0
   

What is One?

 
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 03:50 am
Do we intuit unity? Is this an inborn human ability? Can we define it non-redundantly? "Being is One."

Is existence not a property because all concept already includes this quasi-property? Does all conception already include unity and existence? I suggest that it does.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,211 • Replies: 14
No top replies

 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 05:43 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;174565 wrote:
Do we intuit unity? Is this an inborn human ability? Can we define it non-redundantly? "Being is One."

Is existence not a property because all concept already includes this quasi-property? Does all conception already include unity and existence? I suggest that it does.

The monad is a moral form... And it is because existence is an infinite which means that since we cannot have the last word about it we cannot have the first word about it...
The concept of one comes from the existence of individuals in humanity, and in the species we hunted... Think of how a child counts, on fingers, holding fingers aloft to indicate age or other numbers, as a series of ones for ones...All numbers are ones or in ratio to one, as all fractions are part of one...

We see and seek a basic unity in the cosmos, but it is like our laws which we impose upon nature, and why should I care, as long as those law serve a utilitarian purpose??? What I know of the cosmos is nothing, and what I can presume is meaningless... So, my speculation, like your own is pretty much meaningless, but feel free, and enjoy...
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 03:58 pm
@Fido,
Fido;174620 wrote:
The monad is a moral form... And it is because existence is an infinite which means that since we cannot have the last word about it we cannot have the first word about it...
The concept of one comes from the existence of individuals in humanity, and in the species we hunted... Think of how a child counts, on fingers, holding fingers aloft to indicate age or other numbers, as a series of ones for ones...All numbers are ones or in ratio to one, as all fractions are part of one...

We see and seek a basic unity in the cosmos, but it is like our laws which we impose upon nature, and why should I care, as long as those law serve a utilitarian purpose??? What I know of the cosmos is nothing, and what I can presume is meaningless... So, my speculation, like your own is pretty much meaningless, but feel free, and enjoy...


I think the One is prior to experience. Perhaps it's evolved long before the human species makes its appearance. Because dogs can represent individual objects. But I doubt they abstract the one, and can consider the non-sensual one. This is a phenomenological sort of question. No its not as important as ethics or wisdom, but it can serve a purpose in that direction.
I'm not in this case talking about a mystical one, but simply unity. And as much as I like your contribution, you still did not define unity except in terms of itself. You say its based on the self. I think the self is based on unity. Smile
William
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 05:18 pm
@Reconstructo,
Recon, I like your current signature. Ha!

William
0 Replies
 
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 05:45 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;174565 wrote:
Do we intuit unity? Is this an inborn human ability? Can we define it non-redundantly? "Being is One."

Is existence not a property because all concept already includes this quasi-property? Does all conception already include unity and existence? I suggest that it does.


I think, in my most humble opinion, that we do indeed intuit a unity in the objects perceived. That our words signify a unified representation of the object perceived e.g., cat, shows that we, by our very nature, take things in their unified state. When we abstract from our representation and turn it into judgment, we can then pull apart the abstractions from the original representation, and can thus understand its essential parts (or the manifold). But I could be wrong. :whistling:

Descartes did not think that existence was a property of things (presupposd), and that there is a necessary existent thing (God being the only one). That this necessary existence is a perfection and that God has this perfection proves the existence of God. Some food for thought.
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 06:10 pm
@Ding an Sich,
Ding_an_Sich;174879 wrote:
I think, in my most humble opinion, that we do indeed intuit a unity in the objects perceived. That our words signify a unified representation of the object perceived e.g., cat, shows that we, by our very nature, take things in their unified state. When we abstract from our representation and turn it into judgment, we can then pull apart the abstractions from the original representation, and can thus understand its essential parts (or the manifold). But I could be wrong. :whistling:

Descartes did not think that existence was a property of things (presupposd), and that there is a necessary existent thing (God being the only one). That this necessary existence is a perfection and that God has this perfection proves the existence of God. Some food for thought.
I'm about to read some stuff by Descartes. You make me look forward to it even more!

