Totality

@Reconstructo,

[INDENT] Food for thought.

Quote:

Transcendental is the philosophy that makes us aware of the fact that the first and essential laws of this world that are presented to us are rooted in our brain and are therefore known a priori. It is called transcendental because it goes beyond the whole given phantasmagoria to the origin thereof. Therefore, as I have said, only the Critique of Pure Reason and generally the critical (that is to say, Kantian) philosophy are transcendental.
[RIGHT]- Parerga and Paralipomena

[RIGHT]
[/RIGHT]
[/INDENT]

@Reconstructo,

There is a metaphor, I can't remember where from exactly, about how a two-dimensional surface would perceive a conical shape. If the cone enters into the surface, the description the surface would give would be that 'it is like a circle, that changes its size all the time'.

Of course, from the viewpoint of a two-dimensional being, it is impossible to comprehend a three dimensional shape, so the 'surface' will theorize about the relationship between these various 'circles' that seem to appear in its midst.

This is a sketchy metaphor but it serves to illustrate that when you come to consider questions of 'the totality' you are in rather a similar position to 'the surface' considering, and trying to come to terms with, 'the cone'.

The 'surface' perspective is roughly analogous to the our felt experience as a subjective presence in a realm of objects. Of course this is fundamental to existence itself. It is a given for all of us as individual living beings.

The non-dual perspective is able to perceive the situation of the being-in-the-world from perspective outside it - from an extra dimensional perspective, as it were. Eastern philosophy is able to accommodate these perspectives, and to provide a way of integrating it as they have explored the non-dual perspective for millenia. There might be other approaches also, but whichever one you take, it is a radical perspective. Just bear that in mind dealing with these ideas.

Hope that is helpful.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;131734 wrote:

There is a metaphor, I can't remember where from exactly, about how a two-dimensional surface would perceive a conical shape. If the cone enters into the surface, the description the surface would give would be that 'it is like a circle, that changes its size all the time'.

Of course, from the viewpoint of a two-dimensional being, it is impossible to comprehend a three dimensional shape, so the 'surface' will theorize about the relationship between these various 'circles' that seem to appear in its midst.

This is a sketchy metaphor but it serves to illustrate that when you come to consider questions of 'the totality' you are in rather a similar position to 'the surface' considering, and trying to come to terms with, 'the cone'.

Excellent theme. Have ever read Flatland? A Sphere visits the Two-Dimensional Realm of Flatland, and takes a Square on a spiritual journey to higher dimensions (and also lower.) The Sphere appears like that cone you mentioned. The author was coming from a spiritual perspective. He was also a math man. So he used the obvious metaphors. Of course Flatland is terrified of this Sphere and the Square is persecuted as a fool and a liar for describing this sphere and his journey to other dimensions.

---------- Post added 02-24-2010 at 01:12 AM ----------

jeeprs;131734 wrote:

The non-dual perspective is able to perceive the situation of the being-in-the-world from perspective outside it - from an extra dimensional perspective, as it were.

But the non-dual perspective can hardly be described except in dualistic/pluralistic way such as this. This is not to negate the experience or to play the wise guy but to present my sincere response. Is discourse essentially the drawing of distinctions? Hegel presented Substance as Subject. Kant's T.E. Heidegger's Being. They are all individual "signed"(Deleuze) concepts but they do seem to echo something, perhaps a transcendental category, but this is to refer to it by a signed concept. "The uncreated." "The one." "Indeterminate Being." "Ineffable." "I am what I am." I know you are well aware that the word can only take us so far, and that's why you offer context. Extra-dimensional is a great metaphor, but it's twist on the old duality. Appearance versus Reality. Sin versus Grace. Darkness and light. As I said, this doesn't negate it for me in the least. And maybe you disagree with me focusing on the husk or the pointer. The Concept is my favorite toy perhaps.

@Reconstructo,

Aha! Flatland. That is what I was thinking of. And I am not disagreeing with anything you say whatever. Well said.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;131756 wrote:

Aha! Flatland. That is what I was thinking of. And I am not disagreeing with anything you say whatever. Well said.

@Reconstructo,

I was just thinking that even if the concept can only serve as a pointer, the Concept Crunchers are doing us a favor perhaps by trimming the concept to its naked minimum.

Modern art often deserves some mockery but as the representation of representation (Art's Self-Portrait) it moves toward empty space as the ideal sculpture and silence as perfect music. And yet this empty space or silence is only ideal at the end of a long tradition. Otherwise it's invisible frame is missed?

@Reconstructo,

Account of the depiction of nondualism in Asian art and iconography was one of the pioneering contributions of Ananda Coomaraswamy

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;131679 wrote:

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."

Yes it is but totality is not the extent of the transcendental unity of apperception. We use our experience (plurality) as a way to represent ourselves as the 'I' (totality and then unity). All of our experience, when unified, becomes concious but only through the 'I'.

@Ding an Sich,

Ding_an_Sich;131811 wrote:

Yes it is but totality is not the extent of the transcendental unity of apperception. We use our experience (plurality) as a way to represent ourselves as the 'I' (totality and then unity). All of our experience, when unified, becomes concious but only through the 'I'.

The issue is, what makes any experience my experience. It is, of course, because I have it. I am conscious of it. Hume had some considerable difficulty with this issue because of his view that I am just a bundle of perceptions.

@Reconstructo,

Whenever you become concious of something through the 'I' it automatically makes it yours. I and my deal with a unity.

@Ding an Sich,

Ding_an_Sich;131991 wrote:

Whenever you become concious of something through the 'I' it automatically makes it yours. I and my deal with a unity.

Was the contract in writing? An unwritten contract is not worth the paper it is written on, you know. (Thanks to Samuel Goldwyn).

