Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

Kevin Solway · Post by **Kevin Solway** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 3:30 pm

clyde wrote:The surface of a moebius strip separates two points

So there is a boundary between the two points, and there is a point either side of the boundary. Yes?

Is that boundary the moebius strip, or is it something else?

clyde · Post by **clyde** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 3:42 pm

Kevin; Before I answer your questions, are you now admitting that a surface is a boundary?

Laird · Post by **Laird** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 3:50 pm

Kevin Solway wrote:If there is a bounded "universe" then there are conditions that make that universe possible.

For example, there must be nothing that can destroy that universe. There must be sustaining conditions. There must be something that makes the existence of such a universe possible.

This is no different than a universe that extends infinitely in all physical and temporal directions. The need for "conditions" to make a universe possible applies regardless of the extent of its dimensions. Remember that, just like your Totality, my proposed universe has nothing beyond it.

Leyla Shen · Post by **Leyla Shen** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 4:14 pm

clyde wrote:Leyla; As I did Kevin, perhaps you will share your definition of surface. As far as I understand, three-dimensional objects have a surface(s) which are a boundary (e.g. - your skin, which has two sides).

Yes, a surface is the outer boundary of an object. Thus, skin is the surface of the body, for example. Nevertheless, you still conceive of there being something on either side of your skin and, therefore, on either side of such a boundary, right?

And, yes, if I pick-up a moebius strip with my fingers, my fingers can ONLY be on one side because that is all the sides a moebius strip has - one.

Then it necessarily follows that there is nothing between your fingers since they are on the same and only side, not even a Mobius Strip.

The surface of a moebius strip separates two points, but both points are on the SAME SIDE - the one and only side. OK?

From any given point (interior or exterior to the strip as an object), two journeys (I erroneously called this a revolution earlier) covering the same distance around the strip take you back to the same point you started at. One takes you to the opposite side of where you started. Get a piece of paper, twist it then join the ends into a loop and try it. Unless you can actually travel through this piece of paper, you will find that to be the case.

Steven · Post by **Steven** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 4:51 pm

Laird wrote:This is no different than a universe that extends infinitely in all physical and temporal directions. The need for "conditions" to make a universe possible applies regardless of the extent of its dimensions. Remember that, just like your Totality, my proposed universe has nothing beyond it.

So what are your "conditions"? What have you got to explain the presence of the Universe?

Leyla Shen wrote:Then it necessarily follows that there is nothing between your fingers since they are on the same and only side, not even a Mobius Strip.

It necessarilly follows that when you study the paper itself locally it has two sides, but when you attempt to trace a journey around the shape the paper constructs, it appears to have one.

The shape of the paper is not going to reveal its origins. Ability to be is fundamental to what it is you are.

Ataraxia · Post by **Ataraxia** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:11 pm

Laird wrote:
Kevin Solway wrote:If there is a bounded "universe" then there are conditions that make that universe possible.

For example, there must be nothing that can destroy that universe. There must be sustaining conditions. There must be something that makes the existence of such a universe possible.
This is no different than a universe that extends infinitely in all physical and temporal directions. The need for "conditions" to make a universe possible applies regardless of the extent of its dimensions. Remember that, just like your Totality, my proposed universe has nothing beyond it.

If I'm reading Kevin aright,'your universe' and 'Kevins Toality' can't be the same.

Kevin's saying if what you are speaking about is a 'bounded universe',then by logical necissity that universe can't be the only one.If it is bounded,there must always be 'other'.

His position seems logical to me.

Kevin Solway · Post by **Kevin Solway** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:13 pm

Laird wrote:
Kevin Solway wrote:If there is a bounded "universe" then there are conditions that make that universe possible.

For example, there must be nothing that can destroy that universe. There must be sustaining conditions. There must be something that makes the existence of such a universe possible.
This is no different than a universe that extends infinitely in all physical and temporal directions. The need for "conditions" to make a universe possible applies regardless of the extent of its dimensions.

Anything that is not the Totality necessarily has conditions, if that's what you're saying.

It is only the Totality that can't have any conditions, since there is nothing other than itself. (The Totality, logically, can't extend in any directions).

Sapius · Post by **Sapius** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:27 pm

Kevin Solway wrote:You were arguing that one cannot point to a Totality unless one conceptualizes. I'm demonstrating that this is not the case. It is perfectly possible to do things, have experiences, and communicate ideas, without having them filtered by models, concepts, and systems of knowledge.

Communicate ideas without models and concepts? What kind of communication are you talking about? I think this needs further explanation, definition by definition. I can understand a cow doing things and experiencing in that manner, but what does â€˜totalityâ€™ mean to a cow?

Just as the "splash" can escape concepts, so can the "Totality".

A â€œsplashâ€ itself does escape, but â€œTotalityâ€ requires a meaning that one comprehends. At least the capability of adding 1+1, conceptually, and may be then arrive at ALL that there is.

