Self-Consciousness is the evolved intellectual trait that allowed Mankind to set himself apart from Animal, and progress exponentially further 'forward', evolution at an exponential pace.
Self-Consciousness is a rare trait in humans. I no longer believe that the majority of humans are Self-Conscious. Most seem not to have an "inner-voice" (noticeable Monologue / Thought process / significant Rational / ability to Rationalize / Reason). Thus only a small minority of humanity is Self-Conscious, and of this lot, an even smaller minority is able to nurture this intellectual trait to a degree of, what is societally referred to as, "Objectivity".
It's not enough to be merely intelligent.
Because there are intelligent people, and animals, who are not Self-Conscious. They do just fine survival wise and in Nature. Thus it's questionable how much a direct Advantage Self-Consciousness / Objectivity truly is. As the saying goes, "What good is Wisdom when it does not profit the Wise?" Rather the benefits are latent, arriving much much later than expected, and in very specialized conditions & environments. Philosophy for example, is a very Artificial construct, far removed from the threats and cruelty of Nature. Thinking / Rationalizing / Reasoning is not done when fleeing for your life, running from an erupting volcano, being chased by lions, or in the midst of a ferocious battle. Philosophy is not waged here: Artifice vs Nature. (However Nature must be continually re-connect to Philosophy, else it becomes Idealism / Ideology / Nihilism / Abrahamism / Platonic Utopianism / Fatalism.
I believe that Self-Consciousness / Objectivity requires more traits than being above-average Intelligence. Humility is required (to negate one's own Ego). Courage is required (to confront the Unknown / Nature / Death). And most importantly, an endless thirst for adventure, an insatiable Curiosity, a need to know any and all secrets of the universe: "The Great Mystery". This last attribute maybe the most important.
Because in the greatest mysteries, humans confuse and bewilder one-another with petulant fantasies and occultism, Abrahamism being the largest, noisiest, most obtuse Attraction to the masses of the world. How many are mired in these circus tents? How many are captivated, by Simplicity? How much of the Stupid, gets lost in a child's puzzle box?
These will remain mere Subjects. Clay for their local Authority / Magistrate / Priest, who shepherds the human flocks of manimal. The Midwits are here. The Midwits need led around. The above-average, "Anointed Ones", take pride in their ability. They are happy to lead around fools. And they are happy with small, minüte mysteries.
The Subject-ive like to repeat what their Authorities tell them. This is why "Philosophy" is obsessed about what dead-philosophers have already thought, written, evocated. They are consumed with the Past, not living in the Present or enough courage to look toward the Future. They are immersed with Status symbols. This is why they cannot think above or beyond what is 'popular'. What is popular, is what is True to them: Truth. Thus self-censorship is critical. The thoughts / beliefs / national pride that runs counter to Postmodernity, is False, or a Lie, or at least Verboten. Outcast.
The above-average, Shepherds, navigate around political-incorrectness by "re-phrasing" ancient wisdom, making it seem new or astonishing, a "new discovery!" (example: Marxism) What is Old is made New again. But they don't go very far in this, lest they come under threat of the overarching social norms and political correctness. The midwits don't want to "be made an example of".
This leads me to another factor of the Objective Mind: Authority / Autonomy / Selfhood. One must have enough anti-social attributes, Individuality, to embrace competition against greater society, including one's own family (those who are Indoctrinated into the mainstream and politically correct). This is yet another great challenge. How much is an individual willing to risk....for Philosophy? For freedom of thought? For control, choice, direction, of one's own mind?
How much would you pay, for your Freedom or Free-Will?
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37248 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Physical material/mass, interaction of energy and cosmic forces. In this state, animus, life, biology, is at "one" with any other physical force. Life is 'equal' to Non-life. My body is a rock, a stone, a drop of water, a gust of wind, Nature. I cannot defy Causality anymore than any other physical object can or cannot. In fact, what I know of "Causality" is only my subjective expectations and understand perverting my clarity of mind. How egotistical is it thereafter, to presume to know what Causes what? As-if I am the final arbiter, or the first? Causality is continuously learned, a factor of evolving intelligence that never completes. Causality is a process, not a finality.
Subject:
My life matters, my ego matters, my possessions are all that matter. Myself first and foremost, everybody else last. Selfishness dominates my "morality". Subjectivity is premised upon this Possession. Not only do I want complete control over myself, but over others, and over all things. God-complex, Subjectivity is only Biological, not Physical. I am unchained from Causality. I am The Exception to all Laws. Nothing applies to me.
Most are immersed in the Subject, few really ever venture far into the Object.
Objectivity is where Mankind progresses his 'Sciences', allowing for technological mastery that exponentially sped and speeds up the evolutionary process.
The masses of humanity are obsessed with the Subjective, Selfishness, despite not even knowing what their 'Self' is, where it came from, how it's programmed, how it's controlled, how it's manipulated (by those above them).
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37248 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
All value-judgements, if and when applied, produce consequences. Those that produce more positive than negative consequences are established and repeated and passed on; those that produce mostly negative consequences are selected out, if they are not sheltered, as they currently are.
Moral behaviours are based on this natural mechanism, in regards to group dynamics and group survival....imposing itself on individual behaviours, socially selecting individual behavioural traits that have proven beneficial to the group's survival and propagation.
Groups are gradually abstracted into the ide of a god.
Similarly, subjective perspectives, if nd when not protected by some external agency, are naturally selected based on the consequences of their application, gradually selecting the types of minds that can more accurately interpret the world and adapt to it effectively - evolution of intelligence. When sheltering intervenes a regression occurs - devolution of intelligence - accompanied by an increasing demand to be protected from the negative repercussions of bad judgements.
--- As such, moral and ethical systems develop from the most successfully group dynamics successfully imposing their rules upon the members that participate with them. Nihilistic ethics, contradicting moral systems, evolve as a political system necessitated by the development of racially/ethnically heterogeneous group dynamics, requiring an arbitrary application, since if they are applied religiously they lead to group extermination - deception is always a part of any nihilistic moral/amoral system, e.g., Christianity could not survive if its own 'logic' were followed and applied consistently; Americanism could not have become a SuperPower if it had followed its own sacred values concerning the equality of men and the constitutional liberty of the States to opt out of the union.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37248 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Disagreements occur when men abandon common rational objective standards and succumb to subjective emotional motives. Ironically, those who fight against authoritarianism make it inevitable when they deny all objective standards for evaluating concepts, and defining the words associated with them.
To put it bluntly, when they denounce nature's authority they make human authority the alternative.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37248 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Judgements that remain theoretical can all claim perfection. All is ideal, by definition, when it is not real. In the head, organ of organization, all is ordered and follows the movement of the thinker's motives.
Things change when the theoretically subjective is converted, via the nervous system which converted it to concepts, returns the idea back to the world of interactivity - a world of complexity and imperceptible chaos, where nothing follows the thinker's motives but forces the thinker to modify them, on the fly; adjusting them with every small, or large, unexpected variable. It is why consciousness is fluid, imitating existence, or trying to keep-up and maintain relevance.
No matter where you are born, or how you were raised - no matter the place and the time of your existence - there are patterns that remain true - dressed up differently, every time. What was necessary for survival and reproduction a million years ago is still true today and tomorrow. Philosophy discovered and exposes these timeless patterns, beneath all the human concealments and gimmicks.
A judgement converted to action, via choice, has one way to determine its validity: by juxtaposing the expected, in theory, with the actual, in reality, i.e., via the negative, and the unexpected, consequences, relative to expected projection. This is where a will's strength, its quality, or its freedom, is revealed and is necessary - consequences teach and help the mind adjust itself, in real time, to a world which is so complex and chaotic, so dynamic relative to the mind's ability to perceive and process its interactions, that it can never be certain. All it can do is discern the pattern and train itself to automatically react to specific stimuli.....continuously adjusting and adapting tis reactions.
Like a surfer on the waves.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37248 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
For a nihilistic ideal to flourish the concept of the real must be erased, negated, subverted....
Begin by detaching words/symbols from reality - reinventing their utility as representational mediators between phenomena and noumena, and give them a new utility between the subjective ideal and the collective ideal.
"Secret religions" - occultism. Those that pretend to be rational, empirical, belonging to a Hellenic world-view, when they are the opposite, the inversion, the negation of that which they pretend to belong to. Cryptic, calling themselves "esoteric", using obscurantism and mysticism to mask and conceal their true motives.
Pretending to be philosophical when they are anti-philosophical, they re religious, selling a dogma or a secular dogma, an ideology of nothingness. Selling to the feeble, the needy, the desperate all kinds of magical powers: wealth, pleasures, eternity, occult insights, eternal life....it could be anything. Their target is specific and they shape their language to target a specific audience, or a general, universal, worldwide audience....an entire species. Which words they detach from their original utility will identify their motives.
