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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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. "
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. "
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. "
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. "
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.
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships
PostSubject: Ontology Peaks As Will Sat Aug 11, 2012 1:14 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Ontology aims at knowledge of what is.
Philosophy inquires after our way of knowing.
How do we know what is?
In what way do we know what is?
A proper epistemology arrives at the best way of knowing (what is).
The quality of this knowing evidently influences the content of the knowledge.
So ontology is subservient to epistemology. What is, is dependent on how we know.
This does not mean that if we know nothing, nothing is - we can not speak of nothing at all.
but it means that if we know something, we know it as something.
We do no longer need to focus on the correctness of our ontology. It is impossible to have an objective view of what is. The question has become one of the quality of knowledge - its value to us. This criterium is in line with what we have come to know about knowledge. A proper epistemology then, causes us to throw out the traditional idea of ontology, as a description of what is, as it is - and moves us to embrace ontology as an extention of epistemology.
The study of what is, is now the study of what we cause there to be, by controlling our gaze.
Secretly enclosed, this has always been the true nature of science. Scientific method is the control of our gaze, to perceive exactly in such a way as produces the type of results we consider proper.
Why do we consider these results proper? It is dependent on the quality that we value most greatly: consistency of results. Results are accepted and rejected based on their consistency in occurring.
Religion is another way of formulaing ontology, another way of prioritizing results. In religion, the exaltedness of the results count greater than the consistency in which they occur. Results, measurements, are classified in terms of how they move the beholder. A question of the nature of the espitemology. One is not necessarily truer than the other - science is the ontology of consistency in human perception. Religion is the ontology of the limit of human projection.
Neither science nor religion operates at the level of epistemology - neither field of thought models its own criteria and includes this model in itself.
Philosophy must know itself. This means: knowing of knowing - a knowing knowing itself - thereby knowing it to be with some precision.
When we know how we know, we know what we are. In this way we are confident that what is, must be. This certainty is our own work. There is no such certainty except in the case of the self-knowing knowing.
We see that ontological certainty is equal to will.
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time
PostSubject: The logical possibility of god/s Tue May 15, 2012 4:37 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer raises the idea that Nietzsche was a pagan, and at least in some minimal way believed in the idea of the gods. I personally do not get this from reading Nietzsche, but I can see where Pezer is coming from. I am not putting this post in reinterpretation because I am not concerned with how truly or untruly this captures Nietzsche’s beliefs. Nietzsche’s beliefs do not overly concern me at the moment. Rather I want it to explore the logical possibility of god, and the implications of this possibility, if there are any.
I argue that this possibility it entirely impotent. This possibility alone has been used by mankind to justify the whole host of religious, spiritual, metaphysical delusion. Granted these delusions have served to sustain human life, to buffer man against the truths of meaninglessness and oblivion. So one conclusion is that the logical possibility of god has led to the explosion of metaphysics among humanity, which is to say, all manner of delusions, for any and every conceivable end and social-psychological use-value.
I also argue that none of that is philosophy, it is properly speaking the childishness and immaturity of reason; psycho-logical (pathological) thinking, self-justification and socially-prescribed and conditioned utility. Philosophy begins where the need for metaphysical delusion ends, where our reason can objectify the metaphysical delusion in order to analyze and understand it – as well as to separate ourselves from it.
In terms of philosophy, of reason, the logical possibility of gods is impotent and meaningless. Philosophy begins where god ends.
“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
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar
Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves
PostSubject: Re: The logical possibility of god/s Tue May 15, 2012 5:14 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I have two lines along which I want to respond to this thesis.
First, on the issue of delusion. You mention, in my opinion quite accurately, that religion and Gods (they are really one and the same, but I separate them so that later I can indicate the difference between religion and cult) have been involved in all the worst delusions of mankind’s history.
So what? This certainly does not disprove the hypothesis of religion and Gods, only the ease of manipulating them to make masses of people delusional.
I maintain that there is first a kind of naturally occurring religion, an almost physical feeling of an unseen yet powerful presence that is consistent in its relationship to the material world. This is obviously a powerful drive, and it is small wonder that skilled conmen and deluded Don Quixotes have been able to turn large masses of people delusional by manipulating it with, precisely, logic (where logic, as you point out, does not belong).
Just like communist theory cannot accurately be condemned by the actions of the USSR and its allies, so religious theory cannot accurately be condemned by the actions of the many churches we have had.
I’m not saying religious theory is thus proven right, I’m just saying that it is not thus proven wrong.
Secondly, I would argue that philosophy and religion have one important thing in common: neither is wholly dependent on logic. Logic leads to nothing unless it is pushed, like a ouija board.
Trully, there is much yet to be explored in philosophy. At least I think we can agree that we have no space at the moment for metaphysics, and by extention, this means that it is extremely unlikely for Gods to become relevant.
I just urge you not to trample the concept, if only because it was beautiful once and should be preserved as one of those examples of living human poetry.
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: The logical possibility of god/s Tue May 15, 2012 5:42 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
I have two lines along which I want to respond to this thesis.
First, on the issue of delusion. You mention, in my opinion quite accurately, that religion and Gods (they are really one and the same, but I separate them so that later I can indicate the difference between religion and cult) have been involved in all the worst delusions of mankind’s history.
So what? This certainly does not disprove the hypothesis of religion and Gods, only the ease of manipulating them to make masses of people delusional.
I maintain that there is first a kind of naturally occurring religion, an almost physical feeling of an unseen yet powerful presence that is consistent in its relationship to the material world. This is obviously a powerful drive, and it is small wonder that skilled conmen and deluded Don Quixotes have been able to turn large masses of people delusional by manipulating it with, precisely, logic (where logic, as you point out, does not belong).
Just like communist theory cannot accurately be condemned by the actions of the USSR and its allies, so religious theory cannot accurately be condemned by the actions of the many churches we have had.
I’m not saying religious theory is thus proven right, I’m just saying that it is not thus proven wrong.
My only point is that the idea of god is not logically impossible; however, the idea of a single, one infinite God is logically impossible. Nothing can exist infinitely or without limit. So we abandon that idea from the beginning. So what I am focusing on is the logical possibility of “metaphysical beings” or “gods”, beings that are “above” humans in scope, ability, scale, capacity, perception, however you want to define it.
I am not interested in proving or disproving religious ideas or theory. I could not care less. These ideas refute themselves. What I am interested in is properly identifying the logical possibility contained in the general notions of “God/gods” and then seeing if there are any philosophically interesting implications of this possibility.
Quote :
Secondly, I would argue that philosophy and religion have one important thing in common: neither is wholly dependent on logic. Logic leads to nothing unless it is pushed, like a ouija board.
Trully, there is much yet to be explored in philosophy. At least I think we can agree that we have no space at the moment for metaphysics, and by extention, this means that it is extremely unlikely for Gods to become relevant.
I just urge you not to trample the concept, if only because it was beautiful once and should be preserved as one of those examples of living human poetry.
The god-concept has direct usefulness for our ancestors. It did have philosophical use-value, but only because at that time philosophy was in its infancy. Man needed some way to objectify the facets of himself, to delve into his experiences and consciousness and form relations, create objects, construct definitions, posit and deduce and infer. Man needed a medium through which to objectify himself. Language needed to be adapted to this use, and at first myth, image and illusion were needed to this end.
We now have a philosophical language, we can now explicate the human entity and consciousness without appeal to god-concepts or arbitrary metaphysics. Philosophy has grown, it has no more use of god.
Of course there is much beauty and aesthetic value to these ancient gods. But my placing the god-concept and all metaphysical delusion in its proper category and true place does not belie this. Rather, as I have always seen it, the aesthetics of these ideas is enhanced when we more accurately and honestly apprehend them.
As for philosophy and religion not depending on logic, this is true only of religion. Any philosophy that does not depend on logic is not worthy of the name, is something else but certainly not philosophy. Unless I miss your point here. Maybe you should clarify what you mean by this – are you trying to make relevant here a distinction between logical thought and action/effect?
“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
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar
Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves
PostSubject: Re: The logical possibility of god/s Tue May 15, 2012 6:44 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I’m satisfied by your reply, and I think it fits well with my current struggle not to make use of any metaphysics.
Now, about logic and philosophy: There is no such thing as logic itself, only logic applied. Insofar as we can agree with this, we can agree that all philosophy must depend on logic. For some reason I decided to go all proto-fascist there.
Anyway, my point that philosophy is not purely logical is very personal. Philosophy that does not acknowledge the observer as a modifying force is not my own, but I am open to hearing the conclusions of those who go that way. I was foolish to generalize what I myself recognize as a deeply subjective view.
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: The logical possibility of god/s Mon Jun 11, 2012 7:34 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
I’m satisfied by your reply, and I think it fits well with my current struggle not to make use of any metaphysics.
Now, about logic and philosophy: There is no such thing as logic itself, only logic applied. Insofar as we can agree with this, we can agree that all philosophy must depend on logic. For some reason I decided to go all proto-fascist there.
Anyway, my point that philosophy is not purely logical is very personal. Philosophy that does not acknowledge the observer as a modifying force is not my own, but I am open to hearing the conclusions of those who go that way. I was foolish to generalize what I myself recognize as a deeply subjective view.
I agree, philosophy must acknowledge the critical role of the observer, the thinker. Thinking changes reason, and reason changes thinking. Reason and logic are not universal axioms, they are elements of “human nature”, of a human-like consciousness. Reason and logic (and thinking) emerged from the operations of a pre-cursor type of consciousness to this human-like consciousness, and in so doing eventually went on to re-make the entire conscious instinctual organism in a new, more self-reflective and self-responsive, inwardly differenced manner. Philosophy may treat reason and logic as axiomatic or universal, but this is only a method employed out of necessity, in order to cultivate a framework in which these may be best grasped and applied, which may require a certain degree of “naivete” with regard to the actual nature of the tools one wields; that would apply to philosophy which is still mired in so-called objectivism, realism, that still treats its objects as fixed definitive things with an absolute real external existence. It isn’t that objects (of thought, of perception, of whatever) have no external reality, of course, but rather that this is not their total reality, nor even perhaps their most essential.
Philosophy ought to strive to better understand these complex relations between consciousness and its objects, between the objects of consciousness and consciousness itself, its processes, functionality, behavior and development, and of course the value of these.
Anyway, back to the question of god, god would be an example of an ideational object which allows consciousness to attain certain ends, to exist in a certain form or quality. There is utility to the god-idea, but it is a utility fitting for a pre-philosophic, pre-rational consciousness, for a consciousness without adequate strength and self-development, self-reflectivity to bear the image of its own truth without evoking necessary schemas of deceptions and delusions. This is why philosphy breaks away from the utility of the god-idea. It isn’t that this idea has no usefulness, nor even that it is not a “good idea”, whatever that may mean… it is that a certain kind of conscious being, the philosopher, the free thinker, the active, creative, self-reflective and productive consciousness seeking truth has no more use for the idea of god. To me, this expansion away from reliance on such delusional constructs fits with the development of a mind which moves away from the very sort of “objective realism”, the “Philosophy that does not acknowledge the observer as a modifying force” which you also seem to resist.
“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: The logical possibility of god/s Fri Nov 02, 2012 5:22 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
hmmm… It does seem that the idea of a God or Gods is irrelevant unless somehow the knowledge of that God serves those who know of it somehow…
In the case of Christianity there are tennets to follow but i see that these tennets could be followed without knowledge of God, this seems to be the case in many religions.
I would say that perhaps the exception would be in a religion where in the goal of say human life is to unify with God whatever God may be as in that case one would likely need to understand what God is in order to become one with or like unto that God.
Oneness with God means literally to be God.
“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: The logical possibility of god/s Fri Nov 02, 2012 1:50 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Quote :
hmmm… It does seem that the idea of a God or Gods is irrelevant unless somehow the knowledge of that God serves those who know of it somehow…
Yes. The assumption of Spinoza is that ultimate knowledge of God is necessary moral knowledge, i.e. knowledge that causes the experience of goodness.
Quote :
In the case of Christianity there are tennets to follow but i see that these tennets could be followed without knowledge of God, this seems to be the case in many religions.
A set of tenets is used to establish an order, on top of which is a dominating drive.
The dominating drive is unknown to all followers of the religion except to the one with the thought that created the context.
The vision of God is the powerful realization of the current situation, implicit in which is the vision of the greatest possible influence one can exert in that situation.
The moral nature of the influence is dependent on the materials (people) to be influenced and the character of the visionary.
The former can change over time, the latter can not.
A religion has a definite character - if it is to be successful at all, it will come to many different manifestations.
Once the code of a religion, the thought behind it, has been cracked, the religion loses it’s coercive power.
God is no longer Great.
A greater possibility than the one that was possible from that once primordial perspective, is now imaginable.
Weak souls search for nothingness (superficiality), vital souls for experience, being - new depths.
Quote :
I would say that perhaps the exception would be in a religion where in the goal of say human life is to unify with God whatever God may be as in that case one would likely need to understand what God is in order to become one with or like unto that God.
Oneness with God means of course to equal God.
One can be ‘in the Lord’ , but this does not make one Lord.
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time
PostSubject: What is truth? Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:30 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The idea of truth is all too often lost in modern philosophy. Let us offer here some useful definitions of truth, and explore these definitions.
Truth is the assumption, given form through language as a coherent object of thought’s mediation, which allows thought to remain continually open along whatever paths it runs or intends, or pretends, to run. Truth is the open category that must underlie all other categories whether they be more open or closed, and is the most violently radical act, an act which must be resisted with an equal ferocity by any individual, institution, ideology or socioeconomic or military system that seeks power to declare and determine absolutely its own ends. Power in this sense governs subjects of the world whose impetus is to construct self-enclosing barriers by which to positively and consistently regulate its interactions with the world; this power therefore is a trade-off, the sacrifice of a relationship to truth and to the possibility to engage in or bear witness to “truth-procedures”, to employ Badiou’s useful term, in order to gain a stable platform from which a limited number of more consistent, which means consistently useful, truths may be uttered. The world is shrunk to a manageable size, truth is “frozen” at this manageable level.
What then is philosophy but the attempt to “un-freeze” this “manageability”? To resume, or declare from a beginning, a relationship to truth itself? Truth is therefore a category which can never totally be abandoned, but which can be more or less sought for or attained. To think is to think with respect to truth, to think within truth, and to know truth, or perhaps to be “known by” truth. Philosophy therefore is nothing without a relationship to truth, without an effort to designate and declare this truth and this relationship to it. By this definition, all that fails to take account of truth and this relationship to it constitutes sophistry, the antithesis of philosophy.
“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
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships
PostSubject: Re: What is truth? Tue Oct 16, 2012 5:41 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Vaeros, I think your post was deleted because you didn’t seem to have read the OP. It may also have had to do with the fact that your definition was, to put it mildly, hard to work with - you pretty much said that philosophy is the business of lying. I can see how this was perceived as distracting from the intent of this thread, but I may be wrong.
In response to the OP: For truth to be made explicit, there must be a framework, a context for statements to signify. Science is the most reliable framework for explicit truths - because it restricts the substance that can be designated to equalized quantities of mass. Clearly philosophy can not operate within this framework, this procedure is of use but only within a larger framework, wherein the subjective human is included, which means also the use man has for science, essentially, the view of science as a moral perspective. This idea was formulated brilliantly by without-music, in the ILP thread The Ontological Tyranny.
The other ‘end’ of this spectrum is the total abandonment of logical method, the idea that “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life!” and the satisfaction with that, the idea that, as a consequence of the truth of this statement, everything that one asserts with ones being is true.
Another approach yet is “all that matters is the quantum of power that one is, the rest is cowardice” - in other words, the only valid truth is in power, same as “might is right”.
But to me an even less reducible truth appears as the idea that all existence is self-valuing, that these truth-generating self-valuings condition any kind of situational truth such as physical law. The reality of self-valuing is a transcendental truth, something that underlies all instances of procedural truths and conflicts between these.
A difficult question is the one of defining my true values, because it implies an exhaustive certainty pertaining to my self-valuing core. I am not sure that the self-valuing can be exhaustively explicated.
Finally, what is suggested to me by the OP is truth as the absence of bias. But even to move toward an absence of bias is a result of a bias - a bias against bias - the absence of bias is death non-existence, for a self-valuing is a bias. And this is reflected in the etymology:
Quote :
O.E. triewð (W.Saxon), treowð (Mercian) “faithfulness, quality of being true,” from triewe, treowe “faithful” (see true). Meaning “accuracy, correctness” is from 1560s. Unlike lie (v.), there is no primary verb in English or most other IE languages for “speak the truth.” Noun sense of “something that is true” is first recorded mid-14c.
One can only be faithful to something.
So, the question of truth is the question of perspective.
The quest for objective truth ends for me at the observation that all subjects may command a fundamentally different truthfulness, and that objectivity is merely the consensus of these commands. Truth then is a matter of power - something is made to be true, made to be valid, made to apply, by force.
As force accumulates, so does the potential for truth. Truth may be best defined as ‘that which is impossible to negate’, i.e. necessity.
Truth-procedures are subjectively designed channels for necessity.
In this way truth is indeed a ‘way’ and a ‘life’.
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships
PostSubject: Re: What is truth? Tue Oct 16, 2012 5:59 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Quote :
O.E. triewð (W.Saxon), treowð (Mercian) “faithfulness, quality of being true,” from triewe, treowe “faithful” (see true). Meaning “accuracy, correctness” is from 1560s. Unlike lie (v.), there is no primary verb in English or most other IE languages for “speak the truth.” Noun sense of “something that is true” is first recorded mid-14c.
One can only be faithful to something.
To whit:
Capable wrote:
The ontic subject or the “subject itself” simply means any particular “epistemic” structure whereby data, as stimulation of that structure, is translated by the particular logic of the structure itself, which is to say interpreted, into information; the structure takes account of that quality of the data which it is able to relate to itself, which is to say makes this data meaningful[.]
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 30
Location : The Moon
PostSubject: Re: What is truth? Fri Nov 02, 2012 5:17 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Perhaps truth can be defined as the percentile limit of the sum of evidences each of which are given a non 100% accuracy themselves. this limit approaching but not ever reaching 100% itself…
“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: What is truth? Wed Nov 07, 2012 11:11 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
Truth is the open category that must underlie all other categories whether they be more open or closed, and is the most violently radical act, an act which must be resisted with an equal ferocity by any individual, institution, ideology or socioeconomic or military system that seeks power to declare and determine absolutely its own ends. Power in this sense governs subjects of the world whose impetus is to construct self-enclosing barriers by which to positively and consistently regulate its interactions with the world; this power therefore is a trade-off, the sacrifice of a relationship to truth and to the possibility to engage in or bear witness to “truth-procedures”, to employ Badiou’s useful term, in order to gain a stable platform from which a limited number of more consistent, which means consistently useful, truths may be uttered. The world is shrunk to a manageable size, truth is “frozen” at this manageable level.
I don’t consider this to represent a sacrifice of the relationship to truth, personally. It’s inherently necessary for a person to construct a structure that regulates the manner in which it interacts with the world, in accordance with their needs and motivations. Having a conception of truth necessarily relies on these “self-enclosing barriers” as you worded it. There couldn’t be a conception of truth without cognitive processes, supported by biological processes. To any degree that their existence would suggest a barrier or sacrifice to knowing truth, we’d have to recognize that, to begin with, we have a limited capacity of knowing truth. From there it’s a matter of the way in which we’re orientated towards conceiving and recognizing truth. I think that, keeping in consideration the nature of our own processes, the nature of our own existence, we can find that our capacity of knowing truth isn’t really limited by these processes, but rather facilitated by them.
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar
Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves
PostSubject: Power Mon May 14, 2012 5:11 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
First, a disclaimer:
Many in the ILP site (and, though on a higher level, this site) have the deep and probably painful confusion that words themselves form part of the concepts they describe, usually as an extention of the confusion that concepts are pure reflections of the reality they attempt to cover, that “they were right even before they were spoken.” This post does not suscribe to this confusion.
Where, what is power? Is it action that has consequences, the amount of power being determined by the amount of consequences?
Or does action eliminate power, drain it? Isn’t power rather the potential for such action, and only the potential?
Indeed, I am proposing a Heraclitan opposition here: on one side power, on the other action. Lack of power lies outside the opposition; power can exist only when action is possible, and action can only exist at the expense of power.
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: Power Mon May 14, 2012 5:50 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
First, a disclaimer:
Many in the ILP site (and, though on a higher level, this site) have the deep and probably painful confusion that words themselves form part of the concepts they describe, usually as an extention of the confusion that concepts are pure reflections of the reality they attempt to cover, that “they were right even before they were spoken.” This post does not suscribe to this confusion.
Where, what is power? Is it action that has consequences, the amount of power being determined by the amount of consequences?
Or does action eliminate power, drain it? Isn’t power rather the potential for such action, and only the potential?
Indeed, I am proposing a Heraclitan opposition here: on one side power, on the other action. Lack of power lies outside the opposition; power can exist only when action is possible, and action can only exist at the expense of power.
Release of potential power is force. Force is also power; a conversion of potential into action, effect, as physics would say.
Not all action has a deleterious effect upon the potential store of power, some actions are effects of this potential while at the same time also re-energizing it, adding to the store of potential power.
If power only means something in potentia then it means nothing.
“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
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar
Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves
PostSubject: Re: Power Mon May 14, 2012 6:10 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It does: it means the heraclitan opposite of action. Potential, as you use it, would be a substitute word.
I agree that power without action means nothing. In fact, I am effectively claiming that action determines power. Potential is a word that keeps its sights on action, and ignores the reality of power.
You don’t think it means anything? Then why is an authority figure scary when they stare you down? Because they are showing power, i.e. action that could be. On the other hand, once they carry out the action, they are no longer scary, there is no longer a hidden possibility: the actor is powerless.
The only use I can find for the word “power” is this.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar
Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves
PostSubject: Re: Power Mon May 14, 2012 7:50 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I have commited the crime of employing metaphysics (heraclitan opposites as a thing in itself. You must forgive me this, I am a post-christian and thus attracted to pre-christian metaphysics like a pampered businessman is attracted to BDSM).
I will now attempt to rectify.
What is the use of separating power and action?
Its attachment to evolutionary science theory. Evolution theory demands that any given state must make sense, in itself, in relation to its environment. It also demands that we explain how it came to be, without employing the concept of a “transicionary” link; that is to say, each state, even when leading to another state, must make sense by itself relative to the environment it exists in (it must be able to exist without leading to the aformentioned “consequent state”)
Action already makes sense to us as a state that, in itself, makes sense relative to the enviornment it exists in, yet we must provide an explanation of what leads to it.
Here I propose power. Power is a state that leads to action, but it cannot exist solely as a transit to action. How does power make sense in itself relative to the environment it exists in? How can there be power that doesn’t translate into action yet distinguishes itself from simple idleness?
I have muscles. These muscles can contract and expand to throw a ball. I am not throwing a ball, but I have the muscles. To be able to but not to do is power. To be able to and to do is first power, then action.
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: Power Wed May 16, 2012 7:15 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
I have commited the crime of employing metaphysics (heraclitan opposites as a thing in itself. You must forgive me this, I am a post-christian and thus attracted to pre-christian metaphysics like a pampered businessman is attracted to BDSM).
I will now attempt to rectify.
What is the use of separating power and action?
Its attachment to evolutionary science theory. Evolution theory demands that any given state must make sense, in itself, in relation to its environment. It also demands that we explain how it came to be, without employing the concept of a “transicionary” link; that is to say, each state, even when leading to another state, must make sense by itself relative to the environment it exists in (it must be able to exist without leading to the aformentioned “consequent state”)
Action already makes sense to us as a state that, in itself, makes sense relative to the enviornment it exists in, yet we must provide an explanation of what leads to it.
Here I propose power. Power is a state that leads to action, but it cannot exist solely as a transit to action. How does power make sense in itself relative to the environment it exists in? How can there be power that doesn’t translate into action yet distinguishes itself from simple idleness?
I have muscles. These muscles can contract and expand to throw a ball. I am not throwing a ball, but I have the muscles. To be able to but not to do is power. To be able to and to do is first power, then action.
I do not think our latent abilities need make sense in the immediacy of environmental evolutionary need. Maybe this is the case with other life, but the storing up of potential even without its release into (powerful) action is probably a condition if evolution itself, of later action to emerge in subsequent generations (think the accumulation of presently unused or underused genetic information). The greater store of potency here, even unactualized, is also the greater possibility of future actuality and “power”. Any species which was able to accumulate this latent potential would end up, in the end, giving itself a better potential for power. So what seems fundamental here is not the relevancy of potential to immediate environmental action and utility but rather the lack of this inherent potential to infringe upon this utility and action – if potential is able to be stored up over time, over generations, even unactualized, this would end up being selected for meta-generationally so long as this storing up does not cause some imbalancing survival detriment. Maybe this is why life, including us humans, is said to have so much junk DNA.
Power that does not translate into action may exist because potential for action itself is advantageous, either in the above non-teleological sense or in the teleological sense of the human being who as “Dasein” determines himself based on his apprehension of himself as a possibility, as pure potential. Unactualized or not-yet actualized futurity directly acts upon the present moment through the human who is able to extract embedded conditions from the present-moment and abstract these upon an anticipated future moment. In this sense thought itself becomes directly “powerful” even when it is not acting – in this sense thought is action, to look at it another way.
