serve as such an intermedial principle, but also and more importantly if we can reasonably expect even such a “perfect” theoretical knowledge system to be utilized in an equally perfect manner by the modern human ape…

If you think this latter issue is a given or does not necessarily inspire serious doubts, I would hazard that the implications of your ‘ToE’ have not very well been thought out to their conclusions or that these are at least somewhat mired in an utopian sort of idealism and hopeful fantasy. I would strongly argue that there is little if no evidence that humans today, as they are, are capable of weilding the sort of power which a ToE would present.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: A Contempory Philosophy Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:12 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
If the ToE doesn’t account even for its use by morons, then it isn’t an LoE, but merely a high ideal, more noise, not that which governs it.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: A Contempory Philosophy Tue Jan 03, 2012 6:47 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
James S Saint wrote:
If the ToE doesn’t account even for its use by morons, then it isn’t an LoE, but merely a high ideal, more noise, not that which governs it.

So you claim that the LoE also includes perfect means to inscribe its perfect application of perfect theory upon a now-perfect world?

Forgive me if I point out the entirely fanciful nature of such a presumption. The world, including especially humans (our thought/theory as well as deed/practice) are, by definition, highly imperfect. Which is to say, prone to unpredictability, chaos, uncertainty. To be imperfect is to exist, to be a conditioned/contingent entity, emergent-generated by a vast and largely (from the human perspective) contingent collection of conditions which it has by definition not-total control over. The human is a particularly notable example of this.

The LoE as you describe seems nothing more than a bringing back of God as the form of an appeal to a supposed ‘universal science’. You give no reason for us to assume that a LoE could even in theory possibly act as a universal science, you give no basis for concluding that such is even possible. A simple analysis and understanding of ontology and epistemology cannot help but see clear examples of the discontinuity and disunity between idea and world, between what we perceive-experience and what exists outside of this, which also includes of course that which conditions and gives rise to our perceptions/experiences… thus the vicious circle of the human being, the human being as result of what it can never know-understand-derive.

Your claim that a LoE would surpass this issue because it is able to understand “particle formation” is… unjustified, to say the least. Not that I am discounting the utility of what you propose, but until you can even demonstrate that such a LoE is even possible, or better yet give us this LoE itself, I see no reason to continue discussion of the utilities of such a discovery where such discussion, on your end, fails to take into consideration the idea that even a supposed LoE is still subject to the manner in which it is applied by the humans who wield it.

No theoretical model, especially a scientific as opposed to ideological one, is going to circumvent the ‘human, all too human’ processes of consciousness which give rise to unpredictability, error, and falling prey to the drives/instincts which underlie the human being. As I have noted here, and unfortunately which it seems you have declined to address, is that such an overcoming of the integral conditions of consciousness with respect to human judgment and experience could only be done through the method of philosophy, which is to say direct inner-experiential exposition-creation of the sphere/s of human conscious experiencing. No “outer model” no matter how accurate it is in deriving conditions of particle formation or behavior will ever be able to accomplish that. Or at least you have given us no reason to think it might, other than a seemingly religious-like appeal to the “definition of the LoE” which merely STATES that “by definition the LoE tells us what to do with it, therefore the LoE is immune to the problems/inconsistencies of application at the hands of fallible humans”.

Certainly you can understand why such a mere definition does nothing in the way of actual demonstration.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: A Contempory Philosophy Tue Jan 03, 2012 7:12 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
James S Saint wrote:
If the ToE doesn’t account even for its use by morons, then it isn’t an LoE, but merely a high ideal, more noise, not that which governs it.

So you claim that the LoE also includes perfect means to inscribe its perfect application of perfect theory upon a now-[im]perfect world?
That all but defines an LoE.

It isn’t a Law/theory for only what is already perfected. It is a Law concerning how ALL things work “Everything”.

Capable wrote:

The LoE as you describe seems nothing more than a bringing back of God as the form of an appeal to a supposed ‘universal science’. You give no reason for us to assume that a LoE could even in theory possibly act as a universal science, you give no basis for concluding that such is even possible.
Well, I assumed that you knew what a “ToE” is.
If it isn’t a theory concerned with the governing principles of EVERYTHING, then it isn’t what we have been talking about.

Capable wrote:
Your claim that a LoE would surpass this issue because it is able to understand “particle formation” is… unjustified, to say the least.
I specifically pointed out, that it wasn’t because it explained particles, but because it was formed through metaphysics and thus pertained to any and all behaviors of anything.

Capable wrote:
No theoretical model, especially a scientific as opposed to ideological one, is going to circumvent the ‘human, all too human’ processes of consciousness which give rise to unpredictability, error, and falling prey to the drives/instincts which underlie the human being.
And such is Your theory, belief, and faith.
Am I supposed to take your word for it? I haven’t seen your proof or evidence that something that has never been in human history, can never be in human future.

But until you understand what a ToE actually is, yes, this discussion has been a waste and will be.
…merely more noise.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: A Contempory Philosophy Tue Jan 03, 2012 7:36 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Forgive me if I feel obliged to continue to inquire, but it is only because this problem seems so glaringly obvious: do you not understand that this claim “the [insert ToE or LoE] explains everything and therefore is immune to any and every problem/s of unknowability, unpredictability or imperfect application” is merely a definition and does nothing to actually explain what a ToE/LoE is/would be in fact, or, less even so, whether such is even conceivably possible, and why or why not?


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
without-music
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 37
Join date : 2011-11-16

PostSubject: Re: A Contempory Philosophy Wed Jan 04, 2012 2:46 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
A brief interjection. First: James, I’ve overcome my lack of patience with you. I will await, along with everyone else, your exposition of this T/LoE. Until then, we have little to discuss – for as Capable now knows, discussion is fruitless when you constantly allude to your perfect knowledge of everything, a perfect knowledge that you still haven’t yet demonstrated for us. So, please: do demonstrate. If you’re hesitant to “give your ideas away,” then you may as well stop posting until you’ve published them. Second: Capable, it isn’t worth the effort. James built up quite the reputation over at ILP for his stubbornness. I lost my patience with him there many times. I’d hate to see such wasted debates become the norm here as well. The air here is finer, the space less crowded – let us keep it that way.


“…to act is to modify the shape of the world…”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: A Contempory Philosophy Wed Jan 04, 2012 9:14 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I do not consider this a waste of time at all, despite the absence of the actual T/LoE itself it becomes very important to nonetheless discuss this T/LoE in terms of what it might be, how it might be, and its possible implications. I am certainly willing to posit the possibility of such a T/LoE, but where I seem to differ from James is that I do not think that merely because such a T/LoE has been discovered we therefore “know everything” and are entirely immune to error or unknowability.

The problem is this: having derived reality, which is to say particle formation and the laws/logics governing this and all subsequent material construction and interaction, would give us a set of equations and conceptual understandings that are “true” in how they explain our reality and its genesis. However, this is absolutely NOT the same as saying “we now know everything”. For one thing, pushing variables through the equations is what yields precise data regarding “what is” or “what happens” or “how/why it happens”, etc. The equations themselves do not tell us this, it is plugging in the data and then churning out the results which gives us the actual content.

Does a T/LoE by itself tell us the content/s of reality, including of our human being? No, of course not! This would require, even assuming we have a perfect T/LoE set of mathematical formulae, that we measure out the sum of ourselves as “data points”, numerically quantify ourselves, and then plug all this data into the formulae-simulation to create a result, a sub- or meta-reality. As James himself has noted, knowing the mathematics and equations involved doesn’t yield results, what yields results is taking his “200,000” data points or however they are described and feeding them into these equations in order to produce something measurable, an outcome.

Even with a perfect T/LoE are we actually to believe that such simulation-computation is possible with respect to an entity to vastly compelx as a human being? Can we somehow measure every part of the human being in order to extract the “data points” to feed into the T/LoE in order to derive ourselves? How?

Here we come to the problem of application, which IS very much a problem even for a perfect T/LoE: that simulating 200,000 data points into particular formation is entirely different from trying to derive human behavior. You simply cannot ever measure enough of the human being’s internal substance to allow for such a simulation to occur - and even if theoretically it were possible to measure the human like this, what sort of computer would be able to process so much data in order to simulate a result? And the problems do not stop here. What about the human embeddedness within its situations, its environmental influences? These would need to be measured and taken into account within the data fed into the T/LoE simulation, else the model emerging would be inaccurate or unrealistic. And this would need to be done right up to the active present moment conditions, including the effects of the simulation itself.

So we have a very clear problem that is two-fold: 1) the impossibility of quantifying the human being in terms of measuring its inner substance, the reasons for why it does what it does and is what it is (this problem includes the further complication of measuring environmental influences, spanning the entirety of its past and up to and including the present moment), and 2) the impossibility of being able to actually process such a near-infinite amount of data to churn out a result based on this data passing through the equations of the T/LoE.

The simple truth is that deriving particle formation, while very interesting and perhaps useful in all the ways previously mentioned (e.g. weapons development, advanced technologies, effects on religion and social forms) is entirely different than trying to derive the human being in all its vast complexity and unknowability (which is to say, unmeasurability). Having a T/LoE set of formulae that perfectly explain the genesis of material reality and the physical laws of this reality, even completely perfectly, is NOT at all the same as saying “we now know everything, we are totally immune to error, fallability or imperfection in thought, word or deed.”


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: A Contempory Philosophy Fri Jan 06, 2012 10:44 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
One last note to cast into the noise;

Rational Metaphysics led to the paradigm of reality being defined in terms of an infinite series wherein each element was another infinite series of the same form. Then an infinite number of those are placed into a matrix, a “box”. Then an infinite number of those comprise the unbound universe.

So I had the situation of infinity raised to infinity raised to infinity raised to infinity… ad infinitum, multiplied by infinity, and multiplied by infinity again.

Reality = Inf * Inf * (Inf^Inf)^Inf

Contemporary mathematics doesn’t handle infinity very well at times, so I had to come up with a new form of mathematics that could handle such an extreme case. I ended up with “Afflate Analysis”, a combination of statistical analysis, analytic geometry, and tensor analysis. The result allowed for me to express the extreme infinite chaos in a mathematical manner. And then from that number of concerns, physical reality unfolds as order emerges.

I find it a bit humorous that you would presume that your mystical consciousness with merely “nearly an infinite number of concerns” wouldn’t fit into that box. But such is your hope and faith.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: A Contempory Philosophy Fri Jan 06, 2012 11:20 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Alright then, let us assume your infinity raised to infinite infinities idea of reality is correct, and let us further assume that your mathematics is able to quantifiably capture this reality so as to be able to derive (parts of) it e.g. particles-matter construction and interaction.

On what basis do you propose that any sort of computer modeling/processing/simulating could ever manage to build up to a derivation of even basic life, let alone a human being? As I also mentioned, this would need to methodically-computationally, in terms of your mathematical functions, include analysis of conditions from environmental influences, which in the case of living entities is immeasurably greater than that for particles. Ultimately this leads to the obvious need for infinite computing power to derive, via your equations-functions, anything but the barest beginning of particle formation.

