Self-Conscious Logos

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » Self-Conscious Logos

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 10:25 pm
It seems to me that the real "metaphysical" leap is a self-consciousness (know thyself), and this self-consciousness is man seeing himself as the creator of all the distinctions he lives by/in. Including this abstraction "man" and this abstraction "abstraction."

The "not-there man" wrestles with mind-matter dualities. The "there man" sees that such dualities are created by language/discourse/logos in the first place. The "not there man" is confused into treating mere human inventions as the inescapable human realities. The "there man" sees all distinctions as contingent, as the products of time and chance.

I feel that both Hegel and Wittgenstein said as much. I see the philosopher as the person who studies (among other things?) study itself, or thinking itself. ("God is the self-thinking thought"). "Man" is made of the language he uses, which is contingent, flexible, changeable. I do think there is a structure to logos (which would be the subject matter of a real logic), and also that an investigation of this same structure is liberating.

I hope someone finds this amusing/useful, etc. 2 cents and smile from yours truly.
 
trismegisto
 
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 09:17 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;148427 wrote:
It seems to me that the real "metaphysical" leap is a self-consciousness (know thyself), and this self-consciousness is man seeing himself as the creator of all the distinctions he lives by/in. Including this abstraction "man" and this abstraction "abstraction."


How do you feel about the idea that this realization of self-consciousness is an understanding of selflessness?

In other words, the self-conscious man holds no distinction between himself and everything.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 09:35 pm
@trismegisto,
trismegisto;149047 wrote:
How do you feel about the idea that this realization of self-consciousness is an understanding of selflessness?

In other words, the self-conscious man holds no distinction between himself and everything.



Wow, that's pretty much what I mean, if I understand you right. Terms like "self" and "other" become relative. Self-consciousness as a radical expansion of the self-concept.

Except that I would add that this same man is still conscious of and able to use all the convenient and even necessary "normal" distinctions.

"Selflessness" has strong ethical associations. And this could muddy the waters. At the same time, ethical selflessness seems related to an enlarged concept of self. And this enlargement is also a sort of negation of the concept of self. A seeing of its limitations/confusions.

I agree w/ Wittgenstein about the separation of psychology and philosophy. The self is the limit of the world. Which seems to imply that the world is the limit of the self.
 
trismegisto
 
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 09:40 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;149053 wrote:
Wow, that's pretty much what I mean, if I understand you right. Terms like "self" and "other" become relative. Self-consciousness as a radical expansion of the self-concept.

Except that I would add that this same man is still conscious of and able to use all the convenient and even necessary "normal" distinctions.


Now that would be cool.


Reconstructo;149053 wrote:
"Selflessness" has strong ethical associations. And this could muddy the waters. At the same time, ethical selflessness seems related to an enlarged concept of self. And this enlargement is also a sort of negation of the concept of self. A seeing of its limitations/confusions.

I agree w/ Wittgenstein about the separation of psychology and philosophy. The self is the limit of the world. Which seems to imply that the world is the limit of the self.


I've never read any Wittgenstein, seems like a smart guy.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 10:20 pm
@trismegisto,
trismegisto;149056 wrote:

I've never read any Wittgenstein, seems like a smart guy.


He's great. To the point and no BS. Whether one agrees or not, he's food for thought. Here's my favorite of his books. It's all good, but I especially like the later part.
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (online version)

---------- Post added 04-06-2010 at 11:23 PM ----------

trismegisto;149056 wrote:
Now that would be cool.


That's how I view the world, and I've to say it puts a smile on my face. Kojeve turned me on to Hegel. And then I found Wittgenstein saying the same thing in a different more terse but strangely less direct way.

This book I'm linking is my favorite single work of philosophy.

Introduction to the reading of Hegel ... - Google Books
 
trismegisto
 
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 10:40 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;149080 wrote:
He's great. To the point and no BS. Whether one agrees or not, he's food for thought. Here's my favorite of his books. It's all good, but I especially like the later part.
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (online version)

---------- Post added 04-06-2010 at 11:23 PM ----------



That's how I view the world, and I've to say it puts a smile on my face. Kojeve turned me on to Hegel. And then I found Wittgenstein saying the same thing in a different more terse but strangely less direct way.

This book I'm linking is my favorite single work of philosophy.

Introduction to the reading of Hegel ... - Google Books


Thanks !
 
north
 
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 10:47 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;148427 wrote:
It seems to me that the real "metaphysical" leap is a self-consciousness (know thyself), and this self-consciousness is man seeing himself as the creator of all the distinctions he lives by/in. Including this abstraction "man" and this abstraction "abstraction."


so are all the without , the Universe and all in it , created by man ?
 
trismegisto
 
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 10:55 pm
@north,
north;149090 wrote:
so are all the without , the Universe and all in it , created by man ?


I suppose it depends on what you mean by man. Do you mean men, the individuals, or Man, the immortal kind?
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 10:57 pm
@north,
north;149090 wrote:
so are all the without , the Universe and all in it , created by man ?



Not exactly, for the concept of "man" is created by " " (unspeakable, undefinable, negation and continuity....).

