## 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

Concepts do not necessarily reduce to mathematical entities like points or lines. You are confusing different domains of abstraction.

This flawed premise is seen in most of your postings here.

The concept "amorphous unbounded field of gloom" for example, does not reduce to a set of geometric concepts. You cannot put phenomenology in a corset of pure math.

And I should point out that your phrase "single 0d point," is redundant. A mathematical point is by definition of zero dimensionality. It is mathematical convenience we use to make graphs and other representations of the external world.

Braininvat

Posts: 6703
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills

### Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Braininvat » June 1st, 2018, 11:56 am wrote:Concepts do not necessarily reduce to mathematical entities like points or lines. You are confusing different domains of abstraction.

This flawed premise is seen in most of your postings here.

The concept "amorphous unbounded field of gloom" for example, does not reduce to a set of geometric concepts. You cannot put phenomenology in a corset of pure math.

And I should point out that your phrase "single 0d point," is redundant. A mathematical point is by definition of zero dimensionality. It is mathematical convenience we use to make graphs and other representations of the external world.

-Concepts do not necessarily reduce to mathematical entities like points or lines. You are confusing different domains of abstraction.

In mathematics points and lines are not strictly quantities either, but rather underlying qualitative axioms. In modern math the 0d point is not 0, but the question of relation still occurs. Where are "0", "dimensionality" and the "point" unified specifically? This is a legitimate question considering a continual methodology of analyzing a phenomenon, by reducing it into parts, inevitably leads to an observation of parts. Now we understand, through analysis the relation of these parts, but these relations necessitate an understanding of unity simultaneously.

The concept "amorphous unbounded field of gloom" for example, does not reduce to a set of geometric concepts. You cannot put phenomenology in a corset of pure math.

Actually it does:

1) This is a linear statement.

2) The definitions of "amorphous", "unbounded", "field", "of" and "gloom" when viewed through a dictionary (or any manual of definition as to what the words mean) observes an inherent circularity and linear duality summated under an expanding circle. For example if I look up the definition of "x" and the dictionary leads me to "y", if I look at "y" it leads back to "x" but simultaneously leads to "z". This nature of definition inevitably leads to the previously stated dualism. We can see this dualism in logic further in terms of Western Linear thought and Eastern Circular thought, with the west's emphasis on "units" and the east's emphasis on "unity".

3) Pure math is define by a strictly quantitative approach. This strict quantitative approach contradicts itself in the respect it cannot quantitative a definition for quantity. The base premise of "purity" is circular and contradicts basic mathematical linearism. There is no quantitative equation that summates mathematics, and if there is it is circular. If mathematics as a discipline is dependent upon linear form it must inherently project away from its qualitative origins it must quantify the nature of quality.

4) The nature of pure math is discussed in qualitative terms, as evidence in the conversation, and it dependent upon conceptual argument. This qualitative argument is dependent upon base universal spatial forms (linearism/circularity) to justify its origins. Even if one is to look at the meta-mathematical nature of the situation even the symbols, while medial points for quantitative form/functions, are in themselves spatial constructs of form. The symbols imply a necessity of quantity being mediated through quality otherwise quantity does not exist on its own terms.

5) The problem of quantity depending on quality simultaneously implies that quality is dependent upon quantity.

Where I can observe the linear statement of A → B I may observe a specific set of relation embodied through "→" as "c1,c2,c3" (or whatever). If I reverse the statement into B ← A the relations that compose "←" may be summated in different terms (whether the "c" series is reversed or another series such as "d" occurs can vary).

So where 1 to 2 may observe base fractals connecting these relations, when reversed these fractals tend towards a different direction and different because of it. So .1 being the beginning of one sequence, ad-infinitum, can only be observed as a localized infinity determined by the starting point.

1.99 tending the other way is a another localize infinity and differs because of the point of origin (which is the only means we can observe in an infinity, along with the ending, but never both simultaneously unless we exclude the middle).

This infinite progression, which qualitative logic necessitates in justifying axioms, leads to quantity through infinity with infinity existing and only if we observe finite quantities. What is infinite is dependendent upon a base quantity of 1, hence all qualitative argument depend upon quantitative 1 under qualitative unity.

I may have to expand upon this argument further.

6) This dependence of quantity and quality upon eachother requires a base observation where both represent "limits" and this triad observes these limits as the foundation for both. The question occurs, as previously discussed in the thread, as to the nature of limit being both a quantity and quality. Under these terms the line exists as a number in theory.

And I should point out that your phrase "single 0d point," is redundant. A mathematical point is by definition of zero dimensionality. It is mathematical convenience we use to make graphs and other representations of the external world.

Actually it is not entirely redundant considering when we observe "0d point" we observe a singular concept (ie the 0d point). Now considering, as stated in the prior post, we cannot observe the 0d point except as a separator with this separator existing relative to another seperator, the act of seperation in itself is an observation of singular form. We can see this in the line being composed as the relation of negatives canceling out to prove a positive. This is logical.

Convenience however it not mathematical and is entirely subjective, and in these respect what we understand as objective quantity is merely an encapsulation of subjectivity into a form. The objective truths of mathematics, while absolute when put in the context of the axioms they observe, are dependent upon axioms which in themselves maintain not just a qualitative degree but inherent subjectivity due to there inherent nature of "self"-evidence.

In these respects we observe a further alternation between subjectivity and objectivity with this alternation in both form and function provide the neutral limits for knowledge under spatial terms.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User

Posts: 170
Joined: 02 Mar 2018

### Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Biv -

I think the key phrase is “phenomenon” being “dependant” upon some form of order.

Eod appears, to me at least to have done themselves an injustice by using dense language,and familiar terms in an unfamiliar manner. There is a great deal I can relate to here, but there is also a gaping hole in the middle that I don’t seem to be able to reconcile - this is likely to do with my own views engulfing what I’ve read here without remorse.

Eod -

Much better job of an explanation. Still unsure so will let it stew. On one hand I want to say I am 90% with you on this, but on the other I find ginormous problems. Is this an empty shell or is there substance below your thoughts? The jury is out for me at the moment.

Resident Member

Posts: 5345
Joined: 14 Mar 2012

### Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Eod -

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.

I take this as a given. My understanding only reaches so far. It may well be that you’re streets ahead of me in terms of articulation and comprehension. I’m not overtly conventional, nor well read or trained within the field of philosophy. I do believe I am above average intelligence, but that may not be enough in and of itself if I lack the will to be wrong, accept my ignorance and knowingly flounder around from time to time.

Also, as you can see I am inclined to break into more of a prose-style of writing in areas many would consider (rightly or wrongly) inappropriate.

This is a forum, and a predominantly science forum at that. I am happy enough to dig much deeper into things and I’ve attempted to do so before with Husserl on a few occasions - with hit and miss results fro what I can tell.

I have let myself go in my studies recently due to an intriguing idea and the resurrection of an old passion of mine.

Glad our thoughts collide in a good enough way. I’ve found fewer and fewer outlets the deeper I’ve taken myself toward this or that line of thought.

Ps. Will give due attention to your thoughtful reply when I have time.

Resident Member

Posts: 5345
Joined: 14 Mar 2012

### Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

BadgerJelly » June 1st, 2018, 1:58 pm wrote:Biv -

I think the key phrase is “phenomenon” being “dependant” upon some form of order.

Eod appears, to me at least to have done themselves an injustice by using dense language,and familiar terms in an unfamiliar manner. There is a great deal I can relate to here, but there is also a gaping hole in the middle that I don’t seem to be able to reconcile - this is likely to do with my own views engulfing what I’ve read here without remorse.

Eod -

Much better job of an explanation. Still unsure so will let it stew. On one hand I want to say I am 90% with you on this, but on the other I find ginormous problems. Is this an empty shell or is there substance below your thoughts? The jury is out for me at the moment.

Substance, but considering the nature of communication has an inherently subjective (if not "chaotic" element) it would be best for both of us if either you presented further questions or counter-arguments so to bridge these deficiencies.

The simple truth is that when trying to embody a problem through a general projective discourse some questions are left un-answered...Plato observed this problem of writing. It is not that these questions do not have answers, considering all questions inherently form answers and hence have them, but rather there are an infinite sea of "perspectives" to be addressed.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User

Posts: 170
Joined: 02 Mar 2018

### Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

BadgerJelly » June 2nd, 2018, 3:50 am wrote:Eod -

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.

