Imagination as a Negative Dimension

This is not an everything goes forum, but rather a place to ask questions and request help for developing your ideas.

Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby Eodnhoj7 on April 5th, 2018, 1:31 pm 

Braininvat » April 4th, 2018, 1:15 pm wrote:
Eodnhoj7 » April 4th, 2018, 6:42 am wrote:
Braininvat » April 3rd, 2018, 3:51 pm wrote:Perchance the emperor Doe is wearing no clothes. Wink wink.


Forum Etiquette

We expect all members to conduct themselves in a manner which encourages growth in our community, and fosters an atmosphere of learning.


II - Personal attacks are strictly prohibited. While it's normal for debates to sometimes grow heated, all comments should remain focused on the actual theories being presented, and/or the responses to challenges from fellow posters. We do not tolerate posts which demean another user on a personal level.


It was a light-hearted metaphor, on subjective vs. objective, and the role of imagination. And you can rest easy that the forum admin is aware of the forum guidelines. It's unfortunate that you are seeing things in adversarial terms. Next time, I hope you will ask if something is intended seriously or in jest, if there's any question in your mind. If there is an actual personal attack, please do not hesitate to flag the post.


Fault is mine then, it is difficult to express the other various forms of communication (tone, body language, etc.) through digital medians.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User
 
Posts: 172
Joined: 02 Mar 2018


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby mitchellmckain on April 5th, 2018, 4:08 pm 

Braininvat » April 4th, 2018, 12:15 pm wrote:
Braininvat » April 3rd, 2018, 3:51 pm wrote:Perchance the emperor Doe is wearing no clothes. Wink wink.


It was a light-hearted metaphor, on subjective vs. objective, and the role of imagination. And you can rest easy that the forum admin is aware of the forum guidelines. It's unfortunate that you are seeing things in adversarial terms. Next time, I hope you will ask if something is intended seriously or in jest, if there's any question in your mind. If there is an actual personal attack, please do not hesitate to flag the post.



The reference to the emperor's new clothes was obvious, but the use of the name Doe confused me. If I wanted to pursue it I would have simply asked about the use of the name. If there was something critical or adversarial in it, then it went completely over my head.

Anyway it looks like it is time for me to drop this whole discussion altogether. The responses are getting a little petty and this and other non-sequiturs suggests that someone needs a time-out to get their frustration under more control.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1223
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby Eodnhoj7 on April 6th, 2018, 12:41 pm 

mitchellmckain » April 5th, 2018, 4:08 pm wrote:
Braininvat » April 4th, 2018, 12:15 pm wrote:
Braininvat » April 3rd, 2018, 3:51 pm wrote:Perchance the emperor Doe is wearing no clothes. Wink wink.


It was a light-hearted metaphor, on subjective vs. objective, and the role of imagination. And you can rest easy that the forum admin is aware of the forum guidelines. It's unfortunate that you are seeing things in adversarial terms. Next time, I hope you will ask if something is intended seriously or in jest, if there's any question in your mind. If there is an actual personal attack, please do not hesitate to flag the post.



The reference to the emperor's new clothes was obvious, but the use of the name Doe confused me. If I wanted to pursue it I would have simply asked about the use of the name. If there was something critical or adversarial in it, then it went completely over my head.

Anyway it looks like it is time for me to drop this whole discussion altogether. The responses are getting a little petty and this and other non-sequiturs suggests that someone needs a time-out to get their frustration under more control.


Maybe for you, I am just warming up....to summate the argument in an effort to recycle the premises back to a new form while simultaneously maintaining the original:

1) Imagination is an imaging process.

2) This imaging process manifests and is dependent upon boundaries, with these boundaries having inherent qualitative and quantitative spatial nature. In this manner these boundaries give premise to forms.

3) These forms exist as approximations of further forms while simultaneously being whole forms in and of themselves. In this respect the manifestation of boundaries is the manifestation of forms with these forms, and their inherent boundaries requiring previous forms and boundaries.

4) In this manner the imaging process is dependent upon a degree of 'objective' rational (because of the previous forms/boundaries) while simultaneously acting as the very same premise for this objective rational. This objective rational observes a certain "universality" within the forms/boundaries that exist through further forms and boundaries hence "subjectivity" maintains itself as a common bond.

5) This objective nature to the imaging process, through the manifestation and maintenance of boundaries, observes these boundaries acting as a common median to phenomena simultaneously while in a separate respect individuating these very same phenomena.

6) As a common median a boundary observes an approximation of a unified reality where everything exists as "1". In these respects a form is an extension of another form ad-infinitum while simultaneously being an extension of the 1 hence and approximation of the 1.

a)In this manner the imaging of a reality, is an act of approximation with any perceived "separation" that allows for the individual form being a negative boundary in the respect is does not exist on its own terms but rather as an approximation. Considering no two phenomena are entirely separate, this boundary in itself is "imaginary" in the respect it images "1 reality" through an approximation of it.

b)This approximation, being the limit of any perceivable unity, is the limits of structure or stability or a reality. Approximation, as the limit of "being through order as structure", is synonymous to randomness. Randomness in this respect is a negative dimension in the respect it does not exist on its own terms but rather as an observation of some order it moves toward in a form of approximation.

c) Qualitatively speaking, randomness is negative space, and quantitatively it begins as -1. Considering randomness is an absence of order and not a thing in itself, it is not conducive to zero, as randomness (being an approximation of order, hence order) is an approximation of order therefore order.

d) In this manner the imagination has an element of randomness to it implying further that "subjectivity" also has a degree of randomness. Observation and reason, through the imagination, come from randomness.




7) As an individuator, a boundary observes a unit relative to another unit where everything exists through a state of change, with this change being conducive to "finiteness" or "time" as an approximation of the "1". In this manner individuation is a form of separation conducive to "relativity" or "relation" where one part exists through its relation to another where 1 as a unit exists to through its change as 1 being a unit.

a)In this manner the imaging of reality, is an act of individuation where forms exist through a state of continual change. This imaging of reality, through forms as a state of change, observes the boundary as a unit which relates to further units in order to exist.

b) In this manner, considering the imagining process is dependent upon a possibilistic nature, these boundaries as negative dimensions observe potential realities from which an actual (localized finite phenomena) moves towards. In this manner the imaging process manifests the forms of "potential" movement that act as a field through which actual movement exists.

c) Qualitatively speaking, potentiality is negative space, through which actual movement exists as a positive value. This is considering potential movement is a deficiency in positive locality. Quantitatively it exists as -1.

d) In this manner the imagination has an element of potentiality to it implying further that "subjecitivity" also has a degree of potentiality. Observation and reason, through the imagination, come from potentiality.



8) The imaging process as negative in nature, quantititively as -1, observes a dualism of randomness and potentiality inherent within it. In this manner potentiality is a form of approximation of a units "unified" movement.

9) The basic boundary of the imaging process, which cannot be reduce to anything further than itself as its own form of measurement is the "line". Linear dimensions are applied to all forms to give them structure through straightness or curvature (an a approximation of straight lines). The line as an approximation of unity is -1 in nature while the line as an observation of potential relations is also -1 in nature.

10) Linear structures, acting as potential and approximate boundaries to reality are linear in nature, hence the imaging process is a process of linear synthesis. The line as localized is 1 dimensional, and relativistically speaking, is dependent upon -1 space (through the angle) for its localization.

11) The imagination is a process of synthesis where boundaries are synthesized which in turn exists both as axioms and symbols through which reality is mediated.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User
 
Posts: 172
Joined: 02 Mar 2018


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby Braininvat on April 6th, 2018, 2:43 pm 

TBH, I have to wonder if anyone here at PCF is really able to follow your unique use of abstract nomenclature.

I wonder if

https://thephilosophyforum.com

might be a better fit for you.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 6474
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby BadgerJelly on April 7th, 2018, 12:27 am 

Biv -

There is value here I think. You've already seen me try for some time to put across my understanding of phenomenology. This is very similar, but I'd also agree that the terminology can get confusing.

This is the problem with phenomenology, we're talking about language at all, but to express the ideas we inevitably must use language.

Eod -

I would really like to see more clarity of what you mean by "negative dimension" - especially the "dimension". Also, it would be better if you distinguished between sensory perception and what you term as "imagining process" because those are the terms that really leave me unsure of what you're expressing.

I think I understand it, but it is only in a vague way - as it must be to some degree for all depth of phenomenon.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5265
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby BadgerJelly on April 7th, 2018, 2:55 am 

Eod -

I try and address the problem I have with reading this here.

note: I want a concise explanation not ten words written for every one I write - if possible!

1) Imagination is an imaging process.


How? What are talking about here? I we to regard this as a neurological process and what precisely do you mean when you say "imaging"? I am guessing you don't mean visual and are referring to something along the lines of Kantian intuitions. I f not I've no idea what you're talking about and you're assuming the reader knows what you know.

2) This imaging process manifests and is dependent upon boundaries, with these boundaries having inherent qualitative and quantitative spatial nature. In this manner these boundaries give premise to forms.


Again, no idea what "this imaging process" means, nor does the term "manifest" do much more than avoid deeper questions - it is okay to say "I don't know what goes on here."

My guess at the meaning makes this seem circular. To explain, "the imaging process" is essentially built upon the intuitions and therefore they "manifest" from themselves - being the "boundaries."

Also, there is no meaning to "qualitative" or "quantitative" here. What do you mean by qualitative space? It seems like you may mean "abstract conception" or something of the sort; but again, I am left guessing.

3) These forms exist as approximations of further forms while simultaneously being whole forms in and of themselves. In this respect the manifestation of boundaries is the manifestation of forms with these forms, and their inherent boundaries requiring previous forms and boundaries.


"Exist" meaning what, where and how? This looks more like a kind of reiteration that does little more than confound the reader (something I do too often myself.) Basically, it may be better to drop this completely because you're merely repeating the circular reasoning I outlined above - or so I believe.

4) In this manner the imaging process is dependent upon a degree of 'objective' rational (because of the previous forms/boundaries) while simultaneously acting as the very same premise for this objective rational. This objective rational observes a certain "universality" within the forms/boundaries that exist through further forms and boundaries hence "subjectivity" maintains itself as a common bond.


What "manner"? And what "objective" and how does this differ and/or coincide with the "subjective"?

The "universality" is the boundary it is not formed within the boundaries, yet through the boundaries something resembling "universality" is known - like I mentioned elsewhere with Husserl's terminological distinction between "moments" and "parts" - one being inextricable from the existent phenomenon (eg. sound cannot exist without "tone", "pitch" or "volume" and if you think it can you're either delusional or misusing the words.)

note: I laying out of the terms "knowledge" and "apodictic knowledge" may be useful here to give a clearer picture of what you're talking about.

5) This objective nature to the imaging process, through the manifestation and maintenance of boundaries, observes these boundaries acting as a common median to phenomena simultaneously while in a separate respect individuating these very same phenomena.


What "objective nature"? What "maintenance"? What "observer"? Do you mean "medium" where you wrote "median"? If not what does that mean? How can things be simultaneously "observed"? What does "individuating" mean?

Can you see why this is getting progressively messy as we go on. If not please understand the lack of clarity given in (1) as to what we're actually trying to talk about here.

6) As a common median a boundary observes an approximation of a unified reality where everything exists as "1". In these respects a form is an extension of another form ad-infinitum while simultaneously being an extension of the 1 hence and approximation of the 1.


It looks like you may have been better off opening here? But again, we find the same issue with the term "median" and "reality", and what you mean by "extension" is not clear either; are we talking analogies or about spaciotemporal phenomenon. I've no idea and it appears you may not be so sure yourself and keep flitting between two different types of abstraction without telling us which one you're referring to.

a)In this manner the imaging of a reality, is an act of approximation with any perceived "separation" that allows for the individual form being a negative boundary in the respect is does not exist on its own terms but rather as an approximation. Considering no two phenomena are entirely separate, this boundary in itself is "imaginary" in the respect it images "1 reality" through an approximation of it.


What is this "reality"? And what is a "negative boundary" if not terminology taken from Kant?

You seem to be guessing at neurological processes here in regard to sense datum.

b)This approximation, being the limit of any perceivable unity, is the limits of structure or stability or a reality. Approximation, as the limit of "being through order as structure", is synonymous to randomness. Randomness in this respect is a negative dimension in the respect it does not exist on its own terms but rather as an observation of some order it moves toward in a form of approximation.


"Randomness"? What do you mean by this and how it is synonymous with the obscure terminology you've done little to explicate?

c) Qualitatively speaking, randomness is negative space, and quantitatively it begins as -1. Considering randomness is an absence of order and not a thing in itself, it is not conducive to zero, as randomness (being an approximation of order, hence order) is an approximation of order therefore order.


Logically speaking that is nonsense. We have no antonym for "space" or "time". This is where the analogous nature of language becomes a hazard to non-verbal thought. The whole issue here may actually arise from the false assumption of "objective" and "subjective" as being opposites - this is simply not the case yet it is hard to deal really see the issue if you cannot get past that line of thought.

d) In this manner the imagination has an element of randomness to it implying further that "subjectivity" also has a degree of randomness. Observation and reason, through the imagination, come from randomness.


Again, nothing much here. Seems like a conclusion that is no more than a reiteration of the previous points (which are deeply obscure.)


7) As an individuator, a boundary observes a unit relative to another unit where everything exists through a state of change, with this change being conducive to "finiteness" or "time" as an approximation of the "1". In this manner individuation is a form of separation conducive to "relativity" or "relation" where one part exists through its relation to another where 1 as a unit exists to through its change as 1 being a unit.


More issues, they are multiplying now and you appear to be plugging the holes by using more parenthesis' and introducing more, unclarified, terminology.

a)In this manner the imaging of reality, is an act of individuation where forms exist through a state of continual change. This imaging of reality, through forms as a state of change, observes the boundary as a unit which relates to further units in order to exist.


"Individuation" is a term I am familiar with from Jungian psychology. I don't see where this fits in here?

b) In this manner, considering the imagining process is dependent upon a possibilistic nature, these boundaries as negative dimensions observe potential realities from which an actual (localized finite phenomena) moves towards. In this manner the imaging process manifests the forms of "potential" movement that act as a field through which actual movement exists.


It may be as you said. The issue is I have no idea what you said because you've not told us what you mean by "imaging process" or "negative dimensions" or "reality" (in terms of what you mean by "knowledge" and "actual".) Can "phenomenon" have "distance"? That makes no sense from a phenomenological perspective - looks like a conflation of philosophical positions; and again the lack of distinction makes it illegible for me or an exercise of speculative translation and guesswork.

c) Qualitatively speaking, potentiality is negative space, through which actual movement exists as a positive value. This is considering potential movement is a deficiency in positive locality. Quantitatively it exists as -1.


I think I have a gist of what you mean here, but then the question would be why not erase everything else you've written and cut to the chase? That was why I threw out the word "anticipation" in a previous post. I still refuse to get onboard with undefined uses of terms like "quantitative".

d) In this manner the imagination has an element of potentiality to it implying further that "subjecitivity" also has a degree of potentiality. Observation and reason, through the imagination, come from potentiality.


By this you are saying "potential" means "potential". We already know what it means so I don't see the use in saying so.

8) The imaging process as negative in nature, quantititively as -1, observes a dualism of randomness and potentiality inherent within it. In this manner potentiality is a form of approximation of a units "unified" movement.


Meaningless at this point because you're making out a case for negative existence of some kind. This would be blind belief in positive noumenon - which is simply delusional because it is an impossibility.

9) The basic boundary of the imaging process, which cannot be reduce to anything further than itself as its own form of measurement is the "line". Linear dimensions are applied to all forms to give them structure through straightness or curvature (an a approximation of straight lines). The line as an approximation of unity is -1 in nature while the line as an observation of potential relations is also -1 in nature.


There is nothing "basic" about any of this. You're just stating, in a rough-shod way, the basic principle of phenomenology it appears. Although the use of the term "dimension" makes the whole thing cloudy IMO. The "-1" does naught to help my understanding of whatever it is you wish to get across at this juncture.

