Discussing the Transcendental

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Pythagorean
 
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 07:49 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;133061 wrote:
"Transcendental" is a modest euphemism for eternal. The transcendental is Eternity For Men, or the only eternity we humans, arguably, can know. And this eternity is us. This eternity is the essence of our minds. Flux flows over us, arguably, but this flux is never known in-itself. Our eternal or transcendental mind structures this flux automatically and constantly. Kant did what Plato could not do. He associated eternity with time.

Whereas for Plato, time was the emanation of eternity. (Is this correct?) Aristotle rejected this, and proposed something else. Eternity does exist in time, but only to the degree that time is the recurrence of structures. Species of animals and plants, varieties of government. Time is Eternal only to the degree that certain forms subsist in matter which comes and goes. Why is the eternal important? Because truth is impossible unless what truth corresponds to subsists. If the world changes essentially then all knowledge is only opinion, never truth. Or it's truth that spoils. I think the numen from the very beginning drove philosophy toward eternal non-relative truth. Parmenides is actually quite important. Already he joined the numinous and the transcendental. (By the way, I associate the numen with "transcendence," but numen feels like a safer word.)



These are very interesting ideas.

I wonder, would eternity and infinite space really be considered objective?

It seems to me that in order for living, intelligent beings to exist, they must subside within this flux where everything is relative and changing. God, therefore dies. The Universe is organic.. and dies eventually also. But the reasonable form must remain. Eternity and infinite space then, are possibilities of reason.

Rational form must be the source of eternity and infinite space.

All phenomena are organic and relative and subject to change and there can be no knolwedge associataed with them (us). Because to be is always to be in a relative and provisional way only.

So, what is the status of life in the context of rational form? And what is the true relationship of the mind to reason?

If life could be turned into pure reason then we would be perhaps eternally united with the Universal rational form.

-
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 08:06 pm
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean;133080 wrote:
These are very interesting ideas.

I wonder, would eternity and infinite space really be considered objective?
-

Great post, Pythagoras. These are exactly the issues I am obsessed with. (Kojeve turned me on to them --there's a thread on him in 20th century philosophers..)
In my opinion, we could not assume that eternity and infinite space are objective. Have you seen the thread Prefixing Negativity? It's about the eternal and infinite and the absolute. They all have negative prefixes that point the mind beyond or to it's limits. Does this tie into the number zero?

---------- Post added 02-26-2010 at 09:13 PM ----------

Pythagorean;133080 wrote:

It seems to me that in order for living, intelligent beings to exist, they must subside within this flux where everything is relative and changing. God, therefore dies. The Universe is organic.. and dies eventually also. But the reasonable form must remain. Eternity and infinite space then, are possibilities of reason.
-

This is Hegel, for the most part, as Kojeve presents him. Man didn't want to see that he was god because he didn't want to accept his mortality. So philosophy had to take a long and winding road in pursuit of the numen/self-consciousness.
The flux is changing but some forms, as Aristotle and Plato noted, do subsist. For instance, plants and animals. Also the sun, moon, stars, mountains. But as Heraclitus probably noted, it's all a matter of temporal perspective. If we speed the film up, mountains evaporate. Stars are blown out like candles. If we slow it down...
I agree that the reasonable Forms remain. It's Plato and Kant, except Kant realized that Plato's Forms were projections. In a way, Plato's Forms were the center of reality, but only because man is. Some of the forms are eternal/transcenental, but some of them are temporal. I don't think Plato noticed this. Causality and substance depend on time. Except that Plato and Pythagos projected substance on number? Number was abstract substance. Transparent substance. Non-spatial substance. I guess they even projected causality on triangles? In a way... But causality generally depends on a succession of event that are related spatially by necessity.
There is only one space, or else causality would make no sense. But this space is a transcendental intuition., even if there is "real" space beneath it. (Or is there "really" spacetime? )

---------- Post added 02-26-2010 at 09:17 PM ----------

Pythagorean;133080 wrote:

All phenomena are organic and relative and subject to change and there can be no knolwedge associataed with them (us). Because to be is always to be in a relative and provisional way only.

