|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 3, 2021 4:15:04 GMT
For instance, I want to make a list of desires or preferences, and then I start questioning myself: which criteria should I put to this? And how narrow or tiny they should be?
Let's say I want to make a list about my tastes of fruits; so, I can write such categories as: brightness, redolency, appetite-looking, mellowness, succulency, etc. Then I grab a fruit, look at it, sniff it, taste it, and think about it. And then I write something about the fruit to the list. I can write that this fruit N is looking good, it's bright enough, it has an impressive aroma, it looks very appetite, and so on. So my list would be filled in a correspondent way to this surface analysis.
I can create another list of parameters, let's say how many chemical elements each fruit has. So I divide it into categories of vitamins or to less complex structure like water level, etc. Therefore, my list would be: the fruit N has 0.77% H2O, 0.1% of Natrium, 0.07% of Magnesium, and so on. Then I can grab a fruit N and I have to taste it to find out whether it tastes?
I can create many different lists, but the main question is what kind of a list /or some other thing, if you can propose/ must be – the sections, parameters, criteria, views, reflections, representations, or more – to display my tastes. How many times should I pass the test to answer it?
The more general question is: which way of describing the tastes is the best? /Or a better one?/
|
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Apr 16, 2021 16:38:51 GMT
For instance, I want to make a list of desires or preferences, and then I start questioning myself: which criteria should I put to this? And how narrow or tiny they should be? Let's say I want to make a list about my tastes of fruits; so, I can write such categories as: brightness, redolency, appetite-looking, mellowness, succulency, etc. Then I grab a fruit, look at it, sniff it, taste it, and think about it. And then I write something about the fruit to the list. I can write that this fruit N is looking good, it's bright enough, it has an impressive aroma, it looks very appetite, and so on. So my list would be filled in a correspondent way to this surface analysis. I can create another list of parameters, let's say how many chemical elements each fruit has. So I divide it into categories of vitamins or to less complex structure like water level, etc. Therefore, my list would be: the fruit N has 0.77% H 2O, 0.1% of Natrium, 0.07% of Magnesium, and so on. Then I can grab a fruit N and I have to taste it to find out whether it tastes? I can create many different lists, but the main question is what kind of a list /or some other thing, if you can propose/ must be – the sections, parameters, criteria, views, reflections, representations, or more – to display my tastes. How many times should I pass the test to answer it? The more general question is: which way of describing the tastes is the best? /Or a better one?/ This needs to be broadened a bit beyond fruit. You are asking for essential qualities that optimally categorize anything. Many have tried, Kant's qualities were interesting, but they just did not Stick in my mind as being useful. I use the categories of the Vedics: the Chakras. 7 qualities listed from bottom to top like this: Physicality, Vitality, Geometry, Heart, Perception, Logic, Spirituality. So for fruit, it would be: A whole, healthy, big, enjoyable, fragrant, nutritious, gift. No system of categorization will ever be complete or perfect. But this one is optimal for use in the widest and must succinct manner. We can give a somewhat detailed description of any entity with it. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 16, 2021 17:11:38 GMT
For instance, I want to make a list of desires or preferences, and then I start questioning myself: which criteria should I put to this? And how narrow or tiny they should be? Let's say I want to make a list about my tastes of fruits; so, I can write such categories as: brightness, redolency, appetite-looking, mellowness, succulency, etc. Then I grab a fruit, look at it, sniff it, taste it, and think about it. And then I write something about the fruit to the list. I can write that this fruit N is looking good, it's bright enough, it has an impressive aroma, it looks very appetite, and so on. So my list would be filled in a correspondent way to this surface analysis. I can create another list of parameters, let's say how many chemical elements each fruit has. So I divide it into categories of vitamins or to less complex structure like water level, etc. Therefore, my list would be: the fruit N has 0.77% H 2O, 0.1% of Natrium, 0.07% of Magnesium, and so on. Then I can grab a fruit N and I have to taste it to find out whether it tastes? I can create many different lists, but the main question is what kind of a list /or some other thing, if you can propose/ must be – the sections, parameters, criteria, views, reflections, representations, or more – to display my tastes. How many times should I pass the test to answer it? The more general question is: which way of describing the tastes is the best? /Or a better one?/ This needs to be broadened a bit beyond fruit. You are asking for essential qualities that optimally categorize anything. Many have tried, Kant's qualities were interesting, but they just did not Stick in my mind as being useful. I use the categories of the Vedics: the Chakras. 