Philosophy Now Forum

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Sep 06, 2018 5:02 pm "A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways"
James 1:8

___________

Double, triple or multiple-mindedness is the ordinary state of the vast, vast majority of people. Yet, only a relatively few people - although perhaps that number is growing - even question the state of their consciousness and being in the first place.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Sep 07, 2018 5:41 pm Here is an interesting way to appreciate the difference between the dualistic and triune mind.

Plato and others distinguished between being and becoming. The universe is in constant change It is always becoming. Nothing exists since the only constant is change. Yet being “ IS. It is unchanging. How can we experience the apparent contradiction between being and becoming?

Dualistic reason functions by the law of the EXCLUDED Middle. The triune mind not only has access to the law of the EXCLUDED middle for daily life but also experiences the law of the INCLUDED middle. This “middle” is a higher conscious perspective which reconciles the duality of a lower level of reality. The law of the INCLUDED middle provides the experience of meaning beyond the limitations of the dualistic mind.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Sep 07, 2018 5:41 pm Here is an interesting way to appreciate the difference between the dualistic and triune mind.

Plato and others distinguished between being and becoming. The universe is in constant change It is always becoming. Nothing exists since the only constant is change. Yet being “ IS. It is unchanging. How can we experience the apparent contradiction between being and becoming?

Dualistic reason functions by the law of the EXCLUDED Middle. The triune mind not only has access to the law of the EXCLUDED middle for daily life but also experiences the law of the INCLUDED middle. This “middle” is a higher conscious perspective which reconciles the duality of a lower level of reality. The law of the INCLUDED middle provides the experience of meaning beyond the limitations of the dualistic mind.

If so, to continue that framework, are the experience of subjective meaning, and attachment to the imagined permanence of whatever the subjective meaning may be for a subject, delusions that lead to suffering? If so, could it be because subjective meanings only fit with blind spots in place.

“When one realises one is asleep, at that moment one is already half-awake.” “It is only when we realize that life is taking us nowhere that it begins to have meaning.”

Everything Is Meaningless
1 The words of the Teacher,[a] son of David, king in Jerusalem:
2 “Meaningless! Meaningless!”
says the Teacher.
“Utterly meaningless!
Everything is meaningless.”
3 What do people gain from all their labors
at which they toil under the sun?
4 Generations come and generations go,
but the earth remains forever.
5 The sun rises and the sun sets,
and hurries back to where it rises.
6 The wind blows to the south
and turns to the north;
round and round it goes,
ever returning on its course.
7 All streams flow into the sea,
yet the sea is never full.
To the place the streams come from,
there they return again.
8 All things are wearisome,
more than one can say.
The eye never has enough of seeing,
nor the ear its fill of hearing.
9 What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
10 Is there anything of which one can say,
“Look! This is something new”?
It was here already, long ago;
it was here before our time.
11 No one remembers the former generations,
and even those yet to come
will not be remembered
by those who follow them.

Platonic Realism is the view, articulated by the ancient Greek philosopher Plato, that universals exist. A universal is a property of an object, which can exist in more than one place at the same time (e.g. the quality of "redness"). As universals were considered by Plato to be ideal forms, this stance is confusingly also called Platonic Idealism.
The problem of universals is an ancient problem (introduced by Pre-Socratic philosophers like Thales, Heraclitus and Parmenides) about what is signified by common nouns and adjectives, such as "man", "tree", "white", etc. What is the logical and existential status of the "thing" that these words refer to? Is it in fact a thing, or a concept? Is it something existing in reality, external to the mind, or not? If so, then is it something physical or something abstract? Is it separatefrom material objects, or a part of them in some way? How can one thing in generalbe many things in particular?
Plato's solution is that universals do indeed exist, although not in the same waythat ordinary physical objects exist, but in a sort of ghostly mode of existence, outside of space and time, but not at any spatial or temporal distance from people's bodies. Thus, people cannot see or otherwise come into sensory contact with universals, and it is meaningless to apply the categories of space and time to them, but they can nevertheless be conceived of and exist.
One type of universal defined by Plato is the Form, which is not a mental entity at all, but rather an idea or archetype or original model of which particular objects, properties and relations are copies. The "forms" (small "f") or appearances that we see, according to Plato, are not real, but literally mimic the real "Forms" (capital "F"). Forms are capable of being instantiated by one or many different particulars, which are essentially material copies of the Forms - the particulars are said to "participate" in the Forms, and the Forms are said to "inhere" in the particulars.
According to Plato, Platonic Forms possess the highest and most fundamentalkind of reality. They are perfect because they are unchanging. The world of Forms is separate from our own world (the world of substances) and is the true basis of reality. Removed from matter, Forms are the most pure of all things. True knowledge or intelligence is the ability to grasp the world of Forms with one's mind.
Plato's main evidence for the existence of Forms is intuitive only, arguing from human perception (a generalization which applies equally to objects which are clearly different e.g. blue sky and blue cloth), and from perfection (a perfect model for various imperfect copies, which are different but recognizably copies of the same thing e.g. flawed circles must be imperfect copies of the same thing).
Plato himself was well aware of the limitations of his theory, and in particular concocted the "Third Man Argument" against his own theory: if a Form and a particular are alike, then there must be another (third) thing by possession of which they are alike, leading to an infinite regression. In a later (rather unsatisfactory) version of the theory, he tried to circumvent this objection by positing that particulars do not actually exist as such: they "mime" the Forms, merely appearing to be particulars.
Aristotle points out that proof of Forms and universals rests on prior knowledge: if we did not know what universals were in the first place, we would have no idea of what we were trying to prove, and so could not be trying to prove it. He also asserted that universals and particulars imply each other: one is logically prior or posterior to the other and, if they are to be regarded as distinct, then they cannot be "universal" and "particulars".
Other critics have argued that Forms, not being spatial, cannot have a shape, so it cannot be that a particular of, say, an apple is the same shape as the Form of an apple. They have also questioned how one can have the concept of a Form existing in some special realm of the universe, apart from space and time, since such a concept cannot come from sense-perception.