"Man" is just a concept within the system of concepts, as "concept" is also just a concept. The "universe" is just a concept. I would say that "we" (a concept) are the collision of concept and qualia.

If the subject truly engages you, and I hope it does, you might want to check out the metaphysics section, which is littered with interpretations of Hegel and Wittgenstein by yours truly. In my opinion, it's a pretty radical and unexpected way of looking at things. To me, it's the peak of philosophy. But it always comes off as a little crazy until one is a bit immersed in it. For me, the following Hegel statements now make perfect sense.


The real is the rational and the rational is the real.
 
north
 
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 11:12 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;149097 wrote:
Not exactly, for the concept of "man" is created by " " (unspeakable, undefinable, negation and continuity....).




Quote:
"Man" is just a concept within the system of concepts, as "concept" is also just a concept. The "universe" is just a concept. I would say that "we" (a concept) are the collision of concept and qualia.


how is the Universe , although it has qualia , a concept ?

Quote:
If the subject truly engages you, and I hope it does, you might want to check out the metaphysics section, which is littered with interpretations of Hegel and Wittgenstein by yours truly. In my opinion, it's a pretty radical and unexpected way of looking at things. To me, it's the peak of philosophy. But it always comes off as a little crazy until one is a bit immersed in it. For me, the following Hegel statements now make perfect sense.



Quote:
The real is the rational and the rational is the real.


yes

but it is because the Universe exists , which gives us the constituents to be made and see and as well think
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2010 12:25 am
@north,
north;149104 wrote:
how is the Universe , although it has qualia , a concept ?


Good question. But this entire question is of course made of concept. And the intelligble structure of the "universe" is made of concept. And certainly the universe, which is equivalent ot the totality, is very much a concept. Why should we conceive of the whole? And yet we probably have not seen even a percentage of the whole. Still, we automatically think of the big picture as singular. And even a "multiverse" is still singular, for we only think in unities, and thinking is unification and negation. ANd perhaps nothing else.

Qualia is a concept of course, and what isn't? For all that can be named is conceptually. For names are concepts. We cannot speak of the nonconceptual.
 
north
 
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2010 12:41 am
@Reconstructo,
Quote:
Originally Posted by north http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif
how is the Universe , although it has qualia , a concept ?




Reconstructo;149143 wrote:
Good question. But this entire question is of course made of concept. And the intelligble structure of the "universe" is made of concept. And certainly the universe, which is equivalent ot the totality, is very much a concept.


yet a concept of the Universe implies that the Universe came into being because of thought , which means that we have the ability to understand physics enough , without ologies , to bring the Universe into qualia

but we don't , hence ologies ( the study of )





Quote:
Why should we conceive of the whole? And yet we probably have not seen even a percentage of the whole. Still, we automatically think of the big picture as singular. And even a "multiverse" is still singular, for we only think in unities, and thinking is unification and negation. ANd perhaps nothing else.


abstractions based on the study of

Quote:
Qualia is a concept of course, and what isn't? For all that can be named is conceptually. For names are concepts. We cannot speak of the nonconceptual.


qualia is not a concept at all , material objects are what they are

names given to the qualia are irrelevent to the objects themselves in the Universe
 
trismegisto
 
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2010 01:12 am
@north,
north;149149 wrote:



qualia is not a concept at all , material objects are what they are


I am not sure that this statement is true.

If material objects are truly what they are, then would they not always be the same, never changing? Yet, every material object changes. So how can they be what they are unless what they are is eternal? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that material things are what they are now? But then, they would be something other than what they are now since what they are now is only a temporary object.

Does that make sense?
 
north
 
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2010 01:19 am
@trismegisto,
Quote:
Originally Posted by north http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif


qualia is not a concept at all , material objects are what they are



trismegisto;149155 wrote:
I am not sure that this statement is true.


Quote:
If material objects are truly what they are, then would they not always be the same, never changing?


hydrogen , oxygen



Quote:
Yet, every material object changes. So how can they be what they are unless what they are is eternal? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that material things are what they are now? But then, they would be something other than what they are now since what they are now is only a temporary object.


above

Quote:
Does that make sense?


nope

---------- Post added 04-07-2010 at 03:21 AM ----------

now to the macro things change , get recycled

but to the micro , no
 
trismegisto
 
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2010 12:21 pm
@north,
north;149157 wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by north http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif


qualia is not a concept at all , material objects are what they are







hydrogen , oxygen






above


nope

---------- Post added 04-07-2010 at 03:21 AM ----------

now to the macro things change , get recycled

but to the micro , no


Sorry my friend but neither hydrogen nor oxygen are what they are. they are a combination of things that regularly changes.
Your argument still holds no water.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2010 02:57 pm
@trismegisto,
trismegisto;149278 wrote:
Sorry my friend but neither hydrogen nor oxygen are what they are. they are a combination of things that regularly changes.
Your argument still holds no water.


Well technically, hydrogen and oxygen are not different. They are just names given to the amount of protons contained within the nucleus and how many electrons for the neutral atom.

The only difference between hydrogen and oxygen is that hydrogen only has one proton and one electron, where as oxygen has eight protons and eight electrons.

