Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Sat Sep 16, 2017 9:48 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2017 11:30 pm
Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2017 8:11 am
Are you 'avin' a laff mate?
No, more like many. Thank you, I don't know what I would do without your humor...it cheer's one's soul.
I'm sure this observation is not original and you may have heard it before; you are suffering from verbal diarrhoea.
You're right, it is not original as I am arguing it is the universal foundation of logic, as an extension of space, and by default everyone practices it.
You cannot argue from meaning, unless you make a reasonable claim that life is a thing amenable to meaning. Meaning comes from an intentional consciousness, not from a cold indifferent universe bound by the laws of necessity of cause and effect. Here is some of the paper (because it is "chopped" out of the text and context I expect questions).
From an intuitive perspective, the logistic dimension of Reflectivism shares many qualities similar to Phenomenology, promoted by Husserl (Rollinger), as the observation of reflective structures in consciousness or "the reflective study of the essence of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view." (Smith) These similarities occur in regard to the manifesting of essence and structure through reflection (Menon, Sinha and Sreekantan), which simultaneously maintain a dual indefinability in both form and function (Farina) as logistic randomness. Through the perspective of S and xS all Logistic reflection manifests under less restrictive means, similar to the Phenomenologist perspective (Orbe) as the propagation of structure maintains a degree of truth in existence. The continual propagation of structure, which may appear random, does not imply contradiction. Structures which may appear contradictory, such as 2 + 2 = 5, may not always be if they continually reflect, however they are if they do not. To further this example:
2 + 2 ≠ 5
→
2z + 2z = 5 ↔ z=1.25
→
2x + 2y = 5 ↔ {x = |1...0| y = |1.5…2.5|} ∨ { x = |1.5…2.5| y = |1...0|} with x≜y
→
∞
In this respect the continual reflection upon everything, even what appears contradictory, in order to reflect an absolute or essence as logical is similar to the Hegelian perspective of dialectical phenomenology (Bologh)
1) I address the nature of cause and effect under Reflectivism. What we understand of cause and effect breaks down to an observation of symmetry between points, with the nature of Causality strictly being an extension of Unity through space. This nature of "unity" through space finds its fullest form of symmetry through the "point" and what we observe as causality is strictly a reflection between observed points...nothing more. It would be equivalent to observing a "structure" of time as a "whole" "moment" or "point" composed of points.
Gongsun Long, a Chinese logical philosopher (c. 325–250 BCE) observed the paradox "One and one cannot become two, since neither becomes two." (Belnap and Jayatilleke) however 1 and 1 reflect two. Two can be observed simultaneously as an individual structure and a reflection of 1 and 1 while maintaining an individuality congruent in structure to 1 as an individual entity. However this will be addressed later.
ex: (1 ≡ 1)≠ 2 ,however (1 ≡ 1)≅ 2 as an approximation of 1: 1 ≈ 2
Reflectivism, as evidenced through numerical functions, can be argued as the curvature as causality with 1 being synonymous to a causal element. This “curvature as causality” can be observed as similar, but not equal, to repetition or frequency. (1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1) ≡ 3 is equivalent to a simultaneous maintenance of an object or space, 1, while simultaneously manifesting something new 3. 3 in this case may be equal to an approximate of 1 or its memory as effect. It is the increase of structure through reflection that prevents “A main cause of philosophical disease—a one-sided diet: one nourishes one's thinking with only one kind of example” (Wittgenstein)
All effect, as logistic structure, can simultaneously be argued as logistic memory where the influence of previous peoples of various times and places manifest as logistic structures. Reflectivism, through cause and effect, manifests a degree of unifying stability across time and space through memory as a unifying bond that exists as "reflection as causality". A further extension of the previous numerological example implies, that to a degree (and this "degree" must be emphasized), all numbers are "effectual" structures of one as a numerological memory of 1 across time and space. In this respect, as logic and mathematics have their congruencies, they simultaneously have qualities of "memory" similar to when an organism manifests itself across time and space through offspring. as self-organizing multi-dimensional "living" systems (Lowe) It is this nature of memory as logistic structure/effect of logistic field/cause that the Socratic nature of understanding in itself is an inherent nature of logic as Reflectivism is a form of symmetry observed.
