Perhaps not profound

Half-formed posts, inchoate philosophies, and the germs of deep thought.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Perhaps not profound

Postby incorrect » Mon Jan 23, 2017 3:21 am

What is the difference between belief in a paradox and negation of a paradox?

Could said paradox be God?
Image
User avatar
incorrect
Thinker
 
Posts: 850
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 7:27 am

Re: Perhaps not profound

Postby MagsJ » Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:29 am

That makes for a great analogy of what God could be, but what of the atheist and spiritual.. are they to be denied the reality of what really is.. or does a 'God' represent reality like a place marker at a dinner party?

Image
Image
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 16765
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: Perhaps not profound

Postby The Golden Turd » Mon Jan 23, 2017 1:31 pm

I've said it often, "All Things Are Rooted In Paradox". You can't have the principle of of Aenesidemus "to every argument another argument is opposed with the same strength" in rhetorical opposibility unless all ideas and perspectives could be reduced down to at least two positions. I'm not merely talking about how the mind processes dedicated logical formulations of If/Or, This/That, as these are reliant on ever larger feedback loops of already partially processed info. What I'm saying is, consciousness itself is dependent upon a fundamental dualism, any kind of information we process must reject yet relate to some other kind of information, or else it isn't meaningful, not even a datum.

If it is relatable and not rejectable, it is the same process, so not even consciousness. If it is rejectable and not relatable it suppresses something else, and isn't a idea persay, but a potentiality in the conscious dialectic.

If you have two points, fundamentally not similar, one asserts or the other, not both, then you have the basis of a switch. Yes, No. 1, 0.

That's nothing in and of itself, and yet that's everything. Our expecpectation in physics that no two objects can occupy the same place at the same time likely is rooted in this quirk that makes consciousness possible, and has more to do with cognition than physics persay (in other words, isn't actually a physical law, but a law of identity in how we categorize things, to make math and thus physics coherent. Your scraping at the limits of empericism here, pushing off into new philosophies beyond it).

Now, is everything, say Archimedes "Myriad Myriad" the universe? No.

Absolutely not. Non-Dualism, especially Advaitian, tries to insist this is the case, on the basis of pure perspective must equal all, but it dies this at the expense of calculating abstract logic, save one type "This Is All".

Likewise Liebniz Universal Monistic Physics, or a related philosophy of Pantheism as well, tries to mix the perception and abstraction together, to arrive at a formulation. Neither are sufficient, for our ability to observe meaningfully is conscious, and consciousness is stratified upon prearranged expectations, in how we Orient and then Observe.

Ideas tell us how to Orient and Observe within a larger decision making process. A choice in paradox is always made in abstract thinking in advance, A Priori. We say "this is like that" because we label it as so, to make sense of it algerbraically, but don't really study it too closely, if rushed or lazy. We aren't letting circumstance decide the idea new, but insisting a thing is a particular thing. We can be wrong. You buy a apple, then bite into it, only to discover it us rotten, unripped, nasty, dry, plastic, or simply mistaken, not a apple at all.

So if we can't dependably know a thing, can we presume a universe, or is a universe just a useful presumption? How well can we know a universe, if we can only know it through paradox?

Image

Consider perspectivism, 3-D shape C to line A-B

Image

Which way is C bent? It's a visual yet also a spacial imaginative presumption, presumed mnemonixally in the mind.

Image

Hui Shi "The Ten Thesis"

1) "The largest thing has nothing beyond it; it is called the One of largeness. The smallest thing has nothing within it; it is called the One of smallness."

2) "That which has no thickness cannot be piled up; yet it is a thousand li in dimension."

3) "Heaven is as low as earth; mountains and marshes are on the same level."

4) "The sun at noon is the sun setting. The thing born is the thing dying."

5) "Great similarities are different from little similarities; these are called the little similarities and differences. The ten thousand things are all similar and are all different; these are called the great similarities and differences."

6) "The southern region has no limit and yet has a limit."

7) "I set off for Yueh today and came there yesterday."

8 )"Linked rings can be separated."

9)"I know the center of the world: it is north of Yen and south of Yueh."

10)"Let love embrace the ten thousand things; Heaven and earth are a single body."

Image

The simpler a thing is in terms of reasoning, the more we've built it up. That's not paradox, that's heavily compounded thought, rationalization. Science seeks both the lowest possible variable-to-identity as well as a Meta-Theory that embraces all ideas. It seeks to know both the fundamental paradox that sets any thought against another, and make a mockery of it at the same time. You can't know the universe, yourself, or God, due to the Objective/Subjective divide. There is no nature, only a lazy place marker for it, that was decided long ago, in a nature vs nurture fight. Our brains, be it by intelligent design or evolution, aren't set up to know directly, but to presume causality. We don't actually know anything, but we presume we are correctly exploiting our "environment" well and efficiently. So we think, hope, and pray we are. It seems to work well enough.
Support "The Angels of East Africa" on smile.Amazon.com it is free to do, they donate 0.05% of your purchase cost to them, or give donations directly via:

http://www.machinegunpreacher.org

Image

Recently hidden post:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=192227&p=2649513#p2649513
User avatar
The Golden Turd
Fucking Unflushable
 
Posts: 9450
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 6:37 am
Location: Apparently Well Up Manical Mongoose's Ass

Re: Perhaps not profound

Postby Amorphos » Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:00 pm

the principle of of Aenesidemus "to every argument another argument is opposed with the same strength"


Which would if true, mean that it is also not true. There will be arguments with only one side then? I agree about the conscious duality. Ok so its a paradox, but I am wondering if any arguments can be wholly true? Like ‘all females have reproductive organs’, for example. We could say that eels grow reproductive organs but otherwise don’t have them, hence are not female/male. However, once female, they are female and will have reproductive organs. Newtons 3rd law doesn’t sound too original now.

