SCOPE:
To investigate the interface between physics and metaphysics
.
REFERENCES:
.
OBSERVATIONS:
[OK, I am starting all over again using Buddha’s principle of seeing things as they are. I decided to define the scope of Physics and Metaphysics at the outset. I see Metaphysics much broader in scope and Physics to be part of that scope. Physics deals with manifestations. Metaphysics must deal with perception because there is nothing else there. I have been reading Aristotle. Metaphysics did not start out as the subject of perception, but it should have. That would have greatly simplified the subject of philosophy.]
ONE: There is looking and perceiving.
TWO: There is something to be looked at and perceived.
THREE: Thus there is manifestation and perception.
FOUR: Physics is a study of manifestation.
FIVE: Metaphysics is a study of perception.
.
PERCEPTION:
[It is PERCEPTION that gives rise to the ideas of SELF, SPACE and all the MANIFESTATIONS around us. Our perception is the starting point of it all. Later we would be investigating what perception is. But first I want to establish the starting point of this investigation.]
SIX: MANIFESTATION is thought to be there. It is what is perceived.
SEVEN: Perception is thought to involve a “perception point”. Thus there is the consideration of SELF.
EIGHT: Self is thought to be separate from manifestation. Thus there is the consideration of SPACE.
NINE: Perception, primarily, is thought to involve the considerations of MANIFESTATION, SELF, and SPACE.
TEN: Perception appears to be THOUGHT considering itself.
.
EXISTENCE:
[Philosophy still hasn’t sorted out fully what EXISTENCE is. There are many different views about it. In other words, different philosophers mentally perceive existence differently. It all boils down to perception. The problem of existence sorts out nicely when we define it in terms of perception.]
ELEVEN: Manifestations, self, and space are thought to be present. Thus, there is the consideration of EXISTENCE.
TWELVE: Manifestation is what is perceived. Self is what perceives. Space makes perception possible.
THIRTEEN: That this is so is a consideration.
FOURTEEN: Existence is the sum total of considerations perceived.
FIFTEEN: Existence is relative and not absolute.
.
CRITERION OF INVESTIGATION:
[It is important to establish the first principle from the outset. It then acts as the criterion for rest of the investigation. Here we are using PERCEPTION as the first principle and the criterion. One may figure-figure whatever one wants, but unless it is there to be perceived, it would not meet the criterion of this investigation.]
SIXTEEN: Aristotle called the subjects of metaphysics “first philosophy”. He called the study of nature, or physics, “second philosophy”. This is consistent with the fact that study of manifestation (second philosophy) is intrinsic to the study of perception (first philosophy).
SEVENTEEN: The implication from Aristotle is that the primary task of philosophy is to search for first principles. Aristotle seems to describe the first principle as “the first basis from which a thing is known.”
EIGHTEEN: By definition, a first principle would be a basic, foundational proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption.
NINETEEN: In this investigation we start with the first principle of PERCEPTION OF MANIFESTATION. It is something that is universally there. It spurs thinking and further looking.
TWENTY: Hence the criterion used in this investigation would be the determination of those thoughts and observations that are consistent with ‘PERCEPTION OF MANIFESTATION’. These things can be found when actually looked for.
.
FIRST CAUSE:
[“First Cause” is a misnomer. It has nothing to do with the notion of “cause and effect”. “Cause and effect” denote a certain association between two events where the second event is looked upon as the outcome of the first event. “First Cause,” on the other hand, is the property, which makes a manifestation simply appear without association with anything else. It is interesting to observe that the property of “first cause” may be applied to all manifestations before applying the association of “cause and effect.”]
TWENTY-ONE: We cut a tree; it falls. We strike a match; it lights up. Thus, we have a phenomenon that is a direct consequence of another phenomenon. This makes us believe that all phenomena are caused. We, thus, assume that a manifestation must be a consequence of another manifestation. This belief leads to an infinite causal series.
TWENTY-TWO: To resolve this inconsistency, we assume a First Cause that is not itself caused. But this makes the First Cause different from the way all other causes are understood. It allows the possibility that a manifestation may simply appear.
TWENTY-THREE: All manifestations simply appear as we perceive them. They disappear as we stop perceiving them. Thus, we may consider “First Cause” to be the property of all manifestations.
TWENTY-FOUR: The notions of CAUSE and EFFECT seem to indicate an association between two manifestations, which otherwise simply appear and disappear as we perceive or not perceive them.
TWENTY-FIVE: Hence, consistency with perception tells us that “First Cause” is a property that applies to all manifestations. On the other hand, “cause and effect” is a special sequence observed between two manifestations.
.
