I prefer Peirce’s framing of Firstness as Vagueness, or even Tychism. That gets beyond the idea of something that exists by itself or is independent of what then arises. — apokrisis

Sure. The notion of independence can suggest the existence of a particular something - implying a certain substance or concreteness that just isn’t there. Vagueness is a non-logical quality of existence, while tychism undermines its own attempt to explain or logically structure reality.

A melody is not made up of a random series of notes. Instead, a defined sequence. I'd had it pointed out to me quite a few decades back that consequently there could only be a limited number of melodies left to write. This has been proven to be true (and evokes what would be a rule of diminishing possibilities). True randomness probably doesn't even exist everything structured to a degree. Apparent randomness would still need to represent a structure for us to define it as such. — Gregory A

Randomness is the variability of any structure. Structure is, by its very nature, a limitation. Music quality is not just about melody.

Darkness is an object as well and "qualify of" it is a predicate of darkness. If "quality of" is determined by the subject then darkness itself is still unreferencible solely from the subject. — Shwah

You’re still limiting any possible relation with darkness to what can be asserted within language structure. Stop trying to describe or define darkness from a subject. Instead, imagine what aspect of darkness would be common to ALL possible subject-object iterations. Then test this theory by simulating or experiencing alternative logical perspectives of this vague, qualitative idea of darkness, until you’re confident with the applicable accuracy of your understanding, regardless of any subjective perspective, let alone any particular linguistic or logical assertion.

Sure but that never accounts for the object. Your perception can miss a carriage going across the road and you may still get hit by it (the objection to berkeleyan idealism until he posited that we're all in God's mind to solve the issue). If you conflate them all to subjective then you can't account for these things. — Shwah

Again - what object? We’re not talking about a carriage going across the road, but about the quality of darkness. If you notice a relative darkness in your field of vision, it could be the shadow of a carriage about to hit you - or it could just be a cloud obscuring the sunlight. Darkness isn’t expected to account for the difference here that determines the object of your perception.

I like getting past that dichotomy too but in my experience we can only perceive objects (whether they're hallucinations/simulations/etc or not). Darkness for instance has no material object but it's clearly an object and we can see whether we predicate out to it well enough to see if the predications rightfully describe that object. I treat everything as an object. How would you try to go past the dichotomy? — Shwah

Darkness is a quality, and even attributed to an object, it is relative both to our perspective, and to the dimensional structure of the object. A room you might consider to be dark doesn’t appear as dark to someone wearing night-vision goggles. Also darkness as attributed to a room is not identical to darkness attributed to an action, which is not identical to darkness attributed to a person.

Whichever object that would be understood as objectivly, relativly or subjectivly interpretable fundamentally. I'd say it's impossible to interpret any object as subjectively and trivially they all have some input and can be better understood as predicates from your subjectivity. — Shwah

Sure - but the idea is to get beyond this limited relation to a subject-object dichotomy. What if there was no ‘object’ as such? What if we didn’t exist as a ‘subject’? Language structure limits our ability to talk in this way, but not our ability to experience, imagine and relate.

I guess it depends on how one interprets agapastic evolution.

Can it really be driven by such a transcendental quality as "cosmic love"? Or is it better covered by the prosaic systems view that, of course, all biosemiotic systems must balance the secondness of evolutionary competition with the thirdness of ecological cooperation?

So it is the dichotomy of competition~cooperation that is the driving immanent, or self-organising, dynamic that emerges from pure semiotic possibility in nature. — apokrisis

I’ve come to recognise at least one transcendental quality in any plausible understanding of the system - a firstness, or that which is as it is independently of anything else. An unresolvable paradox sits at the heart of it all. But it’s interchangeable, and that’s what makes it at least possible to UNDERSTAND the entire system from the inside. Just not explain it - not without excluding ourselves from the explanation as an assumed relative position.

In the Tao Te Ching, the transcendental quality is what we embody in our limited sense as ‘desire’ or affect: this information-entropy dichotomy as an unresolvable, interchangeable paradox. Information is not necessarily 1 with entropy 0. We don’t always have to be perceived to intend, or to possess our capacity - a leader is not necessarily one who acts or enforces.

The interchangeability of the dichotomy maximises variability, and enables us to critique, improve and explain our understanding of the system by varying our possible relation to it. This is also essential to Peirce’s synechism: the third member in any continuum C is our possible relation to C. Recognising that there is always another possible relation to C with unique information - and extrapolating this beyond a linear qualitative structure - is the basis of Peirce’s notion of unconditional love - if we are to aim for a living community of rational thinkers, then we need to accept that we cannot always BE or THINK rational, owing to our limited actuality. And if we accept this, then surely we cannot ignore, isolate or exclude the relative position of those who seem (from our limited position) to THINK less rationally?

Yeah but you can't interpret the object as anything but a series of predicates away from your subjectivity. — Shwah

What object?

I was trying to ask you to EXPLAIN your abstractions.. and then you seemed to dismiss me as stuck in some point of view so wouldn't understand. It seems like a dodge to not make it concrete. The more concrete it is, the more I can actually argue against it.. You probably don't want that. I don't know the motivation, other than you prefer self-referential language to collaborating :D. — schopenhauer1

Let me ask you - are YOU willing to collaborate with people who choose (for whatever reason) to procreate? You think that collaborate means ‘follow my agenda’, and you refuse to accept any other explanation on the grounds that it isn’t ‘concrete’. Collaboration in its fullest sense is NOT concrete. That is the whole point. It disregards any existing sense of ‘agenda’ in favour of the possibility of working together, because two groups pulling in opposite directions achieves nothing overall except more suffering.

there is an objectivity to be found
— Possibility

Whatever objective you think you found is interpreted by you, so how can you say that it is objective? — Angelo Cannata

Once found, we can only relate to this objectivity in our own way. Doesn’t mean we can’t find it in the first place. It is our interpretation that is not objective.

