popeye1945 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 07, 2022 10:11 pm
["1. Biology is an observation of how things relate from the starting point of what it organic. There are many other starting points as well: mathematics, logic, psychology, sociology, physics, chemistry etc. Each starting point is a relative beginning point and there is no standard for which point one begins with.
2. Relational truths mean nothing because they are dependent upon a further context, and that context is dependent on a further context, ad-infinitum. This leaves the relational truth as obscure due to an infinite regress (or progress).
3. "Relational truths mean nothing" is a self-negating statement, as it is relational, thus pointing to no-thingness (ie the absence of thingness) as absolute.
4. The totality of being, past/present/future/, as one moment is obscure because everything is connected as one. To connection is an absence of separation with separation being necessary for definition; the connection of everything is a universal sameness which has no distinction. Infinite absence of being is the same as infinite fullness of being as there is no distinction in either because of infinity.
5. The continual change of phenomena into further phenomena necessitates a void as constant. This void is evidenced in the fact that one phenomenon lacks qualities founded in the phenomenon it changes into, and vice-versa. This absence of qualities makes no-thingness as everpresent.
Eodnho,
1- There is but one starting point to experience/knowledge and that is a conscious subject, all these disciples that you mention are but biological extensions of the experience/knowledge of said subject. All knowledge/experience, all categories of thought arise from the relation of subject and object, read the world and biological consciousness.
2- Contexts like categories are synthetic creations to aid in our understanding of the world. The world is an open system open to the cosmos, which may or may not be an open system itself, this is our tentative context.
3- Relational truths point to both subject and object, again, the world and a conscious subject. Through this relation all meaning, all knowledge belongs to the conscious subject and never, read never to the object/world. The physical world is utterly meaningless, it can only acquire meaning when a conscious subject bestows meaning upon the world.
4- From this, I can see you're really thinking. All things being connected/the totality means no context, no categories these are just a means we use to try and understand our world because the entirety/totality is far beyond our limited mental powers. The rest is a little strange unless you are arguing against the reality of emergence.
5- Are you inferring here that space is empty? I can see your wheels are turning but I think your statements need a little more work, or perhaps just more clearly stated. As it stands, it is not understandable to me.
[/quote]
1. The relation of subject to object shows a connection being subject an object thus necessitating a oneness. This oneness of being, as being through being, necessitates a self-reflection as a self-referentiality. This self-reflection, as self-referentiality of being, necessitates all of being as having awareness. All of being as aware, through "being through being", necessitates consciousness as beyond what is biological.
2. Contexts/categories emerge from reality thus are part of reality. If consciousness is a product of evolution then star-dust results in abstractions and as such contexts exist as phenomena not limited to our understanding.
3. The relation of moving water to a river bed points to subject and object being highly relative as from one point the water is the subject and from another point the water is the object. Now to go to your point and say the subject is the person and the object is the thing is also highly relative as a thing, such as a snow flake, can initiate changes in the subject thus turning them to the object. In shorter terms even subject and object are relative and to say "relational truths point to both subject and object" is to say "relational truths point to relational truths" or "subject/object points to subject/object" and we are left with an indefinite self-referentiality.
4. Categories are part of the emergence if all is grounded in the origin of "star dust" or "x" and "stardust/x" emerges. However, emergence is relative too as it again points to "being coming from being". This relation of "being to being" is self-referential thus indefinite as a self-contrast is no contrast as there is only the self.
5. I am stating that "nothingness" is relational as the void, which is the same as nothingness, occurs when one thing relates to another; this relation of one thing to another shows thing A as having qualities not found in thing B and thing B as having qualities not found in thing A. Each absence of quality in each thing is a void thus both things share the same nature of having voids. If all phenomena are relative then all phenomena exist with an inherent void thus void is universal.
Wonderful projection. I love wining, especially wining and dining, with a nice Rioja. But I think you mean whining, which is what the entire thread is. You whining and projecting that onto others.