I take this as a given. My understanding only reaches so far. It may well be that you’re streets ahead of me in terms of articulation and comprehension. I’m not overtly conventional, nor well read or trained within the field of philosophy. I do believe I am above average intelligence, but that may not be enough in and of itself if I lack the will to be wrong, accept my ignorance and knowingly flounder around from time to time.

Lol...intelligence has a part in philosophy but a high IQ does little...the wise man and fool are left in the same boat of ignorance, metaphorically speaking (I am not accusing you of either though). Philosophy relies upon form and function, intelligence and emotion, practically and abstractness, and a number of other things(at least this is what I have observed). The most horrifying and beautiful question I have come to seek a grips on is a real simple and almost naive one: "What happens if one believes in everyone and everything?" This has been a real source of turmoil for me and is something I personally struggle with...but that is the point of philosophy I believe embracing the darkness of the human condition and bringing order from it.

Also, as you can see I am inclined to break into more of a prose-style of writing in areas many would consider (rightly or wrongly) inappropriate.

This is a forum, and a predominantly science forum at that. I am happy enough to dig much deeper into things and I’ve attempted to do so before with Husserl on a few occasions - with hit and miss results fro what I can tell.

I have let myself go in my studies recently due to an intriguing idea and the resurrection of an old passion of mine.

Passion is a source of knowledge. I have found, strictly from personal experience only, that I move from one passion to the next and the "next passion" oftentimes reinvigorates the first. I learned alot about logic, ironically, by simply looking at the definitions of words through a dictionary.

The great irony, or paradox, is that the base foundation for the beginnings of my writings (I only started approaching it seriously for about 1-1/2 years) were dictionaries and encyclopedias. It stemmed to standard philosophical texts of course but the great origin of all thinking really breaks down to an understanding of definition and the order which precedes from it, goes through it, and moves toward.

Glad our thoughts collide in a good enough way. I’ve found fewer and fewer outlets the deeper I’ve taken myself toward this or that line of thought.

Ps. Will give due attention to your thoughtful reply when I have time.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User

Posts: 170
Joined: 02 Mar 2018

### Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Eodnhoj7 » June 1st, 2018, 12:43 pm wrote:
Braininvat » June 1st, 2018, 11:56 am wrote:Concepts do not necessarily reduce to mathematical entities like points or lines. You are confusing different domains of abstraction.

This flawed premise is seen in most of your postings here.

The concept "amorphous unbounded field of gloom" for example, does not reduce to a set of geometric concepts. You cannot put phenomenology in a corset of pure math.

And I should point out that your phrase "single 0d point," is redundant. A mathematical point is by definition of zero dimensionality. It is mathematical convenience we use to make graphs and other representations of the external world.

-Concepts do not necessarily reduce to mathematical entities like points or lines. You are confusing different domains of abstraction.

In mathematics points and lines are not strictly quantities either, but rather underlying qualitative axioms. In modern math the 0d point is not 0, but the question of relation still occurs. Where are "0", "dimensionality" and the "point" unified specifically? This is a legitimate question considering a continual methodology of analyzing a phenomenon, by reducing it into parts, inevitably leads to an observation of parts. Now we understand, through analysis the relation of these parts, but these relations necessitate an understanding of unity simultaneously.

The concept "amorphous unbounded field of gloom" for example, does not reduce to a set of geometric concepts. You cannot put phenomenology in a corset of pure math.

Actually it does:

1) This is a linear statement.

2) The definitions of "amorphous", "unbounded", "field", "of" and "gloom" when viewed through a dictionary (or any manual of definition as to what the words mean) observes an inherent circularity and linear duality summated under an expanding circle. For example if I look up the definition of "x" and the dictionary leads me to "y", if I look at "y" it leads back to "x" but simultaneously leads to "z". This nature of definition inevitably leads to the previously stated dualism. We can see this dualism in logic further in terms of Western Linear thought and Eastern Circular thought, with the west's emphasis on "units" and the east's emphasis on "unity".

3) Pure math is define by a strictly quantitative approach. This strict quantitative approach contradicts itself in the respect it cannot quantitative a definition for quantity. The base premise of "purity" is circular and contradicts basic mathematical linearism. There is no quantitative equation that summates mathematics, and if there is it is circular. If mathematics as a discipline is dependent upon linear form it must inherently project away from its qualitative origins it must quantify the nature of quality.

4) The nature of pure math is discussed in qualitative terms, as evidence in the conversation, and it dependent upon conceptual argument. This qualitative argument is dependent upon base universal spatial forms (linearism/circularity) to justify its origins. Even if one is to look at the meta-mathematical nature of the situation even the symbols, while medial points for quantitative form/functions, are in themselves spatial constructs of form. The symbols imply a necessity of quantity being mediated through quality otherwise quantity does not exist on its own terms.

5) The problem of quantity depending on quality simultaneously implies that quality is dependent upon quantity.

Where I can observe the linear statement of A → B I may observe a specific set of relation embodied through "→" as "c1,c2,c3" (or whatever). If I reverse the statement into B ← A the relations that compose "←" may be summated in different terms (whether the "c" series is reversed or another series such as "d" occurs can vary).

So where 1 to 2 may observe base fractals connecting these relations, when reversed these fractals tend towards a different direction and different because of it. So .1 being the beginning of one sequence, ad-infinitum, can only be observed as a localized infinity determined by the starting point.

1.99 tending the other way is a another localize infinity and differs because of the point of origin (which is the only means we can observe in an infinity, along with the ending, but never both simultaneously unless we exclude the middle).

This infinite progression, which qualitative logic necessitates in justifying axioms, leads to quantity through infinity with infinity existing and only if we observe finite quantities. What is infinite is dependendent upon a base quantity of 1, hence all qualitative argument depend upon quantitative 1 under qualitative unity.

I may have to expand upon this argument further.

6) This dependence of quantity and quality upon eachother requires a base observation where both represent "limits" and this triad observes these limits as the foundation for both. The question occurs, as previously discussed in the thread, as to the nature of limit being both a quantity and quality. Under these terms the line exists as a number in theory.

And I should point out that your phrase "single 0d point," is redundant. A mathematical point is by definition of zero dimensionality. It is mathematical convenience we use to make graphs and other representations of the external world.

Actually it is not entirely redundant considering when we observe "0d point" we observe a singular concept (ie the 0d point). Now considering, as stated in the prior post, we cannot observe the 0d point except as a separator with this separator existing relative to another seperator, the act of seperation in itself is an observation of singular form. We can see this in the line being composed as the relation of negatives canceling out to prove a positive. This is logical.

Convenience however it not mathematical and is entirely subjective, and in these respect what we understand as objective quantity is merely an encapsulation of subjectivity into a form. The objective truths of mathematics, while absolute when put in the context of the axioms they observe, are dependent upon axioms which in themselves maintain not just a qualitative degree but inherent subjectivity due to there inherent nature of "self"-evidence.

In these respects we observe a further alternation between subjectivity and objectivity with this alternation in both form and function provide the neutral limits for knowledge under spatial terms.

An extension, or maybe better put "elaboration", of the previous points:

If I am observing 1 → 2 and "→" in itself as a set of relations it "could" be observed as:

1.1→(((1.11→1.111→ ∞)→(1.12→1.121→ ∞)) → 1.2 → ((1.21→1.211→ ∞)→(1.22→1.221→ ∞)) → 1.3 → ∞) → 2

In this we can observe a series of numbers whose limits are determined by the indeterminate "infinity".

Now if this series is reverse we get a separate set of relations as evidenced below, considering the series is not defined except by it beginning and middle:

2 ← 1

1.9 ← (((1.91 ←1.911 ← ∞) ← (1.92 ←1.921 ← ∞)) ← 1.8 ← ((1.81 ←1.811 ← ∞) ← (1.82 ← 1.821 ← ∞)) ← 1.7 ← ∞) ← 1

"→", "←", and "()" exist as a triad in themselves. In these respects that while "1 → 2" and "2 ← 1" are fundamentally the same the relations which compose "→" and "←". They are dependent upon the point of origin as a boundary of limit considering both "→" and "←" are a set of relations in themselves which reflect through each other as further Infinity, considering in the context provided infinity is indeterminate and acts as a limit to the series in the respect it negates the continuity of definition. In simpler terms the series as movement/tending are dependent upon observing:

1) The point of origin and movement/tending leading to infinity as the end, or
2) The point of end and movement/tending leading to infinity as the beginning, or
3) The beginning and the end with the movement/tending as infinity.
4) All of the above at the same time in different respects.

