|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Apr 26, 2019 18:10:40 GMT
Intuition is grounded in the symmetry between "emotions" and abstract/empirical realities and as such it is logical in the respect it is "order". Intuition is deemed correct if it is symmetrical to the phenomena it points towards (such as leading to an idea or empirical phenomena) a phenomena in a manner where a connection is observed. This connection is grounded in symmetry.
This symmetry is grounded in a basic being/non-being/nothing trichotomy. For example if my "intuition" gives a "bad feeling" about an event and the event turns out to be "disordered" a symmetry is observed considering "disorder" and "bad", while variations of the same concept due to language ambiguity problems which ironically cycle to this example itself, observe the same state.
The nature of "intuition", due to its implication to an absence of form (considering all intellect is generally observed as a defining process of connecting and seperating variables), is fundamentally one of "origin" so to speak. Intuition effectively, because of these previously mentioned absence of form, is an origin of consciousness synonymous to field of awareness where a circumstance is summated in general terms (ie "this situation is bad" example above observes the nature of intuition paradoxically being rooted in platonic generalities which cycle back to certain platonic foundations of knowledge as strictly "justified belief" or in even simpler more objective terms: "assumption").
This generality, as in all generalities, observes a state of unity where various multiple phenomena have a "state of being", if such wording is accurate, under a form that represents a summation of parts; hence is subject to and conducive to "order" considering order itself is always grounded both logically and intuitively in a "whole" as "relation of parts" where this "relation" effectively observes all generalities and forms as generalities as boundaries of movement where one part effectively exists through another part by its relative direction to and from that part.
Movement is particulation, in these respects, as movement is grounded in the particularization that sends the fundamental grounds for "change". Generalities, as boundaries of change, are boundaries of movement as a summation of parts of unifying of multiplicity.
In these respects "intuition" and its inherent connection to generalities has a logical nature to it in the respect it acts as a point of origin in the nature of observation with this "origin" not only being the foundation of structure but interwoven within the structure itself. This "interwoven" nature of intuition in all phenomena can be observed in the nature of "esthetics", to some degree, where a grouping of forms through a painting, set of words, equations, or empirical sensory phenomena itself (such as a view of river, a beautiful woman, or an act of courage for a friend) observes that all "relations" as "localizations" of "one reality" effectively always have some "point of origin" in themselves or sense of "emotional" connection whereby the observer has a formless sense that summates the percieved experience.
This formless sense effectively is directed to another formless sense thereby observing an inherent connective/seperative capacity, founded in the intellectual state, such as observing the beauty of tree under a grouping of one set of emotions while inherently directing to a changed intuitive/emotive capacity under the observation of a dead rotting squirrel beside it. In this sense the projection of one intuition, in this respect emotion as a generalization of a specific context of existence, to another has the same characteristic defining attributes of "logic" and as such is dualistic in nature of the intellectual state (or empirical/physical sensory state depending on the starting point of ones observations in this subject).
|
|
|
Post by archlogician on May 30, 2019 1:38:56 GMT
Interesting, though I worry my background may be inadequate to fully understand your proposal. If you would humor my attempt to understand what you are proposing in terms of constructs I am already acquainted with, then I would offer forth the following questions:
1. Would it be reasonable to characterise this notion of dual symmetry as essentially constituting an analogue of a correspondence theory of truth, where-in the notion of truth is substituted for appropriateness of emotional assessment?
2. Would you say an intuition then is an act whose act type is that of ascribing an emotional state to a situation?
3. Is this idea of a "point of origin" in effect some notion of empirical basis for justifying the act of forming an intuition?
