dispositional/categorical distinction The world consisting of only mind.

@vectorcube,

vectorcube;73912 wrote:

Be specific. Give me an author, or a book.

I'd be happy to logically demonstrate the incoherency of naive realism in an appropriate thread, simply and logically. We need refer to no 'authority', as refutation is rather simple.
But, here are a few references;
There are a couple of interesting looking 'pay per views';

"add up to a refutation of naive realism in quite the conclusive way that he ... phantom limbs as providing conclusive refutation of naive realism. But ..." a pay for view HERE
Representationalism]Why Representationalism?

As incredible as it might seem intuitively, representationalism is the only alternative that is consistent with the facts of perception.

The Epistemological Fact: It is impossible to have experience beyond the sensory surface.

Dreams, Hallucinations, and Visual Illusions clearly indicate that the world of experience is not the same thing as the world itself.

The observed Properties of Phenomenal Perspective clearly indicate that the world of experience is not the same as the external world that it represents.
Mind -- Sign In Page (pay per view)
SpringerLink - Journal Article
http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/~furedy/Papers/pi/pavlovauto1.doc
Reality and Truth in Mathematics
Beeson Philosophia Mathematica.1998; 6: 131-168
If naive realism argues that a red apple tree must exist because you perceive it to be there, then what happens if you were only hallucinating?
See Bishop Berkeley for a clear understanding.
(admittedly poor)
Russell's 'The Problems of Philosophy' (for a well accepted refutation)
The threefold cord: mind, body, and ... - Google Books

Quote:

The observables are still there in the world exist as potentiality, but collapse to some value by an observation. Idealism is a whole different concept.

There are no 'observables there in the world' as potentiality. Potential existence cannot be observes. Only what is perceived can exist.
What is, is! It isn't 'probably' is, it is!
The very act of perception (by a Conscious Perspective) is the manifestation of a feature of existence/Mind.
Perceiver and perceived are one and the same.
Anything that 'can be' already is! Simultaneously.
Observer and observed are one and the same.

@nameless,

Quote:

"add up to a refutation of naive realism in quite the conclusive way that he ... phantom limbs as providing conclusive refutation of naive realism. But ..." a pay for view HERE
Representationalism
Mind -- Sign In Page (pay per view)
SpringerLink - Journal Article
http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/~furedy...avlovauto1.doc
Reality and Truth in Mathematics
Beeson Philosophia Mathematica.1998; 6: 131-168
If naive realism argues that a red apple tree must exist because you perceive it to be there, then what happens if you were only hallucinating?
See Bishop Berkeley for a clear understanding.
(admittedly poor)
Russell's 'The Problems of Philosophy' (for a well accepted refutation)
The threefold cord: mind, body, and ... - Google Books

What you mean is common sense realism. Sure, i would love to see an argument.

Quote:

There are no 'observables there in the world' as potentiality. Potential existence cannot be observes. Only what is perceived can exist.
What is, is! It isn't 'probably' is, it is!
The very act of perception (by a Conscious Perspective) is the manifestation of a feature of existence/Mind.
Perceiver and perceived are one and the same.
Anything that 'can be' already is! Simultaneously.
Observer and observed are one and the same.

I mean by potentiality as that defined by the wave function as it evolve in time. The probability of an observable before an observation is even made without anyone looking, or sneaking a peak. Obviously, there is still something there, and not nothing when we are not looking.

@vectorcube,

vectorcube;73946 wrote:

What you mean is common sense realism. Sure, i would love to see an argument.

No, what i mean is the philosophy of 'naive realism'. Perhaps you know it by another name.
If you still need another simple refutation, other than the ones to which i linked, ask me after you've read them. The obvious one, in front of your nose works also;
If naive realism argues that a red apple tree must exist because you perceive it to be there, then what happens if you were only hallucinating?
See Bishop Berkeley for a clear understanding.

Quote:

I mean by potentiality as that defined by the wave function as it evolve in time.

Nothing 'evolves' in 'time'. It is a particular perspective that observes what is interpreted as 'time'. It is in that context only that 'time' exists. Just the same as there is no quantum leaping electron in 'time'. Nothing moves.
The wave does not 'evolve in time', it manifests to perception, to Conscious Perspective at the moment of observation.

Quote:

The probability of an observable before an observation is even made without anyone looking, or sneaking a peak. Obviously, there is still something there, and not nothing when we are not looking.

There is not anything that exists in the Universe that is not observed by Conscious Perspective.

@nameless,

Nameless, you do not think there is an actuality to derive reality's potentiality?

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401;73997 wrote:

Nameless, you do not think there is an actuality to derive reality's potentiality?

Huh?
What is perceived is 'actuality'. What is actual is what is perceived, actualized in that perception.
Whatever is 'potential', a term from the apparent limitations of linearity and sequence. Nothing 'has potential' to be or do or ... anything but what it is/ how it is perceived each and every moment/percept. There is no 'potential reality', there is reality! Now! and Now! and Now!!!
Does that respond to your intended meaning?

@nameless,

nameless;73948 wrote:

No, what i mean is the philosophy of 'naive realism'. Perhaps you know it by another name.
If you still need another simple refutation, other than the ones to which i linked, ask me after you've read them. The obvious one, in front of your nose works also;
If naive realism argues that a red apple tree must exist because you perceive it to be there, then what happens if you were only hallucinating?
See Bishop Berkeley for a clear understanding.

Berkeley is an idealist, so i pretty much know what he is going to do. This is not a mathematical,or anything of that sort. If some people don` t like it, they don ` t have to buy it.

Quote:

Nothing 'evolves' in 'time'. It is a particular perspective that observes what is interpreted as 'time'. It is in that context only that 'time' exists. Just the same as there is no quantum leaping electron in 'time'. Nothing moves.
The wave does not 'evolve in time', it manifests to perception, to Conscious Perspective at the moment of observation.

What? The time-dependent wave equation has time in it. I don ` t know what "manifest to perception" mean.

Quote:

There is not anything that exists in the Universe that is not observed by Conscious Perspective.

I doubt it.

@nameless,

Nameless,

where do the conscious perspectives come from? Is this causal thinking too linear then, should I be abolishing it, trying to find alternative methods of thought?

Are you asserting a sort of holism of conscious perspectives? I must ask, why would there be differentiation then? And this differentiation relies on conscious perspectives themselves.

How does one get around this? Maybe actuality is holistic, and reality (conscious perspectives) is differentiation?

I have a pencil, and the 'pencil' exists the way it is only as the perceptions from multiple perspectives. Eliminate those perspectives then what of the pencil? Is it anything at all anymore. Without a perspective, there are no longer objects, that doesn't mean there is all of a sudden no universe. There has to be something left over. Whatever is left over has no syntax to a perspective's context/understanding, but that doesn't mean actuality cannot be presupposed to make future naturalistic methods more cogent.

In a moral undertaking, your Conscious Perspective view is great, but otherwise it's not "quite right".

I might be misunderstanding you, but this is quite the problem that I'm going to think about, and I feel it goes farther than an Occamyish, holistic understanding, at least, that's what I'm sorry to say is all I've gathered.

Please correct me if I'm wrong about how I've interpreted your views.

@vectorcube,

nameless wrote:

There is not anything that exists in the Universe that is not observed by Conscious Perspective.

How did you come to this conclusion?

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401;74209 wrote:

Nameless,
where do the conscious perspectives come from?