Unity is the opposite of multiplicity. The two are defined relative to each other. Like: multiplicity is a state of being divided. The human race is in this state: male and female. This only makes sense because the idea of the one human race is in the background.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 09:06 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;174831 wrote:
I think the One is prior to experience. Perhaps it's evolved long before the human species makes its appearance. Because dogs can represent individual objects. But I doubt they abstract the one, and can consider the non-sensual one. This is a phenomenological sort of question. No its not as important as ethics or wisdom, but it can serve a purpose in that direction.
I'm not in this case talking about a mystical one, but simply unity. And as much as I like your contribution, you still did not define unity except in terms of itself. You say its based on the self. I think the self is based on unity. Smile

What is prior to experience??? Nothing is prior to experience... Even our individual consciousness is founded on experience... Think twice dear friend...
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2010 12:16 am
@Fido,
Fido;174927 wrote:
What is prior to experience??? Nothing is prior to experience... Even our individual consciousness is founded on experience... Think twice dear friend...


Well, of course it's inferred from experience. But I am suggesting that all conception is singular, that essence in general is singular. So I mean a priori in some Kantian sense. We conceive of the Self as singular if we conceive of it as an essence at all. And I'm also saying that essence always has the quasiproperty of existence in the same way. But existence is part of the essence of essence, and so is unity. That's my theory. I speculate there's a faculty that allows us to abstract. I am inferring that the absolute or empty or pure concept is nothing but empty existence unity.

---------- Post added 06-09-2010 at 01:17 AM ----------

William;174865 wrote:
Recon, I like your current signature. Ha!

William


What's weird is that Charles Darwin said it. Smile
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2010 04:16 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;174945 wrote:
Well, of course it's inferred from experience. But I am suggesting that all conception is singular, that essence in general is singular. So I mean a priori in some Kantian sense. We conceive of the Self as singular if we conceive of it as an essence at all. And I'm also saying that essence always has the quasiproperty of existence in the same way. But existence is part of the essence of essence, and so is unity. That's my theory. I speculate there's a faculty that allows us to abstract. I am inferring that the absolute or empty or pure concept is nothing but empty existence unity.

---------- Post added 06-09-2010 at 01:17 AM ----------



Smile


I do not think number plays a part in any concept, except number, because concept are universals...At the risk of contradicting myself, the child does not conceive of himself so much singular, as spiritual... I do not think very young children think in terms of number... The reason I think this is that when a child is isolated in a room and the mother leaves, and comes back in another dress, the child does not presume the mother has changed... Mothers come and go all the time while the child stays immobile, and the thought never seems to occur to the child that there may be more than one mother beyond the bedroom door when the mother can return in infinite moods and disquises... I think it is because the spiritual conception of the mother as an extension of self, which is a sense rather than a true concept does not admit such a thought... Consider, that all concepts recognize a class of being that must have at least two of the same kind... Uniique phenomena cannot be classed...
Twirlip
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2010 04:20 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;174945 wrote:
What's weird is that Charles Darwin said it. Smile

And here's what Andrew Wiles said:
Quote:
Perhaps I can best describe my experience of doing mathematics in terms of a journey through a dark unexplored mansion. You enter the first room of the mansion and it's completely dark. You stumble around bumping into the furniture, but gradually you learn where each piece of furniture is. Finally, after six months or so, you find the light switch, you turn it on, and suddenly it's all illuminated. You can see exactly where you were. Then you move into the next room and spend another six months in the dark. So each of these breakthroughs, while sometimes they're momentary, sometimes over a period of a day or two, they are the culmination of-and couldn't exist without-the many months of stumbling around in the dark that precede them.
NOVA Online | The Proof | Solving Fermat: Andrew Wiles
0 Replies
 
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2010 06:30 pm
@Fido,
Fido;174973 wrote:
I do not think number plays a part in any concept, except number, because concept are universals...At the risk of contradicting myself, the child does not conceive of himself so much singular, as spiritual... I do not think very young children think in terms of number... The reason I think this is that when a child is isolated in a room and the mother leaves, and comes back in another dress, the child does not presume the mother has changed... Mothers come and go all the time while the child stays immobile, and the thought never seems to occur to the child that there may be more than one mother beyond the bedroom door when the mother can return in infinite moods and disquises... I think it is because the spiritual conception of the mother as an extension of self, which is a sense rather than a true concept does not admit such a thought... Consider, that all concepts recognize a class of being that must have at least two of the same kind... Uniique phenomena cannot be classed...


