Plato: A Theory of Forms

[Nick_A]

It seems that for some reason there have always been those open to levels of reality and others closed to it. Plato's theory of forms requires being open to at least two levels of reality. I never could understand why it appears obvious to some and absurd to others. It is a question for the psychology of "being" which has been largely abandoned in favor of the study of behaviorism. If humanity does make progress in this unification I believe it will be the result of those like Simone and Basarab Nicolescu with a quality of heart and mind who understand the how and the why as necessary and complimentary for a healthy free society to flourish.

In Basarab Nicolescu's article it says this:

We can distinguish three major aspects of Nature in accordance with the transdisciplinary model of Reality:

(1) Objective Nature , which is connected with the natural properties of the transdisciplinary Object; objective Nature is subject to subjective objectivity. This objectivity is subjective to the extent that the levels of Reality are connected to levels of perception. Nevertheless emphasis here is on objectivity, to the extent to which the methodology employed is that of science.

2) Subjective Nature , which is connected with the natural properties of the transdisciplinary Subject; subjective Nature is subject to objective subjectivity . This subjectivity is objective to the extent that the levels of perception are connected to levels of Reality. Nevertheless, emphasis here is on subjectivity, to the extent to which the methodology is employed is that of the ancient science of being, which crosses all the traditions and religions of the world.

3) Trans-Nature , which is connected with a similarity in Nature -- a veritable communion -- which exists between the transdisciplinary Object and the transdisciplinary Subject. Trans-Nature concerns the domain of the sacred. It cannot be approached without considering the other two aspects of Nature at the same time.

In my previous post I had:

Primary extrinsic - gravity
Primary intrinsic - charge
Secondary - transmutation (rising/lowering of an energy state)
Leverage - light
Contentment - inertia
Third type (tertiary) - heat (everything vibrates)

Although I probably should have worded this differently but the analogy is there.
In objective nature, almost all that exists is gravity, charge, transmutation, light, inertia and heat. Those five entities explain all of objective nature that we know of in our macroscopic world. (There are also the strong and weak forces, and also dark matter but those are beyond my ability to reconcile here.) In subjective nature, all that exists are the five different types of happiness: primary, secondary, tertiary, leverage and contentment. There are no others.

I didn't arrive at this conclusion intentionally. I don't believe it is coincidence either. If it is not coincidence then this is where we should look for Trans-Nature.

It does seem to be there. Even though I'm not a trained scientist, I do sense these levels of qualities.

Are you limiting levels of reality to below the level of the sun or do you include the possibility of above this level as in the diagram included in this link:

http://philosophy.tamu.edu/~sdaniel/Notes/plato.html

Plato's simile of the sun, image of the divided line, and allegory of the cave are intended to clarify exactly how the things we experience in the sensible, ordinary world (e.g., chairs, drawn triangles) are less real than the ideal models (Forms) on which they rely for their existence and in terms of which they are intelligible. Just as drawings, reflections, or copies of sensible objects are not as real as the sensible things on which they depend, so sensible things are not as real as the concepts in terms of which they are identifiable. Concepts that rely on sensual imagination for their intelligibility--for example, mathematical concepts such as triangularity--are more real than, say, triangular blocks of wood or drawings of triangles. But even though concepts that are based on sense experience are not limited to any particular expression and are unchanging, they are not as real as the Forms, which do not rely for their existence or intelligibility on anything sensual and changing.
Epistemology Ontology Source of Being and Intelligibility
Knowledge Pure reason
(grasped mathematically) The Forms The Intelligible World The Good
Understanding (subsuming the particular under the general) Concepts
Opinion (conjecture) Belief, sense experience Particular sensible objects The Visible World The Sun
Imagination, Hearsay Images, Shadows, Reflections