"→" can be observed in the respect that 1 is pushing towards 2.
"←" can be observed in the respect that 1 is pulling toward 2.

No matter the manner you want to view it, the dual set of series maintain an inversive symmetry, however because the relations which compose these series are compose of infinite series neither set of relations are entirely the same. This applies directly to a logical argument itself considering "A → B" and "B ← A" are compose of atomic facts which require an infinite series of definition to maintain. This infinite series of definition does not just stem to the meta-logic which determines the nature of the series but the actual definitions of the words which are composed of further atomic definitions in the respect that one word is defined through another word ad-infinitum. So a "fractal" corresponds directly to a "part" or "atomic" and the dualistic qualitative and quantitative natures are tied together by "infinity". This infinity as fundamentally "limitless limit" synonymous to indeterminate gives a neutral ground from which quality and quantity expand as a series provides the boundary for both quantity and quality.

Now is this the logic you are going to learn in textbooks? My opinion is "ehhh...probably not", but it stems to inherent problems of supertasks, infinite series, intuitionist logic, etc. which are bound within the meta-logic itself....and keep in mind this is "my" argument so take it with a grain of salt.

This argument extends into a form of hyper-relativism and causes an extreme progress in definition at the expense of an obscurity induced complexed considering you can look at the same thing from two different angles and get completely different realities that stem paradoxically from the same reality. Inversion in direction leads to a multiplicity of definition and an effect of individuation.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User

Posts: 170
Joined: 02 Mar 2018

### Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Eod -

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.

Note: I am not looking to make a “counter argument”. If I understand the way in which you are saying what you’re saying then I understand it. Maybe I can offer up an alternative perspective. No matter what it’s just about explicating a view - the “view” being the intangible assumed axiom.

Anyway, enough verbose gymnastics! ;)

The nature of phenomenon. Nice, yet intractable. What you may notice here, or not?, is the problem you’ve presented. If “phenomenon” are said to “exist” then what are we really talking about? Of course I understand what you mean in general when you say “We know phenomenon exist”, but you may as well say phenomenon are phenomenon and investigate how the term “phenomenon” ( as so with the term “existence”) can be universally applied to all manner of experience.

Here we find a cry for a delineation to be made between diffuse terms. Should we make technical divisions for communication to be improved or accept the limits of communication in this mere worded manner? The old adage of “all roads lead to Rome” comes to mind. Even so we have to express the journey by way of the roads rather than the destination right? Or do we?

I don’t see “phenomenon” as having some underlying “Rome” upon which it “exists”. The “phenomenon” in my lexicon is the expression of the route/s, not of some underlying root - forgive my play with play words if you find the puntastic-lishiousness of them harsh on your palate ;)

It will take a considerable conceptual shift, the reclaiming of a previously used paradigm, to inhabit your terminological use of “phenomenon”. I don’t think I a up to the task and the above is a worrying vague attempt as expressing that because I know the best currently have to work with it gist, analogy and metaphor (three dirty smelly beasts that likely cause more strife than calm in the world!)

When analytical language fails to express the artistry without takes hold us. I am in its grasp right now.

I feel my words are sometimes profound, sometimes naive and, no matter what I do, always fall short of feeling. I honestly see many people wandering around under a pall of hidden nihilism. It seems inevitable too, and what I can do to pull them out from under such clouds I just don’t know, but I know a feel like something I do should lead to a juncture where there may be a possibility of doing so for someone else if not me.

That is my existential crisis. I fear life not death, and cower in the corners of humanity much more than I take up a role of integrity and responsible action. For once I thought it worthwhile to bob my head out from the shadowy corner and say this simply because I see a glimmer in your words I don’t often see.

The sentiment expressed is hopeful more than genuine. I think Neitzsche got it right - philosophy is dead and it’s going to take a monumental paradigm shift to recover ourselves and burn off the dead weight. We’re just gods pretending to be less, and I used to think we were merely humans trying to be godlike - kind of funny :D

Resident Member

Posts: 5345
Joined: 14 Mar 2012
 Eodnhoj7 liked this post

### Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

BadgerJelly » June 5th, 2018, 6:30 am wrote:Eod -

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.

Note: I am not looking to make a “counter argument”. If I understand the way in which you are saying what you’re saying then I understand it. Maybe I can offer up an alternative perspective. No matter what it’s just about explicating a view - the “view” being the intangible assumed axiom.

Understood, will provide "extensions" below.

Anyway, enough verbose gymnastics! ;)

The nature of phenomenon. Nice, yet intractable. What you may notice here, or not?, is the problem you’ve presented. If “phenomenon” are said to “exist” then what are we really talking about? Of course I understand what you mean in general when you say “We know phenomenon exist”, but you may as well say phenomenon are phenomenon and investigate how the term “phenomenon” ( as so with the term “existence”) can be universally applied to all manner of experience.

Here we find a cry for a delineation to be made between diffuse terms. Should we make technical divisions for communication to be improved or accept the limits of communication in this mere worded manner? The old adage of “all roads lead to Rome” comes to mind. Even so we have to express the journey by way of the roads rather than the destination right? Or do we?

I don’t see “phenomenon” as having some underlying “Rome” upon which it “exists”. The “phenomenon” in my lexicon is the expression of the route/s, not of some underlying root - forgive my play with play words if you find the puntastic-lishiousness of them harsh on your palate ;)

It will take a considerable conceptual shift, the reclaiming of a previously used paradigm, to inhabit your terminological use of “phenomenon”. I don’t think I a up to the task and the above is a worrying vague attempt as expressing that because I know the best currently have to work with it gist, analogy and metaphor (three dirty smelly beasts that likely cause more strife than calm in the world!)

When analytical language fails to express the artistry without takes hold us. I am in its grasp right now.

I feel my words are sometimes profound, sometimes naive and, no matter what I do, always fall short of feeling. I honestly see many people wandering around under a pall of hidden nihilism. It seems inevitable too, and what I can do to pull them out from under such clouds I just don’t know, but I know a feel like something I do should lead to a juncture where there may be a possibility of doing so for someone else if not me.

That is my existential crisis. I fear life not death, and cower in the corners of humanity much more than I take up a role of integrity and responsible action. For once I thought it worthwhile to bob my head out from the shadowy corner and say this simply because I see a glimmer in your words I don’t often see.

The sentiment expressed is hopeful more than genuine. I think Neitzsche got it right - philosophy is dead and it’s going to take a monumental paradigm shift to recover ourselves and burn off the dead weight. We’re just gods pretending to be less, and I used to think we were merely humans trying to be godlike - kind of funny :D

The nature of phenomenon. Nice, yet intractable. What you may notice here, or not?, is the problem you’ve presented. If “phenomenon” are said to “exist” then what are we really talking about? Of course I understand what you mean in general when you say “We know phenomenon exist”, but you may as well say phenomenon are phenomenon and investigate how the term “phenomenon” ( as so with the term “existence”) can be universally applied to all manner of experience.

Phenomenon and existence can be used as synonyms, hence the problem goes to the metaphysics of what a synonym is and is not. In these respects, and I think we can agree on this, is that synonym is a likeness. Hence the problem of "phenomenon" and "existence" is the observation of "likeness" that mirror eachother. In these respects we can observe a mirror effect in language, where concepts replicate as extensions of further concepts. We observe this mirror effect of replication in the natural world also, hence we can observe an inherent mirror effect within the nature of phenomenon and existence through phenomenon and existence.

"Phenomenon exist" is akin to say "Phenomenon exist through Phenomenon" and observation of all phenomenon occurs in the respect they mediate further phenomenon under the previously expressed mirroring as repetition. From this we can observe an extended definition of Phenomenon as "a mirroring process."

Here we find a cry for a delineation to be made between diffuse terms. Should we make technical divisions for communication to be improved or accept the limits of communication in this mere worded manner? The old adage of “all roads lead to Rome” comes to mind. Even so we have to express the journey by way of the roads rather than the destination right? Or do we?

