Can you point out where and how I "posit real/unreal as polar opposite"? — 180 Proof

Let me repeat what I just posted.

("X is not Y" ~ the real determined by negating unreals) — 180 Proof

If that's not enough, here it is from the dictionary.

un-1 | ən |
prefix
1 (added to adjectives, participles, and their derivatives) denoting the absence of a quality or state; not: unabashed | unacademic | unrepeatable.
• the reverse of (usually with an implication of approval or disapproval, or with another special connotation): unselfish | unprepossessing | unworldly.

When I write "acid test" re: a characterization of cataphaticism, I'm quoting you. — ucarr

No you're not. I wrote
... acid testing impossible (self-contradictory) concepts or models used in defeasible discursive practices such as natural sciences, historical sciences, legal theory, formal systems, etc. — 180 Proof

apophatic metaphysics (i.e. deductively negating categories/universals) which has not yet been adequately explored. It's my preferred approach for acid testing impossible (self-contradictory) concepts or models — 180 Proof

The referent for your pronoun "It's" is apophatic metaphysics ∼ apophatic metaphysics does acid testing of (self-contradictory) concepts or models...

Btw, what the hell is "cataphaticism"? :sweat: — 180 Proof

As Hinduistic exegesis (a type of exegesis) + ism (a distinctive practice, system or philosophy) = Hinduisticism (a Hinduistic system of exegesis)

So Cataphatic exegesis (a type of exegesis) + ism (a distinctive practice, system or philosophy) = Cataphaticism (a Cataphatic system of exegesis)

Can you explain, logically, how "what necessarily is not" fails to express "hard boundary"? The adverb "necessarily," as I understand it, leaves no wiggle room re: the absolutism of the boundary. — ucarr

A distinction (i.e. alternative) is not a "hard boundary". :roll: — 180 Proof

You're talking about the comparison of cataphatic/apophatic, whereas I'm talking about the comparison of real/unreal. Since I'm examining what cataphatic exegesis does, it's proper for me to make claims like "Cataphatic exegesis seeks to establish a hard (categorical) boundary between real/unreal."

Even so, you say,

Cataphatic metaphysics (i.e. deductively positing categories/universals), I completely agree, is obsolete — 180 Proof

ob·so·lete | ˌäbsəˈlēt |
adjective
1 no longer produced or used; out of date: the disposal of old and obsolete machinery | the phrase was obsolete after 1625.

It's hugely pretentious to claim the comparison of useful/useless can be characterized as alternative.

Moreover, it's clear that in your articulation of your take on metaphysics, you intend, overall, to propound a methodology that establishes categorically & absolutely the real in opposition to the unreal.
— ucarr

Again, ucarr, this has nothing to do with anything I've written. — 180 Proof

("X is not Y" ~ the real determined by negating unreals) — 180 Proof

If that's not enough, here it is from the dictionary.

un-1 | ən |
prefix
1 (added to adjectives, participles, and their derivatives) denoting the absence of a quality or state; not: unabashed | unacademic | unrepeatable.
• the reverse of (usually with an implication of approval or disapproval, or with another special connotation): unselfish | unprepossessing | unworldly. — ucarr

... real/unreal polarities ...

... metaphysical acid test ...

... acid test for the hard boundaries of the categorical ... — ucarr

You're monologuing (with yourself) again. Nothing to do with anything I've written. :yawn: — 180 Proof

You say I’m monologuing with myself, thus implying my oblivion WRT key statements articulated by you. Let’s examine your claim by going down the above list.

... real/unreal polarities ... — ucarr

I asked for your take on metaphysics,


Do you understand metaphysics as Aristotle understood it? He thought it was a label, as a part of a classification system, when he coined the word right? To him it was "after the physical," meaning, the not strictly physical stuff. An example is human perception. Like scientists of today, he thought metaphysics was an emergent property, arising from the physical. This view is consistent with monism-physicalism, right? Is this something like your view?[/quote]

and you obliged me by responding thus,
— ucarr

Aristotle's students / archivists coined the term "tà metà tà physikà biblía" which he never used (in his works). I do agree with his conception of philosophia prima – the categorical principles necessary for rationally interpreting the whole of nature. I differ from Aristotleans/Thomists insofar as I conceive of 'categorical principles' via negation ("X is not Y" ~ the real determined by negating unreals) instead of via positivity (i.e. "X is Y" ~ the real defined by positing reals) because, whereas the latter makes it intractably difficult to reach a philosophical concensus, the former, IME, makes philosophical disagreement – the devil's, of course, in the details – self-contradictory. For instance (a sketch with a link to more ... links ... sketches): — 180 Proof

Can you explain, logically, how your above bolded statement (concerned with categoricals) does NOT posit real/unreal as polar opposites?

... metaphysical acid test ... — ucarr

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/584132

The above link, which you gave to me, connected me to a discussion thread wherein I found the following statement by 180 Proof,

In my opinion, metaphysics is obsolete ...
— Enrique
Cataphatic metaphysics (i.e. deductively positing categories/universals), I completely agree, is obsolete but not apophatic metaphysics (i.e. deductively negating categories/universals) which has not yet been adequately explored. It's my preferred approach for acid testing impossible (self-contradictory) concepts or models used in defeasible discursive practices such as natural sciences, historical sciences, legal theory, formal systems, etc. Scientism, however, doesn't seem a viable, or coherent, alternative to speculatively creating 'new' concepts (metaphor-paradigms) adequate to our theoretical problems or interpreting their theoretical solutions accordingly. In other words, a nail (re: science) can't hammer itself. — 180 Proof

When I write "acid test" re: a characterization of cataphaticism, I'm quoting you.

... acid test for the hard boundaries of the categorical ... — ucarr

As to the question of your characterization of apophaticism being concerned with establishing hard boundaries separating things, you, again, provide the answer.

The question of all questions is: what is?
— Xtrix
In the apophatic tradition I think this ur-question is answered, rather than merely addressed, by reformulating it 'what necessarily is not' e.g. ↪180 Proof. — 180 Proof

Can you explain, logically, how "what necessarily is not" fails to express "hard boundary"? The adverb "necessarily," as I understand it, leaves no wiggle room re: the absolutism of the boundary.

Moreover, it's clear that in your articulation of your take on metaphysics, you intend, overall, to propound a methodology that establishes categorically & absolutely the real in opposition to the unreal.

I'll be pleasantly surprised if you make specific responses to my arguments above because, of late, you've merely been naysaying my arguments with unsupported declarations.

At the very least, this exegesis refutes your claim I'm dialoguing with myself. Anyone who can read English can see that my critiques of your positions oftentimes quote you. They might be fallacious, but they're not self-enclosed monologues.

You're monologuing (with yourself) again. Nothing to do with anything I've written. :yawn: — 180 Proof

Be that as it may, I hope you see my intention is to dialogue with you, not ignore you.

If I fail utterly to understand your positions, that's a good reason for you to ignore me, however, as yet, you haven't, so for now I turn my attention to the centrality of query WRT logic & philosophy.

So far, in this thread, I've gotten Agent Smith's deflection (via paradox) and your silence.

I know query is an essential information systems operator that links all of what we can know.

I believe, with increasing confidence, all data forms are linked primevally, and query, like messenger RNA, manipulates data templates across platforms in a process that isolates a datum from data like a droplet from the ocean.

These observations sound like conventional wisdom until I declare "question links sentience to matter directly and therefore cognition, no less than matter, holds possession of an axiomatic status; as the blueness of blue, so the contemplation of thought."

Premise - axiomatic = metaphysical ∼ every dimensional matrix has an arbitrary start point, and that's metaphysics beyond the categorical, unless someone can cite a dimensional matrix without a start point, but then, such a matrix, being eternal, must needs be axiomatic, and that circles us back around to metaphysical.

I don't use "a bivalent methodology", just a non-oppositional, non-exclusionary alternative to the Aristotlean / Thomistic 'mainstream'. — 180 Proof

Non-oppositional & non-exclusionary are modifiers I apply to the real/unreal polarities at the center of your metaphysical acid test. In claiming the polarities are entangled, I argue that the modifiers mitigate the polarization of the polarities. For this reason, my argument continues, a simple real/unreal switch as acid test for what is categorically real or unreal introduces a volume of imprecision unacceptable for metaphysics, especially as you define metaphysics as the categorical.

The upshot of my argument says real/unreal are limited & soft polarities, and thus they’re not suitable as acid test for the hard boundaries of the categorical, your asserted lynchpin for the metaphysical.

Note – In the instant you claim categorical, you lay the groundwork for characterization of your position as including (if not prioritizing) bivalence.

If, on the other hand, it is your wish to acknowledge existence of degrees of reality, as distinguished from the simple, bi-valent switch of real/unreal, then your apophaticism, now shaking hands with catophaticism, expands beyond categorical classification to include the grayscale of the not strictly physical-cum-not strictly real milieu of Meinong.

Of course I'm reading my own concerns into what you've expressed here. Nothing unusual (or improper) about that. Don't you sometimes read your own concerns into the expressed intentions of others? — ucarr

Not in a genuine dialogue where understanding mutually different positions is the goal. — 180 Proof

When you attack me, implying my character is self-enclosed & egotistical, you seem to be misreading yourself. “…mutually different positions…” as I understand it, means two different positions conjoined in dialogue. If this is correct, then, as you say, the work involves carefully distilling all important details on both sides of the argument. Therefore, when I say,

Of course I'm reading my own concerns into what you've expressed here. — ucarr

it should be clear I’m describing a meeting of the minds of two parties. Well, that means evaluating your terms in terms of my own terms. I don’t suppose you think I would evaluate your terms in terms of your terms. Not being you, how could I do that?

As individuals, we always bring our own terms into confrontation with the terms of others. Being selves ourselves, how can we do otherwise?

The key word here is via. One of its definitions is by way of; through

Not at all. I guess you didn't bother with the link I provided to an old post where I discuss "via negation" aka apophatic metaphysics. If you're not going to read what I write for comprehension, ucarr, that's quite all right but let me know so I won't waste any more time answering your questions. — 180 Proof

How can you suppose I haven’t read your link when the heart & soul of my counter-narrative to your metaphysical acid test attacks (whether rightly or wrongly) the simplistic bivalence of categorical real/unreal? From the start I’ve been arguing their mitigating entanglement.

If your categorical acid test runs parallel to the polar entanglement of real/unreal (as opposed to running through it, which is what I think), then point it out to me as I’ve missed it.

Now consideration of what’s really important.

If you want to break off dialoguing with me (I don’t want to break off dialoguing with you) on moral grounds of bad character mine, that’s an emotional value that scuttles the power of the above verbiage. In that event, I will, of course, respect your privacy and leave off from further attempts to communicate with you. However, before you ring down the metal bars locking us into prison cells of alienation, I want you to cheat a little bit and answer my question,

Do you agree that query is the spine of both logic & philosophy?

Getting this question answered is one of the main goals of my conversation.

If we must conclude our interesting & informative (and now testy) interactions, then why not bookmark things with a categorical closure?

Thank-you!

06-13-22 Chapter 01

I begin my closing statement by claiming What is a question? is not an impossible question. Difficult, yes. Impossible, no.

Let me start with my first counter-narrative. Re: the claim asking a question necessarily implies knowing question makes me yell: "Wait a minute!" By parallel argument I can claim driving a car necessarily implies knowing cars. Really?

Curiously, I can use my own ignorance as part of this argument. When I started the conversation, I didn't know What is a question?, in parallel with This sentence is false., expresses a paradox. But I nonetheless raised the question didn't I? So, seems to me asking a question can come from the mouth of ignorance re: knowing that What is a question?, in particular, is a paradox. I can scarcely claim to have known the state of being of that question at the time of my asking it.

If a parrot repeats some of my phrases, do we have evidence the parrot knows what it's saying?

Asking a question does not necessarily imply knowing the state of being (nature) of question.

I continue with my best counter-narrative. What is a question? is not an impossible question because...

Premise -- paradox = higher dimensional entity in collapsed state; how a 4D object looks in 3D.

Henceforth, I will try to examine the vertical relationship between cubic space (3D) & tesseractic space (4D).

The core concept says in 3D space, sequential time inheres & thus one thing occupies one position at a time as two positions by one thing requires movement across a time interval always positive.

In 4D space, complex time inheres & thus one thing occupies multiple positions. Simultaneous multiple positions by one thing are supported by complex time. Under this construction, simple time (as in our 3D experience), at a given position, flows along as always even as the non-locality of hyper-space sustains one thing as multiples occupying multiple positions simultaneously. The non-locality of hyper-space renders tessaractic reality as a type of multi-verse.

Consider two parallel boxes.

In cubic space, binary logic inheres, thus a zero or a one can be in one box or the other.

In tesseractic space, hyper-logic inheres, thus a zero or a one can simultaneously inhabit both boxes.

In 3D space, paradox expresses the hyper-logic of 4D space in its collapsed state, as the fourth spacial dimension required for expansion of hyper-logic is absent.

Hyper-logic, in its collapsed state, expresses as an undecidable, timeless switching between two "contradictory" positions that cancel.

In its expanded state, hyper-logic expresses as simultaneity of multiple positions in non-sequential time i.e. non-locality. The "contradictory" switching in 3D space becomes non-locality in 4D space.

I don't know if the human brain, in its current state of evolution, can directly experience the non-local simultaneity of multiple positions of entities in the 4D of hyper-space.

At any rate, as you are seeing here, the strangeness of QM can be navigated with some ease of comprehension by shuttling across the vertical relationship between 3D & 4D space.

I close this section with a category title I suggest as a label for examinations like the one above: Boundary Ontology. At the core of this category is study of geometric forms preserved across topological shuttling between 3D & 4D versus geometric forms expanded/collapsed across 3D & 4D spaces.

In the next chapter, I will try to examine some key attributes inhering within the hyper-space of tesseract.

8 days ago


06-21-22 Chapter 02

Now an answer to What is a question? can be expressed with the apparent problem of paradox taken into consideration.

Premise – Question = cognitive motion.

By working through a sequence of math operations that progressively isolates the unknown in terms of the known, the process of question arrives at an answer that, all along, was embedded within the question.

I can argue that question & answer are different expressions of one unitary truth. The difference that appears to the reason is an apparent difference in the forms of ideas.

The query process draws a line of continuity between the different forms of ideas, thus linking the different forms logically. Question is thus an essential tool of information & knowledge. This, in turn, makes query indispensable to philosophy.

I can say that philosophy is question.

Premise – Question-of-question = higher order cognitive motion.

What is a complex question?

In this context, complex question doesn’t mean a question that entails a complicated, multi-part answer. A first order question can entail such an answer.

Herein, a complex question is a query that unfolds in 4D as an expansion from the paradox of question-of-question as perceived in 3D.

In the 3D view of question-of-question, there is a circularity of reasoning that posits two, contradictory claims on equal footing, thus rendering the claim undecidable as a whole.

Through the lens of question defined as a process that discovers logical continuity between differing forms of an idea, question-of-question seems to fuse together inconsistent claims into a strange & unjustifiable continuity.

This fugue state of continuity is the telltale marker of a higher dimensional object in its collapsed state as it resides at a dimensional matrix that excludes one of more of the object’s dimensions.

When the query process terminates in a paradox, the inquisitor should conclude that the object of their search possesses at least one additional dimension beyond the dimensional matrix of the query. The presence of this additional dimension presses against, as it were, the boundary of the dimensional matrix that cannot accommodate expansion of the additional dimension.
In order to remedy this fugue state of continuity, the inquisitor must expansively unfold the paradox by catapulting it upwards from reality into hyper-reality. In short, this catapult entails an upwardly dimensional expansion from 3D into 4D.

Forward Speculations – Visualization in 4D

Henceforth, my narrative tries to throw open the shutters on hyper-reality by means of speculative visualization.

Hyper-reality – a dimensional matrix that includes four spatial dimensions + time.

The conception herein, with the possible exceptions of some details, is not new.

Higher-order cognitive motion, rather than working through a sequence of math operations that progressively (sequentially) isolates the unknown in terms of the known, instead propagates such a cognitive continuity instantaneously.

Instantaneous propagation of logical continuity is the resultant of unfolding question-of-question in 4D. This description, with its claim of instant continuity, sounds like an oxymoron, but that’s because my description of 4D is herein rendered through a 3D narrative.

The instantaneity of question-of-question, although infinitely faster, resembles intuition. I can call it super-intuition.

Premise – hyper-question, or the process of hyper-query = omniscience. This is a state wherein question & answer are always one, never separated in sequential time.

If we imagine a sentient being whose natural state is 4D, as distinguished from human, whose native state, being 3D, must use abstract reasoning techniques in order to “perceive” 4D, then we understand that such 4D being knows all answers to all questions instantly.

The trick of this claim is that it presents a seemingly perplexing, all-encompassing continuity wherein question-answer are merged. Moreover, it suggests that a native 4D being always knows all. These are tricks of perplexity caused by the rendering of a native 4D being within my 3D narrative.

QM opened the door to these seemingly perplexing observations regarding elementary forces & particles. It seems to be the case that investigations into elementary physics opens additional dimensions that, rendered in 3D narratives, present wildly counter-intuitive pictures of reality.

I can argue that QM is our primer for Boundary Ontology. After all, QM, as the label says, concerns itself with navigation of discrete units of forces & particles i.e. quanta.

In the next chapter, I will explore some attributes of the multi-self phenomenon.

You rendered me an important service when you responded to my closing statement, chapter 01. A timeless universe, as implied by my original statement, and made explicit by your feedback, looks like a fatal flaw to me too.

I've addressed the issue of the timeless universe.

I need your feedback on chapter 02. If you're willing to give feedback, any flaws you can point out will, again, render me an important service.

I hope you'll say "yes." My writing needs engagement with a rigorous critic.

The chapter is only two pages long.



Are you willing to scour my closing statement for flaws with your elliptical exigesis? (I always read all of your links to supporting text.)

Chapters 01 & 02 are directly below.

I differ from Aristotleans/Thomists insofar as I conceive of 'categorical principles' via negation ("X is not Y" ~ the real determined by negating unreals) instead of via positivity (i.e. "X is Y" ~ the real defined by positing reals) — 180 Proof

Do you claim in the above you are not propounding a method of discovery by what you conclude to be proper procedure?

If I understand correctly what is meant by thesis (even if only somewhat) i.e. a statement or theory that is put forward (herein by you exploited as a means of self-identification which, by the way, I asked of you amidst my (alleged) oblivion to who you are), then your thought-provoking response to my query, re: your metaphysics, contains an implicit argument for the above-mentioned thesis.

Do you not claim below (as an additional support to the above) that one type of methodology, apophaticism, is superior to another, cataphaticism?

because, whereas the latter makes it intractably difficult to reach a philosophical concensus, the former, IME, makes philosophical disagreement – the devil's, of course, in the details – self-contradictory. — 180 Proof

If you're willing to acknowledge having passed judgment upon two types of methodology, then proceed to explain how your thesis about which of the two is correct is not based upon the above, which, to me, reads like a premise.

The key word here is via. One of its definitions is by way of; through

Not at all. I guess you didn't bother with the link I provided to an old post where I discuss "via negation" aka apophatic metaphysics... — 180 Proof

ap·o·pha·tic | ˌapəˈfadik |
adjective Theology

(of knowledge of God) obtained through negation. The opposite of cataphatic.

Maybe you should take another look at how apophatic is defined.

I don't deny my ever present self-interest. It's called staying alive in a dangerous world.

To you I say, "Don't jump to hasty conclusions." This especially in light of your claim to the effect that,

I've very little interest in merely exchanging monologues which I find is unproductive and arrogant. — 180 Proof

I... use...a non-oppositional, non-exclusionary alternative to the Aristotlean / Thomistic 'mainstream' — 180 Proof

I conceive of 'categorical principles' via negation ("X is not Y" ~ the real determined by negating unreals) — 180 Proof

You're reading your own concerns, ucarr, into what i've expressed here which misreads my stated goal. — 180 Proof

Of course I'm reading my own concerns into what you've expressed here. Nothing unusual (or improper) about that. Don't you sometimes read your own concerns into the expressed intentions of others? It's not the case that we members here have all confined ourselves to our own bubbles.

