this proposition is making me lose my fucking mind. It literally all hinges on this proposition.

this proposition is making me lose my fricking mind. It literally all hinges on this proposition. If it's true, then Hegel and Spinoza were right about everything. If it's false, then we basically live in a fake universe where the ground of everything is emptiness and what you perceive as substance is actually nothingness all the way down. Ignore Proclus's "proof" of it here, it's too primitive and doesn't take into account phenomenology (the proposition is undoubtedly true mathematically, what it all hinges on is whether it is true phenomenologically)

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >this proposition is making me lose my fricking mind
    why?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Because it literally all hinges on that single proposition.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Lol wtf does this mean.
        >if many, it is made up of an infinity of infinites
        >this is impossible
        So is the set of all rational numbers between 0 and 1impossible because it contains infinite subsets? In fact an infinite number of infinite subsets?

        Kek you're getting religiously hyped about a really vague and bad attempt to abstract out a general phenomenon that brains notice ("whole" vs. "parts") in a lot of different things, then you're building nonsense on nonsense. For every one of the word-salad sentences you say you can come up with some ad hoc mumbo jumbo about why the opposite is actually true instead.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >So is the set of all rational numbers between 0 and 1impossible because it contains infinite subsets? In fact an infinite number of infinite subsets?
          No, that is a basic confusion, Proclus here is talking about composition which is a relation and different from sets. And a set with infinite elements still participates unity because each element is a unity.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >each element is a unity.
            Then every part of the infinity of infinities of existence is a unity. Go outside homie

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Yes when you are talking about nested sets of sets and not a composition function which is completely different. You need to understand the logic of relatives.

            tbh it's just a human flaw to imagine an infinite set containing infinite sets as an entire set tho
            just imagine the same non-set containing infinite versions of itself times infinity for brevity's sake, and assume this also applies upwards
            there is no unity there

            >assume this also applies upwards
            This is what you can’t do. A set is constructed based on its elements, not based on what set it is a member of.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            tbh it's just a human flaw to imagine an infinite set containing infinite sets as an entire set tho
            just imagine the same non-set containing infinite versions of itself times infinity for brevity's sake, and assume this also applies upwards
            there is no unity there

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Elaborating, it’s basically possible that all the substantial qualia we perceive consciously is basically constructs of a non substantial universe. If that is true then emptiness is the fundamental character of the universe. If it’s false then the universe is basically emanations of one absolute substance. The problem is I have no way to determine which it is. For example, suppose that our concept of a number in the brain is generated from a brain process that is not number. But we also can’t seem to reduce number consciously to any more fundamental concept. So this means that the soirce of the concept of number could either be pure emptiness or an absolute substance, but since we can’t reduce number to a more fundamental concept we don’t know which it is…

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        And it’s basically proven that the substances we perceive aren’t their own cause, but we can’t figure out where they come from due to the fact that they are substances and substances aren’t predicated of or in anything else. So it seems like our awareness is made of discrete substances, like blue and green. But the qualia of blue and green must both come from the same thing that is neither blue or green. But we can’t conceive of either blue or green in any way except through themselves. So it’s both impossible to explain how blue and green come from one absolute substance and impossible to explain how they come from nothingness. But they can’t just eixts in some nether realm independently and then are merely actualized by physical processes so that all substances actually are discrete and independent, because then you can’t explain why time exists

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          I mean this is why Plato introduced the forms, but there is no adequate explanation of how you get from the Absolute One to individual forms. So it could just be that there are no forms at all and no One, and in fact it’s just emptiness and we aren’t perceiving substance at all. But apparently it takes like 10k hours of meditation before you realize how substances are actually empty. It doesn’t make any sense especially because it’s mathematically provable that all relations participate substance and that there is no infinite regress in the construction of qualia. But even when you prove that you still can’t explain how multiple substances are perceived. Because if multiple substances exist completely independent then there is no explanation for why you perceive one and not the other. You have to add in mediation between the forms and the true substance, but that is inadequate

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            And you may say that Kant basically disproved all of this, but phenomenology actually disproves Kant by proving that it is impossible for there to be noumena rhat isn’t ohenomena. So then you realize that in fact the cause of the universe is knowable and in fact the cause of noumenal world is the same as the conceivable cause of this world. There is a lot of proof of this I can’t get into because it is extremely complicated. But basically you can vindicate a substantial form of the ontological argument through phenomenology…

