Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on Jul 19, 2021 21:33:51 GMT
I passed maybe five years of my life reading different versions of Tao Te King and... so, I conclude that the Tao is only a symbol and not a reality itself. Not even a mystical reality. But only a symbolical truth.
|
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on Jul 20, 2021 13:24:50 GMT
Can be considered also as a productive identity. Anyway I still don't understand what Tao is, because it's not everything, it can't be uttered by words, and along with it it is a productive identity. When I want to say that tomatoes are red or 2+2=4 I either check it by identifying with certain examples, or try to imply it from something that being identified previously. So, I come to a tomato, look at it, take a catalogue with colors, compare it, then I can conclude that my hypothesis that tomatoes are red isn't false this time. And for 2+2=4 I, for instance, take some Peano formulas as (1+1')' = 1''' = df 4 a = a a + 1 = a' (1 + a)' = a'' (1 + a') = a''' If a is 1, then .: (1 + 1')' = 1''' = df 4. haha, maybe the Tao isnt a problem at all. But isnt experimental or verificative.
|
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on Jul 20, 2021 13:55:24 GMT
Lao Tse is more than a genius. I am digesting these identity because is not what I want, to be a taoist, but use what I have learned to my progress. To make my own conception of the phaenomena.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 20, 2021 15:03:12 GMT
Lao Tse is more than a genius. I am digesting these identity because is not what I want, to be a taoist, but use what I have learned to my progress. To make my own conception of the phaenomena. I really interesting to hear your conception of phaenomena. I remember you have posted about it, but I don't remember it exactly. Are you ready for some series of questions? ;) 1. How to differ the phaenomena from something else in our heads/mind? 2. Do we experience one phaenomenon at a time or it's always appears in complex way? 3. How do we know that what we're experiencing is phenomenon, and not something else (as illusions)?
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 20, 2021 15:09:04 GMT
|
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on Jul 20, 2021 15:12:03 GMT
Lao Tse is more than a genius. I am digesting these identity because is not what I want, to be a taoist, but use what I have learned to my progress. To make my own conception of the phaenomena. I really interesting to hear your conception of phaenomena. I remember you have posted about it, but I don't remember it exactly. Are you ready for some series of questions? 1. How to differ the phaenomena from something else in our heads/mind? 2. Do we experience one phaenomenon at a time or it's always appears in complex way? 3. How do we know that what we're experiencing is phenomenon, and not something else (as illusions)? 1. By distinguing the ideia we have in our mind from eventual casualities showed by the facts. 2. Neither complex or simple, but as a material presence. 3. Sure. If our reflection affirms something, which is identical in our mind, on that phenomena, we can take as a real. But it depends on what kind of phenomena we are talking about.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 20, 2021 16:03:48 GMT
I really interesting to hear your conception of phaenomena. I remember you have posted about it, but I don't remember it exactly. Are you ready for some series of questions? 1. How to differ the phaenomena from something else in our heads/mind? 2. Do we experience one phaenomenon at a time or it's always appears in complex way? 3. How do we know that what we're experiencing is phenomenon, and not something else (as illusions)? 1. By distinguing the ideia we have in our mind from eventual casualities showed by the facts. 2. Neither complex or simple, but as a material presence. 3. Sure. If our reflection affirms something, which is identical in our mind, on that phenomena, we can take as a real. But it depends on what kind of phenomena we are talking about. So, therefore: 1. Eventual facts – ? = The Idea, and the Idea = the Phenomena, right? 2. Phenomena is what doesn't have a number, right? 3. As soon as our reflection finds something it's a sign of a phenomenon presence. ✓ (Ok, here I got). 4. Do phenomena have its one unique form? 5. How can we extract the phenomena not using any signs, gestures or words? Is it possible?