What a fiendishly simple question!
1) We are 'Conscious Perspectives', and you are asking me where we come from. I, like quantum mechanics, have discovered Consciousness (the Ground of All being- Copenhagen interpretation)'Mind', to be 'that' of which we are an inherent 'feature' (vs the linear "come from").
So, in that context, Consciousness is a 'monism', 'one', perfect symmetry, god, Tao, whatever inadequate and empty word one uses to communicate the ineffable, the featureless, the nameless (sorry, couldn't resist! *__- )...
'We' are Consciousness' slant on itself, Mind (quantum possibility wave field, chaos, Bindu (undifferentiated potential discovered long before quantum physics found it), Consciousness..).
At this level of discourse we are pointing at 'monism' by using dualistic language, linear words to discuss the nonlinear, where poetry would probably be of more service, but, lets try to see between the lines and underneath the words.

Quote:

Is this causal thinking too linear then,

Causal thinking is linearity.
There is nothing 'wrong' with linearity (or anything else) as it is a Perspective that is a valid existing feature of the complete (existence) Universe.

It seems wise, though, to understand that what might be considered 'truth/reality' to one Perspective is not necessarily perceived in that way by another Perspective. We are all surrounding the same elephant and arguing who's seeing the 'real' elephant. We all are! The point is that no single Perspective, due to inherent limitations, can ever perceive the complete elephant. So many just egoically assume that they do, and all sorts of horror ensue, following 'beliefs' like dark groupies...

I do not see anything in existence as 'too' anything. Perfection! Ahhhh...

Quote:

should I be abolishing it, trying to find alternative methods of thought?

You cannot do or be anything other than who you are at any particular moment/percept.
Making attempts works fine in it's own context, though. And context can and does change (all Perspectives, moment a moment, are unique!). If you are a fan of 'free-will', you can so alter the perspective that you will be a feature of a whole new perceived world. (Personal note; I have spent many years 'surfing perspectives'; many empathic experiences with many understandings.)
There are tools that you can use to alter the Perspectives of which you are Conscious.
If that is your nature, you will certainly make the attempt.
I find that at times, there are other methods of gaining understanding of that which 'thought' is incapable; wholism, for instance. 'Thought' is 'often' (wiggle room) a linear tool, inappropriate for the examination of the non-linear.
You must have seen or heard of the old monk's cane comming down on the disciple's noggin as 'enlightenment' ... strikes the disciple? Hundreds of centuries of words amd practice condenced into a moment's 'straw that broke the camel's back', an elegant bonk indeed!
It seems to me the more perspectives you understand, even if understanding involves different forms of thought, the greater the awe!
But the most elegant of the linear forms is our critical thought and all it entails. So sweet, sooo elegant! I'm so totally addicted to the feeling of growing stretch-marks on this brain. Critical thought works swell! heh
Sometimes stuff appears in the mind all fully formed, very nonlinear, but rarely in the moment that i am involved with critical thought (any 'thought' being egoPerspective). The meditational Zen moments work well, apparently, for that and other nonlinearity.

Quote:

Are you asserting a sort of holism of conscious perspectives?

Absolutely! There are very wholistic Perspectives, or, perhaps I might be clearer in saying that many Perspectives are wholistic moments/percepts.
One moment i might be experiencing a wholism of Universe, many different moments (so called 'past' and 'future') experienced at once.
And, since "for every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" (- Book of Fudd), for every linear Perspective to whatever degree, there is likewise the other side of the coin, wholistic perspectives, to the exact opposite degree.
And yes, all Conscious Perspectives percepts/moments synchronously arising and annihilating in one Planck moment (almost) could well be the definition of 'wholism'. That Consciousness that is 'one', peeking out into every Perspective and seeing all that we see, ever, in one momentary 'flash of all the possible contents Mind' seems rather 'wholistic' to me.

Quote:

I must ask, why would there be differentiation then? And this differentiation relies on conscious perspectives themselves.

How does one get around this? Maybe actuality is holistic, and reality (conscious perspectives) is differentiation?

Ok, so far i do not understand you meaning of 'differentiation' as used.

Quote:

I have a pencil, and the 'pencil' exists the way it is only as the perceptions from multiple perspectives.