10) Linear structures, acting as potential and approximate boundaries to reality are linear in nature, hence the imaging process is a process of linear synthesis. The line as localized is 1 dimensional, and relativistically speaking, is dependent upon -1 space (through the angle) for its localization.


Linear structures are linear? Well, yes. How you leap to some other conclusion about "image processing" (which you've not outlined well enough for me to understand what you're talking about or from what position - philosophically) is unclear, and apparently hidden in the convenient escape route of relavitism?

Don't get me started on what it is your talking about when you refer to "angle".

11) The imagination is a process of synthesis where boundaries are synthesized which in turn exists both as axioms and symbols through which reality is mediated.


And this means what exactly in plain English?

Summation:

- Unclear starting point.
- Lack of explication about what the terms you use mean or how they are to be applied.
- No clear question up for investigation.
- Concatenation of obscure terms that leads to what appears to be your own subjective jargon.
- An admixture of ideas that don't appear compatible or reasonable.
- Use of analogy with declaring that you're using analogy - if not then there is nothing here I am likely to bother much of my time with.


Recommendations:

- Just one point. Start with the main features and make sure the reader understands what they say. For me it would be best if you addressed point (1) and define the terms and context before shifting gears and getting into points 2-11, which frankly seem less and less connected as I moved through them or merely reiterations of previous points that could have been put much more succinctly.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5265
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby Eodnhoj7 on April 9th, 2018, 1:31 pm 

BadgerJelly » April 7th, 2018, 2:55 am wrote:Eod -

I try and address the problem I have with reading this here.

note: I want a concise explanation not ten words written for every one I write - if possible!

Short? Okay.

1) Imagination is an imaging process.


How? What are talking about here? I we to regard this as a neurological process and what precisely do you mean when you say "imaging"? I am guessing you don't mean visual and are referring to something along the lines of Kantian intuitions. I f not I've no idea what you're talking about and you're assuming the reader knows what you know.

Imagination as "imaging":

"the faculty or action of forming new ideas, or images or concepts of external objects not present to the senses.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=imaginati ... FC33482B8F


2) This imaging process manifests and is dependent upon boundaries, with these boundaries having inherent qualitative and quantitative spatial nature. In this manner these boundaries give premise to forms.


Again, no idea what "this imaging process" means, nor does the term "manifest" do much more than avoid deeper questions - it is okay to say "I don't know what goes on here."

"Imaging process manifests" = The formation of images is a process which "manifests" (makes, forms, etc.) boundaries. However the formation of boundaries is dependent upon boundaries in themselves.

example A: if I form a line, the line must exist as a concept to begin with, or vice versa.


My guess at the meaning makes this seem circular. To explain, "the imaging process" is essentially built upon the intuitions and therefore they "manifest" from themselves - being the "boundaries."

As seen in example A, the line can be observed as either an empirical or abstract reality. What unites this empirical and abstract reality is the "line" as neutral medial point in the respect it is both empirical and abstract in one sense. In a separate sense it is neither considering the concepts of "empirical" and "abstract" are separated by boundaries in and of themselves. At the intuitive level we use the term "drawing line", or "boundaries" (which are dependent upon the line) to seperate concepts into symbols.

This "reasoning" is both circular (to maintain a self-reflective nature to the origin) and simultaneously linear (to progress by observing an inherent finiteness to the symbolism).


Also, there is no meaning to "qualitative" or "quantitative" here. What do you mean by qualitative space? It seems like you may mean "abstract conception" or something of the sort; but again, I am left guessing.

A qualitative space would be a line, angle, etc. A color, considering it is composed of wavelengths as alternating angles, also acts as a qualitative space. Quality in these regards to quote bings dictionary, would be: size, appearance or value. Quantity, as number, would observe space fundamentally relations of parts, with each "part" of space merely being one units direction through another. Hence Quantity, as direction of spatial movement, would observe "parts as directions relating through directions". I may have to clarify this point further.

3) These forms exist as approximations of further forms while simultaneously being whole forms in and of themselves. In this respect the manifestation of boundaries is the manifestation of forms with these forms, and their inherent boundaries requiring previous forms and boundaries.


"Exist" meaning what, where and how? This looks more like a kind of reiteration that does little more than confound the reader (something I do too often myself.) Basically, it may be better to drop this completely because you're merely repeating the circular reasoning I outlined above - or so I believe.

Part of this "problem" may be due to the problem of English language where "exist" and "being" are approximations of each other and can be interchanged at times. This problem of "approximation" as observed in the above post is expressed in the language problem here. "Exist" is approximate in definition to "being". However as an approximate we can observe a simultaneous unity (in the respect they "mirror" a common definition as extensions of it) in one respect and in a separate respect a "disunity" (in the respect that as approximates they observe a "limit" to this very same unified definition as multiplicity akin to a form of randomness as "seperation" through non-being).

I may have to elaborate further on the underlined.


4) In this manner the imaging process is dependent upon a degree of 'objective' rational (because of the previous forms/boundaries) while simultaneously acting as the very same premise for this objective rational. This objective rational observes a certain "universality" within the forms/boundaries that exist through further forms and boundaries hence "subjectivity" maintains itself as a common bond.


What "manner"?
The imaging process is dependent upon objective dimensions (such as the line) to form further dimensions.


And what "objective" and how does this differ and/or coincide with the "subjective"?
The line is purely an objective space in the respect, pardon the pun, it is an "object". I can elaborate this point further if you wish. The subjective, or the manifestation of the line, is less rational in this regard considering the subjective has an inherent "random" element, "potential" can be argued simultaneously but I will avoid this for now for simplicity, in the respect that the "subjective" is not universal and has an inherent "immeasurable" aspect to it considering it is relegated to the individual.


The "universality" is the boundary it is not formed within the boundaries, yet through the boundaries something resembling "universality" is known - like I mentioned elsewhere with Husserl's terminological distinction between "moments" and "parts" - one being inextricable from the existent phenomenon (eg. sound cannot exist without "tone", "pitch" or "volume" and if you think it can you're either delusional or misusing the words.)

Paradoxically the universality is found in the boundaries considering the "boundaries", whose premise is observe oftentimes as a 1 dimensional (directional) line, is in itself a universal.

Sound can exist as "tone", "pitch" or "volume" in the respect that these concepts in an of themselves become ideas separate from the phenomena. "tone", "pitch" and "volume" as concepts are separate in the respect we are observing symbolic median which are not united from their empirical phenomena. In this respect there is a form of "relativity", as the relation of parts, where one abstract symbol relates to another without any clear empirical unity. We can observe this example in the very same conversation we are observing.

This is from a premise of "multiplicity" where we observe unity of everything through an approximation of parts conducive to change, finiteness, time, etc. From a perspective of wholism you are correct, but the form contradicts the function (in regards to husserl's argument) as he must break reality into parts in order to understand the "whole" phenomena. These parts as constants, such as "tone", "pitch" or "volume" require a form of non-changing unity however, and we are left we a duality of "unity" and "multiplicity" where the synthesis observes a third median of: "the dimension (or boundary in simpler terms) as symbolism through the axiom".

I may have to elaborate this point further.


note: I laying out of the terms "knowledge" and "apodictic knowledge" may be useful here to give a clearer picture of what you're talking about.

The problem of Husserl's argument, along with that of many other philosopher's (even our conversation at the practical level), is that the definition as an axiomatic symbol is dependent upon the framework it is presented. Husserl's definitions work for the framework they exist inside, but outside that framework a continual source of, what to call it, "logisitic entropy?" occurs.

5) This objective nature to the imaging process, through the manifestation and maintenance of boundaries, observes these boundaries acting as a common median to phenomena simultaneously while in a separate respect individuating these very same phenomena.


What "objective nature"?

What "maintenance"? What "observer"? Do you mean "medium" where you wrote "median"? If not what does that mean? How can things be simultaneously "observed"? What does "individuating" mean?

The line, as an objective space, maintains itself through other lines as objective space as the line exists through the line, both as itself and through its mirroring of further lines. Considering the line as a boundary exists through other lines, this mirroring process acts as glue which holds the boundaries together through repetition as a form of symmetry. In these respects the mirroring process maintains itself through itself by an act of continual "reproduction" of the boundaries which compose it.


Can you see why this is getting progressively messy as we go on. If not please understand the lack of clarity given in (1) as to what we're actually trying to talk about here.

Actually it is not messy at all. Referencing one philosopher's definition causes a paradoxical lack of clarity as clarity in one direction causes a lack of clarity in another. Hence a "this school versus that school" problem occurs. What if I favored Heidegger over Husserl? A language problem continues. The simple truth is that the dialogue is the only form of synthesis that allows any medial definitions, observed by both parties, to be established. Hence we must loop back, at the practical level, to the Socratic dialectic as a form of Hegelian Synthesis.

6) As a common median a boundary observes an approximation of a unified reality where everything exists as "1". In these respects a form is an extension of another form ad-infinitum while simultaneously being an extension of the 1 hence and approximation of the 1.


It looks like you may have been better off opening here? But again, we find the same issue with the term "median" and "reality", and what you mean by "extension" is not clear either; are we talking analogies or about spaciotemporal phenomenon. I've no idea and it appears you may not be so sure yourself and keep flitting between two different types of abstraction without telling us which one you're referring to.

If all phenomena are extensions of one phenomena, and the spaciotemporal phenomena is an extension of this "1" phenomena, then all phenomena mirror the spaciotemporal phenomena through the phenomena of the "1".

Median can be observed as a center of a phenomena, with this center "due to its equality in all directions" referring to a point of origin and end.

Reality is a higher grade of a phenomena where it appears through a larger number of senses, ie empirical reality. It can also be observe as a phenomena which determines the relations of the other senses, ie abstract.

Reality, and the fault may be mine in this regard, is highly relative to the point from which one measures (empirical vs. abstract). In this manner, considering reality is relative through its point of measurement, reality (as a point) is a degree of measurement in itself. In these respects reality is a form of measurement through observation.


a)In this manner the imaging of a reality, is an act of approximation with any perceived "separation" that allows for the individual form being a negative boundary in the respect is does not exist on its own terms but rather as an approximation. Considering no two phenomena are entirely separate, this boundary in itself is "imaginary" in the respect it images "1 reality" through an approximation of it.


What is this "reality"? And what is a "negative boundary" if not terminology taken from Kant?
The "imaging of a reality" would translate to: the imaging of a phenomena by applying boundaries to it. These boundaries may happen in the mind and further extend into the physical so long as their is a symmetry in the laws between the abstract image and physical image. Considering an image is merely a form, and is fundamentally axiomatic, it takes on a symbolism in itself considering that it mediates (or is the origin and/or end of) other phenomena.

If Kant observes this inherent symbolism, then other authors such as Plato (forms), Pierce (triadic logic), Hofstadter, Buddhist philosophy, Christian Writing (letters of St. Paul), are merely mirroring it. But, although I may be incorrect or not well verse enough the structure of the symbol did not observe the process of measurement as inherent within it as both an objective and subjective phenomena that synthesizes itself.

And argument of a similar manner can be applied to "negative boundaries" as I argue that these boundaries are not things in and of themselves but merely approximations of unified whole considering these divide reality into empirical and abstract forms which can be observed as units. The processing of imaging, or "imagination", in these respects considering it "approximates" a whole observes a form of multipicity in forms in one respect while synthesizing these very same forms for what they are: "axioms".

Is it circular reasoning? From a western perspective it is, but from an eastern perspective it is not. Considering the fallacy of circular reasoning contradicts itself through the fallacy of authority, the nature of the fallacy is in itself fallacious.

Is it linear reasoning? From a western perspective it is simultaneously as one definition (unity) leads to another (multiplicity) which leads to another "synthesis" which leads to another "axiom", etc.


You seem to be guessing at neurological processes here in regard to sense datum.

Not really, but even if I were guessing the science of neurology itself is a guess in regards to the nature of consciousness considering the data is probabilistic.

b)This approximation, being the limit of any perceivable unity, is the limits of structure or stability or a reality. Approximation, as the limit of "being through order as structure", is synonymous to randomness. Randomness in this respect is a negative dimension in the respect it does not exist on its own terms but rather as an observation of some order it moves toward in a form of approximation.


"Randomness"? What do you mean by this and how it is synonymous with the obscure terminology you've done little to explicate?

Randomness is the approximation of unity, but observe a multiplicity whose complete structure we cannot preserve hence cannot predict. "Randomness as approximation" is a definition used in Chaos Theory.

c) Qualitatively speaking, randomness is negative space, and quantitatively it begins as -1. Considering randomness is an absence of order and not a thing in itself, it is not conducive to zero, as randomness (being an approximation of order, hence order) is an approximation of order therefore order.


Logically speaking that is nonsense. We have no antonym for "space" or "time". This is where the analogous nature of language becomes a hazard to non-verbal thought.
The statement contradicts itself as you put a thought, through language as a series of symbols, into a form.

As to the antonyms:
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/space
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/time?s=t


The whole issue here may actually arise from the false assumption of "objective" and "subjective" as being opposites - this is simply not the case yet it is hard to deal really see the issue if you cannot get past that line of thought.

They are dualistic in the sense that their symmetry is divided under the term "axiom", while from a seperate perspective summated under the very same definition. In this manner the concepts "axiom", "objective" and "subjective" form a triadic relation.

The line as a universal axiom is further observed in your statement "you cannot get past that line of thought" and maintains an intuitive and abstract quality necessary for the thought and imaging process. This goes back to the previously explored points.


d) In this manner the imagination has an element of randomness to it implying further that "subjectivity" also has a degree of randomness. Observation and reason, through the imagination, come from randomness.


Again, nothing much here. Seems like a conclusion that is no more than a reiteration of the previous points (which are deeply obscure.)

Obscure is a subjective term considering simple things in themselves become obscure under the lens of complexity. Most arguments extend through a frequency of change where they are continually rehashed to enforce a point. We see this in the abstract, argument, conclusion triad which composes most arguments. This can be observed in the looping nature of consciousness where an axiom is repeated to reinforce itself, such as in a mantra or that act of memorization. Authors such as Marcus Arelius have also observe this as inherent.

7) As an individuator, a boundary observes a unit relative to another unit where everything exists through a state of change, with this change being conducive to "finiteness" or "time" as an approximation of the "1". In this manner individuation is a form of separation conducive to "relativity" or "relation" where one part exists through its relation to another where 1 as a unit exists to through its change as 1 being a unit.


More issues, they are multiplying now and you appear to be plugging the holes by using more parenthesis' and introducing more, unclarified, terminology.

Then get a dictionary.

a)In this manner the imaging of reality, is an act of individuation where forms exist through a state of continual change. This imaging of reality, through forms as a state of change, observes the boundary as a unit which relates to further units in order to exist.


"Individuation" is a term I am familiar with from Jungian psychology. I don't see where this fits in here?

A form separates itself into another form through the act of repetition and these forms relates to each other as individual units. Take for example the form of the "line". It folds into itself, hypothetically and for the sake of example, to produce further "lines" as units through which it relates. It does this considering that a line, as infinite, has nowhere to go in 0d space hence must move through itself as its own framework as it must project "somewhere", with this "somewhere" being further forms through which it relates.

Considering the application of a unit as a form of measurement, is a process of "individuation" in which a unit is manifested, it does not contradict Jungian psychology in the respect that a form of seperation is necessitated for identity within a whole.


b) In this manner, considering the imagining process is dependent upon a possibilistic nature, these boundaries as negative dimensions observe potential realities from which an actual (localized finite phenomena) moves towards. In this manner the imaging process manifests the forms of "potential" movement that act as a field through which actual movement exists.


It may be as you said. The issue is I have no idea what you said because you've not told us what you mean by "imaging process" or "negative dimensions" or "reality" (in terms of what you mean by "knowledge" and "actual".) Can "phenomenon" have "distance"? That makes no sense from a phenomenological perspective - looks like a conflation of philosophical positions; and again the lack of distinction makes it illegible for me or an exercise of speculative translation and guesswork.