|
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on Jul 20, 2021 16:44:35 GMT
1. By distinguing the ideia we have in our mind from eventual casualities showed by the facts. 2. Neither complex or simple, but as a material presence. 3. Sure. If our reflection affirms something, which is identical in our mind, on that phenomena, we can take as a real. But it depends on what kind of phenomena we are talking about. So, therefore: 1. Eventual facts – ? = The Idea, and the Idea = the Phenomena, right? 2. Phenomena is what doesn't have a number, right? 3. As soon as our reflection finds something it's a sign of a phenomenon presence. ✓ (Ok, here I got). 4. Do phenomena have its one unique form? 5. How can we extract the phenomena not using any signs, gestures or words? Is it possible? It's hard to have a evidence of an object. But not impossible if we try in a certain way. 1. By distinguing the fact from the idea. 2. But can be quantified, for sure. 4. Sometimes concrete but sometimes only as a idea, a image. 5. First we have to take a bit of time reflecting about conditions and circunstances. So, we can deduce rationality from phenomena, by seeing in words what is "profound" and what is superficial (the terms dont matter). If I read "horse", I can deduce what profoundness the writer have in this word just by the context and what I had read before. If I read house or computer or abacus is different to read formula, matrix, kindle, light, and so on. Do you perceive that?
|
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on Jul 20, 2021 16:45:37 GMT
There is a difference of expression (and intensity) by context.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 20, 2021 18:04:42 GMT
So, therefore: 1. Eventual facts – ? = The Idea, and the Idea = the Phenomena, right? 2. Phenomena is what doesn't have a number, right? 3. As soon as our reflection finds something it's a sign of a phenomenon presence. ✓ (Ok, here I got). 4. Do phenomena have its one unique form? 5. How can we extract the phenomena not using any signs, gestures or words? Is it possible? It's hard to have a evidence of an object. But not impossible if we try in a certain way. 1. By distinguing the fact from the idea. 2. But can be quantified, for sure. 4. Sometimes concrete but sometimes only as a idea, a image. 5. First we have to take a bit of time reflecting about conditions and circunstances. So, we can deduce rationality from phenomena, by seeing in words what is "profound" and what is superficial (the terms dont matter). If I read "horse", I can deduce what profoundness the writer have in this word just by the context and what I had read before. If I read house or computer or abacus is different to read formula, matrix, kindle, light, and so on. Do you perceive that? Thank you, I think I did. Anyway, there's still some moments, I'd like to ask: 1. So, I asked about this: A fact minus the idea equals to a phaenomenon And your answer give me the key that: "The fact" is what we can call a phaenomenon Since that we have to say that: There is some deity (that trapped into our minds), and this deity has an idea and a fact of it, right? 2. The reason is – if you said that a phaenomenon is material, and then have added that the phaenomena can be counted, then it means that we can count how many materials in there. 4. ✓ Ok 5. It looks like an Aristotelian method of extracting the essence of a thing. Surely, that having experienced many horses I can "deduce" that a horse is this, not that; I mean horse has some specific properties that differs it from the other horses. And if you do it some other way, then how you do this? Because another method I know is Husserlian one: to make several steps by reducing our experience. 6. Does a horse (or some another living being, and not only living beings, but the other things) have something unique and specific all the time when it lives? Doesn't it change its "uniqueness" during its life?
|
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on Jul 20, 2021 18:11:30 GMT
It's hard to have a evidence of an object. But not impossible if we try in a certain way. 1. By distinguing the fact from the idea. 2. But can be quantified, for sure. 4. Sometimes concrete but sometimes only as a idea, a image. 5. First we have to take a bit of time reflecting about conditions and circunstances. So, we can deduce rationality from phenomena, by seeing in words what is "profound" and what is superficial (the terms dont matter). If I read "horse", I can deduce what profoundness the writer have in this word just by the context and what I had read before. If I read house or computer or abacus is different to read formula, matrix, kindle, light, and so on. Do you perceive that? Thank you, I think I did. Anyway, there's still some moments, I'd like to ask: 1. So, I asked about this: A fact minus the idea equals to a phaenomenon And your answer give me the key that: "The fact" is what we can call a phaenomenon Since that we have to say that: There is some deity (that trapped into our minds), and this deity has an idea and a fact of it, right? 2. The reason is – if you said that a phaenomenon is material, and then have added that the phaenomena can be counted, then it means that we can count how many materials in there. 4. ✓ Ok 5. It looks like an Aristotelian method of extracting the essence of a thing. Surely, that having experienced many horses I can "deduce" that a horse is this, not that; I mean horse has some specific properties that differs it from the other horses. And if you do it some other way, then how you do this? Because another method I know is Husserlian one: to make several steps by reducing our experience. 6. Does a horse (or some another living being, and not only living beings, but the other things) have something unique and specific all the time when it lives? Doesn't it change its "uniqueness" during its life? Not at all. A phenomena is a representation of our mind which have some coincidences with his apareance in the world. Not a deity, but a instrumental phenomenology. A kind of internal cinema which we can predict and direct the phenomena beyond our minds. 2. is ok. 5. kinda of. Empircally, as the object shows to me his singularities. 6. They have a duration in existence but not in life. Life is more a endurance than a duration, speaking about physical life.