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Could you point me to where I can read about phenomenology proving the impossibility of nonphenomenal noumena?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            It’s basic logic but it all hinges on nihilology which is a huge mindfrick but to understand the basics you don’t need to read anything. Just realize that if noumena is not phenomena it is impossible to even say that noumena is outside phenomena because you have to form an idea of it to say that it is. I have developed a lot of other arguments that show basically the same thing and it all has to do with what non-existence is. But also can be shown from the definition of existence as something that is related to the relations of the universe. Most of it I have developed on my own and idk what other philosophers outright say the same things but you can read modern realists like Peirce and Whitehead. In the Harvard Lectures Peirce talks about how his three categories can each be shown to be present in the universe itself rather than just how we understand the universe.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            So in other words, it hasn't proved the impossibility of noumena but rather the impossibility of affirming the possibility of noumena.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            The point is that if you think long enough about existence and nothingness you realize those are the same things. It can be proven from the definition of existence as affecting something or being a fact for you or forcing itself upon you.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Plato
            He was refuted.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        You're a moronic midwit

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          I thought of that too

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >f it's false, then we basically live in a fake universe where the ground of everything is emptiness and what you perceive as substance is actually nothingness all the way down
        No one needs to tell you that you "are", you simply "are", and someone proving that you are or aren't, is of no consequence to you or anyone else, would it change things if I proved to you that you were computer generated? what if you were divine generated instead? there is no problem with it.

        Also there is not problem defining things from nothingness.
        Imagine a plane of nothing, then imagine in it a circle, the circle is in a plane of nothingness as you know a circle is a perimeter of the same distance to a point and not the content, but isn't then the nothingness inside it already defined and limited to become it's area? It works like that your brain that's it (the area) defining itself from an outside output (the perimiter) as long as there is no input you can make an input because you can make a definition (the circle), because this, measuring (creating a definition) is already an input. Just like the athoms filled with emptines that made your whole

        >Elaborating, it’s basically possible that all the substantial qualia we perceive consciously is basically constructs of a non substantial universe. If that is true then emptiness is the fundamental character of the universe.
        it would not, measuring would be, for it would allows for an input, is basically allows for creationism

        And it’s basically proven that the substances we perceive aren’t their own cause, but we can’t figure out where they come from due to the fact that they are substances and substances aren’t predicated of or in anything else. So it seems like our awareness is made of discrete substances, like blue and green. But the qualia of blue and green must both come from the same thing that is neither blue or green. But we can’t conceive of either blue or green in any way except through themselves. So it’s both impossible to explain how blue and green come from one absolute substance and impossible to explain how they come from nothingness. But they can’t just eixts in some nether realm independently and then are merely actualized by physical processes so that all substances actually are discrete and independent, because then you can’t explain why time exists

        >but we can’t figure out where they come from
        that is what we (beings) are doing, your brain is doing nothing but measuring and ordering everything you come across, that is why people say the universe is experiencing itself.

        I mean this is why Plato introduced the forms, but there is no adequate explanation of how you get from the Absolute One to individual forms. So it could just be that there are no forms at all and no One, and in fact it’s just emptiness and we aren’t perceiving substance at all. But apparently it takes like 10k hours of meditation before you realize how substances are actually empty. It doesn’t make any sense especially because it’s mathematically provable that all relations participate substance and that there is no infinite regress in the construction of qualia. But even when you prove that you still can’t explain how multiple substances are perceived. Because if multiple substances exist completely independent then there is no explanation for why you perceive one and not the other. You have to add in mediation between the forms and the true substance, but that is inadequate

        >but there is no adequate explanation of how you get from the Absolute One to individual forms.
        Sure there is, is beauty, wich is another measurement that can be created randomly, as it is said, beauty is held in the eye of the beholder

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Making a definition assumes there is a substance already because definitions just refer to some idea or concept that you can experience. So you aren’t defining a circle out of “nothing” you are defining it out of the experience of space and of distance within space.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Making a definition assumes there is a substance already
            No it does not, for it defines on itself when on "nothing".
            >” you are defining it out of the experience of space and of distance within space.
            you changed the plane of definition, In the analogy there is no space or distance, in fact there is no need for them because those are physical properties wich the circle doesn't have, it is a concept and an act, is defined on will

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Definitions might "assume" that something exists (they don't really, they just point to things which is not an action that requires the existence of those things) but even if they assume that something is exist, that doesn't make those things exist.

