On The Contrast Between Appearance And Reality

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;135180 wrote:

1. Man can not think of complete nothingness, but at best, only of empty space.
2. This empty space is imagined as continuous, but we can't think of it w/o unifying this 3d continuum with a concept that makes it singular, and therefore digital, numerical, or a word.
3. These are the two transcendentals, and they are different.
4. It is impossible to think of them separately.
5. What is the Being in beings? And why must it be singular?

And why should man think on nothingness???

1-Man is in Time...
2-Nature is in Time
3-But Nature is also all the Time bounded in Law...

This is something rather then Nothing even if it may resemble nothingness as Time is suppressed in final Causes...

...The superposition state on everything that brings Noumena insight, does it through phenomena, and not against it...(one has to remember) Smile

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;135185 wrote:

And why should man think on nothingness???

To know that he can't! That space is transcendentally imposed...

---------- Post added 03-03-2010 at 12:51 AM ----------

Fil. Albuquerque;135185 wrote:

And why should man think on nothingness???

1-Man is in Time...

I think man is time, but I respect your viewpoint...

---------- Post added 03-03-2010 at 12:53 AM ----------

Fil. Albuquerque;135185 wrote:

2-Nature is in Time

Yes and no. Spatial being is re-arranged, but is this time? This mere re-arrangement? Or is it the human conception of the past or future(niether of which are present spatially) in contrast to a perceived spatial present that creates time....

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;135186 wrote:

To know that he can't! That space is transcendentally imposed...

---------- Post added 03-03-2010 at 12:51 AM ----------

I think man is time, but I respect your viewpoint...

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;135185 wrote:

.

This is something rather then Nothing even if it may resemble nothingness as Time is suppressed in final Causes...

...The superposition state on everything that brings Noumena insight, does it through phenomena, and not against it...(one has to remember)

I'm not sure exactly what you are saying. But here goes my reply; for man there is always some-thing,

and he is always immersed in incident, or phenomena, even if in a sensory deprivation tank. For the concepts are form by incident that flows from unknown noumena meeting our automatic transcendental processing...

---------- Post added 03-03-2010 at 12:56 AM ----------

Fil. Albuquerque;135190 wrote:

That's just it, brother. He can't think on nothingness. Space is imposed by the mind. And so is number.

---------- Post added 03-03-2010 at 12:58 AM ----------

Fil. Albuquerque;135190 wrote:

.Conscience and Present are all it takes to get it...

It recently occured to me that consciousness and the spatial present and the concept are all the same thing. They cannot exist apart except as philosophical abstractions. There is no transcendental self. There is only being shaped by word. nothing else. The top of the triangle is just their meeting place, not a third entity. The third element is just the eternal consciousness of the first two,which cannot be experience but only inferred from the experience of their eternal union.

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;135197 wrote:

Well define Man...Man as man, animal, which he is ? or Man as Destiny, the natural end of all animal life ?

...Man is purpose in LAW, the end of History !...

We can't, as philosophers, satisfactorily define the animal element in man....

In my opinion, we can only determine the fundamental structure of his thought, as this is common to all of us. So all it takes it hard conceptual work.
I'm not saying that Nature isn't rule bound. But my theory doesn't extend that far. I'm concerned with a fundamental ontology ---the basic structure of the way man must think, always! If it's not always, it's not transcendental. I truly think I understand it, for whatever its worth..

---------- Post added 03-03-2010 at 01:03 AM ----------

Fil. Albuquerque;135197 wrote:

No, I think man is a carrier of nous, and that this is what structures his conception of the world.

---------- Post added 03-03-2010 at 01:04 AM ----------

Fil. Albuquerque;135197 wrote:

...ORDER is a kind of Mind but not our small kind...its something dead...more like pure programming, a Law book, Eternal and self Caused, once Time is in IT and not out of IT...

I get you, brother. I don't deny that this may indeed exist. It's just beyond my scope at present....

It's a great quest!

