I'm sorry, I shall be more clear. The prophecy was revealed, Neo is the one! Morpheus told me.

Well,yes there is a tendency to get carried away in this thread
but
It really all hinges back to the notion that there is some kind or rational intelligence (mind) embedded in the structure and creation of the universe.
A notion which Einstein himself held and which many quantum physicists held.
A notion which could be supported by the rational intelligibility and the ability to express natural law in mathematical form.

It is an idea which you do not hold and so any subsequent conversation which does accept this basic notion of mind, reason, and ideals having any fundamental role in nature and reality seems silly and incomprehensible to you.

Some of the language I admit seems strange and "flight of ideas", "manic" or in some cases a form of "word salad" all terms used for mental disease, bipolar mania or schizophrenia of various kinds.

It really all hinges back to the notion that there is some kind or rational intelligence (mind) embedded in the structure and creation of the universe.

Yeah, I guess I'll just never understand why someone would believe such a thing. I'm not of the faith sort, I don't think.

Aristotle wrote that sometimes nothing but ridicule is appropriate.

...mostly kenneth you speak to yourself and don?t even bother to make the bridge with other people perspectives, or different possibilities...I would love to see you propose something which is not yet "proven" (accepted) one of this days...and take some risk for a change. :sarcastic:

...mostly kenneth you speak to yourself and don?t even bother to make the bridge with other people perspectives, or different possibilities...I would love to see you propose something which is not yet "proven" (accepted) one of this days...and take some risk for a change. :sarcastic:

---------- Post added 03-02-2010 at 01:45 PM ----------

...I mean do you have a personnel theory about anything or you just borrow ?

Anyone can think up a possibility, but what does that prove? Why would he, or anyone, propose an idea, just for the sake of proposing an idea?

I think it is just possible that my grandmother is a bicycle, but I am bothered by the fact that she has no wheels.

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



..this kind of abuse only show?s your true background and your lake of insight in most issues...

...it proves that you are open to criticism and take some heat for a change...

...besides unless he is perfectly satisfied with everything, he must have some kind of opinion\theories on some of this issues...but he does n?t disclose it...

But everyone here is open to criticism, whether they like it or not. We're on an online philosophy forum publishing our thoughts, for God sakes!

In regards to kennethamy, he probably hasn't been presented many arguments which have persuaded him to change his views. And I don't think anyone should entertain an idea simply for the sake of entertaining it. Now, if he were ignoring reason, that'd be a different story. I personally believe if people aren't receptive to reason they shouldn't be here. But there's nothing wrong with staying with a reasonable idea, if it is in fact a reasonable idea.

My point is so simple...little or allot, Freedom is inexplicable...the way I grasp it, any manor of Logic as to be close in any sense...either zooming in or out, you cannot have any sort of open boundary...for instance when we say that something "emerges randomly" there?s no other possible meaning to this then to admit that at some point in the process something is not fully causing something else...same is to say that the outcome is not indeed NECESSARY...and such that such there?s somewhere in the chain of events a mismatch, which I really cannot grasp as an acceptable perspective...how can A lead to B or C randomly ? were is the link ?...its just crazy ! ...and I really don?t know why and how people buy it without complaining...maybe I?m just limited, but then I?m open to clarity if someone truly as some on this concern...Stochastic tables are far from sufficient explanation on this...

---------- Post added 03-02-2010 at 09:40 AM ----------

...more, as I see it, so it seams, in my poor conception, you can throw out Noumena if this is True...Becoming, the eternal Devir is obviously not Being, nor does it allow?s for Being to be...as Being MUST\IS defined and finished, limited to itself, and limiting everything else in its essence...other then this is far beyond any explanation that I can possible comprehend...nevertheless I welcome your effort to show me otherwise, its indeed a noble attitude...and teaching, is all about this ! :a-ok:

I think i have it figured, man. It's all in my avatar. Man thinks digitally & cannot think other wise. But if abstracts the digit, he sees that it must be made of being and negativiy, which can never be experienced in their seperated forms, but only together in the form of logos & number.