To summate you point under the question "can a phenomena have distance" makes sense in the respect that a distance is merely an observation of seperation, hence a relation of parts. Take for example the phrase "phenomena have distance". Considering the axiom of "phenomena" as a unit, relates to the concept of "have" and the concept of "distance" we can observe a relation of parts as concepts where the distance between them is the framework in which the relate and exist. Considering the sentence, as a linear framework, observes "have" being the means through "phenomena" and "distance" act, what we can observe as the distance is merely the means through which a set of phenomena act upon eachother (like a road through which car interact, or a group of boats on a river) and distance itself is merely the relations of the the phenomena and how they interact.

I can elaborate this point further but will save it for some clarity and simplicity.


c) Qualitatively speaking, potentiality is negative space, through which actual movement exists as a positive value. This is considering potential movement is a deficiency in positive locality. Quantitatively it exists as -1.


I think I have a gist of what you mean here, but then the question would be why not erase everything else you've written and cut to the chase? That was why I threw out the word "anticipation" in a previous post. I still refuse to get onboard with undefined uses of terms like "quantitative".

And if I used "number" that same argument could be applied by someone else. You are already on board and playing the language game. If I wrote this phrase alone, without any prior argument then you would have to argue these terms are undefined considering there is no argument.

d) In this manner the imagination has an element of potentiality to it implying further that "subjecitivity" also has a degree of potentiality. Observation and reason, through the imagination, come from potentiality.


By this you are saying "potential" means "potential". We already know what it means so I don't see the use in saying so.

No. Imagination observes potentiality. The imagination contains as an element "subjectivity". Therefore subjectivity observes potentiality. Because observation and reason depend upon the imaging process, imagination, and the imaging process contains as an element potentiality, then observation and reason are dependent upon "potentiality" as unlocalized phenomena.

8) The imaging process as negative in nature, quantititively as -1, observes a dualism of randomness and potentiality inherent within it. In this manner potentiality is a form of approximation of a units "unified" movement.


Meaningless at this point because you're making out a case for negative existence of some kind. This would be blind belief in positive noumenon - which is simply delusional because it is an impossibility.

The negative dimensions are imaginary, and they do not exist in and of themselves but rather as an approximation of a whole through observing multiplicity.

9) The basic boundary of the imaging process, which cannot be reduce to anything further than itself as its own form of measurement is the "line". Linear dimensions are applied to all forms to give them structure through straightness or curvature (an a approximation of straight lines). The line as an approximation of unity is -1 in nature while the line as an observation of potential relations is also -1 in nature.


There is nothing "basic" about any of this. You're just stating, in a rough-shod way, the basic principle of phenomenology it appears. Although the use of the term "dimension" makes the whole thing cloudy IMO. The "-1" does naught to help my understanding of whatever it is you wish to get across at this juncture.

Phenomenology has an inherent quantitative basis (numerical) and qualitative basis (spatial) that it cannot be separated from entirely without cycling back to these very same questions. -1 is a negative quantity and negative spatial quality. 1 as quantity is at its base synonymous to 1d line as the base unit of forms considering all forms are dependent on their dimensionality as the direction of related spaces.

-1 and a negative boundary are only seperable from a relativistic perpsective, however from a perspective of "1" in which all realities mirror through eachother as extensions of the one, -1 and negative space (as a negative dimensional line) are inevitable.


10) Linear structures, acting as potential and approximate boundaries to reality are linear in nature, hence the imaging process is a process of linear synthesis. The line as localized is 1 dimensional, and relativistically speaking, is dependent upon -1 space (through the angle) for its localization.


Linear structures are linear? Well, yes. How you leap to some other conclusion about "image processing" (which you've not outlined well enough for me to understand what you're talking about or from what position - philosophically) is unclear, and apparently hidden in the convenient escape route of relavitism?

A line is a line hence it synthesizes a line. We can observe this in the "angle", which you address below. A line in 0d space must fold upon itself in order to project in the 0d space considering there is nowhere for it to move, hence it cannot project pasts its origins and ceases to be a line. Hence the line must relate to through the line (principle of identity) for the line to exist as itself, much in the same manner "A = A".

While the principle of identity observes the seperation of A into "A, A" (seen in A = A) this seperation as a form of individuation gives it a form of identity. The equal sign, considering the A while seperated must exists through itself, observes "relativistically" speaking a form of negative space where A = A can be observed as A1 = A2 with the "=" being the negative space (-1) through which A exists. We can observe this in the angle where the lines folds itself into another line (as localized actual space) through the potential negative space (the space between the lines as the angle).


Don't get me started on what it is your talking about when you refer to "angle".

Go ahead, I haven't even broken a sweat yet...not much of a "warm up" on my part.

11) The imagination is a process of synthesis where boundaries are synthesized which in turn exists both as axioms and symbols through which reality is mediated.


And this means what exactly in plain English?

The imagination synthesizes symbols which act as measurements that give form through form.

Summation:

- Unclear starting point.
- Lack of explication about what the terms you use mean or how they are to be applied.
- No clear question up for investigation.
- Concatenation of obscure terms that leads to what appears to be your own subjective jargon.
- An admixture of ideas that don't appear compatible or reasonable.
- Use of analogy with declaring that you're using analogy - if not then there is nothing here I am likely to bother much of my time with.


Recommendations:

- Just one point. Start with the main features and make sure the reader understands what they say. For me it would be best if you addressed point (1) and define the terms and context before shifting gears and getting into points 2-11, which frankly seem less and less connected as I moved through them or merely reiterations of previous points that could have been put much more succinctly.


One point?

Imagination is a form of synthesis where boundaries are applied that give form to unity through a multiplicity which approximates it, hence these boundaries are negative in nature considering to observe a process of individuation where the limit of "unity" is observed through "multiplicity as approximation akin to randomness with this approximation (as randomness) observing a dual nature of "potentiality inherent within all multiplicity as movement".
Eodnhoj7
Banned User
 
Posts: 172
Joined: 02 Mar 2018


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby BadgerJelly on April 10th, 2018, 2:44 am 

This is getting out of hand.

I asked you to address one thing at a time not copy the entire post. (And please use BLACK or darker tones.)

I want to discuss this so please don't make it hard to read for me.

Anyway, I will start at the start.

1) Yes, of course I know what "imagination" means so please don't refer me to a dictionary. I was assuming you had a subtler definition, but it appears you don't so we're stuck from the opening - no need to get into anything else at all.

2) Of course the question Kant led with was what can we imagine prior to experience (prior to sensory input.) What do you make of that? It appears you use the term "boundaries" rather than "intuitions."

Do you see why I was asking for a common knowledge to work from now?

Later on you gave a link to a dictionary about antonyms of "space." My point was that there are no real antonyms for "space" anymore than there is an antonym for "opposite". To talk about the colloquial opposite is not the same thing, and there are different kinds of antonyms.

Husserl was not concerned with language games as far as I can tell.

I don't understand why you say I must have a concept of something to form it? I experience and there is not a any experience prior to the experience that allowed me to experience it - again Kantian territory and also the territory of neuroscience and sense datum.

The possibility must have existed prior to the actual becoming. I cannot argue that. What happened prior to my experience I can only infer and make educated guesses about (to varying degrees of accuracy.)

I hope you're as a ware as me that we can, at best, only rehash analogies here rather than reach some form of conclusion?
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5265
Joined: 14 Mar 2012
Eodnhoj7 liked this post


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby Eodnhoj7 on April 10th, 2018, 11:09 am 

BadgerJelly » April 10th, 2018, 2:44 am wrote:This is getting out of hand.

This is going to be a long post. Most likely you will not like it. I have no real intention of offending you, which is not my intention for all people, but considering I find a degree of necessity in expressing these thoughts it will have to be a necessary evil in order to shrink this conversation to more of a practical level, hopefully.

I asked you to address one thing at a time not copy the entire post. (And please use BLACK or darker tones.)

I want to discuss this so please don't make it hard to read for me.

Anyway, I will start at the start.

1) Yes, of course I know what "imagination" means so please don't refer me to a dictionary. I was assuming you had a subtler definition, but it appears you don't so we're stuck from the opening - no need to get into anything else at all.

For the record, what I am about to say is not directed towards you specifically, but rather is a problem I have observed in philosophy that seems to mirror both your and mine frustrations in different respects.

The problem of language is partly due to philosophies continual redefinition of language, with this redefinition causing a form of particulation in which each "philosopher" is an "individual" but is seperate from other philosopher's. Various schools and means of perception arise and the names "Socrates", "Kant", "Locke", "Plato" become associated with authorities in knowledge and less about knowledge itself.

In this manner philosophy has become a useless contradiction as it claims no authority and yet hypocritically claims it. Part of this "hypocrisy" has to do with the synthesis of words, with these words establishing further medians that keep expanding to the point of entropy. Another part is the manner in which philosopher's often times, but not always, try to stand out with a new idea and become an "individual" in their own right.

Whether the reason is fame, ambition, or the search for a personal identity, or "truth" (whatever that is) it seems irrelevant as philosophy, due to this "issue" (at least I believe it is "a", not "the", serious issue), appears to be under a process of continual fragmentation which leads to an inherent form of relativism in which all schools continually contradict themselves and are negated.

Is this negation necessary? I don't know to be frank, most likely not. But for this continual fractation to exist there must be a common median in philosophy, a "universal" truth so to speak, as negation cannot exist on its own terms unless there is something to negate.

Part of this "universality", in which philosophy must strive towards is relegated to the problem of language as a form of "commonality" must have some necessity, such as words from a dictionary. Now does this solves the problem entirely? No, but it observes a process of randomness moving towards a form of unity, which in itself seems entirely inevitable.


2) Of course the question Kant led with was what can we imagine prior to experience (prior to sensory input.) What do you make of that? It appears you use the term "boundaries" rather than "intuitions."

Do you see why I was asking for a common knowledge to work from now?

Your point is valid about the common knowledge as a means between extremes. I picked up a book on Kant, Critique of pure Reason, and read about 50+ pages to refresh what I learned, if anything, from my university days (this was considering both the nature of our conversations, and his popularity in academia if I choose to pursue that route at a later time)

Reverting back to the problem of the extremes, is that while I am reading and will continue reading Kant, from a subjective standpoint I frankly do not like him. From an objective standpoint his questions seems to be merely a subjective means to explain himself, as while he answers the questions in a thorough manner, I quite frankly do not believe he has questioned effectively, if at all, the nature of measurement itself.

Now this "subjectivity" does not contradict what I understand of his premises considering knowledge being rooted in the subjective, but it dually contradicts it in the respect he appears to be objectivising it into a science. A problem of measurement seems to occur, if not repeat itself.

This nature of measurement, while fundamentally a philosophical problem, is a universal one in the respect to the human condition as at the practical level we all have to make "decisions"...even about the decision making process. Now considering how we "measure" a reality is metaphorically and intuitively linked to the "angle" in which we approach it I find the issue of his angle to be the problem.

The reason for this is quite literally two fold:


"Analytic proposition: a proposition whose predicate concept is contained in its subject concept; e.g., "All bachelors are unmarried," or, "All bodies take up space."

Synthetic proposition: a proposition whose predicate concept is not contained in its subject concept; e.g., "All bachelors are alone," or, "All bodies have weight."

An analytic proposition is true by nature of the meaning of the words in the sentence — we require no further knowledge than a grasp of the language to understand this proposition. On the other hand, a synthetic statement is one that tells us something about the world. The truth or falsehood of synthetic statements derives from something outside their linguistic content."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant (moderators pardon this source)

This dualistic nature of the analytic and synthetic causes a problem of polarity where one means is attempting to overcome another means and a continual change is inevitable. While the Analytic is true because of "meaning", no objective definition of meaning is applied and yet meaning must have an objective "definition" considering it's literal root word is "means".

The problem of meaning, as a form of measurement is not given any form of clarity, as the question of origin comes to mind. Now it appears this origin, as far as I understand is rooted strictly in the subjective, the problem occurs that the subjective is not universal and knowledge has an inherent degree of randomness to it in one respect, while in a seperate respect unactualized potential considering the subjective knows no bounds. Considering the question of meaning seems to be the forefront of all life issues at the practical and non-practical level, hence the universal nature of philosophy, meaning itself must be addressed directly.

This analytic definition is dependent upon the synthetic, considering the synthetic is dependent upon the condition of the world. The problem occurs in the respect that the analytic is now, because of Kant, a condition of the world as this "category" or "idea" leads rise to other categories and ideas and the problem of linear progress to point 0 (ideologically speaking) occurs.

The analytic definition of reason, as a condition of the world, as kant observes is dependent upon the subjective and an inverted, but symmetrical, dual sense of the word. Now this leads to a problem of dualism where a continual state of change, between opposing "forces", occurs with no real consistency. This dualism may have helped Kant synthesize a long and dense line of thinking, but caused a form of complexity that lost its purpose of meaning.

One author in the preface of the "Critique of Pure Reasoning", observed that Kant has metaphorically built a philosophical cathedral. Addressing the metaphor from a further metaphor, the question comes to mind: Do we really need a cathedral with all of its beautiful artwork? Or does the artwork lead us into an illusion as to the nature of reality considering it is strictly just an image of an image? However necessary this metaphorical artwork is, how much depth does it really have? Or does it need depth to begin with to express its point? Regardless of the answers to these questions an appearance is given that Kant's ambition to apply dimensions, or measure reality, seek to avoid the paradox that he is measuring it himself from his premise of subjectivity.

Considering measurement is a universal problem, that is inherently both subjective and objective, it may be best to start off with the questions of: "Measurement?" Then split it into three symmetrical duals of "Who/What", "When/Where", "How/Why". This is considering we axiomatically divide the question into six basic dimensions through which we "contain" or give boundaries to reality.

The "who" as subjective, the "what" as objective with the triadic third element being the "axiom" as a form of synthesis through an inherent paradox.

The "when" and "where" as finiteness through locality that is both actual and potential. This finiteness, as temporality, in turn observes relativistic change.

The "how" and "why" as universality through an observation of symmetry as both causal and deficient in causality (randomness as approximation). This universality, as pure structure and order, in turns observe an absolute mirror of reality.

In this manner the nature of truth can embrace the paradox of both knowing and not-knowing as a form of continual synthesis which observes: "Existence is who/what/when/where/how/why it is."

1) The axiomatic as a form of synthesis through imaging, mirroring both Kant's and Hegel's perspective, but not the same.

2) The Relativisitic as a form of change through individuation as actual and potential localization conducive to finiteness as time.

3) The Absolute as a mirroring symmetry that binds reality through one under a definition of causality through order with the limit of both cause and order being randomness.

In this manner an answer is both given and not given and philosophy observes the obvious while allowing a simultaneous form of linear progress conducive to our times.





Later on you gave a link to a dictionary about antonyms of "space." My point was that there are no real antonyms for "space" anymore than there is an antonym for "opposite". To talk about the colloquial opposite is not the same thing, and there are different kinds of antonyms.


Antonyms for opposite
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/opposite

Again the problem of unity and unit occur and we are lock in a problem of dualism which:

1) Descartes observed but has not solve through the mind-body problem.
2) Pythagoras observed as change through the dyad
3) Neitszche observe through the contradictive relationship of Apollo and Dionysus
4) The dualistic schools of Plato and Aristotle, Heraclitus and Parmenides (this may not be the best example considering Parmenides had other enemies), Positivism and Antipositivism, etc.



Husserl was not concerned with language games as far as I can tell.

If memory serves, you are correct on that point in one respect. In a separate respect, like us all, he eventually became trapped in them.

I don't understand why you say I must have a concept of something to form it? I experience and there is not a any experience prior to the experience that allowed me to experience it - again Kantian territory and also the territory of neuroscience and sense datum.

If I draw a line, I must have a concept of a line in order to draw it. Even if the concept was first observe through empirical appearance, this appearance through the senses is transmuted into a concept under the terms of memory.

