>The answer to this question must be maintained as forever undecidable.
>The formalisation of the indistinguishablity of the difference is achieved by
>gender - the most elementary and fundamental form of relative typing. The
>(feminine) entity which _has_ an attribute is different but indistinguishable
>from the (masculine) entity which _is_ this attribute. Given one, you can
>never absolutely know which one. Using the gender construct the entities of
>theory/consciousness can potentially be expressed as being different but
>indistinguishable from the entities of theory-object/reality.
Two sides of the same coin?
>Formalising the Starting Point
>=====================
[snip Mathematical Category Theory]
>What this means is that the theory -expressed in terms of its representations
>- must be *starting point invariant*. In other words, no matter where you
>start and what you start with, you always get the same (generic) theory.
>Relativity theories rely on invariants. In the Special Theory in physics, the
>invariant is the speed of light. In the absolute relativity theory of generic
>theory, the invariant is the Starting Point. (I started with this and got
>that...but what if I had started with that - the same theory should result)
>This places draconian constraints on the system. Working within these
>constraints I have been able to construct the first few of the elementary
>generic objects. (they are rather "quark like")
Okay, I may be waaaay out of my league here but doesn't the fact that you
can choose some starting point at all (A "That" or a "this") mean that there
is already a whole mess of stuff that is assumed in your starting point?
That is, I take it that you have to start with some "thing" which is already
"out there". As "a thing that is out there", it already has all the
qualities that you are trying to explain it into having.
To once again oversimplify an idea I got after reading heidegger:
Heidegger realized what Eastern philosophers always knew, there is
no part without the whole and Dasein has to already understand the whole
before the parts can become clear (The room and the tools example from B&T).
Take the room you are in as the entirety of the "whole" (I know, problems
will already arise from this but let us not dwell on the nature of the
infinite). All the "stuff" in your room only make sense in light of the
room. Heidegger showed us that "room" was already understood within our
understanding of the stuff in the room (the equipmental totality). In the
Eastern tradition the conceprt of "room" is centered upon. In the Western
tradition the concept of "stuff" is centered on. (Stuff works better for
science, Room seems better for *religion*)
For a long time Western philosophers have realized that you can not
add up all the stuff and arrive at the conceprt of room, but this has
generally been ignored by Western science. For a shorter period of time
Western scince (especially the British/American tradition) has used the fact
that you can not adaquately explain "room" using "stuff" to completelt
ignore the concept of "room" all together. Then, with Quantum and other
high level physics, Sceintists began being able to see that there just might
be a "room". They could not explain it but they could see it. There is a
rather large hurdle that comes along with this (which is why I do not see
Grand Unification Theory getting realized very soon). You can not build an
adequate theory of room out of stuff but, to get rid of stuff would be to
undermine the basis for modern science. No idealogy (like science) with as
much history as modern science has, is going to be willing to let go of very
workable basic premises and "axioms" in order to build a bridge that will
get them from where they are (stuff) to what they finally see (room). So
they are stuck trying to explain "room" using "stuff" which many of them
realize will never work.
How does this realte to your very complex (and from what I can tell
- extremely interesting, theory)? Well, I am not quite sure. Years of
studying arguments tells me that it does but I can not quite reach across
the gap of my own low understanding of math and such. What I would say is
that your dualism already encompasses many of the *cosmic* rules and
regulations that it will be trying to explain. Similarly, modern sciences
positionm of starting with stuff already includes and understanding of
"room" and, as such, can never adequately explain "room" using its own
axioms and principles (the fact that it starts with an understanding of what
"room" I see as considerably more important than the fact that it starts
with an understanding of what "stuff" is as well).
Perhaps James (and modern science) is right. Maybe we should not
even bother worrying about whether we can get there from here. Hell Bradley
has already told us that the Absolute is impossible to describe. Let's just
drop it. Whatever works best, subject to Occam, is what is "real".
That feels strangely unsatisfactory too, doesn't it? I guess we
have to keep plugging away at it though.
[snip - a large section]
>The choice is thus to presuppose a Truth of possibilities or not to
>presuppose. As long as this "taking of sides" is never evaluated (left to
>within a subjective choice one way or the other) then you can have no
>objection.
Oh, talk to my thesis advisor and ex-profs.... I can always have an
objection. (smile)
>This is the idea. To elaborate to complete satisfaction would take us off the
>air I think.
Too true, although I would love to continue this.
N N I K K William NIcKolas Lenco
NN N I K K 67A Charlotte Street
N N N I K K Fredericton
N N N I KKK New Brunswick
N N N I K K E3B 1L1
N N N I K K (506) 454-1113
N NN I K K c6v9@xxxxxx
"We think in generalities, but we live in detail."
-A.N.Whitehead
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------
>The formalisation of the indistinguishablity of the difference is achieved by
>gender - the most elementary and fundamental form of relative typing. The
>(feminine) entity which _has_ an attribute is different but indistinguishable
>from the (masculine) entity which _is_ this attribute. Given one, you can
>never absolutely know which one. Using the gender construct the entities of
>theory/consciousness can potentially be expressed as being different but
>indistinguishable from the entities of theory-object/reality.
Two sides of the same coin?
>Formalising the Starting Point
>=====================
[snip Mathematical Category Theory]
>What this means is that the theory -expressed in terms of its representations
>- must be *starting point invariant*. In other words, no matter where you
>start and what you start with, you always get the same (generic) theory.
>Relativity theories rely on invariants. In the Special Theory in physics, the
>invariant is the speed of light. In the absolute relativity theory of generic
>theory, the invariant is the Starting Point. (I started with this and got
>that...but what if I had started with that - the same theory should result)
>This places draconian constraints on the system. Working within these
>constraints I have been able to construct the first few of the elementary
>generic objects. (they are rather "quark like")
Okay, I may be waaaay out of my league here but doesn't the fact that you
can choose some starting point at all (A "That" or a "this") mean that there
is already a whole mess of stuff that is assumed in your starting point?
That is, I take it that you have to start with some "thing" which is already
"out there". As "a thing that is out there", it already has all the
qualities that you are trying to explain it into having.
To once again oversimplify an idea I got after reading heidegger:
Heidegger realized what Eastern philosophers always knew, there is
no part without the whole and Dasein has to already understand the whole
before the parts can become clear (The room and the tools example from B&T).
Take the room you are in as the entirety of the "whole" (I know, problems
will already arise from this but let us not dwell on the nature of the
infinite). All the "stuff" in your room only make sense in light of the
room. Heidegger showed us that "room" was already understood within our
understanding of the stuff in the room (the equipmental totality). In the
Eastern tradition the conceprt of "room" is centered upon. In the Western
tradition the concept of "stuff" is centered on. (Stuff works better for
science, Room seems better for *religion*)
For a long time Western philosophers have realized that you can not
add up all the stuff and arrive at the conceprt of room, but this has
generally been ignored by Western science. For a shorter period of time
Western scince (especially the British/American tradition) has used the fact
that you can not adaquately explain "room" using "stuff" to completelt
ignore the concept of "room" all together. Then, with Quantum and other
high level physics, Sceintists began being able to see that there just might
be a "room". They could not explain it but they could see it. There is a
rather large hurdle that comes along with this (which is why I do not see
Grand Unification Theory getting realized very soon). You can not build an
adequate theory of room out of stuff but, to get rid of stuff would be to
undermine the basis for modern science. No idealogy (like science) with as
much history as modern science has, is going to be willing to let go of very
workable basic premises and "axioms" in order to build a bridge that will
get them from where they are (stuff) to what they finally see (room). So
they are stuck trying to explain "room" using "stuff" which many of them
realize will never work.
How does this realte to your very complex (and from what I can tell
- extremely interesting, theory)? Well, I am not quite sure. Years of
studying arguments tells me that it does but I can not quite reach across
the gap of my own low understanding of math and such. What I would say is
that your dualism already encompasses many of the *cosmic* rules and
regulations that it will be trying to explain. Similarly, modern sciences
positionm of starting with stuff already includes and understanding of
"room" and, as such, can never adequately explain "room" using its own
axioms and principles (the fact that it starts with an understanding of what
"room" I see as considerably more important than the fact that it starts
with an understanding of what "stuff" is as well).
Perhaps James (and modern science) is right. Maybe we should not
even bother worrying about whether we can get there from here. Hell Bradley
has already told us that the Absolute is impossible to describe. Let's just
drop it. Whatever works best, subject to Occam, is what is "real".
That feels strangely unsatisfactory too, doesn't it? I guess we
have to keep plugging away at it though.
[snip - a large section]
>The choice is thus to presuppose a Truth of possibilities or not to
>presuppose. As long as this "taking of sides" is never evaluated (left to
>within a subjective choice one way or the other) then you can have no
>objection.
Oh, talk to my thesis advisor and ex-profs.... I can always have an
objection. (smile)
>This is the idea. To elaborate to complete satisfaction would take us off the
>air I think.
Too true, although I would love to continue this.
N N I K K William NIcKolas Lenco
NN N I K K 67A Charlotte Street
N N N I K K Fredericton
N N N I KKK New Brunswick
N N N I K K E3B 1L1
N N N I K K (506) 454-1113
N NN I K K c6v9@xxxxxx
"We think in generalities, but we live in detail."
-A.N.Whitehead
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------