All the pencil needs for existence is one Perspective, but, oops, the First Law of Soul Dynamics is that there must be at least two Perspectives for there to be an elephant; 'duality', context. Not anyhing can exist without context. What has crudely been conceptualized as 'duality', is better termed 'context'. Duality implies 'differentiated from other', where context is simply one beautiful integrated balanced tapestry...

Quote:

Eliminate those perspectives then what of the pencil? Is it anything at all anymore.

The Perspective and what is perceived are one and the same. The 'you' that you see is an integral feature of the Universe, a 'reality' that makes the complete 'Reality'! Without at least two Conscious Perspectives, there is 'still' undifferentiated potential (for existence). Mind must be viewed from a limited view so 'differentiation' can be thus perceived. That is what our 'stuff' is, fragmentarily viewed mindstuff as appears, momentarily, to Conscious Perspective. 'We are how god can know itself', from a religious Perspective. (Semi-quote from Meister Eckhart)

Quote:

Without a perspective, there are no longer objects, that doesn't mean there is all of a sudden no universe.

"The complete Universe is defined/described as the sum-total of all Perspectives!" - Book of Fudd (9:11)

No Perspectives = no (perceived) Universe

Quote:

There has to be something left over.

Never anything there in the first place!

Quote:

In a moral undertaking, your Conscious Perspective view is great, but otherwise it's not "quite right".

Huh?

Quote:

Please correct me if I'm wrong about how I've interpreted your views.

I hope that I have helped you spiral in a bit closer to this Perspectival offering.

---------- Post added at 03:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:26 AM ----------

Zetherin;74211 wrote:

nameless wrote:

There is not anything that exists in the Universe that is not observed by Conscious Perspective.

How did you come to this conclusion?

That is my interpretation of what seems to be all the evidence that is available.
There can be no perceived evidence (and all 'evidence' is perceived) of the existence of 'something' if that (alleged) 'evidence' cannot be perceived! Like government intelligence, an oxymoron. At that point it must be/become a 'belief', as there can never be any evidence in support of unperceived 'things'.

@vectorcube,

nameless wrote:

That is my interpretation of what seems to be all the evidence that is available.
There can be no perceived evidence (and all 'evidence' is perceived) of the existence of 'something' if that (alleged) 'evidence' cannot be perceived! Like government intelligence, an oxymoron. At that point it must be/become a 'belief', as there can never be any evidence in support of unperceived 'things'.

What is your "evidence" that nothing exists outside of conscious perspective? It seems to me that's also a belief.

I think the evidence that things exist outside of conscious perspective lies within the fact that life (conscious perspective) only sprung up 3.8 billion years ago (about), whereas the formation of our planetary system is suggested to have appeared 4.6 billion years ago (about). Within those 800 million years, life, as we know it, did not exist. This means that planets were orbiting, particles were flying, and matter was colliding well before conscious perspective was even on the scene. Thus things existed in the universe without conscious perspective.

Currently we have mapped hundreds of thousands of planet in our solar systems and beyond, and we have no reason to believe all of them have life. It's probable, then, to presume that at least some of these planets and other large pieces of matter exist without conscious perspective viewing them. Do my socks still exist when I have my drawer closed and I'm not observing them? Of course. Clearly my socks don't go into a state of "non-existence" when the drawer is closed.

@Zetherin,

nameless;74248 wrote:

What a fiendishly simple question!
1) We are 'Conscious Perspectives', and you are asking me where we come from. I, like quantum mechanics, have discovered Consciousness (the Ground of All being- Copenhagen interpretation)'Mind', to be 'that' of which we are an inherent 'feature' (vs the linear "come from").
So, in that context, Consciousness is a 'monism', 'one', perfect symmetry, god, Tao, whatever inadequate and empty word one uses to communicate the ineffable, the featureless, the nameless (sorry, couldn't resist! *__- )...

