:up: Experientially, I agree. Spinoza's substance (natura naturans), though, even more so rationally.I do think that Schopenhauer's Will is the most promising of these ideas, which perhaps brings us closest to the "thing in itself" that I can think of. Perhaps it needs a slight reformulation, but I find it persuasive. — Manuel
Pedantic point of priviledge: Spinozism is neither "pan-en-theistic" nor "pantheistic" as close reading of his works and correspondances show.I embrace is something known as panentheism (not pantheism although I do like Spinoza's versions). — 3017amen
Unfortunately, using logic, the subconscious and conscious mind would transcend common logic. Like the law of bivalence, one cannot clearly delineate the object perceived as being unitary, or describe it in a unitary fashion without contradiction. For instance, driving while daydreaming, then crashing and dying, provides for the phenomenon of the mind performing two functions simultaneously. In that case, either the conscious or subconscious mind was driving, not dreaming of a beach in the Med.. And so in that strict sense neither the conscious nor the subconscious was driving, there was some combination of both at work.
And that suggests, although a great description (yours!) in its own right, a self-organized mind or entity is nonetheless incomplete, in a strict logical sense. And accordingly, we know Heisenberg and /Gödel demonstrated the flaws in logic's completeness and resulting randomness, which perhaps leads us to this... . — 3017amen
QM (and to some degree double slits and PAP-see John Wheeler) has also taught us that there is such a thing as an open system in the universe. — 3017amen
But what do these thoughts represent? Are they images, and intellectual concepts (among other things) from sense experience only coming back to 'haunt us'? Or are they innate features of consciousness (novel synthetic a priori knowledge), where in this case, they may simply be both. Does the hard drive represent Kantian intuition? — 3017amen
we have some pockets where this "order" appears. — Manuel
I'm not sure speaking of objects or creatures organizing is clear. Maybe they do, but what does organize mean in this situation? — Manuel
(Emphasis is mine.)... But some people think the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus rests on the assumption that God is one and the same as ‘Nature’ understood as a mass of corporeal matter. This is a complete mistake. — Spinoza, from letter (73) to Henry Oldenburg
In what ways do they "represent a threat to the status quo"? By "status quo" do you mean 'of any historical era' or only 'of the current era'? — 180 Proof
Why are they so badly "taught in academia"? Is it better to learn them outside the academy? With (a) teacher(s) or in a small, dialectical, circle of seekers or autodidactally?
The study of fundamental questions.In a sentence or two – describe metaphysics.
.In a sentence or two – describe mysticism
(I wonder how convergent with or divergent from your conceptions of metaphysics & mysticism my conceptions are (to be provided for comparison) – and both of our conceptions may seem in comparison to the Platonic-Aristotlean (i.e. "onto-theological") tradition – in order to better understand the points you're making.)
Just curious as to your take on this. Do you think Kantian intuition, noumenon, etc. is closely related to Christian Revelation (revelatory knowledge about a novel thing)? — 3017amen
I'm not sure I'm following that. If we could create something from nothing, to posit meaninglessness, frankly, would not even be an issue or concern.
Sure, no exceptions taken. But that assumes other 'logically' possible worlds existing. Thus the point that Paul makes about the fact that our sense of logic and math may not suffice here.
In that sense, the theories of multiverse and other possible worlds come into play. Meaning, there may be a whole other metaphysical language (mathematics, logic, etc.) that is needed
I can't quite follow this point.That would be in conflict with the interpretation of the [Paul's] aforementioned proposition... .
I'm not taking issue with your succinct descriptions, I'll just state my own in order for us to be clearer as to how much or little understanding we share so that we can proceed (I hope) fruitfully."In a sentence or two – describe metaphysics."
The study of fundamental questions.
"In a sentence or two – describe mysticism."
The art of union with reality. — FrancisRay
(NB: again understandings (from my practices): contemplation – exclusive, prolonged, reflective attention to the structural modalities of an external / abstract object or process; meditation – irreflective attention to any internal process of inattention in order to reduce inattention to nothing-but-attention, or attention-without-object.)I understand metaphysics as 'the apophatic contemplation of strictly logical membership-rules for the Null Set as criteria for negating (i.e. eliminating) unreals from any conception of the real'.
I understand mysticism as 'daily meditations on nonbeing' as a way of life. — 180 Proof
Yes, I think that's because metaphysics from Aristotle onward (even Neo-platonisn) has been kataphatic and therefore, like postulated axioms, such metaphysical concepts/categories can be disagreed with, set aside and/or replaced with others which 'generate' alternative, usually incommensurable, worldviews (like e.g. non-euclidean geometries).After Plato this tradition became just a series of footnotes, as Whitehead po[in]ts out. It has never made a yard of progress .. — FrancisRay
Tell me more about Kantian intuition, and perhaps I can add more. — Pop
As an important ancillary note, please know that music theory and mathematics confer no biological survival advantages. Alternatively, it seems we must ask meaning of life questions when discussing the nature of reality (ontologically speaking-in this case our forms of intuition) because we can't help it. Are we here by accident? — 3017amen
I think that, in many instances such as "meaning questions", Louis Armstrong's phrase can be applied:
“If you gotta ask, you ain't never gonna know. — Manuel
If it sounds good; it IS good-Miles Davis
That btw, was in response to too many musicians getting all twisted-up over music theory; diatonic scales/harmony, chords used for different/wrong key signatures. You know, analyze till you paralyze… .) Another Gee, is that what we're doing here, I wonder? — 3017amen
I like both being in and getting out. — Manuel
↪Pop Are you familiar with Stephen Wolfram's
computational-complexity theses and book exploring them A New Kind of Science? — 180 Proof
Why can't lower life forms develop their evolutionary math skills into those of homo sapiens? Is it because we are self-aware Beings (lower life forms have little so-called self-awareness v. pure instinct)? What is self-awareness? Is it something to do with metaphysical Will? An intrinsic need to know something? A sixth sense? — 3017amen
Is ignorance bliss? Why should we care? Sorry I got carried away :joke: — 3017amen
↪Pop Yeah, I'm familiar with all kinds of complexity / systems theories. What Wolfram set out to do, however, is truly radical and much more fundamental than biological or ecological 'self-organization'. I'm not completely sold, however, on his grand project but I've kept an eye on (some of) his work for over a decade now and, as I've learned more from him and physicists like Carlo Rovelli, David Deutsch and Max Tegmark (among others), I've become more interested in the lines of inquiry they're pursuing. — 180 Proof
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.