So essentially there is no difference between them or any of the elements for that matter. They only differ because the way they behave with other elements because of how many protons or electrons they might have.

So all things are made up of protons, electrons and neutrons. These things don't change. You can rip them apart from their positions which gives off energy in different forms or change their position which alters their behavior but they never actually change.

This is pretty rudimentary chemistry and there are other aspects which I did not mention but for the most part, as you are wanting to insist, these particles never change. Without going deeper into explaining how every element is different and why their appearance or behavior is different, I will leave it at that.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2010 03:52 pm
@Reconstructo,
Unless a person sees objects themselves as qualia united/framed by concept OR other such frames/unities (concepts) united/framed into more abstract/inclusive frames/unities/concepts, they will not see where I am coming from. Not in the least. And it doesn't matter much to me, as for me it is now obvious, and naked for those who really want to see it.

To think that objects exists independent of concept is for me a sort of superstition or lack of self-consciousness. But it is of course quite natural. And for practical purposes it doesn't matter much.
 
trismegisto
 
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2010 04:15 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;149318 wrote:
Well technically, hydrogen and oxygen are not different. They are just names given to the amount of protons contained within the nucleus and how many electrons for the neutral atom.

The only difference between hydrogen and oxygen is that hydrogen only has one proton and one electron, where as oxygen has eight protons and eight electrons.

So essentially there is no difference between them or any of the elements for that matter. They only differ because the way they behave with other elements because of how many protons or electrons they might have.


How do you go about demonstrating that Hydrogen and Oxygen are not simply what they are and are actually comprised of other things entirely and in differing orders no less and then without taking a breath say they are essentially the same thing? Clearly they are not.



Krumple;149318 wrote:
So all things are made up of protons, electrons and neutrons. These things don't change. You can rip them apart from their positions which gives off energy in different forms or change their position which alters their behavior but they never actually change.


So far as science has demonstrated, and yet science has only known of their existence for what? 60 years? What will the next 60 years bring us. Are you convinced that science has told us everything we will ever know about the state of the universe? Are you aware that science still thinks that matter has no mass?

Krumple;149318 wrote:
This is pretty rudimentary chemistry and there are other aspects which I did not mention but for the most part, as you are wanting to insist, these particles never change. Without going deeper into explaining how every element is different and why their appearance or behavior is different, I will leave it at that.


If these particles have never changed then there would be no need of the Large Hadron collider at CERN we would not need to recreate the stuff of the beginning if it were still available today. The things that existed in the universe 14 billion years ago no longer exist. They have changed into different things and those things have changed as well. electrons protons and neutrons are no different, although they have been around much longer.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Fri 9 Apr, 2010 03:26 pm
@Reconstructo,
The brain is an object of consciousness. And "consciousness" is an object of "consciousness." "Mind' and "matter" are neither mind nor matter. "Mind" is a better word, in this case, than matter...but what is mind? It's a piece in the language game, just as "language game" is a piece in the "language game."

It's about not being trapped in a cage of words. It's attempt to discover the Form of Forms. All thoughts are contingent. If we want to dig up the root or the ground, we need a negative ontology. We can only say what "God" is not. We can only recognize our false gods as false, which leaves an opening for "god" or "it" or "x." It's a cliche, but in this particular case, perhaps knowing that we don't know "it" (the ground) is the closest we can get to knowing it.

What is the structure of human thinking? I think this can be deduced. Essence is the by-product of the negation of accident. And finally, if we make it there, we want to know the essence of essence. And this is the gold mine. What is the essence of essence? That's what my avatar symbolizes. I would say that negation is the essence of essence, but negation cannot exist without a unity to negate. But unity doesn't exist without a negation to frame it. You might say that once we have reduced thought to lowest terms, the next step is a different operation....
 
trismegisto
 
Reply Fri 9 Apr, 2010 05:52 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;150034 wrote:
The brain is an object of consciousness. And "consciousness" is an object of "consciousness." "Mind' and "matter" are neither mind nor matter. "Mind" is a better word, in this case, than matter...but what is mind? It's a piece in the language game, just as "language game" is a piece in the "language game."

It's about not being trapped in a cage of words. It's attempt to discover the Form of Forms. All thoughts are contingent. If we want to dig up the root or the ground, we need a negative ontology. We can only say what "God" is not. We can only recognize our false gods as false, which leaves an opening for "god" or "it" or "x." It's a cliche, but in this particular case, perhaps knowing that we don't know "it" (the ground) is the closest we can get to knowing it.

What is the structure of human thinking? I think this can be deduced. Essence is the by-product of the negation of accident. And finally, if we make it there, we want to know the essence of essence. And this is the gold mine. What is the essence of essence? That's what my avatar symbolizes. I would say that negation is the essence of essence, but negation cannot exist without a unity to negate. But unity doesn't exist without a negation to frame it. You might say that once we have reduced thought to lowest terms, the next step is a different operation....


I can tell you are trying to convey something I agree with. I am just having a hard time with your terms. Can you elaborate more on each point, or perhaps reword it in such a way that you don't use the same word two different ways in one sentence?
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » Self-Conscious Logos
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 09/22/2020 at 09:27:05