GOD:
[God cannot be a manifestation itself that can be perceived, and at the same time be the source of all other manifestations. That is highly inconsistent because it makes it possible for any manifestation to be considered God. Thus, if there is a God, then it can’t be manifested. It would be beyond perception. It would be part of speculation only.]
TWENTY-SIX: When God is viewed as a Being with the properties of holiness, justice, sovereignty, omnipotence, omniscience, benevolence, omnipresence, and immortality it qualifies as a manifestation. The property of “First Cause” applies to God just as it applies to any other manifestation.
TWENTY-SEVEN: The implication of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems is that no system can be described completely by using an aspect of that system for reference.
TWENTY-EIGHT: Therefore, God, viewed as a manifestation, cannot completely describe the presence of all other manifestations
TWENTY-NINE: Thus, God must be something that is beyond manifestation. It may be looked upon as the background against which manifestation, and even perception, appears.
THIRTY: Thus, God is THAT, which cannot be conceived or perceived. It is beyond desire, expectation and speculation.
.
CONSIDERATIONS AND KNOWLEDGE:
[The considerations form themselves into space. Disturbances in space travel as radiation. Radiation condenses as matter. The primary knowledge is perception of considerations, from which come memory, experience, knowledge, information, hypotheses, theories, principles, axioms, etc.]
THIRTY-ONE: Space separates manifestation from perception-point. Separation generates desire to know. Desire to know generates expectation. Expectation generates speculation. Speculation generates considerations.
THIRTY-TWO: Considerations (thoughts, ideas, assumptions, expectations, suppositions, conjectures, speculations, etc.) form the fabric of the mental space. Disturbance traveling through this fabric is what forms radiation. This radiation condenses and becomes fixed as matter.
THIRTY-THREE: The perception of these considerations forms the basis of knowledge. Knowledge gradually becomes more structured as it condenses into information, hypotheses, theories, principles and axioms.
THIRTY-FOUR: All considerations are relative and so is knowledge.
THIRTY-FIVE: There is no absolute consideration. There is no absolute knowledge.
.
NAME AND FORM:
[Name and form (nama-rupa in Sanskrit) is the crystallization of thoughts, at which point persistence enters into the picture. Name and form become the points of reference because they are persisting, even if for a fleeting moment. They can now interact and combine into more complex forms with new names.]
THIRTY-SIX: Considerations interact with each other. For such interaction to take place, there must be persistence.
THIRTY-SEVEN: For considerations to persist they must acquire some form. A unique consideration will have a unique form or ‘name’.
THIRTY- EIGHT: The considerations, thus, interact and combine into more complex forms with new names.
THIRTY-NINE: When there are names and forms there are also considerations.
FORTY: “God,” “Prime Mover Unmoved” “Uncaused Cause,” “Supreme Being,” “Unconditioned Being,” etc. are all considerations.
.
.
[Further development of this project is in progress…]
.
.
SELF:
[As considerations acquire name and form they become fixed. From this come transformations, such as, symbols, pictures, feelings, emotions, impulses, etc. The perception point appears to be the center of these considerations analogous to the “center of mass” in Physics. This is SELF. Considerations give rise to judgments that seem to be coming from self.]
FORTY-ONE: As considerations acquire name and form they develop a structure and become relatively rigid or fixed.
FORTY-TWO: From this structure of considerations come transformations, such as, symbols, pictures, feelings, emotions, impulses, etc. Thus come about means for communication, such as, language.
FORTY-THREE: As these considerations become relatively rigid or fixed, the perception point appears to be the center of these considerations analogous to the “center of mass” in Physics. This is SELF.
FORTY-FOUR: The perception gets filtered through the structure of considerations that make up the SELF, before it reaches the perception point.
FORTY-FIVE: The filtered perception gives rise to judgments that seem to be coming from SELF. This determines the view of existence, the Universe and also the view of self.
.
Comments
Let’s backward engineer Descarte, Nietsche, and Hubbard and anyone else.
Is “I think; therefore, I am” consistent?
That’s a great idea about reverse engineering these philosophies.
May be: “I think, therefore I am thought.” 🙂
“I am” is a tautology and stops looking altogether.
.
Yes! That is a better conclusion, more consistent, thought-to-thought.
This is one of the reasons; one of the supports for my hypothesis that we live IN a “tautological universe.” I landed on this like as a joke; however, I am continuing to look at this, and (oddly-weirdly-sadly?) finding consistency to the idea. Or maybe we’ll call it the Ironical Universe. That doesn’t roll off the tongue too well, so I guess has no popularity in its future!
In the beginning was a cause and the entire purpose of the cause was the creation of effect.