Ignorance then, impotency being the “pure” form of inaction in thought, a pure formless potential not acting upon futurity… this might be more the sort of powerlessness which you speak of. But even here this latent formless and impotent potency might still be useful, in that, like the example with genetics and all life, it creates an implied context wherein possibility is gathered and focused. Maybe in most people this never manifests, but it will manifest within some people, so the cultivation of this impotent potency in people in general still might serve an “evolutionary” end.
“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
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar
Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves
PostSubject: Re: Power Thu May 17, 2012 9:01 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Sure, but you must not missunderstand me as substituting “good” with “evolution.” In other words, I see no moral obligation to aid any part of genetic evolution. In fact, I sustain that evolution happens “whether you want to or not,” so to speak.
If you want something to work but it doesn’t follow the guidelines of evolution, I guarantee it will not work.
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: Power Thu May 17, 2012 9:30 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I’m not saying its good (or bad), nor am I saying that you are saying its good or bad. Im just saying that’s the way it works.
“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
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar
Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves
PostSubject: Re: Power Thu May 17, 2012 10:02 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This is a quote from you that shows that we agree: "Maybe in most people this never manifests, but it will manifest within some people, so the cultivation of this impotent potency in people in general still might serve an ‘evolutionary’ end. "
Precicely this is my point: that even when a certain evolutionary process is stunted or modified, it is only as a result of an alternate evolutionary process.
The sneaky thing about evolution is that it is only retro-active, so we evolutionists have the easy position of “if it works, it’s evolution. If it doesn’t work, it’s involved in a larger evolutionary process that we are not seeing, and thus works.”
I appologize for suggesting the “good and evil” misdirection, I obviously missunderstood.
Quote :
I do not think our latent abilities need make sense in the immediacy of environmental evolutionary need.
Whence these latent abilities? How do they manage to remain? These are evolutionist questions.
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: Power Thu May 17, 2012 10:28 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
“Latent abilities” will tend to remain if they do not produce a detrimental effect on survivability potential. Not everything in the genetic code is there because it directly aids survivability, a lot of things are there “arbitrarily”, because they have mutated and produced no effect on survivability either way. They get to hang on for the ride, neither selected for nor against.
“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
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar
Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves
PostSubject: Re: Power Thu May 17, 2012 12:30 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Right. Evolution can be random if the evolved trait can remain in contact with the environment it exists within, free of contradictions.
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: Power Sat Jan 19, 2013 2:25 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
Pezer wrote:
First, a disclaimer:
Many in the ILP site (and, though on a higher level, this site) have the deep and probably painful confusion that words themselves form part of the concepts they describe, usually as an extention of the confusion that concepts are pure reflections of the reality they attempt to cover, that “they were right even before they were spoken.” This post does not suscribe to this confusion.
Where, what is power? Is it action that has consequences, the amount of power being determined by the amount of consequences?
Or does action eliminate power, drain it? Isn’t power rather the potential for such action, and only the potential?
Indeed, I am proposing a Heraclitan opposition here: on one side power, on the other action. Lack of power lies outside the opposition; power can exist only when action is possible, and action can only exist at the expense of power.
Release of potential power is force. Force is also power; a conversion of potential into action, effect, as physics would say.
Not all action has a deleterious effect upon the potential store of power, some actions are effects of this potential while at the same time also re-energizing it, adding to the store of potential power.
If power only means something in potentia then it means nothing.
I agree that a comprehensive definition of power can not equal the scientific definition of potential. I say power is more than that - it is also the noble quality of defining oneself self consciously. Thence: to act consciously. To stand not because of gravity and utility, but in order to stand. Also act, not because it is convenient, but because it is an act. This is the noble way, the divine creative holy grail, this is how myths are born to seduce other, lesser actors of times down the declining line to the idea of nobility - the false dream, the repose of the Last Man. No myth can inspire man to act. Only a deep rage, an intolerance, can make a man separate from his familiar causes, “that which determines him”. The Father. Self-determination presupposes intolerance. New-Age people are the most intolerant of dogmatics. They will have nothing to do with the past, with history, with reason. All of them are resentful, all New Agers I have met, except the astrologers, who are ancients and still wise, fearful of Saturn.
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships
PostSubject: Relativity Logic Wed Jul 17, 2013 1:38 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
There is a need to replace the term value ontology. The emphasis needs to be on the instrument of valuing, the ontological core, the self-valuing. The valuer, the valuing (as in the being), and on the fact that a specific logic is required to ontologize with these terms.
Something can be said for Valuer Logic - The logic based on the principle of a valuer, analogous to the physics based on the principle of a quantum (of valuing).
A quantum of valuing is a valuer. The logic describing the interconnectivity of valuers reflects the physics of quanta. The logical operations reflect the causality of relativity - i.e. nonlinear space time curvature rather than chains of action and reaction.
VL does not concern itself with the moments in which collisions become formal causes, but rather with the structural property of an environment to attract causes and effects of such and such nature.
“Fundamental Matter”, the affectance sea, Higgs field, is contextualized into the logical discourse as a valency-net, a web of relations which exist only in terms generated by its users - and is only conceptualizable as a derivative of a primordial activity, “relating”, which ultimately implies a inequality.
The primary inequality is between being and not-being.
The secondary inequality is between being-this and that-being.
The formula for every relating must consist of three elements. A relator, a related and a relation.
The primary relates to the secondary in terms that will reflect not-being in a certain way: not being-this, not that-being, etc.
A relation is thus a location for values. Values exist as relations, and determine beings to one another. Values are “contextual appearances”- contrasted with “beings”, whose natures are undisclosed except through time, recognizable as “behavior”.
Someones structural behavior is his soul, his appearance to himself and others is his personality. The appearance creates the context for the soul, but is not the only decisive factor.
The decisive factor is read a posteriori, in an abstraction of the overall behavior. “The will”. The soul is the body of the will, and the body is the body of the soul. The will operates through drawing a certain behavior out of a given body.
It’s mechanisms are in part simply consequences of its place in the Whole (everything that directly and indirectly affects him) and in part the type of operations that makes the whole possible - valuing-interpreting, being-subject, resisting.
Change is the effect of resistance as matter is the effect of the speed of light.
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships
PostSubject: Re: Relativity Logic Wed Jul 17, 2013 2:09 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This made me think of a way to describe “ascending to ones higher self” less arcanely -
to reflect ones overall-behavior in ones present actions.
I do not mean “sitting on the couch and watching tv all day” but rather “enacting such and such a contrast/conflict”. For overall, most lives are marked by a certain irredeemable difference between value and necessity. To embrace this difference seems ironic, as it seems like it relativizes the valuing and surrenders to necessity. But that is a formula for death. And indeed, the search for a higher self often leads to death of the soul - to lethargy.
Another way to embrace the difference is to use it to eternalize ones valuing of the lacked thing - to create an ‘ode’ to that which is not - in order that it exists in the mind of the world.
Ascesis, along with sadomasochism, is another way to ‘own the difference between what one wants and what one can have’.
The most worthy way of embracing the difference is the pure, emotionless reflection on it, resulting in what can be called “military planning”. I find that the highest form of praise to life is a systematic construction of means of dominion.
Life itself, that which is praised, flows gratefully into such vessels.
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships
PostSubject: Re: Relativity Logic Thu Aug 01, 2013 11:52 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
No, I will stick to value ontology. I’ve come to love the word.
I use the term value because I want to employ our most direct intuitions about the world, to work in unision with the powerful framework of established knowledge which the scientists have gathered.
Language guides us, its possibilities are a vast sea of potential, and we steer our course through it. But no none has ever mapped this full sea of language.
In this ocean is one island. A place where the ocean knows itself by seeing that which is different from it – something enclosed in the ocean, but not moving with its tides.
More than half dead, beaten by vast currents of overpowering value-systems colliding in “me”, I stranded on this island and from that day on, the oceans could be navigated, charted, mastered.
The human mind is such an ocean – always in turmoil and never an equal thought process. Colliding streams of consciousness, waves of emotion, never an anchor.
Always things are registered and always a reaction forms. The only constant seems change.
But change from what? Is there a standard? Is there a measure of things? And who measures it – who senses it and responds to it accordingly? What is this core of the surf, the depths, the storm and the silent seas? Always a “yes this” and a “not that”. An appraiser.
“Judgment” – always the “correct measure”. But what is this correctness but historical precedent? It is a selection. Nature selects herself for herself, and she is doing so right now in your thoughts. What is the value of this? Does it attract or repel? This question is answered instantly by an atomic core. It can take years in a human mind. But the question is equal: in this encounter, how do I maximize my harmonic momentum?
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves
PostSubject: Re: Relativity Logic Fri Aug 02, 2013 11:47 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Apart from the “not that” there is also “no that.” “not that” is respectful, violent but not lethal. “No that” is the most violent thing nature has.
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar
Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves
PostSubject: The Fourth Dimension in Value Ontology Fri Aug 09, 2013 12:23 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The dimension of time, ultimate expression of movement, is purpose in terms of value. Purpose is what determines the movement forward in time from value node to value node. As one moves along this dimension, as with the spacial ones, the entire perspective of the dimensions themselves change, what seemed a long before becomes a close now or a never. The direction of the movement is how the valuer relates to the valued, valuing is what staples the valuing to the biospheres of effectance where they are.
It seems essential both to remember that no valued is 100% real and that it is 100% essential for the valuing, the moment of life and subsistence. What is is and may be, the valuing is within biospheres of effectence as opposed to no-where.
This is essential to understand what it means to work hard and intricately on one’s lies, especially while knowing they are lies. Truth is what happens, and we only know what happens through what we value which comes before the valuing happens. We as valuers are part of the biospheres and thus are indirectly part of other valuings, so valuer and valued may not be as seperate as the act of valuing would seem to suggest. Lies may be here closer and here farther from the truth, and we might be able to tell by how well they coincide with our feelings of movement; that is, purpose. Beyond truth and lies, it may also be true that some lies are not lies at all but some other manifestation, an earlier branch of the chemical stuff that makes lies, and this pre-existence is what makes something that pretends to be truth, only-in-the-moment-existing, a lie. Evolution works with what it has, and we may well assume that what we used for lieing had previous and continuing uses in our biologies. To value this very system of functioning is a fine-tunning of the system itself, to know that we lie itself already begins to change all purposes. Can a truth be said with a lie? No. Now we know that the lie that pretends to be truth is aiming within valuing, not valued. This kind of contradiction between the content of the lie and the purpose, the valued and the valuing, is what leads to the twilights of idols. A lie wants to be a truth, this keeps it close to what it imitates in effect and allows its valuer to, a priori, see it.
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar
Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves
PostSubject: Some Distinctions between Valuer, Valuing and Valued Sat Aug 10, 2013 1:15 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Who we value as valuer values despite this valuing, and depends on valueds valued by us. The valued determines the valuer’s relationship with valuing. This self-referentiality is the will only willing will, and power is the relationship between will’s action (valuing) and its existence.
As a side note, I refer to that existence as Chaos. Valuing it so, as a living thing which is unpredictable, which feeds me even as I act with no knowledge of it only if I will accordingly, decreases my waste of thought by several orders of magnitude.
Author Message
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar
Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves
PostSubject: Life, Movement and Paralysis Thu Aug 15, 2013 8:53 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
When one thing is moving, it can move more if it is being propped by something paralyzed solid. Life is like this, we paralyze in different places to move more freely in others. Value Ontology implies that the direction of movement in any relevant sense is determined by purpose / intention, and it is these things which then determine what stays and what moves.
What we have frozen and still have frozen has fulfilled its purpose, the awkwardness of modern life is that the things we collectively value are all dead, they are no longer the pressures which shape us (except to the extent that we intend them to). This intentional paralysis is knowingly outdated and kept so out of ironically outdated fears, fears of famine, war and oppression. Even the fear of crime is outdated… But many fears are indeed relevant, held silly by tradition of when these fears were first noted and others were still more relevant. The fear of not living up to our dearly departed deities. The fear that looking past what they were intended to be thought to be might open the veils onto some supernatural demon or monster. The fear that we might miss the opportunity to sow this peak. The fear that all responsibility was thought to lie in places that proved not to exist.
Movement is jolly, which is expressed as adrenaline, whether wild or calm, when working with fear. There are things we know we can freeze for more accurate movement, and things we can unfreeze. Respect for olden times, love of the foretold, unseen lord (which is a representation of the human authority figures had), attachment to the feeling of wonder over the object of wonder, these and other patterns we allow to freeze our own prerogative to freeze and unfreeze the areas of our knowledge and consciousness in ways which we feel adapt most to reality as we feel/know 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: Life, Movement and Paralysis Wed Aug 28, 2013 8:17 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes, absolutely. This is really good stuff.
I wonder if we can reduce this freezing to the subject who is said to freeze, the subject by whose nature something is frozen or unfrozen, or do these movements rather have their own substantial existence, drive and power, logic and inertia? Are they merely extensions of powers of subjects or worlds, or something more?
