Philosophy Now Forum

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Apr 19, 2018 6:20 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 18, 2018 10:27 pm
The problem occurs, in summarizing the above, if everything is strictly subjective and objectivity is strictly a deficiency in subjectivity, then the subjective is not unified because of the objective?

Why is it a problem?

Subjective consciousness objectifying itself is still a subjective perception.... perceptions that are all perceived by unity.

All perceptions are equally valid and true as they are perceived, all perceptions are all inclusive, just different expressions of the one source according to the particular level of experience and knowledge held in the perception.

.

Then that implies any objective perception, which is rooted in subjectivity, that claims subjectivity is not the strict means of truth in itself is self-contradictory and divisive and the subjective nature is not entirely unified as the individual level.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 20, 2018 2:42 pm
Then that implies any objective perception, which is rooted in subjectivity, that claims subjectivity is not the strict means of truth in itself is self-contradictory and divisive and the subjective nature is not entirely unified as the individual level.

How are you getting an objective perception here..I don't understand?

I don't see an objective perception, I see subject objectifying itself as a concept, a concept does not exist in and of itself separate from the subject. The subject cannot experience itself as the object it perceives ..so objects cannot perceive, objects are the perceived.

If an object had the capacity to have a perception .. your body parts would be the ones looking at you, rather than you looking at your body parts...

Conceptual thought is knowledge known by the only knowing there is which is subjective consciousness...knowledge informs illusory reality. Reality being a verb not comprised of parts except as concepts/ideas already known within consciousness which is not-a-thing. There is no thing to claim any thing here, because consciousness is not an object.

.

Excerpt From: Roy Melvyn. “The Essential Nisargadatta.”

“When I met my Guru, he told me, ‘You are not what you take yourself to be. Find out what you are. Watch the sense I AM, find your real Self…’ I did as he told me. All my spare time I would spend looking at myself in silence…and what a difference it made, and how soon! It took me only three years to realize my true nature.” His message to us was simple and direct with no propounding of scriptures or doctrines. “You are the Self here and now! Stop imagining yourself to be something else. Let go your attachment to the unreal.” (Nisargadatta Maharaj)



M.: The sense of being, of ‘I am’ is the first to emerge. Ask yourself whence it comes, or just watch it quietly. When the mind stays in the ‘I am’ without moving, you enter a state which cannot be verbalised but can be experienced. All you need to do is try and try again. After all the sense ‘I am’ is always with you, only you have attached all kinds of things to it — body, feelings, thoughts, ideas, possessions etc. All these self-identifications are misleading. Because of them you take yourself to be what you are not.

M.: All you can say is: ‘I am not this, I am not that’. You cannot meaningfully say ‘this is what I am’. It just makes no sense. What you can point out as ‘this’ or ‘that’ cannot be yourself. Surely, you can not be ‘something’ else. You are nothing perceivable, or imaginable. Yet, without you there can be neither perception nor imagination. You observe the heart feeling, the mind thinking, the body acting;



The very act of perceiving shows that you are not what you perceive. Can there be perception, experience without you? (…)

Q: How do I get at it?

M: You need not get at it, for you are it. It will get at you, if you give it a chance. Let go your attachment to the unreal and the real will swiftly and smoothly step into its own. Stop imagining yourself being or doing this or that and the realisation that you are the source and heart of all will dawn upon you. With this will come great love which is not choice or predilection, nor attachment, but a power which makes all things love-worthy and lovable.



-------

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Apr 20, 2018 4:30 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 20, 2018 2:42 pm
Then that implies any objective perception, which is rooted in subjectivity, that claims subjectivity is not the strict means of truth in itself is self-contradictory and divisive and the subjective nature is not entirely unified as the individual level.

How are you getting an objective perception here..I don't understand?

I don't see an objective perception, I see subject objectifying itself as a concept, a concept does not exist in and of itself separate from the subject. The subject cannot experience itself as the object it perceives ..so objects cannot perceive, objects are the perceived.

If an object had the capacity to have a perception .. your body parts would be the ones looking at you, rather than you looking at your body parts...