To look at your argument from a seperate angle:

"I experience and there is not any experience prior to the experience that allowed me to experience it" is in itself the encapsulation of "no experience" as "experience" being deficient in the fullness of experience but experience nonetheless. The question of "being" and "non-being" occurs and "non-being" appears to be the limits of being as a gradation of that being, hence only "being" exists. This cheap metaphysics applies to the nature of experience as well considering it exists and continues to exist though now, with time merely being a particulation as a limit to its inherent unity.




The possibility must have existed prior to the actual becoming. I cannot argue that. What happened prior to my experience I can only infer and make educated guesses about (to varying degrees of accuracy.)

Agreement, but I believe we can apply more universal terms of "approximation" or "randomness" as the limit of our understand of experience. However if we look at the nature of randomness, much like an accident of two cars, we must observe that some order (in this case the cars) was required for it to even be "non-experienced" in the first place.

I hope you're as a ware as me that we can, at best, only rehash analogies here rather than reach some form of conclusion?

I believe we are closer to a conclusion, with the conclusion being (at least what I present) is that the nature of measurement, hence observation, is dependent on a degree of triadic logic (Pierce observed this point also, along with Pythagoras briefly, and the majority of the world religions. Even primitive peoples who have little understanding of the concept of counting, from what I have read, count to "three" and no further).

In this manner, quantitatively we measure reality through 3 in 1 and 1 in 3 while qualitatively giving various abstract and physical boundaries to it though the application of dimensions.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User
 
Posts: 172
Joined: 02 Mar 2018


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby BadgerJelly on April 10th, 2018, 11:39 am 

I actually liked it a lot :) I am worried we may actually agree too much once the words fall more readily into place.

If I've not already mentioned it, it may interest you to know I tried to start writing something titled "Magnitudes and Dichotomies."

Anyway, will be going to sleep soon so will get back to you later ...
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5265
Joined: 14 Mar 2012
Eodnhoj7 liked this post


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby Eodnhoj7 on April 12th, 2018, 10:27 am 

BadgerJelly » April 10th, 2018, 11:39 am wrote:I actually liked it a lot :) I am worried we may actually agree too much once the words fall more readily into place.

If I've not already mentioned it, it may interest you to know I tried to start writing something titled "Magnitudes and Dichotomies."

Anyway, will be going to sleep soon so will get back to you later ...



If you could post an abstract it may give some further definition to the arguments. I am, as of right now, around page 260 in the Critique of Pure Reason and Kant appears to be addressing the same issues you are arguing. With that being said, while there are some similarities in the argument I have presented above, my position still stands as a problem of "premise" in his argument and less about the actual argument itself.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User
 
Posts: 172
Joined: 02 Mar 2018


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby BadgerJelly on April 16th, 2018, 11:26 am 

Eod -

If I draw a line, I must have a concept of a line in order to draw it. Even if the concept was first observe through empirical appearance, this appearance through the senses is transmuted into a concept under the terms of memory.

To look at your argument from a seperate angle:

"I experience and there is not any experience prior to the experience that allowed me to experience it" is in itself the encapsulation of "no experience" as "experience" being deficient in the fullness of experience but experience nonetheless. The question of "being" and "non-being" occurs and "non-being" appears to be the limits of being as a gradation of that being, hence only "being" exists. This cheap metaphysics applies to the nature of experience as well considering it exists and continues to exist though now, with time merely being a particulation as a limit to its inherent unity.


The first part makes no sense because you've conflated the term "concept" with "observe". You escape this by saying "transmuted" under the "terms of memory."

I cannot except such a sentence because it doesn't say much other than making an appeal to a vague use of words (if you admit limitation here no shame in that; like I said previously we're forced to reach for analogies and images of something we cannot fully encapsulate in mere words.) Even so, I think you could try harder with that particular passage.

The next part is puzzling to. What "argument"? I was asking for clarity. I cannot present much in the way of argument when I have no idea what it is you're saying.

Then you seem to think me saying "experience" is the same as "no experience." I didn't say that at all. I merely revealed the limit of language and how we must make distinctions in order to converse.

There is no "limit of being." Such a concept is a mirage.

It may be easier to frame what I am talking about in terms of knowledge and plain logic.

We can only have knowledge of something that we have the capacity to have knowledge of. I am sure you'd agree with that! What this does not mean is that we are able to have knowledge of everything we have the capacity to have knowledge of; to say such would be a conflation of the statement.

To go further - starting with the first of two ideas (the second being harder to grasp at) - we are able to imagine that some knowledge is beyond direct experience and, more importantly, beyond our capacity right now. This means right now we cannot call it "knowledge" in any meaningful way. The continuation of this thought should hopefully lead you to see that (or rather NOT see!) any preposed non-knowledge, meaning such that is not merely beyond our current capacity but also beyond all possible future capacities, is not something we are even capable to bring into mind let alone into words. My uttering of such a thing here in these words is the same as writing "nothing" as if it meant "nothing" in some absolute sense.

The above is what Kant took great stress and strain in trying to express with his distinction between "positive noumenon" and "negative noumenon"; the flaw in his writing such a thing was crippling to both reader and himself because he knew he couldn't talk about some limit of knowledge like this. So if you read Kant and he says "positive noumenon" what he is presenting is merely "negative noumenon" because any attempt to present noumenon in a positive sense is self-refuting. Me even writing such a thing can only dissolve meaning at best! And that is harldy ideal!!

I am not sure if this relates to your "negative dimension" or not. The onus is on you to explain what you mean rather than get distracted with Kant, Husserl or anyone else if you can. If you cannot then you'd better define as best you can each term you use.

Basically I don't have any concrete evidence that you know what you mean by "imagination as a negative dimension."

If you want critique of Kant you'll find my thoughts coincide pretty well with what Husserl presented in "Crisis." In section 28 he uses the subheading "Kant's unexpressed 'presupposition' : the surrounding world of life, taken for granted as valid."
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5265
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby Eodnhoj7 on April 16th, 2018, 4:17 pm 

BadgerJelly » April 16th, 2018, 11:26 am wrote:Eod -

If I draw a line, I must have a concept of a line in order to draw it. Even if the concept was first observe through empirical appearance, this appearance through the senses is transmuted into a concept under the terms of memory.

To look at your argument from a seperate angle:

"I experience and there is not any experience prior to the experience that allowed me to experience it" is in itself the encapsulation of "no experience" as "experience" being deficient in the fullness of experience but experience nonetheless. The question of "being" and "non-being" occurs and "non-being" appears to be the limits of being as a gradation of that being, hence only "being" exists. This cheap metaphysics applies to the nature of experience as well considering it exists and continues to exist though now, with time merely being a particulation as a limit to its inherent unity.


The first part makes no sense because you've conflated the term "concept" with "observe". You escape this by saying "transmuted" under the "terms of memory."

The observation of forms relies inherently on an observation of concepts, considering the observation (regardless of its empirical nature) is dependent on a form of thought that extends through memory or active critical thinking.

Generally the concept is associated with "abstraction":
http://www.bing.com/search?q=concept&qs ... 24025DBC4F

with this abstraction, which can be viewed as a form, inseparable from the act of observation itself. This is considering in one respect the form makes an "impression" on our thought processes, while in a separate respect these forms are the means in which we measure reality through our application of them (applying a line to measure something for example.



I cannot except such a sentence because it doesn't say much other than making an appeal to a vague use of words (if you admit limitation here no shame in that; like I said previously we're forced to reach for analogies and images of something we cannot fully encapsulate in mere words.) Even so, I think you could try harder with that particular passage.

Vague is a relative term as it is premised in a subjective interpretation.


The next part is puzzling to. What "argument"? I was asking for clarity. I cannot present much in the way of argument when I have no idea what it is you're saying.

Then you seem to think me saying "experience" is the same as "no experience." I didn't say that at all. I merely revealed the limit of language and how we must make distinctions in order to converse.

There is no "limit of being." Such a concept is a mirage.

It may be easier to frame what I am talking about in terms of knowledge and plain logic.

We can only have knowledge of something that we have the capacity to have knowledge of. I am sure you'd agree with that! What this does not mean is that we are able to have knowledge of everything we have the capacity to have knowledge of; to say such would be a conflation of the statement.

True, but the capacity for knowledge is the very thing which defines that very same knowledge itself. This capacity acts much like a framework in which we can observe a certain set of relations. Considering the nature of knowledge is dependent, to some degree, on "capacity" a problem of subjectivity occurs.

Practical questions can be asked: If I do not understand something, does that make it right? Or Wrong? What about if everyone understands something? Or noone? The problem of "capacity" is that it is dependent upon an inherent degree of relativity in the respect "capacity" easily translates to "subjective framework", or the person's ability/inability to absorb or put into practice a specific observation.


To go further - starting with the first of two ideas (the second being harder to grasp at) - we are able to imagine that some knowledge is beyond direct experience and, more importantly, beyond our capacity right now. This means right now we cannot call it "knowledge" in any meaningful way.

By observing an "unknown" we are putting boundaries on our ability to perceive, hence we can understand that while there are some things we cannot know this is known in a separate respect...hence this knowledge exists.

This "unknown" knowledge can be observed meaningfully in the respect it is potential knowledge (through which are actual knowledge is based), random knowledge (in the respect it is approximate to what we understand) and possible knowledge (in the respect it is absent of limit).


The continuation of this thought should hopefully lead you to see that (or rather NOT see!) any preposed non-knowledge, meaning such that is not merely beyond our current capacity but also beyond all possible future capacities, is not something we are even capable to bring into mind let alone into words. My uttering of such a thing here in these words is the same as writing "nothing" as if it meant "nothing" in some absolute sense.

A paradox occurs in the respect that if we say "words cannot express all thought" this is a universal statement about the nature of words. In these respects we give boundaries to words, or maybe better put "define" them, by observing there inherent limits. Considering these words have limits, they have structure. But this structure cannot exist unless there is further structure, hence these "limits" depend upon the possibilities they can exist through.

The above is what Kant took great stress and strain in trying to express with his distinction between "positive noumenon" and "negative noumenon"; the flaw in his writing such a thing was crippling to both reader and himself because he knew he couldn't talk about some limit of knowledge like this. So if you read Kant and he says "positive noumenon" what he is presenting is merely "negative noumenon" because any attempt to present noumenon in a positive sense is self-refuting. Me even writing such a thing can only dissolve meaning at best! And that is harldy ideal!!

So far in my readings of Kant the majority of his problems stem from a simple paradox: In his attempt to describe everything he described nothing as the increase in precision in one area causes a simultaneously lack of precision in another. This problem, at least in my mind, multiplies itself as the text extends itself.

Kant built a "Cathedral", but most cathedrals are merely empty tombs.


I am not sure if this relates to your "negative dimension" or not. The onus is on you to explain what you mean rather than get distracted with Kant, Husserl or anyone else if you can. If you cannot then you'd better define as best you can each term you use.

Basically I don't have any concrete evidence that you know what you mean by "imagination as a negative dimension."

And what would constitute concrete evidence? You might want to re-read the argument, and you do not find satisfaction I can provide further definition.

If you want critique of Kant you'll find my thoughts coincide pretty well with what Husserl presented in "Crisis." In section 28 he uses the subheading "Kant's unexpressed 'presupposition' : the surrounding world of life, taken for granted as valid."


I would extend that further and say all "phenomena" in themselves are valid.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User
 
Posts: 172
Joined: 02 Mar 2018


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby BadgerJelly on April 17th, 2018, 1:21 am 

Eod -

Vague is a relative term as it is premised in a subjective interpretation.


So what? Doesn't get either of us anywhere if the best you've got to express is merely "subjective" in the first place. I am not here to play games so I won't.

Now for the evasion (purposeful or not?) :

The first part makes no sense because you've conflated the term "concept" with "observe". You escape this by saying "transmuted" under the "terms of memory."

The observation of forms relies inherently on an observation of concepts, considering the observation (regardless of its empirical nature) is dependent on a form of thought that extends through memory or active critical thinking.


Generally the concept is associated with "abstraction":
http://www.bing.com/search?q=concept&qs ... 24025DBC4F

with this abstraction, which can be viewed as a form, inseparable from the act of observation itself. This is considering in one respect the form makes an "impression" on our thought processes, while in a separate respect these forms are the means in which we measure reality through our application of them (applying a line to measure something for example.


That does nothing for me. You just get even more tangled up here. It appears you're using "observation" in two different ways here yet you make no effort to distinguish the different between them. If there is no difference then you do nothing to distinguish between "concept" and "form".

How many times do you want me to say you're lacking definitions for the terminology you're using. Yes, words are in a dictionary, but you seem to forget that lone words have no meaning, the context is everything here and you've given none - Derrida would be proud perhaps - that's not really a compliment btw ;)

True, but the capacity for knowledge is the very thing which defines that very same knowledge itself. This capacity acts much like a framework in which we can observe a certain set of relations. Considering the nature of knowledge is dependent, to some degree, on "capacity" a problem of subjectivity occurs.

Practical questions can be asked: If I do not understand something, does that make it right? Or Wrong? What about if everyone understands something? Or noone? The problem of "capacity" is that it is dependent upon an inherent degree of relativity in the respect "capacity" easily translates to "subjective framework", or the person's ability/inability to absorb or put into practice a specific observation.


If the capacity for knowledge is knowledge then how does it make sense to say they are any different or that one comes prior to the other? If you go too far down that track you'll find yourself saying yesterday is the same thing as tomorrow - which, ironically, in the "now" we're both well aware that they are the same thing in all but the manner of human ordering and presentation.

By observing an "unknown" we are putting boundaries on our ability to perceive, hence we can understand that while there are some things we cannot know this is known in a separate respect...hence this knowledge exists.

This "unknown" knowledge can be observed meaningfully in the respect it is potential knowledge (through which are actual knowledge is based), random knowledge (in the respect it is approximate to what we understand) and possible knowledge (in the respect it is absent of limit).


Be we cannot "observe" an "unknown" in any way other than as a negation. Hence the entire point of Kantian noumenon and the distinction he made between the "positive" and "negative"; we cannot comprehend the "positive" noumenon because we cannot comprehend something that doesn't "exist". And let me be VERY clear here about the term "exist", for we can say that my subjective view of the world doesn't exist for you, it is mine alone - the difference of human existence is a good enough correspondence and mutual context that allows communication, and for the Self to exist there is personal communication prior to intersubjective communication between people like us.

"unknown knowledge" cannot be "observed meaningfully". It matters very little that you splice on a "in the respect" because what you've done is avoided setting out definitions and resorted a kind of rhetorical use of language.

Kant did this. He set out definitions such as "apperception" and "apodictic knowledge" in order to allow the reader to navigate through his work as best he could.

A paradox occurs in the respect that if we say "words cannot express all thought" this is a universal statement about the nature of words. In these respects we give boundaries to words, or maybe better put "define" them, by observing there inherent limits. Considering these words have limits, they have structure. But this structure cannot exist unless there is further structure, hence these "limits" depend upon the possibilities they can exist through.


Of course, with language we are scrambling around if we start saying things like structures of structures or sounds of sounds. That is merely a trick of language where the person articulating the thought hasn't really bothered to put in the effort and relies on analogy, gist and metaphor (as we all must eventually do because our capacity to communicate is limited because it necessarily must be limited otherwise we'd have no concept of "communication" whatsoever.)

So far in my readings of Kant the majority of his problems stem from a simple paradox: In his attempt to describe everything he described nothing as the increase in precision in one area causes a simultaneously lack of precision in another. This problem, at least in my mind, multiplies itself as the text extends itself.

Kant built a "Cathedral", but most cathedrals are merely empty tombs.


He is given high praise because his style was revolutionary. He was a great philosophical analyst and was somehow able to hold all this in his head in one piece. Flawed? I don't see how if he was alive today he'd change a great deal of his views. He has stood up to the test of time within the particular context of analytic philosophy.

And what would constitute concrete evidence? You might want to re-read the argument, and you do not find satisfaction I can provide further definition.