Was there an initial cause? It was not a cause until there was an effect, so therefore, the “initial” cause and effect have the same initial moment of creation. Oops. “Initial moment of creation” supposes another speculation. hehe.
But wait, what we can observe is “an occurrence.” And then we can observe “an occurrence.” Bland, when I write it that way. Brian? Where’d you go? Time to jump in and help two old dopplegangers figure out things.
I wrote on Factor #1 on this blog. I shall be revisiting it.
.
What doesn’t kill us makes us stronger.
Is this true? or how true? For what frame of reference?
Was the Big Bang an example of an initial cause and effect? Occurring simultaneously?
There wasn’t space-time; then there was.
The implication from Aristotle is that the primary task of philosophy is to search for first principles. Aristotle seems to describe the first principle as “the first basis from which a thing is known”.
By definition, a first principle would be a basic, foundational proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption.
The implication from Gödel’s incompleteness theorems is that no system can be described completely by using an aspect of it as the reference point.
The obvious first principle broadly appears to be PERCEPTION. We need to look at it more closely., I would like to see what other philosophers have to say.
.
The big bang is first PERCEPTION?
I am not so sure about Big Bang. It seems like a conjecture that needs to be confirmed.
.
Thank you, Vinaire! I’ll be contemplating this for awhile!
And I want to go look at that post on Death again.
I agree about Big Bang. You’re right. Forget that.
This is good.
Oh, one more thing: providing definitions right in the same post with the reasoning is hugely helpful to the reader. 😉
If there were a big bang it would be like the sudden appearance of a manifestation from nothing.
.
CRITERION OF INVESTIGATION:
SIXTEEN: Aristotle called the subjects of metaphysics “first philosophy”. He called the study of nature, or physics, “second philosophy”. This is consistent with the fact that study of manifestation is intrinsic to the study of perception.
SEVENTEEN: The implication from Aristotle is that the primary task of philosophy is to search for first principles. Aristotle seems to describe the first principle as “the first basis from which a thing is known”.
EIGHTEEN: By definition, a first principle would be a basic, foundational proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption.
NINETEEN: Here we start with the first principle of PERCEPTION. Perception involves thoughts, or considerations, about the experience of perception.
TWENTY: Hence the criterion we shall be using here is CONSISTENCY with the experience of perception.
.
FIRST CAUSE:
TWENTY-ONE: We believe that events are caused, and we assume that a manifestation must be caused by another manifestation. This belief leads to an infinite causal series.
TWENTY-TWO: To resolve this inconsistency, we may further assume a first cause that is not itself caused.
TWENTY-THREE: However, the consideration of “a first cause that is not itself caused” violates the PRINCIPLE OF CONTRADICTION. This principle states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time.
TWENTY-FOUR: We must therefore accept that the notions of CAUSE and EFFECT indicate a logical association between manifestations, which otherwise simply appear and disappear from our perception.
TWENTY-FIVE: Hence, the belief that a manifestation must be caused by something else is inconsistent. Manifestations simply appear and disappear, There is no first cause.
.
GOD:
TWENTY-SIX: When God is viewed as a Being with the properties of holiness, justice, sovereignty, omnipotence, omniscience, benevolence, omnipresence, and immortality it qualifies as a manifestation.
TWENTY-SEVEN: When “God” is looked upon as a Being, it gives rise to the inconsistency of the first cause. Thus, God cannot be thought of as a being with certain properties.
TWENTY-EIGHT: The implication of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems is that no system can be described completely by using an aspect of it as the reference point.
TWENTY-NINE: Thus, God, as an explanation of all existence, itself cannot be described in terms of what we perceive as existence.
THIRTY: God is THAT, which cannot be imagined and perceived.
.
This is your definition that I think nails it. God, that is.
“First Cause” seems to be a concept different from the concept of “cause.” Use of the same word in two different concepts seem to confuse the issue. I have therefore revised the following:
TWENTY-ONE: We cut a tree; it falls. We strike a match; it lights up. Thus, we have a phenomenon that is a direct consequence of another phenomenon. This makes us believe that all phenomena are caused. We, thus, assume that a manifestation must be a consequence of another manifestation. This belief leads to an infinite causal series.
TWENTY-TWO: To resolve this inconsistency, we assume a First Cause that is not itself caused. But this makes the First Cause different from the way all other causes are understood. It allows the possibility that a manifestation may simply appear.
TWENTY-THREE: All manifestations simply appear as we perceive them. They disappear as we stop perceiving them. Thus, we may consider “First Cause” to be the property of all manifestations.
TWENTY-FOUR: The notions of CAUSE and EFFECT seem to indicate an association between two manifestations, which otherwise simply appear and disappear as we perceive or not perceive them.