            >All proofs are logical
            I mean the proof is logical as in it is about logic and the form of reasoning itself. It’s not about quantity, it is about composition or something being defined relative to other things or as compounds of other things. But something composed of infinitely many singular things like certain numbers or a summation is not the same as something composed of infinitely parts that are also composed of infinitely many parts that are also composed of infinitely many parts etc. The proof isn’t just about quantity and it isn’t about sets. It is about whether relations can themselves be relative ad infinitum.

            You're half right. This has implications for number which your missing. All numbers partake in one.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >pointing to something doesn’t assume it exists
            What

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            nta, but have you ever programmed something? is like creating a varibale to reserve space, you may not know what you would use it for, but you can already define it.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Schizo fugue

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    go outside homie. None of this shit is relevant at all. Wow, the universe is empty…who gives a frick?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I go outside and all I notice is the paradox of substance. Literally everything you perceive is in some way substance. Once you realize this you can’t escape thinking about it because it makes no sense causologically

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Of course it doesn’t make sense. Because it’s not useful at all.
        >everything is the same substance
        So what?
        >everything is nothing
        So what?

        There’s literally nothing you can do with this information. You didn’t evolve for “truth.” But to use “truth” for power

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Who fricking cares whether it’s useful or not? Use itself is useless, especially when the sensible world is composed entirely of shifting and constantly negated feelings of compounded substances without cause, such that even the sensation of power is acausal. In fact, The power I gain by realizing the secret of substance is greater than the power of ten thousand kings, because realizing the secret of substance makes you one with the entire universe and therefore as powerful as the entire universe itself when acting on any one thing, while some part of the universe will always be acting against the ten thousand kings, no part will ever act against me because I will be every part

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I will pour insects into all of your holes and cut your dick off with a rusty knife. We’ll see how powerful you are, O enlightened one

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You don’t think I thought of that scenario?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I don’t think you did. Let’s talk about what you’re actually doing here. By trying to understand the universe, you fundamentally desire to use this information to serve you. That is, you want to CHANGE the universe. You want to be God. Why? Because obviously your life is so miserable and powerless that you see no other choice than to dedicate yourself to mind-numbingly incoherent bullshit that makes you feel superior for understanding it. You will not become “one” with the universe. You will not become enlightened. You will not learn any “secrets.” Your mind and body will slowly deteriorate beyond the point of no return so that you have no choice but to trick yourself that you’re actually God and that everything you see is just an empty dream. Well then why are you trapped here, dumb homosexual? Why can’t you change anything or have actual power? You’re just trading illusions for bigger illusions. You’re a dumb fricking monkey who evolved a big brain and now you think you’re God. You are mentally insane and weak and deserve to die without children

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >You’re a dumb fricking monkey who evolved a big brain and now you think you’re God. You are mentally insane and weak and deserve to die without children
            The entire point is that that doesn’t change anything and it doesn’t matter what I am. If there is some situation in which you are powerless then you never had power to begin with. True power is power regardless of where or what you are.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >If there is some situation in which you are powerless then you never had power to begin with.
            Damn. I might as well cut my dick off right now!

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Contrived. Define power plox.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Power over something means you can’t be defeated by it.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Ah, so the initial error was one of quantification. Just because something has power over you doesn't mean you are powerless, just that you don't have power over that thing.
            Can't is a strong word to use as it another universal quantifier. Someone can't get one over you, but are you always at your best, do you never sleep. Quite a few scenarios where they many things can defeat you. The power definition is trivialized into meaningless babble, describing something which has no practical reality.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Lol not that anon but this is some mighty projection.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >You’re a dumb fricking monkey
            I hope so

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            so does being one with the universe also mean being one with each and every one of those 10,000 kings? Or are they not part of the universe? Are they separate, they and the universe? Foreign entities?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Of course it doesn’t make sense. Because it’s not useful at all.
      >everything is the same substance
      So what?
      >everything is nothing
      So what?

