Philosophy Now Forum

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 10:41 pm The foundation of all morality is premised in metaphysics as strictly "being qua being" as an act of reflection.
...

• https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reflection
  reflection
  6 : a thought, idea, or opinion formed or a remark made as a result of meditation

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 10:41 pm The foundation of all morality is premised in metaphysics as strictly "being qua being" as an act of reflection.

Metaphysics my exist through religion but is not limited to it considering all religious systems are based upon a form of revelation.

This reflective capacity of metaphysics acts as a form of revelation in itself, through "man as measurer" (Protagoras), considering that which is revealed is an inherent identity of not just God(s), the individual or group, but "being" itself.

“The final solution was approached in… turning around the question. Instead of asking: How can one in the known mathematical scheme express a given experimental situation? the other question was put: Is it true, perhaps, that only such experimental situations can arise in nature as can be expressed in the mathematical formalism?”

In both are linked the question of "identity" itself and have an inherent synthetic element between knowledge and the state of ignorance.

Take for example religious revelation. Religious revelation, that which "reveals" identity takes the active thoughts of man as well as the memories which form these thoughts, and connects them to a truth which always existed but was veiled through ignorance. Upon revelation, the current perspective of man, one which is formed in accords to thought and memory, is synthesized with a truth hidden under a veil of ignorance. This synthesis between the "knowing" through current thought and memory observes a new formation of identity as one form of "knowing" is joined to another "knowing" and new nature of knowing takes form.

The question of knowing, in turn, takes on a forefront nature relative to it's premise as both active thought and passive memory.


Thought as active exists as a means of definition where what is percieved, through the senses/intellect/intuition, is seperated and connected. One may think about a single experience and in doing so separate it from other experiences by localizing it with this localization of the experience, as strictly seeing it as an individual part, observing a connection to other experiences. This nature of thought in turn acts as an active element of definition.

This definition, in turn, alternates simultaneously to a memory where this localization of anyone experience sets strict standards to the experience as a memory where the memory itself is composed of and composes further memories. The memory, as strictly a structure of time, takes on a passive role in these regards and maintains an inherent connective nature to that of "thought" in the respect that all memories act as a means through which we define further experiences. We seperate and connect phenomenon according to the memories we observe.

For example, one may have a memory of how a specific car one owned acted in such a manner. This memory of the car, and its nature, acts as a means of thought in which we seperate one car from another in accords to nature of the car while respectively using this memory of the car as a means to connect other cars in accords with the nature of the car we remember.

The memory acts as an axiom through which we measure reality in accords to how we think, with thought in turn taking on an active role which forms memory and what we deem as "axiomatic" or "self-evidence" observes a simultaneous active and passive nature. In simpler terms the active state of thought, that which gives limit to reality as a means through which to exist, maintains a constant dualistic nature to memory, that which is structured and formed as a passive boundary through which thought exists. Knowing is strictly the synthesis of active thought and passive memory.

Now this nature of thought and memory, while existing respectively through the individual and group, observes a basic nature of active and passive being conducive to a nature of "reflection". Reflection, as the replication of limits, observes the replication of certain boundaries (in this case memory) where the replication takes on an active role conducive to active thought. This replication of limits in turn cycles back and exists as a boundary in itself where the definition of one memory to another memory exists as a new memory in itself.

In these respects, religious revelation takes on a reflective nature from a seperate respect as the lifting of a veil of ignorance, or "not-knowing", observes not just the active formation of a new memory but revealing what was forgotten at the individual or group level. Considering the act of knowing through reflection maintains a certain nature of "being" within the group or individual, revelation as a form of knowing provides an inherent element of "knowledge" that is observed as inherent within the identity of the group/individual but forgotten. In these respects is necessitates an inherent act of synthesis or "joining" within the element of reflection.

For example, a man may have live a rather low class lifestyle from his early youth. This low class lifestyle may be relative to certain economic conditions or generally just a manner of conduct that is virtuousness. Now a long lost relative may reveal to the man, later in his years, that he comes from a family that is relatively highclass. This may be economically or in a manner of being virtuous. The man, who gains a part of his identity by his origins (that of his family in this example), must reconcile one way he knows the world to another which helped determine his existence yet he was ignorant of in many respects. The multiply fragmented identities the man has must be reconciled considering these identities are a means through which he knows the world.

All revelation has an inherent synthetic element in these respects, a form of reconciliation so to speak, where one means of knowing and a percievably seperate one must inevitably be "joined" through a process of "reflection" which, as argued in the beginning, is premised in metaphysics as "being qua being". The symmetry of one axiomatic state of knowing to another sets a foundation for observing this act of joining. For example, using the low class/upper class man, in the process of merging viewpoints the individual must observe certain commonalities between his respective identities. In observing these commonalities he must reject certain differences between one state of knowing and another and in doing so choose a new means of "knowing". This aspect of synthesis inevitably dissolved certain manners of knowing while maintaining others, both of which progress to a new means of knowledge.