Is there an argument in each argument which doesn’t have an opposite?

Need a couple of examples...

Every polar force has an equal and opposite, ~ always true? How about…

Every side of every polar force is always negative or positive? or in other words, is said opposite side.

Ergo once arrived at you can have non-duel arguments! It is the journey towards such truths wherein lies obfuscation and duality.

If so it stands to reason that there will be classifications of things, and bodies of such works, which are true, and don’t have an opposite.

_
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7047
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

Re: Perhaps not profound

Postby The Golden Turd » Tue Jan 24, 2017 12:40 am

[quote]Which would if true, mean that it is also not true. [quote]

Nope, not truth is anthetical, but not the opposite, of truth. Knowing isnt the opposite of unknowing. Camouflage isn't the opposite of perception.

If so, misunderstanding couldn't lead to better truths, as it do often has in history. Habitual deconstruction is a kind of knowledge and sense if done within a conscious network, effecting understanding, so it us not the opposite. Intentions, clever scouting, and mistakes can make the formless known, so is not the opposite.

They are rhetorical formulations presumed to be polar, but the root of their paradox do not line up. The geometry is terrible, and better, more opposing arguments can be formed.
Support "The Angels of East Africa" on smile.Amazon.com it is free to do, they donate 0.05% of your purchase cost to them, or give donations directly via:

http://www.machinegunpreacher.org

Image

Recently hidden post:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=192227&p=2649513#p2649513
User avatar
The Golden Turd
Fucking Unflushable
 
Posts: 9450
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 6:37 am
Location: Apparently Well Up Manical Mongoose's Ass

Re: Perhaps not profound

Postby Amorphos » Tue Jan 24, 2017 1:34 am

Nope, not truth is antithetical, but not the opposite, of truth. Knowing isnt the opposite of unknowing. Camouflage isn't the opposite of perception.


Indeed, but in all cases?

Are there any roots to proposed opposites? Therefore, if there are no such things as opposites, then the paradox ceases to exist?

We then cannot say that an untruth is always antithetic, and we can state that some truths do mean that other things are not true because of them.

e.g. to not tread in the dog poo, is not antithetic and is the opposite to the statement 'I trod in dog poo'?
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7047
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

Re: Perhaps not profound

Postby Arcturus Descending » Tue Jan 24, 2017 5:54 pm

incorrect wrote:What is the difference between belief in a paradox and negation of a paradox?

Could said paradox be God?


The difference might be said to be that the belief in a paradox or rather in a particular paradox would necessarily be unfounded without further looking into it/investigating its contradictions, et cetera.
The negation of the so-called paradox would occur only when it had been highly investigated and found to have no contradictions and the statement being found to be true...ergo, no paradox.

So the former is without investigation and the latter is with. That is the difference. lol
SAPERE AUDE!


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


What we take ourselves to be doing when we think about what is the case or how we should act is something that cannot be reconciled with a reductive naturalism, for reasons distinct from those that entail the irreducibility of consciousness. It is not merely the subjectivity of thought but its capacity to transcend subjectivity and to discover what is objectively the case that presents a problem....Thought and reasoning are correct or incorrect in virtue of something independent of the thinker's beliefs, and even independent of the community of thinkers to which he belongs.

Thomas Nagel


I learn as I write!
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 14445
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm

Re: Perhaps not profound

Postby Some Guy in History » Tue Jan 24, 2017 7:53 pm

incorrect wrote:What is the difference between belief in a paradox and negation of a paradox?

Could said paradox be God?


The fact that the existence of the paradox and negation of that paradox both exist creates a paradox in a sense that is yet unestablished in modern accepted philosophy and is a type of paradox often assimilated and considered and weighed by God, yes.
Image
User avatar
Some Guy in History
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2259
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 1:26 am

Re: Perhaps not profound

Postby incorrect » Wed Feb 01, 2017 3:42 am

The above answers are strange, they all make as much sense as the original questions.
Frankly the broad spectrum of responses to this question is almost, to be abstract, floral.


What I'm getting at is attitudes towards God. Perhaps a semantic question. I feel like some people who are deeply religious treat some parts of God, religion, as a paradox.... IE "belief in a paradox". I feel that some people who are generally opposed to the idea of God (atheist) might see the concept of God as contradictory and therefore not believe, and/or state that God is a paradox. In other words they negate the assertion of God because its a paradox AKA "negation of a paradox".

What this question aims at is the reconciliation of a possible belief in God and a possible atheist viewpoint, pointing out a common base between the two and hinting at where the views may begin to diverge.
Image
User avatar
incorrect
Thinker
 
Posts: 850
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 7:27 am


Return to The Sandbox



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users