See point above

I don’t see “phenomenon” as having some underlying “Rome” upon which it “exists”. The “phenomenon” in my lexicon is the expression of the route/s, not of some underlying root - forgive my play with play words if you find the puntastic-lishiousness of them harsh on your palate ;)

If we observe it as a set of "route/s" then the "route/s" exists as the limit from which all phenomenon extend. In these respects we are left with a triadic understanding of "route/s" through "route/s" as:

1) Where unity exists
2) Where separation exists
3) This duality of observing where phenomena is unified and seperated forming the phenomenon itself.

It will take a considerable conceptual shift, the reclaiming of a previously used paradigm, to inhabit your terminological use of “phenomenon”. I don’t think I a up to the task and the above is a worrying vague attempt as expressing that because I know the best currently have to work with it gist, analogy and metaphor (three dirty smelly beasts that likely cause more strife than calm in the world!)

Lol...metaphors can be argued as qualitative equations subject to the intuitive nature of the individual and/or group and in these respects maintain themselves as a symbolic form of rationalization.

When analytical language fails to express the artistry without takes hold us. I am in its grasp right now.

Analyticism eventually fails when kept to its own premise considering it is dependent upon the relation of parts, units, atomic facts, etc. This fractalization of knowledge causes a problem of progressive regressism towards a universally irrational point zero in which progress takes the same form a regression. This paradox of progress and regress can be observed in the projective nature of knowledge as a divisor when in an attempt to move past a point zero we inevitably embody it by observing it as the inherent premise. All premises form the the axiomatic nature of the argument, hence the argument is merely an extension of the premise.

We can observe this breifly in the foundation of enlightenment thinking where "reason" over "religion" takes a form of religion being the ground zero from which reason seeks to project past. The problem is that this premise of religion and belief as a "dividor" inevitably gives the negative boundaries to the enlightenment thinking as "what exists is defined by what it is not".

I feel my words are sometimes profound, sometimes naive and, no matter what I do, always fall short of feeling. I honestly see many people wandering around under a pall of hidden nihilism. It seems inevitable too, and what I can do to pull them out from under such clouds I just don’t know, but I know a feel like something I do should lead to a juncture where there may be a possibility of doing so for someone else if not me.

I take a common sense approach. Nihilism cannot be rational as it would have to maintain itself through its own premises of "nothingness as negation" (ie "nothing matters). The problem occurs in that in this negative form of thinking, a continual positive must be observed in order to continually negate it. In these respects nihilism negates itself by observing a positive.

That is my existential crisis. I fear life not death, and cower in the corners of humanity much more than I take up a role of integrity and responsible action. For once I thought it worthwhile to bob my head out from the shadowy corner and say this simply because I see a glimmer in your words I don’t often see.

All cowards fear death, but the trick (I have learned the hard way) to deal with cowardice is to observe a simple fact: The coward is already dead so he has nothing to lose. Cowardice, fortunately is a very shallow problem easy to remedy at the intellectual or physical level...simply just embrace your own metaphorical or literal death. The coward's problem fundamentally breaks down to a problem of reasoning where he falsely believes if he keeps trying to save himself he will not only be able to do so but find happiness. The problem, objectively speaking is that we all inevitably fall short hence the solution is to embrace failure as one's own cross so to speak. All reasoning, and measurement in these regards, breaks down to being able to rationalize past paradoxes through the paradox and a mirror effect takes hold where we form the judgement which form us.

The sentiment expressed is hopeful more than genuine. I think Neitzsche got it right - philosophy is dead and it’s going to take a monumental paradigm shift to recover ourselves and burn off the dead weight. We’re just gods pretending to be less, and I used to think we were merely humans trying to be godlike - kind of funny :D

Philosophy may be dead, but if we look at the nature of life and death it provides a further synthesis of life as a form of resurrection. We live in a time where metaphysics will have to be redeveloped if civilization will be able to find the rational grounds for its existence. Our values systems premised on emotion over reason and discipline will eventually cancel themselves out to give rise to a new system.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User

Posts: 170
Joined: 02 Mar 2018

### Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

To term this or that as phenomenon is to hold it at a distance as if it is other.

I cannot fathom “phenomenon” with “phenomena”. The habit of plurality slices up terminology. There is no “phenomenon” or “phenomena” for me. For me they are singularly unsingular. Of course I have to accept others cannot, and will not, use the term like I do so I’m always at odds with myself about how best to explicate anything at all.

Maybe you can appreciate the immense difficulty I have with the OP now? I cannot undo how I take up the false plurality of phenomenon/phenomena, and you’re OP is sprinkled with “this” and “that” phenomena/on ... it is like you’re offering me delicious cake to eat and then serving it with gravy, ice cream and dog food mixed up in a bucket. It would take me an ability I don’t possess to distinguish the taste of cake from the rest of the experience.

Resident Member

Posts: 5345
Joined: 14 Mar 2012

### Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

BadgerJelly » June 5th, 2018, 2:07 pm wrote:To term this or that as phenomenon is to hold it at a distance as if it is other.

I cannot fathom “phenomenon” with “phenomena”. The habit of plurality slices up terminology. There is no “phenomenon” or “phenomena” for me. For me they are singularly unsingular. Of course I have to accept others cannot, and will not, use the term like I do so I’m always at odds with myself about how best to explicate anything at all.

Maybe you can appreciate the immense difficulty I have with the OP now? I cannot undo how I take up the false plurality of phenomenon/phenomena, and you’re OP is sprinkled with “this” and “that” phenomena/on ... it is like you’re offering me delicious cake to eat and then serving it with gravy, ice cream and dog food mixed up in a bucket. It would take me an ability I don’t possess to distinguish the taste of cake from the rest of the experience.

If the problem of phenomenon/phenomena stems to a problem of measurement in regards to unity/multiplicity here another thread to address that:

viewtopic.php?f=51&t=31773

That "problem" is a whole thread in itself...lol.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User

Posts: 170
Joined: 02 Mar 2018

### Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

BadgerJelly » June 5th, 2018, 5:30 am wrote:The sentiment expressed is hopeful more than genuine. I think Neitzsche got it right - philosophy is dead and it’s going to take a monumental paradigm shift to recover ourselves and burn off the dead weight. We’re just gods pretending to be less, and I used to think we were merely humans trying to be godlike - kind of funny :D

As for Neitzsche's claim I tend to respond to such sweeping one sided statements with the thought that they can only speak for themselves -- seeing in this a human tendency to project themselves and their own experience upon the universe and reality as a whole. So if they say such things as "there is no such thing as meaning," then I will reply that I can at least agree their claim is meaningless. Or if a person says "free will does not exist," then I will believe that such may indeed apply to that person and his freedom of will has been destroyed by his own way of thinking. Likewise to Nietche, I reply that I can believe HIS philosophy is dead.

As for the comments which follow... Hmmm.... so what is a god anyway? Not that the word "human" is perfectly clear in my lexicon for I would distinguish it from the term homo-sapien which is more precise in its reference to the biological species.

ɡäd/Submit
noun
plural noun: gods
1.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
synonyms: the Lord, the Almighty, the Creator, the Maker, the Godhead; More
2.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
"a moon god"

Even from the first definition we can take away some useful meaning applicable to us if we limit it, for we do participate in creative activities and rule over various domains. And to my way of thinking, the creative activities we participate in are indeed divine. In the second definition we must logically discard the word "superhuman" as inapplicable to us, though if we substitute "supernatural" we can perhaps find some meaning there maybe somewhat equivalent to the word "spirit." As for "worship," there is little doubt that some people exhibit the behavior which indicates they either seek this for themselves or offer it to others.

I looked up other definitions offered for "gods," but it seems to me they pretty much lead to the same conclusions. As for the word "human," I tend to link this much more with our mental or meme nature rather than our biological one (but since I have talked about so much elsewhere I will say no more here).