The same applies to any revelation of divinity, regardless of faith. Man is revealed as an extension of the creator, the divine measurer, and is maintained in one identity as that of a creator while simultaneously given options as to the best manner on how to know Divinity. Revelation in turn acts acts as a lifting of a veil of ignorance, where one means of knowing is inverted to another, with the active state of ignorance meaning to "ignore" that runs counter to knowing as an active state through thought.

All acts of revelation in turn act as a medial point from which "knowing" is inverted to "multiple states of knowing" with an inherent nature of synthesis required to bring forth a sense of unity. Metaphysics, under these terms, maintains an inseparable nature with Revelation and the Human condition and may be observed invertedly as the cause for the human condition if taken as less as a field of science or speculation but rather an objective law where all being exists through a process of repeating limits.

Under these terms, while metaphysics and revelation have an inherent synchronicity between them, we can come to understand that there premises in "being" necessitates a common bond to morality as well. Morality, as a true way of being, is observed as having a reflective nature that in itself is a revelation of the individual/group and divinity and we cycle back to the Golden Rule.

Reflex wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 7:46 am I got this, but to put my own spin on it, rational thinking has gone hand-in-hand with superstition and mystical tendencies throughout history. The backdrop of religion is the conscious or unconscious realization that there is a reality beyond axioms, definitions and the empirical. Werner Heisenberg put it this way:

“The final solution was approached in… turning around the question. Instead of asking: How can one in the known mathematical scheme express a given experimental situation? the other question was put: Is it true, perhaps, that only such experimental situations can arise in nature as can be expressed in the mathematical formalism?”

I think his insight qualifies as a "revelation."

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 6:16 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 10:41 pm The foundation of all morality is premised in metaphysics as strictly "being qua being" as an act of reflection.
...

Beating around the bushes again.

The whole subject of metaphysics [including Morality] is based on reflection.

• https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reflection
  reflection
  6 : a thought, idea, or opinion formed or a remark made as a result of meditation

The issue is not reflection per se but the quality of reflection and the soundness and efficiency of how one's arrive at the foundation of morality.

The foundation of theological morality is; 'because God said so!'
Such reflection is unsound resulting in an irrational foundation. Such theological morality my be effective to a degree but it cannot be consistent in principle universally.

Reflex wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 7:46 am You might have to dumb this down for simple folk like me, but I think I got some of what you're saying.

The older I get the more I realize there is no such thing as simple or complex, intelligence or stupidity...observations exist for what they are and you observe a personal symmetry with your viewpoint and the expressed viewpoint relative to the respective positions of yourself and the other viewpoint.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 10:41 pm The foundation of all morality is premised in metaphysics as strictly "being qua being" as an act of reflection.

Metaphysics my exist through religion but is not limited to it considering all religious systems are based upon a form of revelation.

This reflective capacity of metaphysics acts as a form of revelation in itself, through "man as measurer" (Protagoras), considering that which is revealed is an inherent identity of not just God(s), the individual or group, but "being" itself.

I got this, but to put my own spin on it, rational thinking has gone hand-in-hand with superstition and mystical tendencies throughout history. The backdrop of religion is the conscious or unconscious realization that there is a reality beyond axioms, definitions and the empirical. Werner Heisenberg put it this way:

“The final solution was approached in… turning around the question. Instead of asking: How can one in the known mathematical scheme express a given experimental situation? the other question was put: Is it true, perhaps, that only such experimental situations can arise in nature as can be expressed in the mathematical formalism?”

I think his insight qualifies as a "revelation."

If we look at the nature of rational thinking, stemming from "ratio" which maintains a synonymous definition to "proportion", the fundamental nature of reason at its core is strictly a balance between opposites that stem form a medial point.

For example we may view a certain irrationality, relative to violence, today in the respect you have the two extremes of war-mongering and pacifism. Both are fundamentally harmful as to breed symmetrical weakness relative to the parties. Over exertion of power leads to weakness in the warmongerer's (take for example sparta) while under exertion of power leads to a not self-sustaining slave state (the helots controlled by the spartans in these respects under a forced pacifism). Athen's on the other hand observed a balance of the two and generally had not just a greater degree of prosperity but existed longer in the time line relative to the Spartan's.

Now these are just general examples and can be argued from different angles considering political-cultural variables in history are complex and cannot be localized to any onething, but it gives a general image.

Now cycling back to the original premise, the nature of superstition and mystical tendencies is embodied under an visualization of a truth. The same applies for science under the form of a utopia it often promises but never backs up nor gives any real definition as to what it is.

The question of truth, between strict Ideal and Empiricism, is best observed by neither extreme but rather observing the reflective capacities between the two in which a symmetry can be observed. In these respects Metaphysics as "being qua being" can be reduced to the equation of "empricism/abstractness qua abstractness/empiricism considering both as aspects of being. In these respects we understand Metaphysics as not just strictly a science but an embodiment of a natural process with the name "metaphysics" being applied to it as a relation of academic disciplines.

