Welcome to my intelligence

[Shahrazad]

Sapius claims his English vocabulary is limited, but his grammar and sentence structure are perfect.

.

[David Quinn]

Simon,

Simon: My being aware that I am conscious of making distinctions, is an empirical reality that becomes a concept when my awareness feels a need to conceptualize it. Likewise, my being aware of a door is an empirical reality that becomes a concept when my awareness feels a need to conceptualize it.

David: We can certainly say that both are appearances to our consciousness. However, your definition of logic differs in that it cannot be observed or established by empirical means.

Simon: Sure, my definition of logic can’t be observed by empirical means, but neither can my definition of a door.

And you even said your self, our tendency to make distinctions (to be logical) is, as a tendency, something that appears to us. In other words, the activity of our mind is sensed by our mind, and thus we make a defintion of logic. Likewise, the distinction of a door is sensed. Both logic and doors, can be made into definitions, concepts.

The difference is that an empirical conception or theory is constructed in such a manner that its content can only be tested by empirical observation.

For example, if the theory is, "the door in front of me is made of wood", then only empirical observation/testing can confirm or deny it.

Non-empirical conceptions and theories differ in that they are structured in such a manner that their content can only be tested by pure logic. An example would be, "all things have causes". There isn't a scientific experiment that can be devised which can confirm or deny this theory. It is something which can only be resolved through logic alone.

David: Unlike the door, logic is not something that can be observed by the senses or tested by scientific means.

Simon: Our facaulty for being logical, although it is more complex than a door, can be sensed and acknowledged.

However, the definition/concept of logic cannot be observed empirically, but neither can any definitions, concepts.

That's true, but when our definitions and conceptions specifically refer to empirical details, then it becomes a matter of empirical observation.

Take the conception, "all bachelors are over six feet tall", as an example. This conception can either be an empirical theory or a pure definition, depending on the intentions of the person creating the conception and how it is constructed. If it is meant to be an empirical theory, and if a bachelor remains defined as an unmarried man, then it can be tested empirically.

By contrast, the conception, "all bachelors are unmarried", is usually constructed to be purely definitional in nature and beyond the need to be tested empirically. It would be a redundant exercise to test it empirically.

David: So the key difference between an abstract/definitional/logical reality and an empirical one is the former's inability to be supported or negated by empirical observation.

Simon: Why isn't an empirical reality a logical one?

An empirical theory certainly involves logic in its construction, but the bottom line for its validation is the presence of supporting empirical evidence. A logical theory, on the other hand, is validated by the exercise of logic alone.

David: Take the number 1, for example. As a mathematical entity, the number 1 has its own definitional reality and has no connection to the empirical realm.

Simon: But the definitional reality only makes sense when it is imposed on the empirical realm. It has a very strong connection, a vital one actually.

No, as a purely mathematical entity, the number 1 can be understood purely in the context of other mathematical entities - for example, the number 2.

A good deal of higher mathematics has no relationship to the empirical world at all. It dwells in its own self-contained universe, where in logical deductions are made from axioms, without any reference to what is external. It is usually only by accident that this kind of math sometimes produces theories which are applicable to the "real world".

But I suppose that I can't confidently claim that if my personal sense perception is cut off (if I die) my definitional reality goes down the drain. It lives on in the minds of others - - and even if the others were wiped out with me, then the definitional reality would emerge where-ever else life happened to be in the universe.

That's right. It doesn't matter what kind of senses a conscious being might have, or what kind of world he perceives through his senses, 1+1 will always equal 2.

David: It is only when we start applying it to the empirical world - e.g. one tree, one person, etc - that [the #1] becomes part of an empirical entity.

Simon: But you speak as if the concept of the #1 is innately in the brain. Don't you believe that we acquire the concept?

Yes, we acquire the concept of the number 1 when our brains are sufficiently developed to reason abstractly and we have the urge to turn our attention to such a matter. It is like a fact waiting to be discovered in the ether, except that it doesn't exist until it is conceptualized.

I supppose that maybe you are suggesting that the brain, and perhaps all conscious life, when it emerges, is driven by an unlearned tendency to experience reality in a certain way?

