0
   

My metaphysics theory

 
 
IngeEivindHenriksen
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Aug, 2011 02:56 am
@fresco,
I wanted to add that when I speak of 'Emotions' my ontology contains the following; 'I AM', 'I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN', 'I WILL ALWAYS BE', 'AGAPE', 'PHILEDELPHIA'. The ontology can/will be expanded. Only the 'I AM' emotion am I certain is timeless and space less, the others may very well be created by ideas.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Aug, 2011 03:12 am
@IngeEivindHenriksen,
The question you need to put to yourself is whether this "theory" is coherent to others. You cannot simply resort to phrases like ...
Quote:
but this time may not be the same kind of time that we experience in our 'reality'.

...without being accused of opaque mysticism. That is the catch-all mode of religionists.

So how does one proceed to deal with "consciousness" ? Besides my specific references, you might need to consider several of the archive of over 3000 papers compiled by David Chalmers. These range from the straight "philosophical" to to frontiers of "the quantum world".

http://consc.net/online

And in the possible event that your "theory" remains coherent, you might then need to study presentation methods in order to transmit your ideas. A good example of this might me Merleau-Ponty's analysis of the phenomenology of perception, in which he shows how conscious phenomena cannot be account for by reductionist (empirical) science, but make more sense when viewed from the point of view of a Gestaltist (holistic) mechanism in which observer and observed are co-existent and co-extensive.

In short, reading any of the above should indicate to you that you are wasting your time with your current simplistic exposition.

IngeEivindHenriksen
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Aug, 2011 04:24 am
@fresco,
Quote:
The question you need to put to yourself is whether this "theory" is coherent to others. You cannot simply resort to phrases like ...
Quote:
but this time may not be the same kind of time that we experience in our 'reality'.

...without being accused of opaque mysticism. That is the catch-all mode of religionists.


Scholar, if you want my ideas of 'reality' to fit in your library of books then think of Baudrillard's hyperreallities where each hyperreality is a Baudrillard Simulacra of its own, thus its time may not be the same as any other hyperreality time. The reason for this is that when the base hyperreality is created by a Consciousness it only knows that it is, it has no other symbols, it therefor creates a simulacra hyperreality.
0 Replies
 
IngeEivindHenriksen
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Aug, 2011 05:39 am
@fresco,
Quote:
in the possible event that your "theory" remains coherent


Scholar, my logic is complete.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/15/2021 at 07:45:06