KHTK Axiom Seven


Corollary: Subjectivity comes from the viewpoint one assumes.
Corollary: A viewpoint acts as a filter.

Perceptibility of a manifestation allows it to be perceived. However, any perception is subject to how that manifestation is being perceived. This aspect of perception may be called a filter. This filter can be so insubstantial that it is almost transparent, or it can be so substantial that the manifestation appears totally different from what it really is.

Manifestation is the same as its perceptibility. It is the filter, which makes a manifestation appear to be separate from its perception. When there is no filter the manifestation may simply appear to be the consideration of itself.

True objectivity would be seeing something for what it is without any filters.That would mean, “Seeing something without any viewpoint.”


Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  • Chris Thompson  On November 30, 2012 at 11:30 PM

    The purpose of the filter may be as a type of surface on which the chemical reactions or manifestations can take place.

  • Chris Thompson  On November 30, 2012 at 11:30 PM

    I like your use of “manifestation is the same as its perceptibility” and I would add that its perception may be the thing itself. What we are referring to as a filter may be the thing itself. Maybe nothing is being “filtered.”

  • Chris Thompson  On November 30, 2012 at 11:35 PM

    Vinaire: “True objectivity would be seeing something for what it is without any filters.That would mean, “Seeing something without any viewpoint.””

    Chris: That is an interesting hypothesis. I am exploring the possibility that mathematically, the recursive iteration; that formula, provides the filter and the tendency to drift. The entire iteration is a filter and when looking at this process too closely it somehow ceases to iterate, thus dissolving the consideration simply because of stopping.

  • vinaire  On December 1, 2012 at 5:57 AM

    I was surprised to discover that a viewpoint itself acts as a filter. To extend it bit further, the very SELF seems to act as a filter.

    Self seems to come into being after the fact of manifestation. I have to look at it more closely.


    • vinaire  On December 1, 2012 at 6:08 AM

      In the Facebook group ‘Philosophiles’, people seem to be looking through the filter of their idea of philosophy. They cannot seem to communicate in simple English. Here is an example of the first criticism I got when I published these axioms there:

      “I’m liable to run into a few problems with the argument above. The first is that I don’t considered any of the cited sources authoritative, and disagree with their collective conclusion regarding causal primacy. That’s a minor problem.

      The second is follows tangentially from the first, and is more serious. Taking pre-Newtonian concepts of causation as examples is problematic because (a) it does not represent either the historical western philosophical Canon as trained philosophers know it and (b) it does not represent the most sophisticated notions of the concept. Note that the primitive concepts have already been problematized in the historical literature, often in the precise way that you draw them up; that’s good, of course, as it means that there’s some historical literature to draw on to support your objection. *However* it does also mean that there are subsequent responses that you’re obligated to address.

      The third is regarding the axiom proper. It seems that all of the terms are qualified based on some usage in eastern philosophical and religious traditions with which I am unfamiliar; this is problematic. It is necessary to provide some sort of parse-able definition for “background” [as contrasted to foreground?], “manifestation” [perhaps as distinct from “instantiation”; I’ll come back to that], “reality”, and “knowledge” as it is conceptually situated. The last one is particularly important, as epistemological baggage matters a great deal, and if you’re departing from standard Justified True Belief, which I’m sure you are, you have to explain how, at the very least. You probably also need to qualify “speculations.”

      There are a number of other problems that are more minor. I think that in responding to the first three you may bring them into focus or make them unnecessary. [Things like non-Fregean conceptions of propositional value; using “space” and “time” as existing entities rather than indexers; problems with non-Newtonian physics; problems with the impact of quantum mechanics on simple counterfactuals; etc.] Hopefully that gives us a springboard. It seems an interesting project, though I’m obviously very skeptical.”

      • Chris Thompson  On December 2, 2012 at 1:15 AM

        Which is tending to back up a theory I have been forming that we each see what we see (tautology) and no one can see it for us. Extant psycho-babble makes for popularity contests but if any of it holds any significant meaning, it will be among individuals who are looking for themselves as themselves (in-valence). There may be great ideas in the article written back to you, however, I am not trained in that lingo enough to understand what was written. Also, I am busy and haven’t the time to sort it out.

        Ironically, the reply to your post was written with the same lack of understandable reference, as you wrote — simple English — that he complained about your writing.

        • vinaire  On December 2, 2012 at 2:08 PM

          I think philosophy has its own filter that modifies what-is. I shall discover it sooner or later.


    • Chris Thompson  On December 1, 2012 at 11:59 PM

      Two things:
      1. By filter do we intend to describe something which sieves? Or what?
      2. When you write, “Self seems to come into being after the fact of manifestation. I have to look at it more closely.” I want to say that it seems more consistent to say that self comes into being at the precise moment of manifestation. The reason that I say this is because it seem inconsistent to look without any sense of self. Possibly one “backs up” from a layer of self and so releases that layer giving one’s remaining selves the sense of not looking through a self. This may even be the mechanism of the the Scn BT model.

      3rd thing of two things: There is another possibility more in line with your statement of self lagging behind manifestation and that would be an action of identification with a manifestation after the fact of manifestation. This can come from the other side of manifestation but not of this dimension of known universe.

