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.
Khan doesn’t qualify because he only had the vanquishing aspect and not the cultivating one - except if you take that very literally and just reckon with how many women he impregnated. Offspring of his army is said to be a significant percentage of Central Asian population. His invasion kind of bottlenecked at the Bosporus, so perhaps most of his army ended up settling there and making sure whatever nation would arise would be in their spirt. It is perhaps the most difficult piece of land in the world to maintain, between the Christians, the Russians and the Arabs. My experience with Turks has usually been good, there is much Greek in them. But Greeks are clearly less hungry, more Apollonian. Still, if culture rises from passion, it would be pleasant to be able to hope for something like a Ionian Spring someday.
Experience naturally is the driving force of all we are discussing here.
Experience as a force is interesting.
Experience is an engine, valuing is a wheel.
valuing is first, the wheel alone is more complete than the engine alone. It runs downhill, down the hill of time.
Experience is how the wheel is able to go up the hill. Against time, reflecting on itself, having memory, building backwards in time through science, conjuring the past and from that, manipulating the present and controlling the future. Science interrupts time, goes back at causes and behind them and generates them artificially, it operates inside of time rather than only as a process of time.
“Im not saying the focus of life shouldnt be on what matters”
The focus of philosophy, says I. The focus of life is already on what matters.
Right. But then there is no way back and no small way about it either. It can’t be gradual, it has to be a proposition worthy of the destiny of mankind across the millennia.
Essentially it has to invert Plate’s commandment, which was:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtxbIkfDDO4[/youtube]
What if unity is only ever illusion?
And also, multiplicity is a multiplicity of unities.
Is counting really the task of philosophy? Naming maybe. Continuous experience, there’s a name. But when the counting starts, an agenda is suspected.
You may have experienced counting. But you have not experienced one-ness. Because that doesn’t make sense. One is a number. Not an experience. You may have experienced a feeling of one-ness, which feeling is the stuff of illusion, but not one-ness. That’s good enough for mistics, alchemists of feeling, but is it proper for philosophy, the task of clarity?
The sole function of philosophy is to ensure that the right kind of questions are being asked - nothing more / nothing less
Clarity can in part come from that although philosophy cannot answer any questions - if it could then it would be science
To say that one is just a number is to impose a literal interpretation - one or oneness can be many things albeit only subjectively so
I can for example feel at one with myself which has got nothing to do with the actual number one because it is just a state of mind
No offence bro, but that feels like a non-answer.
Also what’s the deal? Am I talking to the same person?
Its not a non answer because one is not simply a mathematical quantity
Other examples may be less concrete but that is not of relevance here
So one can be referenced from religion - science - philosophy - psychology
One God - One Universe - One Reality - One Consciousness - One Humanity
One can also be the totality of existence expressed in its simplest form
One Man!
One Mission!
One Bad Mother!
Try this one yourself. Grab a pie, an apple, a piece of cloth - any one thing.
In itself it is whole and it is itself throughout its self, united as itself.
Now cut it up. Once it’s divided into 2 or more pieces, it’s no longer “one” in unity. Instead, each slice is its own unity, separated from other slices.
Voila, you have 2 or more things instead of 1 - and you did so by means of creating a gap within unity to make discrete plurality.
Except really, for all the air bubbles etc. in pies and apples, between the strands of fabric in the cloth - there were gaps all along in these supposed “unities of consistent identity throughout themselves”?
Well, there is no gap of nothingness in between these air gaps and that which they separate.
Really there is no gap anywhere, it’s all a continuous transition throughout an unbroken unity.
Unity by derivation just means oneness. One continuous thing is not divided into 2 more or more discrete pieces: with no possible gaps it fundamentally can’t be.
Fundamentally it’s unified throughout itself: fundamental unity.
I don’t know how to explain it any better, I’m sorry.
What you say about a superstition of mathematics is exactly what “divides up” Continuous Experience into discrete experiences. It’s not the truth that it’s divisible, but it’s useful to think so e.g. maths.
But I did have an answer to your question: it is that there cannot be an answer for the very specific and important reasons that I explained.
Resistance requires discontinuity, sure. But what resistance is there, fundamentally?
The universe unfolds unto itself effortlessly, it doesn’t seem to need any help, it has no struggle nor any motive to do any differently to what it’s doing.
It’s humans who come up against resistance as soon as we attempt to manipulate existence to be different to how it is: to exert power.
You need knowledge to predict and control: you need discrete experiences to exert power.
You need to see the world differently to how it is, through these means, for resistance to be born.
Until then, there is no resistance - just effortlessness and the inevitability of becoming.
Gaps are contingent upon this artificial division of Continuous Experience into discrete experiences.
Good find.