The notion of ‘societal control’ would be replaced by that of collaboration, rendering ‘loyalty’ less of an issue overall.
— Possibility

Yes, except that collaboration is controlled. Not all control is coercive. I'm trying to imagine, without being totally utopian, how a a post-industrial matriarchy would function. Big institutions, national government would probably become less dominant, in favour of regional and tribal administration.

Mothers are loyal to their offspring. It kind of sounds wrong - too obvious to mention - I want to suggest, that the matriarch, in general, in a matriarchy, as opposed to the patriarchal matriarch one sees, is not an entirely separated self, identifying with an abstract body (oxymoron) as head, but as the birthed birthing of the extended family - I am the ancestors-and-inheritors ...* There is something radically different in the psychodrama of matrilineality.

*There is something of this in our (UK) current queen, even within the heart of patriarchy, dedicated to a lifetime of service as an almost religious duty. So old fashioned! So subtly different with the typical male identification of self with state that we call 'loyalty'. — unenlightened

What you’re talking about is a flip in the qualitative attribution of ‘loyalty’ - from a person’s loyalty to their leader, to a leader’s loyalty to her people.

What is the nature of our ‘loyalty’ to our mothers? It’s not a blind sense of loyalty, but a collaborative one. Her overall capacity to care for us - her loyalty or service to us - is enhanced and ensured by our ongoing qualitative contribution. This is not transactional, and is expected to include care and concern for our ‘siblings’ and extended ‘family’, whose needs also impact on the extent to which that overall capacity may be stretched. In this sense our mother takes care of all of us, and we are all responsible for taking care of our mother by doing what we can to help ensure each other’s immediate needs are met.

Collaboration would be not so much ‘controlled’ as limited by a perception of capacity.

A system predicated on prediction and trial and error cannot be as efficient as one predicated on pure logic, given the excruciatingly simple premise that reason doesn’t like a guessing game, or that which can be reduced to it. — Mww

Reason doesn’t always have a choice in the matter. Take QM, for instance. Its logical equations were originally determined by...prediction and trial and error.

I have no idea how to connect pain with prediction error.

Prediction: let’s try this. Error: Crap!! I’m now aware that didn’t work!! I felt pain. To feel less pain, try this...try this...try this....where does it end? It ends in no pain, of course. Shall we add sheer luck to prediction and trial and error? — Mww

Pain is a basic biological signal that our predicted distribution of effort and attention (affect) in a particular situation is currently insufficient in some area. The aim is not necessarily to feel less pain or no pain, but to use that qualitative data to adjust how reasoning logically and qualitatively structures affect - ie. when to push through the pain, where to redirect attention, increase/redirect energy intake or cease action. It’s not a matter of ‘falling back’ on trial and error, but collaborating with non-reasoning aspects of the system to act on reasoning.

There’s a reason why we have two words.
— Possibility

What’s the reason? — Xtrix

Because there’s more to life than consciousness. Understanding awareness in non-conscious entities is how we improve the accuracy of relationships and interaction with our environment and the universe.

I’m referring not to my qualitative judgements but that of a Peircean community of rational thinkers. I rely on the world-structuring of a logical semiotics as practiced within a pragmatic human tradition.

So as embodied in philosophical naturalism, quality gets properly defined - as dichotomous to quantification.

And the qualities employed are those that are the product of rational dialectical argument. Metaphysics was founded on the identification of such dichotomous qualities. Chance-necessity, matter-form, atom-void, being-becoming, stasis-flux, etc, etc.

Qualities are not free choices. They are the unities of opposites that reasoning about pure possibility must force upon us.

And then the value of these metaphysical distinctions are checked against the material facts by the scientific method - the methodological naturalism to complement the metaphysical naturalism. — apokrisis

The external relation for Peirce was unconditional love. In this sense, quality is indefinite, and not entirely dichotomous to quantification. Reasoning about pure possibility is, after all, a free choice.

Sure, but how did Peirce resolve this Kantian dilemma? Do we fetishise the thing-in-itself or get on with the pragmatics of being selves in a modelling relation with our reality - the Umwelt argument.

So the Apeiron or Vagueness, or the quantum foam for that matter, are the eternal which cannot be spoken about. And yet still - pragmatically - we can be completist by including them in our conversation to the maximum degree that it is usefully possible. — apokrisis

Agreed - and being honest about the incompleteness of this.

In fact energy isn’t the ground level of physicalist ontology anymore. The modelling has moved on to information-entropy as the dichotomy that best captures the wholeness of reality’s foundations. So a structuralist account is replacing a materialist account.

As might be expected where rational structure is the stabilising cause of being, making materiality its “other” of the radical and undirected fluctuation, or fundamental instability. — apokrisis

I’m with you here. Energy, as I understand it, is not so much a material entity as a placeholder for the ultimately illogical quality of information-entropy.


I do recognise that my position goes a step beyond reason - I’m actually in complete agreement with much of what you’re writing here. It isn’t really useful for me to take this step, except when it comes to being honest about completeness and our relation to possibility.

Now there are two major asymmetries between our society and the one being envisioned here (I am going to ignore as merely cosmetic the notional liberation of women). And they concern childbirth of women, and the physical strength of men, that mean that matrilineal matriarchy is not a mere inversion of our patrilineal patriarchy.

A matrilineal society has no need to control sexual relations, because there is almost never any question as to who the mother of a child is. Patrilineal society needs to know the father of the child, and therefore needs to control the sexual relations of the woman. (Hence, for example, the 'value' of female virginity, still of vital importance to royalty and others.) The matriarch does not need to possess a man as husband, the way the patriarch needs to possess a wife. The pressure is off, wrt sex. A man's as well as a woman's loyalty will be largely separated from his/her sexuality, because their loyalty will be to the tribe of mother, sisters and nieces, while their sexuality will be external to this family. And a man's economic responsibility will be for his sisters' children rather than those of his personal begetting.

The asymmetry of physical strength means that in a matriarchal society, social control and status is not associated with physical strength to the same degree. It will be largely divorced from power and status, but remain probably a sexual attraction. — unenlightened

The notion of ‘power’ in matriarchal society would be more associated with qualitative potential or creative capacity than any quantifiable consolidations of potential or possession of value. The notion of ‘societal control’ would be replaced by that of collaboration, rendering ‘loyalty’ less of an issue overall.

Is everything random, or at least some things logical?
For example, I'd like to think that natural selection is not random. It was probably not random that one species would eventually evolve and dominate the animal kingdom, which is us humans. — Cidat

Reality is not reducible to a binary value. Natural selection is contingent upon both the random variability and logical consolidation of energy.

Even our idea of natural selection, however we describe it, is a human interpretation. Even when we support our ideas with scientific evidence, it is still us managing how to interpret the elements offered by science. We can’t avoid interpreting. Interpreting means that we cannot find anything objective, because whatever we consider is automatically filtered, adapted, changed, by our action of interpreting. The very ideas of logic and randomness are human interpretations. — Angelo Cannata

The concepts are human interpretations, but there is an objectivity to be found in the quality of these ideas - if we can get past the affected nature of our existing relation.

The quality of both logic and randomness relates to the possibility/impossibility of absolute ‘oneness’, or universality.

Correct. The argument shows that the somethingness that does exist is organised in this fashion. And thus what we can conclude is that it all starts with an everythingness - an Apeiron or vagueness - and not a nothingness. (Although an Apeiron or vagueness is in fact also a “less than nothing” as well.)

But the “existence” of that Apeiron or vagueness is not explained in any immediately obvious fashion. However you could then wonder what could rule out the “existence” of naked possibility itself.

If nothingness is so easily taken to need no cause to be the case, why wouldn’t the same apply more strongly to that which is less than nothing? — apokrisis

Agreed. It is the ‘you could then wonder what could rule out’ that I was referring to. This process of energy from imaginative possibility to actuality is filtered through a limited logical and qualitative structure of potential/value/significance/knowledge: you.

The different terms denote the possible vs actual distinction. So everythingness is the state of possibility, everything would be its (impossible) realisation in actuality.

Perhaps you are reifying what can “exist” as only the unbound potentiality for “all things”? So this is a linguistic trap here rather than a problem for the logic of the argument.

Remember also that this bootstrapping argument works it’s way backwards from the physical world as we know it. So the prior potential can be framed in terms of infinite GR dimensionality and infinite QM fluctuation. Or a QG unbound view.

We can explain donuts no problem from the Big Bang on. And we can explain the gauge symmetries that impose a mathematical-strength shaping hand on any initial Planck-scale QG potential.

So the notion of this everythingness has physicalist parameters. It is tied to what are already our notions of fundamental simplicity and not some naive realist or modal notion of the everythingness of a world of “medium sized dry goods (and torus-shaped confectioneries)”.

We can distinguish what is necessary being from what is merely contingent, and so greatly reduce the explanatory load that the argument must bear. — apokrisis

Again, I get that - I can follow the logic of your explanation - but you’re assuming a qualitative understanding of QG (or the aesthetic idea of relating QM and GR). I’m not reifying anything - I’m merely noting your uniquely affected qualitative relation of ‘sign’ to your conscious and discerning language use as the particular ‘signifying’ device in your explanation. When you say “we can...”, you’re referring to your own qualitative potential.

The Tao Te Ching refers to this in its opening chapter, acknowledging that “The Tao which can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.” The original ideographic language of the TTC is a qualitative logical structure, to which we as readers align our own qualitative logical structure (in a potential state ‘empty’ of effort), in order to relate to the unbound possibility of energy as a whole in absentia, and recognise the possibility of its unique path through our particular qualitative logical structure. It’s a different way of explaining the same structural relation you’re referring to here. The difference is that it incorporates its language structure wholly within its explanation, and excludes the one aspect of reality we have any hope of accurately isolating from a written representation: energy.

But all this is tangential to the OP, anyway.

1. Everything must have some explanation (PE).
2. Reality in total cannot have an explanation (PU).
3. Therefore, there is no reality in total.
4. If anything exists, then there is the total of all that exists (reality in total).
5. Therefore, nothing exists. — lish

I think you and I, @apokrisis would reach tentative agreement in arguing against 3. You’re rejecting the second principle, but my view is that 3 does not follow necessarily from the first, regardless of the second. That ‘everything must have some explanation’ does not negate the notion of everythingness (reality in total) existing without any logical explanation. We can’t escape from the qualitative aspect of language use in logical assertions of reality. Even if the maths works. :wink:

What if conceptual structure is itself logical? If it is, then the efficiency we have is all we’re ever going to have, and there wouldn’t be any prior knowledge that isn’t already structured logically. — Mww

Conceptual structure is never purely logical, despite how we may perceive it. Either it has a qualitative aspect that determines its significance and applicability, or it lacks the logical structure that renders it reliably applicable.

And if conceptual structure isn’t logical, indicating there is more efficiency to be had, what does the logical structure look like, and how would we know it as such? — Mww

Conceptual structure isn’t either logical or qualitative, it’s both - that’s how it improves the accuracy of our interactions. It’s predictive. We develop conceptual structure by experiencing which predictions work for us and which ones don’t, and how they relate to each other according to both significance and probability. So trial and error, basically. Being aware of prediction error (pain, humility, lack) and learning from it.

In my systems science/hierarchy theory view, the whole is produced by what it produces. The whole shapes its parts - it contributes the downward-acting constraints. But the parts then construct the whole - they contribute the upward-building material being, the suitably shaped "atomic" components.

So it is a bootstrapping or cybernetic causal model. And if it sounds unlikely, it is at least less unlikely than creatio ex nihilo. :grin: — apokrisis

I get that, and it sounds interesting. This ‘upward building material being’ is a qualitative variability, in my view - there is no certainty of what constitutes a ‘suitably shaped component’ until it contributes to the whole, and is then subject to those downward-acting constraints.

So you may have a complete system theory, but not a complete explanation. Pi, for example, is not an explanation.

I don't follow your point. But given that I'm taking the internalist perspective of Peircean logic and semiotics, I would have thought that our position as rationalising observers of nature is covered by that. — apokrisis

I am partial to Peirce, but even in his theory, our rationalising position is assumed, not included. “Everything is possible” represents the object to the sign, but does not include an explanation of the sign itself.

(When I say "everythingness", that is a placeholder for logical vagueness - the everythingness that is both and everything and a nothing in standing metaphysically for an Apeiron of unstructured potential.) — apokrisis

I get that - but surely ‘everythingness’ is not the same as ‘everything’? Sorry, I’m being pedantic, but I would have thought “everythingness is possible” to be more accurate...

It's like this... If I set up a society.. and set it up to my standards, how I want it, but not the way you would set it up if you were to be a self-reflective adult.. and I gave you some hobbies to pursue or people you can freely try to form relationships with as a consolation.. But it is still setup in MY way of doing things in this society.. including the hobbies and the ways in which we form relationships.. all spokes that go back to my hub that I created for you.. And you (by default of this existence) can NEVER have a say in it.. That is more what is going on.. Now I can say to you, "Hey, don't be so sad.. you can COLLABORATE in my world that I created (not the way you would set it up, mind you, but MY world), and that will make things better".. well that injustice is still there. it is not a consolation and doesn't solve the problem.

As I have stated many times, there is a POLITICAL AGENDA that the parent has., that THIS WORLD is somehow setup in a way that other people should have to go through its "gauntlet" and as you say, COLLABORATE in it.. But this isn't the way an adult-version of that child might have set it up if they had a choice... It was a forced outcome.. so what to do? Get the pitchforks and symbolically kill the rebel (get them to FOLLOW THE AGENDA and COLLABORATE).. maybe force them into some kind of therapy? I don't know, hey how about hey just go commit suicide and leave well enough alone?? That's where I'm getting at.. No amount of flowery language about universal collaboration to reduce suffering gets rid of this.. You can try to discount the "SELF" so you can gaslight and keep saying it's YOU who are not complying good enough..but this actually reiterates what I am saying by being an exemplar.. So keep doing it, so I can be right :D. — schopenhauer1

Ok, you still don’t understand what I mean by collaboration. Within a system, there are basically four ways individuals can ‘work together’:

Communication: The exchange of ideas and information.

Cooperation: Independent goals with agreements not to interfere with each other.

Coordination: Actions of individuals directed by a coordinator to achieve a common goal.

Collaboration: The process of shared creation; collectively creating something new that could not have been created by the individuals alone.

So what you’re talking about here is more like coordination - someone sets up the system, assigns everyone a role in it, and everyone works to achieve a pre-arranged, external common goal.

When I refer to open-ended collaboration, let’s just say that the process is the shared creation of a new system, a new ‘agenda’ that’s more satisfactory for all. There’s room in this collaboration for the pessimist, the rebel and the antinatalist, even if all you’re going to do is gripe. We need to understand where we ARE in order to structure a path beyond it. Evolution is driven by variation beyond consolidation.

Um, still don't get you. — schopenhauer1

You’re saying that an individual has value, but this perceived value is contingent upon an awareness of their existence - whether actual or potential - which entails suffering.
Value = existence = suffering.
No existence = no suffering = no value.

Probably because your language is so affected, and I’m trying to get you to see past that.
— Possibility

That's STILL not an answer! That is like if someone asked.. "What is General Tsao's Chicken?" and I just said, "Well, you wouldn't know because you don't eat anything but burgers." That is just unhelpful if they legitimately asked in good faith. — schopenhauer1

No - the question I was answering was ‘why is your language so abstract?’ That’s not a ‘what is’ question. A parallel question would be ‘Why are you talking about this General Tsao’s Chicken? What kind of burger even IS that?’

Where are you trying to get to?
— Possibility

A clearer understanding of consciousness and awareness -- basically by acknowledging that there's no good reason to see them as anything but synonymous. — Xtrix

So long as you assume consciousness, sure. But if you need to distinguish between conscious and non-conscious, then you need a more accurate understanding of awareness. There’s a reason why we have two words.

Awareness as information in relation to ‘other’ gives us a basic structure of information we can apply to all levels of relation, from virtual particles to conceptual systems (and possibly beyond), without entertaining the idea that rock are conscious.
— Possibility

Awareness = information in relation to "other" is meaningless to me. If you want to make that clearer, I'm happy to learn. — Xtrix

Carlo Rovelli explains it better than I could, in his book Reality is Not What it Seems. Information (as Shannon defines it) “measures the ability of one physical system to communicate with another physical system.”
“Democritus says that when atoms combine what counts is their form, their arrangement in the structure, as well as the way in which they combine. He gives an example of the letters of the alphabet.”
“If atoms are also an alphabet, who is able to read the phrases written with this alphabet? The answer is subtle: the way in which the atoms arrange themselves is correlated with the way other atoms arrange themselves. Therefore, a set of atoms can have information, in the technical, precise sense... about another set of atoms.
“This, in the physical world, happens continuously and throughout, in every moment and in every place: the light which arrives at our eye carries information about the objects which it has played across; the colour of the sea has information on the colour of the sky above it; a cell has information about the virus attacking it...”

Why do you speak in such abstractions? WHAT is the "variable logical structure" — schopenhauer1

Probably because your language is so affected, and I’m trying to get you to see past that.

A reductionist description of a symbolic force acting upon or being resisted by a symbolic value is completely oblivious to any complexity in the relation. This is not reality.
— Possibility

WHAT do you mean by symbolic value is oblivious to any complexity in the relation? Can you just speak in ordinary language speak? Do you just mean that life is more than suffering? Well, my point isn't exactly that. It is that there is an inherent dissatisfaction where our being is oriented to take any action because of this dissatisfaction. I call this a kind of "inherent suffering". This is in contrast to what I deem as "contingent suffering" which is apart from just the inherent suffering, there are many harms that befall us that vary to individual based on circumstances of cause/effect and environment. — schopenhauer1

It’s your claim that this dissatisfaction is inherent that I disagree with. Suffering - what we consider to be experiences of pain, humiliation and loss - these are inherent, sure. But what we term ‘suffering’ is inherent at EVERY level of existence. It is an awareness of variability, and the allocation of energy needed to maintain that awareness. So what makes humans so special, that we shouldn’t have this? That we should exist at some level that precludes us from the logical structure of existence? This is what I mean by ‘symbolic value’ - the idea that our perceived value has no relation to our existence. Like a mathematical symbol.

Ah yes, the old, "I love you, but you're such an idiot/loser/slut!"

There are things that one just wouldn't say to someone one loves. If a person calls you names, calls you stupid, makes disparaging remarks about your character, and so on, then they just don't love you and aren't your friend, even if they claim otherwise. — baker

I’m not saying it’s acceptable, and I’m not saying they do love the person they’re fighting with - I’m saying that they could still be getting what they want from the relationship, and don’t recognise that they’re isolating that relationship in order to win an argument.

By whom were you hit more often? By men or by women? — baker

By men. Definitely men.

To be aware is to be informed by relation to ‘other’; to be conscious is to be aware at the level of potential; to sense is to be aware at the level of actuality.
— Possibility

This works for objects of perception, for real objects in the world which affect our sensibility. We know this from the fact we sometimes are affected by objects but don’t know what that object is. So....we are aware of an actual sensation but also conscious that what we are aware of, could be anything, so has a level of potentiality. — Mww

It COULD be anything - it CAN be narrowed down - this is the difference between possibility and potentiality. It’s where conceptual structures - predictions based on the relation of actual sensation/affect to past experience, knowledge, language, values, etc - come into play.

But that doesn't account for conditions of consciousness without awareness, of which there are two. One is being conscious of that for which there will never be an awareness at the level of actuality, or that of which we will be potentially aware at the level of actuality iff we ourselves cause it to become an object of perception. The former is, of course, our feelings, and the latter is things like numbers, laws, possibilities, and so on. — Mww

This is where a narrow understanding of potential as quantitative probability trips us up. Potential also refers to value or significance. It has a qualitative aspect that is too often dismissed as improbable or even irrational. But our feelings do inform us at a level of qualitative potential - we are aware of something that alters the potentiality of affect without necessarily conforming to conceptual structure.

As for numbers, laws, etc - these are conceptual structures that we develop an understanding of through a potential correlation of quantitative knowledge with qualitative experience. We CAN be aware of them at the level of actuality by paying particular attention in our experiences - it’s just more efficient with prior knowledge of logical structure.

Why's that? The relation would be that the whole is explained in terms of all that it could produce.

The whole "nothing exists" premise is already defeated by the simple fact that something indeed exists. So any argument that arrives at such a conclusion must have employed false premises.

Now false premises can be useful. They are justification for taking the opposite as being true. — apokrisis

But that doesn’t explain the whole, only what it can produce.

I’m not defending the ‘nothing exists’ conclusion, in case you were wondering. But I do think people approach this argument from different awareness levels, without realising that what they assume is meant by ‘reality’ - in your case realisable actuality - is on a completely different level to what others assume, and there is structural process in between.

So my own position would be that everything was possible. What needs explanation is why reality - as realisable actuality - is the something that it is observed to be. — apokrisis

The way I see it:

All possibly exists, possibly not.
Everything potentially exists.
Something actually exists.

That leads to the structuralist thought that not everything can be actual because many of those possibilities would conflict and cancel each other out. So reality does contain its own explanation, its own cause. Actuality is the path integral - the sum over all possibility that limits an everythingness to a somethingness.

If everything could actually cancel, there would be nothing. And we know that isn't true. So we know that everythingness was both limitable, and yet not a complete elimination of the possibility for a resulting somethingness. — apokrisis

But this structuralist thought is not contained in the explanation, but in our relation to it. Without a relation to your position as conscious observer, or mine, there would be little structure to your explanation that everything was possible. We tend to take this for granted in these discussions.

2. Reality in total cannot have an explanation (PU).
— lish

How secure is this premise? Why can't reality in total contain its own explanation? — apokrisis

But the explanation will be incomplete as such, because it cannot include its own relation to reality in the explanation itself.

Sorry if I missed your earlier posts - I didn’t get any notifications from them, for some reason. There’s a lot there and my time is limited, so if you don’t mind I’ll address your more recent posts to keep the discussion moving forward, but if you’d like me to revisit something in particular, let me know.

Possibility does it a little differently.. She says instead, "In order to reduce suffering you must X, Y, Z (connect/collaborate/aware)". So she oddly collapses the individual perspective in some web-like fashion as to try to negate it.. But the SELF is persistent because of its basic reality as phenomenon. Being part of an almighty "Steamrolling Collaboration" principle does not make the sufferings of being a SELF/individual go away. All the problems remain, and these exercises in restating pretty conventional behaviors (working with other people and things to construct stuff etc.) in poetic terms. But just rephrasing things in more flowery terms doesn't get at the problems. — schopenhauer1

Once again, I am NOT saying that you MUST. I’m saying that the alternative (ignorance/isolation/exclusion) is ultimately less effective in reducing suffering, IF reducing or eliminating suffering is genuinely what you want. The individual perspective has MORE structure in reality than this symbolic value you’re making it out to be. I’m not negating it, but rather describing it in context. The SELF is the continuous potential construct of a variable individual perspective. It has an ongoing relation to suffering as affect, but this relation is four-dimensional, not binary. And any reduction of this relation ignores the variable logical structure by which an individual determines and initiates action.

Collaboration is not a ‘flowery’ term. It refers to the particular quality of a logical relation in any aspect of reality. It’s not just about human behaviour at all, but it’s difficult to see this from your narrow perspective. A reductionist description of a symbolic force acting upon or being resisted by a symbolic value is completely oblivious to any complexity in the relation. This is not reality.

I don’t see why that move is justified. You can do it, of course, but it doesn’t seem to get us anywhere. — Xtrix

Where are you trying to get to? Awareness as information in relation to ‘other’ gives us a basic structure of information we can apply to all levels of relation, from virtual particles to conceptual systems (and possibly beyond), without entertaining the idea that rock are conscious.

I reserve awareness in reference to sensibility, but consciousness in reference to understanding. To be aware is to sense; to be conscious is to think. — Mww

That’s not really how I see it, although I understand your distinction as a reduction IF we only consider living systems to be aware. I consider consciousness and sensibility to be different complexities of awareness. To be aware is to be informed by relation to ‘other’; to be conscious is to be aware at the level of potential; to sense is to be aware at the level of actuality. To think is one method of processing information from this level of potential. It isn’t the only one.

Why should I try to understand my oppressor? Isn’t it enough that I hate being forced to do this or that? Can’t I just be dissatisfied with being born into a life of slavery, and gripe about it? Why must I overcome this forced situation? This oppression will always be there - it’s regrettable, but that’s the reality.

We can communally console each other, be empathetic that we are stuck in this situation at all in the first place, gripe as much as we can about our existential situation, and not force others into this situation. — schopenhauer1

As an analogy, what if this was the mindset of every person born into actual slavery? How do you think slavery was abolished? Not just by griping. It was the efforts of people focused on the possibility of a complete cessation of slavery, despite the reality of their experience. And they developed an understanding of their oppressors, increasing awareness, connection and collaboration with this so-called forced agenda, until it no longer appeared to be ‘forced’, but was a result of ignorance, isolation and exclusion.

Why do I use the word AGENDA? Because it is the socio-cultural-physical reality of the ALREADY existing that one is thrown into. One can never have their own version of how things should be. One is always forced into the realities of the survival dissatisfaction operation that we are born into and MUST deal and take a stance towards in the first place. We are forced into situations of DEALING with. This is part of the factuality of being born at all. It cannot be overcome through X practices. The very fact that one is trying to overcome it (e.g. chanda) is part of the problem in the first place. I recommend we see the tragedy for what it is. Do not create Dealing with situations in the first place for people. It's just one thing, and another, and another.. Whether physical ailments, small pains, large harms, survival related activities, or the general dissatisfaction behind much of what we do. — schopenhauer1

But you DO have your own version of how things SHOULD be - hence your dissatisfaction with how things ARE. You’re just unable to construct it because it has no logical relation to reality, and you’re not prepared to acknowledge that your concept of ‘individual’ value lacks any logical structure.

FWIW, I don’t consider chanda to be ‘overcoming’ suffering, per se. It refers to intention - a desire to interact; to increase awareness, connection and collaboration with this potential for suffering. Tanha, on the other hand, is a desire to ignore, isolate or exclude (ie. rebel) against the potential for suffering. Neither are inherently good nor bad in themselves, until we relate these structures of affect to a particular manifestation of BEING.

An idea proposed by Buddhism is our potential to transform tanha into chanda - without asserting that we should. It does seem to me a logically effective potential. This is not an outright rejection of tanha, though. Because without tanha, chanda is beyond us. Although without chanda, tanha will destroy all of existence.

You keep talking about "reducing" suffering, "minimizing" suffering, but not once have you advocated the complete cessation of suffering. Reducing and minimizing fall under "managing". — baker

There’s no need for me to advocate the complete cessation of suffering - it stands to reason, all on its own. It is only for me to understand what that entails in as broad a sense as I can imagine, and then relate with the world according to the logic, quality and energy of this possibility. The reality is that I cannot effect a complete cessation of suffering as an individual, nor will any moralistic judgements here be of much use except to advocate suffering for those who inflict suffering on others. But what I can do is ‘manage’ all of my relations with the world - by increasing awareness, connection and collaboration, to counteract the ignorance, isolation and exclusion that brings suffering.

Actually, it looks more like there's quite a bit of terminology you didn't learn, even though you're using some of it from a certain field. — baker

Well, you could help, instead of just judging. I am still here to learn.

You're working on the premise that your worldview (which you probably don't consider a worldview but The Truth) is greater than mine, that it contextualizes, encompasses mine. That you can explain me, but that I cannot explain you. — baker

No, I’m working on articulating a possible position that encompasses yours as well as mine. You could collaborate with me, but you don’t seem interested. You keep trying to consolidate your position.

And why do you think merely listening to music is not an example of collaboration? - Possibility

In the same way that the beggar in a Mumbai street selling paper handkerchiefs cannot be meaningfully said to "collaborate with the world's economy". — baker

Actually, your Mumbai street beggar CAN be meaningfully said to ‘collaborate with the world’s economy’ - it’s just not significant enough to have value in your system.

Listening to music is a one-way connection to the world. The music is unaltered by our interaction with it - not even in the smallest, most insignificant way.

It's the "genuinely doing nothing" that gives you away. — baker

Oh, no! Am I not using the precise terminology again?

Buddhism explores the possibility of a complete cessation of suffering - this is not the same as saying we all should follow that path to the end. I think that would be a misinterpretation.

You don't seem to understand just how egregious it is what you're doing. It's standard fare for New Agers, to be sure. You're basically telling me I should settle for cold pizza. — baker

I’m not saying you should do anything, and neither is Buddhism. People will follow the path towards the cessation of suffering only as far as they perceive themselves willing and capable - regardless of what anyone says they should do. According to Buddhism, that’s as much as we can expect of others. What we can expect of ourselves is another story.

That's like saying that the operation was successful, and who cares if the patient died! — baker

The operation is a choice the ‘patient’ makes freely, with an understanding of the risks. A failed operation is an opportunity to improve on the next attempt. Or not. And I’m not saying ‘who cares’ at all. I’m just saying that those who consider it worth the risk have often taken more into consideration than you might be aware of yourself in judging them.

A.k.a. bhava tanha. — baker

Notice I didn’t say a significant or noticeable difference. Making an incremental difference is not about anyone acknowledging your existence but the ‘self’ you construct to engage with the world. But this is only what I choose from my experience. I see it as an example of creatively re-arranging this supposedly ‘forced agenda’ you two keep harping on about as some ‘big bad’ we’re supposed to try and ‘win’ against. But it’s not about winning, it’s about understanding how the agenda is constructed - and then changing it. This has nothing to do with ‘craving’, but selecting freely from options that include suicide, asceticism and griping. But you will continue to insist that I must be craving something, because you seem unable (or unwilling) to understand it any other way.

"Just like you, we also don't actually know whether God exists or not, but we'll burn you in his name anyway!" — baker

Strawman

In the end it doesn’t matter if I think your perspective is wrong - it’s a valid perspective - but the fact that it requires you to reject valid information from others’ experiences indicates logical inaccuracies, or at least limitations.

While you reject valid information from others. Why don't you see that as a matter of logical inaccuracies or at least limitations on your part? — baker

Oh, I’m aware there are inaccuracies in my perspective - I encounter them every day. I’d ask you to point them out, but you’d have to imagine a possible reference point beyond both our value structures to do this. At this stage you’re simply explaining to me how my perspective differs from yours. But I already realise that. What I’ve been trying to articulate (obviously unsuccessfully) is the possibility that we’re both approaching the same truth from different positions of perceived value structure. I’m exploring the possibility that we could both be correct and incorrect to some extent, and using this interaction to improve the accuracy of my own position (and potentially yours, but you don’t seem willing to even consider that).

While you reduce whatever I (or some other posters) say in such a way that you can dismiss it.
Talk about ignorance and exclusion! — baker

What have I dismissed? Certainly not pessimism, or antinatalism, or suicide, or even the apparent force of some fuzzy agenda. I’m not applying reductionism to what you’re saying - quite the opposite. It is interesting how small or insignificant something appears when viewed from a broader vantage point. You can call this ‘reducing’ if it makes you feel better, but I think you’ll find that all your concepts and ideas remain intact.

Both the individual and this worldview are five-dimensional conceptualisations that vary in relation to each other - and you know that your conceptual structures are far from identical to schopenhauer1’s, even if an evaluative relation reduces to the same side of the binary. But you’re not meant to look at the concepts, just trust that the word is the same, so it must represent the same consolidation of value.

Really, I do that? Thank heavens I have you to tell me that! — baker

Um... what is it that I’m apparently saying you do here?

I think this is how people are in general, so I would replace all "man" and "woman" in your text with "person". Ie.

Each person tends to think of themselves as the central, rational subject of a chaotic reality - and other peoplen have subjective intention ONLY in relation to them. (And amended for the rest of your text.) — baker

I was specifically addressing the OP - but yes - I agree, and have said said, that the issue ultimately has nothing to do with gender.

People are generally like that, this isn't limited to men-women interactions. — baker

Agreed. Did I make any claim that it is?

Which happens when one or both of them don't actually want to be in the relationship, but refuse to acknowledge this and to act accordingly. This is also a tactic to break up a relationship, or the individual interaction; it's a tactic intended to create psychological distance between people (which can then translate into physical distance). — baker

Well, I wouldn’t assume they didn’t want to be in the relationship, although I would agree that it’s a possibility. I was referring specifically here to an ongoing relationship. My point is that I don’t think people are necessarily aware of this structure of affect while they’re in a conceptual-level discussion. And if they are aware, they don’t necessarily think it should factor into the discussion. Which I think is fine as long as there is no ongoing relationship between affected positions, or any chance of actual interaction.

Women do that to women as well. In fact, even more frequently than men, insofar a woman has more interactions with other women than with men. — baker

Sort of. Hatred, yes. Violence, no.

But that would either make an end to the power game, or take it to a whole new level. — baker

I agree with the first part - that’s kind of the point. But what ‘whole new level’ are you referring to?

My language didn't shift. Are you saying there is no cause for why it is, thus an alpha, or are you stating there is a cause for why this is? — Philosophim

I’m saying that our understanding of cause is not as clear as we assume. When we talk about events that cause events, we’re referring to agents. When we talk about the cause for an event, we’re referring to a principle, on whose behalf an agent acts. The primary principle is potential, which is not a ‘first cause’ in a temporal sense, but in a value sense. The qualitative and structural distinction is important.

Now, when you ask why potential exists from which events can manifest, you’re asking about the possibility of meaning.

I get that all of this seems pedantic in terms of language, but logical assertions reduce a reality of quality, energy and logic to just logic, and then present this as a one-dimensional structure of symbolic values: A first cause must exist. We then reduce this to our basic understanding of interacting events in time, and assume that ‘first’, ‘cause’ and ‘exist’ are temporal structures, ‘A’ is singular, and ‘must’ is a necessary relation.

But ‘a’ could also mean ‘one of’, suggesting a plurality. ‘First’ could mean greatest significance, suggesting attention based on perceived value. ‘Cause’ could mean principle or purpose. And ‘exist’ could be actually, potentially or possibly.

Causality is also an explanation for why there is a current state. — Philosophim

Still potential.

And why is that? What is the cause for this? — Philosophim

Did you see how your language shifted? Now you’re referring to cause as a principle, which is structurally different to an agent.

I won’t waste any more of my time trying to discuss this then. Your reply shows such a oddly skewed idea of how men and women interact that I cannot take anything you say seriously. You literally just repeated this idea of men rationally justifying something and stating that women don’t want to win an argument? This is a generalisation, and I would add I very, very poor and inaccurate one. — I like sushi

I was saying that many women argue in this way when men attempt to rationally justify their position - not that ALL women do, or that ALL men rationally justify. And I didn’t say that women don’t want to win an argument - only that when they argue this way, it isn’t about winning the argument - despite what even they might think.

But hey, don’t take my word for it. Next time you find yourself trying to have a rational argument with someone who keeps getting defensive or personally attacking you, try being honest about how you feel at their remarks, and acknowledge your established relationship as part of your reasoning. You’d be surprised at how quickly it diffuses the situation. Male or female, doesn’t matter. Because a disagreement with someone whose interactions you value should never be about winning.

Bill Burr is a comedian. He was making a joke and ‘specifically’ states he is not justifying violence against women. It is utterly stupid to suggest that if you actually watched the entire artistic piece (which is brilliant!). — I like sushi

No, he specifically states that you shouldn’t actually hit women, but then argues that it’s perfectly reasonable to wish that you could. Except it’s just a joke, so don’t think too much about. Brilliant! What an artist! At least he acknowledges his own ignorance.

Saying ‘a man’ or ‘a woman’ is a general comment directed at men and women. So it was a specific reference to a general category.

Saying ‘some,’ ‘a minority’ or ‘for example’ as an instance to explain a point would have worked better. — I like sushi

Actually, it was a specific reference to specifically described delusion that results in misogyny and violence, so I stand by my terminology.

Anyway, my original point was referring to Bill Burr’s joke in which he outlined several different situations where those women acted in a manner that deserves contempt and/or hatred. There are valid reason to have a strong dislike towards someone and Burr was not saying you SHOULD hit women at all, the joke was that to say there is no reason to is wrong - obviously if you haven’t seen the piece then this may sound insane (comedy is not exactly meant to be quoted I just assumed most people had seen it). — I like sushi

I hadn’t seen it before, no. Having now watched it, I do get what you’re trying to say, but you’re deflecting.

Let me try to give you a clearer picture of how many women argue. It’s honestly not about winning arguments - it’s about getting him to recognise that his supposedly ‘rationally justified’ position is distorted by affect before he’s even chosen his words. It may appear rational in his head, but it is impossible to present it as such. Because there is an established structure of affect between them that cannot be ignored, isolated or excluded in ANY interaction. Especially in disagreements. Every time he presents an isolated rational argument against her position, he disregards this. So, in order to bring this aspect of the interaction back to his attention, she presents the affected structure of her position, which he interprets as ‘crazy shit’ because it has no logical (or temporal) relation to his argument. That’s true, it doesn’t - but that’s honestly not the point. The point is that their interaction has another aspect, which he is ignoring, isolating or deliberately excluding.

Burr’s statement that “there are plenty of reasons to hit a woman” is deliberately worded to rationally justify the potential for violence against women without inciting actual violence. And if you’ve ever witnessed how that potential for violence, hatred, etc is used to force compliance from a woman without ever hitting her, then you would understand how sinister it can be.

Burr considers his anger and violent thoughts towards his partner to be rationally justified. I don’t. As far as I’m concerned (and I may be in the minority here) there is no reasonable justification for contempt or hatred, let alone violence, between two people who love each other.

Here’s a tip: acknowledge affect as a significant aspect of the interaction, and construct a mutual reasoning with this in mind.

I'm not trying to assert any one specific first cause. All I'm asserting is that if you follow the logic of causality, it necessarily results that there must be a first cause. — Philosophim

I get that four-dimensional existence can only manifest from existing causality, but there’s nothing to suggest that causality has a temporal location - ie. that there MUST BE a ‘first cause’.

If you follow the logic of qualitative geometry, a two-dimensional shape can only manifest in relation to a three-dimensional aspect. Therefore, a four-dimensional existence can only manifest in relation to a five-dimensional aspect.

Causality is potential. To refer to it as a ‘first cause’ and state that it ‘must be’ is logically inaccurate.

Women are equally as delusional too when it comes to projecting their desires on others. Anyone who has been in a relationship knows this is not really about men or women it is about some people having certain expectations and then being met with reality. — I like sushi

I was very careful not to make any generalisations about either men or women. I specifically referred to ‘a man’ or ‘a woman’, unless describing the delusion itself, within the context described. Yes, I agree that women can be equally delusional, and that this really has nothing to do with any apparent differences between men and women. It’s more about the lengths to which some people will go to maintain their delusions in the face of reality.

I remember someone talking a while back (maybe a good few years ago now?) about romanticism being a blight on modern sensibilities. Romance in the terms of ‘knight in shining armour’ and the ‘happily ever after’ mindset. I didn’t agree with it over all but there were some good points to consider that may have had an adverse effect on western society at large. — I like sushi

I think the initial idea behind ‘romantic love’ was quickly subsumed. It originally refers to a recognition of non-commutable values in perceived potential: the quantitative efforts of a knight in relation to the qualitative values of beauty and nobility. It was turned into a value transaction: on one hand it was an opportunity for women to effect change, but it quickly became an expectation that beauty and nobility - values a woman possessed in her own right - can be reduced to a quantifiable potential or value. With women prevented from also possessing economic, political or even academic potential, any quantifiable value they were deemed to possess was subject to negotiations by the men around them.

But Romanticism in general used language to develop conceptual structures of qualitative value, potential and power - which motivated Scientism to reduce these conceptual structures to their quantifiable aspects. So, yes - I do agree that it’s a much broader issue than gender.

The fact that a woman may be sufficiently self-aware to NOT feel the need to appear rationally unaffected does not give men permission to do so
— Possibility

Sorry, I didn't follow this, can you explain a bit more? — _db

Any ‘self’ is constructed as a perceived distinction of logic, quality and energy in relation to one’s conceptual reality. A construction of self always relates to a corresponding construction of reality. So a rationally perceived construction of self corresponds to a irrationally perceived reality.

If you acknowledge that any fears or desires you experience are an aspect of self, you have no need to appear entirely rational. But if you don’t appear entirely rational, then someone who will NOT acknowledge the fears or desires they experience is going to try to attribute theirs to you (the corresponding reality) in any perceived interaction.

I consider ‘awareness’ to be a more general term, with ‘consciousness’ referring to a more complex level of awareness. I make this terminological distinction mainly because my philosophical discussions occasionally enter into panpsychism territory.

I find there is a qualitative distinction between ‘unconscious’ (potential consciousness with temporally-reduced awareness) and ‘non-conscious’ (insufficient awareness complexity (potential) for consciousness).

Consciousness, while being a potential structure, is measured by its temporal manifestations, such as brain activity, responsiveness, etc. ‘Conscious state’ refers to these manifestations, temporarily defined.