In fact, this very conversation is specifically concerned with interrelationship (certainly from my end, and, I think, also from your end).

My conclusion diverges from yours. Is it a misreading of what you've written? Let's see.

You say above you conceive of categorical principles via negation.

The key word here is via. One of its definitions is by way of; through

If you want to categorically negate something, is taking a route to that goal by way of selfsame something the best way? In parallel, let's say I want to get to heaven. Is going through hell the surefire way to arrive there? Granted, it's a surefire way to arrive at an appreciation of heaven. This is so because hell is an extreme contrast to heaven. But I'm not seeking appreciation of heaven. I'm seeking the heaven itself. Let's say a guide tells you the way to heaven is through that door over yonder that has the word "HELL" printed onto it. Would such a directive give you pause, or would you rush through the door?

I use the above to elaborate contrast ≠ independence.

One's understanding of "individuality" must be very superficial, and one must think of "individuality" as something quite weak, if one considers it assailable by peer pressure; ad copy; disinformation. — baker

As I understand you, you're claiming a, b, & c cannot make concerted attacks upon the individual's power to choose freely unless individuality is understood superficially & characterized as weak.

Please elaborate your program for nullifying a, b & c.

I'm not following you. "Positive" and "negative" approaches are just two branches off the trunk of "metaphysics". E.g. like space and negative space are aspects of the same geometry. — 180 Proof

Your above claims are congruent with the claims that motivated them i.e. my previous claims. This shows we're surveying the same general terrain of data, but our conclusions are different.

The certainty of separation of our bivalent logic: on/off; yes/no; open/closed; negative/positive introjects some of the idealism component of metaphysics.

It's clear to me that the positivity of positive is linked to and dependent upon the negativity of negative (and vice versa) as part of a network interweave. Speaking ontically, you can't know one without the other.

So, per your statement,

"Positive" and "negative" approaches are just two branches off the trunk of "metaphysics". — 180 Proof

it's clear two branches of the same tree are not pure, categorical polarities, utterly without intersection.

Bivalent "opposites" are distinguished by contrast, however, contrast ≠ independence.

I do think you can establish & exploit logically the contrast between entangled valences.

I don't think you can use a bivalent methodology to establish the categorical certainty of one valence & the categorical impossibility of its opposing valence.

This is why QM keeps telling us one gate can be simultaneously open/closed. As the lynchpin of quantum computing, QM simultaneity, the anti-thesis of bivalence, seems to be working.

One of the shortcomings of modal logic is its role as a blindfold opaquing the limited domain of paradox.

:grin: :up:

the real determined by negating unreals — 180 Proof

This looks like the two (supposed) polarities get expressed, one in terms of the other. This is entanglement. Contrast ≠ independence. Your configuration of entanglement here implies some complexities that might undermine your goal of categorical separation. Speaking generally, the mission to establish absolute separation_independence of things is more idealist than real. We know this because gravity, a fundamental force, entangles everything, even within the realm of a priori cognition.

Do you agree that query is the spine of both logic & philosophy?

Do you understand metaphysics as Aristotle understood it? He thought it was a label, as a part of a classification system, when he coined the word right? To him it was "after the physical," meaning, the not strictly physical stuff. An example is human perception. Like scientists of today, he thought metaphysics was an emergent property, arising from the physical. This view is consistent with monism-physicalism, right? Is this something like your view?

Well, you must mean something by "individuality" when you use the word. — baker

I want you to share your thoughts on the following three enemies of individuality.

Peer pressure; ad copy; disinformation

What I've learned in our conversation - I go on at length when a brief statement will do; I indulge whimsy to the detriment of my position; I grossly exaggerate the cogency of my arguments; I sometimes promote language arts above logic; my imaginative sallies sometimes break contact with common sense.

Alas, I have no didactic bullet list of individuality markers.

I don't understand what you're asking. — 180 Proof

If I cannot state, without doubt, the essential nature of a thing, and yet, there is no doubt I'm looking at & contemplating the nature of an existing thing, then, it follows logically, that that thing being contemplated supports a range of speculations about what it might be.

I'm asking you to list some (or all) of the members of the range (set) of speculations about what What is a question? might be. I want you to take special care to include members (reasonably accurate WRT the apparent identity of the thing) that are non-questions.

It follows that a putative question finally undecidable as such might actually be not a question at all but, instead, a declaration, command, exclamation, expletive etc.

It's not clear what in this story sets a "strong example of individuality". Could you sketch it out? — baker

The guy's in love with the woman, but he thinks she had a fling with him on the rebound from her broken relationship with the father of Felice. Should he press his case for a love relationship between them? Should he respect her independence? Should he continue to protect his own self-respecting independence, rejecting his impulse to plea for her company? Who can answer these questions?

The intensity of the woman's rejection of the man's sympathy for her loss of Felice is telling. It suggests that much of what happened stemming from the one-night stand (?) that produced Felice is unresolved within the woman, including her feelings for the man.

We don't know if the woman is the type who could abort a child, but it might be the case that she bore Felice in part due to emotional attachment to her father.

This is a whirlpool of complicated emotions rubbing against each other intra-personally, inter-personally & also, the tectonic plates of emotion rubbing against those of underlying values & beliefs, again both intra & inter personally. Whew!

As per the above, I make my case, through this fictional story, to the effect that human individuals oftentimes are animated morasses of complications of complications.

As you can see from this argument, human individuality isn't simply about singularity, but also about the personal, the inter-personal, the social and even the cosmic.

By social convention, western philosophy is a punching bag for wits, with the public following suit. However, when philosophy is good, and written in the plain language of the common people, everybody listens because, underneath all of the pragmatical posturing, everybody holds interest in the big questions.

These are reasons why it's not absurd to hold ALL humans to highest standards of individuality, seeing that's what they are. How I, the individual, fit into the cosmos swirling around me is a lifelong journey without easy, formulaic answers.

"What is a question?" shows – one cannot say unquestionably – what a question is. — 180 Proof

The above implies What is a question? encompasses a spectrum of possible identities.

Please list some members of this spectrum, especially those members that are non-questions.

Did you read my 4D statement just above your

This is a stupid question! — Agent Smith

statement?

Nothing denotes a something without any of the properties constituting the domain within which that something is embedded. (Re: physical) — 180 Proof

I think maybe this statement contains a whiff of

A question is an expression that consists of
a variable? :eyes: — 180 Proof

as regards nothing being paradoxically contained_not contained within the domain in which nothing is (somehow) embedded sans any of the attributes denoting said embedding.

I think maybe there's a paradox associated with the conception of nothing as being in possession of a specifiable boundary (of some sort) that allows it to be embedded within another boundary.

What do you think the self consists of? — baker

For a strong example of individuality (& its gnarly complications), please click the link below. It connects to a short story on this website by 180 Proof.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12322/felice-by-180-proof

Coming up with alternatives to mainstream views, philosophizing, questioning, doubting, "being yourself...all this is easy... — baker

Have you encountered mountain ranges of new ideas for good living that aren't pro forma reiterations of proverbs, aphorisms, biblical quotes, folklore, folk wisdom, urban myths, bawdy limericks, slang and the occasional citation from published luminaries? I ask because you say being yourself is easy.

...Developing a perspective on life and a course of action that will actually result in a life well lived: this is not so easy. — baker

Let me modify the above quote.

...Developing a perspective on your own life and pursuing a tailored course of action that closely fits your individuality will not be easy.

The modified quote is what I think.

To amplify, I believe nothing is harder than developing as an individual. For starters, finding oneself is terribly difficult. This is so because, paradoxically, as selves we are almost nothing. Without the daily reenforcement of society, we quickly begin to forget our most basic attributes.

The second part of your statement is good because it recognizes the limitations of individuality while valuing the collective wisdom of cultures and societies.

I distinguish "nothing" from "nothingness" ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/707639
... the physical (or quotidian) from the metaphysical (or wholly conceptual). — 180 Proof

So, nothing is existential whereas nothingness is categorical, and thus metaphysics is an empty but not meaningless category.

Wow! I got an information-bearing statement from 180 re: metaphysics.

Confiteur I don't know how to extricate myself from the loop formed by definition & question in re questions.

What is a question? is an impossible question - to ask it, one must know what a question is but it also indicates the questioner doesn't know what a question is. This is the paradox. — Agent Smith

I begin my closing statement by claiming What is a question? is not an impossible question. Difficult, yes. Impossible, no.

Let me start with my first counter-narrative. Re: the claim asking a question necessarily implies knowing question makes me yell: "Wait a minute!" By parallel argument I can claim driving a car necessarily implies knowing cars. Really?

Curiously, I can use my own ignorance as part of this argument. When I started the conversation, I didn't know What is a question?, in parallel with This sentence is false., expresses a paradox. But I nonetheless raised the question didn't I? So, seems to me asking a question can come from the mouth of ignorance re: knowing that What is a question?, in particular, is a paradox. I can scarcely claim to have known the state of being of that question at the time of my asking it.

If a parrot repeats some of my phrases, do we have evidence the parrot knows what it's saying?

Asking a question does not necessarily imply knowing the state of being (nature) of question.

I continue with my best counter-narrative. What is a question? is not an impossible question because...

Premise -- paradox = higher dimensional entity in collapsed state

Henceforth, I will try to examine the vertical relationship between cubic space (3D) & tesseractic space (4D).

The core concept says in 3D space, sequential time inheres & thus one thing occupies one position at a time as two positions by one thing requires movement across a time interval always positive.

In contrast, in 4D space, non-sequential time inheres & thus one thing occupies multiple positions as simultaneous multiple positions by one thing are supported by non-sequential time.

Consider two parallel boxes.

In cubic space, binary logic inheres, thus a zero or a one can be in one box or the other.

In tesseractic space, hyper-logic inheres, thus a zero or a one can simultaneously inhabit both boxes.

In 3D space, paradox expresses the hyper-logic of 4D space in its collapsed state, as the fourth spacial dimension required for expansion of hyper-logic is absent.

Hyper-logic, in its collapsed state, expresses as an undecidable, timeless switching between two "contradictory" positions that cancel.

In its expanded state, hyper-logic expresses as simultaneity of multiple positions in non-sequential time i.e. non-locality. The "contradictory" switching in 3D space becomes non-locality in 4D space.

I don't know if the human brain, in its current state of evolution, can directly experience the non-local simultaneity of multiple positions of entities in the 4D of hyper-space.

At any rate, as you are seeing here, the strangeness of QM can be navigated with some ease of comprehension by shuttling across the vertical relationship between 3D & 4D space.

I close this section with a category title I suggest as a label for examinations like the one above: Boundary Ontology. At the core of this category is study of geometric forms preserved across topological shuttling between 3D & 4D versus geometric forms expanded/collapsed across 3D & 4D spaces.

In the next chapter, I will try to examine some key attributes inhering within the hyper-space of tesseract.

One problem with this lil limrick is that it begins with a false dichotomy. But anyway, both something and nothing exist (e.g. 99.9% of each atom is empty space). :scream: — 180 Proof

Empty space ≠ nothing.

One problem with this lil limrick is that it begins with a false dichotomy. — 180 Proof

If it's a false dichotomy, then nothing, being an existing thing, is something, not nothing. Therefore, empty space, likewise being an existing thing (whose existence you cite), by your own argument, is not nothing.

I choose to attack the challenge to answer this question by looking upon it as raising an issue of perspective.

When someone asks the question, "Why is there not nothing?" I respond by saying, "Because you asked the question."

The instance of a question being asked -- any question, including this one -- presupposes the existence of a something (sentient being or person, I suppose) asking the question.

In the instance of nothingness (including instance and nothingness), neither the question nor the issue could be raised. Speaking labyrinthically, existence/not existence is not an issue for nothingness.

If we assume an existing thing cannot exist outside its own existence -- this sounds to me like an absolute boundary -- then existence/not existence only has existence & meaning in the instance of existence.

All of this adds up to say, "No existing thing can explore (even the possibility) of non-existence.

Most of most people's time is consumed in more fruitful activities. — baker

Both of course and of convention, you're right. How many, for example, spend quality time pondering what it means, logically speaking, to ask a question? "Oh, gee, darling. You're such a peach you are. Might I have your name?" Trying to examine this, the Merlins of philosophy advise us, leads to a dead end word game of circular reasoning. Paradox. Questioning questioning is impossible, received wisdom assures us. The circle cannot be broken.

What level-headed bloke pursues this path when, instead, he could be sipping a cold beer and making time at the local bar? What right-thinking acer fancies word puzzles over collecting a few bucks at the race track? Even the puttering gardener who raises a few championship blooms has a leg up on would-be pundits entangled in thought puzzles.

No astute person can ignore the curse extending from Socrates to Nietzsche and, presumably, beyond.

I won't quibble with the obvious. The hardest thing for us to do, albeit the most natural thing for us to do, is be ourselves. Personal integrity - Darn it! - entails thinking your own thoughts and pursuing them into action as far as time and circumstances allow. But that's adventure. Well! Who's up for that? I ask, why strike out on personal adventure when, living in civil society, the only popular wisdom is that of the conventional variety?

How do you perceive the metaphysical?
— ucarr
Categorically. — 180 Proof

If you can elaborate, please do so.

What is the metaphysical status of a question?
— ucarr
This question still doesn't make sense to me after two thread pages. — 180 Proof

Have any thoughts about the geometry inhering within a 4-space environment?

How do you perceive the metaphysical?

Metaphysical, as I'm using it here = essential, invariant identity.

If you know what you're inquiring about, inquiry is unnecessary. — Agent Smith

If you don't know what you're inquiring about, inquiry is impossible. — Agent Smith

As you again attack with Occam's Razor, I'll make bold & declare that logic_math_science operate meticulously, expansively & successfully between the above two razor's edges.

A quick review of humanity's empirical experience shows that inquiry starts with partial information about what's to be discovered. This is clearly demonstrated in my example. The abundance of partial information experimentation, the axiomatic starting point for logic_math_science discoveries, being something common you fail to register here, suggests you fundamentally misunderstand inquiry.

Ergo,

Inquiry is either unnecessary or impossible. — Agent Smith

The above razor cut reads dramatically on paper, however, within the empirical world, it excludes only an extremely acute angle: cases at the polar extremes. These amount to nothing more than straw man arguments that misrepresent real inquiry_discovery.

Premise --

A question, if it's pertinent to the answer it seeks, shares a link with said answer that is a variant of the transitive property.

Question is a platform that makes known/unknown work together to isolate an equivalence (identity).


Let’s look at an example that articulates the details of my premise.

3+x=5

3 & 5 = known (underlined)

x = unknown (no underline)

Question - What do 3 & 5 have in common?

Answer – 3

Question, shuttling sequentially, discovers what 3 & 5 have in common, 3, thus linking them.

Question – What do 3 & 5 have not in common?

Answer – 2

We can say that these two questions, taken together, demonstrate known & unknown, each expressing one in terms of the other.

After 3 & 5 each express in terms of the other, both as known & unknown, x, the unknown, becomes isolated, thus x = 2.

