totality=a combined total = something - not everything!

[zarathustra]

I+6+4+2+1=14

[Kevin Solway]

Are you choosing to define "Totality" in such a way as to exclude something from it?

Why?

Unless you put some substance in this thread it will be deleted.

You are speaking of the total of a limited number of things, whereas we are speaking of the Totality of all things.

[zarathustra]

you can't do that...because you can't know the sum of all things. call it what you like, some people call it god...you can believe you know...but belief proves nothing...

[Jason]

I+6+4+2+1=14

This is probably not very relevant to the discussion at hand but it reminds me of an idea I had about an alternative way to interpret addition. From one perspective combining previously seperate parts together(1+6+4+2+1) will actually lead to a single final part ie. 1+6+4+2+1=1. Think small pieces of modelling clay mushed together into a single piece of large clay.

Afterall if the previously seperate parts are still viewed as a number greater than 1 then they are not really combined are they. Just an indulgent and fleeting thought.

[Kevin Solway]

you can't do that...because you can't know the sum of all things.

This appears to be only an article of faith on your part, so you need to supply some reason to support your case.

Let's divide the Totality up into two things, myself - call it "A" - and that which is not myself - call it "B". So the Totality is comprised of only two things, A and B, both of which I know. Let's call the combination of the two "C". Given that I know both A and B, I can also know C.

There may be details going on in both A and B that I am not aware of, but that is irrelevant, since it doesn't impact on the reasoning.

[zarathustra]

different types of totality:

longitudinal totality: this my dear Q refers to a totality that covers an expanse of historical time, in other words a periodization or a lineary. then we have expressive totality: these can be historical too, refering to 'subject based' explanations of contradictory social reality. centered totality can be expressive and historical. by centred, it is meant that their distinct point of origin or reality or locus where it is concentrated. such realities are often vertical hierarchies. both expressive and centred realities have organic or synthetic unity.then we have de-centred totality: a combination of different layers and orders of semi-autonomous but overdetermined singularities. a closed totality is just a rigid static and simple form of longitudinal expressive or centred totality. this is not really a defined category, but a commonly used term to describe something as self-contained and impervious. then we have an open totality, which tends to refer to assemblages that have no outer limit, no definition nor barrier to contain them. open totalities are potentials. then we have simple totalities, which means that there is no division or contradiction within the totality...

fluffy-headed metaphysicians (Q and co ) confuse the concept 'totality' ( and often fuse it ) with other entirely different concepts such 'god' 'the ultimate' 'the absolute' and so on - thus meaning becomes 'interchangable,' blurred, everything, all...in effect they rob the word of its potency transforming it into an abstract metaphysical idea, against which they then proceed bounce their fallacious arguments...this is pure pseudo-philosophy, pure metaphysical muck, no matter how eloquently presented. crap is crap...

[DHodges]

Forgive me, Z., my brain is running slow today.

Are you saying that it is impossible to refer to everything at once?

Or are you just saying that everything ('the totality') should not be confused with something else (god, etc.)?

[zarathustra]

a bit more substance for ksol and Q....very generally speaking, a totality is a whole ( or a hole in your case ). it normally refers to a whole that is thought about or has an effectivity as a whole. so totalities are really wholes, rounded off, complete. it thus designates the constitution of a whole i.e. a relation superior to its elements. totality in this sense represents a system with internal relationships or alternatively an entity that does not relate to anything outside of itself...

the problem with Q's totality, is that it is infinite, endless with nothing outside itself...in other words it is not a fucking totality! I mean in relation to what?

[zarathustra]

Both...

[Matt Gregory]

different types of totality:

Why not just post the original link so it's actually legible?

http://www.generation-online.org/c/fctotality2.htm

You can define "totality" however you want, so this list doesn't constitute an argument. You need to make an argument against our ability to define it as "everything".

There's no faith involved in creating a definition. You don't need to know an object completely to create a definition for it. In fact, it's totally impossible to know any object completely in an empirical sense, so defining "totality" is fundamentally no different from any other definition.

[zarathustra]

strictly speaking totalities are not everything they are self contained wholes...everything does not = a totality.

[Matt Gregory]

a bit more substance for ksol and Q....very generally speaking, a totality is a whole ( or a hole in your case ). it normally refers to a whole that is thought about or has an effectivity as a whole. so totalities are really wholes, rounded off, complete. it thus designates the constitution of a whole i.e. a relation superior to its elements. totality in this sense represents a system with internal relationships or alternatively an entity that does not relate to anything outside of itself...

That's exactly what they did. I don't know what you could possibly be complaining about.

the problem with Q's totality, is that it is infinite, endless with nothing outside itself...

If you look carefully, you'll notice that "infinite, endless with nothing outside itself" is completely compatible with what you wrote above, so I don't see what the problem is.

in other words it is not a fucking totality! I mean in relation to what?