So… how is something frozen or unfrozen, and what causes this to occur? It seems centered in the deeper psyche and unconsciousness, although our manifestation of freedom might come from or go to this center.
True what you say about previously frozen structures being embarrassments and roadblocks (my interpretation). Logically this should also go for previously unfrozen structures, given new and updated freezings that are happening.
“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
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships
PostSubject: Re: Life, Movement and Paralysis Wed Aug 28, 2013 9:39 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
A very good perspective, useful.
I wonder if we may symbolically equate the relation between frozen subject-ness (valuing capacity) and “jolly movement” with e=mc^2. At the very least it is clear that when a part of the capacity is unfrozen, more energy is released than can be rationally controlled.
This is perhaps why modern man is “kept” frozen - the potential for causing change is locked away inside himself.
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships
PostSubject: Re: Life, Movement and Paralysis Wed Aug 28, 2013 9:42 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
If so, and if we go by your definitions and indications, we might argue that the recipe for revolution lies in “jolly movement” - which would mean, to begin with, dance - and all activity-concepts following from that. In a word, shamanism - but a new word would be required if we are to infuse the internet with an activating meme, an agent of unfreezing man into action.
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships
PostSubject: Re: Life, Movement and Paralysis Wed Aug 28, 2013 9:48 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
No, not just one word. We’d have to explain this concept in simple but comprehensive terms.
The idea would be that, in order to liberate the world from paralysis and shameful, useless obstacles, we all privately have to melt them down burn them up, heat up our soul without any other aim than to melt the old valuing sediments, fossils, patterns, into freshly erupting volcanic activity. This itself would naturally regenerate the human cosmos, we would not even have to worry about establishing a value system that is ethically viable - we would be able to count on such systems coming into place as the released radiation, raw valuing-of-the-moments-beauty, converts to mass again and crystallizes into freshly resounding harmonics, arches of meaning that connect the humans in the here, now by extrapolating their self-valuing through science into something that is at this point beyond imagining.
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships
PostSubject: superhuman conscience Wed Aug 28, 2013 10:01 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This Frozen-ness is still Egyptian. Pyramids, eternal corpses, steel masks, geometric tombs, obelisks - solidified death-worship.
Those 30.000.000 Egyptians in movement would only need to understand that, when their movement is experienced for what it is, rather than as a means to an unclear end of moral freedom, the revolution will be a historical fact.
Human conscience needs to be converted into dance.
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves
PostSubject: Re: Life, Movement and Paralysis Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:06 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Quote :
What is good? Whatever elevates the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself in man.
What is bad? Whatever comes from weakness.
What is happiness? The feeling of power growing, of a resistance being overcome.
No appeasement, but more power; no peace before everything, but war; no virtue before everything but vigor (virtue in the renaissance style, virtù, virtue without moraline).
The weak and wrangled must perish: first article of our love of men. And, moreover, they must be helped to perish.
¿What is more damaging than any vice? - Active compassion with all the wrangled and weak - Christianity…
This is the 2 aphorism in The Antichrist, and describes the relationships between freezing and moving; proposing nature’s own purpose and intent, not only as the discerning factor but the original generating factor.
Value Ontology and Synthetic a Priori Judgments View previous topic View next topic Go down
Author Message
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships
PostSubject: Value Ontology and Synthetic a Priori Judgments Mon Oct 21, 2013 3:07 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I want to examine the power of value ontology to merge analytical with synthetic-a-priori judgments by the calibration of semantics to grammar.
Please help me clarify and verify the terms.
An analytical statement is tautological, it is so “by definition”.
A synthetic a-priori statement is a definition of a subject that requires concepts which are not required for the term to be defined semantically. It is rather a substantiation of an analytical truth.
Is this true?
Example: “light moves at the speed of light” is analytical (and a priori)
whereas “the speed of light is 299 792 458 m / s in vacuum” is synthetic a priori
and “light can be measured in terms of photons” is also synthetic a priori.
Are these proper examples?
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves
PostSubject: Re: Value Ontology and Synthetic a Priori Judgments Mon Oct 21, 2013 4:18 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
No, those synthetics are analytical too, in the end, they simply incorporate concepts that can only be understood with analysis of adjacent tectonics.
Synthetic a prioris seem more to me to be about guessing, making something up that later turns out to be true. This is the basis for Nietzschean understanding of will to power.
“Light moves at the speed of light.” analytical
“Light will shine, and at this speed.” synthetic a priori
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: Value Ontology and Synthetic a Priori Judgments Tue Oct 22, 2013 4:06 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Quote :
“Light will shine, and at this speed.” synthetic a priori
Quote :
“the speed of light is 299 792 458 m / s in vacuum” is synthetic a priori
Aren’t these the same?
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves
PostSubject: Re: Value Ontology and Synthetic a Priori Judgments Tue Oct 22, 2013 4:38 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The first is a feeling; the second, though also a feeling, incorporates analysis of previously sentenced-upon feelings.
The first is a sentence, the second is an agglomeration of sentences.
Author Message
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time
PostSubject: RM and value Sat Oct 26, 2013 5:35 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
RM shows the logic of how PtA can be turned against itself via manipulations in “the situation” (outside influences) as INCENTIVES for lowering the threshold of self-value and valuing-activity. By altering one’s perceptions of the EFFORT needed to value X, distortion is introduced as the self is distanced from its ACTUAL valuing-activity and “meaning”-perception of X.
When we take short-cuts to higher values we produce affective tendencies in the self (or “will”) to distance from value, and in value (action, necessity, consequences, power and ideas-thought capacity) to distance from self. Not only that, but this progressive destruction of capacity for responsibility and living has tendencies to be self-sustaining, it leads to the development of inertia, an “anti-gravity” of subjective de-acceleration.
The final conclusion of such a phenomenon can only be death, in one form or others.
“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
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar
Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves
PostSubject: Re: RM and value Sat Oct 26, 2013 10:37 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Nietzsche solved that one. The “will” is a name for the stupid animal which one would look at no further, which looking is making. The will to power, well… How do you decieve that? It might be the only platonic idea in the Topus Uranus, and it obviously destroys it. “One is only will to power when one is strong.”
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: RM and value Sun Oct 27, 2013 6:43 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Wrong thread…
Last edited by James S Saint on Mon Oct 28, 2013 7:12 pm; edited 1 time 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: RM and value Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:56 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Christianism gives an ‘eternal’ form to consciousness, thus closing it off from its environment and power relations. Man used to be essentially open, now he is essentially closed. The modern forms of these closures are many, but all derive from Christianism.
Man is suffocating and he is supposed to accept as the answer either death or… death.
Living is a state that the christian knows nothing about, because he’s decided it’s preferable to merely exist. He wishes only to experience indiscriminately. That might have worked well for the first few generations, when the burden of life was so great as to make any kind of respite, no matter the cost, seem like a blessing. But fast forward 2000 years, and we see instead the end of man, the final “‘What is a star?’—thus asks the last man, and he blinks” of consciousness.
RM is the final nail in the coffin for humanity. You should be proud, James. It’s truly a beautiful thing you’ve done. (not saying the work wasn’t inevitable anyway, and you’ve played your part in the grand procession of Fate)…
You’ve contributed to make dying infinitely painless. And for that I love you, and also for that we will forever be mortal enemies.
“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
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time
PostSubject: Re: RM and value Mon Oct 28, 2013 4:25 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
Nietzsche solved that one. The “will” is a name for the stupid animal which one would look at no further, which looking is making. The will to power, well… How do you decieve that? It might be the only platonic idea in the Topus Uranus, and it obviously destroys it. “One is only will to power when one is strong.”
Yes.
On a long enough time-line the question renders itself moot, of course.
“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: RM and value Mon Oct 28, 2013 7:15 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable;
James S Saint wrote:
… and I still haven’t the slightest notion as to what makes you think that RM has anything to do with Christianity.
…and I still believe that you understand almost nothing of RM.
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: RM and value Mon Oct 28, 2013 7:17 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
James S Saint wrote:
Capable;
James S Saint wrote:
… and I still haven’t the slightest notion as to what makes you think that RM has anything to do with Christianity.
…and I still believe that you understand almost nothing of RM.
That may very well be true, that I understand almost nothing about it. But I want to understand it, and I am trying.
“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: RM and value Mon Oct 28, 2013 7:44 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Quote :
RM is the final nail in the coffin for humanity. You should be proud, James. It’s truly a beautiful thing you’ve done. (not saying the work wasn’t inevitable anyway, and you’ve played your part in the grand procession of Fate)…
You’ve contributed to make dying infinitely painless. And for that I love you, and also for that we will forever be mortal enemies.
That very seriously doesn’t sound like “trying to understand”.
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: RM and value Tue Oct 29, 2013 11:35 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
James S Saint wrote:
Quote :
RM is the final nail in the coffin for humanity. You should be proud, James. It’s truly a beautiful thing you’ve done. (not saying the work wasn’t inevitable anyway, and you’ve played your part in the grand procession of Fate)…
You’ve contributed to make dying infinitely painless. And for that I love you, and also for that we will forever be mortal enemies.
That very seriously doesn’t sound like “trying to understand”.
No, that is exactly what “trying to understand” sounds like.
“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
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time
PostSubject: Re: RM and value Tue Oct 29, 2013 11:37 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Note that “the final nail in the coffin of humanity” is not an expression indicating the END of humanity. it means: something new will now come from this. Things are different, the world is changed, nothing will ever be the same again.
Now we get to start building.
“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
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
avatar
Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills
PostSubject: Re: RM and value Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:52 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer
Quote :
Nietzsche solved that one. The “will” is a name for the stupid animal which one would look at no further, which looking is making.
Can you explain what he meant by that?
Quote :
The will to power, well… How do you decieve that?
Perhaps one is more deceived by IT…or by one’s perception of it.
Quote :
“One is only will to power when one is strong.”
I don’t think I go along with that. But perhaps you’re defining power as meaning tyrannical power. Just as there can be no “real” courage without fear, can there be any “real” will to power without weakness?
But perhaps I am wrong.
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
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
avatar
Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills
PostSubject: Re: RM and value Tue Nov 05, 2013 6:05 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable
Quote :
Living is a state that the christian knows nothing about, because he’s decided it’s preferable to merely exist.
One has to be a christian to adopt that attitude toward life?
I don’t consider myself to be a christian anymore but when I was one, that was not my attitude and rest assured that it is the attitude of all christians - many yes, who are drowning in their beliefs and afraid to live without a god or a religious structure. But you’re painting all christians without any backbone and one might say that many non-christians live their lives in this way…merely existing.
Quote :
He wishes only to experience indiscriminately.
Laughing That is an individual thing - one can say that of an atheist or an agnostic too, depending upon their essence or substance.
Quote :
That might have worked well for the first few generations, when the burden of life was so great as to make any kind of respite, no matter the cost, seem like a blessing.
You’ll have to explain that to me, if you will. On what planet does any great burden appear to be a blessing, except to an embicile.
Quote :
But fast forward 2000 years, and we see instead the end of man, the final “‘What is a star?’—thus asks the last man, and he blinks” of consciousness.
And what does the last man hear…of consciousness?
Author Message
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships
PostSubject: Rational Metaphysics Tue Sep 24, 2013 1:35 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Let’s see if we can learn the principles of Rational Metaphysics. I want to call on everyone who participates to please abstain from character judgments and finger-pointing except for this one judgment: “you are not being fully honest here”. I think we can agree that philosophy and logic always require this, full honesty.
Of course it is often unclear who is being honest in the face of what. But given that it is the only thing that matters, that dishonesty (besides simply lack of capacity for reason) is the only thing that can stand in the way of progressing understanding, we must use this as a standard. Along with learning about RM, we might learn some things about honesty itself.
What this means is that whenever someone says “you are not being fully honest here”, the one who is accused MUST investigate this claim. Otherwise I predict, given what I know of perspectivism, that this thread will almost instantly become invalid.
Because the claim must be investigated, the accuser must provide as much information as possible about the perceived falsity.
I give the word to James, for an exhibition of the main principles of RM in the form and dosage he thinks fit. These principles must then be probed, tested, falsified/verified for universal veracity, which is what RM claims.
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26
PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Tue Sep 24, 2013 5:48 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
As I have stated in the past, Rational Metaphysics: Affectance Ontology is for designers, most especially in the fields of physics, psychology, sociology, and economics. Thus there is a limited audience who should have any interest in it. And yes, any logic based topic requires a greater degree of honesty, to both oneself and others, in order for the topic to advance and get to its higher assertions. This aspect is due to the fact that logic builds from lower premises to higher conclusions. Dishonesty along the way not only distorts the conclusion into fallacy, but also impedes any hope of getting to the final and finer points involved.
There are many ways to begin discussing RM, but I have found that constructing the ontology from it simplest concepts, although perhaps too simple for immediate use, is an easy way of getting it started.