My point is that your math, even if correct, does not unlock or disclose the already-existent human being. At best it gives us a theoretical frame to begin ex post facto playing with the material conditions of the reality we already find ourselves within and conditioned by.

Most specifically: HOW does your having the T/LoE give you “perfect understanding of everything”?


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: A Contempory Philosophy Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:01 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
You have greatly exaggerated the things that I have said.

To know the entirety of the laws by which the universe functions is extremely different than knowing “everything”.

The particular situation that the universe is in at in one moment is an entirely different issue than merely knowing by what laws it perpetuates to the next situation. Knowing ALL of the fundamental rules of mathematics does NOT mean that you know how to use Eigenvalues, Gaussian laws, or Afflate Analysis.

There is a huge difference in knowing God and being God.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: A Contempory Philosophy Tue Jan 10, 2012 6:01 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
James S Saint wrote:
You have greatly exaggerated the things that I have said.

To know the entirety of the laws by which the universe functions is extremely different than knowing “everything”.

The particular situation that the universe is in at in one moment is an entirely different issue than merely knowing by what laws it perpetuates to the next situation. Knowing ALL of the fundamental rules of mathematics does NOT mean that you know how to use Eigenvalues, Gaussian laws, or Afflate Analysis.

There is a huge difference in knowing God and being God.

It has not been my intention to exaggerate at all. What I am trying to do is understand what you are claiming. This has been a surprisingly difficult thing to discern, since you say, on the one hand, “If it isn’t a theory concerned with the governing principles of EVERYTHING, then it isn’t what we have been talking about”, but then on the other hand, “To know the entirety of the laws by which the universe functions is extremely different than knowing “everything”.”

This is what I am trying to get at, this difference, what you are actually claiming. Because when you resisted my claim that even a T/LoE is subject to imperfect human application you did so by invoking the first above-quoted line, and stating that human practical application (of the T/LoE) will be perfect or not subject to unpredictability-error. How can you make this claim while also acknowledging that, " Knowing ALL of the fundamental rules of mathematics does NOT mean that you know how to use Eigenvalues, Gaussian laws, or Afflate Analysis"? How can the L/ToE be immune to problems of practical application when you acknowledge that even knowing the L/ToE does not yield the “perfect knowedge” that I initially thought you were claiming it did?

I would still like you to answer my question, let me again continue to make it more precise as I get a better view of what you are really claiming (and what you are not claiming): HOW does knowing the L/ToE itself lead to us humans knowing how to use/apply it? In other words, how is the L/ToE itself immune to problems of unpredictable and imperfect application? Don’t just claim it is, show my how this is the case.

Remember, it was you who said, “If the ToE doesn’t account even for its use by morons, then it isn’t an LoE, but merely a high ideal, more noise, not that which governs it.”

Now, this question of practical human application is very important, because what it implies is that we need to examine the rationale, the ethics or justifiability of the L/ToE itself, whether or not we should seek and find it. This was the point of my assuming for the sake of argument here that the L/ToE is indeed possible to be found - we can “derive reality”, know the mathematics/quantifiability of its most fundamental processes/relations. But when we assume this, we are immediately confronted with the question: what would the implications of finding such a L/ToE be? And of course this touches directly on, should we perhaps be a bit more hesitant to even open this Pandora’s Box?


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: A Contempory Philosophy Tue Jan 10, 2012 7:54 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Man-o-man…

I had just typed out a long detailed response to your question, and naturally just before the last line, the browser crashed and lost the entire thing. Mad

And these things seriously need an “undo” for the text editor.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: A Contempory Philosophy Tue Jan 10, 2012 8:32 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Trying to iron out the confusions of another person, especially online, can be rather burdensome, but let me see what I can do (over)…

First let me point out that the act of NOT seeking the LoE so as to be able to follow it pretty much defines “the moron” because the alternative to doing what actually works, ie. “the Law”, is to do merely what does NOT work, hence “moronic”. How could you imagine that you could discern what you should or should not do until you know what works and what doesn’t, ie. “The Law”.

But lets say that the Law (not merely a Theory), is given in clear language to a typical homosapian moron.

The moron reads it and perceives that, “if I push button A, I will get result B.” Now the moron desires B and being a moron, doesn’t look further before he has already pressed the button. I already gave a rather terse speech concerning this expected behavior of homosapian.

The Law had clearly stated to “NEVER EAT OF THE FRUIT OF THIS PARTICULAR TREE”, which just happens to be button A. But being a moron, he didn’t think it really mattered as long as no one was looking. Of course the Law isn’t about some authority figure watching you and punishing you for bad behavior. It is a statement of what actually works and doesn’t work, regardless of anyone watching, but again, we are dealing with a moron here who thinks only in terms of trying to slip by authority figures so as to obtain his desires (typical homosapian).

The Law happens to clearly state that anyone who presses button A SHALL perish. The moron ignores that warning. So what do you think happens? If the Law is real and actual, then obviously the moron perishes and the Law continues on. The Law already takes into account the fact that morons run about the planet making their “noise”. The Law happens to be about the governing of noise. So the Law has dispatched the noise exactly as it had stated (again assuming it was the real Law).

Now the question I think you really wanted to ask is, “how can anyone ensure that THEY are not being a moron and trying to utilize the Law?” Well, it just so happens that the Law already states clearly how to do that. But you must first be humble enough (not lusting for your prearranged desires) to read that far before pressing any buttons. Learn how to press that little peddle down there called “the brake” BEFORE you learn how to turn the key and press the accelerator peddle. The order of learning is a part of the Law.

The Law happens to state that “ALL is the balance of ALL, no more and no less, ever”. And thus it is critical to ensure that any hopeful action you take is in consideration of the true balance of ALL relevant concerns, else you are not actually following the Law but being a moron. So the first clue as to whether you are a moron dealing with something that you cannot handle lies in the issue of whether you are capable of actually considering all relevant concerns. If you don’t know, then your question is answered.

But since even genius homosapians have trouble ensuring that they are actually considering all relevant concerns, the Law clearly states that nothing can ever occur without taking time to do so. This gives the less moronic homosapian a clue as to how to proceed, "Take it a little at a time and VERIFY that any action you take actually produces exactly what the Law (as you understood it) inferred. If it doesn’t, then you know to back off and reconsider.

So in order;
A) Clarify the entirety of what your situation is (ensure that you know the entire Law and your surrounding situation)
B) Verify the entirety of each tiny step you take. That is the actual and only purpose of Science for Man.

The Law also states something very critical that I don’t want to go into right now, but it results in the requirement;
C) Remember/Document every step you take and the results you got.

But again, you actually asked “how does the moron handle the situation of having the Law”. The real answer is that if he actually has enough sense to reasonably follow just that much of the Law that has already been pointed out, he will soon no longer be a moron. Following those steps carefully and slowly is what raises the low intelligence and wisdom of a creature to a higher intelligence in a recursive fashion. Recursion of affect is a fundamental property within the Law itself.

The loose lustful moron becomes a “particle”, stable and reliable, being able to discern when to act and when to nap.

Thus, much like the Bible is written, the Law separates the less-ons from the more-ons. If you don’t properly understand the lessons, well… it must have worked.

That’s about all I can reveal concerning the details at this point, I think. I guess the bottom line is that actually KNOWING the Law, prevents one from remaining a moron trying to use it either by eliminating him, or by raising him up. Always seek what actually works, but realize that you must seek it slowly, not always doing what doesn’t work merely to see if you can get what you thought you wanted without being patient, verifying, and attending to Reality.

Man as a whole, is being processed by the Law. Some have come to think of it as “Evolution”, but such a poor and sloppy imitation.

The Law is all about raising the turbulent noise to a solid orderly particle, raising Man from the dust, raising an intelligent sentient being from the moronic chaos.

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
avatar

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 30
Location : The Moon

PostSubject: Re: A Contempory Philosophy Tue Jan 10, 2012 11:08 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
James S Saint wrote:
Trying to iron out the confusions of another person, especially online, can be rather burdensome, but let me see what I can do (over)…

First let me point out that the act of NOT seeking the LoE so as to be able to follow it pretty much defines “the moron” because the alternative to doing what actually works, ie. “the Law”, is to do merely what does NOT work, hence “moronic”. How could you imagine that you could discern what you should or should not do until you know what works and what doesn’t, ie. “The Law”.

But lets say that the Law (not merely a Theory), is given in clear language to a typical homosapian moron.

The moron reads it and perceives that, “if I push button A, I will get result B.” Now the moron desires B and being a moron, doesn’t look further before he has already pressed the button. I already gave a rather terse speech concerning this expected behavior of homosapian.

The Law had clearly stated to “NEVER EAT OF THE FRUIT OF THIS PARTICULAR TREE”, which just happens to be button A. But being a moron, he didn’t think it really mattered as long as no one was looking. Of course the Law isn’t about some authority figure watching you and punishing you for bad behavior. It is a statement of what actually works and doesn’t work, regardless of anyone watching, but again, we are dealing with a moron here who thinks only in terms of trying to slip by authority figures so as to obtain his desires (typical homosapian).

The Law happens to clearly state that anyone who presses button A SHALL perish. The moron ignores that warning. So what do you think happens? If the Law is real and actual, then obviously the moron perishes and the Law continues on. The Law already takes into account the fact that morons run about the planet making their “noise”. The Law happens to be about the governing of noise. So the Law has dispatched the noise exactly as it had stated (again assuming it was the real Law).

Now the question I think you really wanted to ask is, “how can anyone ensure that THEY are not being a moron and trying to utilize the Law?” Well, it just so happens that the Law already states clearly how to do that. But you must first be humble enough (not lusting for your prearranged desires) to read that far before pressing any buttons. Learn how to press that little peddle down there called “the brake” BEFORE you learn how to turn the key and press the accelerator peddle. The order of learning is a part of the Law.

The Law happens to state that “ALL is the balance of ALL, no more and no less, ever”. And thus it is critical to ensure that any hopeful action you take is in consideration of the true balance of ALL relevant concerns, else you are not actually following the Law but being a moron. So the first clue as to whether you are a moron dealing with something that you cannot handle lies in the issue of whether you are capable of actually considering all relevant concerns. If you don’t know, then your question is answered.

But since even genius homosapians have trouble ensuring that they are actually considering all relevant concerns, the Law clearly states that nothing can ever occur without taking time to do so. This gives the less moronic homosapian a clue as to how to proceed, "Take it a little at a time and VERIFY that any action you take actually produces exactly what the Law (as you understood it) inferred. If it doesn’t, then you know to back off and reconsider.

So in order;
A) Clarify the entirety of what your situation is (ensure that you know the entire Law and your surrounding situation)
B) Verify the entirety of each tiny step you take. That is the actual and only purpose of Science for Man.

The Law also states something very critical that I don’t want to go into right now, but it results in the requirement;
C) Remember/Document every step you take and the results you got.

But again, you actually asked “how does the moron handle the situation of having the Law”. The real answer is that if he actually has enough sense to reasonably follow just that much of the Law that has already been pointed out, he will soon no longer be a moron. Following those steps carefully and slowly is what raises the low intelligence and wisdom of a creature to a higher intelligence in a recursive fashion. Recursion of affect is a fundamental property within the Law itself.

The loose lustful moron becomes a “particle”, stable and reliable, being able to discern when to act and when to nap.

Thus, much like the Bible is written, the Law separates the less-ons from the more-ons. If you don’t properly understand the lessons, well… it must have worked.

That’s about all I can reveal concerning the details at this point, I think. I guess the bottom line is that actually KNOWING the Law, prevents one from remaining a moron trying to use it either by eliminating him, or by raising him up. Always seek what actually works, but realize that you must seek it slowly, not always doing what doesn’t work merely to see if you can get what you thought you wanted without being patient, verifying, and attending to Reality.

Man as a whole, is being processed by the Law. Some have come to think of it as “Evolution”, but such a poor and sloppy imitation.

The Law is all about raising the turbulent noise to a solid orderly particle, raising Man from the dust, raising an intelligent sentient being from the moronic chaos.

Why does it need to be intelligent?


“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” -Socrates
“Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God.” -Cicero
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily believing it.” -Aristotle
“I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.” -Aristotle
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: A Contempory Philosophy Tue Jan 10, 2012 12:33 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
So can tell if the “voices in your head” are yours. geek

…actually, I don’t know what you are referring to with your “it”…? Question
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
avatar

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 30
Location : The Moon

PostSubject: Re: A Contempory Philosophy Tue Jan 10, 2012 12:53 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
James S Saint wrote:
So can tell if the “voices in your head” are yours. geek

…actually, I don’t know what you are referring to with your “it”…? Question
I was referring to man as that includes both females and males i figured it was best to refer to it as it…I guess

Quote :
raising Man from the dust, raising an intelligent sentient being from the moronic chaos.
Why is man being raised from the moronic chaos to be an intelligent sentient being…?


“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” -Socrates
“Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God.” -Cicero
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily believing it.” -Aristotle
“I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.” -Aristotle
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: A Contempory Philosophy Tue Jan 10, 2012 12:59 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Abstract wrote:
James S Saint wrote:
So can tell if the “voices in your head” are yours. geek

…actually, I don’t know what you are referring to with your “it”…? Question
I was referring to man as that includes both females and males i figured it was best to refer to it as it…I guess

Quote :
raising Man from the dust, raising an intelligent sentient being from the moronic chaos.
Why is man being raised from the moronic chaos to be an intelligent sentient being…?
Well, that is a bit like asking, “Why am I not a bird?”
“Because if you were the bird, you wouldn’t be asking the question, the human would.”

And I specified “Man”, not “man” or “human” (hue of Man).
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
avatar

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 30
Location : The Moon

PostSubject: Re: A Contempory Philosophy Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:25 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
James S Saint wrote:

And I specified “Man”, not “man” or “human” (hue of Man).
what do you mean? Man and not man do you mean you specified mankind… or what? (and it was at the start of a sentence so capitalization would have been expected for that reason…)

Quote :

Well, that is a bit like asking, “Why am I not a bird?”
“Because if you were the bird, you wouldn’t be asking the question, the human would.”
A bit like asking but not completely? My point here is to suggest that it may not be the point of the law to raise man out of the moronic chaos… it may just be a result of the law that is meant to achieve something else entirely… or the law is not ‘meant’ to achieve anything…


“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” -Socrates
“Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God.” -Cicero
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily believing it.” -Aristotle
“I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.” -Aristotle
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: A Contempory Philosophy Tue Jan 10, 2012 7:20 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
“Man” as in “(Man)ifestation”

And could you point out where I said, “point of the Law” or “Law is meant to”?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
avatar

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 30
Location : The Moon

PostSubject: Re: A Contempory Philosophy Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:26 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Quote :
The Law is all about raising the turbulent noise to a solid orderly particle, raising Man from the dust, raising an intelligent sentient being from the moronic chaos.
Here the use of “Man” is indicated as mankind considering the following remark of raising "sentient being"s…

You say “the Law is all about…” which is synonymous with (especially in this context) to “being meant to” raise… All about as in that is the primary significance of the Law… I would ask then again what makes you think that the significance of The Law is to create order, or raise an intelligent sentient being from the moronic chaos? Considering the existence of chaos it may be that any increase in order is only their to provide a later increase in disorder by means of destruction of the order created… or the purpose or significance or all-about-ness is simply things vibrating from order to disorder… change… variance… for with perfect order what is their to change, and without change how is their difference, and without any of these things what is their to think about, why would their be thought (for example)…


“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” -Socrates
“Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God.” -Cicero
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily believing it.” -Aristotle
“I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.” -Aristotle
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: A Contempory Philosophy Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:59 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Abstract wrote:
Quote :
The Law is all about raising the turbulent noise to a solid orderly particle, raising Man from the dust, raising an intelligent sentient being from the moronic chaos.
Here the use of “Man” is indicated as mankind considering the following remark of raising "sentient being"s…

You say “the Law is all about…” which is synonymous with (especially in this context) to “being meant to” raise…
You are projecting.
I neither said nor implied intent or purpose. I am talking about occurrence, with or without intent, purpose, or meaning.

Abstract wrote:

All about as in that is the primary significance of the Law… I would ask then again what makes you think that the significance of The Law is to create order, or raise an intelligent sentient being from the moronic chaos?
Because Order, Chaos, and “the moron” were the subjects being discussed.

Abstract wrote:

Considering the existence of chaos it may be that any increase in order is only their to provide a later increase in disorder by means of destruction of the order created… or the purpose or significance or all-about-ness is simply things vibrating from order to disorder… change… variance… for with perfect order what is their to change, and without change how is their difference, and without any of these things what is their to think about, why would their be thought (for example)…
I don’t dictate to natural laws how they are to behave. I just seek them out and observe.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
avatar

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 30
Location : The Moon

PostSubject: Re: A Contempory Philosophy Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:16 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
James S Saint wrote:
Abstract wrote:
Quote :
The Law is all about raising the turbulent noise to a solid orderly particle, raising Man from the dust, raising an intelligent sentient being from the moronic chaos.
Here the use of “Man” is indicated as mankind considering the following remark of raising "sentient being"s…

You say “the Law is all about…” which is synonymous with (especially in this context) to “being meant to” raise…
You are projecting.
I neither said nor implied intent or purpose. I am talking about occurrence, with or without intent, purpose, or meaning.
That is why I asked why is it that you think that the significance of the law is or regarldless of what you meant by the word “about” why is it that you think the law is about what you suggested it is about?

Quote :

Abstract wrote:

All about as in that is the primary significance of the Law… I would ask then again what makes you think that the significance of The Law is to create order, or raise an intelligent sentient being from the moronic chaos?
Because Order, Chaos, and “the moron” were the subjects being discussed.
Of course you talked about what you talked about because you were talking about it… this is an absurd attempt to avoid answering what my question really is rather then whay you perhaps want to think it is (what you are projecting on my question), or so it seems, it is of course quite possibly not…

Quote :

Abstract wrote:

Considering the existence of chaos it may be that any increase in order is only their to provide a later increase in disorder by means of destruction of the order created… or the purpose or significance or all-about-ness is simply things vibrating from order to disorder… change… variance… for with perfect order what is their to change, and without change how is their difference, and without any of these things what is their to think about, why would their be thought (for example)…
I don’t dictate to natural laws how they are to behave. I just seek them out and observe.
TO be honest I feel that you are avoiding answering my question… So lets start anew regardless of what was said… What do you think is what is occurring as a result of the law… is it ordering or is it also disordering?

Do you think there is a purpose of the law?

James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: A Contempory Philosophy Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:32 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
In a conversation when someone says, “it is all about…”, they are generally using a mild hyperbole, not intending to infer that the subject is exclusively about that one issue, but rather that the issue is a very large portion of its contents.

“The Law” creates both Chaos AND Order.

It is the fundamental order that causes chaos and causes that chaos to become orderly to a degree. It causes all physical phenomena.

And “purpose” is always relative to the pursuer.
It can validly be said that the Law pursues whatever course of action it takes and thus has its own “purpose” in maintaining its determinency. But the notion that said Law has cognitive forethought, plans, and designs with a goal in mind, or even that it has a “mind” is reducing it significantly to a mere projected anthropomorphism.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
avatar

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 30
Location : The Moon

PostSubject: Re: A Contempory Philosophy Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:13 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
James S Saint wrote:
In a conversation when someone says, “it is all about…”, they are generally using a mild hyperbole, not intending to infer that the subject is exclusively about that one issue, but rather that the issue is a very large portion of its contents.

“The Law” creates both Chaos AND Order.

It is the fundamental order that causes chaos and causes that chaos to become orderly to a degree. It causes all physical phenomena.

And “purpose” is always relative to the pursuer.
It can validly be said that the Law pursues whatever course of action it takes and thus has its own “purpose” in maintaining its determinency. But the notion that said Law has cognitive forethought, plans, and designs with a goal in mind, or even that it has a “mind” is reducing it significantly to a mere projected anthropomorphism.
I wasn’t suggesting that it had cognitive for thought… that something has a purpose does not imply necessarily that it makes its purpose or has its own forethought but rather that something else gave it such… such as maybe a god… so you could read what i said perhaps as asking, “do you believe in a god that had a purpose for the law, and what do you think it is if so.”?


“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” -Socrates
“Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God.” -Cicero
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily believing it.” -Aristotle
“I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.” -Aristotle
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: A Contempory Philosophy Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:19 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Abstract wrote:
“do you believe in a god that had a purpose for the law, and what do you think it is if so.”?
To those very few in the Western world with education on the matter and to the ancient Hebrew, that “Law” IS in itself, the one and only God, “The First Cause”, “The Creator”, “The Immutable Determiner and Final Say”, “The Most High”, “The Lord Allmighty from which all are raised and from which all wisdom comes”.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
avatar

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 30
Location : The Moon

PostSubject: Re: A Contempory Philosophy Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:20 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
James S Saint wrote:
Abstract wrote:
“do you believe in a god that had a purpose for the law, and what do you think it is if so.”?
To those very few in the Western world with education on the matter and to the ancient Hebrew, that “Law” IS in itself, the one and only God, “The First Cause”, “The Creator”, “The Immutable Determiner and Final Say”, “The Most High”, “The Lord Allmighty from which all are raised and from which all wisdom comes”.
So what is your answer?


“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” -Socrates
“Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God.” -Cicero
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily believing it.” -Aristotle
“I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.” -Aristotle
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: A Contempory Philosophy Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:23 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
My answer is that “there is but One God and that God IS the Law (the “LoE”); the Principle and ongoing Cause of all things.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: A Contempory Philosophy Mon Jan 23, 2012 10:26 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This law is already explained by value ontology as self-valuing and valuing in terms of self-value. This is what “God”, in the immanent as well as the transcendent sense, can be understood as.

The principles or ethics, the rules following from this laws are very hard to define except in terms such as “strengthen what you already are”.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides
    Back to top Go down
    View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Abstract
    Oracle
    Oracle
    avatar

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 30
Location : The Moon

PostSubject: Re: A Contempory Philosophy Tue Jan 24, 2012 5:49 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
This law is already explained by value ontology as self-valuing and valuing in terms of self-value. This is what “God”, in the immanent as well as the transcendent sense, can be understood as.

The principles or ethics, the rules following from this laws are very hard to define except in terms such as “strengthen what you already are”.

What is the cause of law?


“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” -Socrates
“Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God.” -Cicero
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily believing it.” -Aristotle
“I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.” -Aristotle
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: A Contempory Philosophy Tue Jan 24, 2012 8:46 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Nothing is the cause of the law. Causation is property of, “follows from” the law. If we take some liberty with the meaning of causality, the law could be said to be cause to causality.

One may ask what enabled the law to come into existence - the answer would be the lack of its impossibility.
This specifies to an extent what the law dictates – that which is most possible, most likely, least unlikely.

Note that I do not prefer the term ‘law’, but if it must be used, as far as I am concerned, it means necessity.
Necessity is “on top of” possibility – possibility precedes necessity.

Possibility might, with some imagination, be called “right” - and necessity “duty”. What provides the rights? The lack of a law/rule/necessity set against it. In this way we may understand a bit more of how the most functional and enabling/liberating type of law for human conduct should be conceived.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides
    Back to top Go down
    View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
    James S Saint
    rational metaphysicist
    rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: A Contempory Philosophy Tue Jan 24, 2012 12:16 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Nothing is the cause of the law. Causation is property of, “follows from” the law. If we take some liberty with the meaning of causality, the law could be said to be cause to causality.
Actually, in my world “Causation” IS the “Law”, merely worded in a specific manner.

Fixed Cross wrote:
One may ask what enabled the law to come into existence - the answer would be the lack of its impossibility. This specifies to an extent what the law dictates – that which is most possible, most likely, least unlikely.
Or as I have worded it, “The impossibility of any alternative”.
Another manner of expressing “The Law”, is “Lack of Alternative”, ie. “The Immutable God”.

Fixed Cross wrote:
Note that I do not prefer the term ‘law’, but if it must be used, as far as I am concerned, it means necessity.
Necessity is “on top of” possibility – possibility precedes necessity.

Possibility might, with some imagination, be called “right” - and necessity “duty”. What provides the rights? The lack of a law/rule/necessity set against it. In this way we may understand a bit more of how the most functional and enabling/liberating type of law for human conduct should be conceived.
True, but you might want to consider the other perspective of “Opportunity” rather than “lack of contra-influence or restriction”.

Fixed, you and I are on the same train, merely in different cars. As I have stated before, what words are used or in what manner an ontology is expressed doesn’t make much difference to me as long as it maintains consistency within itself. I also couldn’t care less how the rest of the world might perceive words until they are actually being used for sake of influence. As far as I can see right now, Rational Metaphysics and Value-Ontology are compatible, but without detail, such cannot be concluded. RM is compatible with the fundamental idea of Gnosticism as well, but if you look at the history of what they made out of Gnosticism, there is no comparison or association at all. Without the details, many things sound like the right idea. The misguiding devil is always in the details.

But speaking of such things;
The Presumption and Indecision incentive has led me to surmise that I really need to go ahead and assemble a “Unified Behavior Theory”, UBT, from which the whole presumption concern can be more exactly defined and calculated. I was thinking that an economic theory would be a better next step, but really without the psychological theory behind the economics, there wouldn’t be much point.

My UTF (Unified Field Theory) provides a foundation for the UBT, but it really isn’t quite as simple as has always been speculated throughout history. It isn’t merely a question of drawing the associated analogy of concepts between the 2 theories as Alchemy and all religions attempt. The things that establish limits in the physical universe are not the same as what establishes limits in the behavioral/mental world or mind. The link between the 2 worlds has to be clearly defined. I can already see that it is the limits of the physical world which are going to create the limits of the behavioral world (despite the fantasies of the Magi).

So while you are working out the details of Value Ontology, I will be off ironing out the details of a UBT possibly with similar machine meta-mind demonstrations as I made for the UFT.

Even more evident is of course that ever present concern for the lusts of homosapian to dominate all life. A UBT offers an instruction manual on how to destroy any organization of any type anywhere in the world. Any UBT would no doubt get pounced upon. Merely by reading the direction on the box, one could fulfill their lust to destroy “those bad guys” no matter who they were. Of course, in reality, they wouldn’t read very carefully and presume all kinds of strange things and end up messing it all up and declaring that they got sold a fraudulent product. The problem would be all of the turmoil they created while lustfully presuming what “has to be done”.

The good thing is that a legitimate UBT should be able to clearly point out how to prevent that. In the past it has always been about trying to maintain the secret through obfuscation and deceptions, but I really hate that schema. And it appears that “they” (whoever) have never really had the real and precise understanding, merely a close simultude from which they have managed to create the past 6000 years of confusion and suffering.

Time is seriously running out and it is getting time to pull the plug on such things once and for all.

So I’ll get back to you guys sometime and we can compare notes (if they haven’t forbid internet communication on such subjects by then).
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: A Contempory Philosophy Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:05 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Wow… and mean seriously Wow.

Out of respect for the potential threat of the misuse of a true UBT, I thought I would slip on my “Vishnu glasses” and take a peak at what must transpire so as to avoid the “learning in the wrong order” problem. The UBT leads squarely into what I had referred to earlier as “the second weapon”. The only way to prevent its use is to jump ahead and develop the “third weapon” which not only makes the second weapon seem a bit like a pop-gun, but it also inherently totally governs its use.

So I started off thinking like most typical morons and tried to assemble what would be in RM terms, a “positive metaparticle” formed of life (not “out of life”, but rather formed around the thing we call “life”). In the psychic or mental universe, “positive” is represented by higher hope, so I was thinking that a positive particle would be a momentous cause that represented high hopes for the life within. But then I quickly saw that any such positive particulate would necessitate the formation of a negative particulate - didn’t like that thought.

Since a life form is not a monoform particle represented in the physical universe by say a positron, the life would not be threatened by a negative particulate for the same reason a proton (a multiform particle) is not threatened by an electron. But still the idea of having to have a constant threat hovering around merely because a high hope had been formed wasn’t appealing. Also a multiform negative particle, a negaton (anti-life organization), could be formed and pose a more significant threat to the existence of the proton, and even though negatons are not very stable, they would represent a temporary threat.

Then it occurred to me that it really isn’t a proton that should be sought, but rather a neutron. A neutron doesn’t require an anti-charge version of itself because it already contains both positive and negative within the “self”, the “life”. Interestingly the whole thing suddenly reminded me of the whole Jew vs Christian issue. Judaism is based on the threat of reprisal for misbehavior. Christianity is based on the hope of loving forgiveness. And just as history reveals, the positive particle of Christianity held, maintained, and required the negative particle of Judaism and later Islam circling it. Such left life in constant contention between 3 inertial entities, a helium atom.

Interestingly, the neutron is more representative of Secularism, somewhat neutral trying to claim no absolute morality or good or bad. But unfortunately lacking in much hope and a little over endowed with potential threat. Technology gives Secularism a bit of a mask hiding what it really is as it offers false flag hopes and threats. I don’t really care about such things, but I thought it was an interesting note.

What got seriously interesting is what came next in my purview of the development scenario.

Lets say that a properly formed life particle was formed, a neutron. A neutron, much like the animal body or any life form, has a physical size limit, a quantization limit. So as to grow, proper life utilizes seeding so as to spread itself and form a more harmonious environment (successfully or not). This would be represented by a neutron spawning another neutron seed, much as I do with Jack so as to produce a particle where I want it to be.

The neutrons would naturally cling together so as to gradually over a very long time form a neutron star. Such a gathering of life would be similar to an extremely large society wherein there was no warring, merely growth.

But guess what happens next. It is theorized that black holes form due to neutron stars becoming too massive and collapsing into themselves. I haven’t verified that and I have my doubts, but for whatever reason, eventually the life form would in fact develop into the life version of a black hole. And that, I have always held as the objective (for years).

The Life-Black-Hole seriously rules. Nothing the universe can provide, including physical black holes, can stop it. But my point is that the “second weapon” is rendered a bit childish and moot at that stage. Even though the imagery doesn’t fit well at all, that Life-black-hole stage is what they have been naively referring to as “ascension”. Ascension isn’t really anything like what people naively imagine. Any ascended life can’t help but have serious impact upon all surrounding life. But the story doesn’t stop there.

Black holes don’t just sit around either. In effect, a black hole is merely an extremely large neutron (sometimes with an imbalance of charge). The black hole gets around the quantization issue and becomes an ever growing single entity. And even if it never grows sufficiently, other black holes, perhaps seeded by itself or perhaps on formed on their own begin to come together.

Many black holes can probably merge before eventually a “grand singularity” is formed. Grand singularities are stable up to a point, but then due to unavoidable imbalance, they explode - “Big Bang”.

Everyone is familiar with the idea of the physical Big Bang creating our local physical universe. But realize that I haven’t been talking about any physical universe. I have been talking about the universe of the “spirit of life”, the universe of perception and mind that inhabits the physical universe. Thus the Big Bang that would inevitably result, would create not a physical universe of stars and galaxies, but a new universe of life particles, planets, and “stars in the heavens”.

The concept is vaguely reminiscent of the ancient Atlantis stories, not merely a creation of a new world, but of an entire new universe of living entities.

The sad thought is how long it would take to merely get from the second weapon development to the third, the “Life-Black-Hole”, but from there on out would be pretty automatic.

Message
Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
avatar

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 30
Location : The Moon

PostSubject: More Or less. Sun Nov 20, 2011 6:14 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Relative to something anything can be bad, relative to something else that same thing can seem good. Burning coals on the feet is hell compared to soft earth, heaven compared burning of the whole body…(not the best example)

Isn’t everything just relative?If so then isn’t heaven just a state of mind; considering things with respect to the right things?
Keeping in mind there is worse?

Knowing less is to know the more?

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: More Or less. Thu Nov 24, 2011 10:19 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Quote :
Relative to something anything can be bad, relative to something else that same thing can seem good. Burning coals on the feet is hell compared to soft earth, heaven compared burning of the whole body…(not the best example)

Isn’t everything just relative?
Relative to what?

Relative to something that is relative to it? If that would be the full definition, it means that all relating things are always equal, simply “relative to relativity”.

This can not be the case. Something is relative to something. Otherwise, the word relative has no meaning.

Nietzsche faced and did not solve the same problem as you are posing. He also believed in the absolutism of relativity, and the absence of “solid value”. Value-ontology posits solid value as the (logical) ground to all relativity.

Quote :
If so then isn’t heaven just a state of mind; considering things with respect to the right things?
Keeping in mind there is worse?
To whom is heaven heaven?
To a consciousness, an “I”, a solid value, which can measure itself differently against a variety of changing conditions, but always only has itself, its particular nervous & endoctrine system to measure.

Quote :
Knowing less is to know the more?

Knowledge is perhaps well defined as the ability to position ones mind in respect to a given problem. The mind is made up of terms, and knowledge consists of terms, but also their connecting structure (the minds ‘skeleton’), hierarchy, logic, which can/must not necessarily be defined in terms, but requires such things as experience and “intuition”, the workings of the “subconscious” to exist.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides
    Back to top Go down
    View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Abstract
    Oracle
    Oracle
    avatar

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 30
Location : The Moon

PostSubject: Re: More Or less. Sat Nov 26, 2011 2:05 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Quote :
Relative to something anything can be bad, relative to something else that same thing can seem good. Burning coals on the feet is hell compared to soft earth, heaven compared burning of the whole body…(not the best example)

Isn’t everything just relative?
Relative to what?

Relative to something that is relative to it? If that would be the full definition, it means that all relating things are always equal, simply “relative to relativity”.

This can not be the case. Something is relative to something. Otherwise, the word relative has no meaning.

Nietzsche faced and did not solve the same problem as you are posing. He also believed in the absolutism of relativity, and the absence of “solid value”. Value-ontology posits solid value as the (logical) ground to all relativity.
I would just say that a thing can only be defined if it is related to something else. but relating it to different things alters the way in which it is perceived.

Quote :

Quote :
If so then isn’t heaven just a state of mind; considering things with respect to the right things?
Keeping in mind there is worse?
To whom is heaven heaven?
To a consciousness, an “I”, a solid value, which can measure itself differently against a variety of changing conditions, but always only has itself, its particular nervous & endoctrine system to measure.
i don’t know that i would call the self a solid value, it seems to be a rather dynamically changing thing, at least changing and thus different to some degree every instant. Of course how “dynamic” it is seems to be relative.

Quote :

Quote :
Knowing less is to know the more?

Knowledge is perhaps well defined as the ability to position ones mind in respect to a given problem. The mind is made up of terms, and knowledge consists of terms, but also their connecting structure (the minds ‘skeleton’), hierarchy, logic, which can/must not necessarily be defined in terms, but requires such things as experience and “intuition”, the workings of the “subconscious” to exist.

Perhaps I am touching on how to know or be conscious as we humans are is to know pain, for the chance to have pleasure it is paid by the chance to have pain… so we have a jumping between the two, if pleasure is met with equal pain, then what is the point of consciousness?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills

PostSubject: Re: More Or less. Sat Dec 10, 2011 6:16 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster

[quote=“Abstract”]

[quote=“Fixed Cross”]
Quote :
Relative to something anything can be bad, relative to something else that same thing can seem good. Burning coals on the feet is hell compared to soft earth, heaven compared burning of the whole body…(not the best example)

Isn’t everything just relative?
You can’t say that everything is just relative - just that ‘this’ is relative to that…the light is relative to the dark only by nature of knowing both.

Quote :
Relative to something that is relative to it? If that would be the full definition, it means that all relating things are always equal, simply “relative to relativity”.
It might mean that all things, in a sense, have oneness - but would they be equal? Is morality equal to immorality or is one simply known as a result of the other? Poor analogy?

Quote :
If so then isn’t heaven just a state of mind; considering things with respect to the right things?
Keeping in mind there is worse?
To me, it is. Heaven is more a sense of completeness, which doesn’t suggest to me 'with respect to the right things.

Quote :
To whom is heaven heaven?
In truth, only to those who have experienced hell.

Quote :
To a consciousness, an “I”, a solid value, which can measure itself differently against a variety of changing conditions, but always only has itself, its particular nervous & endoctrine system to measure.

i don’t know that i would call the self a solid value, it seems to be a rather dynamically changing thing, at least changing and thus different to some degree every instant. Of course how “dynamic” it is seems to be relative.
If the “I” is such a solid value, why is it capable of changing, re-defining itself?
I believe that it is the personality that is capable of changing - perhaps there really is no “I” - except for the ego which defines itself.
Can we actually ‘know’ the self or just intuit and experience it?

Quote :
Knowing less is to know the more?
Perhaps what you are meaning is that being aware, in genuine humility, of how little we, in actuality, know, compared to the unknown, creates in us a self-awareness,/self-consciousness, that transcends any other knowing.

Quote :
Perhaps I am touching on how to know or be conscious as we humans are is to know pain, for the chance to have pleasure it is paid by the chance to have pain…
But would you give up the pain, thereby, sacrificing the pleasure? Then what is left of life?

Quote :
so we have a jumping between the two, if pleasure is met with equal pain, then what is the point of consciousness?
To know the difference and to make the decision toward Life. But why would pleasure have to be equal to pain? Pleasure is relative to pain - but not necessarily equal to it. We decide which we choose to feel - self-awareness gives us the capacity to choose what we want our experience to be - even though we might not ‘see’ it that way. Our choice is almost like a wish or a prayer answered, in a sense.


Each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself.

Philosophy is the childhood of the intellect, and a culture that tries to skip it will never grow up."

“If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.”

Thomas Nagel
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
avatar

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 30
Location : The Moon

PostSubject: Re: More Or less. Wed Dec 14, 2011 5:47 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
VaerosTanarg wrote:

You can’t say that everything is just relative - just that ‘this’ is relative to that…the light is relative to the dark only by nature of knowing both.
So the All, the everything, the Tao…is not relative…only the “10,000” things each are?

Quote :

Quote :
Relative to something that is relative to it? If that would be the full definition, it means that all relating things are always equal, simply “relative to relativity”.
It might mean that all things, in a sense, have oneness - but would they be equal? Is morality equal to immorality or is one simply known as a result of the other? Poor analogy?
Can anything be exactly the same? if not why do we have such an idea as “equality”… what is equality? Having enough similarities that we have enough thought power to recognize to be percived as equal? are we just to liited to see the equality of all things, or is equality only a useful abstraction?

Quote :

Quote :
considering things with respect to the right things?
To me, it is. Heaven is more a sense of completeness, which doesn’t suggest to me 'with respect to the right things.
Perhaps i meant equating things in a manner that allows one to be at peace.

Quote :

Quote :
To whom is heaven heaven?
In truth, only to those who have experienced hell.
Why separate between heaven and hell to be in one and to pass into another all along you are in the one thing that is made of both…the both is it not best? is it then as well to be called heaven? perhaps the deepest peace is recognizing the value of suffering, and allowing the self to be in heaven even then, by recognition of its beauty.

Quote :

Quote :
To a consciousness, an “I”, a solid value, which can measure itself differently against a variety of changing conditions, but always only has itself, its particular nervous & endoctrine system to measure.

i don’t know that i would call the self a solid value, it seems to be a rather dynamically changing thing, at least changing and thus different to some degree every instant. Of course how “dynamic” it is seems to be relative.
If the “I” is such a solid value, why is it capable of changing, re-defining itself?
Iron is solid…composed of so many moving particles…

Quote :

I believe that it is the personality that is capable of changing - perhaps there really is no “I” - except for the ego which defines itself.
Can we actually ‘know’ the self or just intuit and experience it?
If something is always changing given enough time might it have been everything? the the “I” is everything…perhaps it is simply order that defines our differences…

Quote :

Quote :
Knowing less is to know the more?
Perhaps what you are meaning is that being aware, in genuine humility, of how little we, in actuality, know, compared to the unknown, creates in us a self-awareness,/self-consciousness, that transcends any other knowing.
That was to mean that we cannot know pleasure without pain…comparison.

it would seem to me that in order to be aware a thing must be limited…there is nothing to think about if you know everything…

Quote :

Quote :
Perhaps I am touching on how to know or be conscious as we humans are is to know pain, for the chance to have pleasure it is paid by the chance to have pain…
But would you give up the pain, thereby, sacrificing the pleasure? Then what is left of life?
I doubt i would, but can one anyways?

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills

PostSubject: Re: More Or less. Sat Feb 04, 2012 4:55 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster

Quote :
Abstract wrote:

So the All, the everything, the Tao…is not relative…only the “10,000” things each are?
So, do you think that I am wrong here? I can say that the tao is a relationship that encompasses all and creates a perspective of Oneness. At the same time, mustn’t things be seen within their perspective of duality?

Quote :
Can anything be exactly the same? if not why do we have such an idea as “equality”… what is equality? Having enough similarities that we have enough thought power to recognize to be percived as equal? are we just to liited to see the equality of all things, or is equality only a useful abstraction?
How about the electron?
I think that ‘equality’ is basically an ideal for the most part but the ideal is capable of creating the perspective of equality within our minds through awareness. When we see it and work towards it, it becomes. Logically speaking, we cannot perceive most things as being equal - though I do assert and affirm that, spiritually speaking, all human beings are equal. BUT there is beauty and meaning within diversity…and this very characteristic makes us more equal.

I myself might change your word ‘equality’ in your last sentence to ‘relationship’. Although all things are NOT equal, all things do share in a relationship – just by the very nature of the Big Bang and evolution alone. Does that make sense to you?

Quote :
Perhaps i meant equating things in a manner that allows one to be at peace.
As long as one is being true to his/her sense of reality… I mean, as things really are. What was it that Nietzsche said…?
“I tell you: one must still have chaos within oneself, to give birth to a dancing star.”
Would you choose peace over the process of creation of self?

Quote :
Why separate between heaven and hell to be in one and to pass into another all along you are in the one thing that is made of both…the both is it not best? is it then as well to be called heaven?
I’m not sure that I grasp what you are saying here. What ‘one thing’ is that? The process of self, of becoming? But isn’t it a good thing to be aware of each moment separately? When we feel heaven, be there. When we feel hell, be there! Otherwise, how can we experience the difference?

Quote :
…perhaps the deepest peace is recognizing the value of suffering, and allowing the self to be in heaven even then, by recognition of its beauty
.
Yes, suffering has great value. But can’t we allow ourselves to be in ‘hell’ while at the same time realizing its potential for becoming?

“Perhaps everything terrible is in its deepest being something helpless that wants help from us.”
Rilke

Quote :
Iron is solid…composed of so many moving particles…
Everything is composed of moving particles…but iron does not have consciousness. I think that we only have consciousness when the aware self is in flux…it’s a process.

Quote :
If something is always changing given enough time might it have been everything?
I myself would like to think NOT. If we ARE indeed part of a process, don’t we let go of the old and bring on the new? Does transformation require that we hold on to things – even to who we think we are as selves…though I realize how difficult the letting go is. Smile

Quote :
the the “I” is everything…perhaps it is simply order that defines our differences…
The “I” is actually nothing…in a sense…it’s the ego thinking of itself.

Quote :
*That was to mean that we cannot know pleasure without pain…comparison.
Exactly. This is what I was speaking about above –so - why dilute what pain can teach us by bringing heaven into its sensory equation?

Quote :
it would seem to me that in order to be aware a thing must be limited…there is nothing to think about if you know everything…
Hmmm…perhaps to be fully aware, we must know that we are capable of going beyond our limitations…at least to have the capacity of seeing the possibility that we can. You see, a self solidified has limitations.

And then again, if there is one who truly ‘knows everything’ – wouldn’t they know that they do not know everything and proceed onward into that possible unchartered territory …where knowing meets the unknown.

Quote :
Perhaps I am touching on how to know or be conscious as we humans are is to know pain, for the chance to have pleasure it is paid by the chance to have pain…

But would you give up the pain, thereby, sacrificing the pleasure? Then what is left of life?

Quote :
I doubt i would, but can one anyways?
The world is full of people who deny their pain every day – people who find it so easy to turn it off. All they live for is the pleasure and the pain remains beneath as a dormant volcano ready to explode or a thoroughly inactive one. It’s only the lucky ones who eventually give rise to themselves…the only true way to eventually live…I mean LIVE.


Each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself.

Philosophy is the childhood of the intellect, and a culture that tries to skip it will never grow up."

“If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.”

Thomas Nagel
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
avatar

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 30
Location : The Moon

PostSubject: Re: More Or less. Tue Feb 07, 2012 8:31 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I’ll have to get back to you on this… the Muse has not been with me recently…


“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” -Socrates
“Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God.” -Cicero
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily believing it.” -Aristotle
“I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.” -Aristotle
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
avatar

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 30
Location : The Moon

PostSubject: Re: More Or less. Tue Feb 14, 2012 7:34 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
VaerosTanarg wrote:

Quote :
Abstract wrote:

So the All, the everything, the Tao…is not relative…only the “10,000” things each are?
So, do you think that I am wrong here? I can say that the tao is a relationship that encompasses all and creates a perspective of Oneness. At the same time, mustn’t things be seen within their perspective of duality?
Well one can consider the two things as one… I think you may be right though, that while the whole or the all or the tao may not be relative the parts of it are…

Quote :

Quote :
Can anything be exactly the same? if not why do we have such an idea as “equality”… what is equality? Having enough similarities that we have enough thought power to recognize to be percived as equal? are we just to liited to see the equality of all things, or is equality only a useful abstraction?
How about the electron?
I think that ‘equality’ is basically an ideal for the most part but the ideal is capable of creating the perspective of equality within our minds through awareness. When we see it and work towards it, it becomes. Logically speaking, we cannot perceive most things as being equal - though I do assert and affirm that, spiritually speaking, all human beings are equal. BUT there is beauty and meaning within diversity…and this very characteristic makes us more equal.

I myself might change your word ‘equality’ in your last sentence to ‘relationship’. Although all things are NOT equal, all things do share in a relationship – just by the very nature of the Big Bang and evolution alone. Does that make sense to you?
All things do seem related but perhaps they are only such because of perception. that it is perception that relates things… thus relationship is not but an abstraction of the mind… yet then one can say the same as difference… so we arrive at then that it is perhaps most probable that everything is related and also unrelated.

Quote :

Quote :
Perhaps i meant equating things in a manner that allows one to be at peace.
As long as one is being true to his/her sense of reality… I mean, as things really are. What was it that Nietzsche said…?
“I tell you: one must still have chaos within oneself, to give birth to a dancing star.”
Would you choose peace over the process of creation of self?
Well perhaps part of what I mean is that one needs such as the process of creation or in order to have more we must have less… so to have peace and know it for what it is there must be the opposite for comparison… thus true inner-peace comes of realizing this and accepting what are often considered negatives as beauties that create the relation of peace.

Quote :

Quote :
Why separate between heaven and hell to be in one and to pass into another all along you are in the one thing that is made of both…the both is it not best? is it then as well to be called heaven?
I’m not sure that I grasp what you are saying here. What ‘one thing’ is that? The process of self, of becoming? But isn’t it a good thing to be aware of each moment separately? When we feel heaven, be there. When we feel hell, be there! Otherwise, how can we experience the difference?
What I am suggesting is to consider the one thing as being heaven and hell rather then two opposite things…bring them together (which brings to mind the image of the yin-yang to me…) As above when you see that both are necessary self-peace/inner-peace perhaps can be obtained… or perhaps it is not so much peace exactly but acceptance and thus lack of resistance to what comes along your path.

Quote :

Quote :
…perhaps the deepest peace is recognizing the value of suffering, and allowing the self to be in heaven even then, by recognition of its beauty
.
Yes, suffering has great value. But can’t we allow ourselves to be in ‘hell’ while at the same time realizing its potential for becoming?

“Perhaps everything terrible is in its deepest being something helpless that wants help from us.”
Rilke
I would think so… but is it fair to call it hell then…? perhaps hell is just a state of mind…a negative one… and has nothing to do with what is being experienced…whether what is experienced is bad or not is completely dependent on the mind, maybe.

Quote :

Quote :
Iron is solid…composed of so many moving particles…
Everything is composed of moving particles…but iron does not have consciousness. I think that we only have consciousness when the aware self is in flux…it’s a process.
Perhaps iron is part of a concious ness as if one cell of a greater being we are all a part of… but IDK about that… But what I meant is that everything is in flux to some degree every moment…

Quote :

Quote :
If something is always changing given enough time might it have been everything?
I myself would like to think NOT. If we ARE indeed part of a process, don’t we let go of the old and bring on the new? Does transformation require that we hold on to things – even to who we think we are as selves…though I realize how difficult the letting go is. Smile
Yet it would seem to me that something is no longer a part of something is a matter of perspective… in truth everything is always still connected to everything else… Trying to say something has been left behind or lost or such, is like trying to define when to things are no longer “near” each other… it just depends on one definition…or in other words perception…

Quote :

Quote :
the the “I” is everything…perhaps it is simply order that defines our differences…
The “I” is actually nothing…in a sense…it’s the ego thinking of itself.
Well it is something otherwise we wouldn’t be talking about it right? How could the human mind create an idea that doesn’t exist not from any experience? But I would think that in a sense the I does not exist…it is either nothing or everything… we are all i or there is no I really it is both and in otherwords relative or dependant on you erspective. I can see that I am not but infinitely small compared to all… or I can see that I am defined by all things in that it is the result of all that I exist… and instead of stopping the definition of I at the skin my I goes on endlessly so that I am everything…as are you…it is like we are each other one personality of the I looking upon itself…perhaps…

Quote :

Quote :
*That was to mean that we cannot know pleasure without pain…comparison.
Exactly. This is what I was speaking about above –so - why dilute what pain can teach us by bringing heaven into its sensory equation?
Well I would not call heaven complete absence of pain… I would call this life heaven we are in it …the kingdom of heaven is within…a matter of the mind…

Quote :

Quote :
it would seem to me that in order to be aware a thing must be limited…there is nothing to think about if you know everything…
Hmmm…perhaps to be fully aware, we must know that we are capable of going beyond our limitations…at least to have the capacity of seeing the possibility that we can. You see, a self solidified has limitations.

And then again, if there is one who truly ‘knows everything’ – wouldn’t they know that they do not know everything and proceed onward into that possible unchartered territory …where knowing meets the unknown.
But if they know everything how could they know they don’t know…what do you mean?

Quote :

Quote :
Perhaps I am touching on how to know or be conscious as we humans are is to know pain, for the chance to have pleasure it is paid by the chance to have pain…

But would you give up the pain, thereby, sacrificing the pleasure? Then what is left of life?
No I would not give it up rather I would love it as I love other things and as such have an absence of so much stress for rather acceptance of stress or suffering…

I tend to think that the absence of suffering that the Buddha spoke of was not complete absence but absence of the unnecessary suffering cause by trying to resist the normal suffering that aids us by defining the positive… in other words to avoid making you life worse by trying to avoid the inevitable suffering that must be.


“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” -Socrates
“Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God.” -Cicero
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily believing it.” -Aristotle
“I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.” -Aristotle
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
saturnesque

Posts : 6
Join date : 2012-02-21

PostSubject: Re: More Or less. Tue Feb 21, 2012 10:08 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Abstract wrote:
Relative to something anything can be bad, relative to something else that same thing can seem good. Burning coals on the feet is hell compared to soft earth, heaven compared burning of the whole body…(not the best example)

Isn’t everything just relative?

Certainly everything is relative, in that the way we interpret the meaning of things isn’t inherent in those things themselves, even if they are based on inherent traits of those things. But the fact that, as humans, the ways in which we function have inherent traits as well, which guide and determine the manner in which our perceptions and our conceptualizations work, so, in that sense, there’s a standard to which everything is relative.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
avatar

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 30
Location : The Moon

PostSubject: Re: More Or less. Wed Feb 22, 2012 10:03 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
saturnesque wrote:
Abstract wrote:
Relative to something anything can be bad, relative to something else that same thing can seem good. Burning coals on the feet is hell compared to soft earth, heaven compared burning of the whole body…(not the best example)

Isn’t everything just relative?

Certainly everything is relative, in that the way we interpret the meaning of things isn’t inherent in those things themselves, even if they are based on inherent traits of those things. But the fact that, as humans, the ways in which we function have inherent traits as well, which guide and determine the manner in which our perceptions and our conceptualizations work, so, in that sense, there’s a standard to which everything is relative.
So what you are saying is in other words that we are programed to think the way we do about things in a way that is consistent enough to be a sort of standardization… yet I would think that we do not know what environments life cannot evolve in… or perhaps other dimensions… alien


“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” -Socrates
“Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God.” -Cicero
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily believing it.” -Aristotle
“I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.” -Aristotle
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
saturnesque

Posts : 6
Join date : 2012-02-21

PostSubject: Re: More Or less. Wed Feb 22, 2012 11:27 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Abstract wrote:
So what you are saying is in other words that we are programed to think the way we do about things in a way that is consistent enough to be a sort of standardization… yet I would think that we do not know what environments life cannot evolve in… or perhaps other dimensions… alien

No, I wouldn’t say that we are programmed to think the way we do, but simply that the physical nature of our senses and the way they collect information, the way our brain processes that information and turns it into perception, and then the typical fashions in which our brain conceptualizes those perceptions forms a sort of standard by which meaning is determined, for us at least. The way we think isn’t really programmed, but it’s certainly occurring within the framework of how sensory information and perception are innately processed as humans, which does sort of standardize the way things mean to us.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills

PostSubject: Re: More Or less. Fri Mar 02, 2012 4:17 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Abstract…

Quote :
I myself might change your word ‘equality’ in your last sentence to ‘relationship’. Although all things are NOT equal, all things do share in a relationship – just by the very nature of the Big Bang and evolution alone. Does that make sense to you?

All things do seem related but perhaps they are only such because of perception. that it is perception that relates things… thus relationship is not but an abstraction of the mind… yet then one can say the same as difference… so we arrive at then that it is perhaps most probable that everything is related and also unrelated.

Is it ‘simply’ our perception that relates things? We perceive things according to the distinctive patterns of our individual brains but then doesn’t our mind/intellect take over and gather them together? You would appear to be minimizing ‘relationship’ as a form of illusion…though, it is true, that many of our perceptions, when evaluated, are illusions. But let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater, Abstract.

