Fresco's Dilemma

Let me be fluid with language for a second Raz:
...a pattern in the system is asking to "grow" all the while it cannot grow beyond the system which contains it and limits it to what it is...the asking, is in the pattern as a system of its own, but still, the pattern cannot outgrow the master system which defines it and contains it...it shapes it, from its bigger size...therefore kills the asking be satisfied !
Some, indulge to call this consciousness...but is just pattern coupling ! Its not the agent who is responsible even if aware...its the system who is pulling the strings...or better the strings were always pulled...all space times exist ! Complete is like being dead...it doesn't move, ask, grow or intend anything...no consciousness in completeness ! It just...there !!!

...no wonder the idea of infinity is so appealing...its like a sort of "immortality in the being there" in phenomenology...the way is always open always forward always becoming...the only problem being it just doesn't make sense....all things detach....nothing connects to anything...we can't even be sure of one plus one when one means nothing any more...
...being told that we have limits goes against life, no wonder we hate it...life is about growing indefinitely, about continuing...having size and form and shape is about finishing...humanists and hippies like open ended...I empathise but they are wrong ! And philosophy is not about pleasing people...

I guess what I have been messing with can be perhaps more concretely resumed in the following :
Space and time as transcendental conditions of knowledge, either present a priori in the subject, or in the object, for functioning, are themselves non computable in nature once requiring final set membership for disclosing their resting state, that is, space and time are themselves functions of something else which transcends phenomenology or relational operations, thus something that cannot be known or reprocessed...transcendental reflections of space and time themselves are possible to be captured as a functions of something else which itself cannot be captured...what is a priori in them, what is given, its is functioning, rather then its being, or that which justify its being there, through any other objects including ourselves...thus that final resolution, as usual, imply s resolution of knowledge itself as a process of relation, which itself, cannot relate with itself, but that is relational to something else...

I've just discovered this thread . What fun !

In the past two years I have probably moved closer to Rorty's pragmatism than any other position. And in the wake of Rorty's acknowledgement of Derrida's deconstruction of text, all written discourse fresco entered into hitherto is subject to re-interpretation by the fresco of today and beyond. I therefore still assert that "self" and "world" are transient co-extensive ontological states.

Self and world: tat tvam asi.

They do have something in common indeed...both preserve unity and cohesion.
Although Being and being there have nothing in common other then that.
Its like saying that completeness and incompleteness are the same. Its wrong period. A Complete "thing" does not ask questions, it doesn't need them.

...it could be argued how is then this Whole complete if it can't replicate what the parts (minds) themselves are able to do ? Well..this is a hard one granted. My cop out is the following:

The co-extension of "World" and "self" are both, that which is said to be complete.
The world, Being, is the justifier of being there in the self, but being there justifies the purpose of having a world which otherwise would be dead.

That which is to be complete lacks incompleteness...
...minds are by definition "incompleteness" wondering about the world...

Asking questions requires awareness of our incompleteness.

Sigh...

JL, don't let the mass opinion fool you. The OP is showing signs of intelligence, so let me hold your hand and reveal to you the psychology behind it.

A. OP is not serious, but being humorous. (sign of intelligence)

B. OP is using that brain to create a poetic response every time, through satire and fun (another sign of intelligence)

C. The attitude of the OP's ability to address people without being personal (this is a huge sign of intelligence, because dealing with people without taking it personal means the OP is very intelligent, but isn't showing their real potential because this is just a show right now).

D. OP didn't address people's name calling, accusations and otherwise stick-poking childish games. OP kept addressing the one and only fun reason he made this thread for, continuously ignoring people's infantile behavior that they typed up with absolutely no reason except to get a reaction out of the OP, because the OP has patience - patience is a huge sign of intelligence.

Therefore, the OP is intelligent and isn't even showing their real potential because they are too busy having fun calling Fresco out for their illogical theories that borderline solipsism's brother. Everyone else is being jeering idiots that would stand there and laugh at a prisoner being electrocuted because nobody on this site has any dignity or integrity left. Grow the **** up, you assholes.

My reference to the famous dictum, tat tvam asi (that art thou), was a private communication to Fresco. It affirms his assertion that " self" and "world" (lke ego and alter) are co-extensive ontological states.

...and those states (or co-states) are dynamic, not static.
(That is why Russell's Paradox analogies, based on static set theory, are inappropriate).

To make it more easy to grasp Descartes mistake was the focus on the "I" when he famously stated "I think therefore I am".

While the "experiencing" is undoubtedly justified, its happening, the nature of the "experiencer" it is not.

We don't know what the "I" is or if there is any merit to the concept of an "I" any more we know anything about the true nature of redness...we can explain red is an effect of light with a given wave length and all the scientific account but while the experience is clear to us the nature or source of the experience is beyond us.

