|
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).
|
|
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 18, 2019 20:30:21 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. Does not change the fact of what I say.
|
|
|
Post by archlogician on Jun 18, 2019 21:12:48 GMT
If someone is given a book they requested and subsequently becomes violently angry, we might describe this emotional response as irrational. On the other hand, if they became grateful and happy, we might describe this emotional response as rational. In this sense, there is an intuitive notion of the rationality of an emotional response as originating from its coherence with the state of affairs, and our conventions for what reactions fit them as such. This structure is highly reminiscent of the idea of rationality as coherence of beliefs with (perceived) truths, and our conventions for interpretation of such beliefs.
|
|
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 19, 2019 7:59:39 GMT
If someone is given a book they requested and subsequently becomes violently angry, we might describe this emotional response as irrational. On the other hand, if they became grateful and happy, we might describe this emotional response as rational. In this sense, there is an intuitive notion of the rationality of an emotional response as originating from its coherence with the state of affairs, and our conventions for what reactions fit them as such. This structure is highly reminiscent of the idea of rationality as coherence of beliefs with (perceived) truths, and our conventions for interpretation of such beliefs. So a judgment in which logic cannot offer any insight is what you mean here.
|
|
|
Post by archlogician on Jun 19, 2019 14:43:09 GMT
If someone is given a book they requested and subsequently becomes violently angry, we might describe this emotional response as irrational. On the other hand, if they became grateful and happy, we might describe this emotional response as rational. In this sense, there is an intuitive notion of the rationality of an emotional response as originating from its coherence with the state of affairs, and our conventions for what reactions fit them as such. This structure is highly reminiscent of the idea of rationality as coherence of beliefs with (perceived) truths, and our conventions for interpretation of such beliefs. So a judgment in which logic cannot offer any insight is what you mean here. Fair enough, without a logical form underlying emotional states there is simply no concept of a formal inference rule to be developed in order to arrive at a "logic" of emotional responses. I agree with you that logic itself has little to do with this notion of emotional rationality. I think though that there remains the interesting proposal of trying to understand the structure of emotions and intuitions by analogy with the correspondence theory of truth. At least that is the interpretation I have made of the original proposal xxxxxxxx offered on this thread.
|
|
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 19, 2019 18:41:34 GMT
So a judgment in which logic cannot offer any insight is what you mean here. Fair enough, without a logical form underlying emotional states there is simply no concept of a formal inference rule to be developed in order to arrive at a "logic" of emotional responses. I agree with you that logic itself has little to do with this notion of emotional rationality. I think though that there remains the interesting proposal of trying to understand the structure of emotions and intuitions by analogy with the correspondence theory of truth. At least that is the interpretation I have made of the original proposal xxxxxxxx offered on this thread. Can we agree that xxxxx's opening gambit ["Intuition is grounded in the symmetry between "emotions" and abstract/empirical realities and as such it is logical in the respect it is "order""]. is not even wrong? It is just not coherent?
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 19, 2019 23:19:56 GMT
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. Does not change the fact of what I say. Actually it does because it observes an inherent isomorphic proposition (an inverted thesis/antithesis) that is necessated by your statement. If you say X leads to Y as a thesis, we must logically by default observe Y leads to X as a isomorphic antithetical statement considering all logical statements, as defined by their directional qualities, have inherently thetical/antithetical qualities strictly based upon the inversion of direction alone.
This is considering the axiom that direction is inseparable from any logical statement(s), and it is an axiom as the nature of assumption alone is grounded in a projective/receptive quality (considering when one "assumes" they either receive a projected axiom or they project an axiom so that it is received).
Thus the nature of thesis/antithesis is fundamentally grounded in the Hegelian dialectic as "awareness through isomorphism" in which all thetical statements are defined through the negative boundaries of the antithetical statements and vice versa (which can be further observed in the Cataphatic and Apophatic, positive/negative theology, of the philosopher Aquinas or the dualism between the wholistic and atomic schools of the presocratics which reverbate further with monotheism and paganism at the anthropomorphic religious level).