When I say Kevin, I am pointing at you, not the Totality, (becasue they are not one and the same thing, by definition), and when I say Totality, Iâ€™m not pointing at you, but at every possible thing. Even if I'm not pointing at A particular thing, it is still a â€˜thingâ€™ as in a concept, since it has conceptual boundaries, otherwise 'totality' means absolutely nothing, by definition.

Kevin Solway · Post by **Kevin Solway** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:29 pm

Regarding the moebius strip, it really only has one surface anyway. Namely, an outer surface. You don't need to go to the trouble of looping it around and joining the ends. An ant, for example, could walk completely around it, just as an ordinary strip.

Another way to look at it is that the strip has a single outer surface, as above, and a single inner surface - "inside" the paper, so to speak. In this sense a paper strip is like a balloon, with both an outer and an inner surface, but the paper strip is full of paper rather than gas.

All this is just to illustrate how all such things are only a matter of context and perspective, and the degree to which the mind creates all these things.

Sapius · Post by **Sapius** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:35 pm

Laird wrote:Like any word, "logic" has different connotations. One thing is clear to me though: it is far more than merely identification (A=A). You use it to "prove" various things such as that the universe is infinite: you do this through a process of logic.

I think that is called reasoning, and we know that conclusions may not always be logical. A=A is a necessity, but any reasoning based on experience may not really apply in all possible "worlds". Experiences could differ, and so would the reasoning and conclusions.

Sapius · Post by **Sapius** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:45 pm

Kevin Solway wrote:Regarding the moebius strip, it really only has one surface anyway.

All this is just to illustrate how all such things are only a matter of context and perspective, and the degree to which the mind creates all these things.

So is it not possible that we are ants on such a strip and consider a closed system an ultimately infinite one through our ant experience? Or do we have the Ultimate perspective by default?

clyde · Post by **clyde** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:47 pm

I was going to reply to Leyla's post, but then Kevin posted his reply. He now claims that the moebius strip "really only has one surface anyway." WOW! That was the very reason I posted about the moebius strip. But then he adds, that the one surface is "an outer surface"! An "outer" without an "inner'! Or we can accept his "another way to look at it" which is equally lame. I think I'll should stop now.

Kevin Solway · Post by **Kevin Solway** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:56 pm

Sapius wrote:
Kevin Solway wrote:You were arguing that one cannot point to a Totality unless one conceptualizes. I'm demonstrating that this is not the case. It is perfectly possible to do things, have experiences, and communicate ideas, without having them filtered by models, concepts, and systems of knowledge.
Communicate ideas without models and concepts? What kind of communication are you talking about?

The words about the splash can communicate something. That's the kind of communication I'm talking about.

There's nothing to be gained by creating more detail.

Just as the "splash" can escape concepts, so can the "Totality".
A â€œsplashâ€ itself does escape

As does the word "splash" when used in the right context.

but â€œTotalityâ€ requires a meaning that one comprehends. At least the capability of adding 1+1, conceptually, and may be then arrive at ALL that there is.

All experiences are essentially identical. The word "Totality" might trigger a different sequence of events than the word "splash" does, but they can arrive at the same place.

When I say Kevin, I am pointing at you, not the Totality, (becasue they are not one and the same thing, by definition), and when I say Totality, Iâ€™m not pointing at you, but at every possible thing. Even if I'm not pointing at A particular thing, it is still a â€˜thingâ€™ as in a concept, since it has conceptual boundaries, otherwise 'totality' means absolutely nothing, by definition.

When a wise person thinks about an individual object, a part of the Totality, they simultaneously think of the Totality, since the two are not separate. In this manner, they literally see "God" in all things. They might speak about one or the other, duality or non-duality, but their meaning is always the same, regardless of what they're talking about.

Kevin Solway · Post by **Kevin Solway** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:59 pm

clyde wrote:He now claims that the moebius strip "really only has one surface anyway."

No, I wasn't saying that. I was saying that an ordinary strip (not a moebius one) can only have one surface, if that's the way you choose to look at it. But that doesn't say anything about boundaries.

Kevin Solway · Post by **Kevin Solway** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:06 pm

Sapius wrote:So is it not possible that we are ants on such a strip and consider a closed system an ultimately infinite one through our ant experience? Or do we have the Ultimate perspective by default?

Conscious people have the Ultimate perspective.

clyde · Post by **clyde** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:07 pm

Kevin Solway wrote:Regarding the moebius strip, it really only has one surface anyway.

Kevin Solway · Post by **Kevin Solway** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:22 pm

clyde wrote:
Kevin Solway wrote:Regarding the moebius strip, it really only has one surface anyway.

Yes, I went on to explain that I was treating it as an unlooped strip, which means it would no longer be a moebius strip.

clyde · Post by **clyde** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:33 pm

Kevin Solway wrote:
clyde wrote:
Kevin Solway wrote:Regarding the moebius strip, it really only has one surface anyway.
Yes, I went on to explain that I was treating it as an unlooped strip, which means it would no longer be a moebius strip.

And that's why you called it a moebius strip?

Kevin Solway · Post by **Kevin Solway** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:51 pm

clyde wrote:And that's why you called it a moebius strip?