See that's just not enough for me. I need a thought process or perspective or whatever you want to call it which can help me in a more naturalistic manner, and holism seems to contradict naturalism. Are you saying that in order to understand the cosmos, one might be able to do better than methodological naturalism, because you seem to be asserting all the time how 'linear' method is.

nameless;74248 wrote:

'We' are Consciousness' slant on itself, Mind (quantum possibility wave field, chaos, Bindu (undifferentiated potential discovered long before quantum physics found it), Consciousness..).

I understand how quantum mechanics and non locality demonstrate how in actuality, nothing is differentiated, that extension is as you might say, "Perspective driven", but where do you make the leap to suggest this actuality is a holism of conscious perspective.

nameless;74248 wrote:

At this level of discourse we are pointing at 'monism' by using dualistic language, linear words to discuss the nonlinear, where poetry would probably be of more service, but, lets try to see between the lines and underneath the words.

What are you saying one could transcend the holistic perspective?

nameless;74248 wrote:

And, since "for every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" (- Book of Fudd), for every linear Perspective to whatever degree, there is likewise the other side of the coin, wholistic perspectives, to the exact opposite degree..

I'd consider these to be perpendicular to one another rather than anti-parallel, and of course, how could I be mistaken?

nameless;74248 wrote:

And yes, all Conscious Perspectives percepts/moments synchronously arising and annihilating in one Planck moment (almost) could well be the definition of 'wholism'. That Consciousness that is 'one', peeking out into every Perspective and seeing all that we see, ever, in one momentary 'flash of all the possible contents Mind' seems rather 'wholistic' to me..

You are far from convincing me here. You're placing the planck moment in here out of nowhere, I fail to see it's connection.

Allow me to ask a question here. When it comes to planck moments, is not an example of extension? In actuality there are no planck moments, but perhaps planck moments are the infrastructure of extension? How can one have holism when there are mini holisms inside a holism. Does this not defeat the very concept?? I mean, the way you've stated so far is, the holistic perspective transcends the linear perspective, but the way I see it is, a fractal is due to this linear perspective, this object orientated perception of the cosmos. So how can there be fractal holism?

nameless;74248 wrote:

All the pencil needs for existence is one Perspective, but, oops, the First Law of Soul Dynamics is that there must be at least two Perspectives for there to be an elephant; 'duality', context. Not anyhing can exist without context. What has crudely been conceptualized as 'duality', is better termed 'context'. Duality implies 'differentiated from other', where context is simply one beautiful integrated balanced tapestry...

I don't want to follow laws and your quoted absolutes here. They're great rhetoric for where rhetoric applies but "Soul Dynamics", come on, that is a real turn off for me from learning about this.

nameless;74248 wrote:

The Perspective and what is perceived are one and the same. The 'you' that you see is an integral feature of the Universe, a 'reality' that makes the complete 'Reality'! Without at least two Conscious Perspectives, there is 'still' undifferentiated potential (for existence). ...

Disagree there. There only requires one.

nameless;74248 wrote:

No Perspectives = no (perceived) Universe...

And actuality is that which is left over if no perception is available.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;74351 wrote:

nameless wrote:

That is my interpretation of what seems to be all the evidence that is available.
There can be no perceived evidence (and all 'evidence' is perceived) of the existence of 'something' if that (alleged) 'evidence' cannot be perceived! Like government intelligence, an oxymoron. At that point it must be/become a 'belief', as there can never be any evidence in support of unperceived 'things'.

What is your "evidence" that nothing exists outside of conscious perspective? It seems to me that's also a belief.

It's probability. If I am holding a rock in my hand, I perceive rock and/in hand, there is a great probability that that is a 'reality' that can be 'tentatively trusted', if for no one else, for me. Good old empiricism. If, in my extended hand there is no rock, not anything to be perceived, 'nothing' up my sleeve, then the probability that there is a tiny unicorn in my hand is so infinitesimal that 'acting upon' the possibility that there really is an unperceived unicorn in my hand is the definition of delusional and dissociative problems?
You are asking me for evidence that there really is a tiny unicorn in your hand that you cannot perceive. Really?
I have never, nor has anyone, ever, perceived something which is unperceivable. There is not anything that is unperceivable. No evidence, ever, impossible, ok, statistically trivial.
Belief has nothing to do with it, unless it is thinking that there is a tiny unperceived unicorn in your hand, unperceived even by you! That would quality as a top level belief! Seems to me. Thats what the evidence says. Asking for evidence of a 'lack' is faulty logic. It is not possible to show evidence of anything that doesn't exist.