|
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on Jul 20, 2021 18:12:14 GMT
6. His singularity or uniqueness is a property the time he lives.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 20, 2021 18:39:45 GMT
Thank you, I think I did. Anyway, there's still some moments, I'd like to ask: 1. So, I asked about this: A fact minus the idea equals to a phaenomenon And your answer give me the key that: "The fact" is what we can call a phaenomenon Since that we have to say that: There is some deity (that trapped into our minds), and this deity has an idea and a fact of it, right? 2. The reason is – if you said that a phaenomenon is material, and then have added that the phaenomena can be counted, then it means that we can count how many materials in there. 4. ✓ Ok 5. It looks like an Aristotelian method of extracting the essence of a thing. Surely, that having experienced many horses I can "deduce" that a horse is this, not that; I mean horse has some specific properties that differs it from the other horses. And if you do it some other way, then how you do this? Because another method I know is Husserlian one: to make several steps by reducing our experience. 6. Does a horse (or some another living being, and not only living beings, but the other things) have something unique and specific all the time when it lives? Doesn't it change its "uniqueness" during its life? Not at all. A phenomena is a representation of our mind which have some coincidences with his apareance in the world. Not a deity, but a instrumental phenomenology. A kind of internal cinema which we can predict and direct the phenomena beyond our minds. 2. is ok. 5. kinda of. Empircally, as the object shows to me his singularities. 6. They have a duration in existence but not in life. Life is more a endurance than a duration, speaking about physical life. Oh, must say it's little complex, you know. Unfortunately,I haven't learned enough elite tricks to think (I mean I was messing round with jerks some years ago). Usually they use complicated and over-perplexed constructions in language. So, instead I usually try to make a simpler explanation as possible. That's why my own theories have some naive When you're saying that phaenomena represent our mind... then a few ideas about it comes to my mind: a) you're saying about the reflection; b) you're saying about the image of how the mind looks; c) it represents how the mind interacts the world... I don't know what to say. My own brief theory, or a brute explanation of this is the next one: We understand things through equality like in algebra:
The experience of a certain apple ≠ the experience of a certain watermelon The experience of another apple = the experience of the previous apple
[II] During those processes of matching or corresponding things to things we have also some optional components, and those components can be called the ideas.
Ideas can be different: reflections, associations, blinks, etc.
[III] To extract the experience of a certain phenomenon from our acts of corresponding we can't avoid get them without making another portions of ideas.
[IV] Among the ideas that escort our experience there might be some ideas that push us to extract one thing from those equalities. But (!) to extract one (!) thing we have to know what is that "one".
Except for that we also have to know what does it mean to "extract ideas from our experience" (along with understanding what is "experience", "an idea", etc).
[V] I think I can explain how this becomes possible: by our learning the previous movements, actions, like in this example:
• (The experience of) an apple ≠ (the experience of) a watermelon • Tasting an apple = making moves by your tongue and teeth • Making certain moves by teeth = pronouncing or naming this process as "the biting" • (Making certain moves by teeth = pronouncing or naming this process as "the biting") ≠ a watermelon • (Making certain moves by teeth = pronouncing or naming this process as "the biting") = "a certain idea of biting" • ... And so on
Probably, the logic of this is quite rough, but in its common view is how I view this, and how I suppose to get phenomena from our experience.
|
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on Jul 20, 2021 18:44:24 GMT
It cannot happen as a phenomena, but we can systematize our perceptions to be as you say. But there are better and better systematizations, which you can choice and perfect.
|
|