In any case, I would say that we (most of us probably and some of us definitely) are human by definition, and also gods (according to our above look at the definitions) to some degree as well. I would not rule out the possibility that some (or even many) are doing some pretending (and either direction, human or divine, appears to work), but again I would reply to sweeping statements that the person making the claim is most likely speaking accurately of themselves rather than everyone.

mitchellmckain
Active Member

Posts: 1326
Joined: 27 Oct 2016

### Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

To get the thread on track:

. Where phenomena A may have one degree of dimensionality and phenomena B may have another degree of dimensionality, the connection between phenomena A and B observes an absence of difference between the two. In these respects phenomena C, as the connection of A and B, is strictly a negative dimension that binds the two as one by the negation of dimension between phenomena A and B. Under these terms, what we understand of the line is a negative dimension synonymous to "imaginary" in which seemingly multiplicitous phenomena exist as one through this connection as a form of negation of differences. It simultaneously separates them from each other by observing this very same connection. In these respects what we understand of imagination being an imaging process is fundamentally grounded in approximation synonymous to a process of individuation through linear dimensions.

The -1 dimensional line, approximates seemingly multiplicitous phenomena by observing a connection through them in which phenomena A and B are extensions of eachother through an absence of dimensionionality. 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. Or the connection of 1 point to 2 points through 2 -1d lines observes a summation of 1.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User

Posts: 170
Joined: 02 Mar 2018

### Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Definition of Phenomena as "Limit" and "No-Limit"

Postby Eodnhoj7 on June 11th, 2018, 10:46 am
The first axiom of the argument is a simple one: what we understand of all phenomena, at minimum, is strictly an observation of space. It is the one universal axiom which exists as the limits that give structural boundaries to reality. In a separate and simultaneous respect, it is absent of the very same definition as no-limit. Space observes a dualistic nature of limit and no-limit.

Observing the definition of space, within any given dictionary source, one is placed into a paradox. A whole host of definitions are given, which include but are not limited to: “area” “volume”, “dimension”, and “limit” (Space, 2018) (Space, 2018) These definitions, summated under the last definition as “limit”, reflect back upon the process of definition as a form of limit in itself by which a phenomena exists through the inherent limits which form it. Space as limit is limit through space, with the observation of any dictionary definition resulting in a dualistic circular and linear form of reasoning where one definition leads to another while simultaneously circling back to the original. Under these terms circular rational is justified through inherent linear elements and vice versa while observing, under certain degrees, Mirimanoff’s concept of “wellfoundedness” in which the definition as a set of information contains no infinite descension (Levy, (2002)(1986),(1988)) further implying an original source.

This dualism of progressive linear and circular definition provides a limit in itself through a process of mirroring in which the further corresponding definitions in turn follow this same process.
The axiom of space follows this definition process in which a limit reflects itself through a further limit, rationally in both form and function as circular, and reflects further limits, rationally in both form and function as linear, in which an observation of no-limit occurs. This observation of “no-limit” is founded inherent within the dictionary definitions of space in an immediate respect within the aforementioned definition itself (Space, 2018). In a separate respect, function follows form where these definitions reflect through further definition ad-infinitum in a dual circular and linear regressive/progressive manner. Limit and No-Limit are dependent on a dual form of circular and linear reasoning that simultaneously manifests further definition while maintaining there own under spatial terms.

This dualistic understanding of space can further be observed in many of the works of the pre-socratic including but not limited to the Pythagoreans and Anaximander. The Pythagorean Philolaus observed “that all things in the universe result from a combination of the unlimited and the limiting; for if all things had been unlimited, nothing could have been the object of cognizance.” (Smith, 1870) Aristotle observed “[the Pythagoreans] plainly say that when the one had been constructed, whether out of planes or of surface or of seed or of elements which they cannot express, immediately the nearest part of the unlimited began to be drawn in and limited by the limit.” (Smith, 1870) He further implied that the Pythagorean teaching of the limit and no-limit were direct results of the philosopher Anaximander who argued “(that which is) unlimited”, “boundless”, “infinite”, or “indefinite” as “Apeiron” (Liddell & Scott) and “peras” as “end, limit, boundary”. (Liddell & Scott)

Modern philosophical instinct and training implies the definition of space as limit and no-limit in dual linear and circular terms questionable considering one is presented with two perspectives: They are an empirical contradiction (Horn, 1989) (Smiley, (1993)) or a transcendental paradox (Smith W. K., 2011) (Zhang, 2015) (Bowen, 2016) in the respect that logic either nullifies itself or transcends pasts its origins. (quote) Neither school of thought gives any real justification as they manifest a dualism in which one perspective attempts to wrestle over the other, resulting in a Neitschian view of force embodied as “perspectivism” (Neitzche), Pythagorean definition where duality is conduce to change (Kahn), or the problem of Wittgenstein where “[a]ll the propositions of logic are generalizations of tautologies and all generalizations of tautologies are generalizations of logic. There are no other logical propositions.” (McGuinness, 2008)

Paradoxically, the western empirical linearism and eastern transcendental circular forms of logic, both need eachother as one exists as the “limit” which defines the other. The western laws of logic observe the “fallacy of circularity” (Dowden, 27 March 2003) as a justification for linearism. The eastern views observe the deficiencies of individuative linearism promote holistic circularity. (Biao, (JULY - AUGUST 2002)) (I Ching) In a separate respect both observe a nature of “no-limit” through western regressive and progressive rationality dependent to a degree on infinitism (Klein & Turri) (Klein, "Human Knowledge and the Infinite Regress of Reasons", 1999) and eastern circularity dependent on holisitic centering and rotation as absent of limit. (Biao, (JULY - AUGUST 2002)) (Ma, June 5, 2009)

The problem occurs in the respect that we are constantly limited to dualisms, and the problems of logic and definition are reduced to ones of dimension. These dualisms create a problem of definition dependent upon polarity, observed in the hermetic philosophy as the “Principle of Polarity” (Atikinson, 1912). One polarity defines the other while simultaneously causing a perpetual sense of definition between the two. Polarity can be viewed as a contradiction of force under the Nietzschean metaphors of Apollo and Dionysus (Neitzche F. , 1872), an absence of structure as the Pythagorean Dyad (Kahn), and an alternation of definition through the hermetic “Principle of Frequency” (Atikinson, 1912). Or it may simply just be observed as a problem in the same manner of Cartesian Dualism (Robinson) and Platonic Dualism (Robinson) leading to the competing substance, property, and predicate dualistic perspectives (Robinson) that provides for the universal means of division in philosophy between materialism and idealism (Priest, 1991) (Novack, 1979).

A third more rational approach must be taken in order to deal with the multiple dualisms inherent through the limit and no-limit definitive nature of space in both form and function, quantity and quality, circularity and linearism, and western empirical and eastern transcendental logic. Without a solution to these reoccurring duals a process of fracturing takes place in which each definition is dependent on an infinite linear regression, circular justification or simply an acceptance of the axioms without any observable definition, all of which are observed in the Munchausen Trilemma (Albert, 1968).
This fracturing can be implied as a form of logistic Atomism, observed by the more modern philosophers Russel, Wittgenstein and Carnap (Carnap, (1934)) and stemming from the pre-Socratic philosophers Leucippus and Democritus of Abdera (Seyffert, (1894)), in which the linear regressive separation, circular definition, and axioms can be observed as individual units in themselves that must relate through a process of continual change. Hence it may be implied that dualisms are dependent on relativistic logistic unit-particles that exist through continual individuation as a form of definition.

The problem occurs in the respect that the very problem of definition we seek to avoid, change, appears to be one of the very foundations for this very act of definition. We can simply observe this as relativity merely being individuative limits and no-limits that exist as spatial dimensions of change as unit-particulate. This provides the foundation for not only materialistic change as a refutation of idealism observed by Kant (Kant, Archived 6 February 2007) (Kant, Critique of Pure Reason (NKS translation)) , further evidenced by physics dependence on Principle of Locality in the Principle of Relativity (Salençon & Lyle, 2001), but further change in abstract logistic structures such as moral relativism (Swoyer, 2003), truth and cultural relativism (Baghramian), methodological relativism (Collins, 1998), relationalism (Baghramian M. , 2004) and dialectic materialism (Thomas, 2008). However, the observation of change as a constant, through logisitic unit-particulate, observes a consistency. This can be summated into a paradox or contradiction, however considering these dimensions exist in themselves as foundations of the argument from which both side gains definition, this further results in another dualism. In this instance it is an observation of change and no-change. The problem is further exacerbated by the number of aforementioned dualities premised in spatial limit and no-limit.