I don't see an argument because I don't understand what you're saying. I am merely presented with a gist. I think I can likely sum up what you're saying more precisely and I'll attempt to do so later (that will be a helpful exercise!)

I would extend that further and say all "phenomena" in themselves are valid.


That is essentially the phenomenological position. I find it very useful, yet very difficult to navigate because like Husserl we're faced with the uneasy task of communicating something wholly known to everyone yet something only partly expressed and sketched out.

Being vague is being "safe", yet as you say (and as Kant himself said) being precise may turn out to be even more vague! The "middle" is hard a thing to map out in words.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5265
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby Eodnhoj7 on April 17th, 2018, 1:25 pm 

BadgerJelly » April 17th, 2018, 1:21 am wrote:Eod -

Vague is a relative term as it is premised in a subjective interpretation.


So what? Doesn't get either of us anywhere if the best you've got to express is merely "subjective" in the first place. I am not here to play games so I won't.

Subjective "and" objective to be exact. This is address in the above post.

Now for the evasion (purposeful or not?) :

The first part makes no sense because you've conflated the term "concept" with "observe". You escape this by saying "transmuted" under the "terms of memory."

The observation of forms relies inherently on an observation of concepts, considering the observation (regardless of its empirical nature) is dependent on a form of thought that extends through memory or active critical thinking.


Generally the concept is associated with "abstraction":
http://www.bing.com/search?q=concept&qs ... 24025DBC4F

with this abstraction, which can be viewed as a form, inseparable from the act of observation itself. This is considering in one respect the form makes an "impression" on our thought processes, while in a separate respect these forms are the means in which we measure reality through our application of them (applying a line to measure something for example.


That does nothing for me. You just get even more tangled up here. It appears you're using "observation" in two different ways here yet you make no effort to distinguish the different between them.

Elaborate

If there is no difference then you do nothing to distinguish between "concept" and "form".

It does not have to "do anything" for you as that would require a certain level of subjective understanding.

If one is to look in a dictionary the "concept" and "form" definition rotate between eachother as one definition points to another. In this manner they synthesis of words, in all of philosophy and language itself, leads to a contradiction in the respect that words continually fractate from a common form.

While a "Concept" is strictly a mental phenomena, the form while "mental" is purely an abstraction. This abstraction, while inherent within all mental phenomena, cannot be separated from the mental phenomena as it is strictly an act of consciousness. In these respects the concept and the form are interchangeable. The form, generally observing a spatial reality as a structure differs from the "concept" in the respect that the concept is strictly an "idea". Considering forms are inseparable from ideas the nature of "concept" and "form" are further similiar in the respect they act as "pictures" or "structures" which give image to reality. (see below definitions).

https://www.bing.com/search?q=form&qs=n ... D7362A306B

https://www.bing.com/search?q=concept&q ... BFD1473B3F


How many times do you want me to say you're lacking definitions for the terminology you're using. Yes, words are in a dictionary, but you seem to forget that lone words have no meaning, the context is everything here and you've given none - Derrida would be proud perhaps - that's not really a compliment btw ;)

Or maybe you should read a dictionary if the word is lacking "definition". Lone words having meaning, evidence of this in observed in the dictionary, where each "word" acts an inherent "unit" or "whole" that is composed of further units. In these respects the lone word is a framework in itself.

True, but the capacity for knowledge is the very thing which defines that very same knowledge itself. This capacity acts much like a framework in which we can observe a certain set of relations. Considering the nature of knowledge is dependent, to some degree, on "capacity" a problem of subjectivity occurs.

Practical questions can be asked: If I do not understand something, does that make it right? Or Wrong? What about if everyone understands something? Or noone? The problem of "capacity" is that it is dependent upon an inherent degree of relativity in the respect "capacity" easily translates to "subjective framework", or the person's ability/inability to absorb or put into practice a specific observation.


If the capacity for knowledge is knowledge then how does it make sense to say they are any different or that one comes prior to the other?

Because to argue that the capacity for knowledge is knowledge would require "Knowledge" as a framework to mirror itself through itself resulting in it being "intra-dimensional" or self-reflecting in nature. This would require "knowledge" to exist within the framework of "consciousness" or a "meta-geometry" and a looping of the frameworks becomes inevitable. What is not inevitable is the inherent looping they inevitably end with and in these regards "knowledge", "consciousness" and "meta-geometry" break down to a simple circular loop. In these respects the circularity acts as a universal unifying premise.

This problem of "framework" is fundamentally a problem of observing from a specific angle where the premises inevitable direct the source of the argument, hence we circle back to "observation through forms" as inherent premise of knowledge which loops back to knowledge itself.


If you go too far down that track you'll find yourself saying yesterday is the same thing as tomorrow - which, ironically, in the "now" we're both well aware that they are the same thing in all but the manner of human ordering and presentation.

Yesterday provides the structure of tomorrow, with tomorrow providing a potential space through which yesterday exists as a localized moment of time.

By observing an "unknown" we are putting boundaries on our ability to perceive, hence we can understand that while there are some things we cannot know this is known in a separate respect...hence this knowledge exists.

This "unknown" knowledge can be observed meaningfully in the respect it is potential knowledge (through which are actual knowledge is based), random knowledge (in the respect it is approximate to what we understand) and possible knowledge (in the respect it is absent of limit).


Be we cannot "observe" an "unknown" in any way other than as a negation.
We can observe an "unknown" as the limits of a being. For example if I observe a cube only. The boundaries which form the cube give it an inherent structure through which we "know" the reality by observing "something". Anything beyond these boundaries which form the cube, considering they lack structure, are in themselves "unknown"...yet we observe them because of the cube as they are the "limits" of the cube.


Hence the entire point of Kantian noumenon and the distinction he made between the "positive" and "negative"; we cannot comprehend the "positive" noumenon because we cannot comprehend something that doesn't "exist". And let me be VERY clear here about the term "exist", for we can say that my subjective view of the world doesn't exist for you, it is mine alone - the difference of human existence is a good enough correspondence and mutual context that allows communication, and for the Self to exist there is personal communication prior to intersubjective communication between people like us.

And what separates inter-subjectivity from objectivity?

"unknown knowledge" cannot be "observed meaningfully". It matters very little that you splice on a "in the respect" because what you've done is avoided setting out definitions and resorted a kind of rhetorical use of language.

Actually "in the respect" observes a specific localized set of relations (in this case verbal) and is the foundation for definition. Considering the "unknown" is strictly the "limit" of the "known" it may not be observed as meaningful in itself (unlike the boundaries through which we observe it) yet it is meaningful in the respect we observe a structure.

Kant did this. He set out definitions such as "apperception" and "apodictic knowledge" in order to allow the reader to navigate through his work as best he could.

He had to set out definitions because he was synthesizing new and uncommon words not found in a dictionary.

A paradox occurs in the respect that if we say "words cannot express all thought" this is a universal statement about the nature of words. In these respects we give boundaries to words, or maybe better put "define" them, by observing there inherent limits. Considering these words have limits, they have structure. But this structure cannot exist unless there is further structure, hence these "limits" depend upon the possibilities they can exist through.


Of course, with language we are scrambling around if we start saying things like structures of structures or sounds of sounds. That is merely a trick of language where the person articulating the thought hasn't really bothered to put in the effort and relies on analogy, gist and metaphor (as we all must eventually do because our capacity to communicate is limited because it necessarily must be limited otherwise we'd have no concept of "communication" whatsoever.)

Actually it relates back to the premise of metaphysics as "being qua being" where a phenomena exists through itself by a mirroring of itself. This mirroring effect allows a form of symmetry which in turn results in a structure. For example a line mirroring a line, as a line through a line, results in an inherent geometric structure (such as a cube) that not only allows the line to exist but exists through the line. In this manner the mirror effect exists through an inherent form of circularity that is inevitable.

So far in my readings of Kant the majority of his problems stem from a simple paradox: In his attempt to describe everything he described nothing as the increase in precision in one area causes a simultaneously lack of precision in another. This problem, at least in my mind, multiplies itself as the text extends itself.

Kant built a "Cathedral", but most cathedrals are merely empty tombs.


He is given high praise because his style was revolutionary. He was a great philosophical analyst and was somehow able to hold all this in his head in one piece. Flawed? I don't see how if he was alive today he'd change a great deal of his views. He has stood up to the test of time within the particular context of analytic philosophy.

Argument from authority. Popularity, regardless of its degree, does not determine the nature of truth. Neitzche is also popular, if he is more or less true because of his acceptance? Standing the test of time does not necessitate any degree of truth considering it is merely an observation of history, with history oftentimes written by the victors.

And what would constitute concrete evidence? You might want to re-read the argument, and you do not find satisfaction I can provide further definition.


I don't see an argument because I don't understand what you're saying. I am merely presented with a gist. I think I can likely sum up what you're saying more precisely and I'll attempt to do so later (that will be a helpful exercise!)

Summing it up would be helpful as it would provide an argument as to what you "know" and "do not know".

I would extend that further and say all "phenomena" in themselves are valid.


That is essentially the phenomenological position. I find it very useful, yet very difficult to navigate because like Husserl we're faced with the uneasy task of communicating something wholly known to everyone yet something only partly expressed and sketched out.

Being vague is being "safe", yet as you say (and as Kant himself said) being precise may turn out to be even more vague! The "middle" is hard a thing to map out in words.

But I do not think you are taking a middle approach considering it is either one extreme (knowing) that can be observed while the other (not-knowing) cannot be observed. The most logical approach would be that:

1) We can observe somethings
2) We cannot know somethings
3) The boundaries between knowing and non-knowing provide the foundations for knowing itself.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User
 
Posts: 172
Joined: 02 Mar 2018


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby BadgerJelly on April 17th, 2018, 8:09 pm 

I give up.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5265
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby BadgerJelly on April 17th, 2018, 11:28 pm 

Actually I try a little more first ...

One more reference to dictionaries though and I may start copying and pasting the numerous definitions from standard English dictionaries and from philosophical dictionaries to show you that you're assuming there is one singular definition for each term and only one singular way to apply it.

The reason is there is MORE than one definition for most of these terms and they all have different meanings within certain contexts not even mentioned in any depth in a dictionary.

Stating that Kant is read as an example of analytic philosophy is hardly an "appeal to authority" and I find such statements, as well as references to dictionaries, purposefully evasive and combative - looking to poke wholes in something that doesn't exist makes you look short-sighted.

You presented the OP and I questioned the meaning of what you're saying. That is the current situation. I don't bow at the alter of Husserl, Nietzsche or Kant, I was merely searching for an understanding of what you're saying so stop sulking about people having read something and having found it directive and useful to some degree - we're not dogmatic just because we've read a book, we don't dismiss all our previous thoughts and readings when we read something new. The work I dislike the most is often the one I find most room to mentally wiggle in and I approach everything I read, well philosophically at least, with high distain and skepticism before considering it as being "meaningful" or "useful" ... why I am bothering to write this? I don't know, just optimistic I guess that you may just answer my questions rather than throwing them back in my face and instructing me to read dictionaries and reread the OP (Which if you look at it and refer to a dictionary you'll find numerous possible interpretations because you're not using those word concepts in any strict manner nor have you taken the time to establish the issue of space when talking of dimensions nor have you taken the time to explicate what we're to make of "negative" in the sense you've presented it. Nor does it make sense to use mathematical symbols to express a logical point; which is not clear and unlikely to be "logical" at a glance.)

The problem as far as I can tell is your refusal to state the obvious. The term concept can be both a worded concept or a non-worded concept. Sadly we have to use worded concepts to refer to the deeper cognitive "happenings". In this sense the "word concept" is the "form" of some deeper "mental concept." I am well within my rights to ask for precisely what "concept" you're referring to am I not?

I find this all the more confusing because you're presenting a phenomenological position from which to start yet don't seem to grasp that the phenomenon is only ever adumbrated by "word concepts".

"Elaborate" you ask? I have been asking you to do this from the get go. If you want to say I think you're talking gibberish placed upon gibberish, hidden in more gibberish, well, there you go. Look at a dictionary and pay attention to the NUMBER of definitions and possible uses of the terms and then DECLARE what term you are using and if you then use the term in a different manner DECLARE it. It is not difficult, but it is not pleasant to read - I don't care if it is pleasant to read or not and just care that it makes enough sense to be meaningful for the reader.

Look:

The observation of forms relies inherently on an observation of concepts, considering the observation (regardless of its empirical nature) is dependent on a form of thought that extends through memory or active critical thinking.


Are you unaware of the multiple possible meanings for "form"? (refer to your own link to the dictionary - which btw doesn't appear to mention Plato ... get my point yet?)

If we're talking of some Platonic form we cannot "observe it" at all. Nor can we "observe" a "concept", at least sensibly. Yet you then say "regardless of its empirical nature" - which obviously (although apparently not so obvious to you) shows a basic misuse of terminology (useless you're using your own specific terms; hence my repeated questions which are REPEATEDLY ignored.)

I could go on to ask what "active critical thinking" means as opposed to "inactive critical thinking", but I think I've made my point clear enough.

To be clear, the point is that I am left GUESSING what you mean and that I do think you're saying something useful be until you present a more precise piece of writing I am going to have to assume you're talking gibberish and I am merely hoping you're saying something you're not actually saying.

note: That is your first reply to my post and your next reply better cut through this or I am going to use my time elsewhere.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5265
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby Eodnhoj7 on April 18th, 2018, 10:30 am 

BadgerJelly » April 17th, 2018, 11:28 pm wrote:Actually I try a little more first ...

One more reference to dictionaries though and I may start copying and pasting the numerous definitions from standard English dictionaries and from philosophical dictionaries to show you that you're assuming there is one singular definition for each term and only one singular way to apply it.

To say that there is a singular definition is[u][/u] a singular definition.


The reason is there is MORE than one definition for most of these terms and they all have different meanings within certain contexts not even mentioned in any depth in a dictionary.

And yet these definitions exist nonetheless. While there is an inherent "multiplicity" to definition this multiplicity observes that all words have an inherent approximate nature. This approximate nature, while observing the limits of the words meaning through the multiple relations which define it, fundamentally observes a degree of "randomness" within the nature of definition itself. This randomness, in turn, as a deficiency in structure or order simultaneously points to the fact that the word itself has structure because it is deficient in it. Deficiency acts as a limit. In these respects what may take an approach of observing something for what it is, by what it is not.

Stating that Kant is read as an example of analytic philosophy is hardly an "appeal to authority" and I find such statements, as well as references to dictionaries, purposefully evasive and combative - looking to poke wholes in something that doesn't exist makes you look short-sighted.

But that does not take away the objective nature of the statement. Kant's greatness, as a form of communal acceptance, does not equate to him being "right" (or even wrong for that matter), but simply is a a statement that "Kant is Great"...but in Neitzchian terms: "So what?". Communal acceptance is communal acceptance and does not equate to an argument being right or wrong as this "rightness" or "wrongness" is simply an extension of subjective perspectives objectified as group agreement.

You presented the OP and I questioned the meaning of what you're saying. That is the current situation. I don't bow at the alter of Husserl, Nietzsche or Kant, I was merely searching for an understanding of what you're saying so stop sulking about people having read something and having found it directive and useful to some degree - we're not dogmatic just because we've read a book, we don't dismiss all our previous thoughts and readings when we read something new.
I would hardly call it sulking considering I have read, and am currently reading, many of these works. All I am point to is that the arguments, while structured and rational in there own framework, do not make much sense out of it considering language problems.

For example if I were to observe a universal philosophy I would require a universal language that not just transcends but exists through and glues together previous philosophical discourses. Many of the philosophers we deal with continually "synthesize" new words and in doing so create a language barrier they seek to avoid. An attempt at individuation occurs, and is often times followed by success, but this individuation causes a further process of fracturing...part of which is due to the continual synthesis or "imagining" of words.



The work I dislike the most is often the one I find most room to mentally wiggle in and I approach everything I read, well philosophically at least, with high distain and skepticism before considering it as being "meaningful" or "useful" ... why I am bothering to write this?