In some ways, yes. In some ways, no.

For example, because conscious life can only experience the world through senses, the nature of its experiences will always be finite and limited in nature. This is a law of consciousness which can never be violated. To experience anything at all is to experience the finiteness of that thing.

On the other hand, the question of what actual senses a conscious life-form might have, how many in number, and what structure they might have, is open-ended. The possibilities are limitless. A being from another planet could conceivably experience the world in ways that we humans couldn't possibly imagine, and yet it would still be in the same boat as us in that each of its experiences will also be finite and limited in nature.

Causality for instance, isn't really something we have to learn first before we experience it - - causality is the first thing a baby experiences, without even knowing it. Conscious simply emerges in a particular way, simply because the truth is a particular way. There is no other way consciousness can emerge.

Yes, it is impossible to experience the world non-causally, so consciousness can never go that route, although many people probably wish it could. Our consciousness has evolved over billions of years to anticipate future events, which is a tacit acknowledgment of the reality of causality. This faculty of anticipation has certainly shaped our consciousness profoundly.

-

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

A being from another planet could conceivably experience the world in ways that we humans couldn't possibly imagine, and yet it would still be in the same boat as us in that each of its experiences will also be finite and limited in nature.

With that in mind, how can a human be sure that he has fully apprehended the nature of Ultimate Reality?

[David Quinn]

In understanding the nature of finiteness, penetratively and deeply, a person is able to understand everything that can ever be known.

As Lao Tzu said:

Without going outside, you may know the whole world.
Without looking through the window, you may see the ways
of heaven.
The farther you go, the less you know.

Thus the sage knows without travelling;
He sees without looking;
He works without doing.

-

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

In understanding the nature of finiteness, penetratively and deeply, a person is able to understand everything that can ever be known.

As Lao Tzu said:

Without going outside, you may know the whole world.
Without looking through the window, you may see the ways
of heaven.
The farther you go, the less you know.

Thus the sage knows without travelling;
He sees without looking;
He works without doing.

-

There is no need to seek a higher authority than the strength of your own mind. Lao Tzu was only a mortal. Bowing even to the greatest of the greats is still a limitation - I gather you already know this, as you have claimed such men as Lao Tzu as your brothers.

There are abstracts that can be understood to the extent of mortal understanding that are beyond what is possible to know by empirical observation, and cluttering one's mind with too many worldly matters can get in the way of deeply exploring these abstracts.

In understanding the nature of finiteness, penetratively and deeply, a person is able to understand finiteness. I'm looking at the Infinite. Perhaps by "penetrativly and deeply" you meant to the inclusion of the dualism involved. I propose that no human can know if we can fully apprehend the Infinite because we are finite beings.

In understanding the nature of finiteness, penetratively and deeply, a person is able to understand everything that can ever be known.

I would agree that understanding the nature of finiteness is important to gaining a perspective on Ultimate Reality - including the understanding that no individual can be confident that there is no part of Ultimate Reality that is unknowable to that species. By "everything that can ever be known" did you mean as limited by the species capable of penetrative and deep understanding? Of course then our species could also be limited in those areas compared to some possible unknown alien species - but your statement does not limit itself to any species.

DQ: A being from another planet could conceivably experience the world in ways that we humans couldn't possibly imagine, and yet it would still be in the same boat as us in that each of its experiences will also be finite and limited in nature.

EI: With that in mind, how can a human be sure that he has fully apprehended the nature of Ultimate Reality?

DQ: In understanding the nature of finiteness, penetratively and deeply, a person is able to understand everything that can ever be known.

If, by this, you mean that it is unknowable if we can have the full apprehension of the nature of Ultimate Reality, then we are saying the same thing.

I recognize that this in no way subtracts from an understanding so complete that it covers the basic nature of all that is perceptible to our species - which is what I gather you mean by "enlightenment."
.

[Sapius]

Matt,

Why do you always say your english is weak, Sapius?

Because that is the truth as I see it, and generally I say that to people who use yard long terms, and even more complex sentence structure.

What is your first language? Where are you from? Just curious.