But there's an exception to this. Phenomena have a constant structure imposed on them by man. Man is the structure in phenomena, but he didn't always know this. From Plato to Kant, he was figuring it out. With Kant, man is the eternal in relation to time. Man is the Forms he imposes on his experience. The source of his experience remains mysterious.

---------- Post added 02-26-2010 at 09:21 PM ----------

Pythagorean;133080 wrote:

So, what is the status of life in the context of rational form? And what is the true relationship of the mind to reason?

If life could be turned into pure reason then we would be perhaps eternally united with the Universal rational form.

-

According to Hegel, man is the Begriff (or integrated system of concepts) existing empirically, or within the spatial present. Man as man is Time, because Time exists for man only as the Future (his ideal concept) penetrating the spatial present according to a pattern constructed from the past (conceptualized memory.) But this Begriff works not only upon the spatial present but also upon itself. Science investigates science. Philosophy is the science of science. Metaphorically speaking, Man is Time Screwing Itself.

My current opinions. I hope not too long or boring.

---------- Post added 02-26-2010 at 09:22 PM ----------

Pythagorean;133080 wrote:

If life could be turned into pure reason then we would be perhaps eternally united with the Universal rational form.
-

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was Man, and the Word was Made flesh.

I'm afraid that the stem is bestial, even if the flower itself is rational, perfect, and numinous. Is this "spiritual instinct" something the species evolved to aid in socialization?
 
Pythagorean
 
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 09:47 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo, your knowledge of philosophy is unique and I enjoy your ideas. I think we hold the same interests.


We are forced by our nature to be realists in regards to the self. And the self is in a relative position; it changes, it passes away. But how was it possible? How was its philosophy possible? We must admit that in some way it could have been all an illusion. I certainly don't believe in objective time and space. But even an illusion might be something and I would like to think that an objective form (rational form) of the self might exists which allows for the illusory self to practice philosophy. This rational form could be numbers or real passages of being which allow the self to practice a true philosophy.




Reconstructo;133086 wrote:

This is Hegel, for the most part, as Kojeve presents him. Man didn't want to see that he was god because he didn't want to accept his mortality. So philosophy had to take a long and winding road in pursuit of the numen/self-consciousness.
The flux is changing but some forms, as Aristotle and Plato noted, do subsist. For instance, plants and animals. Also the sun, moon, stars, mountains. But as Heraclitus probably noted, it's all a matter of temporal perspective. If we speed the film up, mountains evaporate. Stars are blown out like candles. If we slow it down...
I agree that the reasonable Forms remain. It's Plato and Kant, except Kant realized that Plato's Forms were projections. In a way, Plato's Forms were the center of reality, but only because man is. Some of the forms are eternal/transcenental, but some of them are temporal. I don't think Plato noticed this. Causality and substance depend on time. Except that Plato and Pythagos projected substance on number? Number was abstract substance. Transparent substance. Non-spatial substance. I guess they even projected causality on triangles? In a way... But causality generally depends on a succession of event that are related spatially by necessity.
There is only one space, or else causality would make no sense. But this space is a transcendental intuition., even if there is "real" space beneath it. (Or is there "really" spacetime? )


That is well stated. I do believe that there is one space that is a transcendental intuition. I don't see any 'real' spacetime.

We have no right to bestow objective existence upon anything whatsoever. We are realists only when it concerns philosophy; we are realists about practising philosophy and this, for me, is a great liberation and enlightenment. Philosophy, whether it be a Platonic form or a Pythagorean number must be given a realistic status or else we wouldn't realize the nature of the transcendental intuition. Without philosophy we would mistakenly believe in objective truth, objective space and objective time.


Reconstructo;133086 wrote:
But there's an exception to this. Phenomena have a constant structure imposed on them by man. Man is the structure in phenomena, but he didn't always know this. From Plato to Kant, he was figuring it out. With Kant, man is the eternal in relation to time. Man is the Forms he imposes on his experience. The source of his experience remains mysterious.


Man is God because he imposes forms. But he must know that he imposes the forms. He requires philosophy to know that his intuition imposes the forms. Philosophy could be numbers or it could be Rational Forms, but it is required. We must confess that we may not exist at all. We must apply the critical method to our own selves at the very point of our own thought and knowledge of our selves. What is the Form of our transcendental intuition? What is the transcendental in itself?
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 27 Feb, 2010 04:32 pm
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean;133119 wrote:
Reconstructo, your knowledge of philosophy is unique and I enjoy your ideas. I think we hold the same interests.

Thank you. I also enjoy your ideas and thought this post was great. I'm even becoming more and more interested in your namesake. (Note my triangular avatar.....it's not a right triangle but maybe the rightest.

---------- Post added 02-27-2010 at 05:46 PM ----------

Pythagorean;133119 wrote:

We are forced by our nature to be realists in regards to the self. And the self is in a relative position; it changes, it passes away. But how was it possible? How was its philosophy possible? We must admit that in some way it could have been all an illusion. I certainly don't believe in objective time and space. But even an illusion might be something and I would like to think that an objective form (rational form) of the self might exists which allows for the illusory self to practice philosophy. This rational form could be numbers or real passages of being which allow the self to practice a true philosophy.

I agree. We must be realists in our own sense of the term. A transcendental awareness accompanied by the feeling of transcendence is more than real enough, isn't it?
Yes, much of the self is flux. I agree. So if we want to ground philosophy is the real self, we must ground it in the transcendental, as Kant did. But of course Pythagoras, Parmenides, and Plato were almost their already. Kant's noumenon seems like a jump. We have the circles, triangles, being-as-one, music-as-math-as-truth.

I think this rational form is number. Or rather what grounds number. Jung always said the circle was a representation of the Self numen/archetype.
It seems to me that man is the concept and the concept is most nakedly signified by number. It also seems to me that there is only one real number, that number being unity, or one. I say this because man transcendentally imposes unities on flux. He cuts the flux into pieces, whether he will or no. He can only think in unities, but he can modify and unify these unites. The concept is a unification. A concept means "to take in." To circumscribe. It's an oversimplification, but transcendentally man is a Circle. Of course, this isn't addressed to his body, etc., but only to his rational essence. Which seems to be what you and I are interested in. Presumably because this rational essence is numinous. Beauty is the splendor of truth. That phrase has really clicked for me lately. I have lately been seduced by ones, zeros, circles, and triangles.

I don't believe in "objective" time or space either. Objects are just concepts, encircled qualia. Our intuitional time and space is only (it seems to me) for relating objects. Philosophers speak of nothingness. I myself find it thrilling to contemplate "empty" intuitional-space. As for time, it's also both intuitional(qualia..?), mathematical(Newton and Einstein--different equations same game), and conceptual(Hegelian-- time is the project/numen, Beatrice summoning Dante).

---------- Post added 02-27-2010 at 05:51 PM ----------

Pythagorean;133119 wrote:

That is well stated. I do believe that there is one space that is a transcendental intuition. I don't see any 'real' spacetime.

I agree. Absolutely. I wonder if anyone wrote of this pre-Kant? It was there for all to see or un-see. (Have you seen my thread Prefixing Negation? I would love your thoughts on the matter. Is negation also transcendental? Or just learned. The minus sign is useful in logos in mathos alike. Is "mathos" a word?) Spacetime is an impressive invention, but only an invention. (?)