The observation of cause and effect through the logistics field implies a degree of "retro-causality" found within certain elements of the philosophy of science (Barry) . Through retro-causality, effects determine cause in a manner equivalent to the future affecting the present and the present affecting the past. It is this duality between standard causality and retro causality which can be observed as corresponding duals which maintain structure through a revolution around the third variable of "now" as a third causal degree. It is this nature of observing causality as non-linear that it must be viewed as center point when observed as a beginning. Center is synonymous with beginning.
It is in these respects that causality maintains a trinitarian dimension if observed through this format with cause and effect being equivalent duals as causality/"non-approximation"/(+) and effect/"approximation"/(-). As physics has not observed a strict demarcation between cause and effect (Sheehan), which can partially be explain to the approximate nature of effect, retro-causality within logic must be observed as a possible inherent element due to its reflection of physics for both are studies of symmetry with the nature of symmetry being the median. In other words the observation of retrocausility in one field of science reflects in the other fields in at least one degree at minimum through the nature of concept. While philosophy has long held retro-causality to be contradictory, based upon the Aristotelian understanding of causality that Hume further built upon (Beauchamp and Rosenberg) along with more modern philosophers such as Anthony Flew (Dummett and Flew), other philosophers such as Michael Dummet (Dummett and Flew) argue for its possibility. As the past is often interpreted approximately by the present, and the present is built upon the past, the past is often determined by an approximate present equivalent to the very future of that same past. In a separate respect, the future is interpreted approximately by the present (through reason and or the nature prophecy which is subject to debate), and the present is built upon the future, the future is often determined by an approximate present equivalent to the very future of that same past. Retro-causality at minimum can be viewed as an objective principle of observation as a form of "effectual approximation" that is present within the nature of logic and language.
While retro-causality can be observed as a negation, or contradiction through the grandfather-paradox (Krasnikov) and in many degrees, there is truth in this statement, in a separate respect retro-causality could broaden the dimensional structure of the past, rather than entirely negating it allowing the past to remain the past while simultaneously broadening it through effect. In this respect cause as ever present allows for a propagation of dimensions as effect through approximation. The grandfather-paradox can further be avoided by limiting certain conditions within retro-causality, or in physics terms “time-travel” (Earman, Smeenk and Wüthrich).
If causality is to be observed as prior to time/space (Robb) (Whitehead) it must be observed fundamentally as a dimension of abstraction with this "abstraction" being a dual of the "physical". The "physical" in turn equivocates to an approximate of the "abstract". However, if causality is observed to be manifested as at minimum three dimensional, as argued above, then it would be more appropriate to argue that an abstract dimension reflects the physical, the physical reflects the abstract, and the ethereal median between the two is "reflection itself" as one whole in itself which is abstract. "In Aristotelian philosophy, the word cause' is also used to mean 'explanation' or 'answer to a why question" (Cxx) and in this respect causality may be synonymous to symmetry as structure with the fullest form being the circle which “allows for the contribution of self-organizing dynamics.” (Freeman) Cause and effect are the observation of ratios nothing more, however ratios are structures, structures are order, order is cause for all arguments pertaining to the nature of cause pertain to the nature of order. All structures can be viewed as both cause and effect. This circular nature of Causality, reflective of logistic structure all language, further reflects a perspective of Kierkegaard where, "to a certain degree every [logistic] generation and every individual [logistic] begins his [its] life from the beginning", (Kierkegaard) as no generation is able to begin at any other point than the beginning." It is this nature of causality being synonymous with Reflection that allows “no agent that passes out from one set of momentary elements into another one, except the [connection] of those elements" (Nicholas) which further reflects a Buddhist notion of causality as a form of conditionality (Nicholas) or reflective symmetry where the conditions in themselves are the geometry of the perceived structure.