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;135199 wrote:

We can't, as philosophers, satisfactorily define the animal element in man....

In my opinion, we can only determine the fundamental structure of his thought, as this is common to all of us. So all it takes it hard conceptual work.
I'm not saying that Nature isn't rule bound. But my theory doesn't extend that far. I'm concerned with a fundamental ontology ---the basic structure of the way man must think, always! If it's not always, it's not transcendental. I truly think I understand it, for whatever its worth..

---------- Post added 03-03-2010 at 01:03 AM ----------

No, I think man is a carrier of nous, and that this is what structures his conception of the world.

---------- Post added 03-03-2010 at 01:16 AM ----------

Reconstructo;135199 wrote:

No, I think man is a carrier of nous, and that this is what structures his conception of the world.

I get you, brother. I don't deny that this may indeed exist. It's just beyond my scope at present....

It's a great quest!

I think everything is a carrier of everything...enlarge the scope...this is about interacting information...not just about man...

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;135205 wrote:

Hegel loved Spinoza, but thought that Spinoza could not account logically for his system's development, which always requires time. If man can acheive consciousness of God or Structure or Order only thu time then he must include time in his system. But time is not mathematical, but the progress of an error that desires to become the truth.

After hegel wrote his book on time. He wrote his logic. Which is the structure presented timelessly. That might be more what you are trying to contemplate. For me, my avatar is equivalent to that. The time element is minimally symbolized as logos, making it as simple as a number.

But for me, being is negative 1. You might say that perfect wisdom, which is finished evolving its consciousness of itself, is the negation of its negativity. As no more antithesis is possible. Wisdom is 1, but only because it was born as negative -1. There you go. We are meeting on some ground here. You could look at the hole triangle as a positive 1, which synthesizes the negative. I think the Catholic trinity might be an esoteric ontology.

@Fil Albuquerque,

[QUOTE=Fil. Albuquerque;135177]...but the point is that you contradict yourself...were is the chain of events with random at the bottom ???... [/QUOTE] There is not true mathematical randomness, there are stochastic possibilities which ultimately give rise to novel and creative variations.

[QUOTE=Fil. Albuquerque;135177]. So and to conclude I think that this caused mutations later on are put up to the test of Natural selection probably to see what branch of several defined possibilities fits the circumstance of becoming...but the plan of Nature, not God, is there from Holistic perspective...I mean what were the Odds ? [/QUOTE] Nature is ruthless efficient in generating new and novel forms (beautiful and wondrous) , and then in destroying old forms to give way to the new. A Phoenix constantly rising from the ashes. God is not personal agent. God is not moral agent. At least not in this most basic view.

[QUOTE=Fil. Albuquerque;135177] So its sort of Natural "Intelligent" Design with Evolution, and no minds or True Conscience in a mix... [/QUOTE] One should not confuse the reason or mind of nature with humans minds and human consciousness. Mind arises from complex organized societies but is an inherent property of nature and reality. Human reason and human consciousness are not superior.

[QUOTE=Fil. Albuquerque;135177] I try to throw away the loose variables on several conceptions and bring the best of them all into one interpretation... [/QUOTE] Building an integrated coherent world view which takes all this into account is a hard task. Most people do not even bother. Only philosophers and even then most can address only a small aspect of a larger problem.
For me
Process is primary reality.
Mind is an inherent feature of reality.
Nothing else I think can be understood outside these assumptions, speculations or beliefs. I see nothing in reason, experience or science which proves them false.

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;135212 wrote:

It's a beautiful idea.

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;135216 wrote:

So is this a hypothesis about Nature, then, the one outside of man? Or is man at all necessary? Or is man contingent within this system?

This is an idea about reality as a perfect causal system, which is a unity? And which we humans can conceive of even within the mesh?

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;135220 wrote:

So is this a hypothesis about Nature, then, the one outside of man? Or is man at all necessary? Or is man contingent within this system?

This is an idea about reality as a perfect causal system, which is a unity? And which we humans can conceive of even within the mesh?