Thus all statements are grounded in paradox strictly because of their dualistic nature, and the Hegelian Dialect can be observed as fundamentally being a westernized version of eastern philosophy while simultaneously being a conceptualization of natural law (male/female reproductive dichotomy with the male/female anatomy sharing the same isomorphism) in such a manner where the paradox (as grounded in isomorphism) takes on the nature of Kantian noumena as it is the grounding of "appearance" considering a clear definitive boundary is given to the axiom in that it is defined through "existence" and "non-existence" under the various notion of "positive" and "negative", "being and non-being", etc.
Thus all axioms, and their paradoxical nature grounded in the dualism of thesis/antithesis, set the foundation for multiple manners of observation considering their linear directional nature relative to the field of logic (or empirical nature relative to that of time) always requires isomorphic properties strictly because the axiom of the line itself. And the axiom of the line is fundamentally simple: A line cannot project anywhere, unless there is somewhere to project, and considering the line as "projection" is defined by direction alone then the line must project relative to lines of differing directions considering one direction can only direct itself relative to others. In these respects, because of the nature of the axiom requiring direction (specifically logic in this case) then all axiom must have inherently thetical/anthitetical properties because of there assumed form and function of having spatial properties.
There is no contradiction in assuming the spatial properties of logic, in this manner, considering the nature of assumption as having directive qualities through its projective/receptive capacity (as argued above), is strictly a repetition of the vary same axioms in such a manner that assumption through assumption is the grounding of all form/function.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 19, 2019 23:22:35 GMT
Fair enough, without a logical form underlying emotional states there is simply no concept of a formal inference rule to be developed in order to arrive at a "logic" of emotional responses. I agree with you that logic itself has little to do with this notion of emotional rationality. I think though that there remains the interesting proposal of trying to understand the structure of emotions and intuitions by analogy with the correspondence theory of truth. At least that is the interpretation I have made of the original proposal xxxxxxxx offered on this thread. Can we agree that xxxxx's opening gambit ["Intuition is grounded in the symmetry between "emotions" and abstract/empirical realities and as such it is logical in the respect it is "order""]. is not even wrong? It is just not coherent? If you are grounding it on coherency, then you are subject to the fallacy of bandwagon as the measuring standard of your argument.
Logic is grounded in definition, definition is grounded in the projection and reception of assumptions (as an assumption in itself considering all assumptions are a point of origin), thus all logic directional by nature given its nature of definition.
Here is a thread covering the directional nature of emotions, which ties into the directional nature of logic:
arktos.boards.net/thread/4227/emotions-spatial-axioms-deterministic
Value is a focal point we curve our actions and emotions around, we are left with an inherent nature of measurement itself. A strict deterministic model of the universe requires space folding through space in various degrees at its core.
Even the basic values, through which we are tied by intuitive reasoning (emotion) reduce basic emotions to spatial terms and as such have a deterministic nature in the respect one limit replicates into another showing an inherent cause and effect paradigm.
I "feel":
1. Up-(Happy, Joyful, Elated, Etc.) 2. Down-(Sad, Depressed, Sorrowful, etc.). 3. Left/Wave- (Loose, flowing, boundless, soft, etc.)- Evidenced in the emotional nature of Left Wing Politics, Chaotic Left Hand Path of Faiths 4. Right/Line- (Rigid, still, bounded, hard, etc.)- Evidence in the emotional nature of Right Wing Politics, Ordered Right Hand Path of Faiths 5. Deep- (heavy condensed dark, 6. Shallow- (light non-condensed light 7. Forward- (Hopeful, optomistic, moving towards a goal) 8. Back- ( 9. In- (self centered, selfish) 10. Out- (out going, selfless) 11. Full 12. Empty 13. Separated 14. Connected 15. Original (point) 16. Non-Original (in line) 17. Whole 18. Pieces 19. Spinning 20. Level 21. Directed 22. No Direction (lost) 23. Expanding- (growing) 24. Contracting- (shrinking) 25. Converging- (joining) 26. Diverging- (seperating) 27. Small 28. Large x. Etc. (list will be expanded)
Ex:
"He is centered." "He is spiraling out of control." "He rose to the occasion." "He fell from his goal." "Life has its ups and downs." "He is narrow minded and looks only at his mark". "He is running around in circles". "He is punctual and to the point". "He does/does not fit in the groove". x. Etc. (list will be expanded.
|
|