      There’s literally nothing you can do with this information. You didn’t evolve for “truth.” But to use “truth” for power

      I don’t think you did. Let’s talk about what you’re actually doing here. By trying to understand the universe, you fundamentally desire to use this information to serve you. That is, you want to CHANGE the universe. You want to be God. Why? Because obviously your life is so miserable and powerless that you see no other choice than to dedicate yourself to mind-numbingly incoherent bullshit that makes you feel superior for understanding it. You will not become “one” with the universe. You will not become enlightened. You will not learn any “secrets.” Your mind and body will slowly deteriorate beyond the point of no return so that you have no choice but to trick yourself that you’re actually God and that everything you see is just an empty dream. Well then why are you trapped here, dumb homosexual? Why can’t you change anything or have actual power? You’re just trading illusions for bigger illusions. You’re a dumb fricking monkey who evolved a big brain and now you think you’re God. You are mentally insane and weak and deserve to die without children

      >monkey goes crazy because his brain doesn’t understand things it didn’t evolve to understand
      imagine my shock

      Black people yelling.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        AYY YO MAYNE CHECK THIS OUT (NIQQUH)
        IF EVRYTHANG WUZ SPLIT UP (NIQQUH)
        DEN DOZ THANGZ WOULD B PART OF DA HOLE (NIQQUH)
        SO DOZ TANGZ WUD STILL BE WHOLE EVEN DO DEY SPLIT (NIQQUH)

        WHOA MAYNE (NIQQUH)

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Protip: “Nothingness” IS the substance of the universe.

    The ultimate reality isn’t a “thing” because it’s totally transcendent. That’s what mystical stuff like Kabbalah or Pseudo-Dionysius mean when they say statements like “God exists” are not actually accurate, or what the Buddhists mean by saying “emptiness is form”. Your conundrum is answerable by simply saying that both propositions are correct.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      That’s incorrect. Of course I thought of that. Saying the absolute is ineffable is the same as saying it is emptiness. I am talking about TRUE emptiness that even the Absolute isn’t. I am talking about there being no Absolute at all. That is not the same as the Absolute being above existence. And anyway it has already been demonstrated that if the Absolute exists it is infinite substance and substance is characterized by its being. If there is the Absolute then the Absolute stands first in reality. If there is nothingness then there is no first at or end or anything and if there is a first there is something behind it and something behind it also. You basically will not understand what I am talking about until you conduct the full phenomenology of pure experience and thought as relation…

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >This is impossible :
    This is where we've spent two millennia. It's wrong. It's very possible. It's even true, making the proposition false, and with it everything that came after.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Then imagine something that doesn’t eventually break down into pure qualitative concepts or a compound of individual pure experiences. Go ahead

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        You need to be more specific in your language.
        I'm pretty sure the entirety of material reality operates on this basis. Chaos then existence first and foremost, layered, multiplicative, infinite, fractal; a series of infinities superseded by infinities all disjointed, nonetheless, and endlessly repeating. This is what everything points towards.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        That can be just the summatory of the sequence of 0 to -1.

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The buddhists say there is no completely independent substance (all dharmas are empty), Plato and Aristotle deny Parmenides's absolute monad. I'm not sure what you mean by "our concept of a number in the brain". There are no concepts or numbers in the brain. Blue and green clearly aren't Aristotelian substances predicated of or in nothing else. Also it seems like you're conflating whatever your notion of emptiness is with nothingness.

    In any case your posts are kind of all over the place such that it's hard to disentangle what dialectic(s) you're working with. Try calming the frick down.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Blue and green clearly aren't Aristotelian substances predicated of or in nothing else
      What? The pure experience of color is clearly not predicated of anything or explicable in terms of anything else, or as Spinoza would say they are understood only through themselves. The example Aristotle gives of a Primary Substance in the categories is the “individual man” just change that to “individual color”

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Some [things] are in a subject but are not said of any subject. (By ‘in a subject’ I mean what is in something, not as a part, and cannot exist separately from what it is in.) For example, the individual knowledge-of-grammar is in a subject, the soul, but is not said of any subject; and the individual white is in a subject, the body (for all colour is in a body), but is not said of any subject.