Man is progressive, Man will become Super-man...the Purpose of the entire thing...:detective:

---------- Post added 03-03-2010 at 01:34 AM ----------

...Yes we have direct Intuition of it...Inference...

---------- Post added 03-03-2010 at 01:37 AM ----------

I think its a lovely system...simulates Freedom very well and yet its Logical and Causal in the TRUE sense...no loose ends...

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;135212 wrote:

The notion that the universe is founded on mathematical principle is anciet (Plato and the Pythagoreans).
Of course math and number are forms of logic which are forms of reason and reason is a property of what we call intelligence or mind (you can see the progression).

Ultimately, yes, all things are interralated and interdependent and the notion that objects have any independent reality or existence is an illusion (a creation of human perception and a mental construct). Of course for me "being" is an illusion and "becoming" is primary reality.
Moments of experience perishing, new moments of experience being born, incorporating elements of the past and choosing form possiblities of the future.

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;135222 wrote:

Man is progressive, Man will become Super-man...the Purpose of the entire thing...:detective:

---------- Post added 03-03-2010 at 01:34 AM ----------

...Yes we have direct Intuition of it...Inference...

---------- Post added 03-03-2010 at 01:37 AM ----------

I think its a lovely system...simulates Freedom very well and yet its Logical and Causal in the TRUE sense...

It's actually close to my conceptions, except that I see history as open, unpredictable, though essentially progress, despite disasters and injustice. I think that philosophy does have a certain closure, a completion point, and I think that Hegel reached it. All I get to do is to add some metaphors, icing, paraphrase. Because it convinces me, I must say, at least on the small territory it claims authority on.

@prothero,

prothero;135228 wrote:

The notion that the universe is founded on mathematical principle is anciet (Plato and the Pythagoreans).
Of course math and number are forms of logic which are forms of reason and reason is a property of what we call intelligence or mind (you can see the progression).

Ultimately, yes, all things are interralated and interdependent and the notion that objects have any independent reality or existence is an illusion (a creation of human perception and a mental construct). Of course for me "being" is an illusion and "becoming" is primary reality.
Moments of experience perishing, new moments of experience being born, incorporating elements of the past and choosing form possiblities of the future.

AS I said several times we are very close all the way we just differ in the conclusion, I go for Being and Becoming Dialectically together...

@prothero,

prothero;135228 wrote:

The notion that the universe is founded on mathematical principle is anciet (Plato and the Pythagoreans).
Of course math and number are forms of logic which are forms of reason and reason is a property of what we call intelligence or mind (you can see the progression).

Ultimately, yes, all things are interralated and interdependent and the notion that objects have any independent reality or existence is an illusion (a creation of human perception and a mental construct). Of course for me "being" is an illusion and "becoming" is primary reality.
Moments of experience perishing, new moments of experience being born, incorporating elements of the past and choosing form possiblities of the future.

Wow, Prothero, I can get down with this...We are close in our attitudes. Yes, reality may be continuous & yet also structured. We can't think it, but thanks to Kant we can think that we cannot think it. Which is the tiniest opening imaginable. But it's enough! Kant's noumena is just a minus sign or negation of appearence, a reminder that there is more than meets the eyes (and digital concept) directly....

So does process philosophy address the inherently digital/discete nature of thought?

@Reconstructo,

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;135232 wrote:

AS I said several times we are very close all the way we just differ in the conclusion, I go for Being and Becoming Dialectically together...

So do I! Being and becoming are synthesized conceptually. Otherwise a fundamental ontology is impossible. The transcendental is the Static, and the incidental is the becoming. The logos is Another Static, and this is the conceptualization or knowledge of the first two. It's all in my avatar. That avatar is the static representation of the eternal and the temporal, and at the top is the representation of this representation.

The philosopher cannot only be self-consciousness. He must be the self-consciousness of self-consciousness.

+

Philosophy Forum

On The Contrast Between Appearance And Reality

Quick Links

My Account

able2know