Later philosophers (especially Christians) amended and adapted the doctrine to suit their needs:
• St. Augustine modified Plato's realism by holding that universals existed before the material universe in God's creative mind, and that humanityas a universal preceded individual men (thus explaining away problematical theological concepts such as the transmission of original sin in the human race, and the oneness of the Trinity).
• St. Anselm believed that he could derive truth about what actually exists from consideration of an ideal or universal, and argued that because God is the greatest of beings, he must exist in reality as well as in thought (for if he existed in thought only, a greater being could be conceived of).
• St. Thomas Aquinas built on Aristotle's watered down Realism (see the section on Moderate Realism below) to argue that human reason could not totally grasp God's being, but that one could use reason in theology whenever it was concerned with the connection between universals and individual objects.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Sep 11, 2018 10:14 pm Since opening to levels of reality requires opening to the triune mind

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Sep 11, 2018 10:14 pmif there are any here who would like to delve into why we cannot experience universals and what it would require to become more open to their reality, we could discuss it.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Sep 11, 2018 10:42 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Sep 11, 2018 10:14 pm Since opening to levels of reality requires opening to the triune mind

No it doesn't. A person need not think in triune terms to open up to all sorts of levels of understanding and awareness. This is just you, again, distorting words and ideas to fit your dualistic agenda of those who are one way, and those who are another. It appears to be the only way you know how to relate to the world, and form your identity.

You started out saying this: "Socrates said: "The only thing I know is that I know nothing"" -- but then immediately veered off into talking about what you think you "know", and it's a bunch of your made-up nonsense as usual. Do you think that using that quote (or any other) somehow fools people into thinking that you understand it at all? Your own words show that you don't.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Sep 11, 2018 10:14 pmif there are any here who would like to delve into why we cannot experience universals and what it would require to become more open to their reality, we could discuss it.

People have already talked about this -- beyond your convoluted claims about it. I don't think you really understand it. The dualistic thinking that you constantly apply is toxic and distorting. You have so many limitations and projections involved in your platform, that it's pretty much useless for anything other than serving your ego. You'll have to set all of that aside if you really want to get out of the dualistic mindset (or any other mindset you make up) and see/understand with clarity. Discussion has to stop being so buried in what you think (regardless of how exalted you define it).

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Sep 11, 2018 11:33 pm Platonic realism is not my idea.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Sep 11, 2018 11:33 pmTo know nothing is ignorance of universals.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Sep 11, 2018 11:33 pmTo feel justice as a universal for example means to experience the essence of justice and not argue over earthly manifestations of subjective conceptions of justice.

It's not ignorance. To acknowledge knowing nothing is recognition of the vastness of the Universe as well as the limitation of human thinking/understanding no matter how extraordinary you think you are. In the What Can You Do With Philosophy thread, you disingenuously claimed that you, like Socrates, "know nothing", yet here you claim that would be ignorant of that which you claim to know. Geez, Nick, are you really so clueless about all the mind games you play?

