Re: Explicit Absolute Truths
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2016 11:14 pm
If I am not mistaken Rod was riffing off of my name: Bjorn = bear.
However, Beingof1 is not responsible for the condition of my brain (hjarna).
As I said earlier, I have not been able to dedicate the time to a careful read of your exposition Rod. It takes a veritable time-commitment.
Where I do agree with Beingof1, as stated, is that language and logic seem to me, in many respects, to be structured in and to function mathematically. Additionally, and I think Whitehead may have said something to this effect (though it does not necessarily have bearing on your exposition): that the universe is sung in the language of mathematics. I understood Being to be saying that your exposition, if logical, would necessarily be structured by principles reducible mathematically. I take this to mean that we are *here* within the contingent, and the mutable, and the transitory, and are subject in most regards to its constraints. When we become conscious, we attempt to locate solidities and constants and to proceed from our conditionality toward universals and constants. It is as though this Idea is a life-preserver tossed to us and we must cling to it. That is the essence of what 'metaphysic' means to me.
If we use, say, our voice, we do so because we employ *vibration* to produce sound, even though (and this seems possible) the *thought*, the idea, the sentiment, and the truth or the Truth that we communicate, could be said to have its origin *outside* of those limitations: the limitations of the incarnate as it were. Vibration is 'mathematical' in this sense. Similarly, when we attempt to employ language to express Truth, we operate in reverse: we function within the mutable and shifting chaos, and sort of croak our thoughts through crude vibrations. Thus I have said something factually true but which is also allusive (and thus metaphysical, if I make my meaning clear).
What I have just expressed - certainly no great thought - expresses I think something fundamental about metaphysics as an idea. There seem to me to be mysteries there and I don't mean silliness-as-mystery, but mysteries about 'our incarnated state', or 'consciousness that manifests itself within the contingent and the mutable'. You have not been following other threads here (notably the conversations between myself and Russell) but much of what IS discussed here has to do with varying opinions/decisions about how one responds to the Absolute, and indeed what it means to posit Absoluteness. Basically, I think that we are called to define an absolute (metaphysic) and with that to apply it - essentially - in the domain of the political. Quite literally, in accord with Platonism, to 'the polis'. If a converation spins too far away from this focus, I consider it a wasted effort. Or perhaps a kind of mistaken effort.
So, once again I am interested by what you wrote: that the more interesting area is politics. Yet this would not negate empirical mathematics either. (But deciding such things is not my domain by any means).
I fully admit that I have a rather tendentious grasp of *metaphysics*, or perhaps it is best to say a partial one. Yet it is organic and has integrity. Right now, and essentially, I use my metaphysical grasp as a tool to analyse idea-platforms. I used the term 'core predicates' in a post to Russell but he did not quite get what I meant and that is because he does not grasp my particular concept of metaphysics.
As much as I might appreciate your understanding of metaphysics I find your exposition to be expressed in something akin to philosophese. It is my own view that, your essays and book aside, it would be helpful if you could elucidate the relationship between metaphysics and politics in concrete examples.
(I don't mind at all jibes, semi-insults, jokes, or even outrightly offensive jabs, from you or anyone, and I simply disregard them. They always seem to occur in this space (this forum) and I just take it as par for the course. I understand that your main reason here is to promote your book. Yet the space that you have entered is one of various people who have been engaged in *conversation* for a long time.)
However, Beingof1 is not responsible for the condition of my brain (hjarna).
As I said earlier, I have not been able to dedicate the time to a careful read of your exposition Rod. It takes a veritable time-commitment.
Where I do agree with Beingof1, as stated, is that language and logic seem to me, in many respects, to be structured in and to function mathematically. Additionally, and I think Whitehead may have said something to this effect (though it does not necessarily have bearing on your exposition): that the universe is sung in the language of mathematics. I understood Being to be saying that your exposition, if logical, would necessarily be structured by principles reducible mathematically. I take this to mean that we are *here* within the contingent, and the mutable, and the transitory, and are subject in most regards to its constraints. When we become conscious, we attempt to locate solidities and constants and to proceed from our conditionality toward universals and constants. It is as though this Idea is a life-preserver tossed to us and we must cling to it. That is the essence of what 'metaphysic' means to me.
If we use, say, our voice, we do so because we employ *vibration* to produce sound, even though (and this seems possible) the *thought*, the idea, the sentiment, and the truth or the Truth that we communicate, could be said to have its origin *outside* of those limitations: the limitations of the incarnate as it were. Vibration is 'mathematical' in this sense. Similarly, when we attempt to employ language to express Truth, we operate in reverse: we function within the mutable and shifting chaos, and sort of croak our thoughts through crude vibrations. Thus I have said something factually true but which is also allusive (and thus metaphysical, if I make my meaning clear).
What I have just expressed - certainly no great thought - expresses I think something fundamental about metaphysics as an idea. There seem to me to be mysteries there and I don't mean silliness-as-mystery, but mysteries about 'our incarnated state', or 'consciousness that manifests itself within the contingent and the mutable'. You have not been following other threads here (notably the conversations between myself and Russell) but much of what IS discussed here has to do with varying opinions/decisions about how one responds to the Absolute, and indeed what it means to posit Absoluteness. Basically, I think that we are called to define an absolute (metaphysic) and with that to apply it - essentially - in the domain of the political. Quite literally, in accord with Platonism, to 'the polis'. If a converation spins too far away from this focus, I consider it a wasted effort. Or perhaps a kind of mistaken effort.
So, once again I am interested by what you wrote: that the more interesting area is politics. Yet this would not negate empirical mathematics either. (But deciding such things is not my domain by any means).
I fully admit that I have a rather tendentious grasp of *metaphysics*, or perhaps it is best to say a partial one. Yet it is organic and has integrity. Right now, and essentially, I use my metaphysical grasp as a tool to analyse idea-platforms. I used the term 'core predicates' in a post to Russell but he did not quite get what I meant and that is because he does not grasp my particular concept of metaphysics.
As much as I might appreciate your understanding of metaphysics I find your exposition to be expressed in something akin to philosophese. It is my own view that, your essays and book aside, it would be helpful if you could elucidate the relationship between metaphysics and politics in concrete examples.
(I don't mind at all jibes, semi-insults, jokes, or even outrightly offensive jabs, from you or anyone, and I simply disregard them. They always seem to occur in this space (this forum) and I just take it as par for the course. I understand that your main reason here is to promote your book. Yet the space that you have entered is one of various people who have been engaged in *conversation* for a long time.)