That really is the question isn't it? Why bother reading it? One does not read something unless it has some degree of appeal, either in a positive or negative manner. Assuming the premise of "negativity", in the respect you "hate" it, then it can be said you are trying to fill what you perceive as a dark hole of ambiguity. This is an "assumption" of course, but a probable one nonetheless. The question is what exactly are you trying to fill it with? Order? Reason? Okay...then those terms need to be defined.

But these "definitions" exist through the framework they represent and the framework is dependent upon core axioms that in turn circulate themselves through that very same framework. This "framework", through the axioms that compose it, in turn exists as an axiom in itself usually subjective (at least for modern philosophy) in the respect instead of saying x > y we say "x person says y". Now this is not completely what you are doing. But the problem occurs in the respect that the "definition" you apply exist through the frameworks they represent, and I question the axioms which form those frameworks (take the above point about some of Kant's axioms). In these respects philosophy is dependent upon a nature of origin which is dependent upon an axiom that is synthesized through the arguments as a form of circulation between positives and negatives, or thesis's and anti-thesis's (in Hegelian terms).

In these respects this synthesis of axioms is fundamentally one of "imaging" or "imagination" considering we observe words as not things in themselves (as you observed in the problem of dictionary definitions) but rather forms or boundaries which connect other forms and boundaries as a unified whole. Considering these axioms do not exist in and of themselves, but rather as an observation of "connection" they exist as negative boundaries in the respect that they do not exist in and of themselves but rather observe an approximation of unity. In these respects all axioms exist through eachother as one and any multiplicity is merely a form of approximation that necessitates an inherent mirror effect which binds them as one axiom.

In a separate respect this synthesis provides a dual nature of localization in which the synthesized word is the potential relations of the actual relations which compose it. This potential nature, as the synthesized word, in turn becomes localized or actual in the respect it becomes a particle axiom of further particle axioms. In this manner the synthesis of axioms, through words, maintains a degree of multiplicity through movement in which a word continually manifests further words etc.



I don't know, just optimistic I guess that you may just answer my questions rather than throwing them back in my face and instructing me to read dictionaries and reread the OP (Which if you look at it and refer to a dictionary you'll find numerous possible interpretations because you're not using those word concepts in any strict manner nor have you taken the time to establish the issue of space when talking of dimensions nor have you taken the time to explicate what we're to make of "negative" in the sense you've presented it.

To much strictness and definition lacks in one respect, to little strictness and definition still lacks in another.

Nor does it make sense to use mathematical symbols to express a logical point; which is not clear and unlikely to be "logical" at a glance.)

So "A → B" cannot mean "if A then B" or "A tends towards B"? What contradiction is inherent within that?

The problem as far as I can tell is your refusal to state the obvious. The term concept can be both a worded concept or a non-worded concept. Sadly we have to use worded concepts to refer to the deeper cognitive "happenings". In this sense the "word concept" is the "form" of some deeper "mental concept." I am well within my rights to ask for precisely what "concept" you're referring to am I not?

Words are merely symbol axioms that mediate between one truth and another. This symbolic nature, as a form of mediation, is universal in regards to all phenomena as one phenomena both precedes from another phenomena and simultaneously leads to another. These phenomena follow a similar form and function and the phenomena acts as a form of mediation through mediation equivalent to the Law of Identity as "A = A".

I find this all the more confusing because you're presenting a phenomenological position from which to start yet don't seem to grasp that the phenomenon is only ever adumbrated by "word concepts".

The word "phenomena" is in itself a phenomena. In one degree we can understand all phenomena existing through a mirroring effect where "all words as a phenomena" can be inverted to "a phenomena as all words" in the respect they circulate through eachother. In these respect we can understand circulation as a mirror effect where the mirror effect is a replication of symmetry which maintains and expands that symmetry through intradimensional reflection.

We can observe this in the course of all philosophical dialogues.

Where A axiom leads to B argument, B argument also leads to A argument and simultaneous further arguments. A exists through B, yet this mirroring process causes A to simultaneously extend beyond itself and paradoxically through itself.


"Elaborate" you ask? I have been asking you to do this from the get go. If you want to say I think you're talking gibberish placed upon gibberish, hidden in more gibberish, well, there you go. Look at a dictionary and pay attention to the NUMBER of definitions and possible uses of the terms and then DECLARE what term you are using and if you then use the term in a different manner DECLARE it. It is not difficult, but it is not pleasant to read - I don't care if it is pleasant to read or not and just care that it makes enough sense to be meaningful for the reader.

Actually I have, and if you do not like the term used then underline which one you need elaborated. Am I talking gibberish? Maybe, maybe not...but the arguments are original and I am not quoting others and embodying a fallacy of authority.

Kant, Husserl, etc. may in fact have given you "direction" (practically and abstraction) in the course of your life...but where has that direction led you? How does it stand up to the current circumstances.

It might be clearer if you posted a piece of text and I simply just address that.



Look:

The observation of forms relies inherently on an observation of concepts, considering the observation (regardless of its empirical nature) is dependent on a form of thought that extends through memory or active critical thinking.


Are you unaware of the multiple possible meanings for "form"? (refer to your own link to the dictionary - which btw doesn't appear to mention Plato ... get my point yet?)

Are you aware of the multiple definitions for "multiple"? Who is unclear now?

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/multiple


If we're talking of some Platonic form we cannot "observe it" at all. Nor can we "observe" a "concept", at least sensibly. Yet you then say "regardless of its empirical nature" - which obviously (although apparently not so obvious to you) shows a basic misuse of terminology (useless you're using your own specific terms; hence my repeated questions which are REPEATEDLY ignored.)

We can observe Platonic forms abstractly through imagination as a mental phenomena. A cube I can observe in my mind without directly looking at it through sense experience. This "imaging" process where we apply boundaries allows us to observe a phenomena to some degree, but a degree nonetheless.

I could go on to ask what "active critical thinking" means as opposed to "inactive critical thinking", but I think I've made my point clear enough.

Considering what we observe as "activity" is merely movement as localization and "inactive" is lack of motion or "non-locality" we can imply:

1) Active critical thinking is merely critical thinking at the localization of concepts. (observation of structure).
2) Inactive Critical thinking is merely critical thinking as the non-localization of concepts. (observation of no structure as potential structure).




To be clear, the point is that I am left GUESSING what you mean and that I do think you're saying something useful be until you present a more precise piece of writing I am going to have to assume you're talking gibberish and I am merely hoping you're saying something you're not actually saying.

You can read Kant and Husserl all you want but you are still left guessing what they mean considering no actual dialectic between the reader and book exists. You have not guessed at all in regards to what they said? If Husserl arguments says "x", then why do we have to put it in our own words as "x is composed of y and z?"

The problem is that you want a strictly linear interpretation when that in itself is contradictory as point zero (from which the line extends) inevitable ends back at point zero and the linear structure only exists in relation to other linear structures.

Circularity is inevitable but a linear form is necessary for projection and progress. The only logical form that allows for this duality to occur without contradicting itself is an "expanding circle" which maintains both logical forms without contradictions.

In regards to "throwing your questions/accusations back" I am simply pointing out that the form of the question does not follow the function. This paradox can be observed in the "definition of multiple" argument observed above.


note: That is your first reply to my post and your next reply better cut through this or I am going to use my time elsewhere.

I truly don't care what you do with your time, it is your's not mine. I am not forcing you here.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User
 
Posts: 172
Joined: 02 Mar 2018


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby BadgerJelly on April 18th, 2018, 12:56 pm 

Eod -

So "A → B" cannot mean "if A then B" or "A tends towards B"? What contradiction is inherent within that?


I was referring to the us of addition in the OP, not the use of mathematical logic symbols.

For example if I were to observe a universal philosophy I would require a universal language that not just transcends but exists through and glues together previous philosophical discourses. Many of the philosophers we deal with continually "synthesize" new words and in doing so create a language barrier they seek to avoid. An attempt at individuation occurs, and is often times followed by success, but this individuation causes a further process of fracturing...part of which is due to the continual synthesis or "imagining" of words.


Of course. Yet you keep talking of an "appeal to authority" which I am not actually making.

In these respects this synthesis of axioms is fundamentally one of "imaging" or "imagination" considering we observe words as not things in themselves (as you observed in the problem of dictionary definitions) but rather forms or boundaries which connect other forms and boundaries as a unified whole. Considering these axioms do not exist in and of themselves, but rather as an observation of "connection" they exist as negative boundaries in the respect that they do not exist in and of themselves but rather observe an approximation of unity. In these respects all axioms exist through eachother as one and any multiplicity is merely a form of approximation that necessitates an inherent mirror effect which binds them as one axiom.


And I was asking if your "negative" above relates to Kant's. That was not an "appeal to authority" is a was a question. It appears it is the same thing that Kant talked about in regards to noumenon. If not, if your view differs, then explicate how it differs.

To much strictness and definition lacks in one respect, to little strictness and definition still lacks in another.


Of course. I am probing for more strict definitions, you can either attempt to offer them up or decline. If you decline then I guess it is up to me to re-present what you've said and allow you to tell me what is wrong in my interpretation (I will do this to the OP later.)

The word "phenomena" is in itself a phenomena. In one degree we can understand all phenomena existing through a mirroring effect where "all words as a phenomena" can be inverted to "a phenomena as all words" in the respect they circulate through eachother. In these respect we can understand circulation as a mirror effect where the mirror effect is a replication of symmetry which maintains and expands that symmetry through intradimensional reflection.

We can observe this in the course of all philosophical dialogues.

Where A axiom leads to B argument, B argument also leads to A argument and simultaneous further arguments. A exists through B, yet this mirroring process causes A to simultaneously extend beyond itself and paradoxically through itself.


All, including me saying "all", is phenomenon. That is part of the limiting function of explicating the phenomenological "method". We cannot hold our own shadow yet we all understand what a shadow is.

We can observe Platonic forms abstractly through imagination as a mental phenomena. A cube I can observe in my mind without directly looking at it through sense experience. This "imaging" process where we apply boundaries allows us to observe a phenomena to some degree, but a degree nonetheless.


This uncovers part of my problem in understanding what you've been saying. I don't see how I can "observe Platonic forms"? I cannot "observe" the number one yet I can understand something as being singular, and if the "singular" can be known to me as a "separate locality", an "otherness" then there are other others thus creating multiplicities of boundaries and distinctions - so yes, "multiple" and "singular" are terms that need unearthing and if I know you know this then by revealing the problem you've shown me where your hesitation lingers when it comes to defining this or that; you care for accuracy and because of this understand the fault in doing so at the same time (Good news!)

I would add that there is no way I can "observe" a cube, or as I would've put it "imagine" a cube, if I had no experience of space. Without any sense there is no process of imagination that we can justifiably talk of.

This reminds me of my attempts to talk about phenomenology by referring to how we see the world as "over there" when the "distance" is actually an immediate loci of being not "over there". That is the "space between" me and you is collapsed into a solipsism yet explodes into otherness - this is where more mystical words often get confused with the principle of phenomenology.

In a sense the "boundaries" are all we can ever consciously "know". The rest is reconstruction and imagination wedded as mapped physical forms that keep us from dying.

Considering what we observe as "activity" is merely movement as localization and "inactive" is lack of motion or "non-locality" we can imply:

1) Active critical thinking is merely critical thinking at the localization of concepts. (observation of structure).
2) Inactive Critical thinking is merely critical thinking as the non-localization of concepts. (observation of no structure as potential structure).


That is better. I can get a little closer with that explanation. I struggle so much with finding a way to deal with "time" in words.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5265
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby Eodnhoj7 on April 18th, 2018, 5:22 pm 

BadgerJelly » April 18th, 2018, 12:56 pm wrote:Eod -

So "A → B" cannot mean "if A then B" or "A tends towards B"? What contradiction is inherent within that?


I was referring to the us of addition in the OP, not the use of mathematical logic symbols.

One point connected to One point through a -1 line, observes 1,-1, and 1 fundamentally existing as 1 through the summation of (1+-1+1)=1.

If this is the example you are referring too, then I will elaborate on it further.

1) If we view existence as "1" whole in which nothing is added or taken away it is both qualitatively positive in nature (as it has form and structure) and quantitatively "1" simultaneously.

2) Considering the imaging process observes forms which in themselves are approximations, potential and possible versions of further forms this imaging process observes "parts" of the "one whole" through a multiplicity. And example of this would be to observe part of a square as: Lines/Angles/Triangles/etc. This square in its own right is a whole in itself but not "the" whole.

3) This imaging process, as imagination, applies boundaries to forms in order to produce these forms (which range from something simple as a squiggle to something more complex like a human being). These boundaries are not real in an of themselves considering they are mere approximations/potential/possible dimensions of the unified whole as the whole cannot be separated. This "separation" is negative dimensional in nature as it is not a thing in and of itself and does not exist in and of itself but as said before a triadic:

a) approximation as randomness equivalent to the limits of being
b) potentiality as non localized phenomena
c) possibility as no-limits.

4) Quantitatively this whole is "1". Quantitatively this negative dimension at its base is "-1" considering the fundamental boundary is the "line".

5) Now if everything existed through 1 whole and we imagined it as 2, these 2 wholes as an approximation of the 1 are connected through a boundary (in this case the line) considering multiplicity is merely an approximation of unity. Hence these 2 wholes are connect by a boundary which in itself is -1 in value as the boundary is merely an observation of connection that in itself observes a multiplicity which does not exist.

6) Quantitatively if these wholes were absorbed through the boundaries they are reduced back to 1.

7) Now if it is three wholes through 3 boundaries it is reduced to 0, 4 wholes through -6 is reduced to -2, etc. For simplicity just imagine these wholes as points connected by lines where the point has a value of 1 and the line -1 (these axioms are not observed in standard Euclidean Geometry.

8) So with the increase in synthesizing forms, through imaging, comes a paradoxical increase in the negation of the whole. You might want further elaboration but I will cut it here for brevity.




For example if I were to observe a universal philosophy I would require a universal language that not just transcends but exists through and glues together previous philosophical discourses. Many of the philosophers we deal with continually "synthesize" new words and in doing so create a language barrier they seek to avoid. An attempt at individuation occurs, and is often times followed by success, but this individuation causes a further process of fracturing...part of which is due to the continual synthesis or "imagining" of words.


Of course. Yet you keep talking of an "appeal to authority" which I am not actually making.

But today's philosophy inadvertently does. "You" may not intend it specifically, but logic and argument has been replaced with quotations and dogma. This is "my" argument from a perspective of educated opinion.

In these respects this synthesis of axioms is fundamentally one of "imaging" or "imagination" considering we observe words as not things in themselves (as you observed in the problem of dictionary definitions) but rather forms or boundaries which connect other forms and boundaries as a unified whole. Considering these axioms do not exist in and of themselves, but rather as an observation of "connection" they exist as negative boundaries in the respect that they do not exist in and of themselves but rather observe an approximation of unity. In these respects all axioms exist through eachother as one and any multiplicity is merely a form of approximation that necessitates an inherent mirror effect which binds them as one axiom.


And I was asking if your "negative" above relates to Kant's. That was not an "appeal to authority" is a was a question. It appears it is the same thing that Kant talked about in regards to noumenon. If not, if your view differs, then explicate how it differs.

In all honesty the answer I can currently give, reflective of my current knowledge, is a stance of neutrality. In one respect it disagrees with his stance considering his noumenon does not incorporate a quantitative nature, strictly a qualitative one. I also believe he does not view it in the same manner as an "imaginary connector which simultaneously implies a division by observing multiplicity"...but this is where my stance is neutral as it may be implied he is referring to something similar. I would need to look deep into his texts to solidify this opinion.

To much strictness and definition lacks in one respect, to little strictness and definition still lacks in another.


Of course. I am probing for more strict definitions, you can either attempt to offer them up or decline. If you decline then I guess it is up to me to re-present what you've said and allow you to tell me what is wrong in my interpretation (I will do this to the OP later.)

I think the best way to address this problem is to literally underline a word or segment you do not understand.

