Heath Ledger & Joaquin Phoenix have done excellent work as the Joker. The Dark Knight & Joker, however, are dramas about a super-villain, a genre distinct from the militarism of the superhero genre.

The protagonists hit each other until one side can't. — Banno

And thus the popularity of the boxing match. Humanity will never resist entirely the hot blood of the slain bull.

The reality is that most movies would be utterly diminished without the sound effects and music - the cues which give the visuals their power. — Tom Storm

With your statement, you have tossed me a dilemma. I see a lot of truth in what you say, however, personally speaking, I don't feel it all the way down.

I understand Hitchcock is the director the cognoscente love to hate. I hope you're not denying he was a genius filmmaker. Boy, if I had a choice between being a rarely seen darling of the critics vs. being a perennial favorite of the masses, I'd side with Hitchcock immediately.

When the title Psycho is uttered, does anyone first think of Bernard Herrmann?

As for the fascism of the American superhero movie (does anyone else make them?), you never get a thrill of power and preeminence when USA unloads a heep of whoop-ass onto the enemy?

You make an important point about the essential role of music scores. Where would Jaws be without those periodic, bowed bass notes? And that's why I think the eardrum-threatening splendor of the music of world-crunching mayhem is important catharsis for gadget-crazy America.

You can only assault someone's ears if they have other senses remaining. — Paul

If I can't see, touch, smell or taste, then my hearing is desensitized? I've heard that lack of sight, for example, increases aural sensitivity.

Just wild guessing> Did you mean for your statement to be a negative, but you forgot to include the negative?> You can only assault someone's ears if they don't have other senses remaining?

I need help understanding this.

It's true of 99% of post-1930 movies that you'll get more out of listening to it with your eyes closed than watching it with your ears plugged and captions off. — Paul

Interesting. Are you saying that verbal learners outnumber visual learners by a wide margin, or that movie sound design surpasses movie graphic design by a wide margin?

For the sake of clarification,

Audio design - the audio prelap which is so popular right now; recurring musical theme>the bowed notes on bass violin in Jaws

Graphic design - some basic graphic design grammar of the movies: a) wide angle for establishing; b) reverse overs for conversation; c) singles for deep emotions

Yes, it is reasonable to infer that the procedure and proof of the essay is necessarily that of temporal relations (sequences in succession of one another). The important thing is that, as of now, I find such a conclusion (i.e., derivation or the principle of regulation is temporal) to only be found by importation of other axioms (or, in my terms, superordinate principles which are not apart of the standard terminology nor proof explicated in the essay. — Bob Ross

I don’t find time to be a consideration necessary to prove PoR as a sine qua non and, furthermore, any assertion of atemporality, temporality, spatial references, etc. is via PoR (thereby dependent on it). As I alluded to earlier, I think for the sake of the essay it may be best to conceive of a sine qua non as neither in time nor not in time. — Bob Ross

I asked my questions about time vis-a-vis PoR because I want to know who does PoR as sine qua non have as his neighbors? I was conjecturing that time is one of PoR's neighbors. As such, time does not prove PoR as sine qua non. Instead, time is one of PoR's neighbors, which is to say time & PoR are a matched set. One always implies the other.

I haven't forgotten your explanation to the effect that, by definition, two sine qua nons are mutually exclusive and thus cannot both belong to one set.

Some other candidates for neighbors of PoR might be superordinate & subordinate rules? This would mean PoR's neighborhood is divided by class, with the superordinates as elites & the subordinates as commoners? PoR, totally aloof, sits on high & reigns over both? Even if this is the case, the lowliest subordinate rule nonetheless stands a comrade alongside PoR. This is so because, by force of the premise> universe is the limit of system, without which, not is, in fact, bi-directional. In other words, no object inhabits absolute isolation. Therefore, speaking extremely broadly, all things are equal.

With the following, I will try to show why I suspect sine qua nons cannot be mutually exclusive.

If PoR has no neighbors, then for me a fundamental question arises pertaining to relationship. Derivation & meta-derivation, as I presently understand them, imply inter-relatedness i.e. relationship.