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 30, 2019 22:21:55 GMT
Interesting, though I worry my background may be inadequate to fully understand your proposal. If you would humor my attempt to understand what you are proposing in terms of constructs I am already acquainted with, then I would offer forth the following questions: 1. Would it be reasonable to characterise this notion of dual symmetry as essentially constituting an analogue of a correspondence theory of truth, where-in the notion of truth is substituted for appropriateness of emotional assessment? 2. Would you say an intuition then is an act whose act type is that of ascribing an emotional state to a situation? 3. Is this idea of a "point of origin" in effect some notion of empirical basis for justifying the act of forming an intuition? Both rational axioms (for example: 2+2=4 in mathematics, the principle of identity in logic, or observing a bird fly in the sky) and emotional states are grounded in fundamentally "assumption" where we have a point of view which is fundamentally "formless" and is impressed by these phenomena. The rational axioms are impressed upon the observer and assumed according to there emotional state (interested, bored, excited, etc.) where the emotional state acts as a formless template in which the knowledge is embodied. In these respects "emotion" acts as a grounding for self-evidence. Dually the knowledge results in an emotion. One may assume (ie "recieve" or be imprinted) by a phenomena and an emotional state occurs and is given form. The axiom, let's say a simple line between two points, has no form in the state of self evidence unless some emotional state is tied with it as the emotions (much like the process of reason itself) operate throught the same connecting/separating qualities. If one feels connected they feel a sense of joy. Seperated a sense of sorrow. Injustice (ie disorder in some aspect of reality equivalent to seperation) "anger". Etc. Emotions have a recursive quality to that of intellectual reasoning in these respects as they are various forms/functions of the same connective/seperative qualities that are the underlying foundation for how reality exists by a process of definition. In simpler terms emotions and intellect effectively are isomorphisms of eachother and almost fundamentally the same thing. However if we look at it empirical where reason leads to an emotion which leads to reason which leads to emotion...etc. what we are observing is a form of recursion (ie a process of repitition where certain qualities are repeated through a constant variation). An example of this recursive/isomorphic dualism would be: I see a sparrow in my intellect. The sparrow is reasoned into a form by connecting certain attributes (wings/head) and seperating others (the bird against the sky). An emotion occurs of "levity" where one is "flying" or disconnected. Reason then occurs where this feeling of disconnection is defined by observing a seperation from earth. The earth is then observed emotionally as connected to base "warmness" mixed with "dirtiness" (impurity or a sense of divided states within the individual that one feels at home with). This connection to a state of dissonection is then reasoned intellectual where one connects being on earth with certain activities such as eating/sex/etc. And the example goes on. Now this is an example. Different states may be observed relative to the relative perspective of the observer however we see a isomorphism/recurcive nature occur: 1. A form of connection is observed which alternates to between connection and disconnection of phenomena within each state. The bird is defined through connection and disconnection. So is the earth. So are the emotions. 2. Each state of awareness replicates a variation of this base connection/seperation. A sparrow replicates into levity. Earth replicates into a state of impure warmth. Etc. 3. The isomorphism occurs where connection of certain phenomena is the dual replication of some seperation. The connection of the sparrows qualites exists through its seperation from the sky. The sky is connected by its seperation from the sparrow. The earth is connected by its seperation from the sparrow and sky as connected (and inversely). etc. Etc. Each act of localizing some observed reality is grounded in isomorphism in these respects and this isomorphism is the foundational grounding of consciousness or "inversion" where each axiom is nothing in itself except through the other and all axioms are everything as a summation of everything...with this again being an isomorphism where all axioms are both everything and nothing. Dually "isomorphism" itself is an axiom falling under this same nature resulting in an "isomorphism of isomorphism" thus leading to recursion. Emotion and reasoning (as a process of definition) effectively are one and the same and any percieved seperation is grounded under the divisive aspect of time where we approximate "the one" (including the self as "the one through the one but not the one in and of itself). I may have to clarify some points.
|
|
sculptor
Full Member
Posts: 121
Likes: 20
Meta-Ethnicity: Homonid
Ethnicity: Sapiens Sapiens
Country: United Kingdon of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Region: South
Location: Brighton
Ancestry: Homo Sapiens
Taxonomy: Mammalian
mtDNA: From mt EVE
Politics: Left
Religion: None
Relationship Status: MYOB
Hero: My Grandmother
Age: too old
Philosophy: Always
|
Post by sculptor on Jun 7, 2019 17:53:05 GMT
It is clear that people are struggling to understand the term Logic on this Forum. I can only imagine that people have gleaned the meaning of the word as a legacy of Mr. Spock on Star Trek who famously misuses the term constantly.