The solution to the dualism lies within the axiom of the problem: our understanding of phenomena is often times one of quantitative and qualitative spatial dimension, in this case a dualism. In turn this Dualism results in a third dimension, as one dimension in itself, which maintains the dualism while simultaneously justifying it and providing logical grounds through a medial center point conducive to origin.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User

Posts: 170
Joined: 02 Mar 2018

### Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Eodnhoj7 » June 11th, 2018, 11:35 pm wrote:To get the thread on track:

. Where phenomena A may have one degree of dimensionality and phenomena B may have another degree of dimensionality, the connection between phenomena A and B observes an absence of difference between the two. In these respects phenomena C, as the connection of A and B, is strictly a negative dimension that binds the two as one by the negation of dimension between phenomena A and B. Under these terms, what we understand of the line is a negative dimension synonymous to "imaginary" in which seemingly multiplicitous phenomena exist as one through this connection as a form of negation of differences. It simultaneously separates them from each other by observing this very same connection. In these respects what we understand of imagination being an imaging process is fundamentally grounded in approximation synonymous to a process of individuation through linear dimensions.

The -1 dimensional line, approximates seemingly multiplicitous phenomena by observing a connection through them in which phenomena A and B are extensions of eachother through an absence of dimensionionality. 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. Or the connection of 1 point to 2 points through 2 -1d lines observes a summation of 1.

How is what you’re talking about different from phenomenology?

Resident Member

Posts: 5345
Joined: 14 Mar 2012

### Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Phenomenology has no strict structure to it other than an act of reflection. It may produce a form, but the question of function comes to mind.

This reflective nature of phenomonology must have an inherent set of axioms which compose it.

These axioms must not just be able to maintain themselves through a circulating nature, but continual expand in a simultaneous linear manner. This duality of self-maintaining circularity along with progressive linearism, observes that phenomenology (or maybe more specific metaphysics with phenomenology as an inherent element) must by function of definition have an inherent element of an expanding circle.

This nature of form and function, which phenomenology (I will address metaphysics after this point, considering phenomenology is an extension of metaphysics) requires observes a necessity in basic axioms which provide a starting point of measurement. Considering this act of measurement, through reflection as being que being, is dependent upon structure we must observe that this structure is composed of boundaries or limits.

It is this foundation of limit, and corresponding no-limit, which provides a base universal premise that mirrors both physical and abstract realities while being open to simultaneous unification and separation at the same time in different respects.

In understanding the nature of the boundary as both form and function, we run into the question of its positive (existing) and negative (non-existing) attributes. Considering the form (static) and function (movement) of the boundary is what inherently defines it we have to observe the inherent positive and negative qualities which manifest through it.

In regards to the negative dimension:

1) If all reality exists as 1 point and we cannot observe this unified point in its totality, we observe it approximately.

2) If we observe this unity approximately, we must divide this point into further points through limits. These limits, in turn are negative dimensional considering:

2a) They are imaginary in the respect they give image to a structure by dividing what is through forms. Take for example a white peace of paper. I can only see the white piece of paper by the lines which are drawn on it (not including the outer edges or that which I see in its relation to the table it is on). These lines allow an observation of the paper by negating its unity. The corresponding forms which the lines observe exist through the paper, by the line relagating the white of the paper into multiple relative points by the drawn lines. The paper gives form to constructs because of the approximation of its unified whiteness through the drawn lines causing a multiplicity in the white.

2b) The lines do not exist in and of themselves but exist if and only if there is white paper. The paper remains unified, however we approximate the unity of paper by the lines drawn on it. Because the lines do not exist in and of themselves but as extensions of the paper, they have no direction except that which the paper provides (in its movement through time and space). These lines as absent of dimension, existing through the paper, observe the inherent connectedness of the lines through the paper itself.

3) To use point 2 as a practical example and extend it further, because we cannot see reality in its totality we used the imagination as a way of connecting us to unseen realities that may exist (if we use the imagination premised on specific rational axioms) not exist (if we use the imagination premised on irrational axioms), both or neither.

Or the imaging process is used to create them, which in effect means the always exists from a perspective of a 1 dimensional unified existence.

Either way the imaging process, and its dependence upon barriers acts as a means of simultaneously connection and seperation to help approximate a unified reality. These limits however follow certain universal laws of all limits and exists from premises in certain spatial forms, in this case the straight and curved line.

Even qualitative realities are merely relativistic approximations of quantitative frequencies (such as color for example existing as a frequency from one perspective and frequency as a color from another perspective, with each perspective being a specific angle.)

Considering the line is premised by its directional nature in 0d space, if we view reality as 1 this infinite movement as totality forces the line to merely being an negation as finiteness through absence of movement. This absence of movement corresponds to an absence of direction.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User

Posts: 170
Joined: 02 Mar 2018

### Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

I hate to tell you this ... but, if I’m honest either you’ve made a drastic error or this is WAY over my head.

You seem to be doing, or rather attempting to do, something that is phenomenological and claiming it isn’t phenomenological. This is a dead for me to pursue due to your error or my short comings.

Resident Member

Posts: 5345
Joined: 14 Mar 2012

### Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

I would not say it is dead but rather a question of premise:

Defining Phenomenology through Phenomenology would by default make it an extension of metaphysics as Phenomenology becomes its own conceptual boundary of measuring reality. Phenomenology as a boundary, in itself, leads to the question of the phenomena of what a boundary is and is not.

The question of phenomenology, at its root considering it depends upon the reflection of perceived structure, is one of boundary as both limit and no-limit. In these respects it cycles back to metaphysics as an extension of metaphysics.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User

Posts: 170
Joined: 02 Mar 2018

### Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

So why is what you’re proposing different to phenomenology?

Resident Member

Posts: 5345
Joined: 14 Mar 2012

### Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

BadgerJelly » June 14th, 2018, 2:13 am wrote:So why is what you’re proposing different to phenomenology?

An extension of its premise axioms allowing for a dual objective nature that exists simultaneously to the subjective one it often appears to observe.

The imagination is often viewed as a strictly subjective structure, but what is objective is its universality relative to not just human consciousness but its ability to measure a reality. This objective nature of the imagination must have inherently objective qualities.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User

Posts: 170
Joined: 02 Mar 2018

### Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

It is not an “extention”. If I completely destroy the foundations of a building making it fall and then perch onto of the rubble I have not “extended” anything.

Do you understand what the phenomenological reduction is about? It most certainly is not about creating a duality of the objective, it is about analysis of subjective experience regardless of objective varification.

The objective nature of the imagination is something called the brain ... what are you talking about? Phenomenology is not an endless skepticism, it is not about taking on a solipsistic view (refuting any objectivity), nor is it about searching for the origins of conscousness through any form of objective redunctionism.

Perhaps if you stated clerly and concisely what you think the “premise axioms” are (even though that phrase seems obtuse to say the least.)

Resident Member

Posts: 5345
Joined: 14 Mar 2012

### Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

BadgerJelly » June 14th, 2018, 11:31 am wrote:It is not an “extention”. If I completely destroy the foundations of a building making it fall and then perch onto of the rubble I have not “extended” anything.

Do you understand what the phenomenological reduction is about? It most certainly is not about creating a duality of the objective, it is about analysis of subjective experience regardless of objective varification.

The objective nature of the imagination is something called the brain ... what are you talking about? Phenomenology is not an endless skepticism, it is not about taking on a solipsistic view (refuting any objectivity), nor is it about searching for the origins of conscousness through any form of objective redunctionism.

Perhaps if you stated clerly and concisely what you think the “premise axioms” are (even though that phrase seems obtuse to say the least.)

Do you understand what the phenomenological reduction is about? It most certainly is not about creating a duality of the objective, it is about analysis of subjective experience regardless of objective varification.

Do you understand that analyzing the subjective in turn objectifies it in the respect we observe relations of parts that exist as rules in themselves?

The objective nature of the imagination is something called the brain ... what are you talking about? Phenomenology is not an endless skepticism, it is not about taking on a solipsistic view (refuting any objectivity), nor is it about searching for the origins of conscousness through any form of objective redunctionism.

