Totality

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 09:31 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;131011 wrote:
What do you call it?


It has been called, "happy horseshit".
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 10:53 am
@Zetherin,
I see it as the TAO, the Anima or the Fleuma...
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 11:02 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;131031 wrote:
I see it as the TAO, the Anima or the Fleuma...


What? Happy horseshit is what you see as the TAO and the rest?
 
jgweed
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 11:03 am
@Reconstructo,
The only way one can know "totality" seems to be akin to the way one can know "the Pacific Ocean" or "Mankind." Now these terms seem meaningful, and "everyone knows" what is meant by them. It is only when we drill down to that components of the term that they seem not to make sense; as we begin to think of the concrete instances, for example, we readily find gaps that make us less sure we know what we are thinking about.
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 11:08 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;131035 wrote:
What? Happy horseshit is what you see as the TAO and the rest?


...No Kenneth I was obviously referring to the Can-can that Granny use to love in the old days... :whoa-dude:
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 11:10 am
@jgweed,
jgweed;131037 wrote:
The only way one can know "totality" seems to be akin to the way one can know "the Pacific Ocean" or "Mankind." Now these terms seem meaningful, and "everyone knows" what is meant by them. It is only when we drill down to that components of the term that they seem not to make sense; as we begin to think of the concrete instances, for example, we readily find gaps that make us less sure we know what we are thinking about.


But what does "knowing the Pacific Ocean" or, "knowing Mankind" mean? I don't believe those phrases are English. "Knowing about..." is English. Maybe you mean that you are acquainted with the Pacific Ocean, as in, "I know John Smith" meaning, that you are acquainted with John Smith? I don't think that when someone says that he "knows the Pacific Ocean" that he means he knows what the term, "the Pacific Ocean" means. Does he (whatever he might mean by "I know the Pacific Ocean").

---------- Post added 02-22-2010 at 12:11 PM ----------

Fil. Albuquerque;131041 wrote:
...No Kenneth I was obviously referring to the Can-can that Granny use to love in the old days... :whoa-dude:


Oh. Maybe, then, you should be more specific.
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 11:27 am
@kennethamy,


---------- Post added 02-22-2010 at 12:49 PM ----------

kennethamy;131043 wrote:
Oh. Maybe, then, you should be more specific.


Specific about what ? what the hell do you want to objectify in the TAO ???

The Happy Bullshit ?

...as phenomena Objects are means not ends...
( Meta-Objects might be ends but then there is Omega running lose out there... :rolleyes: )
 
Ding an Sich
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 12:10 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Whenever I deal with Totality I think more along the lines of the categories, and in particular, Kant with his Transcendental Categories. The unity is the totality of the plurality. The functions themselves have no meaning unless applied to experience. For example: I see a large body of water and unify (through the process of synthesizing the manifold of appearances, that is, the water, and also the plurality) it through the plurality into a totality. We give the unified thought a name to signify it's unity. We do this with ourselves as well with the word 'I'. Are trying to get away from unity by looking more at plurality in this thread? That would be rather interesting to talk about plurality alone.
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 12:23 pm
@Ding an Sich,
Maybe knowing is about not Knowing...same is to say, to not objectify...or one enters relativity...is about the link...the plus and the minus, not about numbers alone...

YouTube - Gregory Chaitin Lecture Lisbon University 2004 Pt 1

further on...

YouTube - Gregory Chaitin Lecture Lisbon University 2004 Pt 8

plus...

YouTube - Gregory Chaitin Lecture Lisbon University 2004 Pt 9
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 03:49 pm
@jgweed,
jgweed;131037 wrote:
The only way one can know "totality" seems to be akin to the way one can know "the Pacific Ocean" or "Mankind." Now these terms seem meaningful, and "everyone knows" what is meant by them. It is only when we drill down to that components of the term that they seem not to make sense; as we begin to think of the concrete instances, for example, we readily find gaps that make us less sure we know what we are thinking about.


I agree. The totality is a difficult concept. To tackle the whole, the all, the everything is not a little ambitious. Totality may even be a mirage, but it seems like a philosophically significant mirage. If philosophy is the most "zoomed-out" science, then perhaps it zooms out in attempt to get everything in view. Of course it would need to zoom-out behind itself, and account for itself, if it hopes to account for everything. According to Kojeve, Spinoza could not account for himself in relation to his system. Whereas Hegel saw this difficultly and did what he could with it.

---------- Post added 02-23-2010 at 04:50 PM ----------

Ding_an_Sich;131069 wrote:
Whenever I deal with Totality I think more along the lines of the categories, and in particular, Kant with his Transcendental Categories. The unity is the totality of the plurality. The functions themselves have no meaning unless applied to experience.


I think you're right, generally. The grandest totality would be the totality of experience, including the experience of this totality of experience.

---------- Post added 02-23-2010 at 04:58 PM ----------

Zetherin;131011 wrote:
What do you call it?

I try not to be stuck on any particular name. I'm more fascinated by it as a transcendental issue and also it's place in metaphysics.

---------- Post added 02-23-2010 at 05:01 PM ----------

Fil. Albuquerque;131031 wrote:
I see it as the TAO, the Anima or the Fleuma...


The TAO, I can understand. I don't know what you mean by Anima of Fleuma. Elaborate if you're inclined. Jung's anima seems like an unlikely candidate, but I know the word has other meanings.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 04:07 pm
@Reconstructo,
What could the phrase, "the totality of experience" possibly mean? The totality of whose experience, during what time, what kind of experience? Experience of what? Experience as contrasted with what else? The mind boggles. It does not follow that just because it makes sense to talk of all the eggs in the carton of eggs, that it makes sense to talk about all the experience there is, or even worse, talk about just "all" which is what, after all, "total" means.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 04:13 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;131547 wrote:
What could the phrase, "the totality of experience" possibly mean? The totality of whose experience, during what time, what kind of experience? Experience of what? Experience as contrasted with what else? The mind boggles. It does not follow that just because it makes sense to talk of all the eggs in the carton of eggs, that it makes sense to talk about all the experience there is, or even worse, talk about just "all".



In the Transcendental Deduction, Kant aims to show that the categories derived in the Metaphysical Deduction are conditions of all possible experience.
Critique of Pure Reason - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 07:19 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;131550 wrote:
In the Transcendental Deduction, Kant aims to show that the categories derived in the Metaphysical Deduction are conditions of all possible experience.
Critique of Pure Reason - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Too bad about Kant.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 07:35 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;131632 wrote:
Too bad about Kant.


It seems to me that it's only thanks to Kant that objectivity was salvaged from Hume. (That's an oversimplification, but what isn't?)
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 07:53 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;131650 wrote:
It seems to me that it's only thanks to Kant that objectivity was salvaged from Hume. (That's an oversimplification, but what isn't?)


Lots of things are not oversimplification. But I don't even think that is true.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 08:04 pm
@Reconstructo,
Perhaps "totality" is related to the "transcendental unity of apperception." It might be nothing but the largest possible framing/naming of experience.

I also see it as related to the (trans-)numerical concept of infinity.

The word "totality" is designed to circumscribe everything. Compare to "the world is all that is the case."
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 08:38 pm
@Reconstructo,
Hey R - I think what you're feeling for is 'The One'. This is what Plotinus declared as the source of all being. (Zetherin was pretty right in declaring it as 'spirit'.)

Now you might say 'one what? which one?' And here you are beginning to intuit non-dualism. Why is that? Because duality (and, necessarily, number) begins via the differentiation of self-and-other, subject-and-object, within which our whole world is arrayed.

But the totality of experience includes the observer. There is no way to name or conceive of the totality of experience. This is what you have to enter via the meditative absorption - being at one with it, not analyzing it. It is a different mode of awareness.

Quote:
[INDENT] The Tao is like an empty bowl, yet it may be used without ever needing to be filled.
It is the deep and unfathomable source of the ten thousand things.
Blunt the sharpness.
Untie the knot.
Soften the glare.
Settle with the dust.
It is hidden deep yet ever present.
I do not know whose child it is.
It existed before the common ancestor
.[/INDENT]
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 09:17 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;131537 wrote:
The TAO, I can understand. I don't know what you mean by Anima of Fleuma. Elaborate if you're inclined. Jung's anima seems like an unlikely candidate, but I know the word has other meanings.


---------- Post added 02-23-2010 at 10:31 PM ----------

...this is the LAW materialized in the Historical process...the ONE path...
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 10:32 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;131692 wrote:
Hey R - I think what you're feeling for is 'The One'. This is what Plotinus declared as the source of all being. (Zetherin was pretty right in declaring it as 'spirit'.)

Now you might say 'one what? which one?' And here you are beginning to intuit non-dualism. Why is that? Because duality (and, necessarily, number) begins via the differentiation of self-and-other, subject-and-object, within which our whole world is arrayed.

But the totality of experience includes the observer. There is no way to name or conceive of the totality of experience. This is what you have to enter via the meditative absorption - being at one with it, not analyzing it. It is a different mode of awareness.


I agree. I'm a big fan of the One, both from the Tao and from Parmenides. Also familiar with the concept of non-dual. Yes, dichotomy as emanation is familiar to me. I love this stuff. As far as experience, there is only so much anyone can do to get that across. In the Jesus and Hamlet thread I was contrasting the two sorts of absolute philosophy. The transcendent and the self-subverting. Between these two poles lies practical philosophy, which also interests me but not so much as the others.

"That art thou." "I am the Truth." "The Way that can be told is not the True Way." All of this is great.

I do have respect for meditation. I have not much practiced it. But this is largely because of the amount of joy I get from creating. For me, splitting hairs on issues like "totality" is child's play. (One of those metaphors I love.) Wittgenstein wanted to show the fly how to get out of the bottle. But not all flies have a problem with the bottle. Some flies may know how to get out of the bottle, but the bottle amuses them.

I've cracked open some Kant lately and the One theme intrigues me. I think we are dealing perhaps with a transcendental category, at least as far as thinking goes. But thinking is only part of experience. It's just that metaphor/myth, music, narrative, dance, paintings, sculptures, silence may be better at representing the though/feeling associated with transcendence. I think this is why I do play around in the bottle as far as this forum goes. Because it's a word-medium. I see nothing wrong with hinting at the transcendent but the incidental is ALP.

Finnegans Wake - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 10:42 pm
@Reconstructo,
With One and One alone there is no Cause...just Being...Cause is a temporal Metaphor for demonstrating One consistency...Cause is Circular Logic in the System, not beyond the system...how could it be otherwise ???



It cannot be FALSIFIED !!! (not even by itself)

...Freedom in every sense is a fallacy ! Therefore Determinism must be True...

Post Scriptum: Another interesting Idea of mine is that maybe there is only ONE dimension...from Which the others are simulated...to this I call the AXIS...(axis of Order)
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/20/2024 at 07:35:47