Conceptual thought is knowledge known by the only knowing there is which is subjective consciousness...knowledge informs illusory reality. Reality being a verb not comprised of parts except as concepts/ideas already known within consciousness which is not-a-thing. There is no thing to claim any thing here, because consciousness is not an object.

.

Objectivity, that which is not influenced by personal opinions or feelings, observes an inherent degree of non-attachment where the individual (or group) is able to observe a situation for what it is while allowing it to exist for what it is. In these respects "objectivity" is an act (not feeling) of generation through measurement, considering it promotes a degree of freedom for the phenomena being observed that not just maintains the phenomena's existence but allows it to appear for what it is or maybe.

Subjectivity, that which is influenced by personal opinions or feelings, observes an inherent degree of attachment (primarily through emotions) where the individual (or group) is able to observe a situation as an extension of themselves in which it exists through them as them. In these respect "subjectivity" is an act of generation through measurement of the self, considering it promotes a degree of individual freedom for experiential phenomena that not just maintains the individual but allows the individual to appear for what he/she maybe.

In these respects the objective observes inherent external boundaries that form the internal subjective boundaries of the individual and the subjective observes inherent internal boundaries that form the external objective boundaries. An alternation of subjectivity and objectivity occurs as an alternation which forms boundaries from which both precede and end. This is considering:

a) The subjective experience, that which has no limits except for the individual in the respect it is not mirrored through group perception, forms an objective boundary by moving through these objective boundaries in accords to its degree of limitlessness. In simpler terms the ability for the observer to continually act without limit causes an inherent change in the environment, such as a drunk breaking a glass at a bar.

b) The objective, that which exists through limits and may form an individual in the respect it is mirrored through group perception, forms an inherent subjective lack of limit by moving through the subjective nature in accords to its degree of limit. In simpler terms the ability for the object to apply limits to an individuals absence of limit cause an inherent formation of the individual, such as a glass breaking in the hands of the drunk causes the drunk to stop drinking.

While consciousness has a subjective nature, its ability to measure by applying boundaries, requires a certain universality to the boundaries that transcend any subjective nature. These universal boundaries are fundamentally objective in nature as they maintain an inherent symmetry that mirrors itself through group

Take for example the simple application of a line. I may apply the line literally to form a divisive measurement to a physical peace of material or intuitively to measure a concept. Regardless of its physical or abstract nature these measurements are dependent upon the application of the line which exists objectively through the consciousness as a thing which forms it while simultaneously having a dual subjective nature through the manner in which it is applied.

This line exists dually as both object and subject considering:

1) The "line" has no feelings or attachments of any form.
a) A paradox occurs in the respect that while objectivity and subjectivity are determined by "attachment" (relegated to the dimension of emotion
inherent within the observer) the line it itself is a boundary of "attachment" between two points with this attachment implying a multiplicity conducive to change.

2) The application of the line, in the respect it exists through movement, mirrors the subjective state of the observer.

3) The line exists because of subjective, no-localized, movement where the observer manifests it from himself and through himself as a projection of himself.

4) This subjective nature, through which the line is applied, however cannot exist without the line (as a boundary) considering the attachments in themselves ("x" person is attached to "y" phenomena through "z" emotion) are dependent upon boundaries (observed through the line).

5) The line, as a means of measurement, exists dually as both subjective and objective.
a) The line as object is applied through a subjective manner and moves through the subjective with the subjective nature localizing itself as an object through the line. The line, as a measurement observes an inherent dualism through rotation of subject and object.


6) As both objective and subjective the line is a foundational axiom which folds through itself in the process of measurement.

7) The synthesis of the axiom, as objective and subjective phenomena through the process of measurement, mirrors a folding of space through itself.
a) Ex: I measure a piece of wood and cut it. This one piece of wood now exists as two pieces of wood and the phenomena of the "wood" as existing of time and space as particles or parts of a larger whole, "folds" through this same framework (nature) because of a process of measurement. This cutting of the wood in turn mirrors the movements of the observer who cuts it in a manner which requires the observe himself to move (swing axe) through time and space. Hence the wood folds and the observer folds, through time space, by a process of measurement in which the observer applies and exists through the synthesis of measurements (making x cut y times) that are self-evident.