I don't know if you've seen this on another thread already, but it's your cup of tea I think.
Quote:

I see no objection to saying that the natural World eludes conceptual understanding. Indeed, this would only mean that the existence of Nature is revealed by mathematical algorthm, for example, and not by concepts--that is by words having a meaning. Now, modern physics leads in the end to this result: one cannot speak of the physical reality without contradictions; as soon as one passes from algorthm to verbal description, one contradicts himself (particle-waves for example). Hence there would be no discourse revealing the physical or natural reality. This reality (as presented as early as Galileo) would be revealed to man only by the articulated silence of algorthm.....Now it does seem that algorthm, being nontemporal, does not reveal Life. But neither does dialectic. Therefore it may be necessary to combine Plato's conception(for the mathematical, or better, geometrical, substructure of the world) with Aristotle's (for its biological structure) and Kant's (for its physical, or better, dynamic, structure), while reserving Hegelian dialectic for Man and History..


---------- Post added 02-27-2010 at 06:05 PM ----------

Pythagorean;133119 wrote:

Man is God because he imposes forms. But he must know that he imposes the forms. He requires philosophy to know that his intuition imposes the forms. Philosophy could be numbers or it could be Rational Forms, but it is required. We must confess that we may not exist at all. We must apply the critical method to our own selves at the very point of our own thought and knowledge of our selves. What is the Form of our transcendental intuition? What is the transcendental in itself?


Yes! Philosophy is the self-consciousness of godman, also known as Sophia or Christ. I'm not saying we need to drag Christ in, but I find the Christ symbol numinous. Christ is the self-aware Logos? "I and my Father are One."
That's funny. It just hit me a different way. He and His Father are not just unified, but unification itself.
What is the form of the transcendental in itself? If it's a real transcendental, it is the very eye we must use to seek it out. It seems to me that the transcendental is inferred by means of abstraction. Our concepts/circles become less concerned with worldly qualia and more concerned with one another. Time penetrates Time instead of Space. The philosopher can sit home all day and change history, by means of the self-penetration of Concept.
Napolean's numen is Power and Fame. The Philosopher's numen something else, presumably something purer("Pure Reason"). Does the philosopher sacrifice or neglect his contingent personality(Practical Reason) to purse an impersonal but glorious numen(Sophia, Beatrice, Christ, Nondual)? (Saint Paul said "Not me, but Christ in me..") The Logos is Time is a snake knowing itself by swallowing itself and shitting itself except the loop tightens until the snake swallows its mouth, becomes 1? Or becomes the infinitesimal point of negative theology? (i / infinity)?
In a way, we don't exist. Or we don't exist. In a way, Being is One. To exist is to "stand apart," right? But if man is the one, or pure unification, he cannot stand apart. Cannot exist, but only ist. (Before Abraham was, I am.) That line always killed me. Always knew something was there. Am, Being, One, the Circle. All these manifestations of unity, eternity.

If you put the number one in intuitional space, you probably want a perfect sphere. As Parmenides saw. Oh sh*t! Something just clicked for me. The 1 and 0 have always both been unities, but strangely different. If unity is considered as time, it's spacial metaphor is an infintesimal point or nonbeing (or the square root of -1). But if unity is considered spatially, a sphere is preferable, as the sphere is the ideal containment of space. The concept takes in. If man is the concept (which is time) that burrows in space, then the visual representation of men should be a sphere. Intuitional space is triangular. (Not really, as in two dimensions, but metaphorically. Maybe I'm just forcing it because the triangle is numinous for me.) In any case, man is time and woman is space. Man is kernel. Woman is emanation. All of us are both, as Blake saw. The man is us is the philosophers, the radiant impersonal logos. The woman is our contingent mind, body, gender, position in "spacetime," etc.

Do you know Finnegans Wake? It's an obscure but brilliant book. It's cyclical dream-language panoramic myth-history-what-not with a hidden mathematical understructure that never deviates. Hegel and Plato are slyly involved. Finnegans Wake - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

salute!
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sun 7 Mar, 2010 09:05 am
@Reconstructo,
There's a great statue outside the LFPL. I see this marble seated demi-god & think how perfect stone is as a metaphor for the transcendental. The hard structure that does not vary from human to human. The way we imagine space, and the way we imagine number. It's exciting to study that which binds us together.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 04/01/2020 at 10:55:10