        You can't just transpose someone's way of speaking that easily into a modern post-Kantian phenomenological mode. Then you can easily lose how various approaches have elements of truth or are even in agreement. In a sense you should try to "let" these approaches speak to each other instead of trying to force them together all at once.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >You can't just transpose someone's way of speaking that easily into a modern post-Kantian phenomenological mode.
          I literally did do so by starting from basic phaneroscopy and arriving at an understanding of Substance that happened to corresponded to Aristotle so I use the same term. If all you do is let “various approaches” “speak to each other” then how will you figure out what is actually true? I’m not trying to force the philosophers together. I am trying to see how reality itself already is together.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Well the correspondence isn't one for one because he says white is not a substance.
            >If all you do is let “various approaches” “speak to each other” then how will you figure out what is actually true?
            You have to know what people mean if you're going to judge the truth of what they say. That's not all you need to do but it's necessary. I find poets or historians and scholars are often better at this than many so-called philosophers.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            The gefühl of white is a substance. Aristotle is considering whiteness as a spatial concept that is inseparable from the body. The momentary feeling of white is a substance though. He thinks in a different way but the concept of substance is the same. The concept that we see as different is color, not substance
            >You have to know what people mean if you're going to judge the truth of what they say.
            Well I just don’t care about what other people say, I’m interrogating reality itself not other people’s opinions of it. You always make more progress through your own investigation than someone elses because if you try to go through someone else you have to understand both them and reality but if you go through reality you cut out the middleman.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Aristotle's substances are modeled on growing things not momentary feelings. White doesn't grow, or change (underlie change). Why not call the gefühl of white a 'raw feel' or a 'sensum' or something else? If you're interrogating reality you expect it to speak in a way you understand. You don't have a private language. I think you ODed on Peirce.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Also
      >Try calming the frick down.
      Did you read the part where I said I was losing my fricking mind? I have posted my thoughts in full detail multiple times but then nobody engages with them because the word count is too long for IQfy‘s attention span so I might as well just give the unadulterated schizo rant

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >monkey goes crazy because his brain doesn’t understand things it didn’t evolve to understand
        imagine my shock

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Why don't you see for yourself? Proclus, Hegel, Spinoza didn't have any observational equipment for experience that you don't have. Take each proposition and weigh it against your world. Which is the truth? Or neither? In the end your are trying to force a square peg into a round hole by grafting conceptualizations onto something, which by nature, is not susceptible to conceptualization.

    >SUPPOSING that Truth is a woman--what then? Is there not ground for suspecting that all philosophers, in so far as they have been dogmatists, have failed to understand women--that the terrible seriousness and clumsy importunity with which they have usually paid their addresses to Truth, have been unskilled and unseemly methods for winning a woman? Certainly she has never allowed herself to be won; and at present every kind of dogma stands with sad and discouraged mien--IF, indeed, it stands at all!

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    There are no great (or complete) translations of Plotinus since it's in a metaphysical shorthand on top of ye old Greek. If there's a Thomas Taylor rendering of this passage, go to that for clarification.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >There are no great (or complete) translations of Plotinus since it's in a metaphysical shorthand on top of ye old Greek
      The frick are you talking about, Gerson and others have a completely translated edition of Plotinus for years now

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        He probably meant proclus, the passage in the OP is the thomas taylor translation I think. The part with the weird semicolon and parenthesis is still ambiguous.

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >nothing that is is made up of an infinity of infinites
    Don't tell this guy about hyperreals.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      You have to replace Proclus’s argument into the context of the logic of relatives to understand what he is talking about and what he means by unity like I said the form of the argument that appears here is primitive but it js demonstrable through other means and by reframing it into terms a modern mind understands

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    An infinite resolution means you're not measuring anything. The units don't represent anything.
    The physical origin of units is from energy states having discrete levels. Planck.

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >fake universe
    it is very much alive, the Earth is proof of it, if you mean plastic fake, a not genuine thing can still be real,
    the world may be boring but it is not unreal

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Philosophy is one big cope. Why don’t you find a useful way to spend your time instead?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I don’t choose to do this, I think about philosophy involuntarily

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Good thread. OP, you might enjoy what Tiantai Buddhism says about this topic and mutual entailment of both substance and emptiness. Start with the Stanford article.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      most of it sounds just like whitehead