TWENTY-FIVE: Hence, consistency with perception tells us that “First Cause” is a property that applies to all manifestations. On the other hand, “cause and effect” is a special sequence observed between two manifestations.
.
I have revised the section on GOD as follows:
TWENTY-SIX: When God is viewed as a Being with the properties of holiness, justice, sovereignty, omnipotence, omniscience, benevolence, omnipresence, and immortality it qualifies as a manifestation. The property of “First Cause” applies to God just as it applies to any other manifestation.
TWENTY-SEVEN: The implication of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems is that no system can be described completely by using an aspect of that system for reference.
TWENTY-EIGHT: Therefore, God, viewed as a manifestation, cannot completely describe the presence of all other manifestations
TWENTY-NINE: Thus, God must be something that is beyond manifestation.
THIRTY: God is THAT, which cannot be imagined and/or perceived.
.
KNOWLEDGE:
THIRTY-ONE: Knowledge comes from the recognition of “first cause” characteristics of manifestations.
THIRTY-TWO: Further knowledge comes from understanding of “cause and effect” relationships among manifestations.
THIRTY-THREE: All knowledge is relative to perception. There is no absolute knowledge in itself.
THIRTY-FOUR: Unknown generates desire to know. Desire to know generates perception.
THIRTY-FIVE: All knowledge is derived from perception.
.
I agree with most of this but of course “first” doesn’t really exist. So then it’s moot. I don’t think you can really get at “first cause” because there is no before, there is no after, so there is no first. the universe exists in an expansive present. if we are to accept the illusion of time as a framework then we can have first. but it gets very difficult not to get confused when introducing an analogy. One starts to think the analogy is the thing. Unfortunately, it’s also nearly impossible to conceive of the actual thing without the analogy.
In a logical sense, I think you have it right, with number 29 and 30.
Those are my 2 cents! Like I said, I don’t really think I can improve upon what you are doing here. I agree with you that things appear and disappear and that we are the ones who assign the relationships of cause and effect to them. If we did not, we might all be insane, or else enlightened. 😉
Nia: One starts to think the analogy is the thing.
Chris: Yes. That is something I am prone to do.
Thanks. By the way I meant expansive present, not presence. Although presence also works, I did not mean it here.
Got it. Is it OK if I correct it in your original post?
LOL! I like your last comment.
As I said “first cause” is a misnomer. It relates to the property that a manifestation simply appears. There is no “first” as such in a linear sense.
To me TIME is a secondary manifestation. It is a measure of the condensation from SPACE (considerations) to ENERGY to MASS. The more something has condensed, the more durability it acquires. TIME is quite a mind twister indeed.
I like what you write here. 🙂
.
Okay, for some technical writing. This statement could be more clear. Not saying it’s wrong, but it could be more clear:
To me TIME is a secondary manifestation. It is a “measure” of the condensation from SPACE (considerations) to ENERGY to MASS. The more something has condensed, the more “durability” it acquires.
Introducing “durability” has the effect of losing me on a sharp curve. You are talking about time being a measure. Then leap to it having durability. What does durability have to do with measure? Suggest changing durability to an adjective-modified “measure”, inserting another sentence that bridges the two, or adding another sentence that explains the relationship of durability to measure.
Wow!
Nia, you are hired!
OK, let me modify that portion of my earlier post as follows:
To me TIME is a secondary manifestation. It is a “measure” of the condensation of considerations from SPACE to ENERGY to MASS. The more a consideration has condensed (become more structured and inflexible), the more “durability” it acquires. “Durability” is.how long something lasts. Our sense of time is basically measured against infinite durability.
Am I making sense?
.
Hello Vinaire,
Sorry for the delay; I didn’t get notified of follow-up posts. I checked the box this time.
Yes, please correct my original post to “present.”
To me, “from” is ambiguous. Do you mean that considerations condense space into energy and then into mass?
I am going to assume that is what you mean. Then here’s how I understand the rest. I am going to put your words in regular case and mine in all caps.
The more a consideration has condensed (become more structured and inflexible), the more “durability” it acquires. “Durability” is how long something lasts. MASS (FORM), AS A PRODUCT OF CONSIDERATIONS ACTING UPON SPACE AND ENERGY, IS CONDENSED AND HAS DURABILITY. CONSIDERATIONS (IDEAS) THEMSELVES ALSO CONDENSE AND THOUGH THEY ARE NOT MASS, THEY BEHAVE LIKE MASS IN THAT THEY HAVE DURABILITY. TIME IS A MEASURE OF DURABILITY, BOTH OF MASS (FORM) AND CONSIDERATIONS (IDEAS).
