On Localized "Completions" In Speculative Cosmology

[Dr. Spock]

Hi. The following six brief paragraphs are about the nature of Being and Human Thinking in Metaphysics. Thanks for your time. Any feedback would be welcome!

There is already everyday evidence of a remarkable unity or completion between the mind of humans and the outside world, between thinking and Being. We can and do complete physical tasks using only mathematical models. That is, we produce physical output using only intellectual information as input. These I call 'completions' or atomic actions: we take our intersubjective minds and create material things or physical products and this is evidence of a manifold unity between our apparent inner minds and the apparent external cosmos.

But consider if each and every thought and action that we performed at all times were elaborated into a 'plenum' or continuum with no way for us to think or move without full and complete awareness, then each and every individual thought and all of their implications would be persistently "completed" - visualized and externalized -and there could be no thinking without a continuously reflected comprehensive knowledge of all the atomic or physical actions-- the 'outer' feeding back on the 'inner'. With every brain state and every bodily nerve that moves always completely known at all times.

More than merely 'thinking about thinking' this would be a realization of a metaphysically quantized and complete way of Being by way of thinking and knowing i.e. atomic passages of Being that are continuously reflected or 'processed'. Which leads me to Hegel's idealist claims about true philosophy consisting of the "unification of thinking and Being within the Platonic Idea". If we truly know, can demonstratively grasp, what we think precisely while we move AND think then I say we have "completed" the cosmos in a local fashion becoming our own "Over-soul'. This is a form of 'process reality' that is being realized. Imagine, thought itself gripping ontological grounds: "the world is my ground, my will 'walks' with what 'walks' the world." We would be literally profound while subjectively contained.

This highly defined cosmological atomic ground is a kind of ideal solid crystal, I believe, because all the true arts of motion are really to be found in our subjective thoughts. Let me briefly explain:

I don't believe empirical things have any meaning in themselves. There is a sharp break between nature as it appears empirically, and the human interpretation of the cosmos. The "empirical" universe will always remain in some sense separate from man, for there is no way for man to wrap himself around all of the individual, empirical phenomena that makes up the universe without reducing or resorting to essences or formulas, or mind. And I don't believe there is such a thing as 'external' directionality in the universe. In a sense, at the beginning of modernity, Galileo was wrong and the Church was right: man is at the center of the Cosmos no matter "where" he "really" is.

After all, it is only possible to make things by thinking them, and to think things as a maker by being them. And if Beings are really 'appearances, staggered across space in retardation systems,' then it is the philosopher who provides the system that unites Being with thinking.

-





I

[Age]

Hi. The following six brief paragraphs are about the nature of Being and Human Thinking in Metaphysics. Thanks for your time. Any feedback would be welcome!

Are the following six brief paragraphs about the, actual, so-called 'nature of Being and Human thinking in Metaphysics', or just 'the thinking' about 'those things', which has come from one 'human body', instead?

There is already everyday evidence of a remarkable unity or completion between the mind of humans and the outside world, between thinking and Being.

Are you able to elaborate and clarify what the 'mind of humans' is, exactly?

If yes, then will you?

We can and do complete physical tasks using only mathematical models. That is, we produce physical output using only intellectual information as input. These I call 'completions' or atomic actions: we take our intersubjective minds and create material things or physical products and this is evidence of a manifold unity between our apparent inner minds and the apparent external cosmos.

I will await for your elaboration and clarity about what the 'mind' is, exactly, before any of this could make any real sense.

But consider if each and every thought and action that we performed at all times were elaborated into a 'plenum' or continuum with no way for us to think or move without full and complete awareness, then each and every individual thought and all of their implications would be persistently "completed" - visualized and externalized -and there could be no thinking without a continuously reflected comprehensive knowledge of all the atomic or physical actions-- the 'outer' feeding back on the 'inner'.

If you say so. But, why did the thinking within that body come up with this for, exactly?

With every brain state and every bodily nerve that moves always completely known at all times.

What even is a so-called 'brain state', exactly?

More than merely 'thinking about thinking' this would be a realization of a metaphysically quantized and complete way of Being by way of thinking and knowing i.e. atomic passages of Being that are continuously reflected or 'processed'. Which leads me to Hegel's idealist claims about true philosophy consisting of the "unification of thinking and Being within the Platonic Idea". If we truly know, can demonstratively grasp, what we think precisely while we move AND think then I say we have "completed" the cosmos in a local fashion becoming our own "Over-soul'. This is a form of 'process reality' that is being realized. Imagine, thought itself gripping ontological grounds: "the world is my ground, my will 'walks' with what 'walks' the world." We would be literally profound while subjectively contained.

Again, if you say so. But, there are just to many words, here, which have to many different meanings and definitions to be able for another to decipher what 'it' is that you are actually saying, and meaning, here.

This highly defined cosmological atomic ground is a kind of ideal solid crystal, I believe, because all the true arts of motion are really to be found in our subjective thoughts.

What is 'it', exactly, which is supposedly 'highly defined', here?

Let me briefly explain:

Okay, I will anyway.

I don't believe empirical things have any meaning in themselves.

But what has what you, or any one, believe, or do not believe, here, got to do with actually any thing, here?

There is a sharp break between nature as it appears empirically, and the human interpretation of the cosmos.

Is this for each and every time, and always?

If yes, then there is, also, a 'sharp break', here, between your 'human interpretation', and, 'nature', as nature appears empirically, right?

If no, then why is 'your human interpretation' different and/or better than others?

The "empirical" universe will always remain in some sense separate from man, for there is no way for man to wrap himself around all of the individual, empirical phenomena that makes up the universe without reducing or resorting to essences or formulas, or mind.

So, 'your human interpretation' that the 'empirical' Universe' will always remain in some sense separate from man, for there is no way for man to wrap himself around all of the individual, empirical phenomena that makes up the universe without reducing or resorting to essence or formulas, or mind', is, also, a 'sharp break' between nature as it appears empirically', and 'your own human interpretation' of the cosmos, here, right?

And I don't believe there is such a thing as 'external' directionality in the universe.

Okay, but could this 'disbelief' of yours, here, be affecting 'the way' that you view and see things, here?

In a sense, at the beginning of modernity, Galileo was wrong and the Church was right: man is at the center of the Cosmos no matter "where" he "really" is.

It may well be absolutely and irrefutably True that what is actually within a human being creates or makes a human being at the center of the Universe, Itself, always. But, what is not the "church" that was claiming that it was 'the earth', which is at the center of the Universe, and not each and every human being?

After all, it is only possible to make things by thinking them,

Does this apply to absolutely every thing? Or, only to what has been made by human beings, only?

and to think things as a maker by being them.

Were/are rockets, televisions, horse drawn buggies, and pyramids only made by some one 'being' these things?

And if Beings are really 'appearances, staggered across space in retardation systems,' then it is the philosopher who provides the system that unites Being with thinking.

What is 'this claim', here, based up on, exactly?