As with any logic based proposal, it is critical, not merely preferred, that everyone involved agree to the premises of the proposed logic. In the case of RM, premises are chosen as definitions of ontological elements and chosen based upon the concept of rationality, ie. “it is rational to choose this definition even though other definitions are available”.
Thus to begin, the first premise proposed as a fact and also a definition;
P1) Existence ≡ the set of all that has any affect and exclusive of all that has absolutely no affect.
a) Agree
b) Disagree
c) other
The rationality is proposed as even though other things can be said to exist under a different definition, being concerned with anything that has absolutely no affect is a pointless waste of time. So unless wasting time is the purpose (or creating confusion), it is irrational to accept the notion that something with absolutely no affect exists such as to be concerned with it. Or “why would you bother accepting that something exists, if you already knew that it would have absolutely no affect one way or another?”
So can we agree upon P1?
=================================================================
P2) The simplest ontology involving affect (ie. “causing change”), is “affect upon affect” or “causing change in the ability to affect”.
a) Agree
b) Disagree
c) other
An ontology that has only one element, and in this case the only concern and very definition of existence, is as simple as one can get. In the case of “affect” being that element, action is inherently included, as opposed to perhaps having “material” or “mass” as the first element.
And P2?
====================================================================
P3) Potential to Affect, PtA = a situation that allows for the ability to affect.
In order for anything to have affect, it must have the potential to have that affect, thus affect must inherently have PtA.
Thus;
C1) All affect has PtA
a) Agree
b) Disagree
c) other.
And P3 and C1?
Please respond in order to each assertion.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar
Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves
PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Wed Sep 25, 2013 10:02 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
P1) Agree.
P2) Agree!
P3) This potential is itself affect. Why are we introducing the distinction this early on? You are not being fully honest here.
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: Rational Metaphysics Wed Sep 25, 2013 9:41 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
P3) This potential is itself affect.
A potential is a situation that allows for an affect to take place. It is a definition of a word to be used throughout.
A glass sitting on the very edge of a table has the potential to fall (in a probabilistic sense). The potential to fall is not the falling itself. The potential to act, the situation that allows for action, must exist in order for the act to come about.
P3) Potential to Affect, PtA = a situation that allows for the ability to affect.
a) Agree
b) Disagree
c) other ?
Pezer wrote:
Why are we introducing the distinction this early on?
For the same reason everything else is being introduced - so that later discussions can proceed. It helps to introduce the terms BEFORE stating any logic involving them, doesn’t it?
Pezer wrote:
You are not being fully honest here.
Please explicitly point out the instance of such accusations, if you are going to make them.
In what exact way am I being dishonest in your view?
… cuz I ain’t see’n it.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar
Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves
PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Thu Sep 26, 2013 5:11 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
"The rationality is proposed as even though other things can be said to exist under a different definition, being concerned with anything that has absolutely no affect is a pointless waste of time. So unless wasting time is the purpose (or creating confusion), it is irrational to accept the notion that something with absolutely no affect exists such as to be concerned with it. Or “why would you bother accepting that something exists, if you already knew that it would have absolutely no affect one way or another?”
If potential to affect is not itself affect then, according to our own definitions, it not only does not exist but is a waste of our time. If it is affect, my question regarding the purpose of distinguishing it among other distinctions that will certainly arise later so early on stands, and should not have an unreachable answer.
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: Rational Metaphysics Thu Sep 26, 2013 8:50 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
"The rationality is proposed as even though other things can be said to exist under a different definition, being concerned with anything that has absolutely no affect is a pointless waste of time. So unless wasting time is the purpose (or creating confusion), it is irrational to accept the notion that something with absolutely no affect exists such as to be concerned with it. Or “why would you bother accepting that something exists, if you already knew that it would have absolutely no affect one way or another?”
If potential to affect is not itself affect then, according to our own definitions, it not only does not exist but is a waste of our time. If it is affect, my question regarding the purpose of distinguishing it among other distinctions that will certainly arise later so early on stands, and should not have an unreachable answer.
So you believe that looking at the map or figuring what you could say to deliver the most effect, “measuring your potential”, is a waste of time? If you are not driving or talking then looking to see where you are or paying attention to who you are talking to or what you are talking about, is not only a waste, but such things don’t even exist?
That would explain a lot of people’s behavior, but I’m afraid that I would have to disagree. In RM:AO, the situation, the “potential” is measured. The terrain is examined and exists regardless of whether it is being traversed.
But as I said first thing, this subject is for “designers”, people who think in advance concerning their potential to accomplish things. So obviously you are not interested and thus, you are right in that this subject is a waste of Your time.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar
Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves
PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Thu Sep 26, 2013 9:13 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I see a lot of accusations there. Considering the OP, I believe you are not being fully honest here.
I believe that, if we are setting up an inquiry or a theoretical tool of any sort, we are to be coherent within what we set out, and nothing beyond. You mention the potential to affect as not affect in the third premise, while in the first two declaring there is nothing worth considering beyond affect.
If potential to affect is worth noting, it is necessarily worth noting -for us- as affect itself. If we are to start analyzing consequences of affect, I would ask that we clearly establish why and how.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar
Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves
PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Thu Sep 26, 2013 9:44 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
James S Saint wrote:
P2) The simplest ontology involving affect (ie. “causing change”), is “affect upon affect” or “causing change in the ability to affect”.
a) Agree
b) Disagree
c) other
An ontology that has only one element, and in this case the only concern and very definition of existence, is as simple as one can get. In the case of “affect” being that element, action is inherently included, as opposed to perhaps having “material” or “mass” as the first element.
Do you see what I mean? If mass or material follow affect, than any thing that affects which you ascribe potential to is affect, therefore its potential must be affect, specially if we proceed under the understanding that, even if other truths exist beyond affect, they are irrelevant to the establishment of our full honesty.
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: Rational Metaphysics Thu Sep 26, 2013 9:56 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
James, I need another day or two to work through your premises 1-3 and conclusion, in order to do full justice here to the idea and not be hasty. Please be patient and I will have the opportunity to think seriously about this soon.
“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
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time
PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Thu Sep 26, 2013 10:04 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Initially, before I am able to fully dive in, I need to ask clarification on a term used: what is the definition of a “situation”? This term is used in P3.
“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: Rational Metaphysics Thu Sep 26, 2013 1:14 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Does someone care to explain to me how there can be affect without any potential to do so or within a situation where such an ability does not exist?
P3 is merely a clarification of the definition of the word “potential”.
Wiki wrote:
Noun
Potential (physics)
potential (plural potentials)
Wiki wrote:
Noun
situation (plural situations)
Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves
PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Thu Sep 26, 2013 8:42 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
“The rationality is proposed as even though other things can be said to exist under a different definition, being concerned with anything that has absolutely no affect is a pointless waste of time.”
Explain to me potential as other than affect in the face of this.
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: Rational Metaphysics Fri Sep 27, 2013 5:48 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Alright, having reviewed this I make the following statements here, hoping we can move forward to the next level of understanding of RM.
P1, yes I accept the definition that all things existing have affect, we may ignore as irrelevant any existing things that don’t have any affect at all. Existence itself is therefore the sum of all affects.
P2, yes I can accept this too, ontology is formally the study of affection, especially the smallest or most fundamental affects, would be the first concern to it. So we get minimal affects affecting other affects, this would be the basic ontological setup.
P3… Also yes, I stipulate to the notion that every affect must have potential-to-affect, since nothing can exist or do anything without first having potential to be or do those things. The affection itself is like the realization of PtA.
For the conclusion, given premise 1 and 3 it follows logically that no thing which exists (and is not irrelevant) can be without PtA, therefore all non-irrelevant existing things (I.e. all affects) must have PtA.
“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: Rational Metaphysics Fri Sep 27, 2013 9:44 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
As a side;
Rationality refers to the rationing of one’s actions or thoughts in accord to one’s goal. If a thought contains nothing that would affect one’s goal in any way, being rational means ignoring that thought because it has no position in any plan to be rationed into.
The conclusion C1 refers to the idea that if an affect exists, then it is inherent that the potential to have that affect must also exist. So even though we start with the notion that it is irrational to be concerned with anything void of affect, we have already inherently included (as per C1) that it must be rational to “also” be concerned with anything that has the potential-to-affect, to be later measured in terms of “PtA”.
Thus rational behavior involves;
The statement;
“The rationality is proposed as, even though other things can be said to exist under a different definition, being concerned with anything that has absolutely no affect is a pointless waste of time.”
is inherently proposing that the present situation that leads to future affects (the “potential-to-affect”) is not a pointless concern in the ontology because the current situation, the potential, directly implies the presence of affecting and in a sense, is a map concerning the current directions of affecting.
Does that help at all?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar
Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves
PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Fri Sep 27, 2013 10:31 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes.
Quote :
The statement;
“The rationality is proposed as, even though other things can be said to exist under a different definition, being concerned with anything that has absolutely no affect is a pointless waste of time.”
is inherently proposing that the present situation that leads to future affects (the “potential-to-affect”) is not a pointless concern in the ontology because the current situation, the potential, directly implies the presence of affecting and in a sense, is a map concerning the current directions of affecting.
I am beginning to see… So side premise:
SP1: Potential to affect is an affect that conduces to future affects consciously, with intent.
Agree?
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: Rational Metaphysics Fri Sep 27, 2013 11:20 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
SP1: Potential to affect is an affect that conduces to future affects consciously, with intent.
Agree?
“Conscious”???
We haven’t said anything concerning consciousness. And the only “intent” mentioned is the intent of forming an ontology based upon what has actual affect and ignoring anything proposed as has no affect.
Some people argue that God must exist because He created the universe that can be seen all around. My first response would tend to be, “Perhaps, but what has he done lately?”
My point would actually be that if “God” currently has no affect whatsoever (as proposed by Nietzsche), then God would not exist. Perhaps God existed long ago (the Big Bang proponents), but it isn’t rational to be concerned with anything that doesn’t exist today regardless of whether it had existed 13.4 billions years ago.
But other than that, “consciousness” is NOT a part of this… yet.
The concept so far is merely that if anything exists then it is affecting (“has affect”) or at minimum has the potential to affect (will be affecting shortly). Whether it consciously intends anything is irrelevant at the moment. For right now, “affectance” is referring merely to extreme, sub, sub atomic substance, the make of the universe. “Affectance” is the RM:AO name for that substance of which all physical things are made. Affectance is the lowest form of existence that a rational mind has any need to be concerned with.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar
Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves
PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Fri Sep 27, 2013 11:25 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
SP1: Potential to affect is an affect affecting the state of affects in the future in a different way than seem coherent in the present.
?
I know my wording is a little uncouth for the tone we have set, but throw a dog a treat (if the treat is there to be thrown).
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: Rational Metaphysics Fri Sep 27, 2013 1:13 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
SP1: Potential to affect is an affect
affecting the state of affects in the future
in a different way than seems coherent in the present.
?
You can’t equate the act of actually affecting with the potential to do that affecting. One speaks to the strength of your army while the other speaks of its current activities. Those are different issues.
In physics, it is the electric potential versus the electric current. The potential is not active. The current is. The potential can and does change, but only via a current making that change. The potential causes a current which rearranges the potentials because the potentials are being used up in order to create the currents which might inadvertently raise a potential in another location. That is all any electric circuit ever does. And in space, that is all the entire universe ever does. The potential is the “PtA” and the “current” is the “Affectance”. In an economy, the potential is the dollar figures involved and the current is the active trading. The mind had thoughts or concepts and the actual thinking process. A society has people in an environment and whatever those people are doing.
The ancient I Ching ontology was of “the Fixed and the Changing”. But in reality, there is no truly “Fixed” and thus the presumed “Fixed” must be taken as “relatively fixed”.
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: Rational Metaphysics Fri Sep 27, 2013 1:32 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Good, so now we have a basic epistemic division as well as the ontological setup; we have a duality between thing and environment, or movement and “static” condition, or that which acts and that which, beyond the acting, conditions the action and is also conditioned by it, reciprocally.
This division also being used as a model for thought, behavior, economics, society, nature, electromagnetism, etc.
So,
Things that exist are affecting (other things);
Any thing (let’s say X) is being affected by a) other affecting things, and b) X’s own PtA.
X’s PtA is also being affected by X, via X’s affection causing drain (or entropy) upon the store of PtA from which it came/comes
“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
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar
Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves
PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Fri Sep 27, 2013 2:11 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
If affect is our base unit, all things must be affect. In some way, potential must be affect. If it isn’t, it is not nothing even, just pointless. How can we get around this?
1 Things that exist are only affect.
2 Affect thus can only affect affect.
3 Potential is not affect, and can affect affect.
If there is any genius in your theory, it is in the honest resolution of this contradiction.