I don’t understand the last sentence at all. If we can leave the last sentence out of the discussion for the moment, that would help. Please comment on my interpretation of your meaning. Is it what you mean?
If I can understand this clearly, I think I could go further with this with you, but we have to agree on the basics here and I’m not 100% sure of all definitions. Hopefully my words will point out any lack of understanding on my part of your fundamental definitions and theorems.
Thanks Nia. I have corrected your previous post as requested.
I look at SPACE, ENERGY and MASS to be three modes of CONSIDERATION, just like STEAM, WATER and ICE are three modes of H2O. These modes are related to each other by degree of condensation. So, one may refer to, “condensation of H2O from STEAM to WATER to ICE.”
Here SPACE is least structured form of considerations, ENERGY is a more structured form of consideration and MASS is the most structured form of consideration.
Thus, SPACE has the least “durability”, ENERGY has more “durability”, and MASS has the most “durability”. There are variations in “durability” in each of those categories as well.
Thus, SPACE will appear and disappear more frequently than ENERGY, and ENERGY will appear and disappear more frequently than MASS.
I see what you are looking at. I apologize for not being very clear. I am talking about mental SPACE, ENERGY and MASS. How mental relates to physical is whole another story. That is exactly where I am going with the PHILOSOPHY PROJECT. The scope of that project is “To investigate the interface between physics and metaphysics.” I am starting out with metaphysics. I am still struggling to understand the nature of the interface.to physics.
Basically, we are talking about two separate strands of reality – mental and physical – that seem to be analogous. It could be that one is harmonic of the other, but in what way? I have no idea.
The question in my mind is, “What is this attribute called ‘physical’?” “Does it exist independent of mental or not?” “If not, then how do mental and physical relate?”
I somehow have the suspicion that ‘physical’ is ‘knowledge’ up to the formation of ‘self’, and ‘mental’ are the ‘considerations’ that come about after the formation of the self.
‘Self’ precipitates with attachment to considerations. ‘Logic’ precipitates with association among considerations. So, ‘Self’ and ‘mental’ are ‘logical’ but ‘physical’ is not logical. Now here I get lost.
.
There seems to be a different kind of ‘logic’ among physical element, which is being discovered by the physicists through empirical means. Could that level of ‘logic’ also underlie the regular logic that we use?
Is there a ‘logic’ that brings about the logic that we use?
This is getting crazy.
.
If we use the word and concept of sublimation we can account for the seeming disappearance of the dissonance within disturbing thoughts when we look closely at them.
If we use the word and the concept of desublimation or deposition (from physics) we can account for the seeming magical appearance of thoughts and other more substantial matter from nothing.
Written another way, we can use commonplace physics terminology to account for the seemingly metaphysical occurrences of which we are aware but for which we apparently have no explanation. We just need to know them and apply them.
Hello Vinaire,
Excellent definitions. Now that I understand what you mean by the three terms and their relationships, I’ll contemplate. I feel you are very, very close to making the connection you seek. I’ll be back. This is exciting.
Warm regards,
Nia
Well, your responses are encouraging. It is better to have three minds working on this problem instead of two.
.
No
They interrelate. This is the core question.
No
problem here is with the word “after”
It is fun to play here. Thank you for inviting me.
Nia
Oh! You can play all you want here. The more the merrier.
By default, considerations would be those thoughts, ideas etc., that one is attached to.
We may define “knowledge”as those considerations that one is not attached to at all.
.
Chris, I like your physics concepts above. I will look at that.
Vinaire,
In that sense of knowledge, then yes, physical is knowledge. But not just.
What else is knowledge?
What else is physical? (What other things are physical, besides considerations?)
And what other properties are there of physical? (Besides considerations?)
Hint:
desire
becomes knowledge (and “experience”).
But also, knowledge precedes desire. (Hence above problem with “after”.)
(This is where you can go deeper into 46.)
But back to this topic. What other property (besides springing from consideration) does knowledge itself have, having been created and also being creator?
Chris said: https://vinaire.wordpress.com/2012/12/01/philosophy-project/#comment-7699
That is a good point.
.
Thanks Vinaire. And written yet one more way, we may no longer need a nothing to understand our origins.
“Nothing” seems to have a gradient. 🙂
.
hehe, possibly yes, but maybe ultimately not a nothing!
Nia said: https://vinaire.wordpress.com/2012/12/01/philosophy-project/#comment-7709
Yes those are good points to mcontemplate on.. Please note that we are dealing with layers like those of an onion. The analogy of a spherical shell may be used for a layer. On this surface of this layer there can be no “before” or “after” because each point is on a circle. There is nothing that is linear as required for “before” and “after”. Thus, a desire to know may lead to perception; and a perception may then lead to further desire to know.
I don’t like using the words “created” and “creator”. The consideration here was sorted out in the section on “First cause.” I think that the knowledge portion simply appears per the “first cause” principle. It is later at the level of consideration that “cause-effect” relationships are affected.
.
Aha! this gives me a new idea… The attachment is not between some “self” and a consideration. The attachment is actually the “hooking” of considerations with each other into a rigid structure.
🙂
My earlier response was bizarre. That’s because I quoted you using angle brackets which were read as html code and so they didn’t show up! I need to re-do that and then catch up here. I can’t believe it… talk about matter appearing and disappearing!
Back later with complete text.
Hello Friends,
I have much catching up to do here! I look forward to it very much but until I have time to do so, I am correcting this post of mine:
https://vinaire.wordpress.com/2012/12/01/philosophy-project/#comment-7706
VINAIRE: “What is this attribute called ‘physical’?” “Does it exist independent of mental or not?”
NIA: No
VINAIRE: “If not, then how do mental and physical relate?”
NIA: They interrelate. This is the core question.
VINAIRE “‘physical’ is ‘knowledge’”
NIA: Yes (Note: Because of subsequent post by you, I changed my mind. In my first post, I thought No. Now I think Yes.)
VINAIRE: “and ‘mental’ are the ‘considerations’ that come about after the formation of the self.”
NIA: problem here is with the word “after”
quoting VINAIRE: “THIRTY-SIX: Perception starts with a desire to know. Almost immediately it becomes experience.”
NIA: Look at “starts” and “almost immediately.” (I like “almost immediately,” but I think:) Desire becomes knowledge. But also, knowledge precedes desire.
(Note: You addressed the before and after issue with your shell comment. I will come back to this. I have a question the definition of sherical in that comment.
You also addressed before and after with this comment: VINAIRE: “I don’t like using the words “created” and “creator”. The consideration here was sorted out in the section on “First cause.” I think that the knowledge portion simply appears per the “first cause” principle. It is later at the level of consideration that “cause-effect” relationships are affected.” NIA: I would like not to dance away so quickly here, to pause and contemplate more deeply. I need to reconsider your first cause principle. Then I would like to look very carefully at desire to know, trying not to be trapped by the trickery of time.)
I will be back as soon as I can to look more into this, which I find most intriguing:
VINAIRE: “‘Self’ precipitates with attachment to considerations. ‘Logic’ precipitates with association among considerations. So, ‘Self’ and ‘mental’ are ‘logical’ but ‘physical’ is not logical. Now here I get lost.”
And also into the subsequent, very intriguing comments. (It’s going to take a moment to contemplate Nothing for example. I look forward to diving into that thread.)
In the meantime, one question I have on one of your follow-on comments, Vinaire: I am not familiar with the term “sherical”. Do you refer to the striations that occur in the analogous shell, the lines that demarcate the shell’s development (over time)?
Warm regards,
Nia
Thanks for your feedback, Nia. You sure are showing your skills at this game of looking at things as they are, and not just as they seem to be.
Yes, mental and physical interrelate. But how?
It seems that physical are the “first cause” characteristics. These attributes simply appeared. There is no rhyme or reason underlying them. Mental are the considerations about the physical. Logic enters at this stage and with that enters the idea of cause and effect.
Any interelated group pf considerations may be looked upon as a set of considerations. There is no separate self that gets attached to considerations. Self is simply the resultant of this set of considerations. So, I would have to redefine the old concept of ‘attachment’ from Eastern philosophy. Attachment would be the degree of tightness among the considerations in this set. This is another way of looking at condensation among considerations.
The more tightness is there among a set of considerations, the more solid the resultant “self” would appear to be. The less tight they are, the lighter the self would appear. One may say that there is a gradient of self. It was inaccurate to use the words ‘before’ and ‘after’ in relation to self.
“THIRTY-SIX: Perception starts with a desire to know. Almost immediately it becomes experience.”
I wrote that because according to wikipedia, the exact perceptual content survives for a duration of few hundred milliseconds only before it fades away. Desire is the driving force underlying perception. Perception is knowledge, which becomes subject to consideration within a few hundred milliseconds of being perceived. Maybe, I should say,
“THIRTY-SIX: Perception is driven by a desire to know. Almost immediately it becomes experience.”
But looks like I have already revised the section on KNOWLEDGE. I now have:
THIRTY-ONE: Separation generates the desire to know. The desire generates perception. The perception of ‘what-is’ is Knowledge.
There is a typo in my shell comment, which seemed to have thrown you off. What I meant was “spherical shell” I missed typing the letter “p” in the word “spherical” so it appeared as “sherical”. Sorry about that.