I wasn't speaking to that. The "triune mind" and its supposed necessity as you describe it is made-up. As I pointed out, you continually misinterpret and/or distort other ideas to form your own convoluted ones. Then you throw a bunch of names around as if they are associated/aligned with your nonsense.

That doesn't even make sense. Why would there be any need for justice beyond the illusion of the human realm? Justice for what?

2. The logic of the included middle

Knowledge of the coexistence of the quantum world and the macrophysical world and the development of quantum physics has led, on the level of theory and scientific experiment, to the upheaval of what were formerly considered to be pairs of mutually exclusive contradictories (A and non-A): wave and corpuscle, continuity and discontinuity, separability and nonseparability, local causality and global causality, symmetry and breaking of symmetry, reversibility and irreversibility of time, etc.
For example, equations of quantum physics are submitted to a group of symmetries, but their solutions break these symmetries. Similarly, a group of symmetry is supposed to describe the unification of all known physical interactions but the symmetry must be broken in order to describe the difference between strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational interactions.
The intellectual scandal provoked by quantum mechanics consists in the fact that the pairs of contradictories that it generates are actually mutually contradictory when they are analyzed through the interpretative filter of classical logic. This logic is founded on three axioms:
1. The axiom of identity : A is A.
2. The axiom of non-contradiction : A is not non-A.
3. The axiom of the excluded middle : There exists no third term T which is at the same time A and non-A.
According to the hypothesis of the existence of a single level of Reality, the second and third axioms are obviously equivalent. The dogma of a single level of Reality, arbitrary like all dogma, is so embedded in our consciousness that even professional logicians forget to say that these two axioms are in fact distinct and independent from each other.
If one nevertheless accepts this logic which, after all, has ruled for two millennia and continues to dominate thought today (particularly in the political, social, and economic spheres) one immediately arrives at the conclusion that the pairs of contradictories advanced by quantum physics are mutually exclusive, because one cannot affirm the validity of a thing and its opposite at the same time: A and non-A.
Since the definitive formulation of quantum mechanics around 1930 the founders of the new science have been acutely aware of the problem of formulating a new "quantum logic." Subsequent to the work of Birkhoff and van Neumann a veritable flourishing of quantum logics was not long in coming [4]. The aim of these new logics was to resolve the paradoxes which quantum mechanics had created and to attempt, to the extent possible, to arrive at a predictive power stronger than that afforded by classical logic.
Most quantum logics have modified the second axiom of classical logic -- the axiom of non-contradiction -- by introducing non-contradiction with several truth values in place of the binary pair (A, non-A). These multivalent logics, whose status with respect to their predictive power remains controversial, have not taken into account one other possibility: the modification of the third axiom -- the axiom of the excluded middle.
History will credit Stéphane Lupasco with having shown that the logic of the included middle is a true logic, formalizable and formalized, multivalent (with three values: A, non-A, and T) and non-contradictory [5]. Stéphane Lupasco, like Edmund Husserl, belongs to the race of pioneers. His philosophy, which takes quantum physics as its point of departure, has been marginalized by physicists and philosophers. Curiously, on the other hand, it has had a powerful albeit underground influence among psychologists, sociologists, artists, and historians of religions. Perhaps the absence of the notion of "levels of Reality" in his philosophy obscured its substance. Many persons believed that Lupasco's logic violated the principle of non-contradiction -- whence the rather unfortunate name "logic of contradiction" -- and that it entailed the risk of endless semantic glosses. Still more, the visceral fear of introducing the idea of the included middle , with its magical resonances, only helped to increase the distrust of such a logic.
Our understanding of the axiom of the included middle -- there exists a third term T which is at the same time A and non-A -- is completely clarified once the notion of "levels of Reality" is introduced.
In order to obtain a clear image of the meaning of the included middle, we can represent the three terms of the new logic -- A, non-A, and T -- and the dynamics associated with them by a triangle in which one of the vertices is situated at one level of Reality and the two other vertices at another level of Reality. If one remains at a single level of Reality, all manifestation appears as a struggle between two contradictory elements (example: wave A and corpuscle non-A). The third dynamic, that of the T-state, is exercised at another level of Reality, where that which appears to be disunited (wave or corpuscle) is in fact united (quanton), and that which appears contradictory is perceived as non-contradictory.
It is the projection of T on one and the same level of Reality which produces the appearance of mutually exclusive, antagonistic pairs (A and non-A). A single level of Reality can only create antagonistic oppositions. It is inherently self-destructive if it is completely separated from all the other levels of Reality. A third term, let us call it T', which is situated on the same level of Reality as that of the opposites A and non-A, can accomplish their reconciliation.
The entire difference between a triad of the included middle and an Hegelian triad is clarified by consideration of the role of time . In a triad of the included middle the three terms coexist at the same moment in time . On the contrary, each of the three terms of the Hegelian triad succeeds the former in time. This is why the Hegelian triad is incapable of accomplishing the reconciliation of opposites, whereas the triad of the included middle is capable of it. In the logic of the included middle the opposites are rathercontradictories : the tension between contradictories builds a unity which includes and goes beyond the sum of the two terms.
One also sees the great dangers of misunderstanding engendered by the common enough confusion made between the axiom of the excluded middle and the axiom of non-contradiction [6]. The logic of the included middle is non-contradictory in the sense that the axiom of non-contradiction is thoroughly respected, a condition which enlarges the notions of "true" and "false" in such a way that the rules of logical implication no longer concerning two terms (A and non-A) but three terms (A, non-A and T), co-existing at the same moment in time. This is a formal logic, just as any other formal logic: its rules are derived by means of a relatively simple mathematical formalism.
One can see why the logic of the included middle is not simply a metaphor like some kind of arbitrary ornament for classical logic, which would permit adventurous incursions and passages into the domain of complexity. The logic of the included middle is perhaps the privileged logic of complexity, privileged in the sense that it allows us to cross the different areas of knowledge in a coherent way, by enabling a new kind of simplicity.
The logic of the included middle does not abolish the logic of the excluded middle: it only constrains its sphere of validity. The logic of the excluded middle is certainly valid for relatively simple situations. On the contrary, the logic of the excluded middle is harmful in complex, transdisciplinary cases……………………...