|
|
|
Post by archlogician on Jun 8, 2019 2:18:05 GMT
It is clear that people are struggling to understand the term Logic on this Forum. I can only imagine that people have gleaned the meaning of the word as a legacy of Mr. Spock on Star Trek who famously misuses the term constantly. There is indeed a tension between dismissing certain language on merit of apparent misuse of technical terms, versus accepting these apparent misuses as an attempt to arrive at alternative theories of such concepts that these terms denote. Addressing the term "logic" in particular, I rather dislike the expansion of the term "logic" to encompass anything more than the art and science of reasoning in a manner which preserves the truth of premises in the conclusions arrived at, with the idea of "a logic" being then a codification (preferably as a formal system) of a system of rules alongside a semantic theory by which they may be assessed, i.e. completeness and soundness. As such, the property of being "logical" is always with respect to such a codification, and hence has no absolute meaning. Rather, "rationality" seems the better word for what "logical" is taken, informally, to refer to. This of course is perhaps too narrow to encompass logic as conceptualised more broadly within rhetoric and the humanities, but within the field of philosophical logic it is a very natural demarcation to make.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 8, 2019 16:13:14 GMT
It is clear that people are struggling to understand the term Logic on this Forum. I can only imagine that people have gleaned the meaning of the word as a legacy of Mr. Spock on Star Trek who famously misuses the term constantly. It is clear that those who provide no argument for their stance have no understanding of what they claim others misunderstand. Logic: Logic is the systematic study of the form of valid inference, and the most general laws of truth en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LogicAnd it is a derivative of the greek word Logos: Logos (UK: /ˈloʊɡɒs, ˈlɒɡɒs/, US: /ˈloʊɡoʊs/; Ancient Greek: λόγος, romanized: lógos; from λέγω, légō, lit. 'I say') is a term in Western philosophy, psychology, rhetoric, and religion derived from a Greek word variously meaning "ground", "plea", "opinion", "expectation", "word", "speech", "account", "reason", "proportion", and "discourse".[1][2] It became a technical term in Western philosophy beginning with Heraclitus (c. 535 – c. 475 BC), who used the term for a principle of order and knowledge.[3] Ancient Greek philosophers used the term in different ways. The sophists used the term to mean discourse. Aristotle applied the term to refer to "reasoned discourse"[4] or "the argument" in the field of rhetoric, and considered it one of the three modes of persuasion alongside ethos and pathos.[5] Pyrrhonist philosophers used the term to refer to dogmatic accounts of non-evident matters. The Stoics spoke of the logos spermatikos (the generative principle of the Universe) which foreshadows related concepts in Neoplatonism.[6] Within Hellenistic Judaism, Philo (c. 20 BC – c. 50 AD) adopted the term into Jewish philosophy.[7] Philo distinguished between logos prophorikos ("the uttered word") and the logos endiathetos ("the word remaining within").[8] The Gospel of John identifies the Christian Logos, through which all things are made, as divine (theos),[9] and further identifies Jesus Christ as the incarnate Logos. Early translators of the Greek New Testament such as Jerome (in the 4th century AD) were frustrated by the inadequacy of any single Latin word to convey the meaning of the word logos as used to describe Jesus Christ in the Gospel of John. The Vulgate Bible usage of in principio erat verbum was thus constrained to use the (perhaps inadequate) noun verbum for "word", but later Romance language translations had the advantage of nouns such as le mot in French. Reformation translators took another approach. Martin Luther rejected Zeitwort (verb) in favor of Wort (word), for instance, although later commentators repeatedly turned to a more dynamic use involving the living word as felt by Jerome and Augustine.[10] The term is also used in Sufism, and the analytical psychology of Carl Jung. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LogosThus we can observe logic as the assumption of symbols through there connection and seperation, where the symbol itself is a process of assumption where the connection and seperation of symbols is the "dialogue" in and of itself.