All I can say is English is not my first language, and disclosing where exactly I come from would necessarily create a million suppositions about me on your part. I think my words are more than enough to judge my personality or the way I think; I wouldn’t like that to be disturbed with the baggage that comes along with labeling. What difference would it make if I came from a remote village in the Andes or Papua New Guinea, or a place where electricity has yet to arrive, or say from Basel, or Basra, or Barcelona? I happen to finally live in Hong Kong; a place I find has equilibrium for the one who can see, although I still do travel extensively.

I hope that makes sense.

[Sapius]

Sapius claims his English vocabulary is limited, but his grammar and sentence structure are perfect.

.

I do try my best. It takes me 5 times the time it would take any one of you to articulate a post. Otherwise, I can converse in English pretty easily, without making a fool of myself. After all, it is an international language, and I wouldn’t be able to travel that extensively on my own if it were not for that, so it is a must in a sense.

[Sapius]

David wrote,

For example, if the theory is, "the door in front of me is made of wood", then only empirical observation/testing can confirm or deny it.

How can one confirm that it is WOOD indeed through “empirical” observation/testing? All it can tell me is that it isn’t any other thing than wood because I choose to define it, or call it so. Isn’t what appears is what it is, and that it is not some other thing, and that WOOD is defined as WOOD for the sake of comparative convenience?

By contrast, the conception, "all bachelors are unmarried", is usually constructed to be purely definitional in nature and beyond the need to be tested empirically. It would be a redundant exercise to test it empirically.

So if I am unmarried then I am defined as a bachelor, irrelevant of me living and sleeping with a woman empirically? What kind of definition is that?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

David wrote,

For example, if the theory is, "the door in front of me is made of wood", then only empirical observation/testing can confirm or deny it.

How can one confirm that it is WOOD indeed through “empirical” observation/testing? All it can tell me is that it isn’t any other thing than wood because I choose to define it, or call it so. Isn’t what appears is what it is, and that it is not some other thing, and that WOOD is defined as WOOD for the sake of comparative convenience?

If one compares the empirical observations with the definition of wood and these things match, it would be wood.

By contrast, the conception, "all bachelors are unmarried", is usually constructed to be purely definitional in nature and beyond the need to be tested empirically. It would be a redundant exercise to test it empirically.

So if I am unmarried then I am defined as a bachelor, irrelevant of me living and sleeping with a woman empirically? What kind of definition is that?

dictionary.com results for "bachelor"
.

[Matt Gregory]

I hope that makes sense.

It's totally cool, Sapius. I didn't know you wanted to keep that information private and I'm sorry for even bringing it up.

[Sapius]

Elizabeth,

If one compares the empirical observations with the definition of wood and these things match, it would be wood.

What I understand from this is that my definition of wood, (which arose due to my observation in the first place), if matches with my observation, then it is wood. But how would it not match if it is the observation itself that one is describing or defining? So where does that leave “wood” (the thing) itself to be proven as WOOD? Empirically or otherwise?

[Sapius]

I hope that makes sense.

It's totally cool, Sapius. I didn't know you wanted to keep that information private and I'm sorry for even bringing it up.

It's quite alright, it does come up time to time and is a reasonable question, but I do have a more reasonable reason to keep it the way it is; not that I am being dishonest in any way, as some feel that one is doing exactly just that by hiding behind a screen name. All that I am preventing is the assumptions that I will have to unnecessarily justify otherwise.

BTW, I did speak much about my off screen life in some older threads if it was called for, or if I felt like speaking about it to give some of my background, which essentially wouldn't interfere or influence judging my words.

[David Quinn]

Sapius,

DQ: For example, if the theory is, "the door in front of me is made of wood", then only empirical observation/testing can confirm or deny it.

S: How can one confirm that it is WOOD indeed through “empirical” observation/testing? All it can tell me is that it isn’t any other thing than wood because I choose to define it, or call it so. Isn’t what appears is what it is, and that it is not some other thing, and that WOOD is defined as WOOD for the sake of comparative convenience?

The door might look like it is wooden from a distance, but when we get up close and inspect it we might find that it is really metal with a simulated wood-like covering made of linoleum. We can thus establish that it isn't made of what we conventionally call "wood".

DQ: By contrast, the conception, "all bachelors are unmarried", is usually constructed to be purely definitional in nature and beyond the need to be tested empirically. It would be a redundant exercise to test it empirically.

S: So if I am unmarried then I am defined as a bachelor, irrelevant of me living and sleeping with a woman empirically? What kind of definition is that?

The standard one. It's just a word, though. No need to get concerned by it.

To be a bachelor used to be thought of as a noble calling. But I suppose those days are long gone.

-

[David Quinn]

Elizabeth,

Lao Tzu: Without going outside, you may know the whole world.
Without looking through the window, you may see the ways
of heaven.
The farther you go, the less you know.

Thus the sage knows without travelling;
He sees without looking;
He works without doing.

EI: There is no need to seek a higher authority than the strength of your own mind. Lao Tzu was only a mortal. Bowing even to the greatest of the greats is still a limitation - I gather you already know this, as you have claimed such men as Lao Tzu as your brothers.

I like to use these people because they are able to express the same points I make in a different way, which can trigger different thought-patterns in people.

In understanding the nature of finiteness, penetratively and deeply, a person is able to understand finiteness. I'm looking at the Infinite.

One cannot understand finiteness without also understanding the Infinite. The two understandings are really one.

Perhaps by "penetrativly and deeply" you meant to the inclusion of the dualism involved. I propose that no human can know if we can fully apprehend the Infinite because we are finite beings.

You're misunderstanding what it means to apprehend the Infinite. It isn't a process of grasping at it empirically and understanding its every little detail, Rather, it's a matter of inwardly being able to see the Infinite in everything that you look at.

Whether it is in a galaxy or a cloud or a speck of dust inside a room, a wise person can perceive the Infinite in all its complete glory. Lao Tzu was spot on with what he said above.

By "everything that can ever be known" did you mean as limited by the species capable of penetrative and deep understanding? Of course then our species could also be limited in those areas compared to some possible unknown alien species - but your statement does not limit itself to any species.

That's right. The wise understanding of the Infinite is timeless and ultimate in nature, meaning that it cannot be deepened or improved upon. It doesn't matter how intelligent or sophisticated or sensually perceptive an alien species might be, its wise members will still have the exact same understanding that Jesus, Buddha and Kierkegaard had.

DQ: In understanding the nature of finiteness, penetratively and deeply, a person is able to understand everything that can ever be known.

EI: If, by this, you mean that it is unknowable if we can have the full apprehension of the nature of Ultimate Reality, then we are saying the same thing.

I recognize that this in no way subtracts from an understanding so complete that it covers the basic nature of all that is perceptible to our species - which is what I gather you mean by "enlightenment."

That is what full apprehension is. It cannot get any fuller.

The basic nature of what is perceptible to our species is identical to the basic nature of all things in Nature.

-

[Kelly Jones]

The wise understanding of the Infinite is timeless and ultimate in nature, meaning that it cannot be deepened or improved upon. It doesn't matter how intelligent or sophisticated or sensually perceptive an alien species might be, its wise members will still have the exact same understanding that Jesus, Buddha and Kierkegaard had.

"Sensorily perceptive", you may have meant, David. Sensually perceptive is an oxymoron, seems to me.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

EI: Perhaps by "penetrativly and deeply" you meant to the inclusion of the dualism involved. (...)

DQ: You're misunderstanding what it means to apprehend the Infinite.

I just wasn't sure what you were getting at. By my quote above I meant to clarify what you did clarify here:

DQ: One cannot understand finiteness without also understanding the Infinite. The two understandings are really one.

***********************

DQ: it's a matter of inwardly being able to see the Infinite in everything that you look at.

Yes, I have seen that for a vey long time, and have mentioned it pretty much since I became active in this board. Back in mid-October

All that is, is God. Every person, every spirit, every plant, the keys I'm typing on, the air, even the refuse in the garbage can is all God. Every thought, every system (such as mathematics or physics), every planet, the space in between, and all that is beyond - all of these and more are all God.

.

[Sapius]

David wrote;

The door might look like it is wooden from a distance, but when we get up close and inspect it we might find that it is really metal with a simulated wood-like covering made of linoleum. We can thus establish that it isn't made of what we conventionally call "wood".