Ignore the references.
I recognise that you have an intentional consciousness. But since you are not the creator of life, nor did you have control of the instance of your own life, then you personal consciousness can only speak of your own life, not "THE meaning of Life".
If that is true, then how can you argue that their is "no meaning"... that is little hypocritical. Besides, if life has no meaning, apparently the creator has no purpose. If that is the case, why does it matter who takes credit?
\
You have made no efforts in this direction whatsoever despite me pointing out your deficiencies.
Here is a real simple point for you build upon, considering you struggle in the art of criticism. You claim I am deficient...okay...list the problems alphabetically or numerically and I will address each point on its own terms. If you cannot do that, well your you have no criticisms to be addressed and your are just another angry man afraid of everyone and everything because you do not understand even yourself. But considering your viewpoint of the world being "cold" and empty maybe it is you are who cold and empty...considering you are part of this "world".
The only "deficiency" you observed was wording, but because their is no "meaning" (according to you) everything is in a perpetual state of flux and therefore "relative". Because it is relative, maybe it is you who are deficient in observing deficiencies...I mean since in your world everything is relative to you. How do you no your are not the one with the deficiencies?
In other words; who do you think you are?
Some guy who is apparently in your head... who do you think you are...or maybe "who am I?"
Mentioning Husserl will not help here. It sounds like you studied philosophy at some point, but never really understood how to put it all together.
Why don't you address my queries, rather than try to bamboozle me with stuff you don't really understand. Phenomenology will not help you here.
Have you ever had a mental health diagnosis?
Phenomenology, as both a science and philosophy, is strictly the observation of symmetry between experiences. An experience, whether abstract or physical, is strictly what it is: an experience. It is in these respects that the observation of experiences is the observation of axioms from with people both form reality and and formed by it. It is in these respects that the study of the experience as an axiom, is fundamentally the study of not only the reflective qualities of that experience but also the qualities that composed it. In simpler terms phenomenology observes the reflective qualities of axioms and how they both form and are formed by the world.
Take for example, a mental patient, who has hallucinations. The nature of the hallucination, as an illusion, is fundamentally a gradation of truth...but a truth none the less. The mental patient, upon experiencing the hallucination, takes it as axiomatic and reflects it into the structure of his or her being. This hallucination, as an "existence" in itself however a very highly gradient form of one, is the axis upon which this person forms their behavior. In turn the person may become more violent, depressed, agitated, etc. and in turn society responds by putting the person in jail or an institute. The police officer maintains his jobs by maintaining the individual, the nurse maintains her job through the administering medication, and pharmacologist (thousands of miles away) forms and chemical formula to alleviate this persons symptoms. In a seperate respect, that person's family is put under financial or emotional stress which in turn reflects through their jobs.
Why all of this? Because of one "axiom" or "experience". The abstract reflects into the physical and the physical reflects into the abstract.
One could simultaneously take it from a seperate more positive perspective, where a seperate individual has a "religious" experience (regardless of it being "true" or "not-true") and in turn is kinder to other people. He or she might walk down the road and give money to a man recently thrown out of his house. This man in turn remembers the action, and reflects it further to a some other person, who down on their luck, may one day form a company and use the same ethics to his employees..etc.
Now if one where to take this example (a hypothetical, yet most probably real one) and observe it as "one moment", the experiences or axioms these people observed in many respects formed as a structure...where each axiom as a point of existed, reflected upon another axiom to form the nature of being itself.
It is in these respects that the reflection of points of experiences, through the axiom, not only gives structure to being but fundamentally maintains it as both a cause and effect element. It is further found within the nature of effect, as an approximation of cause through cause, that a level of deficiency in structure is found. This deficiency in structure, or experience/axiom, in turn is randomness and is simply and observation of deficiency or non-being...nothing more. It is in this respect that randomness, as not a thing in itself, but a deficiency in being moves and gravitates towards structure through the nature of reflection.
In is in this respect that reflection, through the nature of cause and effect, reflects randomness as a maintenance of its own structure.
