James is wrong

Platonic forms are imagined by the brain which is a physical organ and physical organs exist in space and time. The most famous Platonic forms are numbers but they cannot be known to exist as an abstract concept unless the brain first conceives of them. So if something exists but the brain does not know it exists and cannot even imagine it existing then it cannot be known. As all knowledge and understanding including that of abstract concepts like Platonic forms has to come through the brain

That is the paradox, which came first . The argument for forms goes reversely, they were not conceived by us mere mortals.

Theoretically, in other words.

Well put.

Just as, in a sense, long after Adolph Hitler is dead and gone, he is still affecting any number of Nazis still around today.

And we don’t even know for certain that one or another manifestion of his own particular “I” — what some call the soul — isn’t still around somewhere.

Up there? Down there? In limbo?

That gap between what we think we know about these things here and now and all that would need to be known in order to demonstrate that all others ought to believe the same.

So, it seems true that both James and Plato are still affecting. We just have no way in which to calculate that their continuing narratives reflect that which all rational men and women ought to embrace in turn.

Or, rather, so it seems to me.

And that’s before we get to the is/right world and all the problematic stuff I broach.

On the other hand, I don’t know for certain yet if James is himself “dead and gone”.

Whatever that means.

Death is a transition from consciousness to non consciousness rather than from existence to non existence because when the body dies it still exists in physical form
And all the sub atomic particles it is composed of will carry on existing long after it has died since they have the longest known life span of anything in the Universe

In James model…
Hitler, the dead far away star, and Plato all affected when they existed. The effects of what they affected continued through time and affect us now.
This does not entail they exist now. The photons from the distant star exist. The ideas and events affected by Hitler and Plato live on in chains of effects affecting other effects, and these effects have included the use of the names. So the names continue.
This does not mean they exist now.

Consider:

The basic rule of thumb is that “affect” is almost always a verb and “effect” is usually a noun.

How then does James – re RM/AO – make his own distinction here?

Also, going all the way back to that which brought into existence Existence itself, how would this distinction then have been encompassed?

My guess: We’ll never know.

Where James and I always went off the rail however revolved around my distinction between affectance in the either/or world and affectance in the is/ought world.

We know for example that, given the objective nature of human biology [rooted in the evolution of life on earth], sex, pregnancy and abortion are intertwined in very particular ways when humans interact.

But what happens when these interactions come to effect our behaviors such that we choose conflicting moral narratives in reacting to these behaviors as either right or wrong.

And how on earth this intertwined in his understanding of the Real God?

Explored in a way not ever always up in the scholastic clouds.

Maybe.

But how exactly would one go about demonstrating it?

And, of far greater importance to folks like me, what becomes the fate of “I” in all this?

JSS Definitions:
Affect = n. Action upon, v. to Act upon. The Act of causing change.
Effect = n. End result, v. to produce an End result. The End result of causing change.

Just because ’ the always’ leaves the - not always, or, seldom, does not exclude it.

Therefore, James is nominally-actually wrong, but patently expressly -potentially right.

So he must be beyond judgement.

So everything “acts upon” but nothing is acted upon?

Physics knows the lifespan of sub atomic particles with remarkable accuracy

The I that is you will slowly start to disintegrate after death unless you are frozen in which case you will survive in physical form as long as the temperature remains
below a certain point. A body that is cremated will disintegrate more so than one that is buried but your physical form will disintegrate regardless of type of funeral

I saw an autopsy on television last week. There was no blood as it is all drained out in advance. The body had not disintegrated that much after death and it was
cut with a single incision from throat to pelvis. Most of the organs were removed for examination then the body was baseball stitched and put back in the freezer

Well. You and Jakob need to compare notes, because platonic forms are not affected.

You had this discussion with James before. At that time you stated that you never saw evidence of platonic forms, that every concept you can think of can only co-exist with the material.

This is what James answered:

And from another thread:

Yup, that’s what I used to argue.

Did you see this recent post of mine?

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194004

Perfect logic.

The Buddhists have a saying called “dependent arising”. Which is more akin to your former quote from James about affect, except, platonic forms don’t need us to exist, they don’t need observers.

Could it be that James is simply replacing platonic forms with a supreme deity ? I wonder what James would say to my disproof of those 3 omnistates.

[quote=“Meno_”]
Just because ’ the always’ leaves the - not always, or, seldom, does not exclude it.

There for, Your change of mind is understandable because James need not. He is beyond change, because of the above argument.(Also beyond material manifestation.)

Your argument is nominal , but James’ is potentially implicit .The question about how he can distinguish is mute, because its not because he can’t. but wills not to-do so.

The question is reduced to zero, as a condition for such will.

So James might be wrong if he looses his will.

I’m pretty good at making sense of posts, and this one isn’t processing well in me.

The idea here is that platonic forms can be proven, and they can be proven to exist regardless of consciousness existing. They are a category of not being affected.

Clearly, a supreme being is defined as conscious.

Let’s understand further what knowledge is: a particular state of knowing.

Like I linked to prior, knowing that you DON’T know something is a state of knowledge, very common in fact. If a being doesn’t have this common knowledge about everything it knows, than it can be said to not possess all knowledge. To be everywhere, lacks the knowledge of what it’s like to not be everywhere, and you require presence for potence.

James is wrong on two things here:

Affectence
The Omni states he declared

I’ve seen a lot of knowledge and power in my life, and it takes a lesser person to interpret it like James …

The facts don’t support it… but ass kissing does

A Supreme being and/or Platonic forms as defined, what is meant by a nominal form of understanding. Whixjndoes not mean minimal in this context, bit reduced toward absurdity.

That it’s not to say such reduction is absurd, but that it approach, again , nominally toward absolute(zero)

Ecmandu, such conflation need an act of will, as to be able to exert a will, at the risk of being misunderstood.

Platonic forms have proof strength evidence, and are not nominal in that sense.

No act of will can bring about or destroy a platonic form.

The will is not necessarily in the innate sense of will to power, but in as described by You, in the sense of the Buddha , of letting go. That does not need to have a destructive mode, only quiet resignation toward a de-differentiated state of mind.