Time is not continuous like I thought. It seems to be because we think of it spatially. This is why eternity requires only the concept of being. This is why eternity is 1 and Man is -1. Pure negativity is the nous that cuts up continuous spatial being into thinkable digital pieces. We can understand pure spatial being by looking at the number pi and Zeno's paradoxes...

So freedom is possible because the source of undifferentiated or continous being is utterly unknowable. In terms of the trinity, this is the Father or the Demiurge. We can only know him digitally, not as he is in himself. God is absolutely incarnate, but remains mysterious. We can know all that there is to know about the structure of man's relationship to the Father and the Holy Ghost --> Continuous being and negativity...but we cannot know what the Father has made for us. This is where Kant's noumena comes in. We can only know the transcendental, the structure, not the incidental, which is inconceivable spatial being....the father is an infinity sign. the holy ghost is nous or the negative sign. the logos or the philosopher or the wise man is the plus sign, which is another way to write the triangle....this is fitting, because the wise man is nothing but this understanding of himself as triangle, plus sign.....and this is only possible because he is logos, which is the meeting of nous and infinity....

logos and time are actually one. time is not spatial, despite our metaphor. it's digital, conceptual, entirely made of logos/memory/project.

history and the philosopher are the desire for pure negativity.....which is only experienced in error until this error is no longer vulnerable to antithesis and absolute knowledge is attained.

I personally believe if people aren't receptive to reason they shouldn't be here.

He's back! Let the word salad be served!

I've come around to that view....but Reason is hard to come by...It's a long way to the top if you want that rock not to

---------- Post added 03-02-2010 at 02:47 PM ----------


listen-n-learn...............................+

Incidentally, Zetherin, midst the tumult and chaos I did try and further address your question regarding 'the moon syllogism' at this post.

Metaphysics is the science that seeks to define what is ultimately real as opposed to what is merely apparent.

The contrast between appearance and reality, however, is by no means peculiar to metaphysics. In everyday life people distinguish between the real size of the Sun and its apparent size, or again between the real color of an object (when seen in standard conditions) and its apparent color (nonstandard conditions). A cloud appears to consist of some white, fleecy substance, although in reality it is a concentration of drops of water. In general, men are often (though not invariably) inclined to allow that the scientist knows the real constitution of things as opposed to the surface aspects with which ordinary men are familiar. It will not suffice to define metaphysics as knowledge of reality as opposed to appearance; scientists, too, claim to know reality as opposed to appearance, and there is a general tendency to concede their claim.


It seems that there are at least two components in the metaphysical conception of reality. One characteristic, which has already been illustrated by Plato, is that reality is genuine as opposed to deceptive. The ultimate realities that the metaphysician seeks to know are precisely things as they are--simple and not variegated, exempt from change and therefore stable objects of knowledge. Plato's own assumption of this position perhaps reflects certain confusions about the knowability of things that change; one should not, however, on that ground exclude this aspect of the concept of reality from metaphysical thought in general. Ultimate reality, whatever else it is, is genuine as opposed to sham.

Second, and perhaps most important, reality for the metaphysician is intelligible as opposed to opaque. Appearances are not only deceptive and derivative, they also make no sense when taken at their own level. To arrive at what is ultimately real is to produce an account of the facts that does them full justice. The assumption is, of course, that one cannot explain things satisfactorily if one remains within the world of common sense, or even if one advances from that world to embrace the concepts of science. One or the other of these levels of explanation may suffice to produce a sort of local sense that is enough for practical purposes or that forms an adequate basis on which to make predictions. Practical reliability of this kind, however, is very different from theoretical satisfaction; the task of the metaphysician is to challenge all assumptions and finally arrive at an account of the nature of things that is fully coherent and fully thought-out.