The “First Cause” principle is the sudden appearance of a manifestation. Here I get the picture of an “electron-positron” pair appearing from nothing. It is the opposite of electron and positron annhilating each other into nothing. In my view, what causes this sudden appearnce is some kind of “separation” because the union leads to annhilation. “Separation” is the essential characteristic of Space. So, the sudden appearance is accompanied by space. I mentioned this at
EIGHT: All perception is thought to involve separation from manifestation.
NINE: Thus there is the consideration of SPACE.
Here I was looking at the sudden emergence of the “manifestation – perception point” pair. In other words, the manifestation and perception point appeared from nothing (or, unknowable) because of some kind of separation.
In my view, TIME is something relative. It is one duration relative to another duration. And duration comes about due to condensation as we talked about it earlier. I don’t know how durable “first principle” characteristics are, but later considerations become durable by locking into each other. So, the more attachment there is the more solid and durable something becomes.
Considerations do come about as a result of “attachment” to “first cause” characteristics. So the “first cause” characteristics may have no duration at all. And the considerations will have increasing duration as the attachment or condensation increases.
So TIME is an illusion that comes about because of attachment.
This seems to lead to the conclusion that all reality is persisting because of attachment to ‘physical’. If the attachment is not there, the physical will simply evaporate.
This is new area for me. Thank you very much for your help, Nia.
.
Vinaire,
I think you nailed it. I find this thrilling.
I am going to take a peek at your maths next.
Nia
It is good to know that you think that way. I have been living and breathing this stuff for years, and I have hardly scratched the surface. It is thrilling indeed!
My math stuff is mostly for children. Do you have children?
Math is my first love. I still tutor math, and I do it on Skype too.
.
Hello Vinaire,
Oh, I see. No, I do not have children (directly) and so have not yet experienced being around little ones (was the youngest in my family, by a fair amount). But I will hopefully soon have grandchildren so your math will come in handy!
I thought perhaps you had derived and induced the mathematics of your grand unified theory of all that is. But, not yet, then. 😉
Nia
Ha! You expect too much.
Well, math is just another form of logic. Actually it is pure logic. It is a limited system to ensure consistency. I am all for consistency.
But, like logic, the usefulness of math is to determine where to look. But it does not do the looking for you. The Philosophy Project is quite mathematical actually. But is not complicated enough yet to start using mathematical symbols. I would like to keep it simple. 🙂
.
Well said. I agree.
Nia
Looks like we are not very much attached to the Higgs particle… 🙂
Hi Vinaire,
What do you think of the term “consciousness?” Do you think it could be a synonym for “perception?”
Thanks,
Nia
I would .
Thank you, Chris. That is a help.
Nia
If perception point is the organizing principle of the gathered considerations,
if consciousness is the organizing principle of a cluster of considerations,
and if a weak cluster of considerations is faded
and a strong cluster of considerations is solid,
then what is the perception point when the fading fades to zero
and the solid condenses back into itself as a black hole?
Nia
I see consciousness as having the awareness of input to the senses. It is then followed by perception. Perception brings about the specifics. Consciousness is more general.
.
Vinaire: It seems that physical are the “first cause” characteristics. These attributes simply appeared. There is no rhyme or reason underlying them.
Vinaire: THIRTY-ONE: Separation generates the desire to know. The desire generates perception. The perception of ‘what-is’ is Knowledge
Nia: I think that physical springs from desire to know also. But I can’t provide a proof so handily as you; perhaps you can consider?
Warm regards,
Nia
I have modified and added the following to the PHILOSOPHY PROJECT.
.
SELF:
[All perception ends as knowledge. Knowledge has many layers, such as, experience, information, hypotheses, theories, principles and axioms. Considerations arise as the perception point interacts with knowledge. As considerations become fixed, the perception point becomes a “center of consideration” analogous to the concept of “center of mass” in Physics. This is SELF.]
THIRTY-SIX: Perception starts with a desire to know. Almost immediately it becomes experience.
THIRTY-SEVEN: Over time, experience is converted into information. Information then leads to hypothesis. Hypothesis generates theory. From theory are derived principles. Principles are consolidated into axioms. Axioms are then condensed and incorporated as self.
THIRTY-EIGHT: Thus, the spectrum of knowledge consists of experience, information, hypotheses, theories, principles, and axioms.
THIRTY-NINE: Considerations arise as the perception point interacts with knowledge.
FORTY: To the degree these considerations become fixed, the perception point becomes the “center of considerations” analogous to “center of mass” in Physics. This “center of considerations” is SELF.
.
CONSIDERATIONS:
[When confronted with perception, the desire to know results in interpretation, speculation, conjecture, assumption, etc. These are considerations, which acquire name and form. This then gives rise to language and human knowledge.]
FORTY-ONE: Considerations may be categorized as interpretation, speculation, conjecture, assumption, etc.
FORTY-TWO: Considerations are generated by a desire to know.
FORTY-THREE: “God,” “Prime Mover Unmoved” “Uncaused Cause,” “Supreme Being,” “Unconditioned Being,” etc. become considerations when they are given name and form.
FORTY-FOUR: Thus, considerations come into existence as name and form.
FORTY-FIVE: Thus there is language and human knowledge.
.
Amazing!!
I will never think of the world the same
Wonderful to have you on the same wave-length. Not many people will look at it the way you and I do. 🙂
I have added the following to the PHILOSOPHY PROJECT:
FILTER:
[There is manifestation. There is perception of that manifestation when the perception-point separates from the manifestation. Thus, space is introduced. Space consists of a layer of considerations generated with the perception-point. This layer of considerations acts as a filter through which perception takes place. The filtered perception becomes the UNIVERSE. This perception-point looking through the filter becomes SELF. The self develops individuality through the generation of unique considerations.]
FORTY-SIX: There seems to be a level of knowledge before SELF comes into being.
FORTY-SEVEN: Then we have a level of considerations generated with SELF. This provides another level of knowledge.
FORTY-EIGHT: The second layer is generated in reaction to the first layer of knowledge. It acts as an interpretative layer over the original knowledge.
FORTY-NINE: Thus comes about a FILTER unique to the self, which modifies perception.
FIFTY: This filter defines the SELF. It also defines the UNIVERSE for the self. It is made up of considerations generated with the self.
.
The time of space-time seems no more a secondary manifestation than does the effect of cause-effect.
I am revising the last few sections. The section on KNOWLEDGE is revised as follows:
KNOWLEDGE:
[From separation comes the desire to know. From desire comes the perception of ‘what-is’. From perception comes knowledge. The separation is manifested as space, from which come manifestations of energy and matter. The primary knowledge is perception, from which come experience, information, hypotheses, theories, principles, axioms, etc.]
THIRTY-ONE: Separation generates the desire to know. The desire generates perception. The perception of ‘what-is’ is Knowledge.
THIRTY-TWO: What is primarily manifested is separation, or space. From space come transformations, such as, energy and matter.
THIRTY-THREE: The perception of separation is the primary knowledge. From perception come transformations, such as, experience, information, hypotheses, theories, principles and axioms.
THIRTY-FOUR: All manifestations are relative and so is their knowledge.
THIRTY-FIVE: There is no absolute manifestation. There is no absolute knowledge.
.
The section on CONSIDERATIONS is revised as follows:
CONSIDERATIONS:
[As perception point interacts with knowledge thoughts arise. These thoughts may be classified as ideas, assumptions, expectations, suppositions, conjectures, speculations, etc. These are considerations that acquire name and form.]
THIRTY-SIX: Considerations (thoughts, ideas, assumptions, expectations, suppositions, conjectures, speculations, etc.) arise as the perception point interacts with knowledge.
THIRTY-SEVEN: Primary considerations come from the recognition of “first cause” characteristics of manifestations.
THIRTY-EIGHT: Secondary considerations come from the understanding of “cause and effect” relationships among manifestations.
THIRTY-NINE: “God,” “Prime Mover Unmoved” “Uncaused Cause,” “Supreme Being,” “Unconditioned Being,” etc. are considerations that are given name and form.
FORTY: As they acquire name and form, the considerations come into general currency.
.
The section on SELF is revised as follows:
SELF:
[As considerations acquire name and form they become fixed. From this come transformations, such as, symbols, pictures, feelings, emotions, impulses, etc. The perception point appears to be the center of these considerations analogous to the “center of mass” in Physics. This is SELF. Considerations give rise to judgments that seem to be coming from self.]
FORTY-ONE: As considerations acquire name and form they develop a structure and become relatively rigid or fixed.
FORTY-TWO: From this structure of considerations come transformations, such as, symbols, pictures, feelings, emotions, impulses, etc. Thus come about means for communication, such as, language.
FORTY-THREE: As these considerations become relatively rigid or fixed, the perception point appears to be the center of these considerations analogous to the “center of mass” in Physics. This is SELF.
FORTY-FOUR: The perception gets filtered through the structure of considerations that make up the SELF, before it reaches the perception point.
FORTY-FIVE: The filtered perception gives rise to judgments that seem to be coming from SELF. This determines the view of existence, the Universe and also the view of self.
.
I have eliminated the section on FILTER for now as it is addressed under the section on SELF.
.