It cannot be proven that the objective nature of the imagination stems from the brain alone, considering the imagination is dependent upon the nature of forms relating to eachother to form further forms. These forms in turn consists of limits as boundaries, with the boundaries themselves being premised in the line as straight or curved entity providing the foundation of the symmetry which manifests these forms. We cannot say the imagination, as premised in the simple line, is strictly limited to the brain alone when the relations of the parts which compose the brain following the same course of movement premised in linear structures (as frequency of movement between atoms, molecules, chemical, etc.).

Perhaps if you stated clerly and concisely what you think the “premise axioms” are (even though that phrase seems obtuse to say the least.)

The premises are, but not limited too:

1) A phenomenon are composed of limits.

2) These limits exist through repitition as symmetry, with the symmetry in turn resulting in various forms.

3) This symmetry, through the limit, is premised in the line as the foundational boundary.

4) The line exists as the foundation for abstract and physical phenomenon, with the line existing fundamentally as space.

5) Space provides the foundation for all phenomenon, with space existing through itself under movement as repetition conducive to what can be called a mirroring process.

6) Space exists through itself, as repetition, hence space exists as movement. Infinite repetition as infinite movement provides the the premise of a constant boundary which in itself does not change.

7) Any change in the observation of a specific boundary, as percieved finite movement, is strictly an approximation of infinite movement by observe what is finite.

8) Finitness allows for multiplicity, with all finite boundaries being extension of the infinite hence maintain an infinite nature in themselves.

9) Finitness allows for multiple infinities as approximations of the one infinity.

10) Approximation is the limit of any observable infinity, with all finite phenomena containing an approximate nature in and other themselves.

11) The act of reflection, in phenomenology, is merely a means of approximation by observing boundaries within the phenomenon itself. In these respects the random nature of the subjective is given objective form and function and becomes a phenomena in itself considering all phenomena exist if and only if there is structure.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User

Posts: 170
Joined: 02 Mar 2018

### Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimensi

Imagination (essentailly “consciousness” in the terms we talking) is neither regarded as, nor disregarded as, physical or non-physical. Phenomenology doesn’t deny the existence of physical “stuff”, but neither does it make attempts to distinguish what it imagined and what is not imagined. It doesn’t care about this, it doesn’t try to replace physical science or belittle it.

You’re conflating a personal concern with what is physically “real” and what the phenomenological reduction is about.

What “forms” are you talking of?

Analysing a subjective experience doesn’t make it an objective reality? Again, what the hell are you about? Phenomenology isn’t concerned with objective terms of what is “real” only the experience, it is non-commital concerned only with adumbrating some “essence” not some vutile search for an origin.

Maybe what you’re saying makes sense to someone else. Not me.

Maybe my short comings maybe your error. You decide, I have.

Resident Member

Posts: 5345
Joined: 14 Mar 2012

### Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimensi

BadgerJelly » June 14th, 2018, 12:20 pm wrote:Imagination (essentailly “consciousness” in the terms we talking) is neither regarded as, nor disregarded as, physical or non-physical. Phenomenology doesn’t deny the existence of physical “stuff”, but neither does it make attempts to distinguish what it imagined and what is not imagined. It doesn’t care about this, it doesn’t try to replace physical science or belittle it.

You’re conflating a personal concern with what is physically “real” and what the phenomenological reduction is about.

What “forms” are you talking of?

Analysing a subjective experience doesn’t make it an objective reality? Again, what the hell are you about? Phenomenology isn’t concerned with objective terms of what is “real” only the experience, it is non-commital concerned only with adumbrating some “essence” not some vutile search for an origin.

Maybe what you’re saying makes sense to someone else. Not me.

Maybe my short comings maybe your error. You decide, I have.

Imagination (essentailly “consciousness” in the terms we talking) is neither regarded as, nor disregarded as, physical or non-physical. Phenomenology doesn’t deny the existence of physical “stuff”, but neither does it make attempts to distinguish what it imagined and what is not imagined. It doesn’t care about this, it doesn’t try to replace physical science or belittle it.

The logic of "neither/nor" is a negative neutral dual to "both/and" as a positive neutral. Phenomenology cannot take a strictly negative neutral approach to reality without observe inherent postive neutral elements.

What “forms” are you talking of?

All phenomenon as existing, take on an inherent form as structure. Structure and form, due to deficiencies within the English language can take on synonmous meaning in these respects.

Analysing a subjective experience doesn’t make it an objective reality? Again, what the hell are you about? Phenomenology isn’t concerned with objective terms of what is “real” only the experience, it is non-commital concerned only with adumbrating some “essence” not some vutile search for an origin.

Essence is a point of origin.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User

Posts: 170
Joined: 02 Mar 2018

### Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

All phenomena existing? That makes no sense in phenomenolgical terms becasue of what I’ve already stated.

“Essence” is not synonymous with “origin” in phenomenological terms.

To quote Husserl :

... Not that psychological questions as to the origin of the conceptual presentations or presentational dispositions here in question, have the slightest interest for our discipline. This is not what we are enquiring into; we are concerned with a phenomenological origin or - if we prefer to rule out unsuitable talk of origins, only bred in confusion - we are concerned with insight into the essence of the concepts involved, looking methodologically to the fixation of unambiguous, sharply distinct verbal meanings.

Logical Investigations volume I, p.153 (routledge)

Further more “imagination” deals with possibilities not what is unimagineable.

A piece of music may be made to compliment a painting, and a painting may be made to compliment a piece of music. What we don’t do is play a violin expecting a painting to form before our eyes, or paint a picture expecting music to sound from the canvas.

Resident Member

Posts: 5345
Joined: 14 Mar 2012

### Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

BadgerJelly » June 14th, 2018, 1:15 pm wrote:All phenomena existing? That makes no sense in phenomenolgical terms becasue of what I’ve already stated.

“Essence” is not synonymous with “origin” in phenomenological terms.

To quote Husserl :

... Not that psychological questions as to the origin of the conceptual presentations or presentational dispositions here in question, have the slightest interest for our discipline. This is not what we are enquiring into; we are concerned with a phenomenological origin or - if we prefer to rule out unsuitable talk of origins, only bred in confusion - we are concerned with insight into the essence of the concepts involved, looking methodologically to the fixation of unambiguous, sharply distinct verbal meanings.

Logical Investigations volume I, p.153 (routledge)

Further more “imagination” deals with possibilities not what is unimagineable.

A piece of music may be made to compliment a painting, and a painting may be made to compliment a piece of music. What we don’t do is play a violin expecting a painting to form before our eyes, or paint a picture expecting music to sound from the canvas.

To quote Husserl :

... Not that psychological questions as to the origin of the conceptual presentations or presentational dispositions here in question, have the slightest interest for our discipline. This is not what we are enquiring into; we are concerned with a phenomenological origin or - if we prefer to rule out unsuitable talk of origins, only bred in confusion - we are concerned with insight into the essence of the concepts involved, looking methodologically to the fixation of unambiguous, sharply distinct verbal meanings.

Logical Investigations volume I, p.153 (routledge)

Husserl fails to take into account that, speaking in regards to his use of language, "essence" becomes an approximation of "origin" that while not equal in totality of definition maintains degrees of equality. The reason I say that is if one is to look into the "essence" of something, what composes it, this composition is merely a set of relations which give origin to the phenonemon itself.

While "origin" may not be observed in such terms as a set of relations, given that it is viewed to that which is irreducible, the nature of "relation" is in itself is irreducible as all relations are composed of relations and "relation exists through relation". In these respects "relation" takes on the nature of origin. Origin approximates, or multiplies in definition, to essence as both "relation" and "parts" considering this is the foundation of what an essence is.

Further more “imagination” deals with possibilities not what is unimagineable.

A piece of music may be made to compliment a painting, and a painting may be made to compliment a piece of music. What we don’t do is play a violin expecting a painting to form before our eyes, or paint a picture expecting music to sound from the canvas.

Yes imagination deal with possibilities, considering imagination is the crysalization of form through inherent boundaries. This crystalization of form, through the application of the imaging process, observes a possibilistic nature in the respect that:

1) All imaged forms maintain a possible relation elsewhere through the senses. So while I may observe a unicorn as possibly existing, this possibility observes the limits of empirical reality...it is only possible according to the degree that it may exist in symmetry with the empirical senses. So while the unicorn may be imaginary, that which is imaged, in the head, its form is possible in the empirical sense by its ability to maintain or manifest that same empirical form...in this case a statue or theoretically genetic engineering down the time line.