This act of measurement, observes an inherent process of "division" which dually manifests a simultaneously multiplication where 1/2 may equal 1/2 but it simultaneously manifests two parts. 1 in these respects observes a potential nature with 2 being an active localized nature. This locality and non-locality as active and passive movement in turn observes that measurement in itself is conducive to a form of "movement" through change under an inherent dualism. In these respects measurement observes a reality by creating a polarity of actuality and potentiality with polarity being inseparable from duality.

Now can "one" existence be divided, considering a perspective where "all" exists as "all"? Not necessarily, but the application of dimensions causes a form of movement inherent with the measurement process itself. The physical act of applying a line causes a division, or change, in a piece of wood while the abstract act of applying a line causes a division, or change, in the concept itself. Measurement in these respects causes reality to fold through itself and inherently moved towards a potential nature. This movement, in itself, is an approximation of infinite movement as finite movement, with the infinite movement acting as one. Hence finiteness is inherent within objectivity.

This active nature of measurement, as localization, observes an inherent form of Objectivity through change in which a phenomena moves towards a potential end. This potential end, while formless, exists as a barrier through which the localized phenomena exists.

While objectivity, as the observation of physical boundaries or abstract dimensions (hence "object"), exists as an active state it moves through the subjective nature which in itself is non-localized or lacking structure.

In practical terms, an object (such as a sandwich), inherently affects the course of the subjective experience as the subjective "envelopes" the object through the various senses (much like an active locality is enveloped by a potential reality) and in turn integrates this experience. This integration of the object through the subject in turn alternates the subject into an object. We can see this in the respect that the sandwich integrates within the subjective nature of the individual and objectifies it by allowing him/her to exist (ie we eat therefore we exist).

This attachment through experience (mostly emotional) creates a common bond between the object and the subject by allowing them to exist and move through each. This movement, as attachment, in itself is a locality of sort in the respect it exists as a boundary through connection. All boundaries, as observations of movement, in themselves are active and hence localized. For example: "I like "x" sandwich" hence a boundary of movement is formed between the sandwich and I which gives structure to both.

I need the sandwich to exist while the sandwich cannot exist without me. This connect while observed in physical localized movements, also exists at a subjective irrational level where the emotions or desires (such as "like") are boundaries. (What seperates the localized nature of subjectivity and objectivity is the degree of symmetry where a subjective experience does not always mere an objective reality)


In these respects emotions have an inherent objective nature, while not observed strictly by the current notion of "objectivity" as absence of emotional attachment, considering they have boundaries which move through other boundaries (ex: happiness moves through anger, etc.). Emotions act as objects in these manner considering they have observable and moveable "boundaries".

Observed from a dual alternate perspective the objective is rooted in the subjective where there is no true objectivity (observed by some philosophers such as Neitszche) considering the object observed from a position of non-attachment is still observed through a subjective individual (ex: objectivity of science is determined by subjective questioning process which in itself is non-scientific).

Okay I totally get what you are saying, you are in a league of your own here, very intelligent reply and well thought out, your knowledge for philosophy into the subject object divide is very interesting, and more to the point accurate in every way.

Thanks for providing the details of how the subject object split works, meanwhile I'll continue to read and fully digest what you have said here, and get back to you with some responses. You have written a lot, and I need time for it all to sink in, but on speed reading, I get the general gist as I do with all your work.

.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Apr 21, 2018 5:23 pm Okay I totally get what you are saying, you are in a league of your own here, very intelligent reply and well thought out, your knowledge for philosophy into the subject object divide is very interesting, and more to the point accurate in every way.

Thanks for providing the details of how the subject object split works, meanwhile I'll continue to read and fully digest what you have said here, and get back to you with some responses. You have written a lot, and I need time for it all to sink in, but on speed reading, I get the general gist as I do with all your work.

.

You should know by now that if you have any questions or disagreements don't hesitate in point them out . I posted this subject on sciencechatforums and arktos forums...the "wall of text" (which is only four pages) appears to be the common hindrance.