Quote :
Well perhaps part of what I mean is that one needs such as the process of creation or in order to have more we must have less…
I don’t quite grasp your meaning here. Do you mean that we need to willingly let go…as the saying goes…in order to have the life we are meant to have, we must let go of the life we have now? Those aren’t my words. I cannot remember who’s they are - but they are poignant. I find that what I feel is poignant, has great meaning for me, I must listen to and examine.

Quote :
so to have peace and know it for what it is there must be the opposite for comparison… thus true inner-peace comes of realizing this and accepting what are often considered negatives as beauties that create the relation of peace
Agreed - like a scale which is always balanced or what might appeal to you - yin and yang.
Or, even better amor fati. Not simply accepting it but coming to love the life which we have been given and wishing for none other - and that IS a process - which takes great panoramic vision as opposed to tunnel vision.

Quote :
(What I am suggesting is to consider the one thing as being heaven and hell rather then two opposite things…bring them together (which brings to mind the image of the yin-yang to me…) As above when you see that both are necessary self-peace/inner-peace perhaps can be obtained… or perhaps it is not so much peace exactly but acceptance and thus lack of resistance to what comes along your path.
I understand your meaning here, Abstract and realize that the relationship and importance of both is necessary. At the same time, in a process of becoming…we need to perceive and examine each separately. Otherwise, how do we come to understand their separate nature’s? How do we come to see which is real but must be dealt with and let go of - or which is illusion and may or may not be more readily let go of? If we value ourselves, we must do the work necessary for this - not in a masochistic way but in a way in which we truly love ourself - by going beyond the comfort and all of the silly beliefs which we have built up in order to insulate ourselves against pain…and growth.

As you said above, they are both related and unrelated. But you and I may actually be saying the same thing here…more or less.

Quote :
I would think so… but is it fair to call it hell then…? perhaps hell is just a state of mind…a negative one… and has nothing to do with what is being experienced…whether what is experienced is bad or not is completely dependent on the mind, maybe.

This is what I always say - for me, hell as well as heaven and purgatory, are simply states of mind.

I agree with you that these states are dependent on the mind but also on the emotions. They are both connected to each other. Mind influences emotions and vica versa.

But I do feel that it IS fair to call it hell…otherwise, how can we get at the truth of what we are experiencing? If we are suffering as a result of some thing, even IF that suffering is not real but as a result of some belief of ours, do we say to ourselves “ah, I am in heaven”? As best we can, we need to be honest about what we are feeling. Otherwise, it is like ‘sweeping dirt under the carpet’. Would you do that?

Quote :
I myself would like to think NOT. If we ARE indeed part of a process, don’t we let go of the old and bring on the new? Does transformation require that we hold on to things – even to who we think we are as selves…though I realize how difficult the letting go is.

Yet it would seem to me that something is no longer a part of something is a matter of perspective… in truth everything is always still connected to everything else… Trying to say something has been left behind or lost or such, is like trying to define when to things are no longer “near” each other… it just depends on one definition…or in other words perception…

True…and everything is a part of one’s own perspective. I may have chosen other words. Although we do let go of the old and bring on the new, in a way, who we were and who we are becoming are always part of the same…becoming incorporated, a part of flow, where it can never ever be distinguished again…if that makes sense.

Nothing is ever lost. It all just becomes a perfect blend of who we are continually becoming. ‘Lost’ is a perspective too. Sadly, many of us never come to see how our losses may transform and enrich us, though many others at some point find the grace to experience this.

Quote :
The “I” is actually nothing…in a sense…it’s the ego thinking of itself.

Well it is something otherwise we wouldn’t be talking about it right? How could the human mind create an idea that doesn’t exist not from any experience?
The concept of the “I” is real. But I would say that it is the ‘experience’ itself that is greater than the I. …since each experience changes what we consider to be the “I”. But that experience occurs/happens at our ‘core’ self. One might call it ‘soul’ for lack of a better word.

Quote :
But I would think that in a sense the I does not exist…it is either nothing or everything… we are all i or there is no I really it is both and in otherwords relative or dependant on you erspective. I can see that I am not but infinitely small compared to all… or I can see that I am defined by all things in that it is the result of all that I exist… and instead of stopping the definition of I at the skin my I goes on endlessly so that I am everything…as are you…it is like we are each other one personality of the I looking upon itself…perhaps…
.

I liked that. And I agree with you…except in a way with the last sentence. We are also ‘individuals’ Abstract, and as such are different. We are all a product of our own personal perceptions and experiences but at the same time we ARE the same within our humanity.

Quote :
Exactly. This is what I was speaking about above –so - why dilute what pain can teach us by bringing heaven into its sensory equation?

Well I would not call heaven complete absence of pain… I would call this life heaven we are in it …the kingdom of heaven is within…a matter of the mind…

Intellectually speaking, we realize that there IS/MAY BE pain in our life. At the same time, we experience heaven as a ‘being there’ a complete oneness of sorts where everything comes together in a moment which might last more than a moment wherein there is NO pain - but ineffable completeness.

Quote :
it would seem to me that in order to be aware a thing must be limited…there is nothing to think about if you know everything…

Hmmm…perhaps to be fully aware, we must know that we are capable of going beyond our limitations…at least to have the capacity of seeing the possibility that we can. You see, a self solidified has limitations.

Quote :
And then again, if there is one who truly ‘knows everything’ – wouldn’t they know that they do not know everything and proceed onward into that possible unchartered territory …where knowing meets the unknown.

But if they know everything how could they know they don’t know…what do you mean
?
Embarassed I’m sort of ‘out of touch’ here with who wrote what. Smile

Quote :
Perhaps I am touching on how to know or be conscious as we humans are is to know pain, for the chance to have pleasure it is paid by the chance to have pain…
But would you give up the pain, thereby, sacrificing the pleasure? Maybe i misunderstood you here. Then what is left of life? If we experience no pleasure, how are we to have a will to live? Instinct alone does not satisfy our need to existence.

Quote :
No I would not give it up rather I would love it as I love other things and as such have an absence of so much stress for rather acceptance of stress or suffering…

I tend to think that the absence of suffering that the Buddha spoke of was not complete absence but absence of the unnecessary suffering cause by trying to resist the normal suffering that aids us by defining the positive… in other words to avoid making you life worse by trying to avoid the inevitable suffering that must be.
This is so true. What causes us the greatest suffering is the unwillingness to allow the pain and suffering. The most mentally healthy, I sense, are those people who love their selves enough to willingly suffer and struggle against the inertia of ‘non-becoming’ - they face their pain and their selves honestly, going beyond the present comfortable moment, in order to transcend and transform themselves. And sometimes, in order to do this, though seemingly paradoxical, we must also give up/surrender the pain which holds us down.

Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
avatar

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 30
Location : The Moon

PostSubject: The defined Wed Jan 04, 2012 2:38 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Definitions are but limits and what do we do but seek to limit ourselves in fear of what we yet know?
And what we yet know we say shows our limits but can we not be limitless and yet have that which we yet have?
For there to be heaven, Nirvana, must there not be more, and for their to be always more their must always be something that we yet have.
And what do we seek but more.
And to seek.
Seeking is consciousness.
We have what we want and what we want is always more.


“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” -Socrates
“Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God.” -Cicero
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily believing it.” -Aristotle
“I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.” -Aristotle
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills

PostSubject: Re: The defined Thu Mar 22, 2012 2:55 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
“Abstract”

Quote :
Definitions are but limits and what do we do but seek to limit ourselves in fear of what we yet know?
Definitions ‘may’ be confining but at the same time, they are a beginning to finding the truth especially when we struggle to build on them with newer, clearer words.
Would you not go thrashing with the scythe through the field in order to clear it and to see where it takes you or would you simply sit and complain that the grass and the weeds get in the way of things?

Quote :
And what we yet know we say shows our limits but can we not be limitless and yet have that which we yet have?
If we have the capacity to see a panorama of possibilities, and yet, at the same time, still realize that we have our limitations, perhaps it is that very vision/knowledge of our limitations, which spur us forward toward possessing new knowledge and truth. Nothing is ever created or transformed without conflict.

Quote :
For there to be heaven, Nirvana, must there not be more, and for their to be always more their must always be something that we yet have.
As for the first, I think NOT within that moment - as I think I’ve often said, ‘heaven’ is ‘being there’ - what more of a need is there in that moment of complete harmony?
As for the second part, I think there must be something sacrificed in order to have the 'more.

Quote :
And what do we seek but more.
For me, a continuum of enlightenment…
and sometimes other nonsense which I don’t really need but heh I’m human. Twisted Evil

Quote :
And to seek.
Seeking is consciousness.
That would depend on what is being sought after, no?
Perhaps seeking is our moments of waking up?

Quote :
We have what we want and what we want is always more.
I wonder why that is?

Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
avatar

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 30
Location : The Moon

PostSubject: Induction. Fri Mar 09, 2012 7:44 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Isn’t true uniquity a problem for induction? For by induction there can be no evidence of that which is truely unique. And yet it is by induction that we find evidence for anything; as it is by induction that we have seen that deduction is evidential; thus all logic is undermined.??


“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” -Socrates
“Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God.” -Cicero
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily believing it.” -Aristotle
“I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.” -Aristotle
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Induction. Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:15 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Nothing is truly unique, everything bears resemblances to other things. Everything entwines and enmeshes. Every thing is for its part merely the recollection/s or recombination/s of other “things” and other “orders of thing-ness”, degrees and scopes of apprehension, construction and (re-)creation. Perspectives embedded within perspectives, valuations wrapped within valuations.

Logic is perceiving, extracting and then integrating (making useful of) these manners of entwining/enmeshing. It is a tracing of “causality”, the paths of connectedness which assist in the bringing-about of all existings. “Reason is a space carved out of the irrational”, to cite Deleuze, and it will always be thus: reason is a principle around which we gather and are able to form, cohere. The “logic” of “the world”, the being/reailty of the causality of what is and subsequently apprehended through and in light of itself, this is what we call reason. We are beings for whom this self-grasping under the form/s of logic is self-definitive, self-recollective, self-sustaining, self-identifying.

Uniqueness comes only after reason, after cognitive de- and re-constructions (and destructions), after wider and more powerful apprehensions have become synthesized into a more total sense of understanding. The more total this understanding is, the more also is its reason, which is to say, its power of implication – the power of its “logic” to work/act/apply itself toward generating newness, toward synthesizing new novel beginnings and originations as well as new final endings and oblivions.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
avatar

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 30
Location : The Moon

PostSubject: Re: Induction. Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:05 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
Nothing is truly unique, everything bears resemblances to other things. Everything entwines and enmeshes. Every thing is for its part merely the recollection/s or recombination/s of other “things” and other “orders of thing-ness”, degrees and scopes of apprehension, construction and (re-)creation. Perspectives embedded within perspectives, valuations wrapped within valuations.
I dis agree there is at least one thing that is truely unique… The Everything… it itself is the only set of all sets including itself… they say mathematically such cannot exist and that is because there is truely only one such thing and it is All.


