GENIUS FORUMS

is cause seperate from effect,or is it a singular movement?if it is one,then which is it itself,a cause or an effect?

All things are both causes and effects. In what sense is a matter of your immediate perception.

Dan Rowden wrote:All things are both causes and effects. In what sense is a matter of your immediate perception.

I take your point dan, i wonder however about cause and effect as a component of perception as a "hard filter" to begin with ,at what point an idea turns to a belief,then infiltrates perception and becomes part of our vision.

I know you already understand what I'm going to post, but it goes to... well, the context of the issue.

I understand what your saying as to the adoption of ideas becoming a filter (paradigm is the over/ill used technical term) that reinfoces the idea by altering perception of the event, but the issue is really much deeper in that our immediate, and preceding context (throwness to the existentialists; e.g. historicity), is the ultimate filter of our conception of reality. This is not so easy to discard, and some would say that it is what drove that German fella' mad, you know the guy with the aphroisms, and the difficult to spell name... "God is dead," and all that. ;-)

Actually, it is much easier to understand from a scientific viewpoint than in the important issues in life. At the beginning of the 20th century, Quantum theory was just the latest of a long string of shifts in the supposed understanding of how the world functions (events). Eienstein's concept of space-time and realtivity had caused a similar upheaval that actually over-lapped/led-to the shift caused by quantum theory. Such shifts in theory (and we're Not dealing with truth here at all), were niether immediate, nor pretty to watch. Many folks resisted passionately.

What became apparent by these radical shifts in understanding of the process of hypothesis and testing, was that science itself falls prey to a radical "blindness" to the actual relationship of causation and effect. This was, and is, the central thesis as to why an over reliance on scientific materialism with regard to philosophical matters is mistaken.

Science in no way deals with ultimate existensial questions, rather, it is a process of conjecture and refutation. It is not conjecture and affirmation because all such affirmations are invariably tainted by the historical context of the investigation.

In the end, IMHO, the Ideals that were recognized by the acients as transcedent, are just that, transcendent. Truth, Justice, Beauty, and ultimately God within our understanding are simple guideposts to a deeper, and more fundamental existensial core.

The wiseguys of modern analytic philosophy have tried like hell to beat this game, and have failed as much, if not more so, then the proposition philosophers of the past. The post-moderenists, as near as I can tell, have decided to hell with truth as a trancendence, and rather use an ahistorical political, ends justifies the means bunch of non-sense to get what they want out of life. Witness the neo-pagan approbation of Jungian ideas that they apply in a Wal-mart sort of pick & chose approach to justifying a historical, romanticised version of religion, that not only did not exist, it would have been laughed at by the Real Men who weilded Real Battle Axes and fought to a Real Death in pursuit of Survival, Meaning, and the worship of Real Nature. Real Nature is not Jellystone Park with Yogi and BooBoo stealing your pickinic basket. It is better described by a grizzly bear devouring one of you children, but more than that, it is (at least realated to) the giver and taker of life; Shiva if you must, but to me, a God Given world of trancendence, where your soul (and perhaps your aesthetics) are more important than, No, the only important issue with which you deal.

Of course, being and having been raised in a stern-Protestant historical context, I sometimes have to temper myself.

To the-things-themselves and damn the materialists.

Is that on topic?

cheers windhawk, yes the self paradigm,tricky gear,unless or until one transcends the base context,as long self looks out,the larger context can not be seen,honesty is the only tool i know of, which can impact on such hardcore irony.the miroring process introduced more or less immediately on becoming,sets the regime for self behavour, can comparison guide accurately?

Everything, everywhere, at all times is entirely causal. The causal action everything has does not result from some internal non-causal state.

Physically, there are no "fundamental effects", except for non-observable yin/yang type absolutes like time (which can be divided into static time (yin) and instantaneous time(yang)). Of course, to observors there are effects, and they are totally real from this perspective, but still this is just caused by the "illusion of singular perspective". Effects are caused by relative time dilation - every thing, every whole contains causes acting at different speeds. Causes act at different speeds because they are relative to the rest of the causal actions of the totality - every part of everything is relatively less or more bounded than that which surrounds it. Note, though that different speeds is also an illusion, it is really different time configurations that give the appearance of speed, the action (power, speed) of the causes never changes, it is eternally consistent. It is the configuration of these different speeds that caused the properties of things, thus it causes thingness.

Yes & yes Dabbason & Jamesh... It's amazing, whatever it is. To risk using one of the overly technical philosophers; Being as openess.