Just take any point you want and dissect it from there.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 23, 2018 5:06 pm
You should know by now that if you have any questions or disagreements don't hesitate in point them out . I posted this subject on sciencechatforums and arktos forums...the "wall of text" (which is only four pages) appears to be the common hindrance.

Just take any point you want and dissect it from there.

I don't have any disagreements... as you have described very well the relativistic knowledge that is the distinction between subject and object... but one main question to you..

What about the capacity for transcendental knowledge through introception in addition to the capacity of perception and conception knowledge ? Introception providing immediate categorical knowledge that transcends the subject-object distinction not the relational knowledge of something by something else, but a knowledge through identity in which there is only knowledge itself that includes and transcends both knower and known?

.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Apr 26, 2018 8:18 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 23, 2018 5:06 pm
You should know by now that if you have any questions or disagreements don't hesitate in point them out . I posted this subject on sciencechatforums and arktos forums...the "wall of text" (which is only four pages) appears to be the common hindrance.

Just take any point you want and dissect it from there.

I don't have any disagreements... as you have described very well the relativistic knowledge that is the distinction between subject and object... but one main question to you..

What about the capacity for transcendental knowledge through introception in addition to the capacity of perception and conception knowledge ? Introception providing immediate categorical knowledge that transcends the subject-object distinction not the relational knowledge of something by something else, but a knowledge through identity in which there is only knowledge itself that includes and transcends both knower and known?

.

If we look at the nature of introspection as being a deep degree of self-reflection resulting in categories, or dimensions through which we give form and structure to subjective and objective phenomena by an act of measurement, these categories maintain a dual nature of an absolute and relativistic nature.

1) As absolute, these categories (or dimensions of measurement I prefer) can be viewed as extensions of one absolute truth in the respect where they "always were, are, and will be" from a perspective of one dimension which is both continuous and infinite considering it is in itself unified and whole. A category under these terms observes an inherent approximation of a unified whole from which the whole continually manifests itself.

2) As relative, these categories can be viewed as parts which exist through other parts under the movement of thought. Measurement, in these terms, (along with the act of introspection which is a form of measurement) is a process of continual movement in which the concepts are localized into forms that have boundaries allowing the concept to exist for what it is as a concept. This concept, as a localized phenomena, in turn exists in relation to further concepts with these relations moving towards a potential concept that eventually will become localized. In these respects the act of introspection, or "measurement" under a more universal term, maintains itself through movement across time space.

3) This dual nature of the category as absolute and relative, or constant and changing, observes a third element in the act of categorization (or measurement) where the category becomes "self-evidence" as measurement itself. In these respects the categories are a synthesis of boundaries (usually abstract considering the category is usually equated to an abstraction, yet physical in separate respects).

In further "extended" terms the category is a synthesis of axioms, or self-evident truths, where the act of categorization is inseparable from the act of synthesis. The axiom maintains this neutral nature as both changing and non-changing considering the nature of the "boundary" (that which summates and divides to give product to form), is in itself both changing and non-changing as an act of movement. Again in simpler terms, measurement as categorization is movement, yet this movement is not just dependent but understood through the dimensions it is perceived through...or "movement determines movement".


This "movement" is measured fundamentally through a degree of finitenss and infiniteness where the degree of unity or particularization, summated under the application of simple but universal dimensions of "1" or "2".

What we understand of as "1" is both unity and infinite in nature considering all multiplicity, as evidenced by a number spectrum, is merely an extension of 1 with "1" (and hence all categories extending form the "1") being the foundation through which all numbers mirror...this applies qualitatively to the category (or measurement) being an extension of the unified infinite category (or "the true measurement"). Under these terms the absolute nature of a category is akin to a mirror process where symmetry is mirrored to form the structure as an extension of another structure, inseperable and undivided.