If PoR has no neighbors, how can it fulfill the role of sine qua non in total isolation?

Moreover, if PoR has no peers, that is, no other sine qua nons as neighbors, how can he be an unbounded infinite? Haven't you established a causal agent confined to a single set as a bounded infinity?

As I alluded to earlier, I think for the sake of the essay it may be best to conceive of a sine qua non as neither in time nor not in time. — Bob Ross

I'm wondering if the above assertion (that sine qua non WRT temporality is undecidable) raises a question of foundational metaphysics> When the temporality of an object is undecidable, is not the location of said object also undecidable?

If the answer is yes, then how can sine qua non fill the role of foundational cause of derivation?

My underlying premise here is that even a purely cognitive "object," holding a priori status, by force of causality (inter-relatedness) obtains location. In this example, location of sine qua non is first member of a sequence.

I'm starting to suspect that sine qua non, as absolute solitary, without neighbors covering peers & subordinates alike, in parallel to the singularity of the Big Bang, cries out for conceptual revamping that addresses the deeply problematical boundary ontology of origins.

WRT = with respect to

I think that the two biggest cruces are (1) whether the individual at hand can transcend their own context…

Context ≅ Environment. In my thinking, environment suggests state of affairs, which suggests reality.

In your usage here, is individual… can transcend their own context an action symbolic or literal?

(2) whether the idea of the essay preceding “logical languages” (or theories of logic)…

My thinking proceeds from foundational assumptions that bump up against some foundational assumptions employed herein by you.

• An essay is, at bottom, the logical language of argumentation

• The stuff of logic is a continuum of conditionals that unfold sequentially, thus implying a temporal process

• Although logical expressions can be conceptualized as atemporal mental objects, continuity is always empirical & temporal

…a sine qua non has no prepositions…

…a context that is universal I really wouldn’t constitute as a context…

If, as I interpret you to be saying with the above two claims, sine qua non is not of anything, and, moreover, is not at all contextual, then I get the impression the whereness of sine qua non is more mysterious than the position of an orbiting electron at any given moment. Is that the case?

Firstly, a sine qua non is “without which, not” (where “not” is an unbounded infinite negative) and, therefore, the possibility of “without PoR, not derivation” invalidates “derivation” as being a sine qua non. Secondly, this is exactly why, derivation not being a sine qua non, produces the possibility that someone can completely remove it within their derivation (no matter how irrational it may be, as someone else could easily mention that I just literally said “someone can remove derivation from their derivation”), whereas they cannot remove PoR without utilizing it.

The above section of paragraph is wonderfully clear and thus it makes me hope I’m beginning to get some real grounding within your essay.

I now have an impression of your essay’s essence via use of a helpful metaphor wherein your sine qua non holds status akin to the singularity that precedes the Big Bang.

If there’s even a particle of truth in application of my pre-Big Bang metaphor to your metaphysical claim, then hopefully I can proceed to an understanding you’re wrestling with the boundary ontology of origin.

Boundary Ontology of Origin – continuity via hyper-logic across the super-position of a non-localized QM event.

The above definition is my best-to-date exposition of a hairy beast of a concept that is one of my works-in-progress. I won’t elaborate it’s possible pertinence to your essay because that would entail an inappropriate digression from your work. I will say I expect it to inform some of my commentary upon your work henceforth.

Likewise, time is by no means something one can posit as sine qua non, as “without PoR, not time” and, honestly, there are many principles that are required for it to be affirmed in the first place (i.e., faculties of reason which allow one to determine that time is enveloping of oneself, or that there is a non-temporal true claim, or neither true nor false, etc.).

Since you reject time_sine qua non, I think it imperative you state (If you have not done so) whether PoR_sine qua non is temporal, or atemporal.

I’ve been understanding regulation in the everyday sense of a transitive verb that controls & shapes an object under its influence. I don’t presently see this function as being atemporal.

Answering the question of sine qua non’s relationship to time entails whether or not your universe is static or dynamic. Does a universe without motion make any sense?