Some Forms (e.g., chair-ness) are the ideal models in terms of which physical objects (e.g., chairs) exist and are intelligible. Other even higher Forms (e.g., equality, justice) provide the means by which not only physical objects but also activities, relations, and even lower Forms themselves are identifiable. The Forms are not abstractions or generalizations based on our sensual experience of physical objects; rather, we know physical objects as what they are by knowing them in terms of their Forms. As such, in order to know that a chair is a chair, we have to know what chair-ness is first, and that means that we cannot begin with sensible experience. Likewise, in order to know that two numbers are equal, or that an action is a just action, we have to know first what equality or justice is. But that already assumes we know what a number or action is; and that can only be known by appealing to lower Forms that rely for their intelligibility and existence on higher Forms. The highest Forms are themselves intelligible and exist ultimately in terms of the "super" Form, the Good.

Levels of reality below the sun are detectable by our senses. Can we open to levels of reality initiating with the "Good" that we become aware of through a conscious quality of our being of a more subtle nature than the reactions normal for sensory experience?

[JHuber]

It does seem to be there. Even though I'm not a trained scientist, I do sense these levels of qualities.

Are you limiting levels of reality to below the level of the sun or do you include the possibility of above this level as in the diagram included in this link:

http://philosophy.tamu.edu/~sdaniel/Notes/plato.html

It would seem intuitive that when we talk of the physical universe we are using sense experience which falls under the opinion level of the diagram (The Sun). However, what we are discussing here is gravity, charge, transmutation, light and heat, not as particular sense objects but as the concepts themselves. In this way, this is the intelligible world, not the visible world, which is in the knowledge level of the diagram (The Good).

Likewise, when we are discussing subjects and relations in general, not any subject or relation in particular, we are discussing the intelligible world. The statement, "Relations are composed of subjects," is known with certainty to be true because the very meaning of the terms involved requires that some judgments we make about them do not rely on sense experience. It is a priori knowledge.

To be able to relate the physical universe with the non-physical universe can only be done with subjects and relations themselves. No other words are abstract enough.

Levels of reality below the sun are detectable by our senses. Can we open to levels of reality initiating with the "Good" that we become aware of through a conscious quality of our being of a more subtle nature than the reactions normal for sensory experience?

Well, the default condition of our minds is that of a blank slate. The only way to write on that slate is by sense experience. Once we have sense experience we then make relations. We are not going to know the chair-ness of a chair unless we've seen more than one chair and have made a relation of them. The chair-ness of a chair is an abstract chair. To be able to think abstractly is I believe what you mean by a conscious quality of our being which is more subtle than sensory experience. I might have misinterpreted you though.

[Nick_A]

jhuber

Well, the default condition of our minds is that of a blank slate. The only way to write on that slate is by sense experience. Once we have sense experience we then make relations. We are not going to know the chair-ness of a chair unless we've seen more than one chair and have made a relation of them. The chair-ness of a chair is an abstract chair. To be able to think abstractly is I believe what you mean by a conscious quality of our being which is more subtle than sensory experience. I might have misinterpreted you though.

This brings us back to the question of the relationship between a priori and a posteriori knowledge. The quality of our being, intellectual, emotional, and sensory, that allows for the experience of a posteriori knowledge begins as a blank slate. But what of the conscious part that observes the functioning of this machine? Hinduism describes it as two birds on the same tree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_Jiva_and_Atman

A person can have the experience of being aware that they are aware. Instead of just reacting as normal for any animal, sometimes a person consciously experiences the workings of this reacting machine we call by our name. If it exists, it must contain a priori knowledge, perhaps the source of the blank slate to be programmed. I see this bird as above the dividing line within the world of forms while the first bird is below it on the same tree.

[Veritas Aequitas]

This brings us back to the question of the relationship between a priori and a posteriori knowledge. The quality of our being, intellectual, emotional, and sensory, that allows for the experience of a posteriori knowledge begins as a blank slate. But what of the conscious part that observes the functioning of this machine? Hinduism describes it as two birds on the same tree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_Jiva_and_Atman

A person can have the experience of being aware that they are aware. Instead of just reacting as normal for any animal, sometimes a person consciously experiences the workings of this reacting machine we call by our name. If it exists, it must contain a priori knowledge, perhaps the source of the blank slate to be programmed. I see this bird as above the dividing line within the world of forms while the first bird is below it on the same tree.