What on earth? Have you lost it or something? You said above that a totality "does not relate to anything outside of itself", yet here you are complaining about it in the same damn message! That's what you call contradicting yourself and it's the essence of insanity...

[zarathustra]

the site also contains some background info on the philosophical perspectives of various philosophers,
in relation to totality who offer different interpretations, but none that remotely resemble totality = everything

[Matt Gregory]

You don't need anyone else's permission to make a definition. Definitions are just tools for communication, which includes communication with yourself. Using different definitions can bring new thoughts, and that's why Kevin and David redefine words like "totality", "god", etc. because they're trying to bring others to the thoughts that they have arrived at. That's all there is to it.

[zarathustra]

if Q's totality means EVERYTHING that exists, then there IS NOTHING outside itself to relate to...even if it wanted to, it couldn't! you may be able too fit totality into infinity, but you can't fit infinity into a totality, because infinity i.e. everything is not a fucking A TOTAL it doesn't add up...because there is no end to it, nothing to add up, nothing to measure it against...IT IS

[Matt Gregory]

How did you fit infinity into the word "infinity" then?

Same thing.

[zarathustra]

precisely - that is our dilemma! but at least infinity means what it can't fit. totality doesn't...

[Dan Rowden]

So, at bottom, all you're whining about is the use of the word Totality as a synonym for Infinite or Reality etc, right? That doesn't strike me as much of a complaint. What we're talking about is not "a totality, but "The Totality". A word can have more than one meaning you know. The word "infinite" can be said to have the same issues. In Math there are many number series that are referred to as "infinite" because they have no beginning or end. That's fine, although in those cases I much prefer the term "transfinite". But because the term is utilised in this way in Math doesn't mean it can't be employed in a purer (or simply "other") sense philosophically.

It comes down to the same point: the difference in meaning between "an infinite" and "The Infinite".

Get over it.


Dan Rowden

[zarathustra]

not so with totality..."a" or "the"....

what is the totality of 1+1...?

1+1=2 is a totality

good try...your right, you can give words your own interpretations. for example...I could say that infinite means a frog's croak or a cigarette butt...

yeah...Mmmm....I don't think you can do that in science - can you? it would be considered madness...metaphysical philosophy has a lot of catching up to do!!!!!But then, what can you expect form some thing whose foundations are based on nothing.....

[zarathustra]

an totality????? dahhh!

[zarathustra]

'what on earth? have you lost it or something?'

no mate you just don't get it: 'a totality' being as it is, must be defined in time and space...Q's totality ( which you reckon doesn't really strictly mean that anyway ) is beyond time and space...it is infinite, therefore it is not a totality, but rather whatever strange spin Q and co. place on its meaning: infinite, god, ultimate, absolute, omnipotent, some of the few they have equated with it in this forum...

[freelight]

no mate you just don't get it: 'a totality' being as it is, must be defined in time and space...Q's totality ( which you reckon doesn't really strictly mean that anyway ) is beyond time and space...it is infinite, therefore it is not a totality, but rather whatever strange spin Q and co. place on its meaning: infinite, god, ultimate, absolute, omnipotent, some of the few they have equated with it in this forum...

The All or the ONE can still be called 'Infinite' as well as recognized as the Totality. The Totality comprises everything that IS and shall BE - all that is ever generated within the Entirety of Existence. The Totality of the All can certainly include the expanse and fullness of Infinity....and by definition must as Life/Existence is infinite.


paul

[Matt Gregory]

no mate you just don't get it: 'a totality' being as it is,

Like Dan correctly pointed out, this isn't about any totality, it's about the ultimate totality, the totality of the universe. That's why Q capitalizes it, to emphasize the fact that there is only one.

must be defined in time and space...Q's totality ( which you reckon doesn't really strictly mean that anyway ) is beyond time and space...it is infinite, therefore it is not a totality

Why must the definition of something be confined within time and space when it can be understood to mean something outside of time and space? You sound like you're trying to impose a physical limit where there is none. All that is required is a true understanding of the definition.

, but rather whatever strange spin Q and co. place on its meaning: infinite, god, ultimate, absolute, omnipotent, some of the few they have equated with it in this forum...

I'll leave this aside for the moment because if you aren't willing to accept Q's definition of "Totality", it's pointless to go any further. If you can't accept someone's definitions then all you end up doing is disabling your ability to understand the person who is using them to explain himself, so you are not going to be able to address any real target with your arguments.

[zarathustra]

freelight...dribble, dribble and more dribble...intellectual pigmology posturing as intellect and philosophy...it's impossible to argue with priests....

[sevens]

Matt -

Like where you're going with that last paragraph.

You should keep going.