Likewise, you may have also noticed that it isn’t logically…coherent…to claim multiple sine qua nons as true—for if there existed two then they are thereby not sine qua nons (that’s a contradiction). In other words, if a sine qua non is “without which not”, if we allow ourselves the importation of useful logical axioms, then only one can be true by definition (otherwise we have a situation where two principles are supposed to be negatable in relation to one another, but yet the source of an unbounded infinite of negations respectively).

Your above statement, speaking potentially, has a lot to say to the project to bring the rules of inference into congruence with QM.

Please elaborate how regulate & modulate compare.

By “modulate”, what are you referring to? I am not completely following.

My Apple Dictionary tells me regulate & modulate are synonyms. I’ll buy that. However, I sense that modulate, more so than regulate, gets into the deep interior of language.

Language -- a collective, or gestalt of the systematic boundary permutations of a context or medium; a record of the systematic boundary permutations of a narrative medium.

If the above claim contains a particle of truth, then your sine qua non, as presently perceived by me, embodies something akin to the Original Utterance, itself, in turn, akin to the pre-Big Bang Singularity, itself, in turn, akin to God’s “Let there be light!”

I hope you’ll forgive the tincture of theism_Jungian psychology pooling into my assessment of your essay.

Might sine qua non, per your essay, be your Logos?

Can I posit a context sans PoR? No, and that is my point. — Bob Ross

I entertain hope that your above claim expresses a/the crux of your essay's purpose. In line with this assessment, your premise says,

PoR can never be excluded from context. Proving this logically renders PoR as sine qua non WRT context.

Does this imply the concomitant> Derivation can never be excluded from context.

Does this lead us to> Context contains at least (2) sine qua nons: PoR & Derivation

Does this lead us to> Context contains at least (3) sine qua nons: PoR, Derivation & Time

If you can prove this, do you have a set foundational to logic?

Since these questions are whoppers, let's focus on PoR.

Please elaborate how regulate & modulate compare.

Please elaborate how PoR & PoM compare.

How does one do Gnosis and can you provide an example of it in action? — Tom Storm

I have an example that comes from literature. It's a short story that places you into the ballpark of gnosis.

I have one distillation of the technique of gnosis that might be enlightening. Literature that conveys gnosis to the reader oftentimes makes use of metaphor in a very specific way. Via metaphor, it elaborates a link between the everyday world & the uncanny dimension of creation. The result is a narrative ambiguity that imparts awareness of duality of being of existing things.

The effect is environmental as the reader is partially transported out of the everyday world into a complex position with one foot on solid ground & the other foot landed within a dreamscape. Once inside the realm of duality, created things assume a high vibrational energy that perplexes the whereness of reality.

One genre label for this type of dual narrative is magical realism.

Our recently concluded Short Story Competition 3 includes such a story.

Dream of the Flood, by Tobias. Use the link below.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13187/dream-of-the-flood-by-tobias

There are also questioning sorts of interests that are hard even to formulate as simple questions. For instance, language seems to work, but what it even works at is not clear, what it even does is confusing. And there are ways of conceiving of language that suggest it cannot possibly work at whatever it's doing, which we still don't know. I don't think I'm ever going to shake my fascination with that little knot. — Srap Tasmaner

Writing in everyday, imprecise English, I advance one proposed answer to what language works at and does. Entertainment.

Lots of folks have experienced pleasure when imbibing a narrative that arouses & holds their interest with personal truths, dazzles their imagination with vibrant revelations, expels their breath with uncanny yet logical surprises and elevates their understanding with useful information.

I don't know if language has its own intentions apart from its impacts via application, but I trust many will grant the above as true description of their experience of good storytelling.

axiomatized logic — Srap Tasmaner

The juxtaposition of the above two words is an example of my experience of a bit of language as entertainment.

Firstly, how do you pronounce the participle? Secondly, is it a neo-logism of the writer? Thirdly, is the two-word phrase paradoxical?

As to the thirdly, how do you arbitrarily make inferential statements?