In both are linked the question of "identity" itself and have an inherent synthetic element between knowledge and the state of ignorance.

Take for example religious revelation. Religious revelation, that which "reveals" identity takes the active thoughts of man as well as the memories which form these thoughts, and connects them to a truth which always existed but was veiled through ignorance. Upon revelation, the current perspective of man, one which is formed in accords to thought and memory, is synthesized with a truth hidden under a veil of ignorance. This synthesis between the "knowing" through current thought and memory observes a new formation of identity as one form of "knowing" is joined to another "knowing" and new nature of knowing takes form.

The question of knowing, in turn, takes on a forefront nature relative to it's premise as both active thought and passive memory.


Thought as active exists as a means of definition where what is percieved, through the senses/intellect/intuition, is seperated and connected. One may think about a single experience and in doing so separate it from other experiences by localizing it with this localization of the experience, as strictly seeing it as an individual part, observing a connection to other experiences. This nature of thought in turn acts as an active element of definition.

This definition, in turn, alternates simultaneously to a memory where this localization of anyone experience sets strict standards to the experience as a memory where the memory itself is composed of and composes further memories. The memory, as strictly a structure of time, takes on a passive role in these regards and maintains an inherent connective nature to that of "thought" in the respect that all memories act as a means through which we define further experiences. We seperate and connect phenomenon according to the memories we observe.

For example, one may have a memory of how a specific car one owned acted in such a manner. This memory of the car, and its nature, acts as a means of thought in which we seperate one car from another in accords to nature of the car while respectively using this memory of the car as a means to connect other cars in accords with the nature of the car we remember.

The memory acts as an axiom through which we measure reality in accords to how we think, with thought in turn taking on an active role which forms memory and what we deem as "axiomatic" or "self-evidence" observes a simultaneous active and passive nature. In simpler terms the active state of thought, that which gives limit to reality as a means through which to exist, maintains a constant dualistic nature to memory, that which is structured and formed as a passive boundary through which thought exists. Knowing is strictly the synthesis of active thought and passive memory.

Now this nature of thought and memory, while existing respectively through the individual and group, observes a basic nature of active and passive being conducive to a nature of "reflection". Reflection, as the replication of limits, observes the replication of certain boundaries (in this case memory) where the replication takes on an active role conducive to active thought. This replication of limits in turn cycles back and exists as a boundary in itself where the definition of one memory to another memory exists as a new memory in itself.

In these respects, religious revelation takes on a reflective nature from a seperate respect as the lifting of a veil of ignorance, or "not-knowing", observes not just the active formation of a new memory but revealing what was forgotten at the individual or group level. Considering the act of knowing through reflection maintains a certain nature of "being" within the group or individual, revelation as a form of knowing provides an inherent element of "knowledge" that is observed as inherent within the identity of the group/individual but forgotten. In these respects is necessitates an inherent act of synthesis or "joining" within the element of reflection.

For example, a man may have live a rather low class lifestyle from his early youth. This low class lifestyle may be relative to certain economic conditions or generally just a manner of conduct that is virtuousness. Now a long lost relative may reveal to the man, later in his years, that he comes from a family that is relatively highclass. This may be economically or in a manner of being virtuous. The man, who gains a part of his identity by his origins (that of his family in this example), must reconcile one way he knows the world to another which helped determine his existence yet he was ignorant of in many respects. The multiply fragmented identities the man has must be reconciled considering these identities are a means through which he knows the world.

All revelation has an inherent synthetic element in these respects, a form of reconciliation so to speak, where one means of knowing and a percievably seperate one must inevitably be "joined" through a process of "reflection" which, as argued in the beginning, is premised in metaphysics as "being qua being". The symmetry of one axiomatic state of knowing to another sets a foundation for observing this act of joining. For example, using the low class/upper class man, in the process of merging viewpoints the individual must observe certain commonalities between his respective identities. In observing these commonalities he must reject certain differences between one state of knowing and another and in doing so choose a new means of "knowing". This aspect of synthesis inevitably dissolved certain manners of knowing while maintaining others, both of which progress to a new means of knowledge.


The same applies to any revelation of divinity, regardless of faith. Man is revealed as an extension of the creator, the divine measurer, and is maintained in one identity as that of a creator while simultaneously given options as to the best manner on how to know Divinity. Revelation in turn acts acts as a lifting of a veil of ignorance, where one means of knowing is inverted to another, with the active state of ignorance meaning to "ignore" that runs counter to knowing as an active state through thought.

All acts of revelation in turn act as a medial point from which "knowing" is inverted to "multiple states of knowing" with an inherent nature of synthesis required to bring forth a sense of unity. Metaphysics, under these terms, maintains an inseparable nature with Revelation and the Human condition and may be observed invertedly as the cause for the human condition if taken as less as a field of science or speculation but rather an objective law where all being exists through a process of repeating limits.