*****
Nihilism is the ideal replacing the real. An abstraction of an abstraction of an abstraction...pretending to delve deeper and deeper into the truth of the world, when it is delving into nothing but the idea, in the mind; delving into the depths of the psyche, perhaps, but not of the real. And what is there but...nothing....no-thing.
Deconstruct until you reach nothing. This no-thing they then declare to be a more real real....a some-thing absolute; a some-thing that usurps and contradicts and replaces the real. Abrahamism.
Then, some of them realize the vacuousness of what they had believed in, and what do they do? They conclude that if there is no absolute thing, no absolute real.....then all is no-thing, absolute-unreral. The absolute offers a similar end.....and a comfort. A finality.
*****
They pretend to be interested in reality, to be philosophers....but they are anti-philosophers and are interested in the un-real....whether it be an unreal absolute god, or an unreal absolute nothingness.
*****
Kabbalism is rooted in Gnosticism.....and Gnosticism is Christian mysticism. All begins in ancient-Egypt and Persia.
The infection goes back to Socrates and his return from war, coming in contact with some figure Zalmoxis....according to [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. So, Socrates, via Plato, become the first prophets of Abrahamism.....the prophets of Christianity via Judaism.
*****
Marxism, and Wokism - postmodernism - is linked to this mental dis-ease....this spiritual infection.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37248 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
In regards to concealing subtexts within contexts, or ‘reading between the lines’ usually associated with Leo Strauss, we can say that such practises, forced upon a writer by socioeconomic factors and peer persecutions, also serve as a means for revealing motives. A writer could choose to speak obliquely so as to avoid persecution, either because he writes about undesirable practices, or because such revelations would make said practices less effective – revealing a cook’s recipe makes the chef less necessity. We would have to analyze what is being indirectly and cautiously revealed, and why persecutions would be expected at the mere utterance of certain ideas, describing practices and motives that contradict, popular, common convictions. In what way does what is being shyly revealed threaten established powers and the conventional convictions they are dependent? What might be revealed might be the unexpected. Not a threat to the established convictions supporting hierarchies and socioeconomic relationships, but a subversive method for exploiting such establishments. A writer may conceal his learned method of exploitations, sharing them with those that share this goal as their shared ambition; using subtexts, concealed within the texts, to transmit them along with some personal additions, directed toward those who have learned that such subtexts exist where nobody suspects – in plain sight, as it were; an exercise in the very methodology being transmitted. A triple reading – under the text and the pretext of fearing persecution, a justification for a subversive-sub-subtext, that does not necessarily threaten power and conventional beliefs but transmits a methodology for its exploitation and manipulation – McLuhan’s ‘medium is the message’ comes to mind. An analysis of what is hypothetically being concealed through allegory and metaphor, and why it would suffer persecution if clearly stated in the text, would be a prerequisite to accepting its justification; an allusion to language specific word-play, double and triple entendre, numerology exposing secret messages, astrology of the beyond, mystifying palindromes that can imply anything the reader desires. What is this ‘extraordinary knowledge and understanding’ that must be read between the lines; what threatening powers does it offer to those who can decipher it, and to what end?, if what has been concealed in linguistic allegories and word-associative metaphors appears to be even more metaphorical and allegorical, i.e., mystical, offering no clear and obvious advantage, then the possibility that the text itself is the message, transmitting a method for manipulating and exploiting those in power, through their conventional beliefs, adds to the text an additional reading. An author may fear persecution not because he has knowledge and understanding that contradicts the status quo. This is clear in the Socratic Method. No subversive message is remitted, or taught; no convictions that threatens conventional beliefs, but a subversive method is presented in the form of a dialogue proposing a means of undermining and exploiting impressionable minds.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37248 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Why is European man, like James Lindsay, are just now awakening to all this – or why can he now openly expose it, with minimal cost? Because new-Jerusalem, i.e., USA, is imploding because of its own lies and ideologically transmitted superstitions. A parasite cannot survive outside a host, viz., a liar who has convinced of himself that his lies are truer than true, cannot survive in the world without a mediating entity firmly entrenched in reality: a child cannot survive without a parent standing over it as it pretends it is a mighty warrior or an alligator, or a time traveller.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37248 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Without wanting to sound arrogant, but doesn't Lindsay sound like he is just becoming aware of what I've been saying for over a decade? Isn't his "negative theology" just another way of saying 'nihilistic spirituality?
We all reach the truth, as we all find an oasis in the desert of the real.....from different angles, different paths, and in our own time. I'm glad Lindsay has reach this oasis, which I've been for a long time, waiting.... Glad he can enunciate it more clearly - has the time and the wherewithal to dedicate time to place it all within contexts the average pseudo-intellectual, academically inclined mind can relate to, and understand- and has access to a different, perhaps a wider, audience.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37248 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
The idea of objective reality, and why anyone would be interested in it, though it challenges and threatens his subjective needs and desires, is so alien to a subjective psychology that it is as if a primate were observing and speculating on human behaviours, and human preoccupations with what, for it, would seem incomprehensible. For simple minds, like animals or children below a certain age, preoccupation with what offers no clear and immediate pleasure would seem a waste, since they associate good/bad with pain/pleasure, and know nothing beyond this simple organic sensual duality. The intellectual distances cannot be bridged.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37248 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Subjective emoters are obsessed with people, popularity, feelings, emotions, connecting them with these other minds. Morality is central to their convictions, even when they turn to amorality it is on moral grounds that seeks to participate, to be included and to include as many others as possible into a collective. A collective to create their own reality. Lacking external evidence, referents, to support their emotionally based beliefs they need others as supporters and compensating external referents - language is how they cultivate and maintain these inter-subjective relationships, their collectives. Unable to comprehend objective thinkers subjective emoters will project their methods and passions on them, thusly exposing themselves.
Objective thinkers only have the world as their reference. It would seem inevitable that those who exist in the world and share the same objective will come in contact, and will find agreement - like two men lost in the desert, sharing the same need for hydration, will eventually find their way to the same oasis - even if from different directions.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37248 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
All value-judgements, across the ages, across cultures produce consequences, if applied. These consequences are not primarily culturally determined, but determined by the world beyond all cultures and across all manmade borders of space/time. Consequently, these foreseeable & unforeseeable, expected & unexpected, positive & negative consequences, relative to the individual's cultural ideals, and/or his/her personal intentions and objectives, is what morality, and, then, ethics are based on. Culture develops ethical systems to discipline individual judgements – and through them individual choices – to collective objectives, i.e., collective intentions. Culturally determined ethical rules are additions to already evolved natural behaviours that facilitate cooperative survival and reproductive strategies – innate behaviours, shared by all social species, that man, subsequently, linguistically encodes as moral laws, so as to extend them with his own culturally determined ethical additions. Naturally evolved moral behaviours only standard is species survival and reproduction: species fitness, i.e., health, functionality, adaptability. Every culture, through its ethical systems, produces its own particular kind of world-view, and its own particular type of man – product of how this cultural standard is practiced and how it relates to natural order. Value-judgements, within or without a collective, are not all equal, but are part of the process of natural selection, since they determine an individual's choices and their outcomes. Ethical systems are malleable, because they are manmade, so value-judgements can and must be adjusted by the individual who participates within a specific group, with a specific world-view. Morals, and what is called moral behaviour and moral choices, are not malleable, since the consequences are not determined by men, but by natural order – the consequences for breaking these moral rules are predictable and unyielding, and most often unpredictable. Value-judgements imply judging, an evaluation of options, and of actions, and/or of objectives. All evaluations are approximations, not certainties, necessitating constant reaffirmation and adjustment. Morality evolved over centuries, millennia of trial & error, naturally selecting particular behaviours which became innate and inseparable from species identity, nevertheless, procreation produces mutations that constantly emerge and may be continuously filtered out of a gene-pool if they are not protected and allowed to be passed-on due to a controlling will's alternate motives.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37248 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Everything can be subjectively rationalized, but how many of those can use empirical, independent events to rationalize their beliefs; how many use non-subjective standards to evaluate and justify their rationalizations?
Everything can be rationalized, but if applied and not just rationalized, if converted to choice, to action, there are consequences that expose the rationalization to its errors.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Kultur
Gender : Posts : 234 Join date : 2021-02-14 Location : Faustian Land
When reason is corrupted by emotion it cannot approach objectivity.
That is absolutely right - as right as the fact that my username here is Kultur.
Hermann Schmitz said that animals and human sucklings (intrauterine and extrauterine) are each in an environment of only "subjective facts".