The word "phenomena" is in itself a phenomena. In one degree we can understand all phenomena existing through a mirroring effect where "all words as a phenomena" can be inverted to "a phenomena as all words" in the respect they circulate through eachother. In these respect we can understand circulation as a mirror effect where the mirror effect is a replication of symmetry which maintains and expands that symmetry through intradimensional reflection.

We can observe this in the course of all philosophical dialogues.

Where A axiom leads to B argument, B argument also leads to A argument and simultaneous further arguments. A exists through B, yet this mirroring process causes A to simultaneously extend beyond itself and paradoxically through itself.


All, including me saying "all", is phenomenon. That is part of the limiting function of explicating the phenomenological "method". We cannot hold our own shadow yet we all understand what a shadow is.

Hence we understand forms through a mirror effect and this constitutes one of the foundations of knowledge. One phenomena mirrors another with one being the approximation of the other through a percieved multiplicity.

We can observe Platonic forms abstractly through imagination as a mental phenomena. A cube I can observe in my mind without directly looking at it through sense experience. This "imaging" process where we apply boundaries allows us to observe a phenomena to some degree, but a degree nonetheless.


This uncovers part of my problem in understanding what you've been saying. I don't see how I can "observe Platonic forms"?
Okay that works, we are making progress...I am beginning to understand where you are coming from.

I cannot "observe" the number one yet I can understand something as being singular, and if the "singular" can be known to me as a "separate locality", an "otherness" then there are other others thus creating multiplicities of boundaries and distinctions - so yes, "multiple" and "singular" are terms that need unearthing and if I know you know this then by revealing the problem you've shown me where your hesitation lingers when it comes to defining this or that; you care for accuracy and because of this understand the fault in doing so at the same time (Good news!)

The problem occurs in respect to unity and multiplicity?

To save some space, and avoid branching off to far, this thread should address part of your problem

viewtopic.php?f=51&t=31773

In regards to any form of "separation" we observe it through the various senses at the physical level, various emotions at the psychological level, and certain forms (this should be easier as spatial absence is easier to visualize because of the forms it puts limits too) at the mental level
a) qualitative concepts, such as color (which physically are embodied as wavelengths), perceive this separation through change. I may have to elaborate this further.


I would add that there is no way I can "observe" a cube, or as I would've put it "imagine" a cube, if I had no experience of space. Without any sense there is no process of imagination that we can justifiably talk of.

If all reality is premised from "space" as a foundation, all experience would be a means in which space folds through itself as itself. The nature of observation, as founded in spatial folding, in itself would be conducive to a mirroring process where symmetry (as boundaries) mirrors itself to form phenomena. These phenomena in themselves are extensions of 1 space, hence these "boundaries" which give a percieved seperation are merely observing this 1 space approximately. If viewing these boundaries, and everything they manifest as "1" whole there would be infinite boundaries similiar in function to a frequency which appears to not being moving because it exists at a rate of infinity.

This reminds me of my attempts to talk about phenomenology by referring to how we see the world as "over there" when the "distance" is actually an immediate loci of being not "over there". That is the "space between" me and you is collapsed into a solipsism yet explodes into otherness - this is where more mystical words often get confused with the principle of phenomenology.

People are extensions of each other with the subjective individual nature being conducive to a state of randomness which separates us. In a separate respect subjectivity provides a foundation for people to form objective unity and this "entrapment of the subjective nature" by applying order to it (through objective reasoning, moral practices, etc.) allows form to come from nothing as objectivity come from subjectivity. (if this wording makes sense)

For example if I feel "x" and person feels "y", I cannot know what the person feels or does not feel because it is an internal subjective experience. Now if he "localizes" this feeling into a physical action (spoken word, movement, etc.) he gives "boundaries" or localizes this subjective feeling and in turn objectifies it in a manner in which my actions can mirror the others.

So practically speaking. I feel good so I move my hand in some odd manner to express a feeling. The other person feels bad so he does not make any movement. These actions in turn mirror eachother where he percieves my good feeling and in turn mirrors a more postive movement while I may slow down what ever movement I am doing (such as jumping up and down).

This objectification of the subjective experience in turn mirror each other while simultaneously provide a common bond through which the subjective experience is transmitted.


In a sense the "boundaries" are all we can ever consciously "know". The rest is reconstruction and imagination wedded as mapped physical forms that keep us from dying.

Actually the question of "boundary" leads to a necessity of further definition. If boundaries are composed of space, with space being a foundational axiom for all being, then what we understand of the "boundary as space through space" observes an inherent folding of space "implying" space exists as movement. Boundaries in these respects exist as movements with a unified 1 space being infinite movement.

Considering what we observe as "activity" is merely movement as localization and "inactive" is lack of motion or "non-locality" we can imply:

1) Active critical thinking is merely critical thinking at the localization of concepts. (observation of structure).
2) Inactive Critical thinking is merely critical thinking as the non-localization of concepts. (observation of no structure as potential structure).


That is better. I can get a little closer with that explanation. I struggle so much with finding a way to deal with "time" in words.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User
 
Posts: 172
Joined: 02 Mar 2018


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby BadgerJelly on April 23rd, 2018, 10:36 pm 

Eod -

Sorry I've not had time to respond. I still don't.

I hope you can at least appreciate the need to bring one thing to the table at a time (and, yes, I understand the such a position of "one thing at a time" is part of the problem being presented here.)

If you're using "local" in an abstract way then say so directly. Don't leave enough room for misinterpretation to the point where everyone reads something different.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5265
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby Eodnhoj7 on April 24th, 2018, 10:51 am 

BadgerJelly » April 23rd, 2018, 10:36 pm wrote:Eod -

Sorry I've not had time to respond. I still don't.

I hope you can at least appreciate the need to bring one thing to the table at a time (and, yes, I understand the such a position of "one thing at a time" is part of the problem being presented here.)

If you're using "local" in an abstract way then say so directly. Don't leave enough room for misinterpretation to the point where everyone reads something different.


"Locality" as the position or place of something observe a set of relations. For example the locality of a car shows its exterior relations of the parking lot, buildings, other cars, etc. Its interior relations observe an engine, radio, etc. The car as a "locality" is merely a median between external and internal relations, with the "locality" itself (ie the "car") merely being a boundary between these internal and external relations.

Now the "car" as a locality, obviously has an inherent physical position that we observe through the 5 senses.

The car as a locality simultaneously has an inherent abstract position as well considering it is a form which is both composed of and composes further forms. These forms, while being observed through the senses, are simultaneously conceptual as well.

The term locality, as strictly a position, observes all positions as merely parts of other parts with each position in itself being a part. Hence the term "locality" is an observation of actual movement of relations. Locality is inseperable from movement in these respects with movement being the relation of parts that are physical and abstract.

The best way to view the terms applied is that they can be view as having simultaneous physical and abstract elements.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User
 
Posts: 172
Joined: 02 Mar 2018


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby BadgerJelly on May 29th, 2018, 10:42 pm 

That sounds very much like Heidegger’s “de-distancing”.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5265
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby Eodnhoj7 on May 30th, 2018, 12:14 pm 

BadgerJelly » May 29th, 2018, 10:42 pm wrote:That sounds very much like Heidegger’s “de-distancing”.



Elaborate.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User
 
Posts: 172
Joined: 02 Mar 2018


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby BadgerJelly on May 31st, 2018, 1:12 am 

Eod -

Maybe I be better off addressing the confusion I found in the OP. Other than that you can choose to read Being and Time and address how he (clumsily) set out what he meant by “de-distancing” - it mostly falls apart for me because he failed to explicate Da-Sein which was embedded in the meaning of de-distancing!

Anyway ...

The observation of phenomena is dependent upon a connection between the phenomena, in which the phenomena in themselves are relegated to points that must connect to form a further point as the phenomena itself.

This connection of phenomena is a mirroring process in which we observe the phenomena existing both as symmetry, or a set of mirroring dimensions, in themselves and a symmetry between eachother, as a set of dimensions which summated the phenomena as "one" set of dimensions mirroring dimensions.

In these respects what we understand of phenomena are strictly the observation of symmetry, as structure, as symmetry through the connection of such phenomena.

This connection of phenomena occurs through a connection between the phenomena through lines. These lines in themselves are an absence of dimensionality that connects the phenomena through an absence of difference.


Before I say anything don’t reply if you cannot use the quote mechanism. Looking back over this thread, and every other thread you post in, I find it too messy to commit time to. Simply copy paste and quote. There is no need to quote this entire reply (so expect no response if I find myself reading these words in your reply.)

Now that is clear ... “dimensionality”? I marked in bold what bothers me. To start the ambiguity of phenomena being “relegated” to points to connect to other “points”? It seems circular to me why you’re saying. Why not just say phenomena are phenomena?

To explain further, how can a phenomenon (if you believe such an item can exist in a singular sense?) be observed without other phenomenon to bring them about. Here I can guess that the term “locality” would be useful, but certainly not in the true sense of the word only through abstract use.

If you’re merely talking about dimensions of space then you’ve stumbled into the mistake of equating abstractions with physical form. They are of course connected, yet it is folly to talk about some physical “number” if it is not used as a quantity of reference to some object/s.

If I find myself thinking about what I think rather than what you think, then you’ve failed. I don’t know what you think because you don’t appear to be able to express it with any kind of consistency, clarity or with reasonable presentation. Clean it up, write a short (and I mean short) paragraph that gives a gist. Then write a longer paragraph, or perhaps two shorter ones, to expand your meaning LITTLE BY LITTLE. I keep seeing an avalanche of thoughts none of which are outlined precisely enough for me to understand what you intend.

Note: I suffer the same thing in my writing so think of this as a “it takes one to know one” situation I am addressing here ;)
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5265
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby Eodnhoj7 on May 31st, 2018, 11:46 am 

BadgerJelly » May 31st, 2018, 1:12 am wrote:Eod -

Maybe I be better off addressing the confusion I found in the OP. Other than that you can choose to read Being and Time and address how he (clumsily) set out what he meant by “de-distancing” - it mostly falls apart for me because he failed to explicate Da-Sein which was embedded in the meaning of de-distancing!

Anyway ...

The observation of phenomena is dependent upon a connection between the phenomena, in which the phenomena in themselves are relegated to points that must connect to form a further point as the phenomena itself.

This connection of phenomena is a mirroring process in which we observe the phenomena existing both as symmetry, or a set of mirroring dimensions, in themselves and a symmetry between eachother, as a set of dimensions which summated the phenomena as "one" set of dimensions mirroring dimensions.

In these respects what we understand of phenomena are strictly the observation of symmetry, as structure, as symmetry through the connection of such phenomena.

This connection of phenomena occurs through a connection between the phenomena through lines. These lines in themselves are an absence of dimensionality that connects the phenomena through an absence of difference.


Before I say anything don’t reply if you cannot use the quote mechanism. Looking back over this thread, and every other thread you post in, I find it too messy to commit time to. Simply copy paste and quote. There is no need to quote this entire reply (so expect no response if I find myself reading these words in your reply.)

1)Now that is clear ... “dimensionality”? I marked in bold what bothers me. To start the ambiguity of phenomena being “relegated” to points to connect to other “points”? It seems circular to me why you’re saying. Why not just say phenomena are phenomena?

To explain further, how can a phenomenon (if you believe such an item can exist in a singular sense?) be observed without other phenomenon to bring them about. Here I can guess that the term “locality” would be useful, but certainly not in the true sense of the word only through abstract use.

2)If you’re merely talking about dimensions of space then you’ve stumbled into the mistake of equating abstractions with physical form. They are of course connected, yet it is folly to talk about some physical “number” if it is not used as a quantity of reference to some object/s.

If I find myself thinking about what I think rather than what you think, then you’ve failed. I don’t know what you think because you don’t appear to be able to express it with any kind of consistency, clarity or with reasonable presentation. Clean it up, write a short (and I mean short) paragraph that gives a gist. Then write a longer paragraph, or perhaps two shorter ones, to expand your meaning LITTLE BY LITTLE. I keep seeing an avalanche of thoughts none of which are outlined precisely enough for me to understand what you intend.

Note: I suffer the same thing in my writing so think of this as a “it takes one to know one” situation I am addressing here ;)


Yeah...when it comes to technology I am a stupid caveman...so I will just number the points I will address with corresponding numbers to your argument.

1) Now that is clear ... “dimensionality”? I marked in bold what bothers me. To start the ambiguity of phenomena being “relegated” to points to connect to other “points”? It seems circular to me why you’re saying. Why not just say phenomena are phenomena?

All realities begin with boundaries. These boundaries are merely the relation of points, as evidenced by the basic line. These points in themselves are extensions of eachother through other points with these points being the origin of the phenomenon itself. All points in themselves are axiomatic and self-evident whether one looks through the fields of geometry or the more intuitive nature of dialogue where the point is relegated to the axiom of the argument. Under these terms axioms as points (and vice versa considering the qualitative dualism between the two) exist through their relations. These relations are merely an approximation of one point by observing the multiplicity of various points as extensions of eachother.

2)If you’re merely talking about dimensions of space then you’ve stumbled into the mistake of equating abstractions with physical form. They are of course connected, yet it is folly to talk about some physical “number” if it is not used as a quantity of reference to some object/s.

All abstraction and physical forms in themselves are seperated by a boundary of measurement (whether it be the 5 senses for the physical, or "reason" as a sense in regards to abstraction) and in these respects extend from this very same divisive boundary. Intuitively this seperation occurs through the line as a seperator between these phenomenon, with these dual phenomenon paradoxically forming the boundary between them as something that maintains their own conceptual and concrete forms.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User
 
Posts: 172
Joined: 02 Mar 2018


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby BadgerJelly on May 31st, 2018, 12:10 pm 

I think you’re confusing preaching with explaining.

You’ve climbed into your pulpit again and recited what is so and what is not so. You’ve yet to explain what you mean in a way I can understand.

If you cannot give an explanation, or you think the above is sufficent “explanation” of the OP, then I’m done here.

You just layer on more and more questions rather than addressing the initial question I had with the OP. Now I am looking at “boundary of measurement” equally puzzled as to what it is you expect me to make of any of this.

Up to now it looks vaguely thought out and badly presented.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5265
Joined: 14 Mar 2012
Eodnhoj7 liked this post


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby Eodnhoj7 on May 31st, 2018, 12:17 pm 

BadgerJelly » May 31st, 2018, 12:10 pm wrote:I think you’re confusing preaching with explaining.

You’ve climbed into your pulpit again and recited what is so and what is not so. You’ve yet to explain what you mean in a way I can understand.

If you cannot give an explanation, or you think the above is sufficent “explanation” of the OP, then I’m done here.

You just layer on more and more questions rather than addressing the initial question I had with the OP. Now I am looking at “boundary of measurement” equally puzzled as to what it is you expect me to make of any of this.

Up to now it looks vaguely thought out and badly presented.



Then just ask more questions. If "understanding" is your issue you may have to question if it is you and not me who is...well...lacking in knowledge. The practical problem of philosophy, and you should have known this by now if you "actually read" the intro to any philosophical text breaks down to a problem of translation where multiple "authorities" come up with varying explanations that differ in many degrees.

The obvious fact of academia is that those who teach very rarely fully understand what the author is saying...and if you had any "honest" professor (and I have had a few) they would admit this very same problem.

Either ask a question, present a counter-argument or both. The language I use, while appearing complex, is actually just basic dictionary words. The problem occurs, within philosophy under the issue of language, that we have been accustomed to "dividing" rather than "uniting" terminology and this analyticism causes an inherent fracturing where each axiom is divided into further axioms and a problem of "complexity induced obscurity results".

In the simplest terms I can currently fathom.