True, but my point is, why is the above considered an ‘empirical’ inquiry IF that is exactly what appears to the mind even if we do not call it ‘empirical’?

Is going physically closer or away purely an empirical thing? Isn’t going closer or away also an appearance to the mind? Isn’t investigating it an appearance to the mind? When we finally go closer and indeed find that it is wood, then is that an empirical or logical deduction? In fact I find it a logical deduction all the way through. From the time of first defining an observation that appeared.

I am simply trying to see how ‘all is but appearance to the mind’ is being split as empirical and non-empirical where there might actually be none.

S: So if I am unmarried then I am defined as a bachelor, irrelevant of me living and sleeping with a woman empirically? What kind of definition is that?

D: The standard one. It's just a word, though. No need to get concerned by it.

To be a bachelor used to be thought of as a noble calling. But I suppose those days are long gone.

Fair enough. I will leave it at that then.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Sorry - my ISP has been acting up today, and I just noticed my previously posted response to this never arrived online.

Elizabeth,

If one compares the empirical observations with the definition of wood and these things match, it would be wood.

What I understand from this is that my definition of wood, (which arose due to my observation in the first place), if matches with my observation, then it is wood. But how would it not match if it is the observation itself that one is describing or defining? So where does that leave “wood” (the thing) itself to be proven as WOOD? Empirically or otherwise?

If the empirical observation of an object matches the definition of wood, then that object could be said to be wood by a combination of empirical observation and definition.
.

[Jamesh]

Sapius:

From your comments the other day. I’m losing a bit of interest in this topic just at present, so my reply is fairly poor, but I’ll post it anyway.

Me: I view causes as infinite forces that create change.

Sap: If causes are the infinite forces that create change, then what is the change but effects?

One cannot talk about causes without talking about effects, in fact one should consider effects first, for if it were not for effects, (since that is what we detect first and then deduce the process of causality by observing change), how could we ever know about the process of causality?

What we are directly aware of are effects and not causes, awareness of causes steps in after conceptualization.

True.

And your view seems to suggest that ‘cause’ is some kind of external force that acts upon something that it is not. Why can’t it be that the process is imbedded within each and every thing itself?

The process is not imbedded within each and every thing, but is the entirety of each and every thing.

Effects/things are empty of their own inherent nature. This is something the QRS say, and it is true, to an extent. A truer statement would be “Effects/things are empty of their own inherent beginning and of anything truly physical”.

A thing only has existence for whatever has been defined as a whole. If broken into parts then the parts themselves become individual wholes/effects/things.

The thing about things is that if you keep dividing the thing into smaller and smaller parts, you will eventually find nothing – the thing will be empty of any type of true underlying physical entity.

Maybe things change things, and since we cannot believe or accept that a thing could change a thing, because it seems to be merely a “dead” thing, or a lowly non-inherent one, we search for a higher authority, or force, or a much profound concept that churns these things.

Maybe things change things

Things do change other things, and other things change the thing in question.

The QRS say that things are not self-caused. This is not absolutely correct. Once a thing has begun to exist, then they begin to have a partial self-causal nature, due to the nature of equal and opposite causal actions. Once a developing thing has some form of structure, and structures are just synchronicities of causal flow, then a form has been created that competes with the rest of the totality. I regard this as a kind of inhereency.

A sun for example has a different form of overall power-to-affect a planet, than it would if the atoms were spread out on a huge flat plane. This is vitally important, as the causal pattern is something, the only thing, owned by the actual structure. Whatever occurs once a structure exists is a two sided event – it is this structure versus the rest of the universe. The thing can grow by external causal flows forming a dualistic synergy with the existing causal patterns of the thing – interactions with what is outside can be merged and added to the dominant causal flow of the thing, or it can be destroyed because causal patterns from outside act to destroy the dominant overall causal pattern of the thing and the dominant causal flows break into pieces.

because it seems to be merely a “dead” thing

Effects are the illusion of a thing being dead (or the word I prefer “static”). No part of anything is ever truly static however, because the entirety of everything is only that of a causal nature. Things are creatable by minds because of the causal relativity of one thing to another.

we search for a higher authority, or force, or a much profound concept that churns these things.[/]

Yes, most people do this, whereas I search for a lower authority, I search for what comes before. The concept of yin and yan has been around for yonks, that is basically all I believe in, though taken to the extreme.