Under these terms, while metaphysics and revelation have an inherent synchronicity between them, we can come to understand that there premises in "being" necessitates a common bond to morality as well. Morality, as a true way of being, is observed as having a reflective nature that in itself is a revelation of the individual/group and divinity and we cycle back to the Golden Rule.

I didn't get all of what was said here.

To define is to draw boundaries; to draw boundaries is to presume something beyond the object being defined. The mystical tradition of an undefinable reality underpinning everything that exists goes back thousands of years. Its exoteric expression filters through the collective imagination as "memes."

You are correct in certain respects and wrong in another. The drawing of boundaries observes a connection of certain phenomena and how they exist through eachother, however these boundaries in themselves as that of the connected phenomena are both composed of and compose further boundaries observes that all definitions are inherently approximate and necessitate a continual progression to further definitions which as "potential" or "possible" definitions in there own right are inherently unformed.

To define any reality is to fundamentally make it not-fully understandable in certain respects, as the localization of any one truth leads to the paradoxical ambiguity of another. In these respects the "mystical tradition" you argue is against science cycles back to science as evidenced by the simple name of "M-Theory": https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/M-theory

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 8:47 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 6:16 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 10:41 pm The foundation of all morality is premised in metaphysics as strictly "being qua being" as an act of reflection.
...

Beating around the bushes again.

The whole subject of metaphysics [including Morality] is based on reflection.

• https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reflection
  reflection
  6 : a thought, idea, or opinion formed or a remark made as a result of meditation

The issue is not reflection per se but the quality of reflection and the soundness and efficiency of how one's arrive at the foundation of morality.

The foundation of theological morality is; 'because God said so!'
Such reflection is unsound resulting in an irrational foundation. Such theological morality my be effective to a degree but it cannot be consistent in principle universally.

1. All idea defines further idea so that an physicality can be observed as an idea in itself that is symmetrical to empirical sensory phenomena.

2. All phenomena as replicating to, through and as further phenomena observes the act of reflection as not just premised in an idea but empirical sensory phenomena, with empirical sensory phenomena defined through ideal.

Empirical phenemena such as reproduction, natural cycles, wave functions in the elements, etc. observe a reflective quality inseperable from the phenomena itself.

The replication of qualities is a universal phenomena and is the foundation of all truth. Symmetry, where one limit is viewed as the same as another, acts as a bonding quality that allows structure to not just exist but is structure itself. Abstractly a square has structure because of the replication of lines. Empirically a stone or gem of some form has structure because of the replication of certain atomic relations (such as carbon in diamonds).

Truth exists through a mirroring process, with the definitions of "mirroring" and "reflection" following the same form and function as both mirroring and reflecting one another in any standard dictionary; hence exist as extensions of each other.


https://www.dictionary.com/browse/reflection

noun

the act of reflecting, as in casting back a light or heat, mirroring, or giving back or showing an image; the state of being reflected in this way.
an image; representation; counterpart.
a fixing of the thoughts on something; careful consideration.


3. The foundation of empiricism is equal "because I experienced it" with this "I" having a subjective element where one phenomena may be observed from seperate angles and effectively not the same experience.

The reflective capacity of science, where the hypothesis is deemed as symmetrical to the test results observes science being premised in these same reflective properties.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 01, 2018 2:47 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 8:47 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 6:16 am
Beating around the bushes again.

The whole subject of metaphysics [including Morality] is based on reflection.

• https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reflection
  reflection
  6 : a thought, idea, or opinion formed or a remark made as a result of meditation

The issue is not reflection per se but the quality of reflection and the soundness and efficiency of how one's arrive at the foundation of morality.

The foundation of theological morality is; 'because God said so!'
Such reflection is unsound resulting in an irrational foundation. Such theological morality my be effective to a degree but it cannot be consistent in principle universally.

1. All idea defines further idea so that an physicality can be observed as an idea in itself that is symmetrical to empirical sensory phenomena.

2. All phenomena as replicating to, through and as further phenomena observes the act of reflection as not just premised in an idea but empirical sensory phenomena, with empirical sensory phenomena defined through ideal.

Empirical phenemena such as reproduction, natural cycles, wave functions in the elements, etc. observe a reflective quality inseperable from the phenomena itself.

The replication of qualities is a universal phenomena and is the foundation of all truth. Symmetry, where one limit is viewed as the same as another, acts as a bonding quality that allows structure to not just exist but is structure itself. Abstractly a square has structure because of the replication of lines. Empirically a stone or gem of some form has structure because of the replication of certain atomic relations (such as carbon in diamonds).

Truth exists through a mirroring process, with the definitions of "mirroring" and "reflection" following the same form and function as both mirroring and reflecting one another in any standard dictionary; hence exist as extensions of each other.


https://www.dictionary.com/browse/reflection

noun

the act of reflecting, as in casting back a light or heat, mirroring, or giving back or showing an image; the state of being reflected in this way.
an image; representation; counterpart.
a fixing of the thoughts on something; careful consideration.