An asymptotic relationship requires a function g(x) where Lim f(x)/g(x) =1 as x becomes infinite. Or something similar.

The “gravitational” force of an infinite volume curves its own graphic progression to such an extreme it never achieves “escape velocity” to the next whole integer.
— ucarr

A reference for this would help an awful lot. — jgill

There's no reference for my line above. It was produced by my act of imagination that attempts to parallel your elaboration of asymptotic relationship in line one above with Einstein's General Relativity. I'm trying to say that infinite volume, like infinite gravitational field, warps neighboring spacetime (in this metaphor spacetime = the number line) into a field so curved neighboring objects cannot achieve escape velocity from its grasp. "Material" evidence of this warpage herein is the asymptotic graph of numerical progression rendered as "curved numbers."

Re: g(x) where Lim f(x)/g(x) =1 as x becomes infinite. Let's suppose this to be numerical time dilation, with the progression of the value towards infinity being "time." This numerical dilation grounds an intentional maneuver that makes an equation start rendering an infinite value. We might think of this maneuver as the act of dropping a graviton into an equation in order to intentionally make it go infinite.

Foraging around for an application of the numerical graviton maneuver, I come up with using the graviton maneuver to effect a numerical time dilation that facilitates topological examination of boundary equations for First Causes.

Note -- Curved numbers have some type of relationship to imaginary numbers. I sense this because imaginary numbers, being displaced from the set of real numbers, exhibit something in common with curved numbers, extreme warpage.

If someone can further distill this relationship into clarity, I trust it will prove to be mathematically lucrative.

The set [0,1] is uncountably infinite with no asymptotes. Clueless what you mean.

Perhaps curiously, an infinite value "warps" a (conceptual) boundary into a "curved space" that functions as an unspecified boundary in that it is a boundary that is never reached.
— ucarr

Give an example, please. — jgill

Regarding {0,1} graph {x = 0.1 + 0.01 + 0.001 + 0.0001 + 0…nth.1 < 1}.

Above is my attempt to show a counting series from 0 towards 1 for values of x that graphs as an asymptotic progression.

The “gravitational” force of an infinite volume curves its own graphic progression to such an extreme it never achieves “escape velocity” to the next whole integer.

If by “key elements” you mean key terms being used in the essay, then I think that most of your list is fine. Except:

{Infinite Series} bound, unbound, indeterminate

There is no “indeterminate” category proposed for infinities: it is indefiniteness—which I wouldn’t hold means the exact same thing (but if you just mean that in the sense that the bounds in undetermined, as opposed to indeterminate, then I think that is fine). For me, I am defining “indeterminate” as not able to be determined, whereas “undetermined” simply means it hasn’t yet been determined. — Bob Ross

I differentiate indefinite from indeterminate thus, the former means not specified whereas the latter means cannot be specified.

It may lie outside the scope of your project, but I want to broach the topic of infinity as it is conceptualized by you vis-a-vis how it is conceptualized by me.

I define infinite as volume unspecifiable. This is a way of saying infinities cannot be made explicit. I believe this truth persists even in the instance of hierarchies of infinities.

If {x_?} = infinity and P = {x_?} and IFF_not = if and only if negated and if {x} = bounded set, then P ⇒ IFF_not for {x}.

The above argument is predicated upon boundary = territorial limit.

Positing an infinite value (unspecifiable volume) within bounds is tricky because, in my opinion, territorial limit takes on a special meaning such that limit transforms into asymptote.

Perhaps curiously, an infinite value "warps" a (conceptual) boundary into a "curved space" that functions as an unspecified boundary in that it is a boundary that is never reached.

Is an unreachable boundary really a boundary?

In the instance of a bounded infinity, whose unspecifiable volume is quite free to expand forever, can we truthfully claim that it is contained?

It occurs to my visualization that a bounded infinity is a configuration wherein an unspecifiable volume has PoR as a neighbor who speaks another language and thus, there is no dialogue between the two. In this situation, can we truthfully say PoR acts as modulator of unspecifiable volume?

