0
   

The Number One as center of the Positives

 
 
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2010 09:14 pm
@Deckard,
Deckard;152191 wrote:
We are both of us eventually going to have to read Badiou...after we better understand Cantor...

Ah yes, I know that Badiou is a math man. As far as Cantor goes, it's probably an inexhaustible mine, but I do understand this:
Quote:

Cantor was the first to formulate what later came to be known as the continuum hypothesis or CH: there exists no set whose power is greater than that of the naturals and less than that of the reals (or equivalently, the cardinality of the reals is exactly aleph-one, rather than just at least aleph-one).
I'm quite fascinated by the Cantor/Kronecker clash. I sympathize with both, to the degree that I understand either. Smile

---------- Post added 04-15-2010 at 10:19 PM ----------

Deckard;152589 wrote:
Some intellects are more playful than others.


For me, it's amusing/annoying that T doesn't see that one/unity is important exactly because it is indeed the model (and essence?) of all simplicity. Also the unary number system is important in the same way. Just as the black painting, however boring in some ways, forces the question of what painting/art is upon the viewer. Same with that famous urinal. Art representing art. Well, I want to look at the root(s) of number. 1 and " "?

---------- Post added 04-15-2010 at 10:27 PM ----------

Deckard;152191 wrote:

e.g. the Parthenon and the Leon Cathedral. It is such an excellent contrast. So rich! So full of meaning. A building is worth a million words.


I agree. I can't remember where, but Blake also makes this contrast. They say Spengler was wrong on many details. Doesn't matter to me. He was the holistic synthetic type. I like this type. A matter of taste perhaps.
Spengler rarely mentions Hegel, except to suggest that he was mathematically ignorant, but he often reminds me of Hegel. Both presented human history as a sort of organism, as becoming. And Spengler, who obviously loved math, still contrasted Nature, measured with math as the become(or being) and history/culture, understood not as being but becoming, as a life form. Does this smack of Bergson? (I only know Bergson through Durant, but it made a splash...)
Deckard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2010 09:50 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;152601 wrote:
Ah yes, I know that Badiou is a math man. As far as Cantor goes, it's probably an inexhaustible mine, but I do understand this:
I'm quite fascinated by the Cantor/Kronecker clash. I sympathize with both, to the degree that I understand either. Smile


I was bored and my inner consumerist got the best of me today and I picked up a book "Badiou and Theology". I think I may even get around to reading it rather than just adding it to my extensive half-read library (I'm trying to call myself out on this so please excuse my self-berating). It's written by a theologist who wants to take some of Badiou's thoughts and copt them for the Christian cause. The author (Depoortere) also offers it as an introduction to Badiou's thought.

Badiou's central thesis: "mathematics is ontology" is based almost entirely upon Cantors work.
Quote:


For me, it's amusing/annoying that T doesn't see that one/unity is important exactly because it is indeed the model (and essence?) of all simplicity. Also the unary number system is important in the same way. Just as the black painting, however boring in some ways, forces the question of what painting/art is upon the viewer. Same with that famous urinal. Art representing art. Well, I want to look at the root(s) of number. 1 and " "?
Love the analogy between number theory and minimalist art.

It's possible to imagine some more practical Greek mathematician scoffing at Pythagorous in much the same way that the uninitiated scoff at modern art. Pythagorous a minimalist? Well maybe not...seems that there was a lot of mysticism grafted onto his number theory but maybe that was just for the entertainment of those who were not allowed behind the curtain.
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2010 09:53 pm
@Deckard,
Deckard;152622 wrote:

I was bored and my inner consumerist got the best of me today and I picked up a book "Badiou and Theology". I think I may even get around to reading it rather than just adding it to my extensive half-read library (I'm trying to call myself out on this so please excuse my self-berating). It's written by a theologist who wants to take some of Badiou's thoughts and copt them for the Christian cause. The author (Depoortere) also offers it as an introduction to Badiou's thought.

Tell me if it turns out good. You know Zizek wrote the Fragile Absolute which tries to assimilate the radical core of Christianity. I wanted to buy it, as he is often quite good, but they were charging 26 dollars for a thin paperback. Hmm. Inflation? But I'm used to library prices...

