I think that the religious definition is the only reasonable definition.

I think that it’s quite clear that one cannot will to move their arm without firstly determining the final cause, or rather, the reason for moving their arm prior to moving it. if I want to pick up a cup and I’m sitting silently at my desk, before I move to pick up a cup, I must first will to pick up the cup; in which case the final cause (picking up the cup) is determined prior to and is therefore conceptually contained within its first cause (the will).

now, if one is to say that their urge to pick up the cup is born out of a prior cause, they would be watching the process happening from a third person perspective and could have no control over whether they picked it up or not; yet that’s not what we see; our will to not will to pick up the cup guarantees our freedom; If our wills were predetermined, we would be passive watchers of the process and not the sole active agent of the process. this notion is also defeated by the fact that silence in mind exists, for if the mind were a mere link in the chain of causation, one thought would cause another ad infinitum and silence of mind could not exist. also, the fact that I can change my context in thought entirely to a disjunctive set (from thinking up drinking from my cup to complete silence) and all causal chains are necessarily contained within and related by a holarchy, guarantees that my will is free; if my will were not free, I could not break free in mind from the holarchy of causation. there are many other reasons to believe the that the will is a first cause, and not a material cause.

it’s not unreasonable to say that changes in the world can happen without my will, but not reasonable to say that those changes can happen without will; the former is supported by direct empirical evidence while the latter is mere conjecture, that is, a mere belief.

Sometimes memories just pop into my head, or what I am thinking of can lead to another related memory. These are not memories that are preceded with intent. — Harry Hindu

and how do you know that there aren’t two wills within you? Goethe said “two soul, alas, dwell within my breast.” how come you only think that there is one? have you not yet met your entire self? what are you waiting for? scientific evidence?:lol:

Change does not have its origin in the will, nor does the will have its origin in the memory. — Harry Hindu

if change has its origin in will sometimes, and the will can activate neurons and therefore microcosmic change, and microcosmic change formulates the basis of the world, well then how can you say that the will cannot be the cause of the world of you have direct evidence that the will can cause microcosmic change?


if Will is not born out of memory, then memory and the will are mutually exclusive? Yet you can only will what is in you’re memory, and all of your perceptions are at the same time perceptions and contained within memory, so how is it that you’ve concluded that will and memory can be mutually exclusive?

just present it in logical form using syllogisms and I’ll tell you what is wrong with it. I already know that your universal context is off so your conclusions are going to be false. meaning that you’re either failing to interpret empirical truths correctly or your premises are false.

autocorrect isn’t very friendly.

and I don’t confuse empirical truths of fact with truths of reason; I’m perfectly aware of the distinction between them.

you guys are all wasting your time. mysticism seems irrational until you become a mystic yourself. there are preconditions for becoming one though. but after you’re initiated, there is a direct and constant experience of spirit, or rather, the soul; once you experience it, all other philosophies besides mysticism become laughably irrelevant. you share a body with God all day long yet you deny Gods existence and call yourselves “rational;” and there is rich humor to be found it that.

Time is change and what is the fundamental essence of change? How are you aware of change?

The fact that you keep using concepts to refer to other concepts without ever getting to perceptions indicates that you don't have a mind at all. These are the types of responses one would expect from a mindless robot or zombie. — Harry Hindu

change has its origin in the will, the will has its origin in the memory; there is silence in my mind; I then will to create change within my present intuition and awareness and there is change. this process can only be pointed at with words, just like all things. first and foremost, it is a direct experience, and an experience that doesn't even necessitate a body; the body only exists to both limit and expand the potential concepts that can be conceived of towards a predetermined end...

i'm saying that the watcher of these changes is beyond space...and how simple is it? can you give me the true state in absolute detail of any one of your internal parts right now? no? well then how is it simple? you don't even know what word will pop into your mind next let alone the current status of any one of your bodily parts...so how is it that you're on here trying arguing with me about what is true and what is not?

through the intuition of difference, the concept of unity becomes known.

Americans are so lost.

using time, the law of non-contradiction, as a bridge. that is a bridge between being (the present) and non-being (the past).

no, they have their origin in intuition, the past, and the present, as distinguished from each other in awareness. no colors or objects are necessary.

you must close your eyes, silence your mind, relax your focus, and then perceive the persistence of your own existence. that's unity. a million billion parts working together in harmony...it is the flow of intuition through time. it cannot be measured with a stick, only with awareness. only through internal observation can the concept of unity be truly understood.

it doesn't take a form; take for example the concept of unity; which follows directly from my own intuition and presence, or the concept of difference, which follows from my intuitive understanding of the succession of time...these don't require images.

you must distinguish between mental images and concepts which do not require images. that is to say that the primordial conceptions are the concepts of unity, persistence and difference and that, these were formerly intuitions before they became mental abstractions.

that's for you me to know and you to figure out; that is, what it refers to. when i say pure subjectivity, what do I mean? what is necessary for the existence of subjectivity? where is the evidence that subjectivity requires the existence of the body?

what i'm saying is that relative time has no effect on its essence; and that both relative time and space are subsets of it, meaning that the relative is contingent upon the existence of the non-relative and non-spatial, but that the converse isn't true. It's very easy to understand.

it is everywhere in space because the spatial is a subset of the non-spatial; so it must be there in one sense and not there in another in the sense that it cannot be measured.

it's in time, but not in space. not time in the relative sense, but time in the non-relative sense.

What would a "non-local substratum" be? The substratum isn't located where the substratum is? — Terrapin Station

it's pure subjectivity. it exists everywhere that existence is.

Thankyou for explaining why are all wasting our time with you ! — fresco

You're the one quoting "Rorty;" loser...stop wasting our time. One cannot be both a philosopher and an anti-mystic. those who aren't mystics and call themselves philosophers are just playing pretend.

Hi Fresco, I think I remember you from another forum - long, long ago — Wayfarer

Terrapin Station version one million

No they don't. Some descriptions of phenomena are consensually more useful (in terms of prediction and control) than others in particular contexts. No description is any closer to a nebulous 'reality' than any other. (Nietzsche). The 'reality debate' is rejected as futile by Pragmatists like Rorty. — fresco

there’s over 21 different interpretations of QM, not because they are all true, but only because so called “philosophers” like you refuse to accept the existence of a non-spatial aspect to existence. hence the reason that still, after a hundred years, the prevailing metaphysical paradigm is still materialistic. Thomas Kuhn was right in his scientific revolutions; and so was Planck saying that “new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” Stopped perpetuating falsehoods to support your preconceived bias.

That seems to me something like Vedanta, or that aspect of German idealism which is similar to it, such as Fichte’s ‘absolute ego’. Regrettably I can’t see a justification for that notion especially depicted in such summary form. — Wayfarer

Yes, it is similar to Husserl’s “Transcendental Ego,” in essence, the perceiver of the perceiver of your thoughts, which is your “true Self” is beyond apace, and this is clear to see when you discover that’s its re source of the will and when you enact it while thinking and change your context in thought, you are willingly changing the patterns in which your neurons fire, and this process is a process which extends from the quantum substratum to the perceptible thought and sound inside our conscious awareness. If the Self is not outside of space, this change in context in thought would be an effect of a prior material cause and our wills could not then be free.

there are many justifications for this. if it were not true that the causal chain which supports hard determinism were not broken inside our minds, it would be impossible to experience silence of mind, and also, if we even existed as a self, we would be, not the active agents of our will, but the passive watchers of it. it’s quite clear, phenomenologically speaking, that we are the active agents of our will, so it must be the case that it is both beyond space and not bound by the causal chain.

How does your philosophical evangelism which relies on classical set theory, reconcile with aspects of QM in which classical set theory is inapplicable ?Even Einstein had trouble with that one ! David Bohm tried going down Einstein's 'underlying order' suggestion, but he was sidelined by most of the profession as being 'a mystic'.

It seems to me that your one-liner about 'philosophy being in a dark place' is merely a fear of being forced to swim without a traditional buoyancy aid. — fresco

I’m an ubermensch and a mystic, not a Christian, and especially not an evangelist. you clearly don’t understand the difference, probably because you really know nothing of the position that you criticize and you just default to the materialistic interpretation of everything out of spite or ignorance. see how you without thinking criticized mysticism? this is like the politicians criticizing left wing politics; they do so to keep people from becoming one, why? because then they cannot convince them that it’s rational to become anything in life or to not have a knowledge of being itself. they can then be controlled ideologically just like you are; a little puppet with strings!

ZFC only exists to avoid the paradox created by Russell’s Paradox, not there’s only a problem with Russell’s Paradox if the set of all sets doesn’t have ontological value, or rather, that the ground of being itself downs both contain itself and not contain itself at the same time and in the same respect; but it does, you see, you just have to be intelligent enough to see why. I’ve solved it, of course. I know the essence of the set of all sets. you’ll have to discover why it’s true for yourself or read my work when I release it to the public.

And for the record. Traditional philosophy isn’t philosophy. It’s a last ditch effort to save materialism and atheism. It’s hilarious to watch. Such fools; they same can be said for nearly all of humanity.

Do you have any source for that? — Wayfarer

i use set theory applied to ontology to figure these things out. we cannot conceive of the object without perceiving it, obviously, so our conception of the object has its origin in our perception of the object, but are perception of the object isn't occurring 'out there' in the object but 'in here' in the subject. our perception of the object has its origin in what I call the "microcosmic motions" which perpetuate the the existence of the brain and therefore one's perception of the body and the world. but of course, these "microcosmic motions" aren't born out of nothingness, but something, or rather, some thing which has an Essence. According to my philosophy, the Essence, involves Subjectivity, that is, Mind, or Consciousness in the absolute sense of the word. So the idea of a thing precedes the thing which precedes our perception and conception of the thing. This is not how modern philosophers conceive of the relationship between the subjects, objects, and concepts, but philosophy is going through a dark age right now.

They are not one and the same just as effects are not the same as their causes. Concepts are about objects and their aboutness comes from the causal relationship between the object and the concept. Effects carry information about their causes. Effects can be representations of their causes. — Harry Hindu

I think that the object itself, its essence and all of its changing qualities, are subsets of an 'original concept' which has become subjected to chaos, in which case, there is a dialectic between the concepts presented to the object by nature, and the original concept of the object. Man conceives of objects, he assigns words to them, to both objects and abstract relationships between objects, and those words refer to the essences of those objects; and the closer that those definitions become to the 'original concept' that is, the original essence or 'reason' for the existence of the thing, which is synonymous with its function in nature, the higher his level of knowledge is raised. That is to say that ignorance has its origin in the difference between man's conception of the essence of a thing and its original essence, as it were, and if there is too great a distinction between the two in one's mind, one believes, not in truths, but in falsehoods, and one doesn't have knowledge, but opinion. Associatively, wisdom, as distinguished from knowledge is a correct apprehension of, not the essences of particular things, but the essence of existence itself.

I'm not entirely an essentialist, because I don't believe that all original concepts are eternal, but only that some are, like specifically, Aristotle's laws of thought, which I assign actual ontological value (essence) to.

I consider all absolutism to be religious, (absolute truth being the mythical crock of gold at the end of the rainbow), and it is you who appears to have the learning deficit.
Lets face it, your knee jerk reaction to post-modernism, which is largely embellishment of pragmatism, is a bit of a give away! I suggest you take seriously Rorty's warning that 'philosophy' per se has zero authority in epistemological matters relative to that of the sciences. This is particularly pertinent when considering the comparative physiology of perceptual system, or the Copenhagen iinterpretation of QM in which there are no 'things', only 'interaction events'. But then you may come to understand that when you extend your learning. — fresco

Modern scientific discoveries in particle physics support the existence of a non-local substratum to reality, for in terms of the phenomenon of quantum entanglement, (def.) a change in particle A reflects in particle B instantaneously despite the distance that exists between them, and this is impossible unless both particle A and B are contained within some set C, a non-local medium, (A ∈ C) and (B ∈ C) which both precedes and causes the simultaneously changes in them both; that is to say that change, at the fundamental level of our reality, is born, not out of localized actuality (change and space), but out of non-localized potentiality (time and memory).

Russell's Paradox was dismissed by Wittgenstein as being 'aberrant language'. — fresco

This is an appeal to authority fallacy; and a poor appeal at that, for no matter what language we decide to use to refer to the ground of existence, that is, the origin, container, and final destination of all words, concepts, objects, and motions, it remains ontological and metaphysical.

what are you talking about “religious?” my philosophy invokes no religion at all. when you discount the possibility that subjectivity precedes the existence of matter, you only hurt yourself. you can acquire an IQ over 200, but you cannot do so as a materialist; you cannot be granted access to your unconscious mind, which is, of course, conscious in itself if you still naively believe that ‘nothing precedes something’ (existentialism) in the absolute sense of the word, or that change is infinite and all of our thoughts and actions follow by necessity from a deterministic casual chain (physicalism)...only an extensive knowledge of absolute truths will gain you access, but you don’t even think that there is even one absolute truth, and you think that it is absolute! Needless to say, you have a lot to learn, and judging by the fact that you think post-modernism actually has merit, you most certainly won’t be discovering the truth in this lifetime.

it’s taken many shots fatal shots to the body over time; it’s still salvageable, of course, because philosophy can never truly die. it take major hits when philosophers stopped trying to ascertain the essence of existence itself. now they’re conducting philosophy without a knowledge of the absolute context in which they exist. if their philosophy contradicts the absolute truth concerning the essence of existence itself, their philosophy is absurd, at least in the most general sense of the word. they cannot interpret empirical facts correctly until they know the essence of the absolute context. is there a God, or is there not? the entirety of metaphysics revolves around that question. post-modernists seem to think that they can and that philosophy can get along just fine without even dealing with the question. they’ve given up they search. and the truth is that there is a God, and you can have a direct experience of God within yourself. so all of the atheistic-materialists are far, far from genius.

“context is everything” yet he knows nothing of the absolute context in which he is speaking, ironically. in fact, he probably reduces the absolute context, that is, the nature of the set of all sets, to mere nothingness, that is the absence of essence, or rather, the ‘non-potential to contain existence within itself.’ that is to say that the “context” that post-modernists like Derrida place so much emphasis on, is non-existent in the absolute sense of the word, meaning that existence itself is without context. the basis of their philosophy lies in an absurdity, a contradiction, a lie; it’s all semantical nonsense, and it’s not even worth reading; reading it only gives people an faulty or perception of what is true and what is not. I will be releasing my philosophy in a few years and I will bring back philosophy from the dead.

well, what are the axioms in which you base your philosophy?

the thing is what it is no matter what word or definition we choose to give it. if there wasn’t first and foremost existence, and memory, and willing, and the a priori knowledge of our own wills as causal entities within ourselves (awareness), there wouldn’t even be language, so naturally, the actual essence of existence is not affected by language, nor is language a social construction in the original sense of the word; it has its origin in the unconscious and its impossible that the opposite is true. our words can do nothing to existence itself, its walls are impenetrable against our words and definitions.

I’m not sure why you’re reading the work of sophists. these people may be considered intelligent to humans, but they’re idiots in the universal sense of the word. one cannot remain ignorant of the essence of being itself and be a universally intelligent being. they’re capped out at “sophist” and “metaphysical propagandist.”

all concepts point to a word which points to a thing, whether it be concrete or abstract in its nature, that has an essence. existence itself has an essence. the whole question of the nature of the subject and the world rests upon the answer to the question, “what is the essnce of existence itself?” it doesn’t have its origin in language, nor in the world, but beyond, because the universe isn’t eternal and existence cannot spring forth from the non-potential for existence to be (i.e. “non—existence”)

I suggest you examine the concept of 'existence' itself ! You may come to the conclusion that 'existence' simply implies 'human contextual functionality', and that ' expected physicality' is merely one aspect of that functionality. — fresco

I am very well versed in the concept of being itself, and in no way to I think that existence itself is continent upon human functionality at all, but that the converse is true. that physicality itself is not eternal, and predicted upon the essence of being itself being what it is is, that which both contains, initiatites, destroys and preserves the essence of change itself.

This is kind of circular as we can say that an object is a concept of an object of a concept ad infinitum. I should state that when it comes to this line of thinking I much prefer to take in a phenomenological perspective - meaning I don’t care about the conceptual distinction between apparent “object,” “subject” and/or “concept”. All is a “field” of phenomenon (singular as there is no plural of an eidetic being). — I like sushi

there is no infinite regress, our conception of the object has its origin in our perception of the object, and our perception of the object has its origin in the original concept of the object and ourselves as an object, and those original concepts have their origin in the Absolute Subject which perpetuates their existence, and creates and destroys them.

there is an inverse relationship between object and subject, and also, a Transcendental Subject which perceives and conceives of the process. In the process there is a set of mathematical wave associated with the object of perception, and an inverse set of waves assorted with our brains, and when they meet, there is perception. then there is an awareness of that event, whether it be a sound in the form of a thought or a feeling associated with a chemical reaction, that conceives of it and gives meaning to it. This awarnesss, the Transcendental Subject, the Self (not the self) is outside of space and time in the relative sense of the word. This is the basic structure of the mind.

And all I am saying is that a ‘point’ is only known in reference to other ‘point/s’. Whether the space is imagined or not it is still abstracted from empirical space (meaning experience of space). And memory is necessarily temporal; because that is what memory is embedded in.

Hopefully all this will at least make you see how much you haven’t said in your document. — I like sushi

memory is the solution to Russell's Paradox, memory formulates the ground of being itself. It is not in space. Memory is temporal but not spatial.

Firstly, I establish the nature of the absolute context and then use that context to give meaning to relative facts; while philosophers today, and you, who seem to think that they're rational, don't even try to establish the essence of the absolute context in which we live, and therefore fail to compare empirical facts to it to make sure that the meaning that they give to them doesn't contradict the absolute truth which concerns the essence of the absolute context. My philosophy involves, first and foremost, establishing the nature of the absolute context. In doing so, I am able to give proper meaning to empirical truths.

Your still talking in spatial-temporal-substance terms. As you must. Simply saying they are not doesn’t make it so. Unity exists as a concept due to plurality. All you’re doing here is reiterating Kant’s categories and he NEVER made a positive claim for noumenon - his argument was against noumenon in a positive sense. ‘Hamburgers’ phenomenon not noumenon btw

Even the term ‘abstract’ should be enough to make this clear. What is ‘abstract’ is abstracted from experience.

Surely you’ve heard this before: “Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind. - Kant”

You may be better served elucidating your thoughts by offering a refutation of this quote from Kant. I assume you’ve read The Critique of Pure Reason. If not I am sure there is a lot in there you’d find useful - positively and/or negatively. — I like sushi

I'm saying that there are concepts which don't necessitate space at all, and therefore do not necessitate objects either, like, for example, the concepts of identity (unity) and difference and also number, and therefore all the laws of logic and mathematics, as well, which are, the fundamental languages by which all languages necessarily abide. The only thing necessary for these concepts to be intuited and therefore known is, as Kant would say, the 'unity of apperception' or rather, the awareness of the continuation in existence of ones own being; through the ability to create sub-center's of self-awareness within imagination, that is, 'imaginary space,' and will from them simultaneously or alternatively, and the existence of absolute memory, the dialectical process of consciousness was made possible. what is abstract, except for the eternal laws of logic which contain all abstract thoughts, minds, and things, are products of abstraction and therefore experience, but experience, that is, awareness and conceptual objects of awareness, are not predicated of material things.

that is, an empirical claim like “between here and there is 20 meters,” and a non-empirical claim like “this hamburger tastes really good” or “existence cannot come from non-existence.” your claim that change itself isn’t changing is not an empirical claim, but a claim which cannot be proven by means of empirical evidence; it is therefore a claim that can be proven or disproven using a priori reasoning only and not empirical evidence. this is philosophy 101.

that’s what you mean but you don’t understand the difference between an empirical and non-empirical claim, it seems.

don’t you mean non-empirical claims?

how are we supposed to know if change itself is changing or not changing, or rather, can become non-existent or not?