Hermann Schmitz wrote:
These subjective facts, however, do not consist in man somehow withdrawing into his subjectivity and building up a private inner world, as tradition probably means when it speaks of subjectivity, subjectivity as a private matter of the individual. That is not the point now, but on the contrary, these subjective facts are the ones in which one is actually confronted with reality, because they contain this, that something is close to one, actually affects me personally and is not merely in my mind, so that here the contact with the real takes place directly, while this contact is only mirrored by the objective facts. .... The subjectivity of a fact for me is therefore by no means a barrier to the world or to everything in my environment or to what else there is. Rather, it is precisely the access to being hit by it in contrast to standing outside as a mere observer. What remains when subjectivity is peeled away from subjective facts is only the objectivity of objective facts. The subjective facts are therefore in many respects richer than the objective facts.
....
This also leads to another important conclusion, namely that the subjective facts can in no way be built up from objective facts by any addition to them. This follows from the correspondence in content of the subjective facts with the corresponding objective ones, that is, in the realm of affective concern. The subjective fact that I am happy or sad naturally corresponds to the objective fact that Hermann Schmitz is happy or sad or something else. This is a fact which, in terms of content, is completely consistent with the fact that I myself am this person, as my immediate affective being affected shows me. From this correspondence of content it follows that no addition to the content of the objective facts can achieve a subjective fact. For the subjective fact has exactly the same content, so there can be no transition to reach the subjective fact from the objective facts. The only difference is that, with completely the same content of qualities and relations and so on, we are dealing with facts of quite a different kind. Facts of quite different kinds, subjective and objective facts, differ in their milieus as facts, but not in their content, which can even be completely the same. Therefore it is also impossible, for example, to reach the subjective facts by adding a causal function to the objective facts. Here is an absolute leap into another milieu, and not a change, an addition of content, of relations or properties. So while the subjective facts are unattainable from the objective facts, conversely it is of course quite possible to reach the objective facts from the subjective facts. For these objective facts are inside the subjective facts; one only needs to peel away the subjectivity. So one only has to go from myself, with all that I am as an affectively affected person, to Hermann Schmitz. The same content remains, but now in the form of objective facts. This descent from subjective to objective facts is a completely indispensable feature of the maturation of life experience, whereby the adult human being outgrows his childishness. The adult human being needs this distance, he needs the neutralisation of subjective facts, so that he can form a well-founded judgement, for example, to be independent as a judge between opposing opinions and parties and to be able to be just. He also needs, in order to find his way in life, first of all a neutral, objective picture of the environment, which can be gained with the help of objective facts. This transition is indeed indispensable for the maturation of the human being, but it is ambivalent. The original abundance of subjective facts partly falls victim to it.
Translated by me.
To get a neutral, objective picture, to make a neutral, objective statement, you need objective facts. Here the subjective facts only hinder.
Subjective and objective facts relate to each other like affective concern and non-affective concern.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37248 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
All subjects interpret an objective world. All surviving methods - a priori - of interpreting the world have proven - by their continuing existence and reproduction - to be sufficient; they've been naturally selected. We can speculate as to the nature of the objective world....and philosophy does that.
Physis = subjective interpretations and the cognition of patterns underlying the patterns being interpreted. Metaphysics = subjective speculation on the nature of the interpreted objective world, using these patterns.
My metaphysical speculation is that all is Energy - just as Heraclitus used fire to allegorically represent what he had knowledge and understanding
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37248 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Energy can be divided into two general types: Patterned, i.e., order, and non-patterned, i.e., chaos. Man can only perceive order directly and so exists in a cosmos that is totally predictable, perceptible, consistent...but cannot perceive what is inconsistent, unpredictable and so imperceptible by an organism, that is continuously self-organizing.
This absolute roder man calls divine - god. What is tis opposite man calls evil, Satanic....referring the the incomprehensible chaos.
Order merges from chaos and returns to it, according to ancient cosmogony models....and so chaos is envisioned as both a Promethean benefactor and an evil Demon. Life subjectively relates to order positively and to chaos negatively.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37248 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Abrahamics and now Postmoderns have wrongly associated the ordering mind as Divine - as the creator of all - because mind is where all life constructs the world, as an interpretation of objective reality. This is where liars, hypocrites and charlatans thrive. they convince gullible, insecure minds that it can fabricate tis own private world, independent from objective reality; going so far as to deny the existence of objective reality, i.e., existence of existence outside the mind.
Sheltering allows such gullible minds to continue believing what charlatans have convinced them, for their own purposes.
One such delusion is an allusion to a cosmic mind - describing the individual mind as a conduit: universal inter-subjectivity. From Gnosticism to Abrahamism and then to Marxism and Postmodernism....this is the underlying link. As such they deny individual agency and if they adopt it it is to excuse divinity from tis implied imperfections; it is also used to weaponize shame and guilt, bringing into the model morality.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Kultur
Gender : Posts : 234 Join date : 2021-02-14 Location : Faustian Land
I'll have to look into the etymological connections between the Greek terms ειναι and ενα because the phrase Παντα ειναι means 'all is,' not necessarily 'all is one'. I also disagreed with the assumption that fire 'cases' earth, wind, and sea...but rather fire, earth, water wind, i.e., energy, are different kinds of energy. Energy being a process....at work - describing a state of agitation. I call it vibration. All exists means all is in a contant state of turmoil, agitation, Flux...ascending and descending in degree. When it descends it is perceived as a cooling...solidification - matter; when it is ascending it heats up, going through the phases liquid, gas, and then fire - Energy. Different levels of flux - interactivity - are interpreted as different kinds of energy: solid, liquid, gas, with light being the fastest form of vibration the human can perceive and process and so it adapted using it as a mediating medium for sight, just as gas was adopted as the mediating medium for hearing.
Mind is the unifier of multiplicity.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37248 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Popper's 3 worlds loosely correspond to the Platonic triad of psyche:
1st world = existence, presence, objective reality. Energy. 2nd world = subjective interpretation of the 1st - noumenon/phenomenon, the apparent. 3rd world = logos, semiotics; externalization of the 2nd.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37248 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
I'll have to look into the etymological connections between the Greek terms ειναι and ενα because the phrase Παντα ειναι means 'all is,' not necessarily 'all is one'.
είναι.
Etymology:
From Ancient Greek εἶναι (eînai), present infinitive of εἰμί (eimí, “I am”).
(For the noun): Semantic loan from German Sein. (For the 3rd person of verb) According to Babiniotis, not from the infinitive εἶναι (eînai), but from the Medieval Byzantine Greek ἔναι (énai) < Ancient Greek ἔνι (éni), a short form of ἔνεστι (énesti, “to be in”), and in unison with the forms είμαι (eímai), είσαι (eísai).
Zeno.org wrote:
Truth is agreement of judgement with (changing) appearances: panta einai hosa pasi phainetai (Sextus Empiricus, pyrrhoneíai hypotypôseis [translated roughly: Outlines of Pyrrhonian Scepticism], I, 218).
Translated by me.
Perhaps panta einai therefore means that everything is one in the sense of appearances.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37248 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
War is the perfect environment to study the relationship of subjective judgment and objective consequences. No theories required. Perception - Analysis - Judgement - Choice - Action - Consequence - Evaluation - Adjustment - repeat.... No intervening external force to corrupt any part of this process.
Why are both sides fighting for the same strategic places on the map? Is there one path....one way to victory? Is there a conspiracy? Have both been born and raised in the same culture? Is that why?
Probably both have subjectively - and independently - judged - evaluated - a specific geography as promising a higher probability for attaining a final victory. So, they conflict and fight, over the same ground. Could they have judged and evaluated differently? Yes....with expected consequences. Consequences indicating the quality of the judgment. Could they have judged and chosen a different path towards victory, or a different goal, knowing the risks? Yes. Always. But here 'risk' indicates an increase in uncertainty - probability for victory - and both sides want to ensure higher probabilities, and top reduce risks, or the uncertainty factor. Uncertainty always being a factor in war and in life.....because of chaos, and man's limits; no man can ever be omniscient nor omnipotent. So, they both choose the same goals, using different tactics.....different directions of approach .....different synthesis of forces, timetables, adjusting them to their own subjective evaluations of the same objective circumstances; both basing their tactics on their subjective evaluations of their own abilities, qualities, their own power.... etc. So, both could evaluate the objective differently, but most often both sides value the same objectives relatively similarly; both judging specific goals as leading to a more certain, more probable outcome: victory. Could one side value an objective differently? Of course....and the consequences will show if this difference was correct or incorrect - was more likely to lead to victory or less so.
No theoretical debate. The debate occurs on the battlefield, and the consequences are obvious. Act. All is act. Theories remain on words....and this is where nihilism settles, because in theory most everything is perfect.