@Ding an Sich,

Ding_an_Sich;131811 wrote:

Yes it is but totality is not the extent of the transcendental unity of apperception. We use our experience (plurality) as a way to represent ourselves as the 'I' (totality and then unity). All of our experience, when unified, becomes concious but only through the 'I'.

I think I understand what you mean. But here lies the problem, discussed in a different way earlier in this thread. The "transcendental unity of apperception" as a concept is also not what it refers to but only a concept quite similar to that of totality. In my view, the "I" and the "totality" are, in this context, synonymous, though "totality" is certainly used in ways different than the way I am using it. I believe Kant wrote that this "I" could not be known directly. Heidegger's "Being" is really quite similar. And so is the word "consciousness."

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;132030 wrote:

I think I understand what you mean. But here lies the problem, discussed in a different way earlier in this thread. The "transcendental unity of apperception" as a concept is also not what it refers to but only a concept quite similar to that of totality. In my view, the "I" and the "totality" are, in this context, synonymous, though "totality" is certainly used in ways different than the way I am using it. I believe Kant wrote that this "I" could not be known directly. Heidegger's "Being" is really quite similar. And so is the word "consciousness."

The 'I' that cannot be know dirrectly is the simple 'I' or the soul. I am pretty sure that the 'I' or a composite 'I' that is unified can be known through empirical conciousness. Simple and unified are different though. Conciousness and Kant's unity of apperception are in many ways the same.

Unfortunately I have not read Heidegger to know what he means by being. Im still trekking through Hegel and Schopenhauer. :-/

What do you mean by totality anyway? Could you give me a definition of it just so I know for future reference?

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;110065 wrote:

Why are our "biggest" words singular? Are we dealing with a unity archetype?

Is "science" (another singular word) itself capable of such numinosity? Can we make a god of the "?" itself?

Does the most caustic criticism meet up with the most cautionless mysticism here? Could we make sense of beings without a nexus of being to place them within?

Are we ever not under the shadow of some Totality?

Totality is an all-encompassing word.

---------- Post added 02-26-2010 at 10:51 AM ----------

Ding_an_Sich;132810 wrote:

What do you mean by totality anyway? Could you give me a definition of it just so I know for future reference?

It's the all. It's the circle around all taxonomic circles.

---------- Post added 02-26-2010 at 10:53 AM ----------

Ding_an_Sich;132810 wrote:

Im still trekking through Hegel and Schopenhauer. :-/

I've love both these guys. The "totality" relates to Hegel's Absolute. I've left it sort of vague as I am exploring it as an archetype, recurrently manifested in philosophy and religion.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;132847 wrote:

Totality is an all-encompassing word.

---------- Post added 02-26-2010 at 10:51 AM ----------

But surely not. What is all encompassing about the word, "totality"? So far as I can tell, it encompasses only the word, "total". Words and things. Words and things.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;132847 wrote:

Totality is an all-encompassing word.

Are you dealing with totality as it relates to the sum total of all appearances? In this case wouldnt we be dealing with the world, and specifically, nature? Sorry if I am enquiring further as to what you mean by totality. Also do you mean it as a function of the mind or of totality as it exists independent of oneself?

@Ding an Sich,

Ding_an_Sich;132878 wrote:

Are you dealing with totality as it relates to the sum total of all appearances? In this case wouldnt we be dealing with the world, and specifically, nature? Sorry if I am enquiring further as to what you mean by totality. Also do you mean it as a function of the mind or of totality as it exists independent of oneself?

I thought he was dealing with the word, "totality". That is what he says he is dealing with. "Totality is an all-encompassing word", he writes.

@Ding an Sich,

Ding_an_Sich;132878 wrote:

Are you dealing with totality as it relates to the sum total of all appearances?

I was using "totality" as the name for an archetype of concepts that appear both in religion and philosophy. For this reason, I did not carefully define it.
The One, the Absolute, Being, Brahman, Spinoza's God-Nature, etc.

Of course a concept is just a concept. I think we "circumscribe circumscription." A totalizing concept would be one that includes/synthesizes all others. Words like "All", "Everything", the "Universe."

It should be noted, however, that meaning isn't separate from social practice, and that words generally lack the precision of numbers.

---------- Post added 02-26-2010 at 03:34 PM ----------

kennethamy;132860 wrote:

But surely not. What is all encompassing about the word, "totality"? So far as I can tell, it encompasses only the word, "total". Words and things. Words and things.

Big deal, I used "word" where I meant to use "concept." The person I was talking with managed to realize that.

---------- Post added 02-26-2010 at 03:36 PM ----------

Ding_an_Sich;132810 wrote:

The 'I' that cannot be know dirrectly is the simple 'I' or the soul. I am pretty sure that the 'I' or a composite 'I' that is unified can be known through empirical conciousness. Simple and unified are different though.

Yes, I agree that an "empirical I" can be known/assemble. I think the self-concept is just that, a concept. But the "simple I" is, as you indicated, a different more fascinating concept. The simple "I" seems to connect both to Heidegger's "Being," and Wittgenstein's "self as the limit of the world."

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;132932 wrote:

It should be noted, however, that meaning isn't separate from social practice, and that words generally lack the precision of numbers.

Good qualification. It is perhaps too easy to delve into the various conceptual and cultural frameworks that exist in this day and age, due to the plethora of information that has been created about every conceivable topic. Handle with care (I am sure you do.)

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;132941 wrote:

Good qualification. It is perhaps too easy to delve into the various conceptual and cultural frameworks that exist in this day and age, due to the plethora of information that has been created about every conceivable topic. Handle with care (I am sure you do.)

I agree. "Handle with care" is good advice. This is one of the reasons I concentrate on Western philosophy. Western philosophy is complicated enough. Still, I do love the Tao Te Ching, for instance.

Philosophy Forum

Quick Links

My Account

able2know