Home | Community | Message Board


SoulSpeciosa Kratom
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Amazon Shop for: Grateful Dead

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]
Anonymous

Question.
    #1597923 - 06/01/03 11:20 AM (13 years, 6 months ago)

If you cannot quantify something does* it exist?  And by you I am not meaning a singular you.

Double negative edited for clearer meaning. :wink:


Edited by Anonymous (06/01/03 11:58 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineMarkostheGnostic
Elder
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/10/99
Posts: 12,757
Loc: South Florida
Last seen: 14 hours, 53 minutes
Re: Question. [Re: ]
    #1597930 - 06/01/03 11:32 AM (13 years, 6 months ago)

Quantification is a matter of physics, not metaphysics. Aristotle's 'Metaphysics' is no help is this inquiry. Transcendental aspects of Reality are not quantifiable since they are not 'things,' but are ontologically prior to things. The question that scholastics in Thomas Aquinas's time would actually ask is 'How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?' (Grateful Dead used this as a lyric in 'Weather Report Suite'). Or, 'How many souls are in heaven?,' which again is to attribute spatiality to both souls and to heaven. [Of course, I may be misinterpreting your question - it does have a lot of grammatical negatives :smile:


--------------------
γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: Question. [Re: MarkostheGnostic]
    #1597954 - 06/01/03 11:56 AM (13 years, 6 months ago)

No, you caught what I inferred precisely.  So much so that I had to make a sandwich before replying. :wink:

I would like it if you would elaborate on this idea of things being prior to things.  What are these transcedental things that are not things?  And why is it, in your view, that Aristotle's Metaphysics cannot help us to understand in this instance?

The philosophers of St. Aquinas' time were guilty of not properly submitting their minds to the literature.  That is to say that most of the tenets of Aristotle that were slightly askew could have been corrected by applying his basic principles.  But that really is the topic for another thread.

Reply at your leisure in any way that you prefer while acknowledging that a full blown dialogue between us on this may leave many confused and completely in the dark.

Please continue. 


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibletrendalM
point of inflection
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 19,380
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: Question. [Re: ]
    #1597984 - 06/01/03 12:21 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

Yes.


--------------------
You're here because you know something.
What you know you can't explain,
But you feel it;
You've felt it your entire life.
That there's something wrong with the world.
You don't know what it is, but it's there....
Like a splinter in your mind...
Driving you mad.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: Question. [Re: trendal]
    #1598007 - 06/01/03 12:38 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

Good!  That is precisely what I thought. :wink:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineMarkostheGnostic
Elder
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/10/99
Posts: 12,757
Loc: South Florida
Last seen: 14 hours, 53 minutes
Re: Question. [Re: ]
    #1598022 - 06/01/03 12:56 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

As simply as I can state a major error in Aristotle (he is impossible to read in the 'Metaphysics') is that he attributes Eternity to sensible objects, namely, to stars. Therefore, a 'thing' can be Eternal for Aristotle, whether is be a 'sensible' (perceptible to the senses) thing, or an invisible thing, like 'a' soul.

"Now, there are three kinds of primary being. One is sensible being. It includes, besides the eternal sensible bodies, the perishable bodies which all men acknowledge, such as plants and animals. But there is also eternal sensible being, whose elements we must grasp, whether they are one or many. And there is also unmovable being...The first two kinds of being belong to natural science (since they have movement), whereas the third belongs to another science, if there is no principle common to the third and the others."
-Metaphysics, XII. Book Lambda, part 1.

This is a small point, considering the density of ideas in Aristotle, not to mention his continuous reference to Plato's and pre-Socratic philosophers' principles upon which he builds his own philosophy. Aristole confuses the sensible world (stars, heavens) with the supersensible or transcendental Reality. So does Plato, for example, as Aristotle reminds us that cyclical movement is one characteristic of Eternity, according to Plato.

Transcendental Reality, whether one is talking about Spirit (archaic word for Consciousness), or God, or soul (psyche), or mind (nous), or Platonic Archetypes (pure ideas), or Heaven (not the the heavens, or space), or That which preceded The Big Bang, etc., are references to a category of Being that defies description because Transcendental Reality is without attributes. Attributes define, delimit, contain, and Transcendental is referred to in Buddhism as the 'Unconditioned,' or in Judaism [Kabbalism] as 'Ain Sof,' the Limitless, or again in Hinduism as Nirguna Brahman - God without attribute. Essentially, one can experience the 'effects' of God, namely, creation, all of existence, including the most subtle forms, but the Transcendental is never an object, It is the Source of our perception, of our awareness, not the object of our awareness.



--------------------
γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineMAIA
World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS)
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 7,275
Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri - M45 Sta...
Last seen: 6 months, 11 days
Re: Question. [Re: MarkostheGnostic]
    #1598034 - 06/01/03 01:14 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

Yes it exists but are not under your control.
The desire to make any quantification is a human need to control its reality as different actions are taken according to different measurements.

MAIA


--------------------
Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala



Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy.
Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: Question. [Re: MarkostheGnostic]
    #1598244 - 06/01/03 03:03 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

I do not see that as a confusion at all. He is merely describing the way in which we use reason to categorize. If what you are saying is true than the intelligible objects of the mind are likewise not things, i.e. an entity.

According to logic a 'thing' is something which exists. It can exist in the mind, i.e. a unicorn, or in the material world, i.e. a horse, or outside either in the spiritual realm.

Attributes may define, delimit, contain, etc but they are also useful for explaining. I don't see how you can explain something you cannot define.


Edited by Anonymous (06/01/03 03:10 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: Question. [Re: MAIA]
    #1598252 - 06/01/03 03:07 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

Perhaps but I do not think it is a necessary correlation that we seek to define so we can control. I seek to define to understand.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinepseudopod
scattered,smothered,covered...

Registered: 03/02/03
Posts: 244
Last seen: 3 years, 3 months
Re: Question. [Re: ]
    #1598289 - 06/01/03 03:30 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

I don't know if this is relevant, but I was listening to NPR this weekend and there was a discussion on Astrophysics. They talked a bit about dark matter and dark energy, neither of which have been quantified. Apparently 3/4 of the stuff in the universe is dark energy, which we can neither see or feel, and another 1/3 is dark matter, which we cannot see but can feel (we can measure gravitational force). Apparently only 5% of the universe is made up of the stuff we consider to be normal and quantifiable. Neat, huh.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineMAIA
World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS)
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 7,275
Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri - M45 Sta...
Last seen: 6 months, 11 days
Re: Question. [Re: ]
    #1598298 - 06/01/03 03:35 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

Maybe control is not the best word, it's like when you are aware of the nature of something, that something can be affected.
So, when you say, you seek to define to understand, that understanding can affect "rationally" that something. It's not that you "will" do it but the thing is you "can" do it.

MAIA


--------------------
Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala



Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy.
Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibletrendalM
point of inflection
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 19,380
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: Question. [Re: ]
    #1598593 - 06/01/03 05:29 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

Infinity.

It exists, at least as a concept, but it's "existence" in our physical universe can be argued. I do not think that infinity "exists" as something "real" in our universe. But you can't argue that infinty doesn't exist conceptually.


--------------------
You're here because you know something.
What you know you can't explain,
But you feel it;
You've felt it your entire life.
That there's something wrong with the world.
You don't know what it is, but it's there....
Like a splinter in your mind...
Driving you mad.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineStrumpling
Neuronaut
Registered: 10/11/02
Posts: 7,571
Loc: Hyperspace
Last seen: 5 years, 6 months
Re: Question. [Re: ]
    #1598650 - 06/01/03 05:42 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

I'm starting to enjoy the premise that if you can believe in it; it exists somehow somewhere sometime, if only as a collection of "memes."


--------------------
Insert an "I think" mentally in front of eveything I say that seems sketchy, because I certainly don't KNOW much. Also; feel free to yell at me.
In addition: SHPONGLE


Edited by Strumpling (06/01/03 05:42 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinepseudopod
scattered,smothered,covered...

Registered: 03/02/03
Posts: 244
Last seen: 3 years, 3 months
Re: Question. [Re: Strumpling]
    #1598703 - 06/01/03 06:01 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

Welcome to postmodernism :smile:



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineMarkostheGnostic
Elder
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/10/99
Posts: 12,757
Loc: South Florida
Last seen: 14 hours, 53 minutes
Re: Question. [Re: ]
    #1598828 - 06/01/03 06:49 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

That is correct. One cannot explain the Transcendental any more than one can define it. J.S. Spong has said something to the effect: 'We don't see God, we see the tracks He has left.' One cannot 'thing-a-fy' Consciousness. We can describe phenomena as they appear in Consciousness. As they say in India, 'Spirit [Consciousness] is the I which sees all, but which cannot see Itself.' It is only in the state of Turiya, or Sat Chit Ananda (Non-Dualism) in which Consciousness Realizes Itself as the Knower, the Knowing and the Known, that the Reality is truly Experienced. While one is still is a Dualistic state, wherein subject and object appear to be separate, and in which one attempts to understand the Ultimately Real conceptually (i.e., with concepts/symbols), one's attempt will be doomed. Linear logic, numbers/valences are representative of finite measure, not infinitude.

The Ultimately Real is One, and is indivisible. The Infinite One is not capable of being encompassed by the finite mind, or by corollary, described, because description by symbol (spoken as word or otherwise formulated and represented) can only be explicated in sequence - in time - which is linear. Linearity - one dimensionality - cannot encompass the Infinity of dimensions which is the One.

Have you never been struck thoughtless and speechless by the magnitude of an intensified awareness? Who or What is going to 'explain/describe' Who or What? The One is overwhelmingly Self-Evident, is complete, and requires nothing. Everything merely and profoundly, IS. "Silence is as deep as Eternity; speech as shallow as Time." -Thomas Carlyle



--------------------
γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: Question. [Re: MarkostheGnostic]
    #1599300 - 06/01/03 09:38 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

I think we are confusing terms between us. Any thing is an entity when you are coming from a philosophical perspective, even Consciousness. I will need more time to answer more completely. I have yet to see anything that you have said that refutes Aristotle's premise.

Thank you for taking the time to do this.

Cheers,


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: Question. [Re: Strumpling]
    #1599308 - 06/01/03 09:40 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

I'm starting to enjoy the premise that if you can believe in it; it exists somehow somewhere sometime, if only as a collection of "memes."




For a purely philosophical perspective, as I said to Markos, any thing is an entity, even a thought or a meme.

Cheers,


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: Question. [Re: trendal]
    #1599315 - 06/01/03 09:42 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

That's right Tren. Any thing that exists conceptually is an entity and has 'being' ontologically.

Cheers,


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: Question. [Re: MAIA]
    #1599319 - 06/01/03 09:43 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

Indeed.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: Question. [Re: pseudopod]
    #1599323 - 06/01/03 09:44 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Welcome to postmodernism :smile:

 




Saints preserve us!

:grin:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]

Amazon Shop for: Grateful Dead

General Interest >> Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Question on one of J.C.'s teachings...
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Swami 3,402 88 12/20/02 04:55 PM
by Murex
* Questions & Answers
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Lord_of_Fungus 6,395 78 03/19/04 08:26 PM
by SkorpivoMusterion
* Attributing Energy Chronic7 409 12 05/27/09 03:23 AM
by Noteworthy
* Trying "quantify" Epistemology TaoinShrrom 1,270 14 09/16/03 04:17 PM
by Rhizoid
* Quantifying spiritual quality of life enotake2 479 4 04/16/03 07:40 AM
by enotake2
* Question.
( 1 2 3 all )
adrug 3,393 41 10/21/06 12:01 PM
by BuddahKillah
* Question about the personality of god.
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Jawofmalak 4,660 72 10/09/08 08:26 PM
by moshiach
* Does a shape hold any power beyond what the beholder attributes to it? MisterMuscaria 818 14 04/14/09 08:36 AM
by Lakefingers

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, CosmicJoke, Diploid, DividedQuantum
1,364 topic views. 1 members, 7 guests and 5 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
MRCA Tyroler Gluckspilze
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.069 seconds spending 0.002 seconds on 18 queries.