Quote:

I think the evidence that things exist outside of conscious perspective lies within the fact that life (conscious perspective) only sprung up 3.8 billion years ago (about),

Merely one Perspective among many, beginning with 'linear'. You cannot state this as if it were some complete universal factoid. It is not. For instance, viewed wholistically, your proposed linear theory is trivial and no more than idle speculation and science fiction.

Quote:

Thus things existed in the universe without conscious perspective.

All unverifiable thoughts. No more. You look at something in the Now! and 'imagine age, predominately due to youlinearPerspective.
You hook a rock up (Now!) to your particularly designed age measuring devices (designed to measure 'age stuff') and what do you think that they'll find? huh? and they give specific readouts Now! and you see them Now! and the brain goes ratchetty ratchetty ratchetty with a large dollop of linear Perspective and out comes thoughts and concepts of ('time') a 'then'. 'Then', is a fantasy, a memory (in the Now!), a thought... all, by the bye, 'happening' in the Now!
So, yeah, your particular 'reality' holds water in it's particular context. Linear.
Everything exists. Existence is context. Everything exists in (and as) it's context.

Quote:

Clearly my socks don't go into a state of "non-existence" when the drawer is closed.

No, not clearly at all. Not only not "clearly" at all, but what have you but your 'thoughts' to present in 'evidence'!
How would you 'know' (perceive) if they existed in the closed drawer, or in the dark, or even when you are wearing them but do not perceive their presence? Of course, while worrying about it, their existence would be in your thoughts/memories (if theres a difference). Context.

---------- Post added 07-03-2009 at 02:08 AM ----------

Holiday20310401;74441 wrote:

Are you saying that in order to understand the cosmos, one might be able to do better than methodological naturalism, because you seem to be asserting all the time how ‘linear’ method is.

Yes.

Quote:

where do you make the leap to suggest this actuality is a holism of conscious perspective.

Many Conscious Perspectives, one Conciousness/Mind.

Quote:

What are you saying one could transcend the holistic perspective?

Transcend? One is a linear Perspective, one is a wholistic Perspective, one is a multidimensional Perspective, one is a three dimensional Perspective, etc...
all valid in context, all features of the Complete Universe/existence.

Quote:

You are far from convincing me here.

Good, because that is far from my intent.

You’re placing the planck moment in here out of nowhere, I fail to see it’s connection.
It is one good definition of what a 'moment' is. A moment can also be called a percept, a 'unit' of perception.

Quote:

In actuality there are no planck moments,

And what is 'actuality'? Science doesnt have any problem accepting the 'reality/actuality' of Planck moments.

Quote:

mini holisms inside a holism.

One Consciousness, many Conscious Perspectives.

Quote:

Does this not defeat the very concept?? I mean, the way you’ve stated so far is, the holistic perspective transcends the linear perspective,

From a logic/science Perspective, it is a more modern understanding. I don't see 'trancend' as a useful term. It's not a matter of right and wrong, just different understandings, different Perspectives..

Quote:

but the way I see it is, a fractal is due to this linear perspective, this object orientated perception of the cosmos. So how can there be fractal holism?

You, and anything that you perceive, is a real feature of the Complete (wholistic) Universe. Only a 'limited' feature, though.
Fractal theory is another topic; perhaps an interesting one! It's so much more than a screensaver!

Quote:

I don’t want to follow laws and your quoted absolutes here. They’re great rhetoric for where rhetoric applies but “Soul Dynamics”, come on, that is a real turn off for me from learning about this.

I give you an irrefutable universal reality/law that I have discovered, and you want to quibble over the name I chose for it rather then the substance? Oh well, can't please everyone...

@nameless,

nameless;74474 wrote:

Everything exists. Existence is context. Everything exists in (and as) it's context.

And context is linear. Seems to me monism lacks context, and so does holism.

nameless;74474 wrote:

Transcend? One is a linear Perspective, one is a wholistic Perspective, one is a multidimensional Perspective, one is a three dimensional Perspective, etc...
all valid in context, all features of the Complete Universe/existence.

Merely trying to go along with the lopsided rhetoric you present to distinguish the two type of perspective.

nameless;74474 wrote:

It is one good definition of what a 'moment' is. A moment can also be called a percept, a 'unit' of perception.

Alright.

nameless;74474 wrote:

You, and anything that you perceive, is a real feature of the Complete (wholistic) Universe. Only a 'limited' feature, though.
Fractal theory is another topic; perhaps an interesting one! It's so much more than a screensaver!

I'd love to discuss this topic with you.

nameless;74474 wrote:

I give you an irrefutable universal reality/law that I have discovered, and you want to quibble over the name I chose for it rather then the substance? Oh well, can't please everyone...

Well it's not just the name, it's a matter of using it as an absolute, and I can't say as I agree with the content anyways. Just because you've equated duality with context (and I don't care to agree or disagree with that as I have nothing to back any notions I'd have on the matter) does not mean existence requires context when it comes to 'objects'.

You are saying it is an irrefutable law. Alright, but I fail to understand why there requires two perspectives in order to have the elephant. Doesn't the elephant count as a perspective?

The only thing I can come up with is that there requires relative perspectives in order for there to 'be' (whatever relevance that term has anymore) an observation. But I just don't see why this is necessary.

When it comes to matter, I can see why there would require at least relative particles in order for any matter to exist at all. But ofcourse, this hardly applies to perspectives.

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401;74586 wrote:

nameless wrote:

Everything exists. Existence is context. Everything exists in (and as) it's context.

And context is linear. Seems to me monism lacks context, and so does holism.

No, context is not necessarily linear, but can be perceived as such due to the fact that all of existence is context, even linear perceptions and that which they perceive. You cannot perceive anything without context, linear or not.

Quote:

Merely trying to go along with the lopsided rhetoric you present to distinguish the two type of perspective.

No rhetoric at all. Such unsupported and rude attacks are far from philosophical discourse, nor does it inspire thoughtful philosophical response. You may not like what I say, but calling it dismissive names? Better to ignore it than to display such 'peevishness'.

Quote:

nameless wrote:

You, and anything that you perceive, is a real feature of the Complete (wholistic) Universe. Only a 'limited' feature, though.
Fractal theory is another topic; perhaps an interesting one! It's so much more than a screensaver!

I'd love to discuss this topic with you.

Perhaps if you open a thread?

Quote:Originally Posted by nameless
I give you an irrefutable universal reality/law that I have discovered, and you want to quibble over the name I chose for it rather then the substance? Oh well, can't please everyone...

Well it's not just the name, it's a matter of using it as an absolute, and I can't say as I agree with the content anyways. Just because you've equated duality with context (and I don't care to agree or disagree with that as I have nothing to back any notions I'd have on the matter) does not mean existence requires context when it comes to 'objects'.

You are saying it is an irrefutable law. Alright, but I fail to understand why there requires two perspectives in order to have the elephant. Doesn't the elephant count as a perspective?

The only thing I can come up with is that there requires relative perspectives in order for there to 'be' (whatever relevance that term has anymore) an observation. But I just don't see why this is necessary.

When it comes to matter, I can see why there would require at least relative particles in order for any matter to exist at all. But ofcourse, this hardly applies to perspectives.

Philosophy Forum

dispositional/categorical distinction The world consisting of only mind.

Quick Links

My Account

able2know