Arjen.

Quantification only in the sense of not losing sight of the goal. "How do potentiality and actuality interact?" I am afraid I do not understand the intent of the question, if the workings of the world are found to be such and such, there really is not potential about it, it just is. By potentiality do you mean the potential of the physcial world to evoke reaction, the reaction then being the actuality. Do you mean potential on the part of the organism to react to the environment, change in that environment then the actuality of reaction? Perhaps in part it is a problem in mutual terminology.

Sorry that I have not answered your post, but you did not have my name on your response (too many fail to attribute the 'quotes'). People's eyes catch their names.. These eyes are old and I don't have the 'time' to carefully search every post for recognizable wording.. If people would extent this 'courtesy', there might be less 'missed' responses.

Now, to reply to your question;
I refer to the only (One) Consciousness/Mind, the only 'Reality/Truth'. There is only 'One'. I see the quantum possibility/probability wave field (undifferentiated potential, chaos, all possible unactualized potential, etc...) to be nondifferent than 'Mind'.


First explanation, history = memory.
Shares memories, consensus, = 'history'. There is much 'history' that is very different than the history written by the 'victorious'. Ie; Amerikkkan 'history from the white old boy perspective 'vs' history from the black perspective (different perspective for all, but again I refer to a 'loose' consensus), or the indigenous peoples' perspective.. There is no 'carved in stone' history, as there is no 'carved in stone' present. 'History = memory' that is one reason for the multitude od 'interpretations' thereof.

First explanation;
What we see as 'history' are merely (discrete) moments of our existence seen from a 'linear' perspective. Like a movie.. Another wat to say 'history' is to say 'another moment', without adding the perspectival 'temporal' qualities of linearity. A 'date' (4:00pm; Tuesday; July 18, 2094) is an address of a particular moment, a particular universe of which you are an integral component, at the moment.


How do you explain the movie where all that action, all the characters are moving all over the screen... Is there real motion on the screen, or is it simply a matter of 'perspective' of a bunch of 'still' frames'. Your mind filters out/doesn't notice the 'spaces/troughs' between the frames. Nothing 'moving' but your 'concepts' due to perspective. Yes, you do "partake in creating it" as it, 'motion' (your universe), is your conceptual interpretation of what you 'see'. You see the tips of the waves without noticing the troughs and imagine continuity and motion. Nothing 'moves' outside your concepts.


Perhaps an analogy;
I'll haul out those poor old blind men spaced around the elephant and describing it through tactile means. All have their 'limited' perspective from where they stand. The descriptions might all be very different, yet if they converse and understand each other's perspective, they will have a more 'accurate' vision of the elephant. There are other perspectives that 'see' an ocean, while the others are looking at 'elephant'. Every 'eye' 'sees' a different universe (in his mind). Some perspectives are very close to one another, the perspectives that are 'too' distant from yours, well, you cannot ever imagine what 'they' see! The appearance of 'time' running 'backward' (from your perspective, of course), people floating in the air, etc... Different, discrete, universes (at the moment).
The 'details' are only 'minor' when the perspectives are close. (Very close might just speak to a foundation of what is called 'love'...)


I think that experiment and data will not support your assumption. There are no two exactly same perspectives. No two people can ever see the 'same' rainbow (literally)!


Again, experiment will not bear this out.


The 'data/raw material/potential' of our universes is the 'homogenous' chaos of Mind. Close perspectives see things 'similarly' to one extent or another, as they are 'peeking' at a 'similar' rainbow, a similar 'bit' of mind. 'My' (this) perspective seems rather different than many, most, folks on the planet. That is, of course, a supposition as I have not interviewed 'everyone', but everyone that I have ever spoken to on the subject, throughout the decades, makes a somewhat (tentatively) useful 'data set'...

Please let me give you a small quote from my book illustrating the answer to your question;

How much credence should we give our five senses to portray a true and accurate representation of "the true nature of existence"? I open my eyes and look up at the sky and the evidence of the senses is that there is a beautiful blue sky up there. 'Reality', right? You see the same thing don't you? Does consensus define reality? Should it?
Lets look at that blue sky up there for a moment. Picture a perfectly dark, clean room. There are windows on two opposing walls. Through one window is shined a light aimed out the opposing window. It is a coherent beam of light, not spreading out at all, not hitting the walls, and there is no glass in windows. There is no dust in the air of this clean room to disturb the happy passing of this beam of photons. In order for us to perceive light, out there, photons have to enter the eye and stimulate the cells in the retina and associated receptors, sending information to the brain for analysis (for possible action), or storage. (These brain functions produce a slightly, to one extent or another, toxic byproduct called 'thought'. More on that later.) We sit in this room and see no beam of light because no photons are being reflected into our eyes. Our eyes give us information that there is no light in this room. Yet we know that there is! The photons don't have any kind of magic that makes them glow. Photons are dark! They emit NO light!! But, you argue, we fortunate sighted people all SEE a world of color, light, patterns... out there! We just saw, in a simple experiment, how photons are completely dark. They have to stimulate the appropriate sensory receptor, finally having information translated in the brain into light, color, etc... OUT THERE. Putting two and two together, shaken, not stirred, we find we live in a totally, absolutely blackest of black, dark universe. All those colors, patterns, old familiar faces, ...are all in your head. Literally! In front of your nose, despite the information of one of the Original Five senses, is absolute darkness!!! So much for the "obvious"... -Book of Fudd

Not a 'perfect' example, as the 'photons' are no more than a 'bit' of Mind/Potential (information/patterns, not 'things') that is 'visible' to particular perspectives (us).

The same is true for the concepts that are created with the 'incomming' 'information'. It is in your concepts that anything has it's exstence. By 'your' Perspective, existence is.
All Perspectives of Mind 'inform' Consciousness. Only by 'shattering' the perfectly clean and transparent 'glass' (Chaos/Mind) may it actually be seen. We (Perspectives) are the 'shatterers' of Mind...

Make any sense from 'your' perspective?
Peace

Arjen,

:)Percieving is you might say, pure reaction, pure effect, percieving is effect as reaction, before it can be subejcted to the process of the understanding. There is no duality to experience, other than the duality of subject and object, it simply is. Perception is reaction as such, there is no duality and it is in direct relation as biology to object. Perception is in stage, sensation, which is interpretation on the immediate and basic organic level.


:)Jung called Sensing and Intuiting the irrational functions. They are the perceiving functions.

He said Sensation tells you that something exists; thinking tells you what it is; feeling tells you whether it is agreeable or not; and intuition tells you from whence it came and where it is going.

Boagie,

Tell me, what is interpretation if not reason?


As I said before, you should try and understand what emotions are and how they are derived from feelings. The above will make a lot less sense when you see that clearly. Perhaps Ethica by Spinoza would come in handy, or a realisation that emotions are not stable; they evolve. That points to experience and therefore to reason. People who believe emotions have some intrinsic value are descieving themselves for their mind dreamed up the value before the emoted it. Be carefull with that. It is a key to control for many in power; for as long as you believe what is derived from your experiences you are blind for what really happens (psychosis) and you can be influenced to do someone's bidding (within certain limits). I hope you will consider these words carefully although I know how they usually come across.

Arjen,

I am taking you quite seriously, it is a intriguing topic, and my ignorance is great. Spinoza you say, he deals with this feelings verses emotions thing?

Boagie,

Spinoza deals with emotions. He seperates that which is a priori from humans. To him that is God. So God takes the place of feelings.

Humans are what he would call one "mode". There are three basic "affects": lust, unlust and desire. These three can have internal and external causes. By these basic thought he defines all emotions.

All of this presupposes one basic stable thing though. I would call that (in this contaxt) "feeling". Kant would call it (in this context) "a priori" and Spinoza calls it "God".

Spinoza's "God" is not like other "Gods" thought. He is a Pantheist and excumminicated for that posthumously.

I think this page on Spinoza can elaborate a little, but not much. Unfortunately I cannot find any good sources for the above terms. Perhaps you should read the work yourself or perhaps I should start an introduction into Spinoza. If you want me to, just ask.

Arjen

Arjen,

No it will not be necessary to start an introductory thread to it, certainly not for my singular benifit, as I have picked up the text. Perhaps we could have a more indepth discussion on it a little later.

I would enjoy that. I am thinking of starting an introduction on Spinoza regardless because I think he is worth it. You'll see it if I will post it..or when..

Ask a Philosopher!


AskPhilosophers.org

Here are a couple of sites, which if enough members visit and indulge, should crank-up the number and quality of the topics the forum considers---------they are both really good!!
[RIGHT][/RIGHT]

Hey Everybody!

Consider for a moment that the content and the container are one, that seems not a reality difficult to come to, it is the union of subject and object. How do we explain when through the process of sensory deprivation the object is indeed removed, that is, half of all reality is gone. Where is consciousness, content has been removed and the container is beginning to self-destruct. No I say consciousness is the content and the container, remove the content and you have self-destruction, remove the container and it is oblivion/the void. The container reacts to content, the content reacts to its container, and consciousness is the relation of said reactions.