|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 30, 2023 19:09:52 GMT
Nondualism is a means of defining truth by way of negation and as such is a concept. Non-dualism's core meaning lies in the fact that truth is "not this" or "not that". As such there is no non-dualism when self applied. There is also no negation (as negation is a thing as a negative definition or rather a negating concept) and "no not-this" or "no not-that".
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 8, 2023 17:41:50 GMT
Positive knowledge can be taken as assumptions. We can get rid of the assumptions if to use both rules:
★ by entailment: if B implies C, then if B is true, C is never false;
★ by contradiction: if assuming B it implies C and not-C, then we can imply not-B.
If our assumptions are always false, while we still are able to imply, then no matter what, some situations are not impossible.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 9, 2023 22:36:58 GMT
Positive knowledge can be taken as assumptions. We can get rid of the assumptions if to use both rules: ★ by entailment: if B implies C, then if B is true, C is never false; ★ by contradiction: if assuming B it implies C and not-C, then we can imply not-B. If our assumptions are always false, while we still are able to imply, then no matter what, some situations are not impossible. This is an assumption as we assume entailments and we assume contradictions considering we are only observing reality from our subjective angles and cannot see the whole picture. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 10, 2023 17:27:52 GMT
Positive knowledge can be taken as assumptions. We can get rid of the assumptions if to use both rules: ★ by entailment: if B implies C, then if B is true, C is never false; ★ by contradiction: if assuming B it implies C and not-C, then we can imply not-B. If our assumptions are always false, while we still are able to imply, then no matter what, some situations are not impossible. This is an assumption as we assume entailments and we assume contradictions considering we are only observing reality from our subjective angles and cannot see the whole picture. The whole is just a concept. It might be just a fiction the same as utopia, you know. Lovecraft said once: "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents". |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 18, 2023 20:03:29 GMT
This is an assumption as we assume entailments and we assume contradictions considering we are only observing reality from our subjective angles and cannot see the whole picture. The whole is just a concept. It might be just a fiction the same as utopia, you know. Lovecraft said once: "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents". If concepts affect our daily lives can we doubt their reality due to the psychic energy they produce in fueling our actions? |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 22, 2023 16:30:21 GMT
The whole is just a concept. It might be just a fiction the same as utopia, you know. Lovecraft said once: "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents". If concepts affect our daily lives can we doubt their reality due to the psychic energy they produce in fueling our actions? It's positively a good question. I guess the whole nominalism VS realism philosophy was behind it. As for me, I don't count on concepts as something separated from thoughts. I know that examplications of thoughts (whatever they are) as well as trying to infere (or to extract?) any explicands from then – is a hell of a work. So, I presume people think, and the process of it is combined with thoughts. Any components of thoughts are what we used to call names, pronouns, adjectives, prepositions, etc are just rearranged thoughts, so there are no real prepositions, but only thoughts of them. Different forms of thoughts are called concepts, sometimes, because of its usage. Thus, if I got a thought of A, and then A became materialized, then my previous thought was an idea or a concept. "Forms" are also only thoughts. They appear when we think of our thoughts. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 1, 2023 19:16:11 GMT
If concepts affect our daily lives can we doubt their reality due to the psychic energy they produce in fueling our actions? It's positively a good question. I guess the whole nominalism VS realism philosophy was behind it. As for me, I don't count on concepts as something separated from thoughts. I know that examplications of thoughts (whatever they are) as well as trying to infere (or to extract?) any explicands from then – is a hell of a work. So, I presume people think, and the process of it is combined with thoughts. Any components of thoughts are what we used to call names, pronouns, adjectives, prepositions, etc are just rearranged thoughts, so there are no real prepositions, but only thoughts of them. Different forms of thoughts are called concepts, sometimes, because of its usage. Thus, if I got a thought of A, and then A became materialized, then my previous thought was an idea or a concept. "Forms" are also only thoughts. They appear when we think of our thoughts. Thoughts and energy are synonymous then? |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 20, 2023 18:45:32 GMT
It's positively a good question. I guess the whole nominalism VS realism philosophy was behind it. As for me, I don't count on concepts as something separated from thoughts. I know that examplications of thoughts (whatever they are) as well as trying to infere (or to extract?) any explicands from then – is a hell of a work. So, I presume people think, and the process of it is combined with thoughts. Any components of thoughts are what we used to call names, pronouns, adjectives, prepositions, etc are just rearranged thoughts, so there are no real prepositions, but only thoughts of them. Different forms of thoughts are called concepts, sometimes, because of its usage. Thus, if I got a thought of A, and then A became materialized, then my previous thought was an idea or a concept. "Forms" are also only thoughts. They appear when we think of our thoughts. Thoughts and energy are synonymous then? Well, I know it's kinda weird thought, but according to logic of synapses – it is. I guess that to calculate or to measure energy of a thinking person isn't impossible. My thesis is that separating thoughts into subjects, predicates, whatsoever is not a correct way. At least it is true for some languages, and within some languages such a procedure goes too far. For instance, sime Indian languages are verb based, and sometimes there are no subjects at all. Besides, logicians as Frege or Russell doubted subject-predicate structure of sentences, and at the same time postulating deities as variables within sentences, which isn't correct either. Personally, I try to avoid this when it deals with logic rigorously, because logic is never interested what kind of deities are placed in a certain sentence /proposition/; it bothers about whether or not a sentence is true or false. Let's say a man wants to say something, but for some reason he can't speak as it's been doing it before. If he paints an image, or he uses shortcut sentences, it doesn't mean he ain't say anything; but if his brain is being malfunctioned, I am positive that he can't think. My insurance here bases on logic straightforwardly. Since if our premises are vague, we cannot prognose anything about the entailment. How can we claim that if $&#&, then something? Surely, we can guess that $&#& is false or something, but until we aren't sure, any assertions fail. At least, such assertions aren't clear enough. The last is the evidence that not only thoughts require energy, but it doesn't disprove this about thoughts. To construct a thought some energy is required. It is, I'd say, quite similar to an ability for focusing our eyes or attention towards some objects. An act of accomodation for an eye is the same as to apply six muscles round the eye to form it properly. Why brain is out of this? So, that's how I think of it. |
|