7 qualities listed from bottom to top like this: Physicality, Vitality, Geometry, Heart, Perception, Logic, Spirituality. So for fruit, it would be: A whole, healthy, big, enjoyable, fragrant, nutritious, gift. No system of categorization will ever be complete or perfect. But this one is optimal for use in the widest and must succinct manner. We can give a somewhat detailed description of any entity with it. Big thanks to you!! Surely, I mean, I barely know something about them. Actually, I could ask - what should I read to get into Phenomenology faster? Usually, I try to start thinking about something by myself, and when I realize something about it, I'll go further - to read, and et cetera. I presume your comment is completely revealed what I've been asking. Yes. And thanks again for such a precisely answer! |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Apr 16, 2021 18:14:59 GMT
This needs to be broadened a bit beyond fruit. You are asking for essential qualities that optimally categorize anything. Many have tried, Kant's qualities were interesting, but they just did not Stick in my mind as being useful. I use the categories of the Vedics: the Chakras. 7 qualities listed from bottom to top like this: Physicality, Vitality, Geometry, Heart, Perception, Logic, Spirituality. So for fruit, it would be: A whole, healthy, big, enjoyable, fragrant, nutritious, gift. No system of categorization will ever be complete or perfect. But this one is optimal for use in the widest and must succinct manner. We can give a somewhat detailed description of any entity with it. Big thanks to you!! Surely, I mean, I barely know something about them. Actually, I could ask - what should I read to get into Phenomenology faster? Usually, I try to start thinking about something by myself, and when I realize something about it, I'll go further - to read, and et cetera. I presume your comment is completely revealed what I've been asking. Yes. And thanks again for such a precisely answer! I wish I could give a direct answer, but my reading on phenomenology all happened last century, and I cannot recall who said what so much. I can be a bit lazy with that sort of detail as I often dissect and take what works and reject what does not, formulating my own theory. So the book you need to read is the one I have not yet written! The thing most people need to do is to clear there minds of theories that are either self-contradictory or just clumsy. So its more about honest introspection, than reading anything in particular. Myself, though, I wish I could find lucid reading on the Vedics. But like with most things, the good writings get popular, then all sorts of opportunists make weak copies which make little sense but use and abuse keywords, perpetuating confusion. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 21, 2021 12:46:26 GMT
Big thanks to you!! Surely, I mean, I barely know something about them. Actually, I could ask - what should I read to get into Phenomenology faster? Usually, I try to start thinking about something by myself, and when I realize something about it, I'll go further - to read, and et cetera. I presume your comment is completely revealed what I've been asking. Yes. And thanks again for such a precisely answer! I wish I could give a direct answer, but my reading on phenomenology all happened last century, and I cannot recall who said what so much. I can be a bit lazy with that sort of detail as I often dissect and take what works and reject what does not, formulating my own theory. So the book you need to read is the one I have not yet written! The thing most people need to do is to clear there minds of theories that are either self-contradictory or just clumsy. So its more about honest introspection, than reading anything in particular. Myself, though, I wish I could find lucid reading on the Vedics. But like with most things, the good writings get popular, then all sorts of opportunists make weak copies which make little sense but use and abuse keywords, perpetuating confusion. You ARE very talented, so the Universe itself wants you to WRITE a book!! Dozens of the best wishes to you in that uneasy work! |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Apr 21, 2021 14:43:51 GMT
I wish I could give a direct answer, but my reading on phenomenology all happened last century, and I cannot recall who said what so much. I can be a bit lazy with that sort of detail as I often dissect and take what works and reject what does not, formulating my own theory. So the book you need to read is the one I have not yet written! The thing most people need to do is to clear there minds of theories that are either self-contradictory or just clumsy. So its more about honest introspection, than reading anything in particular. Myself, though, I wish I could find lucid reading on the Vedics. But like with most things, the good writings get popular, then all sorts of opportunists make weak copies which make little sense but use and abuse keywords, perpetuating confusion. You ARE very talented, so the Universe itself wants you to WRITE a book!! Dozens of the best wishes to you in that uneasy work! ... another book still waiting for my current one to gets its dues This page following describes the intersection between science as method and the phenomenology that occurs in such thinking where the science of mind meets the mind of the scientist :-> www.flight-light-and-spin.com/n-body/scientific-method.htm |
|
