What is One?

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...

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.

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.

What is prior to experience??? Nothing is prior to experience... Even our individual consciousness is founded on experience... Think twice dear friend...

Recon, I like your current signature. Ha!

William

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 ----------

What's weird is that Charles Darwin said it.

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.

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...

And here's what Andrew Wiles said:
NOVA Online | The Proof | Solving Fermat: Andrew Wiles