In my opinion, causality is no more than a name of a process, used to describe change for the ease of logically understanding change… of one thing to another, from one form to another, that’s all.

Causality and change are two different things. Causality causes change, sure, but causality is not change. Change is that THING which occurs to effects in a defined space, in a defined period of time, whereas causality is what causes this change.

I don’t see any such “force” called causality ‘acting upon’ any thing, for it is not some-thing that could be apart from things itself.

There is no inherent force that is causality. Rather causality occurs because of the interaction of two underlying forces that vary in strength of power in any particular spatial domain.

The forces will always vary in causal power, because of their inherent nature is opposite to the other. One is outwards pushing and the other is inwards pulling – and this is the most fundamental inequality of all. This is where Relativity starts.

The inherent nature of things is this duality of forces. I am forced to call them forces because that is one of the best descriptors for something impossible to describe. They are infinite, except in relation to each other. They are what exists in the “void” and create/are effects or things. Each of the forces battles for absolute infinity, as each battles to be all there is. The battle does not occur because of some thinking thing, or some prior cause, but purely because of the fundamental opposition between what each one is.

All this is rather hard to explain without going into a lot of detail, once understood however it is ever so simple.

To be honest Sap, I think you, of all the people on the forum, are most liekly to be able understand what I am getting at with the Contracting and Expansion forces theory. Matt, Leyla and Pye have shown a bit of interest previously, but I don’t think any of them fully understood what I was getting at. The QRS do not comment, so I’m not sure what they think – perhaps they think it is just a distraction.

To me the theory explains all things, and gives one an image of The Infinite - but first does have to have thought about cause and effect, interconnectedness and the logical limitations of the word “infinity”.

Just because things do not inherently exist, would not mean that they do no exist in whatsoever form, and hence would not also mean that they do not play any part in creating the next effect. For what are effects but things, and what are causes but previous effects, or things in other words.

This is where you are in error. Causes are not previous effects, they are differently structured causal flows from one moment to another. We have not been taught this well, the phrase “cause and effect” is an aberration, when one is philosophising about the nature of the Totality. Of course, it is fine for everyday practical use, where one is only considering finite definitions and outcomes are required.

Same thing goes for ‘energy’. Is it some thing apart from things, or is it literally all things itself, including a supposed “empty” space?

Energy is just causal force. Mass can be broken apart to form energy, which requires a massive expansion of the spatial territory required to hold the new energy form.




I recently had a discussion here with Matt that was roughly about this sort of thing.

I’m not expecting you to read it, but just in case, here it is. Note however, upon rereading now, I spotted quite a few badly worded sentences and a conflicting statement or two relative to what I’ve said elsewhere.

Even if you read it just once, without trying to understand what I’m saying, I’m sure your subconscious will go about evaluating the gist of what I’m saying in its own time.

Are we robots?
viewtopic.php?t=2872&start=25&postdays= ... highlight=

[Sapius]

James, presently I’m on the road so to speak. I will respond by sunday night, far-east time.

FYI, I do get more than a gist of what you generally say, but at times, the harder one tries to explain, the more complex an explanation becomes, and the more complicated it seems to a reader. So it is always advisable to tackle things piece by piece, and then show a big picture through the logical connectivity. So I will take my time to read both your posts and than tackle each issue separately, and then see the connections.

[Pye]

.

Jamesh writes:

Once a thing has begun to exist, then they begin to have a partial self-causal nature, due to the nature of equal and opposite causal actions. Once a developing thing has some form of structure, and structures are just synchronicities of causal flow, then a form has been created that competes with the rest of the totality. I regard this as a kind of inhereency.

You don't need to accommodate the concept of inherency in this, nor modify it as a kind-of. Inherency is only of import in those apex ideas like god. Your description is good in the sense that it makes room for a gestalt level of for-itself things, beyond the simplistic antecedent and linear conceptions of cause and effect. It restores origins of agency to the world, which most closely resembles our experience of the world, too. There is nothing wrong with the 10,000 things. They are not second class to godly inherency. And they do more than just pinball off of one another mechanistically.