|
|
sculptor
Full Member
Posts: 121
Likes: 20
Meta-Ethnicity: Homonid
Ethnicity: Sapiens Sapiens
Country: United Kingdon of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Region: South
Location: Brighton
Ancestry: Homo Sapiens
Taxonomy: Mammalian
mtDNA: From mt EVE
Politics: Left
Religion: None
Relationship Status: MYOB
Hero: My Grandmother
Age: too old
Philosophy: Always
|
Post by sculptor on Jun 10, 2019 18:34:59 GMT
I do not think my time is well spent on this Forum.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 11, 2019 22:32:24 GMT
I do not think my time is well spent on this Forum. You have no argument as to what "Logic" is or is not...what do you expect...to just take you on belief? Is that really logical?
|
|
sculptor
Full Member
Posts: 121
Likes: 20
Meta-Ethnicity: Homonid
Ethnicity: Sapiens Sapiens
Country: United Kingdon of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Region: South
Location: Brighton
Ancestry: Homo Sapiens
Taxonomy: Mammalian
mtDNA: From mt EVE
Politics: Left
Religion: None
Relationship Status: MYOB
Hero: My Grandmother
Age: too old
Philosophy: Always
|
Post by sculptor on Jun 12, 2019 20:44:51 GMT
I do not think my time is well spent on this Forum. You have no argument as to what "Logic" is or is not...what do you expect...to just take you on belief? Is that really logical? That's the point. It has nothing to do with logic and neither had this thread, which IS the point.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 12, 2019 21:54:33 GMT
You have no argument as to what "Logic" is or is not...what do you expect...to just take you on belief? Is that really logical? That's the point. It has nothing to do with logic and neither had this thread, which IS the point. And what is logic?
|
|
sculptor
Full Member
Posts: 121
Likes: 20
Meta-Ethnicity: Homonid
Ethnicity: Sapiens Sapiens
Country: United Kingdon of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Region: South
Location: Brighton
Ancestry: Homo Sapiens
Taxonomy: Mammalian
mtDNA: From mt EVE
Politics: Left
Religion: None
Relationship Status: MYOB
Hero: My Grandmother
Age: too old
Philosophy: Always
|
Post by sculptor on Jun 12, 2019 21:57:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 12, 2019 22:07:40 GMT
In regards to the first paragraphs: "This entry is concerned with the question as to whether the tradition and the intuitions that appear to underwrite it are correct." This section is an argument of definition grounded in concepts that, due to their nature of directing to further concepts, are symbolic by nature. "For present purposes, I will take a logic to be a specification of a relation of logical consequence on a set of truth-bearers." Symbols are "truth bearers" by nature due to their directive capacity towards truth. "Moreover, I will assume consequence relations to necessarily preserve truth in virtue of logical form." A logical fallacy of the first rule of the "Munchauseen Trillema" (All axioms are assumed) is required to define logic, hence we are left with a contradiction by the current laws of logic. In regards to Aristotle's Laws of Logic they contradict themselves: ((P=P) = (-P = -P)) → ¬ (P ∨ -P) arktos.boards.net/thread/4184/
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Jun 13, 2019 0:29:34 GMT
It is clear that people are struggling to understand the term Logic on this Forum. I can only imagine that people have gleaned the meaning of the word as a legacy of Mr. Spock on Star Trek who famously misuses the term constantly. It is clear that those who provide no argument for their stance have no understanding of what they claim others misunderstand. Logic: Logic is the systematic study of the form of valid inference, and the most general laws of truth en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LogicAnd it is a derivative of the greek word Logos: Logos (UK: /ˈloʊɡɒs, ˈlɒɡɒs/, US: /ˈloʊɡoʊs/; Ancient Greek: λόγος, romanized: lógos; from λέγω, légō, lit. 'I say') is a term in Western philosophy, psychology, rhetoric, and religion derived from a Greek word variously meaning "ground", "plea", "opinion", "expectation", "word", "speech", "account", "reason", "proportion", and "discourse".