3. The foundation of empiricism is equal "because I experienced it" with this "I" having a subjective element where one phenomena may be observed from seperate angles and effectively not the same experience.

The reflective capacity of science, where the hypothesis is deemed as symmetrical to the test results observes science being premised in these same reflective properties.

You are beating around the bushes again.

Your OP is about Metaphysics, Religious Revelation and Morality in terms of reflection.
That is why I introduced that 6th meaning of 'reflection' [as above] and not the others.

Now you are shifting the subject to Science [objective] which cannot be related significantly to Metaphysics, Religious Revelation and Morality.
Generally no intellectual will associate 'reflection' with the main body of Science.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 10:41 pm The foundation of all morality is premised in metaphysics as strictly "being qua being" as an act of reflection.

Metaphysics my exist through religion but is not limited to it considering all religious systems are based upon a form of revelation.

This reflective capacity of metaphysics acts as a form of revelation in itself, through "man as measurer" (Protagoras), considering that which is revealed is an inherent identity of not just God(s), the individual or group, but "being" itself.

In both are linked the question of "identity" itself and have an inherent synthetic element between knowledge and the state of ignorance.

Take for example religious revelation. Religious revelation, that which "reveals" identity takes the active thoughts of man as well as the memories which form these thoughts, and connects them to a truth which always existed but was veiled through ignorance. Upon revelation, the current perspective of man, one which is formed in accords to thought and memory, is synthesized with a truth hidden under a veil of ignorance. This synthesis between the "knowing" through current thought and memory observes a new formation of identity as one form of "knowing" is joined to another "knowing" and new nature of knowing takes form.

The question of knowing, in turn, takes on a forefront nature relative to it's premise as both active thought and passive memory.


Thought as active exists as a means of definition where what is percieved, through the senses/intellect/intuition, is seperated and connected. One may think about a single experience and in doing so separate it from other experiences by localizing it with this localization of the experience, as strictly seeing it as an individual part, observing a connection to other experiences. This nature of thought in turn acts as an active element of definition.

This definition, in turn, alternates simultaneously to a memory where this localization of anyone experience sets strict standards to the experience as a memory where the memory itself is composed of and composes further memories. The memory, as strictly a structure of time, takes on a passive role in these regards and maintains an inherent connective nature to that of "thought" in the respect that all memories act as a means through which we define further experiences. We seperate and connect phenomenon according to the memories we observe.

For example, one may have a memory of how a specific car one owned acted in such a manner. This memory of the car, and its nature, acts as a means of thought in which we seperate one car from another in accords to nature of the car while respectively using this memory of the car as a means to connect other cars in accords with the nature of the car we remember.

The memory acts as an axiom through which we measure reality in accords to how we think, with thought in turn taking on an active role which forms memory and what we deem as "axiomatic" or "self-evidence" observes a simultaneous active and passive nature. In simpler terms the active state of thought, that which gives limit to reality as a means through which to exist, maintains a constant dualistic nature to memory, that which is structured and formed as a passive boundary through which thought exists. Knowing is strictly the synthesis of active thought and passive memory.

Now this nature of thought and memory, while existing respectively through the individual and group, observes a basic nature of active and passive being conducive to a nature of "reflection". Reflection, as the replication of limits, observes the replication of certain boundaries (in this case memory) where the replication takes on an active role conducive to active thought. This replication of limits in turn cycles back and exists as a boundary in itself where the definition of one memory to another memory exists as a new memory in itself.

In these respects, religious revelation takes on a reflective nature from a seperate respect as the lifting of a veil of ignorance, or "not-knowing", observes not just the active formation of a new memory but revealing what was forgotten at the individual or group level. Considering the act of knowing through reflection maintains a certain nature of "being" within the group or individual, revelation as a form of knowing provides an inherent element of "knowledge" that is observed as inherent within the identity of the group/individual but forgotten. In these respects is necessitates an inherent act of synthesis or "joining" within the element of reflection.

For example, a man may have live a rather low class lifestyle from his early youth. This low class lifestyle may be relative to certain economic conditions or generally just a manner of conduct that is virtuousness. Now a long lost relative may reveal to the man, later in his years, that he comes from a family that is relatively highclass. This may be economically or in a manner of being virtuous. The man, who gains a part of his identity by his origins (that of his family in this example), must reconcile one way he knows the world to another which helped determine his existence yet he was ignorant of in many respects. The multiply fragmented identities the man has must be reconciled considering these identities are a means through which he knows the world.

All revelation has an inherent synthetic element in these respects, a form of reconciliation so to speak, where one means of knowing and a percievably seperate one must inevitably be "joined" through a process of "reflection" which, as argued in the beginning, is premised in metaphysics as "being qua being". The symmetry of one axiomatic state of knowing to another sets a foundation for observing this act of joining. For example, using the low class/upper class man, in the process of merging viewpoints the individual must observe certain commonalities between his respective identities. In observing these commonalities he must reject certain differences between one state of knowing and another and in doing so choose a new means of "knowing". This aspect of synthesis inevitably dissolved certain manners of knowing while maintaining others, both of which progress to a new means of knowledge.


