I just don’t see the link between “no gaps” and “unity.”
Uninvitingly there lays the fallacy behind an illusive sustenance of an inviting naturalism.
{Topicality may be analogous, as in the relatively early study into Moebius effects,}
wARNING: TOPICALITY may deranged intuition into narcissistic disorder.Use limited to 18 years or older by statute.
Experience is any form of existence and also the totality of existence - indeed experience and existence in either context mean exactly the same
You can separate or isolate an individual experience from everything else but everything that it is separated from is also an experience as well
The spaces in between these words are just as much experience as the words themselves even if those spaces are truly empty [ they are not ]
All perception or consciousness is experience but not all experience however is perception or consciousness
An object with no self awareness is experience but that is not the same as the self awareness of an organism
So there are two fundamentals to experience : existence and awareness of existence
These divisions are in reality however entirely arbitrary because reality itself is one and has no such divisions
They only exist within minds that seek to compartmentalise and divide reality up into manageable quantities
Although these minds are themselves a part of reality that are merely peripheral while reality itself is eternal
Minds are experience and their awareness of experience is experience as also is their awareness of their own mortality
There is no inside or outside of experience because experience is eternal and infinite and absolute and exists everywhere for all of time
Same answer as previous to time travel
Why? -some measure of a unified field.
Silhouette, from this very interesting probe, for me your most interesting post since the one where you announced your theory on H, I conclude that what Experientialism really expresses is that experience is the only thing we can directly approach. It is not so much about what is, as it is about being. “What is” is always discrete, “being” isn’t necessarily.
I like that you straight out admit that you have no answer to my question but don’t worry about this, it speaks to consistency. I also agree with where you take the uncertainty, into an analysis of grammar. Yes, Latin grammar is often indeed rather contingently amounting in a subject than that it builds on the premise of one.
I still have iron arguments for the technical requirement of the subject but I can agree to suspend their implementation, and investigate what is possible to conceive without one.
“No fundamental gaps” doesn’t preclude some kind of contingent gaps, just as “no fundamental unity” doesn’t preclude contingent unities.
I do believe I am slightly too apprehensive to draw conclusions where you do.
all I know about existence is that it has to be existent, that it cant not exist when it does exist.
Precisely because all I can know comes from experience and the act of defining is experience, I can have no certainty that it is also the case that existence is sufficiently defined as experience.
The existence of which I am certain is my experience - which is the distinct experience of an I, which is sometimes coupled with the I sharing an experience with what appears to be another I. This is all I am truly certain of. I am certain of it because it is my perfectly consistent experience, Ive never experienced anything else.
So annoyingly perhaps, I would only agree with Experientialism as criterion for epistemological method, but consider it too “bold”; too determinate to speak to the whole of ontology.
Regardless, Im interested in the approach.
Existence has to be divided. Without other, no matter what type of being you are, there can be no ability to discern anything (what’s inside of you is outside of you, and there’s no outside of you, thus no you to distinguish anything in any way).
This unity idea is not true.
Personally, I agree with all you are saying,
My whole philosophy is based on the question what is otherness - what is it to relate to what one is not.
I call this valuing.
Valuing is a nice indicator of existence because it implies, thus logically contains that what it values i.e. an other, otherness.
I wanted to clarify what may have seemed confused.
A blood cell is inside of me, but the moment I name it, it’s outside of me.
So what is the “me”, the observer?
If the observer were universal (without division), there’d be nothing to observe.
This is why I always tell people that existence is fractured.
Ive long ago come to that quite liberating conclusion.
Existence must be discontinuous for there to be resistance, and there has to be resistance for there to be experience
People are looking for some sort of Omni being…
What they don’t understand is that if this were to occur, existence can’t exist.
But they are dead set (pun intended) on there being an omnibeing …
The ONLY Omni whatever that I know is non contradiction. That’s my higher power. Do I fall short? Hell yes I do!!
Do we all? Hell yes!!
I’ve got a pretty good gig here being someone who’s less contradictory now, but I can tell you, it’s not all rainbows and shit either. Much better than before though. Being at the forefront of non contradiction is scary and it affords luxury.
The thing is to never forget where you came from, and to keep eyes on the prize, non zero sum realities, non consent violating realities. To unzero sum this.
To take that forward - can you synthesize the concepts of non zero sum and resistance?
re: experience:
Whatever is in this experience behaves according to the valuator logic, which of itself accounts for experience.
Thus I know that whatever experience is, it is always of this principle.
What I do not know is that this principle, being experience, applies only to experience.
Does it have to be fractured for not to be a unity?
Are we now not succuming to a superstition of mathematics?
In my opinion, neither fractured nor not fractured. There is no one “it” the fracturdness or completeness of which can be pondered.
There is Zeus.
Rainbows and shit.
This is a good man.
[quote=“Pedro I Rengel”]
Does it have to be fractured for not to be a unity?
Are we now not succuming to a superstition of mathematics?
In my opinion, neither fractured nor not fractured. There is no one “it” the fracturdness or completeness of which can be pondered.
There is Zeus.[/quote
It probably depends
For those who have to guess, I suppose.
Yes. I like to use my cigarette analogy here.
You can’t smoke if cigarettes don’t exist.
The pushback from reality? You can’t smoke if you don’t have lungs.
That’s the tension of conditions.
They’re ever present, but, they don’t need to violate consent.
What I like about Ec is that, starting from consent, that is deeply Nietzschean (no offence meant if you don’t like him) and philosophical. As it is obvious that he never assumed a starting point, had to arrive at one, and very evidently the question he asked to get to it is philosophy itself: what matters?
Only what matters exists.
ONLY.
What matters exists.
I think maybabyhaps where FC and me split is where we place the burden of existence. He on what things that matter matter to, so using the grammatically simpler and better way to say that, what values. Me, on what is valued, simplified: what matters.
Where is the ACTION.
I believe what matters alows less mistake, as at no point does it even contain the question of existence. Not at anywhere does “existence” require justification, such as “because it does not not exist.” Existence doesn’t answer to you. You answer to it. Is my view.
However it cant mater if there is nothing to matter to.
Im not saying the focus of life shouldnt be on what matters. Im saying that ultimately, the mattering and the valuing are the same. Something must matter to itself (it must uphold itself as a standard) for anything else to be able to matter to it, just like there must be something that matters to it for it to matter to itself.
Indeed the latter is the more Nietzschean thought, the true perspectivism, pure presence. Except in a case like Alexander, where things were made to matter so they could be conquered. But that is a very rare exception, the case of Greece’s vengeance on Socrates.
Absent such a case it is hard to see where humanity ever produced a fully fledged monad. Maybe in the Yellow Emperor.