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: Rational Metaphysics Fri Sep 27, 2013 7:17 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
If affect is our base unit, all things must be affect. In some way, potential must be affect. If it isn’t, it is not nothing even, just pointless. How can we get around this?
1 Things that exist are only affect.
“Things that exist are only affect”
is NOT the same as
“Things that exist must have affect”
In every endeavor, one must begin from wherever they are. We can agree that for anything to be said to exist, it must have affect. We have not agreed that affect is the only “thing” (whatever that means) that exists.
Logic is about finding something presumed “known” or agreed upon and then deducing what else could have been known and agreed upon.
We began with the agreement that for anything to be said to exist, it must have affect. But as we examine that word “affect”, we can realize other things that have already been said without saying them, things that we could have agreed upon as well. C1 is one of those things;
C1) All affect has PtA
Due to that statement/conclusion, we could have begun with;
) For anything to be said to exist, it must have affect and potential to affect.
But that isn’t all we can deduce from our initial agreement. So even if we had started from there, we would still find yet another place from which we could have begun.
Logic builds a mountain of understanding and all from simple ideas. Any group wherein all members already know that mountain can start with the entire mountain and proceed from there. We are not that group. The endeavor is to become that group, to find a mountain of agreement. But we must begin from where we are, somewhere in the middle.
In the contest between a group and its environment, having a mountain of immutable mass (indisputable under-standing) with which the opponent must contend certainly gives the group an advantage. Momentum can be said to be formed of fast paced agreements. And momentum determines every action and the victor of every contest. And one cannot get faster than “already” agreed upon.
Conclusion C1 says that if any one thing exists, then something else must exist, specifically the potential - that “thing’s” ability to affect - “something ELSE”. Where did that “something else” come from? It comes from yet another conclusion that we could have begun with.
P4) Affecting directly implies one thing influencing or changing another thing, two "things; an “affecter” and an “affectee”.
Thus;
C2) For any one thing to exist, more than one thing must exist.
At this point, we have 3 “things” involved arising from our first agreement;
Existence necessarily leads to;
But again, we have NOT agreed that “the only things that exist are those 3 things”. That would be an entirely different issue.
So;
P4 and C2;
a) agree
b) disagree
c) other?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar
Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves
PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Fri Sep 27, 2013 7:53 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
P1) Existence ≡ the set of all that has any affect and exclusive of all that has absolutely no affect.
For me to agree, we would have to re-formulate, not just propose an alternative, but reformulate this premise. That is, unless potential does have affect, which, if affect is the base unit instead of matter, is the same thing as saying it is affect.
“An ontology that has only one element, and in this case the only concern and very definition of existence, is as simple as one can get. In the case of “affect” being that element, action is inherently included, as opposed to perhaps having “material” or “mass” as the first element.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar
Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves
PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Fri Sep 27, 2013 7:57 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
What I’m trying to get at, since we are running out of time and I have never had the patience for proper logic anyway, is that it seems to me the element of potential is linked directly via some chain to affect, is affect in some way. This is not a refutation of your theory, it is a blind spot with the promise of massive sophistication.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar
Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves
PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Fri Sep 27, 2013 8:05 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
You speak of a group building, and have spoken to me about trust.
Can you define potential to affect without using any construct outside of what was set out in the premises, such as situation and ability?
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: Rational Metaphysics Fri Sep 27, 2013 9:18 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
Things that exist are affecting (other things);
Any thing (let’s say X) is being affected by a) other affecting things, and b) X’s own PtA.
X’s PtA is also being affected by X, via X’s affection causing drain (or entropy) upon the store of PtA from which it came/comes
One cannot say that a thing is “affecting itself” except in loose terms. If a truly singular “thing”, having no separate internal components, were said to be affecting itself there would be no change. The affecter and the affectee would be the same item, in the same location. The proposed changing would occur instantaneously, having no separation at all and thus could not be said to “have changed from one state to another” because there would have been no time between the two proposed states, thus there must have been only one state. Without change of state from being at one state at one time to another state at another time, one cannot claim any “affect”.
We haven’t gotten into “time” yet, so this is getting a bit ahead. Time and distance are epistemologically related. They both determine each other. The measure of one translates into the measure of the other. What we call “time” causes what we call “distance”. This is all related to special relativity. But if either time or distance are truly zero between proposed two items, then there is no separation or distinction at all between the items. And we call that state, “one item” because we are only concerned with affects coming from that thing and if there is no separation in properties, there can be no distinction in resultant affects. In Effect, one of the proposed two items, doesn’t really “exist” by our definition of “existing”.
Pezer, you seem to be missing the point. What C1 is about is that fact that potential, the “ability to have affect” is ALREADY inherent in the proposal of the concept of affect and thus also existence. One cannot have affect without having PtA. Thus if we propose that there is affect, we have ALREADY inherently included “potential”. Potential is already a part of the entire concept of affect. It isn’t a separate entity, but rather merely a distinguished property.
It is like someone saying that something has “volume”. By saying that, he would have already claimed that the object has “length”. Length is not being proposed as a new item, a different thing, but a part of the very concept of “volume”. But unless “volume” involves only one dimension, “length” is not the same thing as “volume”, but merely included in it.
It is the same with potential and affect. Affect is not a trivial entity. It has a variety of inherent and distinguishable features of interest, just as volume has length, width, and also depth. If one proposes that affect exists, then one has already proposed that potential exists as well as more than one item, because one cannot exist unless the others exists as a part of it. They are “part and parcel”, but NOT the same concept.
The same will be true of anything you would want to “reformulate” it into, but what would that be?
What do you want to reformulate the definition of existence into that wouldn’t have the exact same issue with you? Anything can be broken down into a million other concepts of concern. It all depends upon of what you have rational interest.
If merely volume exists then;
Length must exist
Width must exist
Depth must exist
Distance must exist
And as we will logically discover;
Time must exist
Affect must exist
Values must exist
Degrees must exist
Change must exist
Pulses must exist
Frequency must exist
Reaction must exist
Locations must exist
Separation must exist
Difference must exist
Summation must exist
Qualities must exist
Properties must exist
Positive and negative must exist
Quantities must exist
Objects must exist
Recursion must exist
Objects within objects must exist
And even Consciousness and Rationality must exist
As well as Irrationality.
For any one attribute of existence to “exist”, every single thing that you see all around you must exist. The universe is at every moment, only what it absolutely must be. There are no options for existence. In fact, as it turns out, there isn’t even an option for the universe itself to exist and only as exactly what it is. The only options involve what you wish to name as a property of existence for your own use and purpose, your “ontology”. “God” didn’t have any choice in creating the universe. If one exists, the other must exist.
But for sake of your own purposes, you might not want to call anything “God” because that would give credence to those “other guys”, the old religions, and we want to give credit only to the new religion (aka “Secularism”). It is a bit of a moronic strategy, but “it is what it is”. Even the Biblical “God” said to “name the animals”. The “animals” are the entities of concern. So okay, do what the Biblical God said, “name the entities whatever you like”. Don;t call the entity “Secularism” a “religion”. God never said that you had to name anything “God” (and according to the record of Moses, said at that time to refer to him as “I am that I am”, which translates in Hebrew to “what is, is that which is”. You can name things as whatever you like, just try to not be too stupid about it and aim for being Rational, more specifically, Sentient and Sane.
In RM:AO, we begin with the concept of “affectance” because we can all agree that existence AT LEAST has affectance (the collection of all affecters and/or affectees). From that point, we begin deducing what else we have already inadvertently included merely because we know that indisputably, affectance exists.
Last edited by James S Saint on Fri Sep 27, 2013 9:47 pm; edited 1 time in total
Rational Metaphysics View previous topic View next topic Go down
Go to page : Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
Author Message
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar
Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves
PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Fri Sep 27, 2013 9:26 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Sorry Fixed Cross, but the dishonesty, it’s too heavy. Do you see that James S Saint might have been a goddamn fucking genius if it weren’t for the principal instinct he follows which dictates, not as a side-effect but as a drive, the falsification and mediocritization of human activity of any sort, logic quite included?
The problem is Crist. I came in here saying that, and I leave on it. Hope y’all catch on soon, it has all been written.
See you soon friends; and I hope you either die soon or undergo honesty soon, James. The first step is to know, not think, know you are going to die some day. The next is to make an honest store of your experiences. Last is a decision regarding what way, having only what you have lived and the knowledge of death, you will approach human, logic, life.
Otherwise, please die. I love you.
Take care.
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: Rational Metaphysics Fri Sep 27, 2013 10:24 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
… “and the darkness fleas Before The Light”, and usually with attempted curses along the way.
A Volkswagen is not a Rolls Royce. And a Pinto isn’t even a Volkswagen. A Pinto is designed to fail, to cause its own annihilation. But hopefully at the expense of others… well, at least in the paradigm of monetary gain… someone else’s gain.
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: Rational Metaphysics Sat Sep 28, 2013 6:39 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
James S Saint wrote:
Capable wrote:
Things that exist are affecting (other things);
Any thing (let’s say X) is being affected by a) other affecting things, and b) X’s own PtA.
X’s PtA is also being affected by X, via X’s affection causing drain (or entropy) upon the store of PtA from which it came/comes
One cannot say that a thing is “affecting itself” except in loose terms. If a truly singular “thing”, having no separate internal components, were said to be affecting itself there would be no change. The affecter and the affectee would be the same item, in the same location. The proposed changing would occur instantaneously, having no separation at all and thus could not be said to “have changed from one state to another” because there would have been no time between the two proposed states, thus there must have been only one state. Without change of state from being at one state at one time to another state at another time, one cannot claim any “affect”.
Right, and one cannot claim that any change has occurred, either. The notion of change necessarily implies a whole host of things, such as multiple entities, temporal and spatial distances.
I wasn’t trying to say that “a thing is affecting itself”, actually I was only saying to say that a thing’s (again, let’s say X for simplicity) PtA is affecting it. X exists/affects because it has PtA, and this PtA is a separate entity from X; they are not the same thing. Thus it is correct to say that the PtA that conditions X, by which X exists/affects, is affecting X? (Again, this is not saying that X and the PtA which conditions X are the same thing, but rather is saying the exact opposite, that they are not the same thing).
Quote :
We haven’t gotten into “time” yet, so this is getting a bit ahead. Time and distance are epistemologically related. They both determine each other. The measure of one translates into the measure of the other. What we call “time” causes what we call “distance”. This is all related to special relativity. But if either time or distance are truly zero between proposed two items, then there is no separation or distinction at all between the items. And we call that state, “one item” because we are only concerned with affects coming from that thing and if there is no separation in properties, there can be no distinction in resultant affects. In Effect, one of the proposed two items, doesn’t really “exist” by our definition of “existing”.
Yes. But it would be impossible for any thing to exist without existing spatially AND temporally, at least to a minimal degree. This would be impossible because, as you say, such a thing could have no affect, it could cause no change either in itself or anything else, therefore given P1 we can ignore the existence of such entities.
Even though we are starting from the basics and working forward from there, we might as well come out now and say, perhaps P5, that nothing can exist which does not have at least a minimal level of spatiality and temporality. This is a direct consequence of the fact that all existing things have affect.
By the way, I agree about the necessity of things/the universe to be exactly as it is. This seems to be necessarily implied by every rational ontology. Free will and choice or “randomness” can also exist, but these are relative entities and depend only upon finite subjectivities which finitude creates these “errors”, or self-reflexive voids in which “freedom” may appear. Freedom in this sense is defined only as the existence of multi-dimensional frameworks of causality in which one level does not fully comprehend those others from which it comes or to which it refers its own effect, but nonetheless still captures something of this comprehension in itself, structurally, necessarily. Free will is the middle ground of self-referential consciousness that is able to both respond to itself and unable to respond to the actuality/totality of itself. But I suspect all this stuff about necessity and freedom you are wanting to save for a later point in the discussion.
“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: Rational Metaphysics Sat Sep 28, 2013 12:08 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Currently due to security issues and this site, it takes from 20-30 minutes for me to log on and from 5-10 minutes to make a post or even update a page. So please forgive delays. My PC is modified and doesn’t allow advertising probes beyond a certain level and if I disable that, this site crashes my system.
Capable wrote:
James S Saint wrote:
Capable wrote:
Things that exist are affecting (other things);
Any thing (let’s say X) is being affected by a) other affecting things, and b) X’s own PtA.
X’s PtA is also being affected by X, via X’s affection causing drain (or entropy) upon the store of PtA from which it came/comes
One cannot say that a thing is “affecting itself” except in loose terms. If a truly singular “thing”, having no separate internal components, were said to be affecting itself there would be no change. The affecter and the affectee would be the same item, in the same location. The proposed changing would occur instantaneously, having no separation at all and thus could not be said to “have changed from one state to another” because there would have been no time between the two proposed states, thus there must have been only one state. Without change of state from being at one state at one time to another state at another time, one cannot claim any “affect”.