This is all good. You have an excellent point about unique phenomena. This touches on my theory of the absolute concept. It's inferred. It exists and it is one. Any further determination means its not absolute, not pure/empty. Probably built into the human brain. As far as the infant, well tests have shown that babies several days old can recognize changes in quantity, because they will pay attention to quantity changes. Now I do agree we have a strong emotional/spiritual element here. Or it's safe to presume so. And it does seem that sensation/emotion are prior in to abstract thought as far as evolution and development goes. The most generic class would be Beings I think. Perhaps the infant figures out that the mother isn't part of it finally. Hence the fascination with Peek a Boo. Lacan writes about the mirror-stage where humans learn to think of themselves as unities by seeing their unified bodies in the mirror. Of course I'm no expert on child psychology. So I'm guessing here. I still feel fairly confident about my ideas in regards to adult conceptualization.

---------- Post added 06-09-2010 at 07:33 PM ----------

Twirlip;174975 wrote:


Excellent quote. You that Darwin quote doesn't necessarily refer to my experience of mathematics. It was just a great quote. To pile on all that darkness was witty. I've been reading set theory, logic, and more philosophy of mathematics lately. Also have a book on group theory which I know nothing about. Good stuff. I hope to keep walking into dark rooms.

Here's my current simple description of mathematics. All human thought is abstraction. Mathematics is ideally precise abstraction. Smile
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2010 10:32 pm
@Reconstructo,
I am getting a sense of how old is your pursuit of unity, that is at least as old as the Middle Ages... I think that if such a unity could be discovered by intution, that it could not be proven, and could not be known, but could only be experienced as phenomenan... My guess is that all science is based upon the thought that everywhere and at all times the laws of nature work the same...
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2010 05:00 am
@Fido,
The unity I'm talking about is not a grand unity such as TOE or a mystical unity such as all-is-one but rather the unity that founds the possibility of arithmetic. I'm talking about ordinary perception of a thing as a particular demarcated thing. Kant's transcendental logic is concerned loosely with what I'm talking about, but Kant's logic is too complex for my taste. I don't think he reduced it to lowest terms.
Hilbert used strokes as an example of what founds mathematics. For instance: ||| + || = |||||. This is basically writing in unary. Our brains/minds can see this | as a unity automatically. We cut the visual field into particular objects automatically. This is presumably a universal human trait. I think Parmenides saw that logic was founded on non-contradiction, which is related. It will rain or it will not. That floats. But it will rain and it will not rain doesn't float, as it doesn't cohere. It's not one statement. There's nothing mystical in this. It's just abstraction. It's thinking about thinking.

I assert that we can point neither to unity nor negation in the sensual field. Where is unity or negation? We project these concepts onto sensation, but no particular piece of color or sound (note that I said and must say piece) IS this unity/negation. This is protological, transcendental, absolute, etc. etc. Why should we seek out the root of thinking? It passes the time.
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2010 05:01 am
@Reconstructo,
And just look at the mighty structure of mathematics --which is presumably built on a blank and utterly simple unity, iterated and dyadically systematized. Plato's unwritten doctrine seems to have reduced the theory of forms to the One and the Dyad. Discrete / Continuous. 1 and -->
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2010 06:41 am
@Reconstructo,
I do not disagree... All numbers are ultimately based upon one, and so one is the concept of number, and numbers are are only signs based upon the concept of one...But such thought is no mean accomplishment... Only with self does one have an organic sense of one among many... The animals we pursued for food were herd animals... A hunter had to abstract the one from the many in order to begin to count the many, and to that end had to presume that the one was like the many, and the many like the one; and thus concept and classification in one bag.....And it is a big step because the equality we take for granted at a certain level of identity and individualism is not that evident when we compare human beings or animals... Identity as a form of equality is a leap of insight, to say: we have all these individuals, none of which is the same, and all of which are different which none the less are distinct units which should be counted as one...
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
 
  1. Forums
  2. » What is One?
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/09/2020 at 05:40:49