"Blank state" is an odd concept. It is ok if we merely assume, the human being has a 'blank state' from the point of the birth canal. But we also need to consider further, what about the 9 months the baby is in the mothers womb?

Kant re-introduced the concept of a priori, i.e. knowledge that is pure, universal and necessary, and independent of all experience for the purpose of his theory. However, a priori knowledge is ultimately not independent of 'experience'. A priori may be independent of any prior experience of a person, but it is not independent of the collective experience that is programmed and embedded in the DNA of humans.

The a priori within the DNA do not presuppose any independent consciousness entities or conscious elements, but rather merely a potential for consciousness, self-consciousness and self-awareness.

A person is capable of being aware that they are aware. This capability is a posteriori and the a priori (the nature) is only a foundation for a posteriori (nurture) to enable self-awareness to emerge, i.e. conditional emergence.

The "I", Jiva, or Brahman are merely conditional emergences of different grades, they not real independent entities of any sort.

[Nick_A]

This brings us back to the question of the relationship between a priori and a posteriori knowledge. The quality of our being, intellectual, emotional, and sensory, that allows for the experience of a posteriori knowledge begins as a blank slate. But what of the conscious part that observes the functioning of this machine? Hinduism describes it as two birds on the same tree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_Jiva_and_Atman

A person can have the experience of being aware that they are aware. Instead of just reacting as normal for any animal, sometimes a person consciously experiences the workings of this reacting machine we call by our name. If it exists, it must contain a priori knowledge, perhaps the source of the blank slate to be programmed. I see this bird as above the dividing line within the world of forms while the first bird is below it on the same tree.

"Blank state" is an odd concept. It is ok if we merely assume, the human being has a 'blank state' from the point of the birth canal. But we also need to consider further, what about the 9 months the baby is in the mothers womb?

Kant re-introduced the concept of a priori, i.e. knowledge that is pure, universal and necessary, and independent of all experience for the purpose of his theory. However, a priori knowledge is ultimately not independent of 'experience'. A priori may be independent of any prior experience of a person, but it is not independent of the collective experience that is programmed and embedded in the DNA of humans.

The a priori within the DNA do not presuppose any independent consciousness entities or conscious elements, but rather merely a potential for consciousness, self-consciousness and self-awareness.

A person is capable of being aware that they are aware. This capability is a posteriori and the a priori (the nature) is only a foundation for a posteriori (nurture) to enable self-awareness to emerge, i.e. conditional emergence.

The "I", Jiva, or Brahman are merely conditional emergences of different grades, they not real independent entities of any sort.

Soul knowledge is the knowledge of the vertical line of being. Normally we live in reaction along the horizontal life line that connects before and after. The vertical line of being connects above and below and intersects the horizontal line. This is A priori knowlege we are born with but forget during the life experience. This knowledge is not learned but rather remembered by those needing to remember it.

[JHuber]

But what of the conscious part that observes the functioning of this machine? Hinduism describes it as two birds on the same tree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_Jiva_and_Atman

A person can have the experience of being aware that they are aware. Instead of just reacting as normal for any animal, sometimes a person consciously experiences the workings of this reacting machine we call by our name. If it exists, it must contain a priori knowledge, perhaps the source of the blank slate to be programmed. I see this bird as above the dividing line within the world of forms while the first bird is below it on the same tree.

That is an interesting analogy. However, it is just a fictional story and can be interpreted in many ways. One possible interpretation is that the first bird is labor and the second bird is management. Nevertheless, it is still an incomplete philosophy. It doesn't acknowledge growth, leverage and vibration.

Nick, I admire your knowledge set of philosophies and religions. I was wondering if you knew of any, outside of subjects and relations theory, that contain the dynamics of growth, leverage and vibration?