Right, and one cannot claim that any change has occurred, either. The notion of change necessarily implies a whole host of things, such as multiple entities, temporal and spatial distances.
I wasn’t trying to say that “a thing is affecting itself”, actually I was only saying to say that a thing’s (again, let’s say X for simplicity) PtA is affecting it. X exists/affects because it has PtA, and this PtA is a separate entity from X; they are not the same thing. Thus it is correct to say that the PtA that conditions X, by which X exists/affects, is affecting X? (Again, this is not saying that X and the PtA which conditions X are the same thing, but rather is saying the exact opposite, that they are not the same thing).
A potential is a measure of something’s ability to change something else. But it isn’t of infinite value. There is a limit as to how much change something can bestow onto something else, how much affect it can have. That measure is in units of PtA. What that means is that as one thing is affecting another, the potential that it had is being “used up”. Its PtA is decreasing because it only had a limited ability and it has already expressed a portion of that total amount.
Any affecting, in this case, means that a potential is changing. And also, reciprocally, any potential that is changing means that affecting is taking place. The two measures are inextricably associated. One can say that affecting IS potentials changing, the “positive” affecter’s potential decreasing and the “negative” affectee’s potential increasing (positive and negative being merely relative).
This is evident in electronic circuits wherein a voltage (“electric potential”) “drives” current to a destination wherein the potential at the destination increases, such as the charging of a capacitor (a storage device). How much affecting on the potential of the capacitor a source can have is determined by the potential of the source. A 10 volt source cannot increase any capacity above 10 volts.
Thus far, we have really only been talking about a point to point issue, the potential of one point to affect the potential of another point, “A” affecting “B”. In reality because voltage sources and capacitors involve a great many “points of potential” within each, the averages are what is typically of concern rather than the point by point issues. This gets involved into the concept and concern of “energy” and “conservation of energy”. We can get into that if you like merely to show how RM:AO can indisputably prove that energy must always be conserved even without any of the evidence of the principle.
The method of Science serves only to confirm that a theory is not invalid. It does that by the process of seeking contrary evidence to the theory. Such verification is very important, but an interesting attribute to RM:AO is that RM:AO can know of a necessary truth before such verification takes place. RM:AO is not dependent upon experience except as a verification to ensure that logic errors have not been made.
If it is totally certain that there are no logic errors (however someone might manage that), Science can never dispute RM:AO. If any experiment is done concerning an RM:AO confirmed assertion and displays something other than what RM:AO demands, the experiment will be what is at fault, usually due to a presumption on the part of the experimenter. But thus far, I have found no such contention in that everything I find that actual Science has actually witnessed, confirms what RM:AO predicts. The fact is that if one were genius enough thousands of years ago, there is nothing professed by Science today that he could not have already told you back then. But of course, until you see it for yourself, me saying that doesn’t mean much.
Science has merely been helping to guide Man back onto a more sound footing by demanding demonstration of the details of his speculative theories. There is a race between Man’s sentient sanity and Man’s lustful insanity. And at this point, it seems about a 90% probability of his insanity winning out and him going out. RM:AO helps to jump ahead of the game so as to help breach the final lap toward sanity by knowing ahead of time to where Science is leading Man.
In physics terms, we are currently talking literally about electric potential or “charge”. And we have determined that the universe has no option but to be formed of electric potentials changing or what they refer to as “electromagnetic waves”, “EM”. At this point, we have not determined that EM is the ONLY thing that is involved, but that will come later.
Capable wrote:
it would be impossible for any thing to exist without existing spatially AND temporally, at least to a minimal degree. This would be impossible because, as you say, such a thing could have no affect, it could cause no change either in itself or anything else, therefore given P1 we can ignore the existence of such entities.
Even though we are starting from the basics and working forward from there, we might as well come out now and say, perhaps P5, that nothing can exist which does not have at least a minimal level of spatiality and temporality. This is a direct consequence of the fact that all existing things have affect.
You and I can easily believe that, but until RM:AO details everything involved in such a supposition, let’s not just presume it. RM:AO seriously doesn’t get along with presumption regardless of any probability of truth involved. Presumption is THE seed of ALL error/“sin”. “The Devil is in the details.” So let’s not leave any details left unchecked for hidden presumption and demise (people have already gone the presumption route for thousands of years).
But before we proceed, can I get a confirmation of agreement on
P4) Affecting directly implies one thing influencing or changing another thing, two "things; an “affecter” and an “affectee”.
and
C2) For any one thing to exist, more than one thing must exist.
a) agree
b) disagree
c) other?
I have to keep careful track, confirm each concern.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar
Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves
PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Sat Sep 28, 2013 7:46 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Side Track:
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: Rational Metaphysics Sun Sep 29, 2013 4:04 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Okay, this has gotten out of hand as I knew it would but far quicker.
It is clear that the verb “affecting” implies an affecter and an affected. This is implicit in the meaning of the word, that is a matter of grammar.
It reminds me of Heidegger, paraphrased: As long as be still believe in Grammar, we are stuck with God.
Of course, value ontology is designed to deal with this, not so much to get rid of God directly, but to expose him in grammar, and thereby gain control.
It rejects the notion of an objective perspective, whereby there is an all seeing “unmoved” eye on both the affecter and the affected. VO is itself an interpreting perspective, fitting in its own definitions (it values the world in terms of its structural integrity) and knows itself to be such. So far this has been unclear to me in terms of RM - how does RM regard itself, in terms of RM?
Value ontology values the world in terms of value ontology. I.e. it describes itself in the same way as it describes everything else. This is why it is philosophically - linguistically hermetic.
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time
PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:29 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
FC, yes that is a very important point, about the consistency of how value ontology approaches everything, including itself.
James, yes I agree with P4 and also with C2. It is clear that affection necessarily implies an affecter and an affectee, just as it is also therefore clear that affection necessarily implies the existence of more than one entity or, as you say, “for any one thing to exist, more than one thing must exist”.
“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: Rational Metaphysics Sun Sep 29, 2013 10:41 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Of course, value ontology is designed to deal with this, not so much to get rid of God directly, but to expose him in grammar, and thereby gain control.
It rejects the notion of an objective perspective, whereby there is an all seeing “unmoved” eye on both the affecter and the affected. VO is itself an interpreting perspective, fitting in its own definitions (it values the world in terms of its structural integrity) and knows itself to be such. So far this has been unclear to me in terms of RM - how does RM regard itself, in terms of RM?
Value ontology values the world in terms of value ontology. I.e. it describes itself in the same way as it describes everything else. This is why it is philosophically - linguistically hermetic.
Really?
Seriously?
No “God perspective”??
Hmm…
Are you sure that you want to go down that track?
I have been requesting precision in VO definitions since I first heard of it. This is the first time I have heard anything that not only could RM:AO not accept, but I don’t think any RM ontology would be able to accept for long. Let me explain why by introducing you to my little devil stumper.
How would VO interpret the following scenario?
) You have the classic Einstein train passing the train station.
) At the station there is a photo stop clock which only stops if it experiences simultaneous flashes from both sides.
) And also there is a car on the train that has an identical photo stop clock mounted exactly in the center of the car.
) That same train car also has timed photo-flashers mounted at both front and rear (blue in the following animation).
) The flashers are timed such as to both flash at the exact moment that the two photo stop clocks are aligned.
The question becomes one of which, if either, photo stop clock will stop.
I’m not aware of any current physics ontology (or philosophy) that can answer that question. Special relativity (“relativism”, “perspectivism”, “solipsism”, “exerientialism”, “subjectivism”) would demand that each clock both stops and also doesn’t stop. But in the end, either a clock is stopped or it isn’t.
No matter what ontological contortion you come up with, as long as you remain consistent, comprehensive, and relevant, you won’t be able to answer that question without an “objective perspective”. RM:AO can answer it.
Please forgive the offensive “grammar”, but;
Devil,
… meet 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: Rational Metaphysics Sun Sep 29, 2013 11:28 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It is an “objective” fact that subjective facts exists. This does not imply a god perspective, rather it implies only one thing… existence.
Things exist. This is a FACT, meaning that it is not (necessarily) ontically relevant at all. (Although it might be). Rather it speaks to grammar itself, which is not the same as saying that it speaks to existence itself. There is a difference between talking about what exists and talking about how we talk about what exists, and this is crucial to understand.
VO proposes that the idea of an objective god-perspective is antithetical to reason, and unnecessary. Perspectives are built from the ground-up, based on subjective-historical materialities which are conditioned by whatever causes exist/ed from which they arose-arise. When causal conditions break down too much, things “vanish”, meaning they can no longer self-value and thus their valuing (their materiality, their form, their "being an organization of force/power) is dissolved down to more molecular sub-values and appropriated by other stronger self-valuings in the vicinity.
If a god-perspective/objectivity did exist it could only come into existence via a process of emergent subjective material causality, built from the ground up, which means of course that it is not objective but only a reified subjectivity. If there is a god, it comes second, not first.
As for the train example… why does the light from the two flashes inside the train-car move at different speeds from each other in the station perspective, and conversely, move at different speeds from each other at the station, from the train perspective? The constancy of c states that the flashes of light travel at c regardless of the relative motion of one frame compared to another.
Breaking it down: the train passes the station and both clocks align; at the moment of alignment, flashes occur on the corners of the train and directed at both clocks; regardless of which perspective you take, station or train, and regardless of the relative speed of the train to the station (and of the station to the train, from the train’s perspective) the flashes of light will, assuming the distances between each flash and the clocks are equal as they seem to be, strike the clocks at exactly the same time. According to Relativity both time dilation and length contraction will occur within the moving frame of reference to “adjust” for the additional velocity/distance which would normally add to the time it would take the flashes at c to travel, but in fact does not add because as we know c is constant regardless of a frame’s relative motion. The illustration itself seems to be mistakenly set-up, as it does not account for time dilation and length contraction factors that will “adjust” the frames in order to accommodate the constancy of c.
…And the existence of time dilation and length contraction speaks well to VO (especially a VO augmented with tectonics); physical existences are subject in their physicality and seeming constancy of spatiality and temporality to being relatively similar to other physical existences, to things other than themselves. This is mutual self-valuing, or what you might call the mutual conditionality of causalities that depend upon each other, and upon lacks of potentially destabilizing causes, to exist. This is what VO proposes. All things are self-valuings that are also groupings of lesser self-valuings in relation to each other given wider shared values by which forms are held in existence; these forms also share and compete values with other forms and conditions and thus you get a Heraclitean flux, a will to power reality. Looking at Relativity, time dilation and length contraction given large divergences relative to the speed of light between two or more perspectives/self-valuings is an example of how the information, the possibility of sharing values between these perspectives/self-valuings is pushed to limits of its own ability. If there is no way for two self-valuings to adequately communicate their values to each other, to share and conflict them, reality “itself” begins to break down. This is because reality “itself” is nothing more than these shared values-references to begin with.
“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: Rational Metaphysics Mon Sep 30, 2013 1:16 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
It is an “objective” fact that subjective facts exists. This does not imply a god perspective, rather it implies only one thing… existence.
Things exist. This is a FACT, meaning that it is not (necessarily) ontically relevant at all. (Although it might be). Rather it speaks to grammar itself, which is not the same as saying that it speaks to existence itself. There is a difference between talking about what exists and talking about how we talk about what exists, and this is crucial to understand.
If that is to say that “things exist” is true for everyone, how is that not an “objective perspective” or “objective reality”? How can something be a “FACT”, yet merely be subjective?
Capable wrote:
VO proposes that the idea of an objective god-perspective is antithetical to reason,
Care to share what reasoning led to that conclusion?
Capable wrote:
…and unnecessary. Perspectives are built from the ground-up, based on subjective-historical materialities which are conditioned by whatever causes exist/ed from which they arose-arise. When causal conditions break down too much, things “vanish”, meaning they can no longer self-value and thus their valuing (their materiality, their form, their "being an organization of force/power) is dissolved down to more molecular sub-values and appropriated by other stronger self-valuings in the vicinity.
So, “we don’t know where it came from but… now that it is here… everything has self-valuing or gets absorbed into something else that has self-valuing.”
I wouldn’t argue with that, although RM:AO does know where it came from.
Capable wrote:
If a god-perspective/objectivity did exist it could only come into existence via a process of emergent subjective material causality, built from the ground up, which means of course that it is not objective but only a reified subjectivity. If there is a god, it comes second, not first.
Again, care to share what reasoning brought that conclusion?
Capable wrote:
As for the train example… why does the light from the two flashes inside the train-car move at different speeds from each other in the station perspective, and conversely, move at different speeds from each other at the station, from the train perspective? The constancy of c states that the flashes of light travel at c regardless of the relative motion of one frame compared to another.
The light must travel at one speed no matter which perspective you take. From the station, all light is traveling at speed “c” relative to the station. Thus if you were standing at the station, you must expect the train clock to move out from center and thus not stop.