"2" on the other hand, as the base foundation for "multiplicity" observes a relation of parts in which each part is in itself "1" as "unit" of "finite", an approximation of the whole, where movement as finite relations gives us an understanding of truths through parts. These finite relations, as approximation of a unified infinite movement, maintain themselves through a perpetual movement as "individuation" where this perpetual nature implies a degree of simultaneously existing potential as a dual to the actual nature of the perpetual. In these respects an indiviudation occurs where the categories moves through "nothingness" under the guise of relation in which one category or measurement "folds" through another to indivduate, or "localize", into something "new". This "newness" is a false degree of truth, in respect to the absolute 1, as it always was is and will be under the dimensions of the "1".

In these respects we can observe 1 and 2, as the foundations for all measurement or "categorization", not just as quantitative means through which we define, and furthermore "synthesize" reality, but also as qualitative ones as well where quantity observes a "limit" and quality observes a form akin to "no-limit" that further alternate through eachother. Alternation, in these respects, as a universal form of movement through the constant nature of the circle and the repetition of frequency as rotating poles, provides the based foundation for "synthesis".


This triad of "Unity", "Multiplicity", and "Synthesis" exists as both three in one and one in three (under a form of alternation) and exists through the category as the category further providing the foundation for "logic" as a form of measurement. This "logic" provides the means through which we reason through the act of introspection.

Inductive reasoning, as the accumulation of atomic facts leading to a generalized fact, can be observed as a form of multiplicity leading towards unity.

Deductive reasoning, as the breaking down of a generalized fact leading to atomic facts, can be observed as a form of unity being approximated through a percieved multiplicity.

Abductive reasoning "is a form of logical inference which starts with an observation or set of observations then seeks to find the simplest and most likely explanation." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning In these respects as "simplicity" it observes the categories for what they are as categories which in turn reflect and relate through the axioms as the "axiom". In simpler terms, it is observing the dimension for what it is a dimension.

Hence we can observe a simultaneous unity and multiplicity as a dualistic "both" and "neither/nor" where the act of "balance" or "mediation" is presented form what it is. This is similiar to a form of "synthesis" as a "joining into fruition from nothingness" where the act of categorization is unity through unit and unit through unity presented under a logical form of "alternation linear logic" as "circulation".


***Now these atomic and general facts, or axioms, regardless of their degree of truth maintain a dual nature of both truth and falsity where all lies have an inherent degree of truth in them, and all truths have an inherent degree of "falsity as deficiency" in them. In this manner the axiom is merely a synthesis of truth and falsity as "being" in itself, where the axiom is just what it is: an axiom and maintains its "simplicity" as such.

This dualism of truth and falsity within all axioms, manifests the axiom as fundamentally "true" when percieved for what it is as a grade of truth but a truth nonetheless, as this gradation observes a deficiency but the deficiency exists if and only if there is something which exists.

Absolute nihilism is an absolute impossibility.

That would be like calling space space-less.

You have never existed because you have always existed.

.

I am in physical form and will always be in physical form because even when I am dead I will still exist though I will no longer be conscious. And in this physical form I can obtain knowledge and understanding about the physical world I exist within. But that knowledge and understanding is only temporary because when I am dead I will no longer have any need for it. This is because I will have made the transition from consciousness to non consciousness. All of existence is transition since every thing is in a constant state of motion because nothing can be absolutely motionless forever
This includes thoughts created by the mind and so that is why they should not be rigidly held because they may change over time and even if they
do not change they will cease to exist upon point of death. So this is why I try not to hold onto any thoughts that I have with any rigidity. If what I
think is true I will naturally hold on to it but no more than is absolutely necessary. The objective exists outside the mind and the subjective exists inside the mind. When the mind dies there is no subjective only the objective. The subjective is therefore temporary and the objective is infinite

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 29, 2018 4:35 pm When the mind dies there is no subjective only the objective.

What do you mean by objective survives the death of the mind? ...how would you define objective?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 29, 2018 4:35 pmThe subjective is therefore temporary and the objective is infinite

How would you define objective? ..what do you mean by objective is infinite?

.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 29, 2018 4:35 pm I am in physical form and will always be in physical form because even when I am dead I will still exist though I will no longer be conscious.

If you exist in physical form always, what is it that dies while still existing in physical form that you are no longer conscious of?

What is it exactly that dies here?

.

Lemmy would disagree

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2CoNvyJNR0

-Imp