All human conception includes quantity. That's my position. Quantity, often in the form of unity, is prior to all human thought, which is to say that all human thought involves quantity.
Concepts like nature, the self, and truth are singular. Pluralities are just iterated singularities.
I say quantity is fundamental to human thought, and that unity is fundamental to quantity. I'm saying that unity is a sort of Platonic Form or Absolute.
Any comments, disagreements?
All this thread is brilliant work, alive research. It enters the forum in a new dimension, or maybe not, but it is still quite uncommon and it deserves an applause just for that, before considering anything else .
I know you have been after this idea for some time, and I feel your growing enthusiasm about this hypothesis.
Still, I hope you will forgive me, but I am here to try to create some problems to your view.
Simply put, I am not sure I understand it all.
I understand that you maintain that we always perceive a quantity, that everything we perceived is represented in our thought as quantity and that quantities are structures of single objects, units, that our mind then compounds/organises into a new unit.
This is purely formal, it has no implication on the structure of the real
Finally, when something is thought as continuous, actually this is a special case of unit that then the thought de-compounds to virtual units, else it cannot grasp it at all.
Hope I got it right so far.
If I taste a sip of wine that I like, is that a judgement about a quantity?
OK I have an object, a quantity of wine in my mouth that I can represent as a unit, but my judgement about taste is still quantity? Is my representation of the taste and flavour, which I would possibly be unable to describe, still linked to quantity? You mean a unit of taste? And this would be related to the quantity of liquid in my mouth, or it' d be something else? A new unit of tasteful wine, or a sub-unit of the wine in my mouth? Or both? Would that be a case of continuous?
If I focus on other aspects, like the grip or the length (usually tasters analyse these characters as independent from taste), these are still units, per se, and you mean that they become sub-units of the unit I have in my mouth?
This capacity to switch focus from one aspect to the other, isolating one character out of complex object, does this preserve the perception of some object as a unit? Or does it break that up into several units that I am not trying to compound, but to separate instead?
I am cooking my spaghetti and I want to check if they are al dente
. This means that they have to be soft, but not too soft. Am I not considering here the ratio between to quantities (I guess that for this one you are going to say the two quantities of hard and soft in my pasta give way to a new unit/quantity of al dente
). But what if they are not yet al dente, and I judge that they are still too hard and not enough soft? Am I not considering 2 distinct quantities that I'd like to compound in one unit but I can't?
If I am hot, and then cold, are quantities still in play? You mean quantities of heat and quantities of cold?
What about an intermediate state, a splash in a cold pool after a sauna? Isn't there a fraction of time when I would perceiving two quantities and not one? my feet in the cold water, my head still hot because of the hot steam in the sauna? Is there still a unit?
(This is, indeed, a tricky one. I guess that no one has ever survived to tell us what he perceived, and if he did he was too shocked to tell).
I confess that I feel a bit disoriented here.
Just hope that the above questions are not totally out of the scope of your hypothesis, because it'd mean I have understood nothing :listening:.