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Anything strictly unconditional would ipso facto be omnipresent (no particular place rather than another can be the “condition” for its existence) and always occurring (no particular time rather than another can be the “condition” for its existence), and thus indistinguishable from anything else.
      this is just what I said about the existence of one substance that exists through itself cannot explain why there is time or why we perceive one substance at one moment and another at the next. Since substance is phenomenologically reducible to feeling, and yet a pure feeling has nothing contradicting its existence or preventing it from existing, and we can't find any reason for why there is any feeling at all or why there would not be some feeling, so why do we only feel one thing at a time and then feel something that is different later?
      >Whatever appears to be, i.e., to be just what it is and nothing else, cannot really be mutually exclusive with whatever it is not. X is “non-different” from non-X. This non-difference is called the Emptiness (空 kong, Śūnyatā) of X. For if X is non-different from non-X, it fails to fulfill the condition of being X stipulated in item #1, and thus X is not X; X is “empty”.
      I understand these arguments, the problem is that they still cannot explain why non-emptiness is observed, or why qualia exists at all. if these arguments are true then why do I perceive something like pure color? the pure experience of blue certainly isn't the same as the pure experience of anything else. It is different from everything, so it surely is itself. But everything is also only existent in relations to other things. So if it doesn't make any logical sense for something to be different from everything else, why do we feel things that are different from everything else? and no matter how much you meditate, you can't stop seeing blue as blue and you can't see the empty subconscious neuronal relations that lead to the qualitative experience of blue. You can't get behind your own consciousness and see the source of the so called "qualia" in electrical impulses. And even if you can create a model of the world where your brain is made of neurons that give rise to qualia even though all the neurons encode are empty relations, you still have to use a model that incorporates substantial conscious experience, for example, you have to incorporate the idea of an electrical impulse into the model, and if you say that the idea of the electrical impulse is a product of electrical impulses you have still said something substantial because you can't break down your idea of the electrical impulse until you see how the idea itself is not anything but pure relativity. you can't break down the idea of relativity itself to see how it arises from pure relativity. relativity itself is a substantial model.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        The pure experience of blue arises due to causes and conditions. It is not like the pure experience of anything else because it is related to everything else. It makes no more logical sense for something to be the same as "something else" without any difference. You imagine the alternative is seeing blue as not blue rather than blue but that's more like the materialist, nominalist approach, to which your objections do apply. The buddhist causes and conditions are arranged in the chain of dependent origination which is phenomenological so it doesn't arrive at those kinds of conclusions. You can see there are similarities to Hegel, Schelling, Plato.
        >Since substance is phenomenologically reducible to feeling, and yet a pure feeling has nothing contradicting its existence or preventing it from existing
        Ignorance causes us to proliferate these so-called pure feelings that we can discover are constantly contradicted at least subtly. There is a real difference-for-you or -me in our skill at discerning and responding and acting which can be cultivated.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          To add, I'm not convinced of all the buddhist conclusions and interpretations of this general process. It reveals a convergence with and complementarity to more western approaches. I'm not convinced we can't say and know in some sense more of essences/forms (I would say these are "wholes", in some sense, of which we have "feelings") and selves and god, etc. I'm not so bothered by real multiplicity. We can know materialism in most forms and nominalism are false. We must be able to know prior to being able to define.

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I recently enjoyed reading Reality by Peter Kingsley which examined Parmenides and Empedocles and their view of reality as one. He claims Plato misunderstood them and lost the meaning of their ideas.

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    This idea in a nutshell is the application of the mathematical concept of a convergent series to metaphysics. However as soon as we factor in physics and physical constraints, it's easily shown to be false.

    The energy content of any body of mass is necessarily finite. A manifold presumably consists of a collection of physical objects. Each object has a finite mass. Mass and energy are equivalent. If the manifold were to consist of infinite parts, it must then have infinite mass and energy. This violates the law of conservation and is demonstrably false.

    The argument can also be disproven through Mooreian common senseism. I have bit of string. I can cut it in two. I therefore have two new bits of string that can be countable as separate entities. Now that I have two, I now have two infinite unities which both "participates unity". This constitutes a contradiction, because I can't have two bits of string if they are both supposed to be a single unity.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      See

      And also it has nothing to do with sets because a set with infinite members all of which are sets with infinite members and so on is still a compound of singular things since all the sets inside it are defined. Sets are not composition, they are inclusion, a set isn’t made out of it’s elements, it includes them, so infinite numbers and whatever are not relevant.

      >All proofs are logical
      I mean the proof is logical as in it is about logic and the form of reasoning itself. It’s not about quantity, it is about composition or something being defined relative to other things or as compounds of other things. But something composed of infinitely many singular things like certain numbers or a summation is not the same as something composed of infinitely parts that are also composed of infinitely many parts that are also composed of infinitely many parts etc. The proof isn’t just about quantity and it isn’t about sets. It is about whether relations can themselves be relative ad infinitum.

      It’s not a proof in numbers or set theory, it’s a proof in logic. I made a thread on IQfy a while ago.
      [...]
      The binary function is just an example of a more abstract category of logical relation called a triad. It basically means you can’t define something as a relation of two relations that are each defined by two relations and so on ad infinitum because you never get an “output” or a meaningful relation. It means that eventually you have to get to a relation that is composed of something substantial.

      a like has infinite points but each point constitutes a unity. The proof is about logicorelational COMPOSITION, not collections or sets. The proper argument is that if you define something relative to other things infinitely you haven’t defined anything because you haven’t gotten to anything substantial.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *