Well, the fuzzies can consider that it is not only possible, but fun to discover the beauty of a cow, or a sports car, or anything else for that matter. I did indeed read the link, and given the presented evidence of culture affecting our thought process so much, the question is: Do we LET it be divisive, or do we use our differences as a tool to communicate better with one another, and educate ourselves more?
hmm....let me chew as well.
I'm reading through....I think your thesis is sound so far, but I'll come back here when I've had a chance to mull it over.
Effectuation wrote:
<p>
There are no independent events, forces or phenomena which "individuals observe".
Can you tell me how you arrived at this conclusion and why it is so?
I'm having great difficulty "wrapping" my mind around your new philosophy mainly (I think) because of your play with words. Words are all we have to communicate and they must be chosen very carefully.
Perception,
> There are no independent events, forces or phenomena which "individuals observe".
Perception wrote: "Can you tell me how you arrived at this conclusion and why it is so?":
My statement, to people cultured by what I call Categoricalist philosophy, must seem very radical. However, as I said already "Value effects through relationship 'of forces'. It is- -am 'the' effect which exists not the forces as prior to or independent of 'the event'".
The proposition is that value- -matter does not come in discrete molecules, atoms, or forces- -waves. Further, that when forces interact it is the effect which exists, not the forces as prior to the interaction, and so 'the forces as prior to the interaction' cannot ever again interact with anything or be "observed" by anything. (Note: Quantum Mechanics popularly now tells us that the act of observation, or of measurement, changes 'the' QM phenomenon being observed. In effect, that there are no independent events, forces or phenomena).
So, the Categoricalist notion of the nature of the world seems a bit primal.
I am presenting a radically original and different formulation of the nature of 'Nature'.
Perception wrote: "I'm having great difficulty "wrapping" my mind around your new philosophy mainly (I think) because of your play with words. Words are all we have to communicate and they must be chosen very carefully.":
As above, there is always more than one force to an event. So, as well as my words there is the force "your mind". What effects, or does not effect is the relationship/interaction of the two. Also, such interactions are multi-faceted; I may be having "great difficulty", no offence intended, with your idea that the problem may rather exclusively be "[my] play with words".
I hope this helps to, somewhat, open up my system. It may also shed light on "Why do we think the way we do?"
Edit (Moderator): Spam Removed
Just a thought as I mull through...I think the verbiage is excessive. Also, some of the spelling and grammar errors are a bit distracting. I think I know where you are going with this, and I think I like it, but a declaration of forming a 'new philosophy' presupposes that you want people to understand it. Clarity and Brevity to me, are the answers (just look at the success of the parable and the fable
). Interesting stuff though. I shall continue....
We posted at the same time, effectuation...I will read...
i think this post from CavFancier's thread re: "Beauty of Life"
fits in quite nicely here. You will have to read Codeburg's story to understand where this came from.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10395&start=30
"thinking further on codeborg's 'sun trajectory' story, it points out one of the most important aspects of true knowledge on this planet; that being, looking at phenomina from the right viewpoint.
throughout human history, knowledge has made a new leap only when someone finally looks at an old question from a new point of view, and realizes a new truth. The solar centric system, the globe of earth, milkyway galaxy, the relationship of mass to energy, the double helix of DNA, the list is huge, and, hopefully will extend to infinity.
we must impress on our children that many things are not as they seem, and many more things of which we appear certain, may also require a new 'look'."
Effectuation
I must agree with cavfancier regarding the distractions---I won't call them errors---let's just say "unorthodox". You want people to understand your "new philosophy" so it would seem to me you should at least stick with the same language us mortals use.
BoGoWo, Although I have not looked at the link, thank you very much for such a positive initial reaction.
If I may address cav and perception here briefly: I'm not sure what you mean by "the spelling and grammar errors"?
However, I should point out, as said on the front page, that concepts do not translate or transfer across systems, they transform.
Edit (Moderator): Spam Removed
Effectuation, it's not important, re: spelling and grammar, and I don't feel inclined to pore through it all just to post an example. Sorry about the comment, I'm just nitpicky that way, and most likely making a mountain out of a molehill. If you are referring to concepts transforming what we know of as systems, I would tend to agree. If I'm getting that last post wrong, let me know.
cavfancier, Re "concepts transforming what we know of as systems": You are probably getting it fairly right. However, I would just make a couple of points:
1st. I feel that all of philosophy up to now was of a kind - Categoricalism. So, the implication being that the transformation of, I suppose really, what a particular term refers, in one system versus the other, is more pronounced than one may expect. (Ok, in other fields of science, concepts probably varied with models).
2nd. I'm not sure I would say it is the concepts which transform the systems; the system(s) remain. A new one emerges, but the concepts change. However, in that a new system effects through working on (interrelationship of) the current concepts, one could perhaps say as you do.
In any case, I rather expect it is the transformed concepts, at least to some extent, that is causing the feeling of spelling and grammar errors.
Edit (Moderator): Spam Removed
"what a particular term refers, in one system versus the other, is more pronounced than one may expect. (Ok, in other fields of science, concepts probably varied with models)."
"refers" or "infers"....I am trying to understand....
Categorialism...that's cool. :cool: I like that you are inventing words, but I must reiterate, being precise in your language is paramount to getting people to understand you.
cav, re ""refers" or "infers"....I am trying to understand.... ":
I mean "refer" in the sense "Cat" refers to 'a thing' which is furry and warm, etc., "stone" refers to 'a thing' which is hard and cool.
BoGoWo, In succeeding in communicating Effectuationism, I believe I would murder your signature, "All is Polarity:
"something" is defined by "nothing"".
Terminology in that sense, to me "infers" definition. "Refers" requires a "to" somewhere in the sentence, as pointed out by you. I would stick with "infer". No sense ruining a plausible thesis with a bad choice of words, and I do think you have a plausible thesis. I'm not trying to be hard on you, just trying to encourage
cav, Thanks for the open-minded approach to the thesis and for the openly positive assessment.
Re refers and infers:
The actual situation is that I'm using the, if I'm correct, referents of the categoricalist system to express/'refer' the (new) concepts of Effectuationism.
For example the term "I" when used in the categoricalist models means something very different to what it means in Effectuationism. In either case, when employing the term "I" for communication with people, I'm of the understanding that it acts as a referent.
Ahem---could I herd you guys back to the topic---thanks
Perc......y; go back over your thread, haven't a group of posts here dissappeared, including Effectuation's thesis? Mysticism????
And Effect..u; my signature actually refers to my philosophy of the actuallization of opposites, - pistols at dawn, slap, slap!