If you are standing on the train, again all light must travel at speed “c” relative to you. Thus you must expect the station clock to move out from center and thus not stop.
Each perspective sees its own clock centered the whole time and thus each perspective must expect its own clock to stop.
But reality only yields one future state.
Capable wrote:
Breaking it down: the train passes the station and both clocks align; at the moment of alignment, flashes occur on the corners of the train and directed at both clocks; regardless of which perspective you take, station or train, and regardless of the relative speed of the train to the station (and of the station to the train, from the train’s perspective) the flashes of light will, assuming the distances between each flash and the clocks are equal as they seem to be, strike the clocks at exactly the same time. According to Relativity both time dilation and length contraction will occur within the moving frame of reference to “adjust” for the additional velocity/distance which would normally add to the time it would take the flashes at c to travel, but in fact does not add because as we know c is constant regardless of a frame’s relative motion. The illustration itself seems to be mistakenly set-up, as it does not account for time dilation and length contraction factors that will “adjust” the frames in order to accommodate the constancy of c.
…And the existence of time dilation and length contraction speaks well to VO (especially a VO augmented with tectonics); physical existences are subject in their physicality and seeming constancy of spatiality and temporality to being relatively similar to other physical existences, to things other than themselves. This is mutual self-valuing, or what you might call the mutual conditionality of causalities that depend upon each other, and upon lacks of potentially destabilizing causes, to exist. This is what VO proposes. All things are self-valuings that are also groupings of lesser self-valuings in relation to each other given wider shared values by which forms are held in existence; these forms also share and compete values with other forms and conditions and thus you get a Heraclitean flux, a will to power reality. Looking at Relativity, time dilation and length contraction given large divergences relative to the speed of light between two or more perspectives/self-valuings is an example of how the information, the possibility of sharing values between these perspectives/self-valuings is pushed to limits of its own ability. If there is no way for two self-valuings to adequately communicate their values to each other, to share and conflict them, reality “itself” begins to break down. This is because reality “itself” is nothing more than these shared values-references to begin with.
Try it before you buy it. Neither length contraction nor time dilation fixes the conundrum. Contract whatever you want. Dilate whatever you want. Just be consistent. Look at each small piece of action, one step at a time. They will not add up. Feel free to just make up any numbers just for an example. It won’t matter if it is Lorentz correct or not.
It is easy and common to throw out “well you have to consider…X… then it all works great.”
Easy to say, but “try it before you buy it”. There is nothing that will work out, “will answer the question”, without an objective frame of reference.
If you think that you have a legitimate solution, state it one step at a time, noting the position of each item of concern. Look carefully. You will probably see your mistake before you post it. But please don’t make general statements that are supposed to answer the problem until you look to see if they really do, “clarify, verify…”. Hand waving isn’t allowed.
…and btw, “reality breaking down” is an oxymoron.
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: Rational Metaphysics Mon Sep 30, 2013 10:34 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I may be missing something, but the paradox seems a perfect example of the result of faith in the consistency of grammar (as subject-object relation in language), where grammar is itself the variable in question. It seems to me that, given that everything is set up properly, both clocks would stop, because the frame of reference is defined by looking at the problem objectively (or from above as in the pictogram), and thus, by logical extension, equal in the train and the station. To arrive at an actual answer, you would have to formulate the space-time variables (and deduce the timing) from within either the train or the station. You’d have to choose a perspective.
So what this means is that you can not both look at the problem objectively and have relativity apply to it. Ultimately only the relativity is objective. But that does not gives us an ontology. So instead of “objective”, value ontology conceives a shared reality as inter-subjective. There is simply no ground or need to formulate an objective perspective, as the world follows from the subjective with a great consistency. Objectivity rests on a consistent means of defining a subjectivity. Logic is such a means. Consistency is relative to everything else - life is relative to the consistency of life-death, for example - but at the limit of such context is the consistency itself in full form - (the speed of) light.
Relative motion does not compare as relative motion when compared to the motion of light. Light does not lend itself to relative measuring, we have to measure off it. Light only self-values in two dimensions - the wave, rather, spiral. It propagates with infinite immediacy - i.e. the immediate which, when it exists in three dimensions, is gravity. Unavoidable, standard to both time and space.
“A” PtA, or something of which it can be categorically stated that it is a unit of PtA, requires structural consistency. Grammatically speaking. It requires “God” (first cause) in our grammar, within VO it requires, self-valuing and valuing in terms of this self-setting value-standard-consistency, or however deeply you want to convolute this grammatical construction which is by definition incomplete.
I expect that this is not acceptable to everyone; it requires that one thinks of the meanings of words as fundamentally ambiguous. James - I suspect that you see this as obfuscation, but it is rather recoiling from a superstitious trust in language. It is being aware of the threats within that what is given us to think with.
I regard philosophy as two branches, one of which is exactitude in languages developed to be as exact as possible, and the other as the overcoming of custom language as it stands between man and clarity, perception, truth. Language is a mirror, and to break this mirror is bad luck for it means that one stands alone in a dark cosmos without any laws. That is: with laws one no longer can take for granted, as the realization has struck that these laws much closer to what the person is himself than he can see.
See, this language is obscure, it requires meditation - “are you human?” - the words are only doorways.
In the darkness, RM makes of the rational mind a torch to illuminate what can be brought to light out of the dark. VO becomes like a Homeros, a blind poet, to grasp the world in the dark by defining it already, in such terms that it makes the darkness dance.
Do you see what I mean? A rhetorical question. I find it tragic that we can not meet at this point.
Value ontology is like this poet - without defining it, always already-apprehending it - by its maximal power and glory.
Homeros as a metaphor for value ontology.
VO is ahead of the curve, RM is equal to the curve. What happens from RM perspective has already happened from the VO perspective. RM is the particulars, in which there is objectivity - ‘already present’ in time or in necessary consequence. In human terms -
RM: PHT - “Perception of Hopes and Threats” - Capable, can you give a value ontological definition of all three of these terms?
I want to see if we can come to a RM:VO terms here - a subsection of RM where an appropriate(d) version of VO can serve to boost the psychological power of RM.
Hopes and threats - James, you discuss these subjects very often, perhaps more than the raw mechanics of RM logic. And bizarrely accurately, it is with your perception of these threats, and hopes, that I often disagree. It’s not that I disagree that you perceive real threats, but you often see only a threat where these is also a hope. Perception of hopes within threats… that is the gateway to subjective philosophy, from defining to being creative law.
Ours is not a great quantum of power compared to a galaxy, but a galaxy has no freedom because it is not as limited in what it comprises. A panda bear has a lot of freedom because it is rather limited in what it comprises. It has the greatest context.
Within context, values become hopes and threats.
Value ontologically these can be regarded as constants defining a specific tectonic level of self-valuing, which translates into a consistent affect. Such constants are crucial to functioning on whatever plane there is.
I recognize the constants of RM, and see them as emerging from the subjectivities involved (what you’ve defined as infinitesimal bits of PtA. I agree with how you’ve defined their interaction in that post about money and afflates, that was truly brilliant. Nevertheless, I understand each and every ‘smeared out’, slightly non local bits of PtA as ontological units, which must have not one but two properties: affecting the world and being affected by the world. It can only continue to exist if the affecting is related to the being affected by. This consistency is the self-valuing. It may be instantaneous but as long as it has its affect, it must be something that we can not leave undefined, that we can not merely judge in terms of its behavior. We must see what causes this behavior. What causes a PtA to have the potential to affect?
The answer is so very close that it’s always in the dark, too known to be illuminated. All poetry is this noble, always hilariously failing attempt. We all know what it tries to say, but it always asks a slight effort from us - namely, that we make the leap of fate to take it as making sense, in a way we can make for it. It has to affect us. Hence, a poet never knows what he is doing, but he is doing it so well that this new way becomes the law.
“It was impossible, but the Dragon did not know it, and he made it happen”.
“From the plane of Mind I come, I rule.”
Theosophic definition of the sign of Aries, analogous to the Dragon.
What is a measure of PtA to itself?
Nietzsche calls this self an illusion. A bundle of wills. Buddha does the same. Buddha rejected the illusion because it is false, but Nietzsche explicitly embraced falsity because he so much loves the illusion. RM accepts the falsity (private interest as a justified fact) and builds a truth that sustains it. VO is the mind of the falsity. It is no longer false.
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26
PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Mon Sep 30, 2013 1:15 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
I may be missing something, but the paradox seems a perfect example of the result of faith in the consistency of grammar (as subject-object relation in language), where grammar is itself the variable in question.
It seems to me that, given that everything is set up properly, both clocks would stop, because the frame of reference is defined by looking at the problem objectively (or from above as in the pictogram), and thus, by logical extension, equal in the train and the station.
To arrive at an actual answer, you would have to formulate the space-time variables (and deduce the timing) from within either the train or the station. You’d have to choose a perspective.
So what this means is that you can not both look at the problem objectively and have relativity apply to it. Ultimately only the relativity is objective.
The animation is divided so as to show both perspectives (just so I wouldn’t have to make two of them). If you are at the station, you see the top half. If you are on the train, you see the lower half. I showed both merely to show how each person would have to make a different prediction.
A person cannot predict based upon someone else’s perspective except by presumed theory, “If I were over there, I would be seeing it this way…”.
So the person at the station has no choice but to “see” the light arriving at his own clock simultaneously. And while he is watching that take place, he is seeing the train clock move out from center of where the light began. So FROM HIS OWN PERSPECTIVE, the train clock could not stop.
All four photons are identical. They are all out in the air and have no reason to be traveling at different speeds. The fact that two are headed toward the other clock is irrelevant to the speed with which they travel.
The only relation that part has to the theory of relativity is the presumption that “light travels at the same speed for all observers”. Given that one foundational assertion, the station master would have to conclude that the train clock could not receive light from both flashers simultaneously.
If I had not shown the train perspective, then everyone would just say, “well okay. Looks good to me. It’s kind of obvious.” Think about it in slow motion. Think for a moment that you are standing at that station. Wouldn’t you think it obvious that the train clock is moving out from center and thus wouldn’t stop? You are “seeing” the light headed toward the train clock, almost as though it were a baseball or a bullet. If you theorized that the train observer was watching those bullets, would you think that he would see them coming at him simultaneously? Or would you expect him to realize that he is moving out from center?
The problem is when you look at it all from the train’s perspective and you end up with the exact opposite prediction.
The theory of relativity says that each must make their own measurements and predictions without ever assuming that there might be some objective perspective, the “God-perspective”. It is declaring an ontology based entirely upon subjectivism.
But because using that theory leads to a contradiction, a “paradox”, the subjective, “relative” ontology is not coherent or consistent.
Guessing at what the other person might be seeing is exactly what they were trying to avoid when they came up with relativity. What confounded them was that original assertion that “light must be observed to travel at the same speed by all observers”. That assertion is close to being true, a little too close for them to be able to measure the difference at the time. By now, they would have corrected with better measurements except for the fact that they had gotten into the race to dominate the world. Now it is an issue of saving face, so they aren’t in any rush to expose such a fundamental presumption on their part after pushing relativity so very hard.
Let’s get this part settled before we get into grammar issues.
Do you understand the construction of the situation in the anime and the conundrum, regardless of whether you have an answer for it?
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: Rational Metaphysics Mon Sep 30, 2013 8:18 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Btw, since I know you to be interested in mysticism, magick, and Rabbinical scriptures, perhaps I should mention that what we are discussing has been scripturallly referred to as the “Sword of God”, “Subjectivism”. And what we are doing is gently laying that Sword of God upon the Anvil of God (where upon the angel (concept) called “Straight Line” was splattered into “smeared confused points”), “Rational Metaphysics” (impossible to divide). And then we are saying;
Sword of God,
… meet Hammer of God. … “Definitional Logic”.
I was kind of hoping to not find VO caught in the middle because if you think being between that “rock and a hard place” is bad… “you ain’t seen nuthin yet.” Cool
You can either learn to use it or look forward to someone using it upon you.
The choice is always yours, of course.
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: Rational Metaphysics Mon Sep 30, 2013 11:42 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I don’t get it. In the train perspective pictogram, it appears like the light emitted from the train is actually influenced in its speed by the speed of the train. It looks like the photon on the left is moving to the station slower than c, as if the speed of the train is subtracted from it, and the photon on the right is going faster than c, as if the speed of the train adds up to it.
Are you saying that the speed of light is not constant but depends on where it’s emitted from? Say, if a star of a ten million lightyears away was moving away from Earth at half of c, then its light would take 15 million years to reach us?
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves
PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Tue Oct 01, 2013 4:43 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The dilation of space time is what makes string theory senseless. Who cares what something looks like when it’s not moving? The actual answer is that it is not looked if its not moving. The speed of information is not a problem, it is part of the schema of theoretization, so theorizing beyond it existence disippates from imagination.