Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 26, 2020 14:00:04 GMT
1. They say, the analyticity is circular, so: a) extensivity is necessary concerned with the theory of synonyms which says a=b for some contexts; b) no extensivity implies intensivity; c) a distinction between two synonyms is imaginative: we can say either a=b, or some x has some y as synonyms. So, we might be correct thinking a=b, but still no having a distinction (a criteria) of how a differs from b.
2. Let's say the spirituality is the opposition to the analyticity as a way of how to commune, to group people together. Instead of formal and extensive view of things, the spirituality is supposed to move toward an intensive things, trying to aim the content along with the wholeness and mutual commitment about everything in the Universe. Such a view has so many flaws and gaps, that it's not possible to explicit 'em all. In my opinion, it's important to show that the spirituality accents the modal aspects of premises or arguments and not underline the rest. So, such modal aspects as it's good, it's fine, hooray, let's do smth!... And sometimes it's impossible to distinguish modal ones arguments from performative or ritual ones.
3. Non-analiticity is assumed to be the step from too formal or too extensive ways of describing. Non-analiticity is a way to see the flaws of the analyticity and to fix them without falling into circularity. Hence, to be non-analitic one needs to work on distinctions and to not limit his arguments with formal attempt only. When the line of argumantation lacks modal aspects it looses any senses to play a role in different contexts. That's why the total analyticity is impossible to imagine as a life-able phenomenon. It's like having habits or being needed to be fueled or filled with oil or food. In other words, pleasureless life has no sense, even if it is perfectly rational.
4. The fourth requirement for us is seemed be non-spirituality or the path of refusing blind wandering between own delusions. Wholeness, unions, communions, groups, oneness, the system, etc are the terms with no distinctions, and they are the same to the analyticity's ones. There is no distinction as between synonyms, so between the analysis and the spirit in any ways. Briefly, we cannot do it (yet). It doesn't mean each of the sides (the analysis or the spirituality) is just a side of the research of the Universe or oneself; no certain way rather points to the incompleteness of our steps. Just like there is something we have passed away.
In the ancient times there was a concert of the ether which was the 5th element of the Universe. And it seems the same structure of understanding we have. The four types are left, but what about the fifth one? Where is it, and how it looks like?
Plato's "Parmenides" contains only four dimensions of the arguments, and it seems it must have the 5th one. If Plato stole some ideas from Indian caste system (strates), it would be possible for him to steal Indian's logical system with 5-dimentional structure. And if the four elements were left, where was the 5th premise? Doesn't it mean "Parmenides" is unknown for us because of its composition in incompleted?
2. Let's say the spirituality is the opposition to the analyticity as a way of how to commune, to group people together. Instead of formal and extensive view of things, the spirituality is supposed to move toward an intensive things, trying to aim the content along with the wholeness and mutual commitment about everything in the Universe. Such a view has so many flaws and gaps, that it's not possible to explicit 'em all. In my opinion, it's important to show that the spirituality accents the modal aspects of premises or arguments and not underline the rest. So, such modal aspects as it's good, it's fine, hooray, let's do smth!... And sometimes it's impossible to distinguish modal ones arguments from performative or ritual ones.
3. Non-analiticity is assumed to be the step from too formal or too extensive ways of describing. Non-analiticity is a way to see the flaws of the analyticity and to fix them without falling into circularity. Hence, to be non-analitic one needs to work on distinctions and to not limit his arguments with formal attempt only. When the line of argumantation lacks modal aspects it looses any senses to play a role in different contexts. That's why the total analyticity is impossible to imagine as a life-able phenomenon. It's like having habits or being needed to be fueled or filled with oil or food. In other words, pleasureless life has no sense, even if it is perfectly rational.
4. The fourth requirement for us is seemed be non-spirituality or the path of refusing blind wandering between own delusions. Wholeness, unions, communions, groups, oneness, the system, etc are the terms with no distinctions, and they are the same to the analyticity's ones. There is no distinction as between synonyms, so between the analysis and the spirit in any ways. Briefly, we cannot do it (yet). It doesn't mean each of the sides (the analysis or the spirituality) is just a side of the research of the Universe or oneself; no certain way rather points to the incompleteness of our steps. Just like there is something we have passed away.
In the ancient times there was a concert of the ether which was the 5th element of the Universe. And it seems the same structure of understanding we have. The four types are left, but what about the fifth one? Where is it, and how it looks like?
Plato's "Parmenides" contains only four dimensions of the arguments, and it seems it must have the 5th one. If Plato stole some ideas from Indian caste system (strates), it would be possible for him to steal Indian's logical system with 5-dimentional structure. And if the four elements were left, where was the 5th premise? Doesn't it mean "Parmenides" is unknown for us because of its composition in incompleted?