The same applies to any revelation of divinity, regardless of faith. Man is revealed as an extension of the creator, the divine measurer, and is maintained in one identity as that of a creator while simultaneously given options as to the best manner on how to know Divinity. Revelation in turn acts acts as a lifting of a veil of ignorance, where one means of knowing is inverted to another, with the active state of ignorance meaning to "ignore" that runs counter to knowing as an active state through thought.

All acts of revelation in turn act as a medial point from which "knowing" is inverted to "multiple states of knowing" with an inherent nature of synthesis required to bring forth a sense of unity. Metaphysics, under these terms, maintains an inseparable nature with Revelation and the Human condition and may be observed invertedly as the cause for the human condition if taken as less as a field of science or speculation but rather an objective law where all being exists through a process of repeating limits.

Under these terms, while metaphysics and revelation have an inherent synchronicity between them, we can come to understand that there premises in "being" necessitates a common bond to morality as well. Morality, as a true way of being, is observed as having a reflective nature that in itself is a revelation of the individual/group and divinity and we cycle back to the Golden Rule.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 01, 2018 8:33 pm

You are beating around the bushes again.

Your OP is about Metaphysics, Religious Revelation and Morality in terms of reflection.
That is why I introduced that 6th meaning of 'reflection' [as above] and not the others.

Now you are shifting the subject to Science [objective] which cannot be related significantly to Metaphysics, Religious Revelation and Morality.
Generally no intellectual will associate 'reflection' with the main body of Science.

In introducing only one definition of reflection, you divert the argument away from the other definitions and this is red herring. This is considering the process of reflection, as evidenced by the word, has a multidimensional nature not limited to strictly one definition alone.

Considering the nature of reflection requires an observation of symmetry, there is not significant shift as science is founded in empiricism with empiricism existing as not just a system of metaphysics itself but observing science as a revelatory process.

Considering reflectivity has a multidimensional nature of an abstract and empirical nature the study of metaphysics is really rooted in all fields of inquiry at minimum while also observing the base foundational nature for all these fields having constant elements.

It really doesn't matter what the intellectual call science anymore strictly because they are in the death throws. I mean the argument you presented has no real value, other than beating around the bushes, considering the premise is that I "diverted" the meaning when you yourself admit to choosing one 1 definition and divert the "meanings" of reflection from the starting point.

Save your pseudo intellectual garbage for somewhere else. This is the modern era, no body cares about science anymore, it is strictly just a label people throw around to fit in with a crowd and mesmerize the dumb with complex algebra. Science is going down hill, if you don't believe me, just look at the school systems in the west. People make tools to amuse themselves, this is the foundational philosophy now. Science is just a dying label attached to this quasi empiricism where we literally make up what we sense.

You argue "empiricism!, empiricism!" when in all truth technology is about making up what we see and empiricism is reduced to pseudo-philosophy.

This is the modern era, no body cares about science anymore, it is strictly just a label people throw around to fit in with a crowd and mesmerize the dumb with complex algebra.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Dec 02, 2018 3:42 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 10:41 pm The foundation of all morality is premised in metaphysics as strictly "being qua being" as an act of reflection.

Metaphysics my exist through religion but is not limited to it considering all religious systems are based upon a form of revelation.

This reflective capacity of metaphysics acts as a form of revelation in itself, through "man as measurer" (Protagoras), considering that which is revealed is an inherent identity of not just God(s), the individual or group, but "being" itself.

In both are linked the question of "identity" itself and have an inherent synthetic element between knowledge and the state of ignorance.

Take for example religious revelation. Religious revelation, that which "reveals" identity takes the active thoughts of man as well as the memories which form these thoughts, and connects them to a truth which always existed but was veiled through ignorance. Upon revelation, the current perspective of man, one which is formed in accords to thought and memory, is synthesized with a truth hidden under a veil of ignorance. This synthesis between the "knowing" through current thought and memory observes a new formation of identity as one form of "knowing" is joined to another "knowing" and new nature of knowing takes form.

The question of knowing, in turn, takes on a forefront nature relative to it's premise as both active thought and passive memory.


Thought as active exists as a means of definition where what is percieved, through the senses/intellect/intuition, is seperated and connected. One may think about a single experience and in doing so separate it from other experiences by localizing it with this localization of the experience, as strictly seeing it as an individual part, observing a connection to other experiences. This nature of thought in turn acts as an active element of definition.

This definition, in turn, alternates simultaneously to a memory where this localization of anyone experience sets strict standards to the experience as a memory where the memory itself is composed of and composes further memories. The memory, as strictly a structure of time, takes on a passive role in these regards and maintains an inherent connective nature to that of "thought" in the respect that all memories act as a means through which we define further experiences. We seperate and connect phenomenon according to the memories we observe.

For example, one may have a memory of how a specific car one owned acted in such a manner. This memory of the car, and its nature, acts as a means of thought in which we seperate one car from another in accords to nature of the car while respectively using this memory of the car as a means to connect other cars in accords with the nature of the car we remember.

The memory acts as an axiom through which we measure reality in accords to how we think, with thought in turn taking on an active role which forms memory and what we deem as "axiomatic" or "self-evidence" observes a simultaneous active and passive nature. In simpler terms the active state of thought, that which gives limit to reality as a means through which to exist, maintains a constant dualistic nature to memory, that which is structured and formed as a passive boundary through which thought exists. Knowing is strictly the synthesis of active thought and passive memory.

Now this nature of thought and memory, while existing respectively through the individual and group, observes a basic nature of active and passive being conducive to a nature of "reflection". Reflection, as the replication of limits, observes the replication of certain boundaries (in this case memory) where the replication takes on an active role conducive to active thought. This replication of limits in turn cycles back and exists as a boundary in itself where the definition of one memory to another memory exists as a new memory in itself.

In these respects, religious revelation takes on a reflective nature from a seperate respect as the lifting of a veil of ignorance, or "not-knowing", observes not just the active formation of a new memory but revealing what was forgotten at the individual or group level. Considering the act of knowing through reflection maintains a certain nature of "being" within the group or individual, revelation as a form of knowing provides an inherent element of "knowledge" that is observed as inherent within the identity of the group/individual but forgotten. In these respects is necessitates an inherent act of synthesis or "joining" within the element of reflection.

For example, a man may have live a rather low class lifestyle from his early youth. This low class lifestyle may be relative to certain economic conditions or generally just a manner of conduct that is virtuousness. Now a long lost relative may reveal to the man, later in his years, that he comes from a family that is relatively highclass. This may be economically or in a manner of being virtuous. The man, who gains a part of his identity by his origins (that of his family in this example), must reconcile one way he knows the world to another which helped determine his existence yet he was ignorant of in many respects. The multiply fragmented identities the man has must be reconciled considering these identities are a means through which he knows the world.

All revelation has an inherent synthetic element in these respects, a form of reconciliation so to speak, where one means of knowing and a percievably seperate one must inevitably be "joined" through a process of "reflection" which, as argued in the beginning, is premised in metaphysics as "being qua being". The symmetry of one axiomatic state of knowing to another sets a foundation for observing this act of joining. For example, using the low class/upper class man, in the process of merging viewpoints the individual must observe certain commonalities between his respective identities. In observing these commonalities he must reject certain differences between one state of knowing and another and in doing so choose a new means of "knowing". This aspect of synthesis inevitably dissolved certain manners of knowing while maintaining others, both of which progress to a new means of knowledge.


The same applies to any revelation of divinity, regardless of faith. Man is revealed as an extension of the creator, the divine measurer, and is maintained in one identity as that of a creator while simultaneously given options as to the best manner on how to know Divinity. Revelation in turn acts acts as a lifting of a veil of ignorance, where one means of knowing is inverted to another, with the active state of ignorance meaning to "ignore" that runs counter to knowing as an active state through thought.

All acts of revelation in turn act as a medial point from which "knowing" is inverted to "multiple states of knowing" with an inherent nature of synthesis required to bring forth a sense of unity. Metaphysics, under these terms, maintains an inseparable nature with Revelation and the Human condition and may be observed invertedly as the cause for the human condition if taken as less as a field of science or speculation but rather an objective law where all being exists through a process of repeating limits.

Under these terms, while metaphysics and revelation have an inherent synchronicity between them, we can come to understand that there premises in "being" necessitates a common bond to morality as well. Morality, as a true way of being, is observed as having a reflective nature that in itself is a revelation of the individual/group and divinity and we cycle back to the Golden Rule.

This seems to be the idea of remembrance I learned of from Plato. With science we learn new facts. Remembrance is the process of remembering what has been forgotten concerning the Source of our origin during our daily lives. It is soul knowledge. Objective morality is soul knowledge that always was and can be remembered when objective conscience awakens and a person becomes a normal reflection of universal meaning and purpose..

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 02, 2018 4:54 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 01, 2018 8:33 pm

You are beating around the bushes again.

Your OP is about Metaphysics, Religious Revelation and Morality in terms of reflection.
That is why I introduced that 6th meaning of 'reflection' [as above] and not the others.

Now you are shifting the subject to Science [objective] which cannot be related significantly to Metaphysics, Religious Revelation and Morality.
Generally no intellectual will associate 'reflection' with the main body of Science.

In introducing only one definition of reflection, you divert the argument away from the other definitions and this is red herring. This is considering the process of reflection, as evidenced by the word, has a multidimensional nature not limited to strictly one definition alone.

Considering the nature of reflection requires an observation of symmetry, there is not significant shift as science is founded in empiricism with empiricism existing as not just a system of metaphysics itself but observing science as a revelatory process.

Considering reflectivity has a multidimensional nature of an abstract and empirical nature the study of metaphysics is really rooted in all fields of inquiry at minimum while also observing the base foundational nature for all these fields having constant elements.

It really doesn't matter what the intellectual call science anymore strictly because they are in the death throws. I mean the argument you presented has no real value, other than beating around the bushes, considering the premise is that I "diverted" the meaning when you yourself admit to choosing one 1 definition and divert the "meanings" of reflection from the starting point.

Save your pseudo intellectual garbage for somewhere else. This is the modern era, no body cares about science anymore, it is strictly just a label people throw around to fit in with a crowd and mesmerize the dumb with complex algebra. Science is going down hill, if you don't believe me, just look at the school systems in the west. People make tools to amuse themselves, this is the foundational philosophy now. Science is just a dying label attached to this quasi empiricism where we literally make up what we sense.

You argue "empiricism!, empiricism!" when in all truth technology is about making up what we see and empiricism is reduced to pseudo-philosophy.

The critical thing is I deliberate select the meaning No.6 from the list and argued on that basis.
If your actual intention is not referring to the No.6 meaning therein then my critique is not valid.
You should have been more precise with your definition since 'reflection' has a range of different meanings.

If your meaning of reflection = light reflection or mirror, then it has no significance to Metaphysics re your OP.

Reflection is an active process a replicative symmetry (a limit is repeated continually) where this symmetry occurs through all phenomena, even in the definition of "reflection" itself as one definition becomes an approximate to the other.

Actually the nature of "reason" as an "abstract light" is observed in this thread and suffices as part of this conversation:

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=25479

where "light" itself is a mirror effect.

This is the modern era, no body cares about science anymore, it is strictly just a label people throw around to fit in with a crowd and mesmerize the dumb with complex algebra.

This is really a stupid view.


That is a really stupid counter-argument.

The foundation of all morality is premised in metaphysics as strictly "being qua being" as an act of reflection.

This reflective capacity of metaphysics acts as a form of revelation in itself, through "man as measurer" (Protagoras), considering that which is revealed is an inherent identity of not just God(s), the individual or group, but "being" itself.

Morality, as a true way of being …

… is observed as having a reflective nature that in itself is a revelation of the individual/group and divinity and we cycle back to the Golden Rule.

fooloso4 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 03, 2018 8:11 pm Eodnhoj7:

The foundation of all morality is premised in metaphysics as strictly "being qua being" as an act of reflection.

What does this mean? The question of the being of being is reflective, but to be is not to be reflective unless reflection is essential to the being in question. Being qua being following Aristotle became metaphysics, but metaphysics, if one agrees with Heidegger, occludes the question of being.

One needs to reflect on the symmetry between aristotelian and heidegger in order to come up with any conclusion as to there relations. Being through Being effectively onserves a replication of being conducive to a process of reflection.

This reflective capacity of metaphysics acts as a form of revelation in itself, through "man as measurer" (Protagoras), considering that which is revealed is an inherent identity of not just God(s), the individual or group, but "being" itself.

The problem of identity and difference is a philosophical theme that has been addressed by Plato, Hegel, Derrida and others. Hegel’s dialectic attempts to overcome the difference. but in Plato and Derrida difference remains. Without difference there is no reflection or revelation. Being, Heidegger says, is both revealing and concealing.

All difference requires a common source through which the apparent division is derived. Reflection observes a replication of common bonds, with this replication being a mirroring of nothingness through which being exists through a perpetual variation. This variation all stems from point space, hence all being of abstract or empirical nature stems from a common bond of pure movement originated with point space.

Difference is strictly approximation of an infinity unity through multiple infinities considering everything stems from a unified origin of point space.



Protagoras’ man is the measure has been interpreted in different ways.
But all these interpretations stem from a common source.



One way is to join him with Parmenides’ “thinking and being are the same”. Another is to think of it as being in opposition to Parmenides - man as the measure marks a limit to what can be said of being. Of course, this compounds the interpretative problem by introducing another claim that is open to interpretation,
interpretations replicate as interpretations reflect through each other. All interpretation is strictly an abstract framework composing another framework and in these respects a form of reflection is inevitable as any one interpretation is strictly a localization of the One.

but we can bracket this particular interpretive problem and consider whether a) there is a unity or disjunction between thinking and knowing, and b) whether there can be knowledge of the whole.
To bracket it is strictly to form it into a framework which will reflect further frameworks.

Morality, as a true way of being …

I do not see how this leads beyond mutual accusations that the way of being of others who do not agree with me is not a true way of being.

self reflection and reflection between groups observes a synthetic quality.

… is observed as having a reflective nature that in itself is a revelation of the individual/group and divinity and we cycle back to the Golden Rule.

“Revealed morality” is anathema to the golden rule. I, along with most others, would not want to be treated according to revealed laws binding of all individuals and groups.

Then you strictly divide yourself and view the world in such a manner.