Once the common ground between 3 & 5 i.e. 3 is established (transitive property) the disjunction separating 3 & 5 , the separator, 2, becomes isolated.

Now, x = unknown, becomes 2 = known.

So, 3 + 2 = 5

All of the terms are now known & equation of identity, linking two different expressions of one position on the number line, gets expressed.

We see here that Question, in its essence, functions as the messenger RNA, or shuttle diplomat, establishing, via the transitive property, the common ground linking both sides of the equation, thus isolating the unknown, who now, become known, enables the equation to express an identity across known values.

:up: :grin:

We can certainly do so, if we choose to, but I think we should recognize that in that case we don't consider how questions are used in our ordinary discourse. It would be like trying to understand or define language without considering irony, sarcasm, exaggeration, nuance, etc. — Ciceronianus

I have no intention to ignore, ultimately, the many applications of question in context, with multiple grammatical_syntactical variations etc. Lawyers, rhetorical actors, couldn't thrive (or even function) in the courtroom without these accoutrements, nor could dramatic actors upon the stage.

For explanation, let me say that here I'm trying to deconstruct the complex & great edifice of English in order to examine closely its foundation & frame through the lens of epistemology's greatest messenger, Lord Question.

King Language & Lord Question have a diplomatic relationship of exquisite protocols outfitted with lavish filigree (to which you are wed).

What are some essential features & functions of the platform (question) that transfers information intra-linguistically? (You provide a telling example of the messenger role of Lord Question by stressing how he conveys meaning (including equivalence) even when stripped clean of his diplomatic credentials.)

The upshot is just what I said at the beginning; What's the metaphysical status of a question?

I like my focus here because you, and many others, are completely focused on the application of question, whereas I wish to focus on the innate form & behavior of question.

↪ucarr You asked for me "reconfigure" my previous expression of "a question" into a "paradox" – thus, the question-mark. Paradoxical, no? — 180 Proof

So, you think question-of-question is, metaphysically speaking, paradoxical.

1. What is gravity? (interrogative) — Agent Smith

equation template v1, where to be ⇒ =

2. Define gravity. (command) — Agent Smith

implied equation

3. Gravity is a _________ (fill in the blank) — Agent Smith

equation template v2

4. Gravity is (MCQ)
a. A type of apple
b. Einstein's cat
c. A force
d. All of the above
e. None of the above — Agent Smith

conjunctive proposition ⇒ equation, with variables X₁, X₂, X₃, X₄, X₅

What have the five above instances in common? They juxtapose the known & the unknown within a field wherein the two states cohere as an interactive couplet.

From here I see that question is a platform that makes known/unknown work together to isolate an equivalence (identity).

Generically, a question is an expression that consists of a variable. — 180 Proof

A question is an expression that consists of
a variable? :eyes: — 180 Proof

I'm puzzled by your skepticism toward a statement you originally quoted as a general description of question.

I think it's a good definition. It makes clear how question is rooted in a curious juxtaposition of the known & the unknown.

Ignorance is the parent of knowledge
Knowledge is the parent of ignorance

Lord Question, I suspect, plays a key role in the shuttle diplomacy between knowledge & ignorance.

I'm not sure whether you're saying...that rhetorical questions are, or are not, questions for your purposes... — Ciceronianus

I'm trying to get sharp focus on whether question plays a principal role in information transfer -- rather like Messenger RNA. If so, might this be an underlying principle & core function of question? Moreover, as we have it from one of our great pillars,

“…we are obliged to inquire how it is possible for there
to be no philosophy; and in inquiring we philosophize, for inquiry is
the cause of Philosophy.”
-Aristotle

Through the lens of this quote, we can surmise such a core function being the lynchpin of philosophy as a whole. Let us, then, recede context, with all of its hubristic self-importance, including sub-textual intentions, into the background for the moment.

...unless you maintain that purpose has nothing to do with whether or not there is a question--because there is only one true question or form of question... — Ciceronianus

The word denotes something. If someone maintains this denotation is completely plastic within the ecosystem of context, then question has no essential function & meaning. I doubt Aristotle would sanction such a conclusion, as it posits the philosophical center of gravity amidst the swirling currents of atmospheric word play. Not a suitable instrument for examining the good life.

Nor am I sure whether you're addressing grammar, or metaphysics, or if they're one and the same. — Ciceronianus

I believe grammar & syntax are probative material for mounting a metaphysical premise with supporting argument but, no, I don't think they're equivalent to metaphysics. The relationship is more like grammar & syntax as the foot soldiers, preparing the battlefield for a great cataclysm wherein King meets King in contest.

then a categorical examination of the grammar of question is possible
— ucarr

So, it's grammar we're concerned with? — Ciceronianus

Grammar & syntax are, at present, town criers who can best tell us important things we'd like to know about our newly burnished noble, Lord Question.

A question, if it's pertinent to the answer it seeks, shares a link with said answer that is a variant of the transitive property.

I think I want to put this forward as the premise of my conversation here.

What you say is true. On the other hand, can you cite legions of family, friends and acquaintances who frequent this website, ready to spout alternatives to the cultural conventions that guide our everyday lives?

Reinventing the wheel works up a sweat!