2) Possibility is the absence of limit through which limit extends. Going back to the unicorn example, the unicorn as imaginary is possibilitic through which the limit of this image extends empirically through the statue or genetic engineering. In these respects this absence of limit enable limit to exist. In these cases the imaging of an abstract form leads to the crysalization of an empirical one. We see this within the process of invention. In a dualistic perspective, what is empirically imaged provides the grounds for what is abstractly imaged.

So to invert the example of the unicorn: While we may not empircally observe a unicorn (prior to the statue or genetic engineering of one), the "horse" and the "horn" exist as empirical realities in themselves which are synthesized into a "unicorn" at the abstract level. In these respects the imaging process, through its possibilistic quality, takes on a nature of synthesis. This syntheticism , in term of empirical existence/non-existence, abstract existence/non-existence, and the basic Hegelian thesis/antithesis acts as the absense of limit through which a limit is formed (with all "limits" existing both as the foundation of a structure/form/phenomenona and vice versa).

What is unimaginable is that which is not able to be imaged, or crystalized into either and abstract or physical form. This absense of no-limit, as non-no-limit, takes on a limit itself. Hence the "limits" of what is possibly cycles back to no-limit existing through limit. In these respects the synthetic qualities of the imagination process take on a nature of "alteration", which we observe intuitively under cultural concepts such as "alternative thinking" in reference to observing "possibilistic thinking".

3) In respect to such examples of qualities synthesizing, such as the color of sound, etc. we have to observe that qualities such as colors or sound may having inherent reflective elements, or common properties through which they unite. In these respect synthesis observes a foundation of unity. We can observe this in examples such as:

Sound frequencies resulting in geometric shapes:

Synethesia as seen color in numbers, sound, etc.
http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/1 ... nesthesia/

We can observe this quality of synthesis inherent within all phenomena through the observation of certain inherent boundaries which are universal: ie the frequency. Color is composed of specific frequencies, along with sound, electromagnetism, etc., with the frequency being the foundational boundary which unifies these phenomenon.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User

Posts: 170
Joined: 02 Mar 2018

### Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Eod -

Reg has a point. You seem to be saying you know better what phenomenology than the guy who coined the term. I find that hard to fathom plus you really don’t make yourself bery clear and have left me guessing 50% of the time.

No can argue with you because we don’t understand what your point is. Maybe it’s over our heads; I’ve said as much already.

I don’t agree/understand premises, nor do think you understand thr premises of phenomenology (Husserl is ohtuse in his writing at times, but I think the quote abovr is clear enough - and it would help matters, with your high IQ, if you could learn to post replies with clear quotes because, believe it or not, some of us do like to look back over the conversation; sadly you make this usually annoying task almost an impossiblel ask upon the patience of the people willing to engage with you.)

What you’re are doing is not an extention of phenomenology. It looks a lot like a phenomenolgical investigatoin, but clearly it isn’t.

To me it looks like Heidegger’s attempts to create an entire new lexicon in order to evade the key terms he decides to use.

I am well aware of synethesia, I was making an analogy. I think that’s the probelm here. You’ve failed to point out what is and is not an analogy - language is limited, Husserl realised this well enough and so do I. If you wish to go down the Heideggerian path go for it and good look. Personally I think it goes too far.

Resident Member

Posts: 5345
Joined: 14 Mar 2012

### Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

This “no-non-limit” nonsense can be encapsulated quiet easily by referring to Kant for ease of explication. Some find it hard to grasp becasue it is actually coming to terms with the limitations of knowledge.

Husserl purposefully says “origin” is not the best term so he uses “essence” instead. If you think they’re synonymous in how he uses them right after he VERY specifically talks about the importance of sharply defined terms then I really am at a loss!

Resident Member

Posts: 5345
Joined: 14 Mar 2012

### Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

BadgerJelly » June 15th, 2018, 12:55 pm wrote:Eod -

Reg has a point. You seem to be saying you know better what phenomenology than the guy who coined the term. I find that hard to fathom plus you really don’t make yourself bery clear and have left me guessing 50% of the time.

No can argue with you because we don’t understand what your point is. Maybe it’s over our heads; I’ve said as much already.

I don’t agree/understand premises, nor do think you understand thr premises of phenomenology (Husserl is ohtuse in his writing at times, but I think the quote abovr is clear enough - and it would help matters, with your high IQ, if you could learn to post replies with clear quotes because, believe it or not, some of us do like to look back over the conversation; sadly you make this usually annoying task almost an impossiblel ask upon the patience of the people willing to engage with you.)

What you’re are doing is not an extention of phenomenology. It looks a lot like a phenomenolgical investigatoin, but clearly it isn’t.

To me it looks like Heidegger’s attempts to create an entire new lexicon in order to evade the key terms he decides to use.

I am well aware of synethesia, I was making an analogy. I think that’s the probelm here. You’ve failed to point out what is and is not an analogy - language is limited, Husserl realised this well enough and so do I. If you wish to go down the Heideggerian path go for it and good look. Personally I think it goes too far.

Reg has a point. You seem to be saying you know better what phenomenology than the guy who coined the term. I find that hard to fathom plus you really don’t make yourself bery clear and have left me guessing 50% of the time.

People guess what Husserl and Heidegger say half of the time. In simpler terms I am saying Phenomenology is wrong because of its axioms.

If we look at basic "limit" and "no-limit" we are left with inherent spatial terms, premised in abstractions of the line, as the premise axioms which form all phenomenon. The line, as a boundary, is the premise form which gives rise to further forms.

Phenomenologies axioms, break down fundamentally to "reflection", and this is taken as axiomatic for 50% of people/students. The line as the foundation of limit, relfecting itself into further limits through an act of repitition, provides a deeper foundation. In these respects Husserl/Heidegger, and their corresponding followers are wrong.

Phenomenology, as the study of phenomenon, is not limited to Husserl or Heidegger considering the translations of Husserl and Heidegger extend to their followers which in turn have their own translations.

I have said this before, one simply has to look in the intro section of any philosophy section to observe that even the translator admits to not knowing what is going on. In simpler terms, I am saying I do know better than the guy who coined the term because his foundations were wrong. When tested in University on Husserl, I just memorized the basic axioms and worked out the chain of logic on my own without really studying him...I scored higher than the people who spent weeks studying his work.

If you look in the above post, relative to the Husserl quote, I observed the issues Husserl had in his own philosophy with the "origin/essence" dichotomy.

The premise of the thread is as follows:

1) Imagination is composed of boundaries which act as specific limits in turn cause the imagination to have inherent objective qualities.

2) These objective qualities of the imagination have inherent quantitative and qualitative elements. This in turn points to the nature of imagination as having inherent limits, with these limits producing more complex limits through a process of synthesis.

3) The nature of phenomenon, a term included in but not limited to phenomenology, observes itself as a universal term.

4) Points one and two observe certain constants: Limit exists through limit, hence a form of alternation as circularity is inseperable in the process of synthesis. This alternation observes the necessity of circularity in not just maintaining the definition of axioms, but its progression through a corresponding expansion.

Husserl and Heidegger created their own lexicons of terms so to speak through the arguments themselves. An argument is a relation of axioms (words/sentences/etc.) that manifests further axioms. A definition cannot exists except within the framwork it is applied.
Last edited by Eodnhoj7 on June 15th, 2018, 1:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User

Posts: 170
Joined: 02 Mar 2018

### Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

BadgerJelly » June 15th, 2018, 12:58 pm wrote:This “no-non-limit” nonsense can be encapsulated quiet easily by referring to Kant for ease of explication. Some find it hard to grasp becasue it is actually coming to terms with the limitations of knowledge.

Husserl purposefully says “origin” is not the best term so he uses “essence” instead. If you think they’re synonymous in how he uses them right after he VERY specifically talks about the importance of sharply defined terms then I really am at a loss!

If Imagination is possibilistic, with this possibilities providing the foundation for the limits, and possibility is the absence of limit then:

1) Limit exists through no-limit, as limit exists through what is possible.
2) The negation of no-limit, as double negation, results in limit.
3) Limit exists as the negation of negation.

One does not have to refer to Kant to understand this.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User

Posts: 170
Joined: 02 Mar 2018

PreviousNext