I was making the point that it is all a matter of perception, and that looping and twisting the strip is not at all necessary. Even an moebius strip is an ordinary strip if viewed in a certain way.

But that is getting away from topic of boundaries.

clyde · Post by **clyde** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 7:04 pm

Kevin; Yes, you're right, that is getting away from the topic of boundaries, boundaries and surfaces. Thinking about this reminded me of a saying that a teacher of mine would say, "It's turtles all the way down."

Sapius · Post by **Sapius** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 8:12 pm

Kevin Solway wrote:The words about the splash can communicate something. That's the kind of communication I'm talking about.

Something as in something meaningless, or something meaningful?

There's nothing to be gained by creating more detail.

Well, then all one should preach exactly just that! Are you saying what Nat essentially says? A toilet bursh is a toilet brush. Just in different words of course.

S: A â€œsplashâ€ itself does escape (concepts)

K: As does the word "splash" when used in the right context.

You mean the right context where words hold no meaning?

All experiences are essentially identical. The word "Totality" might trigger a different sequence of events than the word "splash" does, but they can arrive at the same place.

All may arrive at the same point, but that point may be meaningless unless defined.

When a wise person thinks about an individual object, a part of the Totality, they simultaneously think of the Totality, since the two are not separate.

Why are you adding details? An individual object is just that. No?

In this manner, they literally see "God" in all things. They might speak about one or the other, duality or non-duality, but their meaning is always the same, regardless of what they're talking about.

More details. Why?

Conscious people have the Ultimate perspective.

Am I to understand that one should simply accept that on face value, without going into any details? Only then am I wise?

Kevin Solway · Post by **Kevin Solway** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 8:55 pm

Sapius wrote:
Kevin Solway wrote:The words about the splash can communicate something. That's the kind of communication I'm talking about.
Something as in something meaningless, or something meaningful?

Something meaningful.

Are you saying what Nat essentially says? A toilet bursh is a toilet brush. Just in different words of course.

Maybe, but I don't know for sure what you or Nat understand by those words.

S: A â€œsplashâ€ itself does escape (concepts)

K: As does the word "splash" when used in the right context.
You mean the right context where words hold no meaning?

It is the purpose of words to hold meaning.

All experiences are essentially identical. The word "Totality" might trigger a different sequence of events than the word "splash" does, but they can arrive at the same place.
All may arrive at the same point, but that point may be meaningless unless defined.

Truth or Reality itself can't be defined, it just is. Reality itself is neither meaningful nor meaningless. However, it is meaningful to realize the truth, if one values that kind of thing.

When a wise person thinks about an individual object, a part of the Totality, they simultaneously think of the Totality, since the two are not separate.
Why are you adding details? An individual object is just that. No?

I don't know what you personally mean by "an individual object". Perhaps you can see each individual object as a manifestation of God, or perhaps you can't. These different kinds of "individual objects" are worlds apart.

In this manner, they literally see "God" in all things. They might speak about one or the other, duality or non-duality, but their meaning is always the same, regardless of what they're talking about.
More details. Why?

Because it's important to distinguish between the two different kinds of "individual objects", which are both experienced directly.

ataxas · Post by **ataxas** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:03 am

Kevin,
Do you take the stance, then, that the propositions "A splash is a splash," and "This sentence is a lie," are meaningful? That is to say, are propositions whose truth-functional values are wholly dependent on their arrangement, or self-contradicting propositions, meaningful in any way?

Kevin Solway · Post by **Kevin Solway** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 8:48 am

ataxas wrote:Do you take the stance, then, that the propositions "A splash is a splash," and "This sentence is a lie," are meaningful? That is to say, are propositions whose truth-functional values are wholly dependent on their arrangement, or self-contradicting propositions, meaningful in any way?

"A splash is a splash" may be meaningful in that it may cause a person to reconsider what a splash is. Perhaps they have been overcomplicating their experience of such things. However, it's hard to find any meaning in "This sentence is a lie", other than if it is making a statement about the self-contradictory way in which people think.

ataxas · Post by **ataxas** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 9:14 am

Your definition of meaning, then, includes as meaningful that which is not truth-functionally meaningful. I have a problem with this, epistemologically speaking. How are we to have knowledge of pragmatic meaning, unless it is in a Gricean sense? That is to say, I cannot know that what you are saying when you proclaim, "a splash is a splash," unless there are social rules governing your tone of voice, and the context of that proposition.

The meaning of the proposition "a splash is a splash," is nothing in isolation; the sentence means nothing semantically; it has about as much meaning as the exclamation "Argh!", that is, pragmatic meaning.

It is my inclination to say that one would do well to distinguish pragmatic concerns from semantics, else end up at Heidegger, or Meinong's "extant imaginary objects".

GENIUS FORUMS

Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

Re: Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

Re: Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

Re: Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

Re: Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

Re: Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

Re: Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

Re: Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

Re: Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

Re: Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

Re: Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

Re: Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

Re: Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

Re: Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

Re: Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

Re: Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

Re: Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

Re: Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

Re: Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

Re: Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

Re: Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

Re: Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

Re: Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

Re: Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

Re: Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

Re: Naturalistic philosophy denies life?