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 ----------
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 ----------
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.
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 ----------
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