“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” -Socrates
“Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God.” -Cicero
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily believing it.” -Aristotle
“I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.” -Aristotle
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Induction. Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:10 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Abstract wrote:
Capable wrote:
Nothing is truly unique, everything bears resemblances to other things. Everything entwines and enmeshes. Every thing is for its part merely the recollection/s or recombination/s of other “things” and other “orders of thing-ness”, degrees and scopes of apprehension, construction and (re-)creation. Perspectives embedded within perspectives, valuations wrapped within valuations.
I dis agree there is at least one thing that is truely unique… The Everything… it itself is the only set of all sets including itself… they say mathematically such cannot exist and that is because there is truely only one such thing and it is All.

If “they say mathematically such cannot exist” (which is true), then… on what basis do you conclude “there is truly only one such thing”? The idea of an “All” set doesn’t make sense.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
avatar

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 30
Location : The Moon

PostSubject: Re: Induction. Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:13 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
Abstract wrote:
Capable wrote:
Nothing is truly unique, everything bears resemblances to other things. Everything entwines and enmeshes. Every thing is for its part merely the recollection/s or recombination/s of other “things” and other “orders of thing-ness”, degrees and scopes of apprehension, construction and (re-)creation. Perspectives embedded within perspectives, valuations wrapped within valuations.
I dis agree there is at least one thing that is truely unique… The Everything… it itself is the only set of all sets including itself… they say mathematically such cannot exist and that is because there is truely only one such thing and it is All.

If “they say mathematically such cannot exist” (which is true), then… on what basis do you conclude “there is truly only one such thing”? The idea of an “All” set doesn’t make sense.
it would simply need to be an infinite set… a set that contains itself and that set and that set and that set…and so on… having infinite sets within each subset and each subset in each subset… regardless of the mathematics… do you not agree that The Everything, must be unique in that by definition it is all things spoken as one thing?


“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” -Socrates
“Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God.” -Cicero
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily believing it.” -Aristotle
“I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.” -Aristotle
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Induction. Wed Mar 21, 2012 12:13 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
From what I understand of set theory you cannot have a “set of all sets”, as a set cannot write itself among the list of those elements which satisfy the conditions of itself-as-set. Once you start talking about “sets of sets” you are forming relations to relations, since s set is not a mere “grouping of elements” but rather an active relating of resemblance based on an element’s satisfying the conditions of the set. To “induce” that, “There is a set which contains all sets”, does this set then include itself? How can it bear a meaningful resemblance to itself, how can it enter into a relation with itself? Sets are lists which have a condition for those elements which can be included on that list. The set itself is the list (for which the ‘name’ or designation of the set is merely a referent, a symbol), whereas the condition of the set is the defining attribute of the list, the exclusive principle, the meaning (“If you do not satisfy this condition, you are not on this list”). To say there is a set of all sets confuses this by acting as if a set is the condition itself (this is analogous to the error of assuming that a word is its meaning), and by acting as if this condition could “enter into relationship with itself”. You end up with: “There is a list which contains all lists which… contain all lists which… contain all lists which… contain all lists which…”. You get an infinite regress, because at some point you need to condition the meaning which the lists list for/in terms of.

The idea of an ‘all set’ is paradoxical for many reasons, not the least of which is that a “set of all sets” only makes sense with the further “set of all sets which…” meaning is included, defining what conditions these sets. To state “the set of all sets” is meaningless, it is like uttering a word which has no context or meaning but is just an unintelligible string of letters, for example, fjhhjsiojfaad. The “set of all sets” idea is such an unintelligible string of letters because it is lacking of any context or meaning from the perspective of set theory, and because it violates the rules of sets which are that a set is a list of elements which satisfy some condition. The condition “being a set” establishes an infinite regress and a void of meaning which is invoked by violating the law of sets by falsely assuming that “a set is its condition” (or, “a word is its meaning”).


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
avatar

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 30
Location : The Moon

PostSubject: Re: Induction. Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:06 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
From what I understand of set theory you cannot have a “set of all sets”, as a set cannot write itself among the list of those elements which satisfy the conditions of itself-as-set. Once you start talking about “sets of sets” you are forming relations to relations, since s set is not a mere “grouping of elements” but rather an active relating of resemblance based on an element’s satisfying the conditions of the set. To “induce” that, “There is a set which contains all sets”, does this set then include itself? How can it bear a meaningful resemblance to itself, how can it enter into a relation with itself? Sets are lists which have a condition for those elements which can be included on that list. The set itself is the list (for which the ‘name’ or designation of the set is merely a referent, a symbol), whereas the condition of the set is the defining attribute of the list, the exclusive principle, the meaning (“If you do not satisfy this condition, you are not on this list”). To say there is a set of all sets confuses this by acting as if a set is the condition itself (this is analogous to the error of assuming that a word is its meaning), and by acting as if this condition could “enter into relationship with itself”. You end up with: “There is a list which contains all lists which… contain all lists which… contain all lists which… contain all lists which…”. You get an infinite regress, because at some point you need to condition the meaning which the lists list for/in terms of.

The idea of an ‘all set’ is paradoxical for many reasons, not the least of which is that a “set of all sets” only makes sense with the further “set of all sets which…” meaning is included, defining what conditions these sets. To state “the set of all sets” is meaningless, it is like uttering a word which has no context or meaning but is just an unintelligible string of letters, for example, fjhhjsiojfaad. The “set of all sets” idea is such an unintelligible string of letters because it is lacking of any context or meaning from the perspective of set theory, and because it violates the rules of sets which are that a set is a list of elements which satisfy some condition. The condition “being a set” establishes an infinite regress and a void of meaning which is invoked by violating the law of sets by falsely assuming that “a set is its condition” (or, “a word is its meaning”).
then you simply have to come up with an alternative concept to classify the everything mathimatically you coul call it a “togetherness” which is basically the same thing as a set but of the nature wehere infinite regression is plausible allowing for the sets to contain themselves…

You still didn’t answer my other question though; do you the The Everything is unique?


“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” -Socrates
“Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God.” -Cicero
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily believing it.” -Aristotle
“I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.” -Aristotle
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Induction. Wed Mar 21, 2012 12:06 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Abstract wrote:
You still didn’t answer my other question though; do you the The Everything is unique?

I don’t think we can meaningfully speak of “The Everything”. The idea that we can intelligibly talk about “everything” like that makes some implicit assumptions which I do not care to make. Nor do I see a necessity for needing to speak in such terms.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
avatar

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 30
Location : The Moon

PostSubject: Re: Induction. Wed Mar 21, 2012 3:12 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
Abstract wrote:
You still didn’t answer my other question though; do you the The Everything is unique?

I don’t think we can meaningfully speak of “The Everything”. The idea that we can intelligibly talk about “everything” like that makes some implicit assumptions which I do not care to make. Nor do I see a necessity for needing to speak in such terms.
why not?


“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” -Socrates
“Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God.” -Cicero
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily believing it.” -Aristotle
“I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.” -Aristotle
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Induction. Thu Mar 22, 2012 3:34 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Because there are far more real, important and meaningful things to be expending my focus and thought upon. There is “real work” to be done, as humbling and perhaps depressing as that can be. This notion of “The Everything” (i.e. “God”), of the unity of all things of existence within a single idea, image, being, “set”, is for me nothing but a quaint self-indulgence… but one that can so easily turn also into a self-deception and intoxication.

Why do we feel a need to think “The Everything” as if this were necessary to ground our thought, our reason, our aesthetics/valuing or our ethical sentiments? What is “The Everything” but an attempt on our part to “think the limit” and thereby cohere something against which we can now juxtapose ourselves, as thinker, as valuer, in a way that secures for us some feeling of triumph and power? But to me this act is far from truly willing or encountering a limit. Consciousness cannot ascend to this sort of contemplation of “The Everything”, even if there were such a “thing”. But the fact is, every thing is different, and meaning and existence are made possible through delimitation, through differencings.

We construct unifying principles and relations in order to grasp, to abstract, to derive, to create, and to pass ‘unchanging’ through time. This is the sense in which God becomes necessary for many people, to secure this type of ground for them. But for me, and seemingly for other powerful and ambitious thinkers as well, this idea is far too simple, easy, convenient, and, well, silly to indulge in, and to ever become effective at affording a ground for a mind sufficiently endowed with intelligence, creativity and a more honest longing for “truth”.

I do not think in terms of “Everything”, I think in terms of greater or lesser unifying principles… comprehensivities of concepts, objects, ideals, aim, ethics, or effect/utility.

Philosophers think they have abandoned God by instead trying to think “The Everything”, but it is not so. These philosophers have merely given up a small degree of naivete as a price for remaining worshipfully before the ‘divine alter’.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”

Last edited by Capable on Thu Mar 22, 2012 3:42 am; edited 3 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Induction. Thu Mar 22, 2012 3:39 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Despite all that, there is a much simpler answer to your question “Why not?”…: because it is not necessary.

Consciousness does not need to think the notion of “The Everything”, nor does it need to will under this image, nor even to justify itself before (or in spite of) it. In fact I have found that consciousness will function much better once it becomes wholly free with respect to “The Everything”.

…“If it turns out there is a God and we do meet him when we die, then we will not need to justify ourselves to him, but rather he will need to justify himself to us.”


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
avatar

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 30
Location : The Moon

PostSubject: Re: Induction. Thu Mar 22, 2012 4:32 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes I see what you are saying… i think the Buddha once said that we don’t need to know god to follow the right path…or some such… I agree… but I often find my self having to struggle with the concept of God and doing so by means of “The Everything” if not simply because so many other people seem to believe in it…


“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” -Socrates
“Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God.” -Cicero
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily believing it.” -Aristotle
“I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.” -Aristotle
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Induction. Sat Mar 24, 2012 12:31 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:

…“If it turns out there is a God and we do meet him when we die, then we will not need to justify ourselves to him, but rather he will need to justify himself to us.”
This is without question be the wisest and most logical saying on the subject of God I have ever come across.

Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

PostSubject: Nihilum Non Tue May 15, 2012 11:32 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Baudrillard said: The question used to be: Why is there something instead of nothing? Today, the question is: Why is there nothing instead of something?

This is all confusion: nothing is not an absolute idea, but an indication that something is not where or what it was thought to be.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Nihilum Non Wed May 16, 2012 1:57 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
So the question `why something and not rather nothing´ is indeed a result of misplacement of the term ´something´. If being is explained so as to be understood, there is no more question as to why it would exist, instead of nothing. It becomes clear that, versus/on top of nothing, precisely what does exist is what would exist.

The reversed question why there is not rather something than nothing, is essentially the same question/ing, as it departs from an absence, a lack of context for experience. As the vacuum of a beings experience increases, as it is less able to relate to itself, as it loses consciousness, the question of the naturalness and self evidence of its own being becomes more problematic, and with that the given of being becomes rationally unsustainable.

Even in abstract ratio the subject has need of itself, as value primacy, to ground inferences.