Likely the most recognisable sophist sentiment is most clearly explicated by one of its chief thinkers, Protagoras, born in 490 BC. Protagoras said:
“Man is the measure of all things; of the things which are, that they are, and of the things which are not, that they are not”.

Socrates (ca. 469 – 399 B.C.E.) (Greek Σωκράτης Sōkrátēs) was an ancient Greek philosopher and one of the pillars of the Western tradition. Having left behind no writings of his own, he is known mainly through Plato, one of his students. Plato used the life of his teacher and the Socratic method of inquiry to advance a philosophy of idealism that would come to influence later Christian thought and the development of Western civilization.
Socrates made a clear distinction between true knowledge and opinion. Based upon his conviction about the immortality of the soul, Socrates defined true knowledge as eternal, unchanging, and absolute compared to opinions which are temporal, changing, and relative. Socrates was convinced that true knowledge and moral virtues are inscribed within the soul of every individual. Learning is, therefore, to cultivate the soul and make one’s implicit understanding of truth explicit. Socrates engaged in dialogues, not to teach knowledge, but in order to awaken the soul of a partner, a method comparable to certain practices in Zen Buddhism.
Truth, for Socrates, is something that should not only be discussed but lived, embodied, and practiced. Socrates understood the care of the soul as the primary task of philosophy and fought against moral relativists such as the Sophists. They mistakenly replaced the effort to discover truth with the practice of rhetorical skills understood as tools for social success, and substituted the pursuit of pleasure for the attainment of genuine happiness.
Socrates was prosecuted, imprisoned, and sentenced to death for charges of impiety and corrupting youth, a legal but unjust prosecution. Refusing to compromise with politically motivated opponents, Socrates took poison in prison, preferring an honorable death than flight from Athens to preserve his life. Thus he is revered as a martyr for the truth of philosophy.

Socrates' seminal role in the development of Western thought, providing the basis for individuals to arrive at the truth through investigation of the self and the world apart from the dictates of communal tradition, draws comparisons to near his contemporaries (Buddha), Confucius, and Lao Tsu. The near-simultaneous appearance of history's great sages led the nineteenth-century philosopher Karl Jaspers to posit an "Axial Age"—the period from roughly 600 B.C.E. to 400 B.C.E.—during which "the spiritual foundations of humanity were laid simultaneously and independently… upon which humanity still subsists today." Jaspers saw Socrates, Confucius and Siddhartha Gautama as "paradigmatic personalities," whose quest for meaning would bring transformative change in humanity's self-understanding.

Socrates defined true knowledge as eternal, unchanging, and absolute compared to opinions which are temporal, changing, and relative. Socrates was convinced that true knowledge and moral virtues are inscribed within the soul of every individual. Learning is, therefore, to cultivate the soul and make one’s implicit understanding of truth explicit. Socrates engaged in dialogues, not to teach knowledge, but in order to awaken the soul of a partner, a method comparable to certain practices in Zen Buddhism.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Sep 16, 2018 6:29 pm When I get a little more time I’ll describe my conception of the comparison.