[1][2] It became a technical term in Western philosophy beginning with Heraclitus (c. 535 – c. 475 BC), who used the term for a principle of order and knowledge.[3] Ancient Greek philosophers used the term in different ways. The sophists used the term to mean discourse. Aristotle applied the term to refer to "reasoned discourse"[4] or "the argument" in the field of rhetoric, and considered it one of the three modes of persuasion alongside ethos and pathos.[5] Pyrrhonist philosophers used the term to refer to dogmatic accounts of non-evident matters. The Stoics spoke of the logos spermatikos (the generative principle of the Universe) which foreshadows related concepts in Neoplatonism.[6] Within Hellenistic Judaism, Philo (c. 20 BC – c. 50 AD) adopted the term into Jewish philosophy.[7] Philo distinguished between logos prophorikos ("the uttered word") and the logos endiathetos ("the word remaining within").[8] The Gospel of John identifies the Christian Logos, through which all things are made, as divine (theos),[9] and further identifies Jesus Christ as the incarnate Logos. Early translators of the Greek New Testament such as Jerome (in the 4th century AD) were frustrated by the inadequacy of any single Latin word to convey the meaning of the word logos as used to describe Jesus Christ in the Gospel of John. The Vulgate Bible usage of in principio erat verbum was thus constrained to use the (perhaps inadequate) noun verbum for "word", but later Romance language translations had the advantage of nouns such as le mot in French. Reformation translators took another approach. Martin Luther rejected Zeitwort (verb) in favor of Wort (word), for instance, although later commentators repeatedly turned to a more dynamic use involving the living word as felt by Jerome and Augustine.[10] The term is also used in Sufism, and the analytical psychology of Carl Jung. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LogosThus we can observe logic as the assumption of symbols through there connection and seperation, where the symbol itself is a process of assumption where the connection and seperation of symbols is the "dialogue" in and of itself. Logorrhea
Logos in John can be interpreted as "plan." "in the beginning was the word" makes no more sense than "In the beginning was the number." What word? It's better to think of Redemption as the plan. Also, astrology means that the movement of stars has some intentional plan, giving a purpose to what in reality has no meaning in the sense of omens, personality, and fortune-telling. Logos may actually be a homograph of different words, as is English second, meaning "section of a minute" and the differently derived second, "part of a sequence." Logos may even be related to the English like, select, and intelligence.
|
|
sculptor
Full Member
Posts: 121
Likes: 20
Meta-Ethnicity: Homonid
Ethnicity: Sapiens Sapiens
Country: United Kingdon of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Region: South
Location: Brighton
Ancestry: Homo Sapiens
Taxonomy: Mammalian
mtDNA: From mt EVE
Politics: Left
Religion: None
Relationship Status: MYOB
Hero: My Grandmother
Age: too old
Philosophy: Always
|
Post by sculptor on Jun 13, 2019 9:41:19 GMT
Pretending emotional or intuitive responses are logical is, not only, not possible, it is also an abuse of language.
Whilst you might be able to imagine post hoc rationalisation for emotions and intuitions, all you are doing is making the evidence fit the proposition - a proposition which is inherently false.
Emotion is not a response to reason whilst logic is a method of reason.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 17, 2019 22:01:11 GMT
Pretending emotional or intuitive responses are logical is, not only, not possible, it is also an abuse of language. Whilst you might be able to imagine post hoc rationalisation for emotions and intuitions, all you are doing is making the evidence fit the proposition - a proposition which is inherently false. Emotion is not a response to reason whilst logic is a method of reason. Or evidence lead to a proposition, the axiom of your argument is grounded in its directional properties (ie A leads to B) when given a certain framework B can lead to A.
|
|