.

[David Quinn]

Pye wrote:

It restores origins of agency to the world, which most closely resembles our experience of the world, too.

It doesn't resemble my experience of the world. What is an example of an "origin of agency"?

There is nothing wrong with the 10,000 things. They are not second class to godly inherency. And they do more than just pinball off of one another mechanistically.

What is this extra thing they do?

-

[Pye]

.

David writes:

It doesn't resemble my experience of the world. What is an example of an "origin of agency"?

You.
It does not matter that you do not exist inherently (really, we must get over this god-wishing).

Your consciousness - in addition to being the dutiful participant and executor of effects - also possesses the for-itself quality that every human consciousness possesses. Not in-itself, which is the expression of inherency, but for-itself, as in the expression of agency. This is the everyday experience of every human, all things converge in the human and cause the human to act for-itself, and in this moment, it would be in error to declare this agency a mere cosmic toggle-switch. For a thing for-itself has just stepped outside of pure mechanism and become one of those "extra" things.

One could even say one is caused to be a for-itself thing, but this still does not cover that moment when one is acting for oneself - which is pretty much every moment of the day. This is the extra thing. Consciousness. It does not have a closed-end; it is not measurable, because at some moment, it will become for-itself, an agency of origin, for which no external tool of measurement can apply.

Mechanistic cause and effect - called hard determinism, or even "vulgar" determinism - is description of past patterns, like science is, and is involved largely in the business of describing the world as it has played out, and then predicting how the world might yet play out in future events. It works relatively well for the mechanistic things (those things not for-themselves, but rather, passive inhabitants of the causal chain), but it cannot describe but in the most speculative terms why this or that particular human did this or that particular thing (other than, they were caused to, as a simplistic rule). And hard determinism fails entirely when looking to future human actions. It is not privy to the for-itself moment of human agency.

You share lots of company in the academy with the purest and strictest of cause-effect dynamics. These hard determinists practice the philosophy of cause/effect, using every tool possible to measure the human consciousness and its linguistic affairs, with the fullest of confidence that it, too, is reducible to pure mechanism. Again, the praxis involves looking backward at already-manifested phenomena - even micro-seconds before - thinking this backward looking is in full description of the phenomena itself. This is of course impossible with a for-itself thing, for whom neither past causes nor future ones can "add up" to the particular human response from the particular human's for-itself-agency.

I think it's worth mentioning that mechanistic cause and effect and its related determinist philosophies all come in an age characterized by industrial ethos & material production. I have heard it said that the deep bite that determinist philosophies have taken out of any notion of human willing is a by-product of a couple centuries of capitalist production-think and positivist, pragmatic science. and so all the world shall be - made of pieces (cause/effect), logically assembled, mechanically motivated; nothing "out of line" (or the thing won't work); nothing "extra" there.

Cause and effect, splendid in its universal scope, does not describe the total depths of human experience. It can deliver all antecedents to the creation of human consciousness, affect that consciousness, but it has created a for-itself thing, and as such, cannot describe entirely the experience of human being. I know of no conscious person who experiences themselves as mechanistic cause-and-effect. If they did, they could not say so, from such a state of unconsciousness as mechanistic cause-and-effect would be.


.

[Jamesh]

FYI, I do get more than a gist of what you generally say, but at times, the harder one tries to explain, the more complex an explanation becomes, and the more complicated it seems to a reader. So it is always advisable to tackle things piece by piece, and then show a big picture through the logical connectivity. So I will take my time to read both your posts and than tackle each issue separately, and then see the connections.

Yep, take your time and if you don't feel like responding because you are not getting value out of what I say, then don't.

The thing is I went through this general idea from scratch, so I have all that background in memory. I feel ownership. Whether this ownership is just plain old ego distorting the importance or rationality of my theory, or not, is something that I continue to ask myself. I just continue to value it, because of it's generic application to any issue.

the harder one tries to explain, the more complex an explanation becomes,

Lol, almost said that myself when responding.

[Jamesh]

Good work Pye!