1) All axioms we observe correspond to atomic facts as "points".
2) All points (from the perspective of geometry) are in themselves the purest of axioms.
3) The point and the axioms observe inherent boundaries which form all concrete and fluid concepts and there relations observe that what we deem as "reason" or "logic" is merely the simple observation of points and lines at the conceptual level.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User
 
Posts: 172
Joined: 02 Mar 2018


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby BadgerJelly on June 1st, 2018, 12:05 am 

Well, it seems like you forgot to answer my questions. I’ll repeat them:

- Why not just say phenomena are phenomena? Why say “mirrored”?
- What does “boundary” mean when dealing with abstractions? Is such a use of the term (outside of geometry) really genuine enough for your purposes?
- What do you mean by “dimensionality”; then issue I have being how you parse this term for physical geometry and for abstract thought; the very same goes for “axiom”.

You could simply say that difference is change and that time is also just change. Difference is the category, time is what is felt, but underlying we’re really talking about change - that is an item adumbrated yet never fully held, it remains an approximation because mere words suffice they don’t live and breath the immanent orientation “about the world.”

And of course I a using “orientation” in an disingenuous way there. I believe you are using “locality” in a disingenuous way. The difference being ou’ve not stated that you have done so. At length I’ve talked about “absolute” too, and many failed to understand that “absolute” is a proxy of understanding. There is no absolute unless we’re confining ourselves to a set of unchanging rules - hence the importance of “change”.

The term universal is important here too. We don’t talk about the “locality of the universe” or the “orientation of the universe”, and if we were to do such a thing we’d have to introduce a different manner of use for these terms.

I’ve read a few philosophical texts. Your’s is most likened to Heidegger. He presents some interesting ideas, but ultimately fails to convey the key meaning of the terminology he brings into play - his work was incomplete in this sense, because he tried (and failed) to gloss over his short comings with verbosity and deception (likely self-deception rather than outright villainy.)

If you get around to answering what I have asked then deal with this:

1) No they don’t or, maybe, yes they do. Again, what is an atomic fact and why say point in parenthesis? And again by “observe” I am familiar with this term as meaning by way of direct sensory perception. Does a point have magnitude? Does the term “time” inhabit a point? There maybe a point to what ou’re saying, but that doesn’t mean there is an actual, physical point. My point being that language is limited so understand the boundaries of comprehensible discourse ... and saying that my strong opinion is that philosophy is the craft of dancing between the ephemeral lines of understanding and comprehension, the worded way of constructing sense of the world even when the very term “world” is excepted as absolute within its very vaguely felt and meant meaning.

“Complexity induced obscurity results” is nothing more than a pretentious way of saying the equally pretentious “absurdism ad infinitum”, or in simpler terms of speech a bottomless pit with nothing to grip onto.

Axioms are leaps of faith that work well enough so as not to fail all the time. They are never absolute except within there own rigid confines.

2) Says who? A singular point is naught in geometric terms. Only a plurality of points has geometric meaning. The singular point is defined as a singular unit and to know it the contrast of multiplicity must be held side by side with it - the mistake is equating “phonemenon” and “phenomena” is this very same way because phenomenon is neither singular nor plural, yet the extraordinarily fantastic means of science has burdened us with a bias when using this term.

3) No, we observe. Concrete concepts don’t exist - I am guessing you mean “unchanging”. Again, it seems you’re confusing convenience of word use with actuality which is merely a supposition inferred by change.

Logic and reason are neither one thing or another. Mathematical logic is absolute (because it is rigidly restricted to the principle of set rules.) A mathematical equivalence is nothing like a lived equivalence because the lived is temporal and changes. That said it is certainly possible - if not fathomable - that mathematics will shift due to blindness upon our part as humans. We’d never notice it though other than as a possible “new” approach rather than as a physical cosmological shift of being.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5265
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby Eodnhoj7 on June 1st, 2018, 11:43 am 

BadgerJelly » June 1st, 2018, 12:05 am wrote:Well, it seems like you forgot to answer my questions. I’ll repeat them:

- Why not just say phenomena are phenomena? Why say “mirrored”?
- What does “boundary” mean when dealing with abstractions? Is such a use of the term (outside of geometry) really genuine enough for your purposes?
- What do you mean by “dimensionality”; then issue I have being how you parse this term for physical geometry and for abstract thought; the very same goes for “axiom”.

You could simply say that difference is change and that time is also just change. Difference is the category, time is what is felt, but underlying we’re really talking about change - that is an item adumbrated yet never fully held, it remains an approximation because mere words suffice they don’t live and breath the immanent orientation “about the world.”

And of course I a using “orientation” in an disingenuous way there. I believe you are using “locality” in a disingenuous way. The difference being ou’ve not stated that you have done so. At length I’ve talked about “absolute” too, and many failed to understand that “absolute” is a proxy of understanding. There is no absolute unless we’re confining ourselves to a set of unchanging rules - hence the importance of “change”.

The term universal is important here too. We don’t talk about the “locality of the universe” or the “orientation of the universe”, and if we were to do such a thing we’d have to introduce a different manner of use for these terms.

I’ve read a few philosophical texts. Your’s is most likened to Heidegger. He presents some interesting ideas, but ultimately fails to convey the key meaning of the terminology he brings into play - his work was incomplete in this sense, because he tried (and failed) to gloss over his short comings with verbosity and deception (likely self-deception rather than outright villainy.)

If you get around to answering what I have asked then deal with this:

1) No they don’t or, maybe, yes they do. Again, what is an atomic fact and why say point in parenthesis? And again by “observe” I am familiar with this term as meaning by way of direct sensory perception. Does a point have magnitude? Does the term “time” inhabit a point? There maybe a point to what ou’re saying, but that doesn’t mean there is an actual, physical point. My point being that language is limited so understand the boundaries of comprehensible discourse ... and saying that my strong opinion is that philosophy is the craft of dancing between the ephemeral lines of understanding and comprehension, the worded way of constructing sense of the world even when the very term “world” is excepted as absolute within its very vaguely felt and meant meaning.

“Complexity induced obscurity results” is nothing more than a pretentious way of saying the equally pretentious “absurdism ad infinitum”, or in simpler terms of speech a bottomless pit with nothing to grip onto.

Axioms are leaps of faith that work well enough so as not to fail all the time. They are never absolute except within there own rigid confines.

2) Says who? A singular point is naught in geometric terms. Only a plurality of points has geometric meaning. The singular point is defined as a singular unit and to know it the contrast of multiplicity must be held side by side with it - the mistake is equating “phonemenon” and “phenomena” is this very same way because phenomenon is neither singular nor plural, yet the extraordinarily fantastic means of science has burdened us with a bias when using this term.

3) No, we observe. Concrete concepts don’t exist - I am guessing you mean “unchanging”. Again, it seems you’re confusing convenience of word use with actuality which is merely a supposition inferred by change.

Logic and reason are neither one thing or another. Mathematical logic is absolute (because it is rigidly restricted to the principle of set rules.) A mathematical equivalence is nothing like a lived equivalence because the lived is temporal and changes. That said it is certainly possible - if not fathomable - that mathematics will shift due to blindness upon our part as humans. We’d never notice it though other than as a possible “new” approach rather than as a physical cosmological shift of being.


- Why not just say phenomena are phenomena? Why say “mirrored”?
Because we are left with little definition as to what the nature of a phenomenon itself. We know a phenomenon exists and as exist it it dependent upon some degree of order. This order is dependent upon limits which form it. These limits acts as boundaries. If we look at the nature of the boundary it it qualtatively observe in its most basic form (concretely and intuitively) as the "line" (straight or curved). This line repeats itself, by directing itself through itself, under a mirror effect where symmetry is replicated to give form and hence structure.

- What does “boundary” mean when dealing with abstractions? Is such a use of the term (outside of geometry) really genuine enough for your purposes?
A boundary in regards to abstraction observes the limit of the abstraction itself. For example "x" abstraction and "y" abstraction are seperated because of the boundary between them. They are also localized into the abstraction for what they are because of this very same boundary. This boundary observes that each abstraction, as an axiom, exists because of the relations between them. These relations, observed under linear logic, equate qualitively to a line when viewed intuitively through these same spatial terms. These axioms, which in themselves are composed of further axioms, follow these same boundaries of relations (presented in linear terms) which not just implies but necessitates these axioms consist of boundaries in and other themselves. A boundary is a limit, and the term limit and boundary can be used interchangeably due to the multiplicitous nature of the English language, with all limits replicating through a mirror effect.

- What do you mean by “dimensionality”; then issue I have being how you parse this term for physical geometry and for abstract thought; the very same goes for “axiom”.

Yes, it applies as a threefold in nature. There are physical dimensions as the relation of limits. There are abstract dimensions as the relation of limits. Dimension as the relation of limits becomes self-evident in itself under neutral terms under the simple terms of: Dimension as the relation of limits. Now this sounds overly simplictic but if looking at the nature of "Limit" (or in this case the relation of limits) we must observe it as both "abstract/physical" in the respect the abstract and physical extends from limit and through limit. In a seperate respect we must view it as neither "abstract/physical" in the respect these limits depend upon possible further limits which in themselves are "no-limit" in the respect they do not exist (possibility under these terms exists as "no-limit".

-You could simply say that difference is change and that time is also just change. Difference is the category, time is what is felt, but underlying we’re really talking about change - that is an item adumbrated yet never fully held, it remains an approximation because mere words suffice they don’t live and breath the immanent orientation “about the world.”

I cover time as change elsewhere, however all change is observe through a multiplicity of parts conducive to an act of relation. In these respects change, through time, is akin to approximation of a unifed unchanging absolute.


-And of course I a using “orientation” in an disingenuous way there. I believe you are using “locality” in a disingenuous way. The difference being ou’ve not stated that you have done so. At length I’ve talked about “absolute” too, and many failed to understand that “absolute” is a proxy of understanding. There is no absolute unless we’re confining ourselves to a set of unchanging rules - hence the importance of “change”.

Localization is a position with all position being the relation of specific boundaries from a specific point of measurement and/or observation. I have not stated I have not done so because I have not done so.

-"Absolute as a proxy of understanding" would require to observe certain absolute concepts in order to be stated as an absolute truth. If what is absolute doe not exist because of change, then change must be constant and in effect change itself into what is absolute. In simpler terms if everything changes, then your statement about change must also change and inevitably become false. Change negates itself into an absolute and a dualism occurs where change is merely a limit of the absolute by observing the absolute approximately with this approximate nature being constant as a limit which forms the absolute.


The term universal is important here too. We don’t talk about the “locality of the universe” or the “orientation of the universe”, and if we were to do such a thing we’d have to introduce a different manner of use for these terms.

The universe becomes localized when we observe it as a concept. The problem occurs in the respect that the universe represents, generally speaking along with the concept of "universals", the all. So the all becomes a locality in itself, however considering a locality necessities a relation, and the all has nothing to relate to except itself it must relate to itself ad-infinitum through a process of being through self-mirroring of an intradimensional nature where it exist through 1 as infinity. (I may have to address this argument further for greater clarity). In this manner what we understand of relativistic locality is the same form and function of the whole and the whole is presented in all phenomenon. (This I may have to address again in more detailed terms.)

-1) No they don’t or, maybe, yes they do. Again, what is an atomic fact and why say point in parenthesis? And again by “observe” I am familiar with this term as meaning by way of direct sensory perception. Does a point have magnitude? Does the term “time” inhabit a point? There maybe a point to what ou’re saying, but that doesn’t mean there is an actual, physical point. My point being that language is limited so understand the boundaries of comprehensible discourse ... and saying that my strong opinion is that philosophy is the craft of dancing between the ephemeral lines of understanding and comprehension, the worded way of constructing sense of the world even when the very term “world” is excepted as absolute within its very vaguely felt and meant meaning.

An atomic fact, and wittgenstein observed this in similar terms, is a fact which acts as a part of another fact and is irreducible. Now the question of reducibility becomes evident so that fact breaks down to a limiit or boundary of knowledge with all limits and boundaries, when reduced, maintain the same form and function of limit in one respect (and never changing), but change in the nature that the limits form its own proportions. For example a line always folds into another line, but this act of folding cause the line to act as its own form of measurement by manifesting the line in relation to itself through proportions. Proportions provide are the means for all structure.

A point has size only when the point it composed of specific relations. For example I may stare out to a specific point in nature. That point is composed of relations which have certain size when held in their own context, but this "size" of the point only observes that one we understand of as size is relation of space with these relations being composed of time. So while I always approach the point, and what composes it "expands" this point maintains itself as the same and the point I am staring at is merely an observation of relation through movement.

The point as a physical object can never be dissected or analyzed without being cycled back to itself as another point through point. In these respects the point observes a cycling of itself through linear movement. Take for example the base premise of the line. It projects away from its origin of the 0d point only to go back to a 0d point as the very same thing. Progressive linearism, under these terms, is merely an observation of circularity as alternation conducive to movement.

Physics is a craft of definition based upon obscure mathematical definition relegated true by an few...it follows the same form and function of philosophy as an extension of philosophy through the scientific method as a system of metaphysics.


-Axioms are leaps of faith that work well enough so as not to fail all the time. They are never absolute except within there own rigid confines.

If this is an axiomatic, or self-evident truth, then it in itself is leap of faith on your part. However if it is an act of faith, this observation become an objective axiom or follows that "faith replicates through faith". In the first case we can see a dualism with the axiom as subjective faith and dualistic truth. In another respect the act of objectification is an act of will and an alternation of form occurs where alternation as movement and form is the supreme truth that extends through all as all...and I can go further but other points above must be addressed.

-2) Says who? A singular point is naught in geometric terms. Only a plurality of points has geometric meaning. The singular point is defined as a singular unit and to know it the contrast of multiplicity must be held side by side with it - the mistake is equating “phonemenon” and “phenomena” is this very same way because phenomenon is neither singular nor plural, yet the extraordinarily fantastic means of science has burdened us with a bias when using this term.

Says who? We can go back to the pythagoreans/platonists in theory. A single point exists as infinite lines extending in all directions, we can observe this in the monad. The limit of the monad as infinite points observes the point existing under a dualism where 1 0d point exists at the center and 1 0d point (composed of infinite points like that in the interior) at the edge of the monad. The monad itself takes the form of a 1d point folding into itself intradimensionally ad-fininitum. In these terms the point "can be" argued as having a dualistic nature of 1 dimensional and 0 dimensional with any observation of the 0d point being an observation of relation or approximation of the 1d point.

A single point exists if a theoretical 1 dimensional point exists...which would fundamental cause a whole list of new axioms in geometry and mathematics. This would be a single point, "possibly", however theoretical and not observed by an modern methods of mathematics/geometry (in many respects it would be an inversion of what we understand which what we understand being a negation...in these respect the 1d point would follow (I believe) in the form and function of intuitionistic logic/mathematics.)

A single 0d point, with the 0d point acting fundamentally as a seperator resulting in further 0d points (seperators) through the line can only be observe as singular if viewed as one dualism considering the 0d point cannot exist without another 0d point. This one dualism observes the 0d point as 1 seperator resulting in the observation of the unit. (I may have to elaborate further on this point).

Phenomenon as neither singular nor plural equate phenomenon as "boundary" or "limit" which we discuss above, and as neutral maintains a nature of being both singular and plural. Phenonemon as being both observes itself as "limit", phenomenon as neither observes "no-limit".


-No, we observe. Concrete concepts don’t exist - I am guessing you mean “unchanging”. Again, it seems you’re confusing convenience of word use with actuality which is merely a supposition inferred by change.

Logic and reason are neither one thing or another. Mathematical logic is absolute (because it is rigidly restricted to the principle of set rules.) A mathematical equivalence is nothing like a lived equivalence because the lived is temporal and changes. That said it is certainly possible - if not fathomable - that mathematics will shift due to blindness upon our part as humans. We’d never notice it though other than as a possible “new” approach rather than as a physical cosmological shift of being.

Concrete concepts exist because we must infinitely negate them in linear regressive terms with the origin point providing the foundation of this linear regress. This linear negation, under the form of the line in itself is a constant. Mathematical logic is absolute based upon the axioms its observes, however if the axioms continually expand mathematics is not absolute and always changing.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User
 
Posts: 172
Joined: 02 Mar 2018


PreviousNext

Return to Personal Theories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests