Yet, the attitude which I recommend is one that's common knowledge: If life gives ya lemons, make lemonade! — Agent Smith

Yes! Animals have no choice, but to grimly gulp the lemons, while making a lemon-face. But humans can add a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down. :joke:

Great pictures! "Beeeehhh!!! To much sugar mummy!" :grin:

Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language. — Ludwig Wittgenstein

What is meant here with the "bewitchment of our intelligence"? And why should philosophy battle it by means of language. Does language has the power to fight against bewitchment? Isn't language part of the bewitchment?

:lol:

Do you think the red pill that Mr. Anderson took was sour (or bitter)? It couldn't have been sweet, he didn't look like he was enjoying the experience all that much.

The movie also depicts how a person extracted from The Matrix (awakened) has to adjust to reality, an homage to Plato (re The Allegory of the Cave) who went into some detail on what the experience of being taken out of the cave into the light would be like (let's just say it's gonna be a rude awakening).

Do you think the red pill that Mr. Anderson took was sour (or bitter)? It couldn't have been sweet, he didn't look like he was enjoying the experience all that much. — Agent Smith

Perhaps it was bittersweet, like reality itself. :wink:

Bittersweet :
1 : being at once bitter and sweet especially : pleasant but including or marked by elements of suffering or regret a bittersweet ballad bittersweet memories.

How does the Earth actually look like in The Matrix? Where did sentinels come from in the first place? How do the alien machines actual look? Are they themselves maybe a simulated reality? "The Matrix 5: The Next Layer, soon in a theater nearby!"

Perhaps it was bittersweet, like reality itself. :wink:

Bittersweet :
1 : being at once bitter and sweet especially : pleasant but including or marked by elements of suffering or regret a bittersweet ballad bittersweet memories. — Gnomon

BothAnd?

Nice!

Frankly speaking, I haven't the foggiest! Those files are not in my database as of now!

BothAnd? — Agent Smith

Yes. In his book on quantum physics, Phillip Ball addressed the paradoxes inherent in the Copenhagen Interpretation. Scientists now accept QM as the foundation*1 of macro reality. However, such concepts as Wave-Particle Duality and Superposition are counter-intuitive, so for pragmatic purposes, they can only trust the numbers : "shut up and calculate". "They generally arrange quantum outcomes in such a way as to apparently permit the answers Yes and No simultaneously". Therefore, I have come to accept that the superstructure built upon such a squishy foundation is both Real & Ideal, Physical & Meta-physical. That's why I labeled my personal philosophy as BothAnd. :nerd:

*1. One way to look at it is to consider everything down to atomic scale as classical Reality, and anything below that as imaginary : Ideal. For example, when Gell-Mann coined the term "quork" for the constituent "building blocks" of subatomic particles, he seemed to have tongue-in-cheek. It was a made-up word for a mythical particle. The James Joyce term "quark" seemed to imply "non-sense". :joke:

The BothAnd Philosophy :
* Philosophy is the study of ideas & beliefs. Not which are right or wrong – that is the province of Religion and Politics – but which are closer to universal Truth. That unreachable goal can only be approximated by Reason & Consensus, which is the method of Science. In addition to ivory tower theories, applied Philosophy attempts to observe the behavior of wild ideas in their natural habitat.   
* The BothAnd philosophy is primarily Metaphysical, in that it is concerned with Ontology, Epistemology, & Cosmology. Those categories include abstract & general concepts, such as : G*D, existence, causation, Logic, Mathematics, & Forms. Unlike pragmatic scientific "facts" about the physical world, idealistic Metaphysics is a battle-ground of opinions & emotions.   
* The BothAnd principle is one of Balance, Symmetry and Proportion. It eschews the absolutist positions of Idealism vs Realism, in favor of the relative compromises of Pragmatism. It espouses the Practical Wisdom of the Greek philosophers, instead of the Perfect Wisdom of the Hebrew Priests. The BA principle of practical wisdom requires “skin in the game”* to provide real-world feedback, which counter-balances the extremes of Idealism & Realism. That feedback establishes limits to freedom and boundaries to risk-taking. BA is a principle of Character & Virtue, viewed as Phronesis or Pragmatism, instead of Piety or Perfectionism.   
* The BA philosophy is intended to be based on empirical evidence where possible, but to incorporate reasonable speculation were necessary. As my personal philosophy, the basic principle is fleshed-out in the worldview of Enformationism, which goes out of the Real world only insofar as  to establish the universal Ground of Being, and the active principle in Evolution.
BothAnd Glossary

Wow!

One question (a foolish one probably)

First of all, there's a very "good reason" (???) why there's so much friction/conflict/bad blood in the world, philosophy is no exception. That "good reason" (???) is the law of noncontradiction. Given two opposing views - one affirmation and the other its negation - it "cannot be" that both are true! All this, of course, in what I call classical logic.

Hence, from where I stand, your BothAnd principle has to either modify/discard/other the law of noncontradiction. What do, or rather what did, you do to the law of noncontradiction?

Yes. In his book on quantum physics, Phillip Ball addressed the paradoxes inherent in the Copenhagen Interpretation. Scientists now accept QM as the foundation*1 of macro reality. However, such concepts as Wave-Particle Duality and Superposition are counter-intuitive, so for pragmatic purposes, they can only trust the numbers : "shut up and calculate". — Gnomon

There is one approach very easily pictured by classical thinking. With an odd non-local twist though, and it explains identical particles and their fermion and boson collective behavior intuitively clear.

Hence, from where I stand, your BothAnd principle has to either modify/discard/other the law of noncontradiction. What do, or rather what did, you do to the law of noncontradiction? — Agent Smith

I follow the pragmatic suggestion of Richard Feynman : "shut-up and calculate"! That's not ideal, it's a real-world compromise. Non-contradiction is not a law of nature, it's a philosophical rule-of-thumb. If you think you see a contradiction, first re-examine your own premises, then look at the conflicting parts in perspective of the Big Picture (the Whole System). :cool:

"Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." ___Ayn Rand

Both/And Principle :
* My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
* The Enformationism worldview entails the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity & Holism, which are necessary to ofset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism. Analysis into parts is necessary for knowledge of the mechanics of the world, but synthesis of those parts into a whole system is required for the wisdom to integrate the self into the larger system. In a philosophical sense, all opposites in this world (e.g. space/time, good/evil) are ultimately reconciled in Enfernity (eternity & infinity).
* Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose.
* This principle is also similar to the concept of Superposition in sub-atomic physics. In this ambiguous state a particle has no fixed identity until “observed” by an outside system. For example, in a Quantum Computer, a Qubit has a value of all possible fractions between 1 & 0. Therefore, you could say that it is both 1 and 0.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

Gracias. I have a fair grasp of what you're getting at señor/señorita. I'm quite satisfied what I (think I) know of your system.

Possibility space.

1. p: p
2. ~p: Not p
3. p & ~p: both p AND Not p.
4. ~(p v ~p): Neither p Nor Not p.

There is one approach very easily pictured by classical thinking. With an odd non-local twist though, and it explains identical particles and their fermion and boson collective behavior intuitively clear. — Hillary

Yes. Collective behavior of randomized particles is statistically predictable. It's only when we try to keep track of individual dots that things get fuzzy. Way back, when I first was faced with quantum queerness, I imagined the photons in the slit-experiment as an aggregate of machine-gun bullets. They inundated a whole area, like a tidal wave, but it's the one with-your-name-on-it that gets you. :gasp:

Gracias. I have a fair grasp of what you're getting at señor/señorita. I'm quite satisfied what I (think I) know of your system. — Agent Smith

You won't really understand my "system" until you read the thesis. The website shows how the general idea originated from quantum & information theories, and the blog illustrates how it has evolved since, from a hunch into a universal worldview. :nerd:

PS___You can call me Mr. Sir. :joke:

Enformationism :
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

Ok!

PS___You can call me Mr. Sir — Gnomon

:grin: Ok Mr. Sir!

I bookmarked your site for later!