The ultimate problem is that I believe you have not shown that the PoR is something true universally. As noted above, I'm not sure its something you can either. — Philosophim

That being said, it may be that there are things I still don't understand, so please correct me if I'm in error. — Philosophim

I also think the PoR is a fine principle within bounded contexts, and see nothing overtly wrong with it within these bounded contexts. I just don't think at this time that you've provided what is needed to show it is true universally, and not just within the contexts you've been thinking in. — Philosophim

To far greater extent than Philosophim, there's much I neither know nor understand, thus I might be egregiously wrong when I use my argument above to expand Philosophim's doubt to include bounded contexts.

Having said that, I admit I do, now, have the audacity to entertain nascent doubt about the PoR's ability to modulate a bounded infinity.

Note – The core logic of my argument is the following premise,

Premise – the inherent unspecifiability of an infinite volume implies its expansion towards a boundary is necessarily asymptotic.

It is really a question of whether derivation is arbitrary (i.e., axiomatic) or grounded in a sine qua non — Bob Ross

With a view towards answering the above question, I'm making an attempt to get my general bearings within your project by elaborating the overview below. Let me know if it's sufficiently accurate to be helpful.

Schematic of Foundational Metaphysics of Derivation

A scheme to establish an algorithm for expressing & establishing a causal chain of derivatives culminating in a conclusion. This algorithm will be expressed in terms of the widest generality.

Some key elements that hold priority within the scheme:

• The principle of regulation

• The sine qua non

• Superordinate rules

• Subordinate rules

• {Infinite Series} bound, unbound, indeterminate

• {Ground} not subjective, not objective

By convention, the derivatives are configured in accordance with the established rules of inference.

The upshot of the scheme is elaboration of a plan applicable to the entire edifice of derivation to a conclusion.

Successful execution of the scheme will, by design, entail the establishment of a foundational metaphysics of derivation to a conclusion.

This foundational algorithm will embody a logical imperative for all derivations to conclusion.

My principle interpretation of your essay says>examination of derivation-of-derivation means establishing continuity between phenomenal experience and first causes.

An example is Aristotle’s unmoved mover as the cause of all motion.

A close second to my principle interpretation of your essay says>analysis & derivation share important common ground to the effect that derivation is a type of analysis.

Let me assert a premise – All origins are paradoxes.

Your narrative ventures into paradox.

“1” and “1” are identical but not indiscernible. This implies that “1” simultaneously
is/is-not itself, a paradox.

You support the above with,

It must also be regarded, briefly, that law of noncontradiction can possibly be negated by the individual at hand by means of this principle of regulation and, therefore, the principle of regulation can be regarded as the most abstract form of the law of noncontradiction.

At this point, principle of regulation has expanded its scope to encompass the super-position of QM (in cognitive mode). Importantly, in so doing, it contradicts itself super-positionally.

Now your essay seems poised to utilize higher-order logic henceforth. However, instead of this, its progress appears to snag on some basic questions.

{Infinity} bound/unbound/indeterminate are solely objects of a priori cognition. As such, they exemplify ideals along the lines of Plato’s Ideal Forms. I question placement of ideal objects at the foundation of metaphysics as it is supposed to examine the real, not the ideal.

Maybe you can refute some implications of my following questions.

What’s the difference between a bounded finite & a bounded infinity? I ask this question because, at one point, you say,

“… the content of an indefinite could possibly have bounds (thereby be finite)…”

This statement declares that bounding entails being finite, so how bounded infinity?

You also say,

“Now, the bounded infinite noted before should be clarified as not pertaining to the content of the infinite but, rather, its form and, therefore, does not constitute as indefinite.”

Is content sans form intelligible? Is there a type of form that has no boundaries? What’s an example of boundaryless form? If there can a content without boundaries, how is it differentiable from other contents? How is a set composed of boundaryless contents intelligible as a set of discrete things?

The existence of a thing = all attributes of a thing, including its content & form. In separation from each other, content & form are unintelligible.

Can you visualize content that is discrete & perceivable and without form?

Can you visualize form that is composed of nothing?

Any intelligible description of infinite volume i.e., set of infinite volume>bounded infinity is merely reification to (asymptotic) sample as infinite is a cognitive abstraction that, when paired with a boundary, signifies a paradox> the limited limitless.

Consider the set of all natural numbers. Imagine the set is a bag & the natural numbers are colored balls being thrown into the bag. This can be but an asymptotic approach to bounded infinity, as any specifiable boundary cannot hold or bind an unspecifiably large volume.

First causes, I assert, possess transcendent boundaries, which is to say, non-local boundaries. As such, these boundaries of first causes require examination by higher-order analysis.

Metaphysics necessarily concerns itself with examination of the paradoxes of non-local boundaries.

If it’s true that all origins have paradoxical boundaries, which is to say, all origins have non-local boundaries, then derivation from origins (sin qua nons) is trans-logical, and thus epistemic, logical & ontological disciplines are only axiomatically justified by local origins (sin qua nons).

There is a gap separating local origins from analysis_derivation to phenomena. Theories that support analysis_derivation to phenomena must rest upon unanalyzable axioms.

Axioms are the metaphysical boundaries of 3-space phenomena.

If the above is true, then analysis, in the instance of derivation from non-local origins, must be higher-order analysis, which means a multi-dimensional matrix above our 3-space matrix. This higher-order matrix is the tesseract, a 4-space matrix + time.

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

What I've Learned

The song advises us, "Don't surround yourself with yourself."

The gift of attention holds a high rank. It's good to take in distinguishing details that mark individuality. Each person is endlessly specific. The dizzy array of personal features hits with the excitement of centrifugal adventure.

Noticing people, and engaging with them socially, beyond concerns about the pecking order, kicks against the barrenness of solitude.

I am not evading anything here, I'm replying to what I think you're asking, by giving you answers that approximate what happens in my experience, that and trying to be as clear as I am capable of being, is all I can do in these conversations. — Manuel

I see you are a diplomatic person who shows consideration for others.

As I go forward, let me check my language lest it become rife with combative ambition.

What I've Learned

If inquiry doesn't include signature procedures including math models, research, testing of tangibles, compiling of data & analysis, it may not be science proper. Orthodox science is specific to the degree it has limitations of application.

A spectrum of human experiences are resistant to scientific investigation and sensible persons, including scientists, have no problem with that.

One shouldn't be a geeky extremist.

We enter into semantic territory here. — Manuel

Do we really?

I suspect you invoke "semantics" here in order to lay a foundation for evasion.

You can use the word science, to mean "good" or "useful", as in "that person has his cooking down to a science" or "that politician has his negotiation tactics down to a science", but I don't take these claims to be theoretical. — Manuel

In your interpretation of the above examples, "good" or "useful" are not sufficiently specific, and I think you know that. Your examples are a way of saying someone achieves their goals by following a process or set of rules in calculations or other problem-solving operations. The emphasis is upon logical, focused efficiency in getting to the goal. This definition is much closer to the scientific method, and thus the examples are not loosey-goosey applications of what "science" denotes. Moreover, your examples are clearly about applied science, not theoretical science, so, of course, such claims are not theoretical, thus denying such fails to add additional distance between the examples & science.

You give no reactions to two important words I used. "Claims," formally speaking = proposition. "Inquiry," formally speaking = experimentation. The formal versions of the two words, as you know, are firmly rooted within science. My hunch is that you wish to avoid committing to a position that says humans conduct inquiries culminating in claims that are emphatically non-scientific.

I make the above conjecture in relation to

I do think there are things which science cannot tell us much about, namely, international relations and inter-personal relations (among other topics), they are simply too complex — Manuel

in order to argue that international relations and inter-personal relations et al are, as you know, studied with methods not easily characterized as non-scientific.

Physics works so well, in part because it deals with the simplest structures we can discover. — Manuel

If you think elementary particles & their interrelationships are simple, it must be the case you've merely glanced at studies of these phenomena.

I believe you are using "naturalism" in a sense that excludes things like "selves", "identity", "free will" and so on. I don't think so. — Manuel

By assuming humans are direct products of the natural world, along the lines of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution... — ucarr

I don't see how you arrive at your above interpretation from my claim directly below it.

The gist of my current inquiry into your understandings about the limits of science re: understanding the world into which we humans are born i.e. our natural, earthly world, takes focus upon what I suppose to be a necessary break in the connection of human to natural, earthly world.

I've been supposing this gap between the two explains the scientific limitations you describe.

My underlying premise is that human, as a product of natural earth, has no gap separating it from natural earth, unless human, in addition to natural earth, has another source for its identity.

I say this to make clear I assume all attributes of human identity (including "selves", "identity", "free will" and so on) have their source in nature.

My other underlying premise is that science is the only judge of truth.

I don't think there is an unbridgeable gap between human identity and the natural world. — Manuel

Are you claiming science is one type of inquiry amongst a multiplicity of types of inquiry?

Do you believe some humans, via inquiry, know things about themselves & the world that cannot be examined & verified by science?

Do you believe there are types or sets of claims that are non-scientific?

Do you believe there exist humans who make non-scientific claims about themselves and the world, and, in so doing, make claims that possess truth derived from inquiries correctly vetted & verified non-scientifically?

If your answer to the above is "yes," then I believe it's a radical claim that draws a boundary around the scope of science WRT searching out & discovering the truth about our natural, earthly world.

In this thread, do you propound a premise that claims something like saying “the natural world contains parts inscrutable to science”?

Furthermore, is it your view that science is a distinctly human contrivance involving more than simple observation & imitation of natural processes?

I ask these questions because, if so, then there is an unbridgeable gap or break between human identity & the natural world.

By assuming humans are direct products of the natural world, along the lines of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, I don’t see how this unbridgeable gap could exist, unless humans, in your ontology, are NOT entirely products of the natural world.

If it is your view that human is only partly derived from the natural world, then explaining the unbridgeable gap, as opposed to merely declaring it, requires an elaboration of that human source of identity that is not a part of the natural world.

Is it your belief that human identity is a combination of natural and not-natural parts?

I think there is an unfortunate trend to associate the word "nature" and "naturalism" to mean whatever science says there is. — Manuel

When I write "natural world," I'm not referring to science & what it claims. I'm referring to earth as humans find it upon the awakening of their consciousness. Earth, our home, as I understand it, is a given. As such, it is, axiomatically, what is there to be perceived, experienced and, if possible, known.

Science, as I understand it, consists of a highly organized collection of procedures for perceiving what is given i.e. the natural world.

...there is clearly more to the world than what science says there is (art, morals, politics, human relations, etc.) — Manuel

I don't believe science excludes art, morals, politics, human relations, etc. from its domain. Consider, for examples, ethics_morality studies in philosophy; political science; psychology, anthropology.

I've never heard any scientist attempt to exclude the above from the domain of the natural world.

Do you believe humans to be entirely of the natural world (as I've described it here)?

If you do, then you don't believe humans have attributes that don't intersect with the natural world out of which they are created.

It's true that some humans embrace beliefs inscrutable to science (material/spiritual duality), but that's a very different statement from saying parts of human nature and parts of the natural world do not coincide.

The ability for a thing to move is afforded by Time itself. — punos

Three claims:

The motion of a material object is associated with a positive interval of time.

A positive interval of time supports duration.

When a material object moves across a positive interval of time, it examples duration, and thus you have dimension.

Conclusion:

Time, via duration, supports dimensional expansion WRT space, time, motion.

Questions:

Can time exist apart from the physics of material objects in motion?

If we imagine that it can, does the passing of time in isolation consume energy?

If it doesn't, does it follow that the inertial force attached to material objects is caused by time, a non-energy phenomenon?

Is time an independent, physical phenomenon, or is it a cognitive construct of the perceiving, human mind?

If it is the latter, then, as such, is it an emergent property of material objects?

Four Claims:

Time, within the perceiving human mind, conceptualizes duration that, in turn, organizes material objects in motion as dimensional expansions.

Energy = the ability to move

Energy+motion+duration (perceived time) = the dimensional expansion of our 3D environment

Our physical ontology is rooted in the triumvirate of energy_animation_duration

Do you think their interrelationship important enough to work out a detailed characterization? — ucarr

When possible, the way we are happens to coincide with some aspects of the way the world is, when these interact, we have a possible science. If not, we don't. — Manuel

I think your above response gives a substantial & thought-provoking answer to my question.

If there exist human attributes parallel to the natural world, then, to some extent, humans are not entirely of the natural world, and thus science of the natural world cannot reveal & explain those parts of human. Moreover, human composition is only partly natural. As to the other part, is it super-natural?

Did you intend to imply the above?

If there are parts of the world fundamentally unlike human, then human science faces parts of the natural world it cannot understand.

The two above disjunctions are rooted in the notion that human science can understand variance by degree, but not by fundamental category. I can understand, scientifically, a frog. Like me, it's a protein-based, water-dependent sentient. I cannot understand, scientifically, a conjectured, immaterial spirit.

Note - Human can embrace immaterial spirit, but that entails non-scientific acceptance of a body/spirit duality.

Of what does the self consist?. — ucarr

That's what I've been asking you, since you're the one who brought it up.

I'm saying what the self can't possibly be. A triangle cannot be a circle. Identity is something which, by definition, has to be stable, permanent, or it isn't identity.. — baker

Self – The enduring, discernibly consistent POV of a sentient being. — ucarr

Is the distinction to the effect that manifest ontology = via the senses and scientific ontology = via reasoned understanding based upon experimentation?
— ucarr

No. Although it is tempting to put forth such distinctions, as it looks neat and saves us from doing more work, I don't think it holds up. — Manuel

Sellars claims that the scientific image of man is not able to encompass or comprehend the manifest image but that both are equally valid ways of knowing about man. — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

I see that your two ontologies, as inspired by Sellars, stand in a somewhat parallel relationship to each other. Do you think their interrelationship important enough to work out a detailed characterization? As Sellars says, scientific imagery comes after manifest imagery, thereby suggesting a conceivably important relationship.

Depends on what you mean by skepticism in terms of scope and depth. A healthy does of skepticism is good, but figuring out what "healthy" amounts to is not easy. — Manuel

Skepticism, as I'm using it here, means withholding judgment on principle until rational examination (and possible experimentation) are conducted. Accordingly, examination evaluates skepticism just as it evaluates truth claims.

My own view, which I've been working out is to use Sellar's distinction between the "manifest image" and the "scientific image" as a good provisional distinction, or at least a useful heuristic.

I'd say I have a manifest ontology which includes "everything" and a scientific ontology which tends to be agnostic. What there is in the mind-independent world may well be what physics says there is, but physics is incomplete and is subject to revisions that may make any previous ontology obsolete.

The reason for including a "manifest ontology" is because I think our common-sense world is worth talking about, I want to talk about kings and ships and gods and everything else. Otherwise we would have very little to say. — Manuel

Is the distinction to the effect that manifest ontology = via the senses and scientific ontology = via reasoned understanding based upon experimentation?

Is it true that when you make your cognitive journeys, you lead with skepticism?

If you are skeptical to some degree, do you ever apply it to your manifest ontology?

This question attempts to examine the possible existence of crosstalk between your two sets of ontology. If it exists, then perhaps your cognitive journeys feature an oscillation between the two sets:

Skepticism about what your senses detect sends you to science and, conversely, skepticism about what science detects sends you to sensory experience.

All of the above = my attempt to explain why I ask if you lead with skepticism.

Dimension = Space^2 — punos

Does motion have an elementary role within your ontology?

Do you give credence to the concept of soul? If you do, might that be a candidate for self?

Do you discover what's extant by determining what cannot be eliminated?

Do you align yourself with any position on the political spectrum ranging from radical to ultra conservative?

Of what does the self consist?

Okay. We all know people can change, however, you view self as tilting towards stability & permanence.

Is it correct to characterize you as being conservative?

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.