      • vinaire  On December 2, 2012 at 9:57 AM

        I am now approaching this through the PHILOSOPHY PROJECT

        TWENTY-SIX: Existence is what is perceivable.
        TWENTY-SEVEN: Truth is the recognition of what-is.
        TWENTY-EIGHT: Speculations, conjectures and assumptions create inconsistencies.
        TWENTY-NINE: Closer look at inconsistencies reveals new perceptions of existence.
        THIRTY: Truth of existence comes from seeing things as they are.
        THIRTY-ONE: Verification against another datum may establish consistency but not necessarily the truth.
        THIRTY-TWO: Establishment of truth requires closer looking.
        THIRTY-THREE: Establishment of absolute truth is like an infinite series. It may converge to a certain value, or it may not.
        THIRTY-FOUR: Non-convergence may point to the presence of a fundamental assumption.
        THIRTY-FIVE: Fundamental assumptions are usually hidden in the fundamentals of a subject.


      • vinaire  On December 2, 2012 at 9:58 AM

        Proposition THIRTY-FOUR tells me that underlying any fractal there is a fundamental assumption.


      • vinaire  On December 2, 2012 at 1:42 PM

        “1. By filter do we intend to describe something which sieves? Or what?”

        A filter is like unchanging consideration(s) that modifies whatever is being perceived.


        • Chris Thompson  On December 2, 2012 at 4:07 PM

          Assuming that there is a perception aside from self seems inconsistent. And I’m saying that from the tautology that any perception and self are the same.

          Do you want to postulate a type of self which isn’t self or is called something else? I must be missing your meaning.

        • vinaire  On December 3, 2012 at 5:36 AM

          What is this thing called self? Can ‘self’ be a consideration like the ‘center of gravity’ in physics, which makes calculation easier?

          Are ‘perception’ and ‘self’ synonymous? In my opinion, ‘perception’ and ‘manifestation’ are synonymous.

          If there is a chair, there is perception of a chair. If there is ‘self’ there is perception of ‘self’. What makes the connection between perception of chair and ‘self’ a must?

          Are you saying that it is perception that justifies self? In that case ‘self’ cannot be perceived, or can it be?


      • vinaire  On December 2, 2012 at 1:46 PM

        “it seem inconsistent to look without any sense of self.”

        Is it inconsistent? I don’t know. The sense of self can operate as a filter. The true perception of a manifestation would just be the manifestation without adding any sense of extraneous self to it.


        • Chris Thompson  On December 2, 2012 at 4:13 PM

          We have several paths which we could take but seem to diverge here. We might need additional dimensions to resolve this and if we find them, then our universe will have become larger and we will know more about more.

          My tautological universe is looking better and better.

        • vinaire  On December 3, 2012 at 5:38 AM

          Try to think beyond tautology seems to lead to unknowable! doesn’t it? 🙂


        • vinaire  On December 3, 2012 at 5:47 AM

          Buddha says that there is no permanent self. Can self be part of what is being perceived? Is the manifestation and self the same thing, or are they separated by the process of perception?


  • vinaire  On December 3, 2012 at 6:01 AM

    It seems that one is being ‘self’ all the time because the attention is fixated on ‘self’. Then ‘self’ is the fact of fixation itself.

    There is ‘self’ because there is fixation.

    No fixation = no self.


    • Chris Thompson  On December 3, 2012 at 12:39 PM

      One doesn’t need an anthropomorphic self for there to be fixation on self. For now, I am tending to go with “fixation on self” as being fractal with no irreducible minimum. This seems more consistent.

      • vinaire  On December 3, 2012 at 1:02 PM

        I would define ‘self’ as the considerations, which are most persistently present in the background of one’s attention. One may have some idea of these considerations, but they could be unknown in most part.


      • Chris Thompson  On December 3, 2012 at 1:23 PM

        Let me add that the fixation on self ceases when the iteration ceases. Now if you will explore with me just a bit I am looking at something genetic for a moment. I know we like to consider that we are somehow more than biology; however, this view assumes too much about the extant knowledge of biology. Why do we sell biology short so quickly? Look at the continuation of the biology through meiosis and mitosis. Here are some more possibilities for self and for fixation on self and for gradual relinquishment of that fixation on self which we see (especially at our age) as we cut loose our fixations by one by one.

        • vinaire  On December 3, 2012 at 5:41 PM

          I haven’t yet resolved how biological units come about. Maybe these are manifestations that just happened.

  • Chris Thompson  On December 3, 2012 at 4:25 PM

    Here’s another look at this: Are considerations present before we know about them? Do we have them before we discover them? Or are they popping up as iterations in response to our queries and looking?

  • Chris Thompson  On December 3, 2012 at 4:26 PM

    Are we smoothing our inconsistent thoughts by removing the rough edges, or by filling in the valleys with more considerations?

  • Chris Thompson  On December 3, 2012 at 4:29 PM

    This one will fly in the face of what we’ve been establishing:
    If epiphanies derive from dissolving inconsistencies resulting in more knowledge and understanding, then does more knowledge and understanding consist of fewer considerations?

    • vinaire  On December 3, 2012 at 6:45 PM

      KHTK Propositions:

      SIXTEEN: A manifestation is consistent with its perception.

      SEVENTEEN: Knowledge is consistent when the manifestation is fully perceived.

      EIGHTEEN: Knowledge is inconsistent when the manifestation is only partly perceived.

      NINETEEN: Resolution of inconsistency reveals the missing aspect of a manifestation.

      TWENTY: The unknown may be unveiled through resolution of inconsistencies.

  • vinaire  On December 3, 2012 at 6:43 PM

    All my efforts are now focused on the PHILOSOPHY PROJECT.


%d bloggers like this: