This is a very good question. How do we know about the underlying forms themselves. Apart from a priori knowledge, perhaps intuition is another means of inductive reason. Perhaps the role of imagination is not given enough importance and can also be a way of grasping the underlying forms as well. In some ways, imagination may be considered as subjective, but that doesn't mean that it can, at it's best, be a means of gaining access to some non physical truths, such as the underlying Forms of which Plato speaks.

In trying to understand Plato's forms, it is wise to consult what Plato said about them. Anything less is not a discussion about Plato's forms. Something can be said about the ancient Greek view of nature. And here it's relevant just to say that for them nature was imperfect. As a consequence, nothing could then be known about nature. For knowledge, then, the Greeks went elsewhere. The Pythagoreans to mathematics, rhetoricians to words and language, Plato to forms, Aristotle to observation and categorization, and more generally philosophers to philosophy. It seems that for all, knowledge "lived' in thought and thinking, modern science itself still off in the remote future. Which implies that the forms were simply a way of thinking, an attempt at knowledge, and as such in themselves nothing at all.

↪Nikolas
This is a very good question. How do we know about the underlying forms themselves. Apart from a priori knowledge, perhaps intuition is another means of inductive reason. Perhaps the role of imagination is not given enough importance and can also be a way of grasping the underlying forms as well. In some ways, imagination may be considered as subjective, but that doesn't mean that it can, at it's best, be a means of gaining access to some non physical truths, such as the underlying Forms of which Plato speaks. — Jack Cummins

I'm not sure of what you mean by imagination. We use the same word for conscious contemplation or opening to the experience of noesis and also escapist fantasy. What does imagination mean to you?

Which implies that the forms were simply a way of thinking, an attempt at knowledge, and as such in themselves nothing at all. — tim wood

Are forms really nothing at all or really the ultimate reality? How can we approach the question impartially and without bias?

Indeed. Go ahead. Hm. A start. What is the difference between reality and ultimate reality? What even is reality? And for whom?

Forms are thus mind-independent entities: their existence and nature is independent of our beliefs and judgments about them.

The Phaedo contains an extended description of the characteristics and functions of the forms:
Unchangeable (78c10-d9)

Eternal (79d2)
Intelligible, not perceptible (79a1-5)
Divine (80a3, b1)
Incorporeal (passim)
Causes of being (“The one over the many”) (100c)
Are unqualifiedly what their instances are only with qualification (75b)

The forms make sense when we begin with our Source or Plotinus ONE as the eternal unchanging. The universe or the body of God is in constant change. It serves the process of existence while the ONE IS. The forms then are the initial intelligence within the limits of creation emanating from the ONE.

The forms are the "one over the many." Man on earth is limited to contemplating the "many." Deductive reason begins with the premise of the intelligible which is not perceptible. It begins with the ONE and INVOLVES into creation and its many variations. Inductive reason begins with the many within creation and EVOLVES in the attempt to experience the ONE.

Can a human being through efforts of conscious contemplation begin to remember the forms or is it just a waste of time and nothing but fantasy?

The discussion of forms requires deductive reason. It begins with the first manifestation by our source not limited by time and space into creation itself: ideas (something from nothing) sometimes called the body of God. — Nikolas

You're already way off track. Ideas aren't "something from nothing." This has to be clearly justified and explained. Ideas, or forms, are generalities/classes/prototypes. When discussing "tree" or "dog," the Form refers to the "what-ness" of that entity. What makes it a stick, a dog, a tree. These are the forms. What's the problem, exactly? What's your question? We classify and generalize and conceptualize things all the time.

The rest is just verbiage. Bring it back to earth, quote Plato himself, give examples, etc. Otherwise this isn't interesting.

In trying to understand Plato's forms, it is wise to consult what Plato said about them. Anything less is not a discussion about Plato's forms. — tim wood

Exactly.

↪Nikolas Indeed. Go ahead. Hm. A start. What is the difference between reality and ultimate reality? What even is reality? And for whom? — tim wood

Society has many conditioned concepts of justice. They are all part of the "many." But justice itself is a form. It is an unchangeable universal ultimate reality or idea and not a conditioned response directed at certain people

You're already way off track. Ideas aren't "something from nothing." This has to be clearly justified and explained. Ideas, or forms, are generalities/classes/prototypes. When discussing "tree" or "dog," the Form refers to the "what-ness" of that entity. What makes it a stick, a dog, a tree. These are the forms.

The rest is just verbiage. Bring it back to earth, quote Plato himself, give examples, etc. Otherwise this isn't interesting. — Xtrix

Where do forms come from if not perennial apriori ideas?

Charles Darwin argued that forms are not divine, eternal, Platonic ideas but natural biological species that originate and gradually develop, one from the other, over long periods of time through the combined action of natural selection and spontaneous genetic mutations. In other words, there is nothing
"a priori," or absolutely necessary and strictly universal, about the Platonic Ideas. They are simply natural biological species situated in space and time, some of which persist and others of which become extinct.

Charles Darwin argued that forms are not divine, eternal, Platonic ideas but natural biological species that originate and gradually develop, one from the other, over long periods of time through the combined action of natural selection and spontaneous genetic mutations. In other words, there is nothing
"a priori," or absolutely necessary and strictly universal, about the Platonic Ideas. They are simply natural biological species situated in space and time, some of which persist and others of which become extinct. — charles ferraro

Darwin argues from inductive reason. Appreciating Plato requires deductive reason. Is a perfect circle the result of an evolving species or the first emanation of an idea manifesting within creation? Plato's ideas are logical but require the conscious source beyond time and space to follow the logic and the hierarchy of forms

A "perfect" circle never existed, does not now exist, and will never exist. It is inherently impossible for humans to experience a "perfect" circle. A "perfect" circle, being nothing, emanates from nothing. Both the alleged "perfect" circle and its alleged "perfect" a-spatial and a-temporal source are figments of human imagination. Also, the alleged "perfect" circle is "imperfect" from the frame-of-reference of non-Euclidean geometries. Appreciating Plato requires a vivid imagination, rather than deductive reason.

Where do forms come from if not perennial apriori ideas? — Nikolas

What do you mean by "come from"? Where does that idea come from?

The Forms (or Ideas) arise in the human being, and are described by the human being. It's like asking "where does language come from" or "where does abstraction come from"? Where do numbers and words "come from"? They arise in the human being, often called the "mind" or "reason," and there's little else to say about it. If you want to make up a story about their arising from some supernatural or mystical realm, or "nothingness," or anything else -- fine. But it's not interesting.

Can we agree on the distinction between inductive and deductive reason essential to consciously contemplate forms? — Nikolas

The dialogue Parmenides doesn't exactly address that issue but does have Zeno instructing Socrates that approach through discourse to get closer to the reality of the forms requires engaging with what is excluded in a proposition along with what is included. The interest in Philebus in how perception works is very Aristotelian. We are doing things in a certain way and that is given to us in one way or another. In other words the distance from the reality of the forms was not a measure of their importance in our experience.

As for talking about the source of the situation, that was taken up in the Timaeus. It is a difficult dialogue to quote from. But what the heck. Starting from section 41, there is a description of why the Maker made mortals a part of his work:

The part of them worthy of the name immortal, which is called divine and is the guiding principle of those who are willing to follow justice and you--of that divine part I will myself sow the seed, and having made a beginning, I will hand the work over to you. And do ye then interweave the mortal with immortal and make and begat living creatures, and give them food and make them to grow, and receive them again in death. — Plato, translated by Benjamin Jowett

A "perfect" circle never existed, does not now exist, and will never exist. It is inherently impossible for humans to experience a "perfect" circle. A "perfect" circle, being nothing, emanates from nothing. Both the alleged "perfect" circle and its alleged "perfect" a-spatial and a-temporal source are figments of human imagination. Also, the alleged "perfect" circle is "imperfect" from the frame-of-reference of non-Euclidean geometries. Appreciating Plato requires a vivid imagination, rather than deductive reason. — charles ferraro

From the point of view of inductive reason limited by our senses which is the visible realm, forms are imagination. However from the intelligible realm described by Plato in the divided line analogy, forms lead to the many opinions natural for the visible world.

Plato developed his Theory of Forms to the point where he divided existence into two realms. There is the world of sense experience (the ‘empirical’ world), where nothing ever stays the same but is always in the process of change. Experience of it gives rise to opinions. There is also a world which is outside space and time, which is not perceived through the senses, and in which everything is permanent and perfect or Ideal - the realm of the Forms. The empirical world shows only shadows and poor copies of these Forms, and so is less real than the world of the Forms themselves, because the Forms are eternal and immutable (unchanging), the proper objects of knowledge.

You seem to deny the intelligible world as fantasy while I prefer to consciously contemplate the idea with the potential to receive the experience of anamnesis or remembering what has been forgotten.

What do you mean by "come from"? Where does that idea come from?

The Forms (or Ideas) arise in the human being, and are described by the human being. It's like asking "where does language come from" or "where does abstraction come from"? Where do numbers and words "come from"? They arise in the human being, often called the "mind" or "reason," and there's little else to say about it. If you want to make up a story about their arising from some supernatural or mystical realm, or "nothingness," or anything else -- fine. But it's not interesting. — Xtrix

Interpretation normal for the visible realm we experience through our senses are not the forms. The forms are universal ideals. A perfect circle would still be a universal idea even if Man on earth were destroyed by a meteor.

Protagoras said that "Man is the measure of all things." From this point of view Man creates the ideas which manifest as the Source and are studied by inductive bottom up reason. But if Man becomes extinct, does this mean our universe falls apart into meaningless chaos? Deductive reason begins with the ONE or Plato's good and involves vertically to create our universe.

Which makes more sense for a seeker of truth to remember the meaning and purpose of our universe and Man within it: the inductive or deductive approach?

I subscribe only to the ongoing development of better, more comprehensive, empirically testable scientific theories about the physical universe in which we live.

By the way, for what it's worth, Descartes' use of hyperbolic doubt, exemplified by the machinations of the "evil genius," showed that even the truth of the so-called "necessary" propositions of logic, arithmetic, and Euclidian geometry, what he referred to as "clear and distinct ideas," were not indubitably certain.

However, I wish you success with your pursuit of anamnesis.

I subscribe only to the ongoing development of better, more comprehensive, empirically testable scientific theories about the physical universe in which we live. However, I wish you success with your pursuit of anamnesis. — charles ferraro

Since Einstein and others seemed to agree with Plato and the value of noesis, at least I'm not alone in a world dominated by inductive reason.

1930
"Many people think that the progress of the human race is based on experiences of an empirical, critical nature, but I say that true knowledge is to be had only through a philosophy of deduction. For it is intuition that improves the world, not just following the trodden path of thought. Intuition makes us look at unrelated facts and then think about them until they can all be brought under one law. To look for related facts means holding onto what one has instead of searching for new facts. Intuition is the father of new knowledge, while empiricism is nothing but an accumulation of old knowledge. Intuition, not intellect, is the ‘open sesame’ of yourself." -- Albert Einstein, in Einstein and the Poet – In Search of the Cosmic Man by William Hermanns (Branden Press, 1983, p. 16.), conversation March 4, 1930

I believe Einstein is stressing the importance of the role of creative imagination in scientific discovery. However, he did not mean this to exclude the importance of the necessity of empirical testing of the hypotheses predicted by the scientific theory.

I believe Einstein is stressing the importance of the role of creative imagination in scientific discovery. However, he did not mean this to exclude the importance of the necessity of empirical testing of the hypotheses predicted by the scientific theory. — charles ferraro

Intuition makes us look at unrelated facts and then think about them until they can all be brought under one law. To look for related facts means holding onto what one has instead of searching for new facts. — Nikolas

Searching for and combining related facts is the process of inductive reason. Einstein is referring to the value of deductive reason or combining unrelated facts under one law.

The trouble is that deductive reason requires a person to intuitively feel the value of the forest and not sacrifice it to argue over the value of trees. Such people are increasingly few and far between.

One book I am reading, relevant to the idea of imagination and Plato's idea of forms is, 'The Physics of Transfigured Light: The Imaginal Realm and the Hermetic Foundation of Science', by Leon Marvell (2016). In this book, the author is exploring the whole dimension of ideas.

In it he says,'a disciplined imagination leads one to a more accurate picture of reality, and an unfettered imagination leads one more astray.' I think that this distinction is important because we are looking at the difference between seeing subjective truths and more objective ones, although I am not sure that this distinction is clearcut.

He also suggests a,
'notion of ideal objects existing in fourth-dimensional space. Rather than a world of physical objects, however, it is a "problem space. Of central importance is the notion that ideas and conceptions possess a logical dimension outside of time, such that the force of certain ideas will become apparent to certain individuals outside of material, causal factors.'

I am aware that this quote does refer to it as a 'logical dimension', but nevertheless it is one which involves the imagination in order to enter into it. This is the way I see imagination, as not just being about mere personal fantasy, but of connecting to a dimension in its own right, and I believe that belief in Plato's idea of forms is dependent on this. So, the way in which imagination is involved is as a means of tapping into this source. It is a way of knowing which does involve reason and logic, but the point which I would stress is that it does suggest a realm or objective dimension, and this also involves imagination in the true sense of the word, as in conjuring up images.

↪Nikolas
One book I am reading, relevant to the idea of imagination and Plato's idea of forms is, 'The Physics of Transfigured Light: The Imaginal Realm and the Hermetic Foundation of Science', by Leon Marvell (2016). In this book, the author is exploring the whole dimension of ideas.

In it he says,'a disciplined imagination leads one to a more accurate picture of reality, and an unfettered imagination leads one more astray.' I think that this distinction is important because we are looking at the difference between seeing subjective truths and more objective ones, although I am not sure that this distinction is clearcut.

He also suggests a,
'notion of ideal objects existing in fourth-dimensional space. Rather than a world of physical objects, however, it is a "problem space. Of central importance is the notion that ideas and conceptions possess a logical dimension outside of time, such that the force of certain ideas will become apparent to certain individuals outside of material, causal factors.'

I am aware that this quote does refer to it as a 'logical dimension', but nevertheless it is one which involves the imagination in order to enter into it. This is the way I see imagination, as not just being about mere personal fantasy, but of connecting to a dimension in its own right, and I believe that belief in Plato's idea of forms is dependent on this. So, the way in which imagination is involved is as a means of tapping into this source. It is a way of knowing which does involve reason and logic, but the point which I would stress is that it does suggest a realm or objective dimension, and this also involves imagination in the true sense of the word, as in conjuring up images. — Jack Cummins

You've raised several question important if philosophy can have any higher meaning other than the secular. First of all do you agree with the four modes of thinking described by Plato"

noesis (immediate intuition, apprehension, or mental 'seeing' of principles)
dianoia (discursive thought)
pistis (belief or confidence)
eikasia (delusion or sheer conjecture)

It seems that much of modern philosophy rejects noesis and relies on discursive thought as the highest form of reason. Plato speaks of remembrance in which a higher level of reality you allude to can be temporarily experienced by a lower and interpreted by dianoia loosing its meaning. Dianoia is a double edged sword. It is essential to classify facts yet useless to experience "meaning" the origin for humanity is above Plato's divided line and beyond the limits of our senses.

The next question is why bother with philosophy if it is only good for arguing and indoctrinating? For this I'll quote from Jacob Needleman's book "The Heart of Philosophy"

Chapter 1

Introduction

"Man cannot live without philosophy. This is not a figure of speech but a literal fact that will be demonstrated in this book. There is a yearning in the heart that is nourished only by real philosophy and without this nourishment man dies as surely as if he were deprived of food and air. But this part of the human psyche is not known or honored in our culture. When it does breakthrough to our awareness it is either ignored or treated as something else. It is given wrong names; it is not cared for; it is crushed. And eventually, it may withdraw altogether, never again to appear. When this happens man becomes a thing. No matter what he accomplishes or experiences, no matter what happiness he experiences or what service he performs, he has in fact lost his real possibility. He is dead.

……………………….The function of philosophy in human life is to help Man remember. It has no other task. And anything that calls itself philosophy which does not serve this function is simply not philosophy………………………………."

So my question to you is what it means for humanity to consciously die? Can Man inwardly die and eventually lose its conscious potential without the awakening influence of philosophy to stimulate our conscious potential and remember through noesis what has been forgotten?

Interpretation normal for the visible realm we experience through our senses are not the forms. The forms are universal ideals. A perfect circle would still be a universal idea even if Man on earth were destroyed by a meteor. — Nikolas

The Forms are indeed universal prototypes. Whether they go on without human beings is a separate issue. The concept and word "circle" and "perfect" are both very much human constructs. Given that only humans have language, if humans were destroyed then there would be no language, and therefore no way to express anything like "perfect circle." Does that mean it doesn't exist? Maybe numbers and words go on without human beings too, who knows? Who cares?

Protagoras said that "Man is the measure of all things." From this point of view Man creates the ideas which manifest as the Source and are studied by inductive bottom up reason. But if Man becomes extinct, does this mean our universe falls apart into meaningless chaos? Deductive reason begins with the ONE or Plato's good and involves vertically to create our universe. — Nikolas

Logic itself, inductive or deductive, has a long history and is itself a human construction. You seem to be hung up on it, take it as an absolute, and want to privilege it. This is very common in Western philosophy, but in my view is a huge waste of time. If you want to reduce things to some "oneness" or "source" or "God" or anything else, fine -- that's been done many times before. What's more interesting for me is the psychology which leads people to interpret things this way, or even has a desire to.

You're not going to settle upon some ultimate truth just by re-arranging and re-organizing words. Nor are you going to get anywhere with mere assertions, free of any citations of the texts of which you refer (in this case, Plato's).

Also, to say deductive reason "creates" our universe is so ridiculous it's barely worth discussing. You might as well write a New Age book. Perhaps re-think your entire notion of "creation" or causality.

Logic itself, inductive or deductive, has a long history and is itself a human construction. You seem to be hung up on it, take it as an absolute, and want to privilege it. This is very common in Western philosophy, but in my view is a huge waste of time. If you want to reduce things to some "oneness" or "source" or "God" or anything else, fine -- that's been done many times before. What's more interesting for me is the psychology which leads people to interpret things this way, or even has a desire to.

You're not going to settle upon some ultimate truth just by re-arranging and re-organizing words. Nor are you going to get anywhere with mere assertions, free of any citations of the texts of which you refer (in this case, Plato's).

Also, to say deductive reason "creates" our universe is so ridiculous it's barely worth discussing. You might as well write a New Age book. Perhaps re-think your entire notion of "creation" or causality. — Xtrix

Human psychology interests you. You want to understand the human condition as it exists in the world and why you are as you are and can believe any old thing. This is basic inductive reason and supports the Socratic axiom "Know Thyself."

But what of those others who are driven to know the purpose of our universe and humanity within it? It requires beginning with our source. Can understanding leading to meaning be built on it? If they are all nuts then the pursuit of philosophy defined as a being in search of meaning is really just futile since life is meaningless

I consider Plotinus' conception of the ONE as our source beyond time and space and Nous as its first expression within creation or within the isness of ONE

The Intelligence (Nous) is the true first principle — the determinate, referential ‘foundation’ (arkhe) — of all existents; for it is not a self-sufficient entity like the One, but rather possesses the ability or capacity to contemplate both the One, as its prior, as well as its own thoughts, which Plotinus identifies with the Platonic Ideas or Forms (eide). The purpose or act of the Intelligence is twofold: to contemplate the ‘power’ (dunamis) of the One, which the Intelligence recognizes as its source, and to meditate upon the thoughts that are eternally present to it, and which constitute its very being..................

It may be meaningless for you but for others consciously contemplating how the self sufficiency of the ONE can produce the PROCESS of Nous from the ISNESS of the ONE are really practicing philosophy rather than psychology. It reveals the inner direction which answers our questions concerning "meaning."

You asked what it means for humanity to consciously die. Personally, I would view this as a means of people being lacking in self awareness. I am not sure that we are awake enough, in the sense of being able to always see beyond the conditioning we have experienced and how we are taught to see in the way institutions try to program us. I would say that it is about reflective consciousness and, often, this is not triggered unless people suffer to the point where they need to question and think.

I am not sure that it is just about formal philosophy, because even that can be about reading and regurgitating the ideas of others. Also, some of the most philosophical approaches to life may not be come under the strict definition of philosophy but within other disciplines, as free thinking.

Human psychology interests you. You want to understand the human condition as it exists in the world and why you are as you are and can believe any old thing. This is basic inductive reason and supports the Socratic axiom "Know Thyself." — Nikolas

It's not basic inductive reasoning, it's basic curiosity and thinking. If you want to impose order on this type of phenomenon, and call it inductive or deductive logic, that's fine -- but that's already one step removed from what happens, and is itself more thinking, with words and concepts and categories. For the record, I have nothing against logic. But if you study the origin and history of logic, you'll find that it's not equivalent to "thinking," which is far more basic a concept.

Also, "know thyself" is not an axiom and not from Socrates. It was an inscription at the Temple of Apollo, in Delphi. (Which, by the way, I highly recommend visiting.)

But what of those others who are driven to know the purpose of our universe and humanity within it? It requires beginning with our source. Can understanding leading to meaning be built on it? If they are all nuts then the pursuit of philosophy defined as a being in search of meaning is really just futile since life is meaningless — Nikolas

"Requires beginning with our source." What is "our source"? Why does there even have to be a source? Sounds like the cosmological argument, and rather stale.