As we are entangled with the world through perception nothing in the world can truly be justified to its last instance. We would have to be a bigger set then the world to justify it n that compresses our own nature to. Its a problem of set theory. A set cannot explain itself as it requires a bigger set to contain it. Regarding minds as first order reality the problem arising is that minds cannot be the creator of minds. Either they exist n something else created them, or they exist n nothing else created them but as they cannot explain themselves minds ARE the "WORLD", equally an abstract transcendent object to itself, or the World (classical concept) is the creator of minds which cannot justify itself either. The Source is always the "world", independent of there being only minds, or minds n things, or just things like systems which in some cases resemble self awareness with free will. Being the "world" just means that awareness cannot replicate an external system (to fully know it) while Knowing its own system. It doesn't fit in...A system that gathers information can only contain as much information as its own size can comprise. Whatever it comes to know is incomplete. The world as a Whole it is not. Yes it lacks incompleteness as a whole, it doesn't behave like incomplete things do which are always in motion n transition...but it is complete because its their justification all the same. The co-extension of self and world is not mutually dynamic. While the self searches for the world, the world HAS the self.

This is a profound insight, as it not only buries the "mind constructs the world" bullshit, but goes far further, it also buries the concept of a conscious living God. A final set, a final source, can never compute itself. By compute I mean know. While it can be itself, it cannot replicate itself owns explanation. It cannot (fully) inform itself about itself. On that light God would be at best a dead thing. Powerless n static although the reason of everything.

...now what should we call this "thing" ? certainly not a mind ! I see it as a set, a world !

I'll tell you what the "I" really is, Fil.

The "I" is close, the real answer is "Information".

When we say "Us", again we're close, the real answer is "Universe".

People are "pieces" to a "puzzle" (Universe).

If you observe how angry people with no control tend to control other people to compensate for their lack of control, you can see the Universe's evolution between two entire different stages of the Universe. One stage is the "virus" to our humanity called "anger, fear and the obscure". Those who imprison others for this sick sense of comfort are not doing this on a human level - this is a subatomic event that happens in the Universe. The lowest stages of universal development (i.e red frequency) don't let its energy free - it CONSUMES & IMPRISONS life. Then throughout time, it grows out of its red frequency, reaching higher frequencies, which create qualities of "humanity", (i.e green & blue frequencies). That's when consumption and imprisonment is no longer a "thing" - it's the "past". People who cage anything are subconsciously representing their own "caged-mind". It sounds absurd, but heed my word, everything we do on this macro level has ties to the subatomic and super-atomic world - as above; so below.

That said, the "I" is simply based entirely on what "we learned". Not "what we want to be". Not "what others want us to be". We are information - information comes from somewhere; the Universe. There is no way to define ourselves without using everything outside of ourselves as relation points to understand ourselves through the rest of the world. We need objects and concepts to cross-relate ourselves with, else we have no cross-implication. We cannot understand the individuality of an object/concept unless we have objects around it to say "it's not the objects around it, so let's call it X".

The "I" is interesting because it cannot answer the question "Who am I". I once had a dream of the shadow archetype answering this question in a way that may surprise you: "If you say you know me, then you don't know me. If you think you know me, then you probably know me." I was told by a shadowy figure in my dreams words wiser than any man's on this planet. The subconscious is a connection to this Universe's subconscious. Hence why we do not go to ideas - ideas come to us. Geniuses repeatedly demonstrated daydreaming inventions and coming up with ideas in the strangest of places - all those times, we say it was their idea - but was it really? Or was it the Universe communicating through great minds?

The "I" is based on consciousness. Consciousness is based on water and electricity formulating pictures via the brain, because water can "reflect" - our eyes, brain and body have a close-knit relationship with "water". Water is so important to consider as consciousness, that when you cry, different tears represent different reasons of crying. I'm not even joking - research that when you can, so you can see that our tears are designed much like everything else. I can prove that water can produce life, like consciousness because amoebas produce serotonin chemicals - those chemicals create "humanity" and make "humanity" possible. Not only that, serotonin becomes melotonin, which is what creates those profound dreams we experience at night - another piece of evidence that "water" is manning our perception, our consciousness and our experience of "I" or "Information". The brain bathes in chemicals when we sleep which to no surprise, made up of 99% "water". The next time you interact with water - look deeply into it, because you're staring at the fundamental creators of life. Respect it - as I respect it. Acknowledge it - as I acknowledge it. Live for water, not let water live for you - as I live for water, not let water live for me.

Here's the problem with that dictum, in so far as it describes a unity between "self" and "world" -- it does not preclude solipsism, egotism, egocentrism, or even anthropocentrism, as artificial warrants for the verity of ideas.

Razzleg, as I see it in meditation (or any mindful momemt) the feeling of self (inside self) and the realization of Self (outside Self) are ultimately the same: tat tvam asi.

Exactly...the problem is that you and many people keeping thinking of "self" and "mind" as something special. That cannot be proved.

Quite the contrary special in relation to what ? Particularly what, when the reasoning leads to a form of solipsism...

...furthermore whatever it is experiencing cannot be justified neither in the idea of "self" or "mind" as it cant in the idea of "inside" or "outside"...its just experiencing. What it is, cannot be given, justified, from the mind to the mind...

..its X !