---------- Post added 04-15-2010 at 10:57 PM ----------

Deckard;152622 wrote:


Badiou's central thesis: "mathematics is ontology" is based almost entirely upon Cantors work.

That actually sounds pretty good. Where does he stuff all the logos? For me, number is white-washed word. I wonder is B is anything like that. Pretty wild to base it on Cantor, but maybe if we include set theory it's not so strange. I view concepts as encirclings or boundaries. Venn diagrams (which should be called Euler diagrams, I have discovered.) To ask an old question: what is the Being of beings? I have almost bought B's main book, the title of which eludes me.

---------- Post added 04-15-2010 at 11:01 PM ----------

Deckard;152622 wrote:

Love the analogy between number theory and minimalist art.

Thanks! I saw one of those famous black paintings in person once, and I think I liked it better in a book, as the picture of a picture. (Plato would hate me? And yet someone told me his word for Idea comes from a word for image...and Schopenhauer loved painting as the revelation of Platonic Idea...) Will museum walls be digital screens one way? Will "paintings" be digital algorithms?

---------- Post added 04-15-2010 at 11:04 PM ----------

Deckard;152622 wrote:

It's possible to imagine some more practical Greek mathematician scoffing at Pythagorous in much the same way that the uninitiated scoff at modern art.


Oh yeah. I bet you're dead on. And in a similar way the practical man can scoff at Keats, Blake, Hegel, Marx, etc., as so much hot air. What's that Yeats line? "I made it out of a mouthful of air."

---------- Post added 04-15-2010 at 11:07 PM ----------

Deckard;152622 wrote:

Pythagorous a minimalist? Well maybe not...seems that there was a lot of mysticism grafted onto his number theory but maybe that was just for the entertainment of those who were not allowed behind the curtain.


From what I've read he had a preference for simple ratios. But he is indeed a man behind the curtain, a man of legend. Hard to say. Was he just saying what Galileo said, that math was the grammar of nature?
north
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Apr, 2010 11:37 pm
@Reconstructo,
Quote:
Originally Posted by north http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif
sounds religious to me

Quote:

Everyone was religious in the past, North.


how far back ?
0 Replies
 
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2010 06:40 pm
@Reconstructo,
One also seems to be the absolutely necessary foundation of ratio.
0 Replies
 
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2010 06:49 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;152623 wrote:
Was he just saying what Galileo said, that math was the grammar of nature?


"Just" saying? And only 2000 years beforehand, without the benefit of telescopes or anything we would recognize as hard data?

Do you know that Pythagoras was the first to call himself a 'philosopher'? There were 'wise men' before him but he was the first to create a synthetic rational philosophy based on the combination of reason, mathematics and observation, which he called a 'philosophy'. I still reckon you can make the case that the main divergence between Western and Asian culture commenced with Pythagoras, and he is the main reason the West went on to develop a truly scientific culture, as opposed to a purely religious-mystical one. (Huge claim, I know - but I dare any historian of science to differ with it!)
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2010 07:27 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;153781 wrote:
"Just" saying? And only 2000 years beforehand, without the benefit of telescopes or anything we would recognize as hard data?

Do you know that Pythagoras was the first to call himself a 'philosopher'? There were 'wise men' before him but he was the first to create a synthetic rational philosophy based on the combination of reason, mathematics and observation, which he called a 'philosophy'. I still reckon you can make the case that the main divergence between Western and Asian culture commenced with Pythagoras, and he is the main reason the West went on to develop a truly scientific culture, as opposed to a purely religious-mystical one. (Huge claim, I know - but I dare any historian of science to differ with it!)

Well, I'm a huge fan of Pythagoras. I think my tone didn't transfer right. My question is something like this. Have logicians been mistaken for mystics? Or am I trying to assimilate Pythagoras into something he is not? Actually, I am only exploring possibilities. At the moment, it seems to me that philosophy is not transrational (of course, right? But it has its mystical tangents) but simply a love for the rational in its least-diluted manifestations. ("Absolute" knowledge, or knowledge of the absolute/undiluted/transcendental).

Yes, I'm amazed at what these men of the past could do with the technology of word, of abstractions. The deepest and highest technology is thought, pure thought. (Which is the same as language, including mathematics as a purified but limited language?) That's my opinion. All the rest stems from this.
0 Replies
 
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2010 08:04 pm
@Reconstructo,
But the reason these ancients seem 'mystical' might simply be, because 'the mystical' is actually a much deeper, or bigger, view of reality than ordinary people (the hoi polloi - that's us!) have. (I don't think there was anything wrong with your tone incidentally, I am just waxing poetic here.)

One of the themes I am working on is the 'transformation of perception'. When we look, what are the eyes through which we see? As you keep saying, rightly, we are seeing through a mesh of concepts, perceptual constructs and the like. (In Sanskrit, vijnana, or conceptual constructions.)

As Blake said:- "if the doors of perception were cleansed, we would see everything as it is: infinite" (one of the founding phrases of the psychedelic era, and the source for the name of the band, The Doors.) Now I think the pythagorean vision is transformational in this sense. It requires its adherents to 'see differently'. Certainly his is a spiritual/religious vision, and pythagoras a deeply religious figure, but again diifferently to the sense that this is understood in today's world. It is the fact that he is kind of theosophical, but also with his scientific leanings, which make him so fascinating. Archimedes was one of his lineage, and was similarlly a kind of 'mathematical sage' (and genius!).

Anyway, I don't really have a point here, I will do some more reading of the Pythagorean Sourcebook tonight and maybe come up with some more passages. I am just expressing General Enthusiasm.:bigsmile:
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2010 08:07 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;153805 wrote:
But the reason these ancients seem 'mystical' might simply be, because 'the mystical' is actually a much deeper, or bigger, view of reality than ordinary people (the hoi polloi - that's us!) have. (I don't think there was anything wrong with your tone incidentally, I am just waxing poetic here.)
/QUOTE]
That's my view. Of course we can never speak with certainy about that which is "above" us. So we can only understand what we have become.. Now, this is not a denial of the virtue of modesty. But it's a good point I think. We can infer that someone is beyond us, as I infer Euler is way the F beyond me, but we cannot know it, for to know it would be to know exactly what we are claiming is beyond us. (But surely you are using hoi polloi for us with a sense of humor.)Smile

---------- Post added 04-18-2010 at 09:12 PM ----------

jeeprs;153805 wrote:

One of the themes I am working on is the 'transformation of perception'. When we look, what are the eyes through which we see? As you keep saying, rightly, we are seeing through a mesh of concepts, perceptual constructs and the like. (In Sanskrit, vijnana, or conceptual constructions.)

As Blake said:- "if the doors of perception were cleansed, we would see everything as it is: infinite" (one of the founding phrases of the psychedelic era, and the source for the name of the band, The Doors.) Now I think the pythagorean vision is transformational in this sense. It requires its adherents to 'see differently'. Certainly his is a spiritual/religious vision, and pythagoras a deeply religious figure, but again diifferently to the sense that this is understood in today's world. It is the fact that he is kind of theosophical, but also with his scientific leanings, which make him so fascinating. Archimedes was one of his lineage, and was similarlly a kind of 'mathematical sage' (and genius!).

Anyway, I don't really have a point here, I will do some more reading of the Pythagorean Sourcebook tonight and maybe come up with some more passages. I am just expressing General Enthusiasm.:bigsmile:

Well written, J. Yes, that's my view too. The word "infinite" is tricky, but I think if it is understood as the negation of the finite, it's perfect. Hence my signature. And the high I get from "Reason" does inspire me to use religious myth metaphorically, so I certainly understand the connection. Archimedes is great! I like the Blake line interpreted this way: as the dissolution of dualisms. And of course love is a big part of his system, but one can only say so much about feelings. I think if we foolosophers look to the forms, the feelings will take care of themselves. :flowers:
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/14/2021 at 03:54:30