I consider Plotinus' conception of the ONE as our source beyond time and space and Nous as its first expression within creation or within the isness of ONE — Nikolas

The "source" or what? Anything "beyond" space and time is simply nothing. We can't know it, see it, or really even talk about it, because doing so is referring to "something" (cf. Parmenides).

It's fun to try to sort it all out -- but always remember: this is just thinking. It's just words, concepts, classifications. You may want to try to organize it all into some system, because it gives you a sense of satisfaction or certainty or understanding -- and that may be important and useful. But there's a thousand ways to do that. You've fallen into what most armchair "philosophers" also fall into: organizing the world by way of definitions. So you, some guy on an internet forum, now feels he's discovered some truth that's been debated for millennia, and that's fine. But it gets us nowhere.

We're not interested in simply defining things. If you want to make something a technical notion, then explain what it means and how it fits into a larger theoretical structure, gives evidence and examples, show why it's an improvement on other theories, etc. But here we simply have baseless assertions.

Citing Plotinus doesn't help much. Sounds to me like simply another way of interpreting the world, this time using the word "one." Later on, that very man was a major influence of early Christian thinkers as well. Not a far leap from the "one" to "God."

You asked what it means for humanity to consciously die. Personally, I would view this as a means of people being lacking in self awareness. I am not sure that we are awake enough, in the sense of being able to always see beyond the conditioning we have experienced and how we are taught to see in the way institutions try to program us. I would say that it is about reflective consciousness and, often, this is not triggered unless people suffer to the point where they need to question and think.

I am not sure that it is just about formal philosophy, because even that can be about reading and regurgitating the ideas of others. Also, some of the most philosophical approaches to life may not be come under the strict definition of philosophy but within other disciplines, as free thinking. — Jack Cummins

Are you referring to self awareness or being self conscious? For me self awareness is the conscious experience that the human organism has a mechanical lower part of the collective essence as well as the potential higher parts of the collective human essence. Ideas like the forms opens the mind to the vertical inner direction giving us practice in the contemplation of reality greater than ourselves When we have this awareness we also become aware that there is higher consciousness that looks down on the quality of our consciousness that allows us to see ourselves: our mechanical nature.

Self consciousness is being governed by the fears and imaginary opinions of ourselves. To die to ourselves means to die to imagination which keeps us as prisoners in Plato's cave. Since imagination makes up the great majority of our lives, we don't want to die.

Freedom for Plato as with Christianity means inwardly turning towards the light with the whole of ourselves rather than being fixated on the shadows on the wall. In Christianity it is called metanoia

We're not interested in simply defining things. If you want to make something a technical notion, then explain what it means and how it fits into a larger theoretical structure, gives evidence and examples, show why it's an improvement on other theories, etc. But here we simply have baseless assertions. — Xtrix

Can modern civilization become able to accept the complimentary rather than the divisive relationship of science and the essence of religion? That would be a new theoretical structure.


I believe that one identical thought is to be found—expressed very precisely and with only slight differences of modality—in. . .Pythagoras, Plato, and the Greek Stoics. . .in the Upanishads, and the Bhagavad Gita; in the Chinese Taoist writings and. . .Buddhism. . .in the dogmas of the Christian faith and in the writings of the greatest Christian mystics. . .I believe that this thought is the truth, and that it today requires a modern and Western form of expression. That is to say, it should be expressed through the only approximately good thing we can call our own, namely science. This is all the less difficult because it is itself the origin of science. Simone Weil….Simone Pétrement, Simone Weil: A Life, Random House, 1976, p. 488

"To restore to science as a whole, for mathematics as well as psychology and sociology, the sense of its origin and veritable destiny as a bridge leading toward God---not by diminishing, but by increasing precision in demonstration, verification and supposition---that would indeed be a task worth accomplishing." Simone Weil

Is this just wishful thinking? can the duality of science accept the triund nture of our universe which intuition is sensitive to? Maybe so if Dr. Basarab Nicolescu is right as he explains the laws of the INCLUDED middle

https://ciret-transdisciplinarity.org/bulletin/b12c3.php

2. The logic of the included middle

Knowledge of the coexistence of the quantum world and the macrophysical world and the development of quantum physics has led, on the level of theory and scientific experiment, to the upheaval of what were formerly considered to be pairs of mutually exclusive contradictories (A and non-A): wave and corpuscle, continuity and discontinuity, separability and nonseparability, local causality and global causality, symmetry and breaking of symmetry, reversibility and irreversibility of time, etc.

For example, equations of quantum physics are submitted to a group of symmetries, but their solutions break these symmetries. Similarly, a group of symmetry is supposed to describe the unification of all known physical interactions but the symmetry must be broken in order to describe the difference between strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational interactions.

The intellectual scandal provoked by quantum mechanics consists in the fact that the pairs of contradictories that it generates are actually mutually contradictory when they are analyzed through the interpretative filter of classical logic. This logic is founded on three axioms:

1. The axiom of identity : A is A.

2. The axiom of non-contradiction : A is not non-A.

3. The axiom of the excluded middle : There exists no third term T which is at the same time A and non-A.

According to the hypothesis of the existence of a single level of Reality, the second and third axioms are obviously equivalent. The dogma of a single level of Reality, arbitrary like all dogma, is so embedded in our consciousness that even professional logicians forget to say that these two axioms are in fact distinct and independent from each other.

If one nevertheless accepts this logic which, after all, has ruled for two millennia and continues to dominate thought today (particularly in the political, social, and economic spheres) one immediately arrives at the conclusion that the pairs of contradictories advanced by quantum physics are mutually exclusive, because one cannot affirm the validity of a thing and its opposite at the same time: A and non-A.

Since the definitive formulation of quantum mechanics around 1930 the founders of the new science have been acutely aware of the problem of formulating a new "quantum logic." Subsequent to the work of Birkhoff and van Neumann a veritable flourishing of quantum logics was not long in coming [4]. The aim of these new logics was to resolve the paradoxes which quantum mechanics had created and to attempt, to the extent possible, to arrive at a predictive power stronger than that afforded by classical logic.

Most quantum logics have modified the second axiom of classical logic -- the axiom of non-contradiction -- by introducing non-contradiction with several truth values in place of the binary pair (A, non-A). These multivalent logics, whose status with respect to their predictive power remains controversial, have not taken into account one other possibility: the modification of the third axiom -- the axiom of the excluded middle.

History will credit Stéphane Lupasco with having shown that the logic of the included middle is a true logic, formalizable and formalized, multivalent (with three values: A, non-A, and T) and non-contradictory [5]. Stéphane Lupasco, like Edmund Husserl, belongs to the race of pioneers. His philosophy, which takes quantum physics as its point of departure, has been marginalized by physicists and philosophers. Curiously, on the other hand, it has had a powerful albeit underground influence among psychologists, sociologists, artists, and historians of religions. Perhaps the absence of the notion of "levels of Reality" in his philosophy obscured its substance. Many persons believed that Lupasco's logic violated the principle of non-contradiction -- whence the rather unfortunate name "logic of contradiction" -- and that it entailed the risk of endless semantic glosses. Still more, the visceral fear of introducing the idea of the included middle , with its magical resonances, only helped to increase the distrust of such a logic.

Our understanding of the axiom of the included middle -- there exists a third term T which is at the same time A and non-A -- is completely clarified once the notion of "levels of Reality" is introduced.

In order to obtain a clear image of the meaning of the included middle, we can represent the three terms of the new logic -- A, non-A, and T -- and the dynamics associated with them by a triangle in which one of the vertices is situated at one level of Reality and the two other vertices at another level of Reality. If one remains at a single level of Reality, all manifestation appears as a struggle between two contradictory elements (example: wave A and corpuscle non-A). The third dynamic, that of the T-state, is exercised at another level of Reality, where that which appears to be disunited (wave or corpuscle) is in fact united (quanton), and that which appears contradictory is perceived as non-contradictory.

It is the projection of T on one and the same level of Reality which produces the appearance of mutually exclusive, antagonistic pairs (A and non-A). A single level of Reality can only create antagonistic oppositions. It is inherently self-destructive if it is completely separated from all the other levels of Reality. A third term, let us call it T', which is situated on the same level of Reality as that of the opposites A and non-A, can accomplish their reconciliation.

The entire difference between a triad of the included middle and an Hegelian triad is clarified by consideration of the role of time . In a triad of the included middle the three terms coexist at the same moment in time . On the contrary, each of the three terms of the Hegelian triad succeeds the former in time. This is why the Hegelian triad is incapable of accomplishing the reconciliation of opposites, whereas the triad of the included middle is capable of it. In the logic of the included middle the opposites are rather contradictories : the tension between contradictories builds a unity which includes and goes beyond the sum of the two terms.

One also sees the great dangers of misunderstanding engendered by the common enough confusion made between the axiom of the excluded middle and the axiom of non-contradiction [6]. The logic of the included middle is non-contradictory in the sense that the axiom of non-contradiction is thoroughly respected, a condition which enlarges the notions of "true" and "false" in such a way that the rules of logical implication no longer concerning two terms (A and non-A) but three terms (A, non-A and T), co-existing at the same moment in time. This is a formal logic, just as any other formal logic: its rules are derived by means of a relatively simple mathematical formalism.

One can see why the logic of the included middle is not simply a metaphor like some kind of arbitrary ornament for classical logic, which would permit adventurous incursions and passages into the domain of complexity. The logic of the included middle is perhaps the privileged logic of complexity, privileged in the sense that it allows us to cross the different areas of knowledge in a coherent way, by enabling a new kind of simplicity.

The logic of the included middle does not abolish the logic of the excluded middle: it only constrains its sphere of validity. The logic of the excluded middle is certainly valid for relatively simple situations. On the contrary, the logic of the excluded middle is harmful in complex, transdisciplinary cases.

The law of the included middle provides the logical means to connect above and below or our Source and Creation. The law of the INCLUDED middle describes how Man can connect reality above and below Plato's divided line. It offers hope for the future.




.

I believe that one identical thought is to be found—expressed very precisely and with only slight differences of modality—in. . .Pythagoras, Plato, and the Greek Stoics. . .in the Upanishads, and the Bhagavad Gita; in the Chinese Taoist writings and. . .Buddhism. . .in the dogmas of the Christian faith and in the writings of the greatest Christian mystics. . .I believe that this thought is the truth, and that it today requires a modern and Western form of expression. That is to say, it should be expressed through the only approximately good thing we can call our own, namely science. This is all the less difficult because it is itself the origin of science. Simone Weil….Simone Pétrement, Simone Weil: A Life, Random House, 1976, p. 488

"To restore to science as a whole, for mathematics as well as psychology and sociology, the sense of its origin and veritable destiny as a bridge leading toward God---not by diminishing, but by increasing precision in demonstration, verification and supposition---that would indeed be a task worth accomplishing." Simone Weil

Is this just wishful thinking? — Nikolas

No way to tell, until someone explains what this "identical thought" is. Personally, I find Heidegger to be more compelling in this vein. What's thought is "being," which gets interpreted in various ways throughout history, with varying consequences for culture through history.

If this is what is meant, fine. But I don't see what the big deal is. Seems to me like a truism. Heidegger gets into exactly why its important, but he goes through a mountain of historical and linguistic evidence. It's not just assertion and re-arranging or re-defining of words.

I'll skip the rest.

Honestly, though, you sound like someone very similar who was posting gibberish on here not long ago. I see you have only 61 posts, so I wouldn't be surprised if you were the same person. That same level of unresponsive numbness is evident. If you want to rattle on with definitions while capitalizing various words, you're welcome to.

But don't expect to be taken too seriously.

No way to tell, until someone explains what this "identical thought" is. Personally, I find Heidegger to be more compelling in this vein. What's thought is "being," which gets interpreted in various ways throughout history, with varying consequences for culture through history.

If this is what is meant, fine. But I don't see what the big deal is. Seems to me like a truism. Heidegger gets into exactly why its important, but he goes through a mountain of historical and linguistic evidence. It's not just assertion and re-arranging or re-defining of words.

I'll skip the rest.

Honestly, though, you sound like someone very similar who was posting gibberish on here not long ago. I see you have only 61 posts, so I wouldn't be surprised if you were the same person. That same level of unresponsive numbness is evident. If you want to rattle on with definitions while capitalizing various words, you're welcome to.

But don't expect to be taken too seriously. — Xtrix

The purpose of philosophy is to enable a person to experience the path to meaning that otherwise mindlessly accepts absurdity. I like to find people who are attracted to the purpose of philosophy since I learn from them.

Thomas Merton records being asked to review a biography of Weil (Simone Weil: A Fellowship in Love, Jacques Chabaud, 1964) and was challenged and inspired by her writing. “Her non-conformism and mysticism are essential elements in our time and without her contribution we remain not human.”

This is gibberish and insulting to many philosophers. Who is this woman to challenge the intellect of Man and assert they are not human? Maybe she is right and science and religion can become complimentary in the philosophical quest to become human and experience human meaning. Perhaps the law of the included middle in addition to the law of the excluded middle is a step on the ladder leading to human meaning. It does give hope for the future of our species